Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Senator Gold, I was invited to attend a brunch with the police association and the premiers on bail reform this summer, and I raised a concern at that time. One of the panellists gave an example of an offender who had stolen a bottle of liquor and, 10 years later, he is a hardened criminal is what she said. Because of the way the system is set up, at that time, we were told that 70% of the people in the provincial jails were Indigenous and the majority had not even been to court.

Indigenous relationship with police administration, police officers and the justice system is already precarious. How will racial profiling and racism be addressed? If they are not, there will be a continuous flow of new criminals, and no law will be able to handle the load, even if additional resources are given. An example I’ll use is 80% of the Indigenous prisoners who are in the pen were children who were apprehended. So we need to look at reducing the flow of child apprehension so we don’t have that flow going in, because we’re not going to change the penitentiary system. How will this be addressed?

One comment that came up was people were so upset in there that they said, “Throw them in jail and throw away the key,” which caused me great concern. Thank you.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Honourable senators, first of all, I would like to thank Senator Kutcher for bringing this bill forward.

This has been triggering for me, and that is the most important time to speak: when your voice shakes.

Do not withhold discipline from your children; if you beat them with a rod, they will not die.

If you beat them with the rod, you will save their lives from Sheol.

That is from Proverbs 23:13-14.

The little girl of eight years old looked at her white blouse where a spot of blood had dropped from her bleeding nose. She hoped that her look of disbelief and astonishment of where the blood came from — and how it could be on her shirt — would forestall what she knew was to come. Of course, she would be blamed for the accident. She couldn’t have known she was going to have a nosebleed. She was hit with a closed fist on her back between her shoulder blades. She was a thin girl, and the fist easily found her bones. She started to cry from pain, from fear and from shame.

She was told, “Stop crying, stop crying,” with every hit of the closed fist. She knew she had to stop if she hoped the beating would stop. And for many years, it was difficult for me to cry.

Honourable senators, the following information that I share is taken from a piece entitled “I Was Spanked and I’m OK: Examining Thirty Years of Research Evidence on Corporal Punishment” by Joan E. Durrant. When we look at the advocacy and research done around the safety provided by seat belt legislation, we made that change to ensure that we no longer placed our children at undue risk. Systematic research across different countries found that seat belts reduced the risk of injuries and fatalities to drivers and occupants, which led to mandating the use of seat belts in cars. Public education campaigns accompanied these legal changes to raise public awareness of the risk.

Today, very few of us would say, “I survived without a seat belt so my child will too.”

By 2020, there were more than 100 studies on corporal punishment. They consistently show that corporal punishment places children at risk, and not one study has shown corporal punishment to have positive, long-term impacts. Corporal punishment does not promote the healthy, long-term outcomes that most parents hope to nurture, and it places children’s developmental health at risk.

Colleagues, what follows is the research on three developmental outcomes: prosocial behaviour, non-violent conflict resolution and positive mental health.

Prosocial behaviour, such as helping, sharing, co-operating and comforting, benefit others. When intrinsically motivated, these behaviours reflect empathy, altruism and compassion for others. They are key indicators that predict successful adolescent development. Prosocial development is fostered through the attachment between the child and at least one caregiver. The child learns to trust and rely upon the caregiver for support. By the age of two, the child exhibits rudimentary prosocial behaviours. Their concern for others becomes visible in their facial expressions, in their voices and sometimes in their behaviours.

Children’s capacities for behaving positively in the social world emerge from positive experiences in close relationships within the family. As children grow and inevitably act in ways that hurt others, effective parents use those opportunities to draw attention to the impacts of the child’s actions on the other person. In psychological terms, this is known as “induction,” which entails providing an explanation that helps children understand the effects of their behaviour on others.

Induction promotes internalization of values because it facilitates the child’s deep processing of their parents’ message.

What is the impact of corporal punishment on prosocial development? Parental responses that arouse stress, anxiety or fear interfere with internalization because the child’s capacity to process their parents’ message becomes impaired. The child instinctively concentrates on dealing with the perceived threat.

Punitive, threatening or painful parental and, in my case, institutional responses also undermine attachment, which is critical to moral learning. With sustained negative parenting, the child’s learning is impeded — and moral development becomes replaced by hostility and resentment.

Honourable senators, in her 2002 research on corporal punishment, Elizabeth Gershoff concluded that:

. . . corporal punishment can impel children to avoid misbehaviors in order to avoid future punishment but cannot on its own teach children the responsibility to behave independently in morally and socially acceptable ways.

Bernadette Saunders’ studies on children in Australia — these are children who were in residential school — found that children tended to experience corporal punishment as humiliating, intimidating, frightening and damaging. The children spoke of feeling powerless, vulnerable, helpless, unjustly treated and of wanting to avoid those parents or institutions.

Now imagine, colleagues, if you lived in residential school and you had no supports to counteract the negative and violent ways you were raised by complete strangers for simply demonstrating innocent, childlike behaviours. Children and adolescents were indeed powerless, vulnerable, helpless and unjustly treated by church representatives and teachers with no recourse to fairness or ability to be heard. Many learned to shut down and become invisible, which negatively impacted communication skills.

Honourable senators, another attribute that most parents hope to cultivate in their children is non-violent conflict resolution. Social scientists referred to one’s ability to read others’ emotions and use that information to guide actions, inhibiting aggressive impulses and regulating anger as emotional intelligence.

And how is this non-violent conflict resolution postured? Emotional competence depends upon the ability to recognize, identify, monitor and regulate one’s emotions rather than denying, suppressing or controlling them. These abilities grow out of a secure parent-child attachment in which children feel safe expressing their emotions and parents respond sensitively and supportively. When parents help their children connect their emotions to their growing reasoning capacities, neural pathways are formed that will become increasingly strong if they are repeatedly activated.

What is the impact of corporal punishment? When children are physically punished, they are placed in a situation where they are unable to express their emotions. They are stripped of their voice and their power of expression. Corporal punishment ends the conversation, discouraging and suppressing the child’s emotional expression. What the child learns is simply how to impose one’s will upon another person.

Every study conducted on the relationship between corporal punishment and aggression has found that corporal punishment predicts higher levels of aggression among children and youth. The aggression may be physical, verbal, relational, instrumental — whether it is intentional and planned or impulsive and reactive — direct or subtle. This aggression may be directed towards siblings, parents, peers or intimate partners or carried out in person through social groups or social media.

Longitudinal studies following a group of children over a number of years found that corporal punishment increases children’s aggression over time and has an increasingly powerful effect on anti-social behaviour as children get older.

Imagine the students in residential school who have been taught that aggression and violence are normal in relationships. Do you wonder why this engrained violence lands many Indigenous people in the prison system today? If you were taught throughout your formative years that violence in its many forms was acceptable, role modelled by nuns and priests, isn’t that what you would then role model to your children and they to theirs? This is what we call intergenerational trauma.

Honourable senators, positive mental health is an overall feeling of satisfaction with life, the capacity to enhance our enjoyment of life and a belief that we can deal with challenges as they appear. When we face adversity, we can continue moving forward if we believe that we have agency — the ability, power and efficacy — to overcome obstacles and take new directions in life. This is a part of self-determination. It was self-determination that was removed from us systematically in residential school.

Some central concepts in mental health research are coping and resilience. Coping is the capacity to manage the stress of adversity, obstacles and potential failure. Resilience is the capacity to move through and surmount adversity, processing its pain and moving forward into life.

How is positive mental health fostered? Positive mental health is developed within interpersonal relationships. A critical component is the belief that one can have an impact, elicit a response and effect change. This belief begins to form in infancy when parents respond to their baby’s cries and meet their baby’s physical and emotional needs. This is the beginning of a sense of efficacy, self-confidence and self-worth. With parents’ help, their toddlers learn and practise self-regulation within a secure and trusting relationship, as young children come to learn that they can tolerate and even master frustration and solve problems.

What is the impact of corporal punishment on mental health? The prerogative to strike is solely the parent’s. The child’s role is to submit to the punishment. This contributes to a loss of agency. The more these experiences are repeated over many years, the more powerless the child feels. This can lead to learned helplessness, a state in which the child comes to believe that they have no control over outcomes. This belief can manifest itself in anxiety, addictions, suicidal tendencies and other difficulties indicative of compromised mental health.

When I left residential school, I believed I had no agency over my life, and that is what places many of the missing and murdered women at high-risk.

In the book Decolonizing Discipline, edited by Valerie Michaelson and Joan Durrant, the editors state:

Based on British common law allowing corporal punishment “to correct what is evil in the child,” the text of Section 43 justifies the use of corporal punishment by parents and those standing in the place of parents. It has been used to defend the assault of children in homes and schools for more than a century and allowed those operating the residential schools to inflict violence on children with impunity.

Honourable senators, today we know that corporal punishment poses dangers to children’s emotional and overall development. We also know that section 43 has permitted gross physical punishment in the past. If we know that discipline is really about teaching and guidance and that we can promote children’s health and development more effectively without corporal punishment, why would we want to continue to permit it or allow children to be placed in such a vulnerable position?

Colleagues, even after section 43 of the Criminal Code is hopefully repealed, unless the underlying narratives that enable the rationalization of abuse against children are addressed, children will still be vulnerable to other manifestations of these same narrow, theological frameworks that justify the power and control of one group over another. Society needs to confront the ways that these very colonial systems that have helped to shape this country continue to enable various oppressions to this day.

Honourable senators, I urge you to support the swift passage of Bill S-251 and, by doing so, stand in support of the defenceless and vulnerable children who will greatly benefit from the progress that this bill will bring about. Kinanâskomitin.

Senator McCallum: Thank you. After I left the residential school, I always attributed my accomplishments to residential schools because that’s how we were taught. At one point in my life, I realized that it wasn’t the residential school that provided this — it was my community, my family and the elders in my community.

I was at home until the age of five, and the parenting that I experienced was very positive: I was never hit. I was taught the values of sharing, tradition, hospitality, respect for people, as well as for the land, and the intersectionality of the web of life. I learned all of that before the age of five. I had my language, the tatsu language. I knew that I belonged to myself.

[Editor’s Note: Senator McCallum spoke in an Indigenous language.]

I owned my body. I owned my thoughts. There was much laughter and joy and skipping and running through the forest.

Imagine when I entered the residential school in that big steel building that it was so rigid. I didn’t speak English. I remember being strapped. The first time I was strapped, I didn’t understand what I had done wrong because I didn’t know the rules. I didn’t understand English. I was strapped in front of all the students; I had to take down my pants. When you experience violence more and more, you start to shut down. The self-determination I had learned was taken away because they wanted blind obedience.

You learned to shut down your emotions and your critical thinking because that was not encouraged. Creativity and curiosity were both a no-no. You learned to develop a new sense in terms of gauging the environment you were in. Your aim was not to grow but to prevent corporal punishment, so your senses started to dictate that. You started to notice the tone of voice and anger.

There was no grounding because the rules would change depending on the mood of the supervisor. One of them would take the girls’ heads and bang them together — in front of all of us. She would do this to the older girls. This behaviour was modelled, and it silenced me in many ways.

In the classroom, I was hit with a yardstick because I didn’t know the answer to a question. I was hit on my hands and head during piano lessons just because I hit the wrong note. You learned that you’re imperfect and bad. The physical abuse made me compliant and informed the relationships that I was to have. The older boys were forced to get switches for the boys and hit them, with the supervisors looking on.

We brought that violence into our communities. The churches, of course, were very active in the community.

When you look at the high rates of violence, whether it’s intimate partner violence or corporal punishment inflicted on children, it brings home the violence and anger, which stays with you for a lifetime. I am 70 today, and I’m still dealing with the trauma.

This issue was something that I had to deal with. I’m glad I did, and I’m glad I shared it with you. It is only when people know what the system has done to us that we can start to make changes, and start to understand the changes that need to be made; we can begin to understand why we have over‑incarceration in the corrections system, much of which is due to violence.

I visited the Stony Mountain Institution in Manitoba and spoke to the people there. When I spoke to advocates, they stated that children in care today are still experiencing corporal punishment; it’s ongoing.

That is why I said that work needs to be done — other than simply repealing this act. What is it that you hope will come out of it? Is it a national study so that all Canadians are involved?

Part of the way in which I will engage in reconciliation with my family — I never hit my children, by the way — never. I knew how much it hurt, and I was not going to do that. We are going to start Cree classes with my family and my grandchildren, and make certain that my grandchildren will not experience what we had to endure. This is looking at the next seven generations. My ancestors did this for me seven generations ago. All of us are living ancestors. We do what is right for the next few generations.

Thank you for listening. I thank you from my heart.

Senator McCallum: Yes.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: I can understand why people may want to request assisted dying, but I don’t think that any of us in this chamber can say that it will not be used as a coercive tactic. I have had calls from elders and disability communities. One elder in particular told me that, when he went to his medical doctor, he was offered it. He didn’t request it, nor did he want it. Now he’s afraid. He’s an Indigenous elder.

When you look at the vulnerable populations, we can say it’s coercive. When we look at the issue of forced sterilization that’s occurring with Indigenous women today, there is no choice. There’s no option for them: It has been taken away from them.

What safeguards will be put in place for Aboriginal people and the disability community — that is, those who are looked upon as subordinate by many people in Canada? What safeguards will be put in place for them?

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Senator Plett, you made remarks like, “No one will be convicted,” “entirely ineffective,” and “sinks to a new low.”

I am very concerned about this bill and have a right to feel very concerned. Do you feel there will continue to be violence against women once the bill is passed? My specific concern is violence against Indigenous women, considering there has been no progress toward resolving the issues connected to the missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.

What I want to ask all of the Senate tonight is: Don’t we matter as women? It boggles my mind that the patriarchy is deciding this issue, but it is violence against women we are looking at. I am so very concerned about it. Thank you.

Senator McCallum: What are the consequences of not acting? I can’t wrap my head around the conversation that we’re having here. It seems to me that women are still being put at risk, and they’re still the ones who are going to bear the burden. What are the consequences?

Senator McCallum: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-28, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (self‑induced extreme intoxication).

As is true with many in this chamber and many in the general public, I, as a First Nations woman, have substantial concern and misgivings about the haste with which we are dealing with this legislation. I do not know if there are those in this chamber who can honestly say that the Senate has done due diligence on Bill C-28. I, for one, cannot make that assertion.

It is a very unusual and dangerous practice that we are engaging in, both here and in the other place. I understand that a House of Commons committee has been tasked with studying the subject matter of this bill in the fall. I also note Minister Lametti’s support for the Senate to undertake a similar committee study following a question by Senator Carignan during Committee of the Whole. However, I find it highly concerning that Parliament has agreed to do this process backwards. Studying the contents of a bill and thereby understanding the perspectives of the experts in this field only after that bill has become law is ill-advised.

One can argue that it treads dangerously close to impacting our collective privilege in fulfilling our senatorial duties. How can we vote competently on legislation if we have not been given the chance to adequately study and consider its merits and shortcomings?

This is especially true for me, colleagues, as a non-affiliated senator. Senator Plett, in his remarks on Motion 53, referenced it as not being time allocation as it had unanimity in its support. At no point was I consulted, informed or approached about the process around this bill or any other such legislative matters.

I can only assume the same was true for my non-affiliated colleagues. This long-standing subjugation of the unaffiliated has removed my voice and opinion from larger decisions of the Senate, including Bill C-28. I take exception to that.

Colleagues, I would like to state that I support the concept of this bill; I do not support the practice. Self-induced extreme intoxication should never be accepted as a viable defence for heinous and criminal acts. It is a loophole that needs to be closed. The closing of this loophole is intended, of course, to ensure guilty parties do not elude punishment on what constitutes a technicality. It is also, of equal importance, intended as a protection for the victims, who are largely women, from the criminal acts that tend to flow from self-induced extreme intoxication.

Honourable senators, given the extremely short time frame between the Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling on this matter and the introduction of this legislation in the House being a little over a month, it should come as no surprise that the issue of inadequate consultation has been a big one. I note that the issue of inadequate consultation is also not a new one.

As it pertains to Bill C-28, this issue has been raised by one of the groups that had actually been consulted, the National Association of Women in the Law, or NAWL. They contest that they, as well as many other interested stakeholders, have faced a lack of meaningful consultation. They also rightly state that the Senate, through the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, would greatly benefit from hearing from medical experts, women’s groups and Crown prosecutors whose job it is to prosecute on behalf of victims.

When questioned on this shortcoming by Senator White during Committee of the Whole, Minister Lametti responded by saying:

We did the consultations we could do in the time that we had from the date of the Supreme Court decision. We reached out.

You must admit, honourable senators, that this is a less‑than‑confidence‑inspiring response.

Honourable senators, beyond the issue of consultation, it has been raised that there are serious concerns that Bill C-28 represents a flawed piece of legislation. This concern, at its core, is that Bill C-28 will not accomplish what it seeks to. This is due to the fact that the burden of proof, which regrettably falls on the Crown and the victim, is a threshold that is nearly impossible to meet.

The National Association of Women in the Law registered a very valid concern around the stringent requirements for prosecutors to prove beyond a reasonable doubt both that the loss of control after the consumption of intoxicants was reasonably foreseeable, as well as the foreseeability of harm. In their words, through their June 21 press release, NAWL indicates:

Indeed, NAWL is concerned that this reform will prove impossible for the prosecution to implement. And that in the end, the heavy burden of men’s extremely intoxicated violence will fall predominantly on the women they harm. This is because the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a reasonable person could have foreseen that the accused’s consumption of a given intoxicant could cause loss of voluntary control, even though reasonable people may not actually know the effects of the intoxicants they are consuming, particularly with respect to quantities and combinations of intoxicants. Further, the Crown must now also prove that the reasonable person could have foreseen that the consumption of the intoxicants could lead them to become violent and harm others, even though there appears to be little scientific evidence to support the claim that any particular drug makes violence more likely.

As some of you will know, this concern has also been echoed to senators’ offices by the Alberta Council of Women’s Shelters, known as ACWS, an organization that supports over 50 shelters across the province of Alberta for women, children and seniors facing domestic abuse. In their words, they are working “. . . to end domestic violence through culture-shifting violence prevention programs, collective data and research, and front-line training.”

Colleagues, our Senate committee would have done well to learn from groups like NAWL and ACWS and Indigenous organizations, due to their expertise and boots-on-the-ground work.

If such organizations register concern with the process and content of this legislation, we would be wise to heed their words.

As Minister Lametti stated before the Senate:

You may have been aware of the reaction to the Supreme Court decision. It was pretty much universal across Canada. . . .“You need to act quickly.”

Honourable senators, it is a fine line that exists between acting quickly and acting negligently. I am worried that we find ourselves on the wrong side of that line when it comes to Bill C-28. We have heard senators during Committee of the Whole make remarks to the minister by saying such things as, “The law would be entirely ineffective due to the burden placed on prosecutors,” and:

. . . what I worry about here is that the proposal . . . will miss the mark and almost nobody will be able to be convicted under this provision.

Honourable senators, I believe this bill is yet another form of violence against women, and particularly Indigenous women. And do I trust the government? Do Indigenous women trust the government? I would say no. Why would we place our trust in such an institution?

Let us ensure we do the right thing for Canadians and not the convenient thing for parliamentarians as we prepare to vote on Bill C-28. Thank you. Kinanâskomitin.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Yes, I do.

Senator McCallum: Senator Pate, my question is around the violence that occurs in the communities. Stemming that violence has many origins and they require different interventions, and some of those interventions go beyond legislation. They cannot be legislated. Those are societal responses. The communities need to play a part in what is happening in their communities. For that reason, I arranged a meeting with Senator Boisvenu and Indigenous groups in Winnipeg that are addressing this violence, and they are working hand in hand with Senator Boisvenu now.

I think that, like you said, it is not a stand-alone. I have seen this happen time and time again with legislation and there was no community involvement. The work that’s being done by the communities in Winnipeg is successful, and they are willing to work with Senator Boisvenu. Wouldn’t it be good for this to go to committee so that people can hear about what is happening at the community level?

Senator McCallum: When they talk to Senator Boisvenu and myself about the programs they have, they work with the men who have committed the violence. They have a very high success rate. They also work individually with women. They work with youth. And there is so much potential.

One of the reasons we met with her was to look at what resources were needed. I think that if we do more work like this, working with the community, with the legislation that we’re working with, that there is much more success, our legislation will have fewer gaps, and that we will see if these interventions will work. They are willing to go through this and work with the system. So I think it’s a great step ahead.