SoVote
- New
- Search
- Home
- Citizenry
- Legislature
- About Us
- Our Values
- Contact Us
- Get the App
- Day Theme
- Oct/25/22 2:00:00 p.m.
Senator Boisvenu: First of all, thank you for your speech on domestic violence, senator. The latest numbers are quite disturbing. In New Brunswick, over the last 10 years, domestic violence has increased by 38%, while in Quebec, it has increased by 34%.
Do you think it is right that we are talking about domestic violence in this chamber? As we speak, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs is studying a bill that will virtually decriminalize sexual harassment and home invasion. There are a whole host of crimes that are currently in the Criminal Code for which sentences can be handed down, but they will basically be decriminalized because the offenders will be sent home to serve their sentences.
Do you think it is right that we are talking about domestic violence in this chamber and that, at the same time, a Senate committee is studying a bill that proposes more lenient sentences for people who assault women?
[English]
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- Oct/25/22 2:00:00 p.m.
- Re: Bill C-11
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: All those in favour of the motion will please say “yea.”
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- Oct/25/22 2:00:00 p.m.
Senator Ringuette: Senator Deacon, I’m from a rural area with very harsh winters. I would say that anything between 30% and 35% of our businesses are seasonal businesses — and maybe Senator Mockler can corroborate this — therefore, these seasonal businesses need seasonal employees. I would like for you to tell this chamber what it is that you understand to qualify four times in your short speech that seasonal workers, by getting EI benefits, are being incentivized to stay home. In my long years of being a parliamentarian and talking to the people from my rural area, I have never met anyone who enjoys staying home and having to survive on Employment Insurance, or EI, benefits. Could you please qualify how you see this bill creating an incentive for people to stay home?
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you very much, Senator Ringuette. If you have to work 100 fewer hours to qualify for EI, and someone across the street has to work 100 more hours, one has a strong incentive to make sure they work the required number of hours. That’s what I am referencing. If we have a situation where you have folks who are around places where there are lots of jobs, and lots of jobs that are unfilled, we should be making sure that changing the system in some way, shape or form ensures that they have a reason to keep on looking for the next position versus perhaps going on earlier in the season.
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- Oct/25/22 2:00:00 p.m.
Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. Canadians have been clear that they expect their government — their governments, in fact — to do more to fight climate change, to reduce emissions and to transition away from emission-intensive energy in Canada and abroad. That is why the Regional Tables to which I’ve referred have been established.
As well, every year across Canada, we’re seeing the increasingly devastating and costly impacts of climate change — from floods, to wildfires, to severe storms that have hit us recently in the East.
The government recognizes that urgent action is needed to provide and build local resiliency and protect communities in the years ahead. That’s why the government is investing over $3.3 billion in the Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund, which supports communities in building local resiliency.
The government knows that to reduce emissions, we need to move towards lesser emission-intensive energy sources. That is why — from the federal investment in the Atlantic Loop to the development of small modular reactors, or SMRs, and government investments in renewable energy across the country — the government is not only decarbonizing our electrical grid, but increasing our clean electrical production.
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- Oct/25/22 2:00:00 p.m.
Hon. Claude Carignan: My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Leader, in an article by the esteemed journalist Daniel Leblanc published on Radio-Canada last week, we learned that the federal government searched employees’ telephone records and emails last year in an attempt to flush out the confidential sources who had criticized the plan to appoint an American who does not speak French as head of the Canadian Museum of History.
The article stated, and I quote:
Investigators searched the emails of these employees to try to find evidence of leaks, without success.
They also searched telephone records to see if there were any incoming or outgoing calls to numbers associated with Radio-Canada and CBC.
Leader, does your government remember that in 2017, both houses unanimously passed Bill S-231 to protect journalistic sources?
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- Oct/25/22 2:00:00 p.m.
Hon. Brian Francis: My question is for Senator Gold.
According to recent news reports, only about 18% of federal government employees have taken any Indigenous sensitivity training. Chris Aylward, President of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, said the union wanted to make such training a mandatory part of the collective agreement, but was told “no” by the Treasury Board.
In reference to Call to Action 57, could you confirm whether the federal government will be making ongoing training related to Indigenous peoples mandatory for all federal public servants?
I would also like you to update this chamber on what each federal department and each agency is doing to ensure public servants have the awareness and competencies necessary to be sensitive and responsive to the particular rights and needs of Indigenous peoples.
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- Oct/25/22 2:00:00 p.m.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the Honourable John Main, Member of the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut, Minister of Health and Minister responsible for Suicide Prevention; Mr. Ron Elliott, former Member of the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut; and Priya Sharma, General Manager for the Nunavut Chamber of Mines. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Patterson.
On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- Oct/25/22 2:00:00 p.m.
Hon. Nancy J. Hartling: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Inquiry No. 10 by calling the attention of the Senate to intimate partner violence, or IPV, especially in rural areas across Canada. This inquiry is in response to the coroner’s inquest conducted in Renfrew County, Ontario. My sincere gratitude to my friend and colleague Senator Boniface for highlighting this critical issue.
I speak in solidarity with others, especially women, because gender-based violence is, in my view, an epidemic that permeates the lives of our sisters, mothers, daughters, aunts, friends and co‑workers from all walks of life across our country.
Today, I want to highlight the dangers women face in rural areas. For most of my adult life, I have worked in the not-for-profit sector helping women and their children leaving violent relationships, while working to change social programs and pushing for funding of programs and services. For decades, I’ve witnessed their suffering, and I’ve mourned lives lost by IPV.
This inquiry is partly a response to the Ontario coroner’s inquest into the deaths of three Ontario women: Carol Cullerton, 66, Anastasia Kuzyk, 36, and Nathalie Warmerdam, 48, on one horrifying day at the hands of a known, violent abuser. A good friend of mine who has worked with women in shelters and who lived in the county told me the whole community was devastated. Carol, Anastasia and Nathalie died because the man who had been deemed a high risk to reoffend was able to gain access to them unhindered.
Throughout the coroner’s inquest, the jury heard about the many opportunities missed to protect all three women. This included the lack of enforcement of release conditions, the lack of supervision of the perpetrator and the lack of communication between the victims and probation officers in the months leading up to the murders. Dr. Peter Jaffe, former director of the Centre for Research & Education on Violence Against Women & Children, testified there were 100 opportunities to intervene in the case. One hundred interventions that might have saved their lives. The jury’s final verdict included 86 recommendations for systemic changes to the way the province deals with intimate partner violence. Each recommendation is a response to the accumulation of failures that provided the opportunity to commit these terrible crimes.
These recommendations echo many of the same recommendations made by the Ontario Domestic Violence Death Review Committee set up by the coroner’s office over 20 years ago to systematically track such cases and provide meaningful recommendations on how to prevent them. For a variety of reasons, including the fact they’re not legally binding, the committee’s recommendations have been left largely unimplemented. It’s little wonder the deaths have not stopped.
We’re not lacking in knowledge. We’re lacking in political will.
Although some of the recommendations are specific to Ontario, there are so many parallels between the provinces and territories that are equally applicable in every jurisdiction, including in my home province of New Brunswick.
With regard to research and policy development on the subject, I would like to highlight the work of the Muriel McQueen Fergusson Centre for Family Violence Research, named for our former New Brunswick senator and speaker of the Senate who was an activist dedicated to ending violence against women. The Centre’s work, which is focused on gender-based violence, has assisted our province in making a difference.
Nevertheless, violence against women and girls continues in Canada. Between 2014 and 2020, there were 576 victims of intimate partner homicide in Canada, and 80% of the victims were women. Sadly, one woman is murdered by her intimate partner every six days in Canada. That number is staggering, and isn’t going down. IPV comes in many forms: psychological, physical, sexual and financial abuse.
One of the most insidious and difficult to detect types of violence that women experience is called coercive control, where an intimate partner engages in a pattern of behaviour intended to isolate, humiliate, exploit or dominate the victim, thereby stripping away their freedom and their sense of self. This type of behaviour, although not captured in police-reported final statistics — as it’s not currently illegal in Canada — is a significant predictor of violence and murder. It is worth noting that two thirds of women killed by their partners suffered years of being abused, which underscores the importance of intervention. There is a cycle of violence where women in abusive relationships go through a honeymoon phase where the partner tries to make amends and asks for forgiveness. These women may be less likely to realize they are at risk, and are less likely to report incidents.
If we compare urban versus rural communities, the rate of police-reported intimate partner violence against women in Canada was 461 per 100,000 people in urban areas, and 985 per 100,000 people in rural areas. In New Brunswick, the rate is 722 per 100,000 people in urban environments, and 823 per 100,000 in rural areas — the highest rate in Atlantic Canada. It’s critical to note that women in rural areas experienced violence at almost twice the rate of women in urban areas. In New Brunswick, 70% of IPV deaths took place in rural areas in small towns, and many died by firearms.
Of course, the lack of services, interventions, internet and transportation in rural areas is a factor. Living in rural areas, as many of us know, is different, because there are often tight-knit bonds between people, which many of us enjoy. However, the downside is if you’re living in a violent situation, it may be hard to call on your neighbours. Survivors report difficulty in being believed, especially when the person committing the abuse is well respected. Often, seeking help means disclosing information to someone who may have a close connection to the person committing the abuse. This makes seeking help more difficult and increases the risk of retribution because the chances are high that the abuser will discover that the victim is looking for a way out. To make matters worse, women looking to leave an abusive situation fear that they may have to leave their community altogether, for example, leaving a family farm or another small business into which the victim has poured a tremendous amount of resources. The most dangerous time for a woman to be killed is when she’s about to leave, if it’s known.
Women in rural communities may be older, too. This is especially true in New Brunswick where the average age is 45, second only to Newfoundland. Sometimes religious values and beliefs may mean they’re more likely to self-blame and keep any abuse secret because they believe in being married for life or “until death do us part.” Gender stereotypes make leaving the relationship difficult.
Another characteristic that puts rural women at greater risk is the prevalence and normalization of firearms ownership. The presence of firearms in the home increases the chances that they will be used to commit murder or provide the means for the abuser to use them as a threat and a form of coercive control.
Despite the close-knit bonds, rural living can also mean isolation. This was especially true during COVID-19, where the ability to travel anywhere was severely diminished by lockdowns, and increased unemployment left many women vulnerable to social isolation. Everyone being at home created tension. This is compounded by a lack of access to alternative transportation, to high-speed internet or to cellphone coverage. In a study conducted by our office, law student Alexandra George described how deeply New Brunswick women were impacted by this reality. In New Brunswick, the shelters were caught off guard by a double pandemic. They were left scrambling, trying to piece together emergency plans that would allow them to operate safely during COVID-19 while facing a jump in demand for services.
I would like to highlight the impacts pertaining to rural, remote and northern communities, for many of the women who live in these communities are Indigenous. They may also be dealing with intergenerational trauma, lower income, poor funding of services and infrastructure, higher rates of substance abuse and a deep distrust in police and government due to colonial violence, which may act as a deterrent to reporting and using victim services. All these factors put Indigenous women at a substantially higher risk of experiencing intimate partner violence. About 61% of Indigenous women have experienced it in some form in the course of their lives. Reclaiming Power and Place: The Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls has a great deal to say about this and about how our collective indifference can result in the murder and disappearance of hundreds of women.
Friends, I think you’re getting the picture that this is a very serious situation. We’ve looked at the stats on intimate partner violence, we’ve touched on some kinds of violence that they experience and we’ve explored a bit about why women in rural and remote areas are at higher risk. I’m asking you, seriously: What is going to keep our women and girls safe in Canada? Over 40 years have gone by, and this has not been solved. It’s getting worse. Why? Don’t we care? We have the resources. We have a justice system. We have the means. I just don’t get it.
Recently, I obtained a book from British author Joan Smith called Home Grown: How Domestic Violence Turns Men into Terrorists. The author’s research draws parallels between some world situations where domestic violence was a key factor and then a terrorist situation later took place. She says dealing with domestic violence in a comprehensive way may cost us up front, but over the long term the damages to women and children, prison sentences and horrific acts of public violence cost a lot more. Sadly, we don’t have to look beyond Portapique, Nova Scotia, where the perpetrator — who came from an abusive home — murdered 22 innocent victims. His spouse was a victim of IPV, and he victimized other women too. There are links between abusive behaviour at home and his decision to carry out one of the worst mass murders in living memory. It was heartbreaking, and continues to be devastating, for these families and communities. I grew up only 15 minutes from there, so I think about this a lot.
All the recommendations at the coroner’s inquest are important and not necessarily new, but I will highlight three areas of most concern to me. First, the criminal justice system needs major adjustments. This was made very clear by what happened in Renfrew County; more effective supervision is necessary during probation. Despite multiple warnings from the victims that they were concerned about their safety, supervision of the perpetrator was such that he was allowed to move closer to the victims, continuously breaching his conditions and even openly expressing his contempt and denial of the responsibility for his previous actions. Had the victims’ concerns been taken seriously by the criminal justice system, had he been reprimanded for not adhering to the conditions of his probation and had the accumulated evidence that he was a risk to women been taken seriously, he may not have been able to commit these crimes. Of course, this requires a serious rethink of how we as a society and the criminal justice system perceive the severity of IPV. Perhaps it’s time to enshrine concepts such as femicide into the Criminal Code so it stands as a separate offence and a reminder how IPV works.
I believe we should give consideration to creating a specific offence for coercive control in the Criminal Code. This would reflect just how dangerous coercive control is and would provide a pathway for victims to exit dangerous relationships through the cover of law. As we discussed previously, coercive control is a prime indicator for future violence and murder, so this could be an effective preventative measure.
Second, funding for infrastructure such as transportation and high-speed internet in rural areas, along with better and more stable funding for women’s shelters, second-stage housing and other aid groups, is needed. I often wonder: Why do women and children have to hide out in shelters and leave everything behind? Nonetheless, shelters are desperately needed until things change so that women and children can escape violence. This critical infrastructure saves lives and is needed. Yet, too often these organizations need to expand resources, chasing down grants which put their staff in precarious positions of not knowing where funding will come from, or having to spend time writing grants rather than developing safety plans with their clients. Women and children in New Brunswick can only stay in a shelter for 30 days. Then what? With a housing crisis, high rent and inflation, it’s no wonder women feel trapped in a violent relationship. There are few shelters in rural areas, so many have to move to urban areas, and then what? This is highly disruptive to children. And what about their favourite pets? Must they be left at home?
Finally, training awareness and action are so important. Awareness is one of the key issues that come up repeatedly. It’s not just for victims, but for all of us, to be aware of IPV in our communities, our workplaces and our professions. I taught a UNB course to nursing students for seven years called Introduction to Family Violence Issues so that as they entered their nursing careers they would be aware of what to look for, whether it was IPV, elder abuse or other types of abuse. Part of my teaching was to engage these students so they could look at their own relationships and at those around them, and think about what that meant. Awareness campaigns can have a tremendous impact on opening up the possibilities of escaping violence. In New Brunswick, we have the Silent Witness Project, a travelling exhibit of life-sized red silhouettes made in the shape of women who died. Often, their families will bring a scarf or jewelry to put on the silhouette. Awareness emboldens bystanders to say something, opens up the possibility of leaving for victims and erodes the ability of abusers to control information. Campaigns such as the Silent Witness Project are excellent. New Brunswick has had many advertising campaigns over the past 40 years, and they have helped to a degree. But we need zero tolerance. We have a lot of training for first responders, nurses, police, doctors, churches and workplaces. Combined with this, I believe the implementation of stronger legislation to close the gaps is imperative.
In conclusion, colleagues, I’m grateful to be able to speak about this important topic, but I’m very frustrated that we have to keep talking about this year after year. I hope you don’t sleep tonight. I hope you don’t sleep well. I hope you’ll think about this, because this is an issue we need to take seriously. We need to take action so that your grandchildren don’t have to keep talking about living with IPV.
It has been said that until more men speak out against domestic violence and change toxic notions of masculinity that link men with violence, and until the men support us women, things won’t change. I’ve appreciated Senator Manning, Senator Boisvenu and others in our chamber who have an interest in this topic. This isn’t something we have to live with. I think it’s imperative that we take action as IPV erodes equality and the fabric of our society as women and girls continue to suffer an overwhelming burden. We can’t ignore this epidemic. Thank you.
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- Oct/25/22 2:00:00 p.m.
The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Deacon’s time has expired.
Senator Deacon, are you asking for five more minutes to answer more questions?
Senator C. Deacon: If it is the will of the chamber.
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- Oct/25/22 2:00:00 p.m.
Senator Downe: Thank you. Let me join the pile on Senator Deacon because of his earlier comments. I know he’s well aware of Prince Edward Island, because he lived there for many years, but he may not be totally up to date. We have the lowest wages in Canada, and the highest inflation in Canada. Those two coming together are an incentive for people not to seek employment — when their incomes are so low because of the wages being the lowest in Canada. We have to be very conscious of what’s going on in the overall economic picture.
Senator Deacon, like you, I support the subamendment. I think it expands the range of options we can hear and gives time for more reflection. I was not aware of the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report until Senator Ringuette raised it — and I thank her for raising it, because it’s important. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, as we know, does very good work. Senator Deacon, what other witnesses would you suggest, in addition to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, if you were selecting them for this review?
Senator C. Deacon: I would recommend speaking to chambers of commerce, construction associations, tourism associations and restaurant associations to understand what’s happening on the front lines of businesses across the Island — to make sure we’re understanding what the effects are, right now, of labour shortages on the Island. And we can get to the core of whether this is, in any way, related to it — perhaps it is not, and maybe the issues don’t touch on this. I believe there is something to be considered here. Certainly, our witnesses in the Agriculture Committee, when we heard their testimony back in May, said that labour shortage was a big part of their motivation for wanting to see this change. I encourage the committee to consider those sorts of witnesses.
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- Oct/25/22 2:00:00 p.m.
Senator Bellemare: I agree, Senator Patterson, but we have to consider the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report. According to his calculations, Prince Edward Island will receive less benefits overall after the zones are merged. Given the multiplier effect in the region, it’s not very useful to promote growth.
I think that, given the current context, we can wait. That is my answer.
[English]
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- Oct/25/22 2:00:00 p.m.
- Re: Bill C-11
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: I see two senators rising. Do we have agreement on a bell?
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- Oct/25/22 2:00:00 p.m.
Senator Gold: This is pretty rich. Senator Plett, I undertook to make inquiries and I need not say anything more, but allow me. If we’re talking about respect for this chamber, may I remind honourable senators who were perhaps not here during the Forty‑first Parliament when the government you represent introduced time allocation over a hundred times in the House of Commons at various stages. I guess in the alternative world that some people live in that’s respect for the Senate.
With regard to Bill C-11, this chamber gave authority to the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications to engage in a study of this bill in June. Every step of the way, this Government Representative Office has shown respect for the Senate, for the committee process and for the agreements that were brought to us by all four leaders for a third-reading debate. I guess in the alternative world that some of you may live in that is disrespect for the process.
I am not personally offended, but, on behalf of the Senate, I ask that we rein in this rhetoric and deal with true facts.
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- Oct/25/22 2:00:00 p.m.
Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: My question is also for the Government Representative in the Senate. Senator Gold, The Canadian Press reported this morning that the Canadian Forces Ombudsman, Gregory Lick, had some harsh criticism about how CAF reservists and Rangers are being treated.
In 2015, the ombudsman tabled a report that included nine recommendations for how ill and injured reservists and Rangers could be treated better. The ombudsman is now pointing out that none of those recommendations have been implemented since the report was released seven years ago. That is unacceptable.
Senator Gold, since the situation is serious and the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Eyre, has ordered that recruitment and retention be a priority for the Canadian Forces, why has your government ignored this report since 2015?
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- Oct/25/22 2:00:00 p.m.
Senator Boisvenu: Furthermore, Senator Gold, you know that Arctic security has become a matter of capital importance since Russia invaded Ukraine. Could you table in this chamber the action plan that the Minister of Defence plans to adopt in order to address the main gaps identified by the Canadian Forces Ombudsman? The gaps include, and I quote:
. . . a lack of follow up after reservists are deployed on military tasks, excessive red tape in asking for assistance . . . .
He mentions in particular that the army does not communicate with reservists and Rangers to let them know what help is available.
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- Oct/25/22 2:00:00 p.m.
Hon. Marilou McPhedran: My question is for Senator Gold. This summer, members of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights released their carefully documented report, The Scars that We Carry: Forced and Coerced Sterilization of Persons in Canada — Part II. The victims’ harrowing testimonies detailed racist treatment that harmed women, through invasive surgery, when they were at their most vulnerable: when they were in labour or when they were in that hazy state following birth. What those who give birth need when they are in and following labour is expertise, advocacy and support.
The Senate report recommended that one way to achieve this is with well-trained and culturally competent midwives. Currently in Canada, there are fewer than 10 midwifery programs. They include cultural competency elements, and they are excellent programs that reserve seats for Indigenous students and emphasize Indigenous realities. However, they are too few. There are provinces with no midwifery education programs.
In many communities, especially northern and remote ones, the lack of midwifery supports limits and constrains women’s abilities to choose. They must travel to hospitals far from their families to birth their babies in an environment with back-up care in case of difficulty. Senator Gold, what leadership, including funding, is the federal government undertaking to work with provinces and territorial governments to address this issue?
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- Oct/25/22 2:00:00 p.m.
Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): You get another opportunity, Senator Gold.
Government leader, recently we learned of the bill that taxpayers will be footing for Canada’s delegation to Her Majesty the Queen’s funeral. I had to rub my eyes a few times to make sure I was seeing things properly, because the cost of hotel rooms alone is reflected at just shy of $400,000. This includes charges from the Corinthia Hotel in London. The bill for the hotel reflects a charge of £4,800 per night for the River Suite, which works out to more than $6,000 per night for five nights. I wonder who was staying in that room.
Leader, I’m old enough to remember the pushback directed at former Conservative minister Bev Oda over a $16 glass of orange juice in 2012. In fact, the current Prime Minister himself was calling for Minister Oda to resign at that time. Senator Gold, is there a reason that the bill was so high other than the fact that this Prime Minister thinks he’s above any sort of accountability to taxpayers?
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- Oct/25/22 2:00:00 p.m.
Hon. Lucie Moncion: Colleagues, Mariette Carrier-Fraser passed away on September 15. She was born on October 19, 1943, in Jogues, a small village near the town of Hearst in northern Ontario.
The third of nine children, she came from humble beginnings. Mariette started Grade 1 at the age of four, which was extraordinary and unusual for the time. At the age of 17, she began her teaching career in Hearst and spent the next 36 years in the teaching profession. She rose through the ranks to become assistant deputy minister of French-language education at the Department of Education, a position she held from 1983 to 1997.
She was very active in her community. She became the founding principal of St. Noël Chabanel school at the age of 26 and later of Notre-Dame school in Hamilton at the age of 32. She was then recruited by the Department of Education to manage French-language education advisory services in Ontario, before being appointed regional superintendent and then assistant deputy minister of education. As Bette Stephenson, the Minister of Education at the time, put it:
[English]
“It’s safer to have you on the inside than on the outside.”
[Translation]
Mrs. Carrier-Fraser was the driving force behind establishing French-language sections in every school board, securing equitable funding for Catholic secondary education, establishing Collège Boréal and Collège des Grands Lacs and creating Ontario’s 12 French-language school boards.
Throughout the years, Mariette championed francophones’ right to education in French. She fought for francophones to have their own institutions, an expanded curriculum and access to quality programs.
Her achievements were remarkable, but, as she said, a lot remained to be done.
After retiring, Mariette got involved with many organizations. She chaired the French Language Health Services Advisory Council and served on the boards of Laurentian University, the Postsecondary Education Quality Assessment Board, La Cité, the Northern Ontario School of Medicine University, the Montfort Hospital, the Centre d’appui et de prévention and the Réseau des services de santé en français de l’Est de l’Ontario. She was the first president of the Assemblée de la francophonie de l’Ontario.
She received numerous prestigious awards, including the Order of Canada, the Ordre de la Pléiade and an Ontario Francophonie Award.
This incredible woman made a lasting impact on all who knew her. She was a strong, competent woman with a brilliant mind and a unique way of approaching people. She was a unifying force, a go-getter, an agent of change, a model of commitment and determination who advanced the cause of francophone minority communities and French-language education in Ontario. Mariette Carrier-Fraser was incredibly compassionate and had great respect for others. She took her rightful place in Ontario’s francophone community with pride, honesty and wisdom.
I offer my deepest condolences to her daughters, Lori and Brenda, to her brothers and sisters and her entire extended family.
Rest in peace, my friend, and know that your star will continue to shine for all those who knew and loved you.
Thank you.
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- Oct/25/22 2:00:00 p.m.
Hon. Michèle Audette: Kwei, honourable colleagues.
[Editor’s Note: Senator Audette spoke in Innu.]
I rise today in the upper chamber with my heart full of pride. This is why: On October 3, Quebecers went to the polls to elect a government. That election was rather special. Several First Nations candidates were running for different parties in the Quebec election. I would like to congratulate and name those candidates: Maïtée Labrecque-Saganash, Kateri Champagne Jourdain, Jacline Rouleau, Jacques T. Watso, Gérard Briand, Michaël Ottereyes, Benjamin Gingras and Tunu Napartuk.
In this election, Kateri Champagne Jourdain became the first Innu woman to be elected as an MNA. That is amazing. The same sense of pride was felt when Alexis Wawanoloath, an Abenaki man, became the first Indigenous person to be elected to the National Assembly many moons ago.
On Thursday, October 20, there was another first in Quebec’s history when Kateri Champagne Jourdain was appointed Minister of Employment and minister responsible for the North Shore region, my beloved North Shore. To say I am proud is an understatement.
I will echo the words of my community’s chief, Mike Pelash Mckenzie, who said the following after her appointment:
Kateri Champagne Jourdain’s appointment to cabinet is a wonderful sign of confidence and recognition from the premier. Ms. Champagne Jourdain is unquestionably skilled, and we are confident she will succeed in her role.
He believes that this is more proof for the members of our nation, especially women and youth, that we can all succeed and have an important role in society. We wish Ms. Champagne Jourdain all the best in her new position.
Of course, this appointment is not just historic for me. It recognizes the woman and the Innu woman, especially her skills, her knowledge, her leadership and her language, Innu-aimun. As we say back home, that is big. Nasss ne shenen.
I agree with Premier Legault that this appointment does not mean everything should fall on the shoulders of our new Innu minister. I hope that the burden will be shared by Quebec society as a whole and, of course, by this government’s cabinet.
Once again, Kateri, I congratulate you and commend your family for supporting you in this new endeavour. Good luck. Iame.
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- Oct/25/22 2:00:00 p.m.
Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Last Saturday, in Montreal, thousands of women and men marched in solidarity with the women of Iran, who have spent 40 years under the yoke of an Islamist theocracy that violates their basic rights by forcing them to wear the hijab. I marched with them and we chanted, “Women, life, liberty.” We sang Baraye, the anthem that has become the rallying cry of these courageous Iranian women of all ages who are risking their lives by going out with their heads uncovered, hair blowing in the wind. Here is a short excerpt from Baraye:
For dancing in the streets
For our fear when kissing loved ones
For my sister, your sister, our sisters
For yearning for an ordinary life
Several thousand of us marched in Montreal, and over 50,000 people, both women and men, took to the streets in Toronto.
It is no secret that Quebec’s feminist movement is divided on the issue of the veil. Some see the hijab as a symbol of oppression and believe it should be banned in all public institutions. For others, including myself, it is impossible to compare a religious dictatorship like Iran, where women are forced to wear the veil, with western democracies. In Quebec, for example, women are often free to wear the hijab or not, although there is no denying that there are cases in which family pressures force them to cover up. Here, too, the veil is polysemous, in that it has different meanings.
Unfortunately, this division between Quebec feminists is preventing us from expressing our solidarity. One camp criticizes the other for being too silent in the face of the Iranian women’s uprising, while the other worries that Quebec women who wear the veil will be even more stigmatized.
Instead of being divided like this, I want Quebecers to rally around what unquestionably unites us, namely our support for Iranian women who want to be free. We may very well be witnessing the start of the world’s first feminist revolution. It is an inspiring time. In the demonstrations in Iran, women without veils are leading the charge alongside their veiled sisters, and many men are risking their lives to share in their struggle. Let’s put our differences aside and support them in their quest for fundamental freedom.
[English]
- Hear!
- Rabble!