Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question, senator. As I believe I have mentioned in this chamber before, the RCMP has, in fact, confirmed that they have launched an investigation into these allegations of Chinese so-called police stations, and I am further advised that Global Affairs Canada has, indeed, made representations through the Chinese Ambassador to Canada regarding these allegations.

I want to emphasize, colleagues, as we all know, that it’s the Chinese community in Canada who are often targeted by such interference. We’re going to work with the community to combat it and protect them and all Canadians. The government is using all its tools and will employ new ones if necessary to combat all foreign interference in our country.

As commented by an official at Global Affairs Canada and recently reiterated in this chamber:

The activity that’s being alleged —

— that is the police stations, colleagues —

 — would be entirely illegal and totally inappropriate, and it would be the subject of very serious representations . . . .

Hon. Michèle Audette moved second reading of Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

[Editor’s Note: Senator Audette spoke in Innu.]

She said: Honourable senators, this is the first time in 12 months that I’ve spoken as a senator on Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

This is an emotional week for Indigenous women, but it is also a week filled with history. That’s why I think it’s important for my colleagues to support this bill. This is an important step for many of us across Canada, not only to move forward with reconciliation, but more importantly to strengthen our country’s social fabric.

It is also the culmination of many years of advocacy for many people, groups, experts, thinkers, philosophers, survivors, our knowledge keepers and of course our communities. We’ve been calling for greater accountability for a long time; this isn’t new. We’re also calling for greater accountability for everyone, myself included. I have that role and that responsibility.

In my eyes and in my heart, this bill is of vital importance. It is a step toward healing and reparation. It enables us to take action, which is important because it is more than just words. This is about honouring everyone who came to speak to us and share their truth during the TRC hearings. This is about the families that are still here and the ones that are not, including the little beings of light who were gone too soon.

[English]

If Bill C-29 is adopted, the national council for reconciliation will monitor long-term progress, evaluate — which is very important — and report on the implementation of the 94 Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

[Translation]

This is very important.

[English]

It will also respond to Call to Action 53 to create this national council for reconciliation. I think it is very important that it will also respond to Calls 54, 55 and 56, which deal with funding, responsibilities and transparency agreements between the government and the council.

[Translation]

These are hard truths, but it’s important for us to continue to share them. We have a duty to do so.

As you know, colleagues, before the first contact with Europeans, First Peoples were a sovereign society with their own systems of governance. We lived according to rules of reciprocity, interdependence, and respect for the land and what it provides. Even then, there was diversity among First Peoples. I have said it before and I will say it again: Our ancestors welcomed the so-called great explorers. We shared with them our knowledge, our science, our medicine and our way of living on the land. We taught them how to survive.

Things changed when greed took over the relationship between our nations. We went from being economic and military allies to being an Indian problem. We did not learn this until later, after we educated ourselves about our own history. What I also know is that we went from being welcoming, warm, strong people to being heathen, savage, inferior, lazy, and the list goes on.

[English]

As with so many people, I am the product of a residential school. I’m the daughter of a residential school survivor, Evelyne. Some of my colleagues here in this chamber are also residential school survivors. It is the story of my mom, my auntie, my uncles and my mother-in-law. It is also your story, my dear colleagues from the Indigenous communities. But what if it was also the story of all of us?

[Translation]

Throughout my childhood, in my beautiful Maliotenam on the beautiful North Shore near Sept-Îles, I normalized the effects of colonial violence. For a long time, I believed that our life was the result of destructive policies, and that was what was setting off each of my five senses daily. Do you know why I thought that? It was because I didn’t know the source of this violence, this way of being or this uneasiness; I didn’t know where it all came from. However, as we grow older, we come to realize that we’re all connected by this little thread. Then the domino effect kicks in and we realize that we’re being stripped of our identity, our language — my Innu-aimun — our relationship with the land and, above all, our dignity.

An Atikamekw residential school survivor wrote a book called Je reviens. I want to read you the introduction, which says, and I quote:

My story is your story. We have no reason to be ashamed. Our children and grandchildren have the right to know. Taken from our families, uprooted from our culture and traditions, we thought that we had lost all of our origins, losses that we thought we would carry in our hearts forever.

Non-Indigenous people never knew the real story of residential schools. Those who did know it, never dared to talk about it.

Then, one day, there were some elders who had enough courage and bravery to speak out, to reveal what happened so that everyone would know. I admire those who wanted to speak out and I’m deeply grateful to them.

The truth will heal us.

Senators, I think you will understand that truth is a way for me to heal too, as is an understanding of Indigenous peoples’ past.

How could I change my feelings of rage and shame? How could we stop normalizing what we hear people saying about us, that we’re “savages,” inferior beings, lazy or slackers? At some point, I realized that the way for me to stop doing that was to set down my heavy burden of de-victimization and focus on rebuilding. I had to understand, to reclaim my history, the history of Indigenous peoples, and above all, to understand the systemic causes of that history.

I didn’t learn any of this in school. I came to understand it by listening, reading, and from the reports of the commissions of inquiry. I read in a report from the Bagot Commission in 1844 that it was believed that if Indigenous children were separated from their parents, that would ensure their assimilation.

Later, when I was president of Quebec Native Women, I learned about the existence of An Act to Encourage the Gradual Civilization of the Indian Tribes, 1857. It talks about us, who had ancient knowledge, and yet they wanted to assimilate us gradually as though we were incapable of doing anything. That hurts and it becomes hard to take.

Later, still through this way of learning, I found out that, in 1867, the federal government took control of the First Nations and this authority also extended to the education of Indians.

All this became official in 1883, when Prime Minister John A. Macdonald brought in residential schools to deal with the Indian issue, thereby “killing the Indian in the heart of the child.”

More than 150,000 children were forcefully brought to these places. As you’ve already seen and heard, our ancestors were forcefully brought to these residential schools, these cursed places as some like to say, where they suffered abuse to their souls, their bodies, their way of life, places where people were punished for speaking their Indigenous languages, our beautiful languages.

Today, at 51, like many other people, I have to relearn our language.

However, in 1922, Dr. Peter Henderson Bryce published The Story of a National Crime, a book that exposed the neglect that students were subjected to. I wish I’d known this at a younger age, at an earlier point in my process. I wish I’d understood that these little beings of light, these tiny human beings would never return to our land because they were guinea pigs used for research, starved to death, or suffered physical, sexual, and psychological abuse that took them too soon.

At the same time, my grandmother, my little nukum, also explained to me the memory she has, as do many other women and men from that time, and how all of this has left silences in our communities. It sent elders and parents into the dark abyss, and it broke the parental bond. It broke our values by eroding our family values. It broke and destroyed our relationship and our reciprocity, the interdependence that exists between a mother and her children and between a community and its children, but also between parents. It ended up breaking so many things.

Now I’m beginning to understand. We also saw, a few moons ago last year, how struck everyone was when it came to be known that these little beings of light were buried in unmarked graves. The reaction was palpable, but for many of us it was something we had already expressed and explained.

Fortunately, communities have done incredible work. Yes, it caused them suffering, but it was important to talk about locating and commemorating the little beings of light who left us during the residential school days.

As devastating and difficult as those realities are, they are part of Canada’s history. We cannot undo the past, but we must use these truths to put things right and do better here and now, and especially tomorrow.

Because of the things you have done, I know I don’t have to convince you that this dark time in Canada’s history occurred. Let us also remember why it’s important for me to say these things to you. There are many people here, in the other chamber, in other places and spaces, across Canada and even around the world, who come from these territories and who are rising up today, who are stepping up as the teachers reminding us of this important history.

Like many of us, I carry in my heart always the courageous people who are still living. They are strong, they are resilient, they have suffered and they continue to suffer. They pass on to us their languages, their experience, their ceremonies, their spirituality and their knowledge. I thank them.

There isn’t just one path to recovery, there are many, and we must respect these differences and move forward at each individual’s pace. There is no one solution that will solve everything, there are many. Together we can do more, that much is sure.

Colleagues, I’d like to go over the ins and outs of how this bill came to be introduced in the other place in June 2022. There’s an interesting story there, which I think is worth mentioning.

An interim board was created in 2019, made up of six individuals from First Peoples communities, whether Métis, Inuit or First Nations, including a former TRC commissioner, Wilton Littlechild.

The board was given a mandate to reflect, to propose recommendations for this national council for reconciliation, to name it, to guide its vision, mission, mandate, structure and funding, and to establish a legislative framework for consultation that could serve as a basis for reflection.

On top of that work, they travelled virtually to several countries, from 1973 until very recently, to document thirty or so truth and reconciliation commissions. They wanted to see what is being done elsewhere. They wanted to see what exists elsewhere once an exercise like this is completed, and what kind of entity does this accountability work.

I draw your attention to the fact that several entities were created to act on the recommendations of these commissions. These entities created different models to guide them. When they tabled their reports, they even added a recommendation; there was a mandate with a beginning and an end. Given that we don’t want to lose momentum, we’re proposing that a transitional committee be established to ensure that the issue remains in the public eye and on the political agenda so that it never again goes, in my words, “poof, and no one talked about it again.”

Next December, this transitional committee will be established and will examine the bill or legislative framework, the model. It will consult academics: Indigenous experts who work in universities, who are lawyers, thinkers, visionaries, men and women in different regions, even artists, to make sure that the right things are being done the right way.

The transitional committee will make recommendations, but it will also exert pressure so that the bill becomes a reality. Why? Because there are a lot of people who would like to see what this council for reconciliation could look like and how it will evolve in their lifetime.

I thank all those who participated in the work from the beginning. You played an important leadership role. I’m thinking of the interim board and the transitional committee. You played an important role in the process and I thank you.

Bill C-29 was introduced in the other place on June 22. Then, in the fall, it passed second reading and was referred to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs on October 6. The committee heard from 32 witnesses, including individuals, organizations, chiefs, men and women who made recommendations to improve the bill. Many changes were made, which are now reflected in the content of this version of the bill.

Honourable senators, the bill proposes a formal structure. This is crucial to achieving sustainable progress and, most importantly, to anchoring the progress we need to see on a daily and long-term basis in an organizational culture, be it political or governmental, across this great country.

Imagine the situation had we created this kind of mechanism when we were going through the 1996 Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Just imagine. I was there. I was a witness along with my eldest son. We can now look at how that was implemented one year, five years, 10 years, 20 years and 30 years later.

That’s why it’s important to implement the mechanisms that will enable us to follow through on the Calls to Action. To me, this is obviously crucial to improving the lives of First Peoples and to rebuilding our relationship. We do not know each other well enough. There are great divides. They’re there, and we have to rebuild relationships because they’re important.

There must be accountability, and not just amongst ourselves. There are many Canadians and Quebecers who are more informed, better informed and aware of our challenges, the challenges of First Peoples. They also deserve accountability.

I’d also like to present to you the objectives and principles of the proposed bill. It will establish a council as an independent, non-political, permanent and Indigenous-led organization.

This bill will also serve as the legal framework for the national council for reconciliation. It will define the functions of the council, including the monitoring of progress being made towards reconciliation and the preparation of an annual report to Parliament and Canadians.

The bill will also set out the federal government’s responsibilities to help the council carry out its mission. It establishes the process for creating the council, for example, appointing the first directors, the articles of incorporation, the purpose and functions of the council and the responsibilities of the board of directors.

That is all important, especially where I come from. We must ensure that this board of directors includes representatives of the Inuit, First Nations, Métis, seniors, residential school survivors and their descendants — people who have experienced the impact of discriminatory policies — Indigenous organizations, young and older women, men, gender-diverse people from different regions of Canada, including urban, rural and remote regions. In these regions, there are Quebec nations where missionaries spoke French. French was imposed on us and we accepted French; today we speak French, like several nations in Quebec. This bill will have to ensure that those for whom French is their first or second language have their small place in this big family.

Colleagues, the 94 Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada are a path to follow. They present a road map for all levels of government, for civil society, for teaching institutions and the health sector, and for the private sector.

As Edith Cloutier so eloquently stated when she testified before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, and I quote:

 . . . reconciliation requires collective and sustained efforts over time, but also a willingness to venture down uncharted paths to work together. Innovation is needed to move reconciliation forward, and this relies on trust and complementarity among those who wish to participate in this great reconciliation.

As an aside, this woman represents several realities. She is Anishinaabe, a woman, urban and francophone.

Ms. Cloutier continued, and I quote:

Diversity is represented here, as we are as many men as women. We have to be confident that we will have the capacity, the opportunity, the will and the innovation to choose a board of directors that is representative of Canada’s indigenous peoples.

I thought her testimony was wonderful, and I had to share it with you.

This initiative is important and requires everyone’s commitment. Of course, each of us has the right to say “no.” Each of us has the right to offer ourselves up or simply be a witness and watch it happen. I’m the sponsor of this bill, and there are reasons behind that — this bill gives me the opportunity to commit myself to my past, to our past. It also leads me to commit myself to the present, but above all to build things together. That’s what gets me excited; we have to build things together.

There are thousands of us involved in the decolonization process. Let me tell you a little secret: I make up a lot of words. For me, as an Innu woman — and someone who is overflowing with creativity — I often say “Innuize” instead of decolonize. My children are also Wendat, so they might say, “We need to ‘Wendatize,’ Mom,” instead of saying decolonize. I have to make sure that, for me, this prompts me to “Innuize” a space, to understand the real history of Canada and Indigenous peoples. There are also beautiful things that are worth knowing.

Every day on Facebook, Twitter and other social media — I don’t have a TikTok account but I know others do — in our friendships and our professional relationships, we see the beauty of Indigenous nations across Canada, the celebration of Indigenous languages. We see it. We see a lot of young people reminding us that we are beautiful and proud and that we should honour that.

I can feel the wind of change. It may have been there before, but it is blowing stronger. I know it is there. I thank my parents and ancestors for their strength and sacrifices. I am very grateful to them. Thank you to you too, senators, because, before I came here, I listened to what you were saying, I watched, I read and I saw that there are people here with open hearts, eyes and ears, who are ready to accept our truths. That made it less stressful to become a senator.

I have also often heard it said in this chamber that we have a shared responsibility. The institutions also have a responsibility.

[English]

It is important to continually monitor each Call to Action in order to see the meaningful and structural change necessary to improve the lives of our people — or, I should say, the lives of Indigenous people. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, or TRC, emphasizes education as the foundation for raising awareness on what needs to happen to ensure true reconciliation.

[Translation]

I couldn’t agree more. Education plays a key role in addressing the ignorance and unconscious bias about what is happening to First Nations, Métis and Inuit people in our own communities. More and more educational institutions are integrating these issues into the curriculum, and are taking the history, or histories, the realities and the contemporary issues of First Peoples into account. This is having a direct effect, then, because teachers, nurses and other professionals in various fields are better equipped, better trained and better informed.

As a result, when we’re appointed to this place, as Indigenous senators, we get fewer requests for assistance. The next generation will have a lot of information. I wish to say thank you to all those institutions doing this educational work. We will see more and more publishing houses taking important steps and giving us this space. We could also encourage some of them to follow suit by integrating the history of First Peoples, by and for First Peoples, into textbooks, so that it becomes part of the organizational culture and doesn’t hinge on the will of individual professors or faculties.

We also know that municipalities and communities together can do wonderful things, if they’re not already doing so, and create spaces where people can share their truths so that we can live together and do things together.

Imagine the survivors who will listen to the government every year. They will hear what’s going on directly from the government, what’s not being done, what’s working, what’s harder. When we know why things haven’t progressed, when we’re told the truth, when someone explains to us why things haven’t progressed, we can understand. However when we’re not told the truth, of course we will take a stand. I think that this will enable us to organize all of that.

This is for everyone who, like me, wants to understand. I need to understand, not because I am a senator, but because I am a mom, a lover, a kokum — a grandmother. I am also the daughter of Évelyne, and I need to understand. The government is going to create important commissions, which will give us a chance to write new chapters, but there’s no accountability mechanism here. We’re voting to create commissions, but they have to be connected to that culture, to that accountability. What then?

For me, Bill C-29 gives us the opportunity to start laying the foundation for the shaputuan, the big tent of the Innus, or to take a step towards our collective responsibility. You will remember that when I gave my inaugural speech I mentioned that I like to bead. I realized that it will be difficult to bead in the Senate because we work hard. However, I can sometimes take a few minutes to do some beading.

I would ask you to recall what I told you: At times, I will leave some beads for you. If you can pick them up and assemble them, together we can create a just, fair society that values every individual’s diversity, language, culture, values and history. I am leaving many beads for you.

Honourable senators, this was a new experience for me. I thank you for listening, for accepting some of my truths and the truths of those I carry in my heart. I know that your questions, your comments and the path that this bill will take will all be in the interest of improving it. Thank you very much.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Thank you very much, Senator Audette. Are you sure that this council has sufficient funding to ensure long-term sustainability?

Senator Audette: Thank you for your question. In the long term? I don’t have a magic wand to see what we need to do, but I can say that this requires a long-term commitment. Funding will be a daily reality for this not-for-profit organization. The commitment that we have right now, the information that I have right now, seeks to reassure us that this is a start. From what I understand, the organization will receive, if it hasn’t already, a charitable number, which will allow it to get funding from sources other than the federal government.

Yes, the federal government should fund the council for the long term, but the commitment that we have and the numbers that I have right now will be used to start the work and to invest.

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Parliament of Canada on COVID-19 Vaccines, pursuant to the Auditor General Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. A-17, s. 8.

Hon. Percy E. Downe: Thank you, Senator Audette for your wonderful speech. I enjoyed it immensely.

I want to bring to your attention as well that, of all the other concerns that I have heard from the Native Council of Prince Edward Island, they are also concerned about representation. They represent 1,244 members of the Native Council of P.E.I. and 3,385 Indigenous people residing off-reserve in P.E.I. They share the same concerns that have been expressed by others.

They want to make sure that the representation is there from all of the interested groups. I simply wanted to pass that on to you. It’s more than a question. The question would be: Do you agree or would you take it under advisement? We only have a few seconds left.

[Translation]

Senator Audette: I will take just a few seconds to answer. I want to believe that the people who are appointed to sit on this new board of directors will have the expertise and knowledge to serve everyone across Canada. I feel confident of that at this point in time.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Cordy, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dalphond, for the third reading of Bill S-246, An Act respecting Lebanese Heritage Month.

Senator Omidvar: Thank you for your sponsorship of the bill, your explanation of it and, in particular, for putting yourself in this story in a very personal way. I really do appreciate that and, of course, I support the creation of a national council for reconciliation.

My question is a follow-up to Senator McPhedran’s question. I must confess that I now have a concern about the funding of the national council of reconciliation. You said that this organization will seek charitable status and seek funding from charitable organizations to complete its financing.

Many people in Canada now, especially people from the Indigenous community, have concluded that charitable giving in Canada is a colonial construct. By going down this path of seeking charitable funding, the council could, in effect, be buying into a colonial path.

Don’t you think it is important for the federal government to fund the national council of reconciliation to the full and commit to it in this bill?

Senator Audette: I asked that question, Senator Omidvar. I thought that they would go through an entity that looked like the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, for example.

By discussing not with the government, but with the people who were involved, right now it’s at the stage where they want to make sure that they are not officially attached to the federal government in order to keep their independence, knowing that the funding will either be there or it may slowly go down, or it may increase. They were aware of that when they had those discussions.

It is something that we can ask, but this is what was explained to me. I will finish in French to make sure that I am understood.

[Translation]

The important thing is that there are groups other than the First Nations, Métis, Inuit or specific groups of Indigenous leaders, for example. They’ve already begun discussions to have formal entities that have relationships with the federal government, to have a human rights tribunal for First Nations, Métis and Inuit, a space where an ombudsman can respond. This exercise is really something that should be done by a non-profit organization, the national council for reconciliation, but talks are already under way elsewhere and there’s a direct relationship with the federal government.

I see that you’re looking confused. I don’t think you understood what I was saying. I would be happy to better explain what I meant.

[English]

Senator Omidvar: Thank you for explaining to me the unfolding of this council of reconciliation. If I may suggest this, the issue of funding and independence should be seriously looked at in committee. There is a history of institutions that have been started by the federal government and then abandoned because of a lack of funding and because the position was made that charities will pick it up. Ombudspeople and tribunals are not funded by charity; they are funded by governments themselves.

Thank you, Senator Audette, for taking my question.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

Hon. Marty Klyne: Honourable senators, I rise to speak in support 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). This bill proposes to repeal the law that authorizes the use of corporal punishment on children as a means of correction in Canada.

Today I will add to our debate with the following: additional information on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s justification for this change, a few comments on policy details and thoughts on the Senate’s role in answering this Call to Action.

First, thank you to the sponsor, Senator Kutcher, for championing this legislation to answer Call to Action 6. Your knowledge and compassion as a leading psychiatrist are cause for optimism that we can finally succeed in repealing section 43. This change will advance reconciliation and benefit children across Canada.

Senator Kutcher laid out a comprehensive case for passing this evidence-based bill. This includes scientific research indicating that the practice of hitting children for discipline — such as spanking — increases the risk that children will become aggressive and develop mental health problems.

Senator Kutcher told us that, by passing this bill and promoting parenting supports, we can both protect children from this form of violence and help Canadian parents in learning and applying effective and much less damaging parenting practices.

We also heard that Bill S-251 will enable Canada to join 63 other countries that have enacted laws prohibiting physical punishment of children in all settings.

By passing this bill, Canada would live up to the international legal commitments under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by our country in 1991.

In her speech, Senator Moodie, as an esteemed pediatrician, bolstered the case for Bill S-251. Senator Moodie further explored expert evidence and international experiences relating to this subject. She noted that in countries that have banned corporal punishment on kids — such as Sweden, Germany and New Zealand — the bans have resulted in a significant drop in reports of the practice. In Germany and Finland, for instance, that reduction was nearly 50%.

Senator Moodie highlighted that these countries acknowledge the need for public education and adequate family supports as a complement to banning corporal punishment. This is a point requiring Parliament and the government’s attention that I hope we can attend to through a Senate committee study on this bill, perhaps toward recommendations accompanying the repeal of section 43.

Colleagues, Bill S-251 can be summarized in three words: Every child matters. This is a principle that Canadian society is learning and working to uphold.

In the media, we have collectively witnessed the truth of our country’s history at places like Kamloops, Cowessess First Nation, Cranbrook, Penelakut Island, Saddle Lake Cree Nation, Williams Lake First Nation and Keeseekoose First Nation. We keep in our hearts the thousands of children who never came home from residential schools and the survivors who were scarred for life.

We always keep them in our hearts.

Corporal punishment was a significant part of life at these institutions. Experiences of colonial forms of discipline traumatized Indigenous peoples in Canada, contributing to a legacy of multi-generational harms.

We know that section 43 of the Criminal Code connects to the values of the relatively early days of the residential school era. As Senator Kutcher told us:

Section 43 is an anachronism — an historical holdover from laws written in 1892 that permitted corporal punishment of employees, wives and children.

Senators, I would like to quote two passages from The Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to help inform our debate from a historical perspective. From Volume 4, Missing Children and Unmarked Burials, a passage explains the culture shock to Indigenous peoples who were subjected to corporal punishment:

The churches and religious orders that operated Canada’s residential schools had strong and interrelated conceptions of order, discipline, obedience, and sin. They believed that human beings were fallen, sinful creatures who had to earn salvation through mastery of their nature by obedience to God. The approach to discipline used in schools was based in scripture: corporal punishment was a Biblically authorized way of not only keeping order, but also bringing children to the righteous path. In their use of corporal punishment, church leaders had the support of nineteenth-century educational bureaucrats such as Egerton Ryerson, who believed that opposition to corporal punishment was “contrary to Scripture.”

The report further states:

Corporal punishment did not historically have this same level of acceptability among Aboriginal people. The large number of recorded parental complaints, coupled with the ongoing difficulty in recruiting students, is evidence of occasions where discipline imposed by the schools exceeded what would have been acceptable in either Aboriginal or European communities.

Students were punished for not finishing their lessons, for bedwetting, talking out of turn, throwing rocks at the school fence, immorality, refusing to eat their meals, speaking their own languages, neglecting their chores, and theft (often of food).

From Volume 5, The Legacy, we learn how colonial punishments conflicted with traditional Inuit parenting:

Traditional Inuit parenting is based on kinship relationships and cultural and spiritual beliefs. Inuit believe that a newborn named after a deceased relative takes possession of that relative’s soul or spirit, and this is reflected in the parents’ relationship with the child. According to the national Inuit women’s association, Pauktuutit, it “would not be considered appropriate ... to tell a child what to do, as this would be the equivalent of ordering an elder or another adult about, thus violating an important social rule in Inuit culture.”

Ignorance of this aspect of Inuit culture caused many non-Aboriginal people, including residential school administrators and child welfare officials, to make culturally biased judgments. They often saw Inuit parents as extremely permissive and indifferent to discipline. At the residential schools, in contrast, teachers attempted to control a child’s behaviour through corporal punishment and other harsh disciplinary measures distasteful to Inuit parents.

Honourable senators, in recommending the repeal of section 43 in Call to Action 6, the TRC concluded, as noted by Senator Kutcher:

The Commission believes that corporal punishment is a relic of a discredited past and has no place in Canadian schools or homes.

In answering Call to Action 6 by repealing section 43, we can denounce the historic imposition of foreign corporal punishments on Indigenous children by colonial authorities. Such a decision by Parliament would be an important act of reconciliation — following the Senate’s unanimous apology on September 29 of this year for Canada’s role in the residential school system, through a motion from Senator McCallum.

In addition, with Bill S-251, the federal legislature would act to protect all kids across Canada today from the fear, pain and embarrassment of corporal punishment. A key role of the Senate is to protect vulnerable persons in Canada, and the time to act is now.

I will add what I hope are a few common-sense comments about the legalities: In 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada found section 43 to be constitutional, and interpreted the section to restrict forms of corporal punishment allowable on children. The Supreme Court stated that section 43 allows “only minor corrective force of a transitory and trifling nature.” It can only be used on children between ages 2 and 12. Teachers can apply force to remove a child from a classroom. Lawful corporal punishment cannot involve blows or slaps to the head, or hitting a child with an object, and cannot be inflicted in anger, or on a child with a cognitive disability.

On debate, Senator Plett raised concerns that repealing section 43 could criminalize picking up a child who is throwing a tantrum, and putting them in the car or in a car seat. My reaction to these comments is optimism for common ground. I would not wish to criminalize the behaviour Senator Plett describes, which sounds to me like acceptable parenting. Rather, with repealing section 43, as I understand the issue, the goal is to eliminate the use of force for the purpose of correction. For example, this bill would ban spanking and similar actions aimed to influence behaviour through a negative imposition of force, involving fear, pain or embarrassment.

However, the purpose of Bill S-251 is not to criminalize the incidental use of force by parents or teachers in fulfilling their legitimate responsibilities, such as safely transporting children. To me, the examples raised on debate are in the latter category — rather than being a punitive or deterrent use of force on children.

In 2017, on debate of Bill S-206 — the last version of this legislation — the replacement sponsor, former Senator Sinclair, offered the following clarifications:

. . . we must not forget that minor touching is not criminalized anyway, on the principal of de minimis. If it is something so minor, it is unworthy of the criminal law’s attention and sanction.

The law also recognizes that some applications of force are socially and legally acceptable. In order to get someone’s attention, for example, sometimes you have to touch them on the shoulder or on an arm. Engaging in a boxing match or body checking in hockey are not assaults on the basis of consent. Accidental touching is not illegal, nor is the use of reasonable force to defend or protect yourself or another person or even your property.

Section 43 says that if you assault a child for the purpose of correcting a child’s behaviour, you have a special defence if you use reasonable force. Society is beginning to accept that no amount of force is reasonable.

Colleagues, it seems to me that practical concerns could be addressed through committee observations, or perhaps even through an amendment to convey greater certainty in the Criminal Code about what is — and is not — intended as allowable, while repealing section 43. However, the repeal is required to eliminate the negative impositions of force on children that we want to target, such as spanking which is currently lawful under section 43. A committee could undertake such a constructive effort to ensure the Senate is not proposing a law at odds with common sense, while at the same time effectively banning corporal punishment on children. I, therefore, urge the timely referral of Bill S-251 to committee, as the Senate did with Bill S-206 in 2018.

I turn now to the role of the Senate in answering this Call to Action. Legislatively, Call to Action 6 is perhaps the most straightforward call to answer. Along with the House of Commons, the Senate is one of two bodies with decision-making authority and responsibility on this matter. We are in the driver’s seat — and if we don’t act, no one can.

In recent years, the Senate has delivered results in answering the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action: We have passed legislation to protect and renew Indigenous languages; to restore Indigenous jurisdiction over child and family services; to uphold the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; to establish the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation; and to realize a new Oath of Citizenship.

We have also received — from the other place — Bill C-29, a government bill to establish a national council for reconciliation, addressing Calls to Action 53 to 56, sponsored by Senator Audette. Many senators have expressed their personal determination to do more. I wish to do more. With Bill S-251, we have our chance. Let’s show Canada, and the world, that every child matters. Thank you. Hiy kitatamihin.

Hon. Victor Oh moved second reading of Bill C-242, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (temporary resident visas for parents and grandparents).

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak as sponsor of Bill C-242, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (temporary resident visas for parents and grandparents), introduced in the House of Commons by Mr. Kyle Seeback, Member of Parliament for Dufferin—Caledon.

I have the privilege to support a bill that would advance the rights of family reunification for parents and grandparents with children and grandchildren who are Canadian citizens or permanent residents of Canada.

Bill C-242 aims to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or IRPA, in regard to the super visa, brought in by the Conservative government in 2011. In its current state, this super visa is a multiple-entry visa for 10 years that allows grandparents and parents to reunite with their Canadian children and grandchildren here in Canada.

To be approved for the super visa, applicants must first have a signed letter from their child or grandchild that officially invites them to Canada. The child or grandchild must be able to prove that they can financially support the applicants for the duration of their visit.

The applicants must also be admissible on medical grounds through a medical exam and have private medical insurance from a Canadian insurance company. This insurance must have at least $100,000 emergency coverage and be valid for one year from the date of entry. Proof that the insurance is paid in full is also required.

Bill C-242 makes two amendments to the IRPA regarding the super visa. The first amendment is to allow the applicants to purchase health insurance from a company outside of Canada. Of note, these companies would have to be pre-approved by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. As a result, this would allow increased competition between Canadian and foreign insurance companies, thus reducing the price of premiums.

One of the reasons why reducing these prices is important is the fact that the cost of private health insurance can be expensive, particularly for lower-income people. This cost is on top of the application fee for the super visa, plane tickets and the medical exam, plus other expenses. Taken together, these costs could serve as an impediment for parents and grandparents to reunite with their children and grandchildren here in Canada.

It’s important to note that in order to be eligible for the super visa, applicants must pass a medical exam. Applicants will have passed this exam and proved they do not have any pre-existing health conditions, major issues or concerns that could consequently place a burden on Canada’s health system.

I would also like to note that this bill addresses any potential issue of the foreign insurance company not paying the Canadian health care system or health provider by requiring the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to approve the health insurance policy prior to the approval of the super visa. This measure will significantly mitigate the risk of any unpaid claims.

In addition, this amendment would lower the cost of insurance for those trying to use the super visa, and the proposed safeguard would ensure that Canada’s health care system and its health providers are protected from any unpaid claims.

The second amendment being proposed is to extend the authorized time a grandparent or parent is allowed to enter and remain in Canada from the original two years to five years over a ten-year span.

It’s important for me to note that there was a recent change. If applicants applied on or after July 4, 2022, they may be eligible to stay for up to five years at a time. Further, some applicants may also be able to stay for five years if they applied before July 4 but didn’t arrive in Canada until after this date. For those who received the visa or entered Canada before July 4, their time remains two years. This amendment to make it permanent for five years is important so that all future applicants may share this benefit.

This amendment would provide additional time for the parents or grandparents to spend time with their family without worrying about having to leave Canada so often. Further, this allows the grandparents to save money by not having to purchase a plane ticket to leave Canada and instead contribute to their family. Again, this consideration becomes even more important when we think of lower-income people in or visiting Canada.

Another improvement this bill requires would be for the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to prepare a report on reducing the minimum income that the child or grandchild of a foreign national must have to be approved for a super visa.

I strongly believe that this element deserves our thoughtful consideration given the potential impact on many new Canadian families. As you are no doubt aware, it is not uncommon for new immigrant families to struggle at first when they move to Canada. Perhaps the jobs they qualify for don’t pay enough, or their credentials from their country of origin don’t translate here, and they have to take a job that pays lower wages. Whatever the reason, there are many immigrant families who cannot apply for the super visa because they simply don’t meet the income test.

Some might argue that grandparents or parents would not contribute to the Canadian economy. However, having grandparents does help the economy by providing support to families and allowing Canadian parents to go to work. Many of the families who sponsor their parents or grandparents for the super visa are in the Canadian workforce or own their own family business. By having the parents or grandparents here in Canada, they are able to watch the children while the parents go to work. They could even directly help with the family business.

That support allows the parents to continue contributing to the Canadian economy because of that extra help and aid. Further, parents who otherwise couldn’t afford childcare and who, therefore, would not be able to work are now able to leave their children with the grandparents and go to work.

According to the study What do Sponsored Parents and Grandparents Contribute? by Madine VanderPlaat, Howard Ramos and Yoko Yoshida:

. . . not only is the family good for the well-being of the individual, it is good for society as a whole because access to family relationships and networks can support and mitigate the settlement and integration process. By providing child care and/or labour to family owned businesses, sponsored parents and/or grandparents can contribute to the overall economic well-being of the family and support the educational pursuits and labour market activities of other family members. . . . In addition, the possibility of sponsoring relatives may be an important element in attracting and retaining immigrants.

Colleagues, Bill C-242 is important for our country and for Canadians with families across the globe. If passed, this bill would reduce barriers to family reunification so that Canadians can benefit from familial support while also contributing more actively to the Canadian economy.

The benefits of this bill are significant to those families. That is why I rise today to support Bill C-242. I encourage you to do the same.

Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Omidvar, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Simons, calling the attention of the Senate to the challenges and opportunities that Canadian municipalities face, and to the importance of understanding and redefining the relationships between Canada’s municipalities and the federal government.

Hon. René Cormier: Honourable senators, Pericles, a politician born in ancient Greece in approximately 495 B.C., said, and I quote, “Because of the greatness of our city the fruits of the whole earth flow in upon us.”

The Greek capital, Athens, undoubtedly owes its most brilliant period to this statesman. In addition to his support for the arts, architecture, philosophy and the introduction of democracy, he had a vision that can surely serve as inspiration for us today.

It is with this in mind that I rise to speak to Senator Paula Simons’ inquiry, drawing the attention of this chamber to the challenges and opportunities facing Canadian municipalities and the importance of understanding and redefining the relationship between municipalities and the federal government.

I want to begin by acknowledging that we are on the unceded territories of the Algonquin Anishinaabe nation, a place where many municipalities were born.

Colleagues, we are all aware that Canadian municipalities are currently facing many challenges, be they economic, social or cultural. I’m particularly concerned about how these issues relate to human rights.

Growing poverty, the number of homeless people in some of our cities, including here in Ottawa, the affordable housing shortage, violence against marginalized communities and women — let me take a moment in remembrance of the women at l’École Polytechnique de Montréal — public transit needs, the impact of climate change on our lives, these are all issues that demand concrete action to strengthen cities’ ability to ensure that their citizens can live safe, healthy, full lives.

[English]

While Ottawa is our workplace where we collectively serve the best interests of all Canadians, our communities from coast to coast to coast play pivotal roles in our lives. Whether it be my hometown of Caraquet, New Brunswick, Kelowna, British Columbia or Iqaluit, Nunavut, our municipalities help to shape our cultural and linguistic identities. Those are the places we call home — the places where we live, work, celebrate, raise our children, love and imagine our futures.

As a more proximate level of government to citizens, municipalities are also the places where we can express our grievances on a myriad of issues, such as public transit, water and sewer services, animal control, road maintenance and waste management.

Colleagues, it is simply appalling that those democratic bodies are facing so many challenges today.

[Translation]

The first such issue is undoubtedly the unequal status of municipalities in relation to the provinces, a status enshrined in the Canadian Constitution and reaffirmed by the courts.

The term “creature of the provinces,” commonly associated with municipalities, derives from the division of legislative powers under section 92.8 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which provides that municipalities are under the authority of the provincial legislatures.

It is therefore provincial legislation that “creates” these entities by defining their powers of intervention. Legally, the provinces have the power to change the structure and governance of municipalities, whether it be the composition of a municipal council or even the powers of a mayor.

This lack of political autonomy can impede their development, and that’s unfortunately not the only issue facing Canadian municipalities. In particular, they have to deal with limited revenue sources, with the primary source being property taxes. This has a disproportionate impact on the delivery of public services.

From that perspective, many municipalities face challenges in the delivery of cultural and linguistic services. There’s also no denying that federal government support in these matters is crucial and expected.

I want to draw your attention today to the vital role that Canadian municipalities play with regard to official languages and the arts and culture sector by giving a few examples from my province, New Brunswick, and highlighting how the federal government can and must be a true partner to municipalities.

Our municipalities have a leading role to play in protecting and promoting our official languages.

Some provincial and territorial language regimes set out specific official languages obligations for municipal institutions.

For example, in New Brunswick, if the official language minority population of a municipality is at least 20% of the total population, the provincial legislation on official languages requires the adoption and publication of municipal ordinances, including services and communications set out in regulations, in both official languages.

Dawn Arnold, Mayor of Moncton, New Brunswick — the only officially bilingual city in the country — said the following about the impact of official languages on the economic, social and cultural development of her city, and I quote:

Moncton puts a great deal of emphasis on respect for its two linguistic communities and our bilingual status is a source of great pride. Moncton’s economy is flourishing in great part because of the presence of a bilingual workforce to support the ability of businesses to provide exceptional service to their clientele, generate greater economic activity and promote job creation.

[English]

Bilingualism also leads to infrastructure development as schools, post-secondary institutions, hospitals and more are built to accommodate this unique population. A market segment for products and services in French is also created, such as cultural activities, restaurants, services like translation, customer service, banking, et cetera, thus allowing a community to fully prosper.

[Translation]

The federal government also contributes to the prosperity of Canadian municipalities through the Official Languages Act, which, it is important to remember, is quasi-constitutional in nature.

Part VII of the act is vital to ensuring the sustainability and survival of official language minority communities, which are an integral part of our country’s municipalities. It sets out the federal government’s explicit commitment to enhance the vitality of French and English minorities and support their development.

In New Brunswick, for example, the implementation of this commitment resulted in a federal government investment of $776,000 in 2018 to support a governance initiative to improve the provision of French language services through municipal group projects. That is a positive measure that recognizes the contribution that municipalities make to the development, vitality and growth of the Canadian francophonie.

It is important to note that the current modernization of local governance in New Brunswick is the biggest reform the province has undertaken since the Equal Opportunity Program in the 1960s under the government of Acadian Premier Louis J. Robichaud.

Prior to that reform, approximately one-third of New Brunswick’s population lived not in municipalities, but in local service districts administered by the Department of Environment and Local Government, a structure that enabled the administration and delivery of local services to unincorporated regions of the province with neither mayor nor councillors.

This long-awaited reform, which strives to attain a higher democratic ideal, is radically transforming governance in my province by reducing the number of local entities and devising French versions of the names of certain entities, thereby affirming the importance of our communities’ linguistic and cultural heritage. This initiative explicitly recognizes municipalities’ contribution to the linguistic, cultural, political and economic development and vitality of our province and its Acadian regions.

I’d like to take this opportunity to thank the Government of New Brunswick for undertaking this important reform, and I extend my heartiest congratulations to the recently elected members of the municipal councils of these new entities.

[English]

Going back to the Official Languages Act, I will highlight that Part VII of this act also provides that Canadian Heritage can take measures to:

. . . encourage and assist provincial governments to support the development of English and French linguistic minority communities generally and, in particular, to offer provincial and municipal services in both English and French . . . .

The implementation of this provision has notably resulted in the signing of agreements with provincial governments to help municipalities provide services and communications in both official languages, such as the translation of municipal bylaws. Notwithstanding Part VII, under Part IV of the act, members of the public have a right to receive services from federal institutions in the official language of their choice, notably if there is significant demand for these services in that language or if the nature of that service justifies it.

As we all know, colleagues, the federal government is in the process of modernizing the Official Languages Act to better attain substantive equality between Canada’s official languages through Bill C-13, which includes some provisions that touch, directly or indirectly, on the vitality of municipalities.

[Translation]

Bill C-13 clarifies the nature of the duty of federal institutions, including federal departments, to take positive measures to implement certain federal government commitments, such as enhancing the vitality of English and French linguistic minority communities in certain strategic sectors.

[English]

Honourable senators, taking positive measures to support sectors that are essential to enhancing the vitality of English and French linguistic minority communities equally helps to make municipalities more vibrant and robust. In other words, the development of official language minority communities is a catalyst for growth for Canadian municipalities whether it be economically, socially, culturally or politically.

[Translation]

Our Canadian municipalities, especially in the regions, are also facing a major challenge with regard to declining populations in the regions. Immigration is a key factor in addressing this problem, which is only getting worse, year after year.

Bill C-13 provides for the adoption of a francophone immigration policy. This provision, which will undoubtedly help counteract declining populations, will likely have an impact on the operations of municipalities, including francophone associations, whether at the stage of welcoming, integrating or retaining immigrants.

Beyond official languages, there’s no doubt that the arts, culture and cultural industries are true vectors for the development, growth and promotion of our Canadian municipalities, and that the federal government also has an important role to play in this area.

Before coming to this place, I had the privilege of leading the États généraux des arts et de la culture dans la société acadienne du Nouveau-Brunswick, a major social project aimed at promoting the cultural development of the province’s Acadian jurisdictions. This approach centred on ensuring that all sectors of society were involved in developing and implementing initiatives to integrate culture, the arts and heritage in their jurisdictions.

This major project, carried out by the Association acadienne des artistes professionnels du Nouveau-Brunswick and funded by the federal and provincial governments, sought to develop a global strategy for integrating the arts and culture into New Brunswick’s Acadian society. In other words, a national cultural policy had to be created for the Acadian people.

Today, the implementation of this global strategy is under way and has resulted in significant changes in Acadia. Municipalities in New Brunswick of varying sizes have adopted cultural policies with the help of a training and support project partially funded by Canadian Heritage. These cultural policies have embedded the arts and culture in several key sectors within municipalities, such as tourism, health, education and the economy, thus contributing to the economic, social and cultural development of our regions.

Guy Chiasson, Mayor of Balmoral, in New Brunswick, participated in this project and created a cultural policy. He said, and I quote:

The creation of a cultural policy for and by the people has made it possible for our municipality to develop in several areas at the economic, social and cultural level.

One thing is clear: Federal government support for the community partners of municipalities is a concrete way to contribute to the development and success of our municipalities.

I would be remiss if I concluded this speech without recognizing the role that Canadian municipalities can play in Canada’s cultural diplomacy. In 2019, the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade conducted an important study on this. In its report entitled Cultural Diplomacy at the Front Stage of Canada’s Foreign Policy, it recommends, and I quote:

That the Government of Canada explore opportunities for greater and more effective collaboration and coordination with provinces, territories and municipalities in its cultural diplomacy activities.

The use of cultural resources in our municipalities from one end of the country to the other can and must be at the heart of the federal government’s cultural diplomacy initiatives.

In this regard, while we often tend to focus on large cities, I want to reiterate how important it is that the federal government do everything in its power to support and help small and medium-sized cities, which are found throughout Canada. They are the true engines of cultural, economic and social development for our country.

Colleagues, these are all ways in which the federal government can support our Canadian municipalities. There is much more to be said about the fundamental role that these municipalities play in our country’s development.

Federal, provincial and territorial relations are key to ensuring that municipalities continue to develop. It is my hope that the various instruments available to these different levels of government will fully meet the needs of our municipalities.

In closing, I would like to quote Pericles once again: “To be happy means to be free and to be free means to be brave.” May we be brave enough to work together to strengthen the relationship between the federal government and our Canadian municipalities, so that our constituents can live happily and freely. May we create, as Senator Audette suggested, spaces for meeting, rebuilding and co-creating, where together we can dream of the country we call home. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)

[English]

On Motion No. 68 by the Honourable Frances Lankin:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs be authorized to examine and report on the impact of subsection 268(3) of the Criminal Code, enacted in 1997, including but not limited to:

(a)the reasons why there have been no prosecutions under this provision since its enactment 25 years ago; and

(b)the extent to which female genital mutilation is currently occurring in Canada and to Canadian girls taken abroad for such procedures;

That the committee make recommendations, as appropriate, to ensure the Criminal Code provision has its intended impact of ending such crimes being perpetrated against girls in Canada; and

That the committee submit its final report no later than December 31, 2023, and that the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings for 180 days after the tabling of the final report.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): I have a few questions if Senator Audette will accept them.

Senator Audette: Of course.