OTTAWA — A bill that would expose parents to criminal prosecution for spanking their children has cleared the Senate, bound to reopen wounds still sore from a Supreme Court ruling four years ago.

Sponsored by Liberal Senator Celine Hervieux-Payette, the bill passed final reading in the Senate on Tuesday night.

Approval in the upper house followed debate and three days' of committee hearings at which criminal defence lawyers and the Canadian Bar Association argued against the criminalizing impact it could have on parents, as well as teachers and caregivers.

Hervieux-Payette, however, was backed by the children's-rights group that lost the Supreme Court challenge against a provision allowing parents and teachers to strike children for "corrective discipline.'' She said that if the Commons does not pass the bill she will continue to reintroduce it until it becomes law.

"What I'm saying is every citizen in this country will have their physical integrity preserved,'' she said in an interview Wednesday, adding she believes she will get the support of party Leader Stephane Dion to pass the bill if the Liberals form a majority government after the next federal election.

But even Hervieux-Payette's own caucus is divided over the legislation, which the Liberal Senate majority passed over Conservative objections with no recorded vote.

The bill proposes to eliminate Section 43 of the Criminal Code, which says any parent, schoolteacher or a person standing in the place of a parent "is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child'' over age two and under age 13 "if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.''

In a split decision, the Supreme Court ruled in 2004 that the provision "adversely affects'' security of the person for children who would be protected by the Charter of Rights, but only to a limited extent that does not offend fundamental principles of justice.

The majority judgment also rejected arguments that spanking and striking children was "cruel and unusual punishment'' and cited safeguards in other Criminal Code sections against abusive or harmful conduct against children.

In response to concerns from the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers, Hervieux-Payette modified the bill before final reading to allow "reasonable force other than corporal punishment'' to prevent children from harming themselves or other children and from engaging in conduct that would be criminal or "excessively'' offensive or disruptive.

That would allow parents and caregivers "to interfere, but they cannot hit them or spank them,'' Hervieux-Payette said.

Even before the bill reached the Commons, set to adjourn for the summer, MPs were split.

"I'm a traditionalist,'' said Conservative MP Daryl Kramp, once an Ontario Provincial Police officer. "I believe that parents should be able to make the decision best for their own family.''

Calgary Conservative MP Art Hanger, another former police officer agreed, saying "I believe the status quo is very acceptable.''

Liberal whip Karen Redman was conflicted, saying she understood the need to protect children from physical abuse, but also that she believes physical force is sometimes necessary.

"When I think back, when my children were little, there were times when you smacked them on the bum, but it was a diapered bum and it was as much to get their attention,'' she said.

Both Kramp and Hervieux-Payette recalled being spanked when they were children, each now staking out a different position on the value of the experience.

"I think it was only once, but I remember it very well,'' said Kramp, who added he could not recall why his father disciplined him but "I learned that when my father said no, he meant no.''

Hervieux-Payette, who acknowledged having struck her own daughter once on the arm, said her father spanked her when she was just over the age of two for following a church band for two kilometres in the family's small Quebec village.

"You build a certain fear, in that case it was my father, and certainly it's breaking something between you, even if they tell you that they love you.''

The head of the Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law, which mounted the Supreme Court challenge against Section 43, argued children should have the same right to protection from physical violence as parents.

"There is a simple, fundamental dignity issue that would say children should be treated as people who are entitled to be free from assault, the same as anyone else,'' said Martha Mackinnon, the foundation's executive director.