Senator Dupuis: Would Senator Plett agree to answer a supplementary question?

[English]

Senator Dupuis: Do we agree, you and I, that this question deserves to be studied by the Senate as legislator, since the Supreme Court itself noted that it couldn’t rule on the change to section 43, which is ultimately in the hands of parliamentarians?

[English]

Senator Plett: I think that if you had been listening to my speech, Senator Dupuis, you would find out that, no, I’m not in agreement with that. We’ve dealt with this 17 times before, and each time it was rejected. I do believe in a democracy. If it is again rejected and next year somebody brings it forward — I’m only here for two more years, I only have two more kicks at this — I will oppose it the next two times, as I did the last time.

Do I agree that we have the right? No, I wish that we would kill this bill now. I’m not going to oppose it going to committee; it has been decided. I spoke today as the critic, Senator Dupuis. That in itself should tell you that I do agree with legislation being studied at committee. It will go to committee tonight.

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

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

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

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

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

[English]

Hon. Renée Dupuis: Madam Speaker, would it be possible to ask Senator Wells to repeat the motion exactly as written? We were given the first version and then told that there was a problem with the wording, yet we’re forging ahead. We’re totally confused; we don’t even know what we would be agreeing to.

[English]

Hon. Renée Dupuis: Will Senator Plett take a question?

[English]