Senator Batters: The predecessor bill to this one, as you pointed out near the end, was introduced in the Senate in 2021, I believe, and you may recall that I raised a concern about the appropriateness of the bill’s introduction in the Senate at the time because it could be presumed that part of it was a money bill and was problematic in that respect. You didn’t think it was problematic at the time, but the Speaker of the House of Commons agreed that it was, and the government reintroduced Bill C-9 in the House of Commons.

Now, I was briefly distracted when you were delivering your speech, but I believe you said that this bill was nearly identical except for one small amendment to that predecessor bill. When you were explaining that part, that was part of what I missed. If you could please relay that difference in this particular bill as compared to the predecessor bill.

Senator Dalphond: Thank you very much. Again, I rise with humility because I know that not only are we listening to Senator Batters but the Speaker of the other place is also listening, as we saw further to your questions last time about the money bill.

I said there was one change, and this change is minor. It is that when a complaint is dismissed at the screening process, in committee, MPs amended it to say that reasons should be provided to the complainant to ensure greater transparency. For example, if it were a complaint against a provincial judge, they would say, “Well, you should address your request to the provincial council, not to the Canadian Judicial Council.”

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question, Senator Wells. I will have to make inquiries and report back to the chamber.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Hon. Nancy J. Hartling: Honourable senators, during Black History Month, Canadians celebrate the achievements and contributions of Black Canadians and their communities who — throughout history — have done so much to make Canada a diverse, compassionate and prosperous country. This year’s theme is “Ours to tell.”

Today, I would like to celebrate and honour our dear colleague Senator Wanda Thomas Bernard, and thank her sincerely for her many achievements and her unwavering commitment to Black history and culture.

We have many things in common: We both grew up in Nova Scotia in the 1950s; we both became social workers and social justice advocates; we both experienced early losses; we both had a sister named Valerie; and we both pushed forward under difficult circumstances.

One major difference is that I have never experienced racism or discrimination for being a Black woman. However, I have witnessed microaggressions. I’m grateful to Senator Bernard and my other colleagues in this place for teaching me ways to be an ally whenever I can.

In 2016, we were appointed to the Senate, and met for the first time at a television interview about our appointments. After coming to Ottawa, we became allies in the Senate around many issues related to human rights. I have admired first-hand her work first as Chair and now as Deputy Chair of our Human Rights Committee. In addition, every March for the past five years, during National Social Work Month, we have partnered with the Canadian Association of Social Workers to bring events to the Hill, both in person and virtually.

Before coming to the Senate in 2016, Senator Bernard was the first African-Nova Scotian woman to hold a tenure-track position at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and then promoted to full professor. She is a founding member of the Association of Black Social Workers. She has been awarded many honours for her work and community leadership — notably, the Order of Nova Scotia and the Order of Canada. As an academic, she has published several works and continues to provide educational sessions.

Senator Bernard is the first Nova Scotian woman of African descent to serve in the Senate. Her role in the Senate has added value to our work, bringing an intersectional lens focused on diversity and inclusion. Senator Bernard has been a long-time supporter for the official recognition of Emancipation Day on August 1 in Canada.

Senator Bernard has recently become the Liaison of the Progressive Senate Group — a perfect fit given her skills and respect with which she treats all of us.

Congratulations on your many achievements.

Her life in East Preston, Nova Scotia, is busy with community and church. She is actively involved with her family and two lovely grandsons, along with her political engagement on important issues.

I am proud to call Wanda a friend, and to honour and celebrate her during this very important month. In closing, I leave you with a quote by Senator Bernard:

Some people wait for things to happen but I say we must all be willing to lead the change you want to see in your world.

Thank you, Wanda, for continuing to lead the change and for being you.

Hon. Jean-Guy Dagenais: I’ll be away tomorrow, so I wanted to say a few words today ahead of my colleagues to mark, in my own way, the Honourable Dennis Dawson’s retirement.

I have to admit that I think 73 is pretty young to be retiring, especially since I actually turned 73 last Thursday and I don’t feel even remotely ready to leave, much to the chagrin of some.

Senator Dawson’s decision to retire now is a very personal one, but it certainly doesn’t mean he’ll stop being active and never make an appearance in the back rooms again. He’s not the type to sit around doing nothing. He never backs down from a fight, even the fight he won against throat cancer.

Senator Dawson is a politician through and through. It’s what he did for almost 50 years.

Let’s talk about his life. After graduation, Dennis Dawson was elected school board trustee and later became chair of the Commission des écoles catholiques de Québec. At 27, he was one of the youngest Liberal MPs in Canada, and he represented the riding of Louis-Hébert for seven years before losing his seat to the Progressive Conservative candidate, a teacher from Chicoutimi by the name of Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis, who later joined him here as a fellow senator.

This harsh setback was certainly not about to extinguish the Honourable Dennis Dawson’s political passion. Our colleague and friend had already figured out that one could be very, very, very active in politics without being elected, so he reinvented himself as a government relations specialist, better known as a lobbyist. He never once stopped serving his party, the Liberal Party, even going so far as to attempt a comeback 20 years later in the 2004 election in the riding of Beauport. Defeated by the Bloc Québécois, this star candidate was asked by Prime Minister Paul Martin to serve Canadians in the Senate.

I have to say that he has done it very well for 18 years.

Today, I think it’s important to specifically recognize Senator Dawson’s commitment to the never-ending fight to have the French language respected in our country, here in Ottawa, and in certain international diplomacy arenas where French and English are equal official languages. Bravo and thank you for your commitment.

Outside of this chamber, the Honourable Dennis Dawson was always one to bring together francophones working together here on Parliament Hill.

I’ll never forget the memorable luncheons where he warmly welcomed me into his select group of politicians, political staff and friends. Around the table at Le Parlementaire restaurant, which the Honourable Dennis Dawson presided over with deftness and humour, everyone could let go and drop their political affiliations for a moment in the name of forging friendships.

Thank you for these magical moments that produced fantastic exchanges and even political ribbing like we saw in 2014 when Justin Trudeau removed Liberal senators from the party’s caucus. I’m sure that was a difficult moment for a Liberal who was forced to end his career under the progressive banner, which suits him very well I might add.

Thank you very much, Dennis, for your commitment, your devotion and especially your friendship. I wish you good health and good luck in your future endeavours.

In closing, if you don’t come back to see us here in Ottawa — which I doubt — then rest assured that we’ll see you in Quebec City.

Thank you, my friend.

[English]

Hon. Gwen Boniface: Honourable senators, I rise today to pay homage to the Honourable Joan Bissett Neiman. She died on November 27, 2022, at the age of 102, after living a unique and rich life. At the time of her death, she had been the oldest living Canadian who served in this Senate.

Joan was born in 1920 in Winnipeg to Catherine and Dr. Edgar Bissett. Her father served as Member of Parliament for Springfield, Manitoba, between 1926 and 1930. Joan’s formative years were marked by spending time outdoors with their family at their beloved Willard Lake and voraciously reading all the books in her father’s library. She began her university studies at the tender age of 16 at Mount Allison University, earning a Bachelor of Arts in English. She was active in the students’ union, theatre society and newspaper. Soon after graduation, she served in the Women’s Royal Canadian Naval Service during World War II, retiring in 1946 as a lieutenant-commander.

Joan met the love of her life, Clem, at Osgoode Hall Law School, and they went into practice together in downtown Toronto. Together they raised four children and were married for 66 years.

Joan was appointed to the Senate in 1972, making her the fourteenth female senator at the time. She served for 23 years until her retirement. On the topic of female senators, she was quoted as saying:

 . . . it is nice that 15 of us are in the Senate today. That is a beginning. I think it has made a tremendous difference to have women in the Senate . . .

Her work as a senator included chairing both the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee and the Special Senate Committee on Euthanasia and Assisted suicide. She was very proud to have been the first Canadian to chair the human rights committee of the Inter-Parliamentary Union.

Following her retirement from the Senate, she continued to contribute to the issues she held dear, such as penal reform, women’s and Indigenous rights and universal health care. She was a member of the Dalhousie Health Law Institute end-of-life project, the Citizens Panel on Increasing Organ Donations and the Patron’s Council of Dying With Dignity Canada.

I had the pleasure of getting to know Joan in her retirement years, which she and Clem spent in our region. They were a formidable team. She was preceded in death by Clem and daughter Martha, and is survived by her children, Dallas, Patti and David, six grandchildren and two great-grandchildren.

A memory shared by a friend summed up Joan perfectly:

Joan loved to giggle, especially at Clem’s jokes, and could express a point of view with the logic of a lawyer, the warmth of a mother and friend, and the experience of a WAC. She made a tenacious and inspired commitment to issues of public policy, and it must have been as rewarding to Joan as it has been to many others, for her pioneering ideas to now have the force of law.

Rest in peace, dear Joan, a trailblazer for all of us who stand in this chamber.

Thank you.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett: Honourable senators, last May I rose in this chamber to bring you the story of an outstanding junior women’s curling team who went on to become gold medal winners in the Under-18 Canadian Girls Curling Championships. Now I know you’ve been waiting anxiously for an update on the team’s success this year, and I’m happy to be able to bring you that today.

This year, Team Plett consists of my granddaughter Myla Plett as skip, Alyssa Nedohin as third, Chloe Fediuk as second and Allie Iskiw as lead. Together with their coaches, Blair Lenton and David Nedohin, they have had a very busy winter.

From November 25 to 27, Team Plett competed in the Canada Winter Games Trials. They went 4-2, playing the other three teams twice, and then went on to the final to emerge victorious with a score of 8-2. This means that Team Plett will be representing Alberta at the Canada Winter Games in Prince Edward Island from February 18 to March 5.

Right after Christmas, Myla’s team headed to the Under-18 provincials, which were held January 4 to 8 in Cochrane, Alberta. The team went 6-1 during a round robin, giving them first place, which meant they had a bye straight to the final. They won the final 4-3, making them the Under-18 Alberta provincial champions for the second straight year.

Team Plett is in Timmins, Ontario, this week, representing Alberta and defending their title at the 2023 Canadian Under-18 Curling Championships. They are 2-0 so far.

Two weeks after winning the Under-18 provincial championships, the team was on the road to Ellerslie, Alberta, for the Under-20 provincials, which were held January 25 to 29. There, they had a record of 5-2 and advanced to the semifinals, which they won by a score of 7-3. In the final, they faced their long-time nemesis Team Booth and came out victorious with an 8-6 victory, becoming the Under-20 Alberta provincial champions. Team Plett is now headed to Quebec on March 25 for the 2023 New Holland Canadian Under-21 Men’s and Women’s Curling Championships.

Colleagues, as you can imagine, I am a very proud grandpa. But I am not only proud of my granddaughter Myla and her team. I’m also extremely proud of all the athletes in Canada who work very hard at their sport, often without securing those coveted spots on the podium.

I salute their discipline, determination, dedication and good sportsmanship. I invite you to join me in congratulating not only my favourite curling team, but all of our athletes who make us proud as they pursue their dreams.

Thank you.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Hon. Rose-May Poirier: Honourable senators, I am pleased to rise today to share with you the stories of five recipients of the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee Medal. As a senator from New Brunswick, I had the honour and privilege of awarding medals to five deserving people in my region in recognition of their contribution to their community and in commemoration of the seventieth anniversary of the accession of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II to the throne.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the New Brunswick Office of Protocol for giving us the opportunity to recognize our community builders. In total, 3,000 medals were awarded in the province.

Let me begin by saying that four of the five recipients of the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee Medal are veterans of the Second World War. All four were chosen by their respective legions to recognize not only their role and sacrifice in the Second World War, but also the contribution they made to their community when they returned home from the war.

In alphabetical order, they are Léonard Boucher from Bouctouche, a member of the Richibucto Legion; Edmond Daigle from Richibucto, the oldest member of the Richibucto Legion; Paul Maillet, from Coal Branch, who has provided a great deal of support to the region of Hartcourt and helped with many community activities; and Léonard Pitre, age 97, formerly of Rogersville and current resident of Miramichi, who served in the Canadian Armed Forces for 12 years.

The fifth recipient, Jonathan Richard, has been a teacher at École Mgr-Marcel-François-Richard for the past three years. He shares his passion and enthusiasm for Acadian history and culture with his students through community projects, such as cleaning headstones, creating a work of art in memory of soldiers who died on the battlefield, organizing an appreciation day for former school principles and more. Through projects like these, the students are learning about teamwork, communication, leadership and, of course, Acadian culture.

The Queen’s Platinum Jubilee Medal is a tangible way for New Brunswick to honour Her Majesty’s service to Canada, as well as that of residents of New Brunswick who, like Her Majesty, have been exemplary in their service to others. I had the privilege of paying tribute to Mr. Boucher, Mr. Daigle, Mr. Maillet, Mr. Pitre and Mr. Richard for their services to their community and thanking them for everything they have done and continue to do.

Honourable senators, join me in congratulating them on receiving the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee Medal and thanking them for everything they have done for the Kent region and their communities. Thank you.

[English]

Hon. Clément Gignac: Honourable senators, today I’d like to pay tribute to my sponsor. Although that word can have different meanings, I’m referring to the person I chose as my sponsor when I was sworn into the Senate. I’m obviously referring to my friend and Senate colleague, the Honourable Dennis Dawson.

I’m doing so today because, like several colleagues from the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs, I will be travelling tomorrow as part of our visit to NORAD headquarters in Colorado. That said, I look forward to spending tomorrow evening watching the recording of all the tributes and stories you will share about him.

Instead of talking about his political career and all his accomplishments here in the Senate and at the other place as a member, I’d instead like to talk to you about how I got to know Senator Dawson and how our friendship developed over the years.

Senator Dawson was already a well-known political figure in Ottawa and Quebec City when we first met in the summer of 2009 during one of the memorable cocktail hours at the Club nautique du Lac-St-Joseph in the Quebec City area. The general manager of Lac-Saint-Joseph was proud to introduce me, a new resident, to the Honourable Senator Dawson. Although our first conversation was very courteous, I have to admit that our respective interests and political affiliations at the time were polar opposites.

Although I was newly elected as a Liberal to the National Assembly of Quebec, at the time I was a longstanding Conservative supporter at the federal level. Moreover, I’d just arrived from Ottawa where I’d had the privilege of working for several months alongside then finance minister, the Honourable Jim Flaherty, as a special adviser during the 2008-09 financial crisis. No need to say that I quickly moved to another table at the start of the cocktail hour when Liberal Senator Dawson began talking politics and more specifically about the Harper government in what I thought to be an overly partisan manner. That said, I gradually warmed up to Senator Dawson and my attitude changed over the course of subsequent years.

Having noticed that the Canadian flag flying at the top of the pole on my property had lost its luster, Senator Dawson left a beautiful new Canadian flag on my dock the following summer as he passed by in his boat, a gesture that I greatly appreciated and that he repeated over the next 12 years, until I was appointed to the Senate.

To be clear, honourable colleagues, I can reasonably say that the Canadian flag was the catalyst for us finding at least one thing in common and, later on, for developing a beautiful friendship through reciprocal invitations and dinners at the homes of common friends.

In the summer of 2021, after receiving the call from the Prime Minister of Canada with the news that the selection committee had recommended me to become a senator, I immediately called Senator Dawson to meet with him. During a nice pontoon ride on the lake with a few beers in the cooler, I had the privilege to ask Senator Dawson about the Senate and how it works, and to get his advice. If some of you found that I was able to integrate quickly into the Senate, I must give full credit to my sponsor, mentor and friend, the Honourable Dennis Dawson.

Thank you, dear friend, for agreeing to sponsor me here in the Senate and for facilitating my integration. In the coming years, it will be my turn to offer you a beautiful Canadian flag when our paths cross again during the summer.

Hon. Diane Bellemare, Chair of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, presented the following report:

Tuesday, February 7, 2023

The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament has the honour to present its

FOURTH REPORT

Pursuant to rule 12-7(2)(a), your committee recommends that the Rules of the Senate be amended by:

(a) for Senators to engage in private conversations inside the bar, and if they do, the Speaker shall order them to go outside the bar; and

(a) to suspend a rule or part of a rule;

(b) for the third reading of a bill;

(c) to appoint a standing committee;

(d) to refer the subject matter of a bill to a standing or special committee;

(e) to instruct a committee;

(f) to adopt a report of a standing committee or the Committee of Selection;

(g) to adjourn the Senate to other than the next sitting day;

(h) to correct irregularities in an order, resolution or vote;

(i) to rescind a leave of absence or suspension ordered by the Senate; or

(j) to consider a message from the House of Commons not related to a Commons amendment to a public bill; or

(k) any other substantive motion.

EXCEPTIONS

Rule 5-6(1): Two days’ notice for certain motions

Rule 5-7: No notice required

Rule 5-12: No motions on resolved questions, five days’ notice for rescission

Rule 8-1(2): Giving notice for emergency debate

Rule 12-32(1): No notice required for Committee of the Whole

(a) remove technical, typographical, grammatical or punctuation errors;

(b) modify the table of provisions, the summary or the marginal notes to take into account substantive amendments made to the bill during the legislative process;

(c) renumber provisions as a consequence of amendments made to the bill during the legislative process;

(d) update cross-references as a consequence of corrections made under paragraphs (a) or (c);

(e) modify, add or remove headings as a consequence of amendments made to the bill during the legislative process, to ensure that the headings correspond with the provisions that follow them; and

(f) revise or remove coordinating amendments as a consequence of the enactment of any provision referred to in those amendments.

Report of corrections

EXCEPTIONS

Rule 15-1(2): Failure to attend two sessions

Respectfully submitted,

DIANE BELLEMARE

Chair

Hon. Leo Housakos: My question is for the government leader in the Senate.

Senator Gold, we just completed a marathon study of a piece of legislation overhauling the Broadcasting Act in what the Trudeau government stated was an effort to bring online streamers in line with Canadian broadcasters, including the public broadcaster, the CBC.

This morning, there was an interview featuring the head of the network who stated that CBC is getting out of the broadcasting business and moving its operations entirely online. She proudly boasted about the CBC’s efforts thus far toward that goal which, by the way, would be in violation of the CBC’s broadcasting licence that requires that they provide service to all Canadians and to all regions.

Essentially, government leader, the head of the CBC is acknowledging that traditional broadcasting is dying.

How much of the CBC’s current funding is being inappropriately allocated toward these efforts to circumvent the conditions of the very licence that provides that public funding? Will your government do the right thing and freeze funding until this practice ceases by the CBC?

Senator Boyer: Thank you for the question. I don’t have anything to do with litigation. However, I can connect you with the people who do.

I know that there is a lot of litigation going on. The implications are that the women are being heard. The Saskatchewan case is waiting for certification at the moment, and I believe it’s coming shortly. Once that starts rolling, we will be seeing it in other provinces as well. That’s just one more tool. This bill is a tool, and the class actions are a tool. Together, I think there must be a huge, several-pronged approach to eradicating this. Those are only two tools. We need to have the medical associations on side. We need to have a huge national approach. Thank you for raising the issue of litigation because I think the litigation is important. However, I do not have anything to do with it.

(On motion of Senator Wells, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Kutcher, seconded by the Honourable Senator Boehm, for the second reading of Bill S-251, An Act to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s call to action number 6).

Hon. Chantal Petitclerc: Before I begin, I want to tell you, Senator Boyer, how grateful I am not only for the work that you do, but also for this powerful and necessary speech. Meegwetch.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, I rise today to support Senator Kutcher’s bill, Bill S-251, which would repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code. Senators will recall that, in principle, this section allows every schoolteacher, parent or person standing in the place of a parent to exercise what is called “reasonable” force toward a child under his care.

In 2017, I spoke to a similar bill introduced by Senator Hervieux-Payette. My opinion hasn’t changed. I’m among those who believe that section 43 is outdated and that it no longer belongs in our criminal law. The implicit and ambiguous message that it sends is that force is still a useful and justifiable tool to compel a child to follow the rules.

[English]

The vulnerability of children implies our responsibility to protect them from any form of physical correction, regardless of its nature and intensity. Every Canadian, no matter their age, must feel and know that they are safe from their first day on earth to their last.

The question of whether section 43 should be retained or repealed is linked to how we truly choose to treat our children in Canadian society.

Our Criminal Code is a living document that helps us collectively distinguish between what is acceptable and what is not. It regulates many aspects of our lives together on the basis of our values and principles, which are, of course, constantly evolving.

The rule concerning the right of lawful correction was incorporated into the first version of our Criminal Code in 1892. As many have said before me in their speeches, it was a different time — a time when excessive force was acceptable in many aspects of society, including to educate children and discipline them.

[Translation]

Fortunately, a society is not static. It can learn, improve and transform through social experiment, research and the protection of rights. These changes and transformations are voluntary and have an impact on the rules of law, which are then amended to reflect the current reality. That is the exercise that Bill S-251 invites us to engage in.

In the recent debate on Bill C-5, which seeks to repeal certain minimum sentences, Senator Gold spoke of, and I quote:

 . . . Parliament’s exclusive jurisdiction to set policy and pass legislation — dealing with criminal law in general . . . .

The Supreme Court also recognized this prerogative of Parliament on several occasions.

[English]

As such, Parliament has chosen to amend our Criminal Code on several occasions on substantive issues. To name a few: in 1969, the decriminalization of medical abortions; in 1972, the abolition of whipping as a criminal sentence; in 1976, the abolition of the death penalty; and most recently, the legalization of cannabis and medical assistance in dying.

This exclusive competence of Parliament has been fully exercised on all of these issues in order to reflect our ever‑changing social reality.

[Translation]

The Senate understood very well what this exclusive jurisdiction meant. The Supreme Court had already ruled on the constitutionality of section 43 and limited its use in 2004 in its ruling in the Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General) case. Four years after that important ruling, the Senate even passed at third reading Bill S-209, which further limited the scope and use of section 43. However, that bill died on the Order Paper in the other place when an election was called.

[English]

Let’s be clear: As we begin 2023, spanking is not banned in Canada. What the current state of law tells us is that it is prohibited to inflict punishment by means of an object or blow to the head of a child. Is this sufficient protection for our children? I don’t think so because as long as section 43 exists, moderate bare-handed spanking of a child between the ages of 2 and 12 will be tolerated — not prohibited — in Canada. This is written in black and white on the Justice Canada website under the title “Criminal Law and Managing Children’s Behaviour.” A question on this web page asks, “Is spanking illegal?” Let me quote the answer that is provided:

Spanking is a form of physical punishment that some parents use on children and, depending on the circumstances, could be illegal. Because of section 43, spanking is not necessarily a criminal offence if the Supreme Court of Canada’s guidelines are followed. However, in some circumstances, spanking could still be considered child abuse under provincial and territorial laws and could lead to action taken by child protection authorities.

Like many here, I am very uncomfortable with so many nuances and grey areas. I agree with the experts who tell us that it is not enough to discourage the use of spanking. It must simply be banned. This bill gives us the opportunity.

[Translation]

In 1998, former justice minister Allan Rock responded as follows in a letter to the Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law, and I quote:

[English]

Section 43 in no way condones or authorizes the physical abuse of children. However, it does attempt to strike a balance by protecting children from abuse while still allowing parents to correct their children within contemporary limits that are acceptable to Canadian society.

I repeat: “within contemporary limits.”

[Translation]

With what we know today, in 2023, what are these contemporary limits that may have been considered acceptable, even in 1998, but are no longer acceptable now?

[English]

I want to believe that — a quarter of a century later — our contemporary limits have evolved, fuelled by evidence-based research and our commitment to the rights of children.

Moreover, honourable colleagues, if, like me, you have asked yourself how to interpret reasonable force, here is an answer provided by a professor of criminal law, Wayne Renke of the University of Alberta, who states, “As society evolves so does the interpretation of what is reasonable.”

[Translation]

In light of these observations, the main question Senator Kutcher’s bill asks is whether we, as parliamentarians of the 21st century, find it acceptable that a 19th-century provision of Canadian criminal law that allows a parent or teacher to raise a hand against a child between the ages of two and 12 has a place today, in 2023. That is the first substantive question this bill invites us to answer.

The second question is this: Does section 43 offer any real protection or provide a useful and necessary defence?

[English]

There are two possible scenarios: The first is when the responsible adult, in the urgency and need of the moment, has to use force for the child’s safety. In this scenario, it seems clear to me that the adult is protected by the law. I find it hard to imagine that a parent or an educator who restrains a reckless child — saving the child from an accident, but injuring the child in the process — will need a provision such as section 43 to protect himself or herself from lawsuits which are highly unlikely.

[Translation]

In another scenario, if the parent or teacher were to be deliberately abusive, section 43 would be of no use before a judge. That would be an instance of false protection.

If a person acts spontaneously to keep a child safe, that person doesn’t need protection from section 43.

If a person uses their strength and power against a child abusively, they can’t use section 43 as a defence.

Moreover, given that research and contemporary thought indicate that there’s no such thing as “reasonable” force when it comes to disciplining a child, of what use is section 43, other than to justify archaic behaviour and perhaps our own insecurities?

[English]

Why not remove it and leave it to the judge, where charges are laid, to determine the seriousness of the facts, and whether correction is inflicted or force is used within reasonable limits?

I hope that sending this bill to committee will be an opportunity to shed more light on how this means of defence has been used so far in court — under what conditions, how often and with what results. A study in committee would have the merit of updating our knowledge and legal interpretation of the concepts “right of correction,” “self-defence” and “use of force within reasonable limits.”

[Translation]

In closing, I would argue that there’s no good reason to keep this section, and conversely, that there are several good reasons to repeal it.

Repealing section 43 sends a message to all Canadians that it is possible to guide a child’s behaviour without using any form of physical discipline.

Thank goodness the days of children being second-class citizens meant to be controlled at all costs are long gone.

The more we move forward, the more we talk about personal growth, self-reliance, and developing the strengths of our youth.

Look at the results. Our young people are fantastic when they come to this chamber and to our offices. They’re full of questions, initiative and curiosity. Shouldn’t we be doing everything we can to make sure they thrive safely?

[English]

Repealing section 43 equates to listening to science. Evidence‑based science has evolved since 2004 when the Supreme Court made its ruling. There is now a better understanding of the psychological consequences of violence — in all its forms — on individuals. Modern expert opinion recognizes no educational value associated with corporal punishment — it is not only counterproductive but also, above all, harmful to emotional development. This has been, as you know, amply demonstrated by Senator Kutcher and others.

[Translation]

Repealing section 43, as Senator Moodie reminded us, would allow us to meet our international obligations by giving Canadian children the status conferred on them by treaties and conventions that we have ratified.

[English]

And, finally, repealing section 43 will respond to Call to Action No. 6 from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The Government of Canada is committed to endorsing all of the recommendations from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission — one of which is the call for the repeal of section 43. This bill presents us with an opportunity to do our part — an opportunity that must not be missed.

[Translation]

I sincerely hope that this bill will be quickly sent back to committee. I said the following in 2017 and I will say it again:

Honourable colleagues, we are not going to be flooded with hundreds of emails about this bill. It is no wonder, given that the main people it affects are not even old enough to write yet . . .

 — let alone vote.

That is how vulnerable they are, which is why we have a responsibility to protect them.

The interest of adults must never trump the protection of children.

[English]

I leave you, dear colleagues, with these powerful words from Nelson Mandela: “We owe our children, the most vulnerable citizens in our society, a life free from violence and fear.”

Meegwetch. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. It’s very nice to be back in the saddle.

As we know from reading the report this morning, colleagues, the CBC has no plans to move to full streaming any time in the near future. It’s simply beginning to speculate as to what the future will bring and it’s trying to anticipate the changes that are under way given the proliferation and ubiquitousness of digital technology. Right now, there are lots of Canadians and communities who rely upon traditional broadcasting and radio, and they can continue to rely on the CBC and others in that regard.

This is a conversation about the future of broadcasting and the CBC that the government expects to have in the years to come. But for the time being, the government will continue to ensure that the CBC/Radio-Canada maintains its reputation as a world-class national broadcaster and that it continues to serve Canadians.

Hon. Lucie Moncion, Chair of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, presented the following report:

Tuesday, February 7, 2023

The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration has the honour to present its

SEVENTH REPORT

Your committee, which is authorized by the Rules of the Senate to consider financial and administrative matters, pursuant to the Senate Administration Rules, to prepare estimates of the sum that will be required from Parliament for the services of the Senate, has approved the Senate Main Estimates for the fiscal year 2023-24 and recommends their adoption.

A summary of these Estimates is appended to this report. Your committee notes that the proposed total is $126,694,386.

Respectfully submitted,

LUCIE MONCION

Chair

(For text of budget, see today’s Journals of the Senate, p. 1225.)

Hon. Jane Cordy: Senator Gold, recent data released by Statistics Canada shows some positive progress when it comes to higher education levels for Black Canadians, and this is good news. Statistics also show that the percentage of Black Canadians who achieved a bachelor’s degree or higher from a university is on par with the national average, and this is also good news. However, when it comes to employment, the statistics show that 16% of Black Canadians are overqualified for their job, so, Senator Gold, they’re underemployed. Black Canadians are still facing real barriers within the labour market.

Senator Gold, in the Government of Canada’s capacity as the largest single employer in Canada, with close to 320,000 public service employees across the country, what steps have been taken to remove these systemic barriers to equal access and equal opportunities within the public service for Black Canadians?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): I thank the honourable senator for his question. It is my understanding that the Government of Canada has been in regular contact with its U.S. counterparts for some time to discuss all issues related to the Safe Third Country Agreement. Based on the information I have, the discussions have been positive but have not concluded. The discussions are ongoing.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question, senator. I certainly will bring this particular matter to the attention of the appropriate minister. But, again, the chamber should rest assured that the government is considering all measures appropriate in the face of these atrocities.

[Translation]