THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, October 9, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with videoconference this day at 4:15 p.m. [ET] to study Bill S-249, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy for the prevention of intimate partner violence, and to study Bill S-276, An Act respecting Ukrainian Heritage Month.
Senator Ratna Omidvar (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: I am Senator Ratna Omidvar and I am from Ontario.
[English]
Before I begin, colleagues, I would like to do a round table and have senators introduce themselves, starting with the deputy chair of our committee.
Senator Cordy: My name is Jane Cordy. I’m a senator from Nova Scotia.
Senator Senior: Paulette Senior, senator from Ontario.
Senator Moodie: Rosemary Moodie, Ontario.
Senator Burey: Sharon Burey, senator for Ontario.
Senator Osler: Flordeliz Gigi Osler, senator from Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: René Cormier from New Brunswick.
Senator Petitclerc: Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Manning: Fabian Manning, Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Suze Youance from Quebec.
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Today we are proceeding to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-249, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy for the prevention of intimate partner violence.
I’d like to welcome back officials from Women and Gender Equality Canada, Justice Canada, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada and Indigenous Services Canada, who are either in the room with us today or joining us by video conference and are available to answer questions that committee members may have.
I’ll briefly introduce them to you. From Women and Gender Equality Canada, Crystal Garrett-Baird, Director General, Gender-Based Violence. She is joining us via video conference. From Justice Canada, Criminal Law Policy Section, Nathalie Levman, Senior Counsel, also by video conference; and Stéphanie Bouchard, Senior Counsel and Director over there at the back. From Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, Krista Apse, Director General, Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, and Growth Secretariat, Policy and Strategic Direction, also at the back. From Indigenous Services Canada, Nathalie Nepton, Director General, Social Policy and Programs Branch, Education and Social Development Programs and Partnership Sector. It clearly takes a village to move forward on this.
Before we begin, I’d like to remind senators of a number of points. If at any point, a senator is not clear where we are in the process, please ask for clarification. We want to ensure that we all have the same understanding of where we are in the process at all times.
In terms of the mechanics of the process, when more than one amendment is proposed to be moved in a clause, amendments should be proposed in order of the lines of a clause.
If a senator is opposed to an entire clause, the proper process is not to move a motion to delete the entire clause, but rather to vote against the clause as standing as part of the bill.
Some amendments that are moved may have consequential effects on other parts of the bill. It is, therefore, useful to this process if a senator moving an amendment identifies to the committee other clauses in this bill where this amendment could have an effect. Otherwise, it becomes difficult for members of the committee to remain consistent in their decision making.
Because no notice is required to move amendments, there may, of course, have been no preliminary analysis of the amendments to establish which ones may be of consequence or contradictory to others.
If committee members ever have any questions about the process or the propriety of anything occurring, they can certainly raise a point of order. As chair, I will listen to the argument, decide when there has been sufficient discussion of a matter or order and then make a ruling. The committee is the master of its own business, within the bounds established by the Senate, and a ruling can be appealed to the full committee by asking whether the ruling shall be sustained.
I wish to remind honourable senators that if there is ever any uncertainty as to the results of a voice vote or a show of hands, the most effective route is to request a roll call vote, which obviously provides unambiguous results.
Finally, senators are aware that any tied vote negates the motion in question. Are there any questions as to the process? We have done this many times. I will remind everyone, though, that this is legislation, so we have to be mindful of everything.
Colleagues, we are now going to proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-249. Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-249, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy for the prevention of intimate partner violence?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
Senator Manning: I move an amendment to clause 2, Madam Chair.
That Bill S-249 be amended in clause 2, on page 1,
(a) by deleting lines 10 to 12;
(b) by deleting lines 15 to 20.
The reason for the rationale behind this amendment, Madam Chair and committee members, is the removal of these definitions is required because they are referenced in paragraphs 3(2)(c) and 3(2)(d). It is proposed that these paragraphs be removed.
The Chair: Colleagues, I see we have some questions.
Senator Cormier: Could Senator Manning repeat the line exactly?
The Chair: Let’s go again to the lines.
Senator Manning: By deleting lines 10 to 12, which is the definition of “medical practitioner” in the bill, and deleting lines 15 to 20, which is the definition of “nurse practitioner” in the bill. Sorry about that.
Senator Cormier: The French and English are different.
The Chair: Senator Manning, the French and English are different. Can you refer us to the appropriate lines, both in English or French?
Senator Manning: I can try in English.
The Chair: Senator Seidman, could you do it? Thank you.
Senator Seidman: So it’s line 8 —
Senator Manning: No, lines 10 to 12. Oh, I’m sorry. You mean in the French.
Senator Seidman: In the French version, we’re taking out the definition of —
[Translation]
— “infirmier praticien.”
[English]
It’s lines 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 that we’re removing. Those are the French lines. Then we are removing “nurse practitioner,” but in French we are taking out the definition of —
[Translation]
— “médecin” —
[English]
— which is “medical practitioner,” so those would be lines 14 and 15. Both of those lines are being removed.
Senator Cormier: Do we just keep the “minister” definition? Okay.
The Chair: Senator Manning, I’m going to ask you to repeat your amendment and provide us —
Senator Cordy: I don’t think that’s “minister.” I think on the other side it’s “medical practitioner” we removed, and we removed “nurse practitioner.” Yes, we keep “minister.” I thought you said take it out, sorry. We’re keeping the first and the last in French.
The Chair: Yes, there’s no definition of “intimate partner.”
Senator Seidman: In the French version, there’s no “intimate partner.” The definition isn’t there. There are only three definitions in the French version that I see here, and that’s —
[Translation]
— “infirmier praticien,” “médecin” and “ministre.”
[English]
There’s no definition of “intimate partner.”
The Chair: That is true. There is no definition in French of “intimate partner.” Senator Manning, is there a reason?
Senator Manning: Not that I am aware of. It should be there.
The Chair: It should be there.
Senator Manning: Yes.
The Chair: Colleagues, we will try to resolve this problem and come back to you with the French definition that should be in the bill, under definitions of “intimate partner violence.”
Colleagues, I have some information for you that may influence our discussion on this particular lack of a definition. It is not defined in French because the bill in French does not use the words “intimate partner.” The French version instead uses the term —
[Translation]
— “violence conjugale” —
[English]
— which is used elsewhere in statutes in Canada without definition.
So my recommendation to you is to leave it as it is and not try to make up a definition on the fly, which would have consequential impacts on a whole range of statutes.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: We can do that for the clauses, if we don’t want definitions. The title, however, doesn’t match. In English, it’s “prevention of intimate partner violence,” and in French, it’s “prévention de la violence conjugale.” That’s not consistent either. It’s the title, so we can amend it.
[English]
Prevention of intimate partner violence.
[Translation]
In French, it’s “prévention de la violence conjugale.” It’s not consistent either. It’s the title. It can be amended.
[English]
The Chair: We are going to get back to clause 1, which is the title.
Senator Mégie: After?
The Chair: After, but it’s a very good point, Senator Mégie, thank you. I’m sure Senator Manning has a response to it, but we’re going to hold that response because I want to go according to our tried-and-true plan.
Senator Moodie: I just have a question about aligning. There’s misalignment with “minister” on one side in English and —
[Translation]
— ministre —
[English]
— on the French side. Are we going to align them?
The Chair: The way it has been done is with respect to alphabetical order.
Senator Moodie: On both sides?
The Chair: While the two sides don’t align, they are in keeping with the alphabetical order.
Senator Moodie: Okay, but now that we’re getting rid of two definitions above, are we going to bring up “minister”? Are you aligning them?
The Chair: There will just be two definitions on the English side, “intimate partner” and “minister,” and on the French side, there will only be one definition.
Senator Moodie: Okay. That’s what I’m asking.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. Okay. Shall the amendment carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Senator Cormier?
Senator Cormier: I just wanted to know what we vote on. The amendment that is just —
The Chair: We are voting on the amendment. Shall the amendment to clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 2, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Clause 3. Senator Manning?
Senator Manning: Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to move
That Bill S-249 be amended in clause 3, on page 2,
(a) by replacing lines 1 to 9 with the following:
“3 (1) The Minister must continue to lead national action to prevent and address intimate partner violence.
“(2) In leading national action to prevent and address intimate partner violence, the Minister must engage with other federal and with provincial ministers responsible for the status of women, on an annual basis, and with Indigenous partners, victims and survivors and stakeholders, on a regular basis, with respect to”;
(b) by replacing lines 14 and 15 with the following:
“(b) partnerships in the preven-”;
(c) by replacing lines 18 to 32 with the following:
“(c) the financial and other costs of action to prevent and address intimate partner violence; and
(d) any constitutional, legal or jurisdictional implications of action to prevent and address intimate partner violence.”.
Colleagues, with a focus on actions to prevent intimate partner violence, or IPV, this change underscores the need for ongoing engagement with federal, provincial and territorial partners while aligning this work with the existing engagement mechanisms that are already in place to provide advice and guidance on the ongoing implementation of the National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence.
Further, it is critical that the full range of partners be reflected, not just the ones listed in the current version of the bill. The current wording is narrow and does not recognize other key partnerships that can help prevent intimate partner violence.
The proposed amendment I put forward would expand the scope of the partnerships beyond those currently listed in the paragraph 3(2)(b), including ways to hear from health care professionals to support IPV victims in health care settings. This amendment would also recognize that engagements are continuing as a regular part of the ongoing implementation of the National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Manning. Clause 3 is basically rewritten.
Senator Osler: Thank you, Senator Manning, for bringing forward the amendments. I want to acknowledge your thoughtfulness in changing “consultations” to “engagements,” for recognizing the epidemic of violence against Indigenous women and for taking out the requirements for health professionals and representatives in (c) and (d). Thank you for that. I’m speaking in support of Senator Manning’s amendment.
The Chair: Are there any other questions?
Senator Cormier: I want to make sure that the English version and the French version are aligned in terms of numbers. When the amendment says from lines 1 to 9 —
The Chair: Line 10.
Senator Cormier: Can we just make sure that they are the same? It could be problematic in the French version then.
The Chair: Colleagues, I’ve been informed that the amendments in English and the amendments in French substantively align. The lines don’t align because the French language — I’m trying to find the right words — is a little more expansive.
Senator Cormier: Because the English version is less extensive. That’s what you mean, I imagine. I do agree, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Thank you, sir.
Colleagues, we’re now in amendment on clause 3, page 2. Senator Burey?
Senator Burey: Chair, I wonder if this is where I should speak because I had an amendment which was encompassed by — thank you, Senator Manning — and also speaking in support of that, because there were concerns voiced by many groups about individual autonomy, and Senator Osler already spoke about some of the unintended consequences, especially in marginalized communities and also regarding confidentiality.
So I will withdraw my amendment to clause 3, paragraph (d) in support of Senator Manning’s amendments.
Senator Manning: Thank you. I spoke with the senator yesterday, and what she wanted to do I want to do also. It’s done.
The Chair: Thank you to both of you. Colleagues, we are only voting on Senator Manning’s amendment because Senator Burey has withdrawn her amendment. Shall the amendment to clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Shall clause 3, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Madam Chair?
[English]
The Chair: To which clause, Senator Mégie?
Senator Mégie: This one.
[Translation]
This bothers me a lot. Does everyone agree to putting “intimate partner” in English and “contrer la violence conjugale” in French? Do we all agree on that?
There are other bills before the chamber dealing with domestic violence. Some mention domestic violence but not intimate partners. Will we get all mixed up? Should we accept that there are differences by having two versions? For the bill, once it becomes law, the French version needs to correspond to the English version so that we are voting on the same things. Do we need to propose an amendment stating that we agree with the two versions being different? It seems a little silly. Do you see what I mean?
[English]
The Chair: The French version as written by the legal clerks does not use the words “intimate partner violence.” For whatever reason, Senator Mégie, they use “domestic violence” in French.
Can I ask those who may be better informed about this than I am: Is the language of “intimate partner violence” defined in French in statutes?
Senator Cormier: It’s defined here. There’s no definition in French here in the bill, but in the Criminal Code, there’s a clear definition.
[Translation]
partenaire intime S’entend notamment de l’époux, du conjoint de fait ou du partenaire amoureux, actuels ou anciens, d’une personne. (intimate partner)
[English]
We have a clear definition in the Criminal Code, but apparently, because later in the bill, we don’t define that; we don’t need it. That’s what I understand.
Senator Seidman: What we heard from the chair is that the terminology in French, if I understand correctly, is “la violence conjugale.” Therefore, to keep it consistent, we’re leaving the French terminology.
Senator Mégie: Domestic violence.
Senator Seidman: Senator Mégie brings up a point. You, Senator Cormier, say that there is a definition for “intimate partner violence” in the Criminal Code, so now I don’t understand why we aren’t using the same language in English and French.
Senator Dasko: It’s true. Why not?
The Chair: I’m not clear on that either. Senator Petitclerc, do you see light at the end of this tunnel?
Senator Petitclerc: No, sadly, I don’t.
[Translation]
However, it’s important to do things properly. Our goal is to have the English and the French versions of the bill match. In addition, we need the French terminology to be consistent with what we see elsewhere. That’s my question. Is there a reason why we would pick one thing over another?
[English]
The Chair: I have two points of information. I understand from our law clerk that the two terms have the same meaning, but we should also like to ask the department officials from Women and Gender Equality Canada, or WAGE, and Justice about the implication of changing the language in French away from “domestic violence” to “intimate partner violence.” Could you provide us with your opinion?
Crystal Garrett-Baird, Director General, Gender-Based Violence, Women and Gender Equality Canada: Certainly. I can start and then perhaps turn it over to my colleagues from the Department of Justice, who can speak to what’s referenced in the Criminal Code.
So perhaps the term “domestic violence” was used when the bill was originally tabled in 2018, and then when it was retabled in 2021, the term was changed to “intimate partner violence.” So that may explain, potentially, some of the differentiation.
But “intimate partner violence” is the term that is used now because it refers to that type of violence that happens between intimate partners, which is a little different than the definition of “domestic violence,” but I will turn it over to my Department of Justice colleagues.
Nathalie Levman, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice Canada: Thank you. I have a quick note on the definition that Senator Cormier read out from section 2 of the Criminal Code: It is a very broad definition and fairly modern in the sense that it is the result of an amendment brought into force by Bill C-75 in 2019, so it’s likely your most up-to-date term.
I think the problem that the committee is facing now is that it would be highly unusual, and perhaps one would say there’s no point in defining a term that isn’t actually used in the statute.
If you wanted to use the section 2 definition of “partenaire intime,” it would be necessary to change “violence conjugale” to “violence against an intimate partner” in French, and my colleague Stéphanie Bouchard is francophone and may have a suggestion in that regard.
[Translation]
Stéphanie Bouchard, Senior Counsel and Director, Department of Justice Canada: Good afternoon. You could use “la violence envers un partenaire ou une partenaire intime,” but I’m not a drafter. There are a number of instances of “violence conjugale” in the bill.
Senator Cormier: I’m just trying to understand. Are you referring to the title when you say that? Give us an example in the bill of where we could make that change.
Ms. Bouchard: It may be possible to do it at paragraph 3(2)(b), where it says “prévenir la violence conjugale et de protéger les victimes de violence conjugale.”
It was removed from paragraph (c), I believe. Was it not?
Senator Cormier: Yes.
Ms. Bouchard: It may just need to be reread, then, to make sure —
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Bouchard, for that information. I do not think it is possible for us to go through the bill and replace the two terms so that they are the same.
But before I go to my next step, may I ask: Are there any consequential or knock-on effects of changing the definition in French on other parts of the bill or other statutes? This is a question we must always ask ourselves.
Ms. Levman: Perhaps I could jump in on that question, if that’s okay with the committee.
Both languages are authoritative in terms of what they mean from a legal perspective. You do have the section 2 definition in English, which does indicate an intention to use a very broad term that would include, for example, dating partners. I would assume that courts would interpret both the English and the French, regardless of whether the two languages are perfectly aligned, to include everything that section 2 of the Criminal Code includes when it defines “intimate partner.”
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: I will make things easier for you. Since I don’t know what’s doable, I’ll ask you what can be done.
I was adamant that this bill should pass. However, I will be voting against it because I find it unacceptable that the French version is not being taken seriously and is being tossed aside. We’re told it may be interpreted this way, that judges will interpret it that way. I will therefore be voting against it.
However, I do like the bill, because it’s needed, but voting a bill like this into law is unacceptable to me as a francophone. But you can continue.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you so much, Senator Mégie, first of all, for your attention to this matter. We cannot send the bill back to the chamber. It will only be picked up in the chamber, and that would not be good for the bill or the principles that Senator Manning is proposing.
I have a suggestion, but I will first hear from Senator Moodie.
Senator Moodie: Madam Chair, I’m wondering why this wasn’t picked up by the law clerk before and addressed. This is quite a significant issue. I’m puzzled about why we’re here now dealing with this. Senator Manning, were you asked about this?
Senator Manning: Thank you, Senator Moodie. No, it didn’t come up in our discussions, and, to be honest with you, I’m not bilingual, so I certainly didn’t pick it up myself. I have been working with the minister’s office, and we are working our way through here, but it wasn’t part of the discussion. My understanding was that they felt comfortable with how things were in the bill at the present time. If, for some reason or other, the committee doesn’t feel comfortable, well, that’s a committee decision. But I wouldn’t be able to explain exactly why we have a difference here. It’s beyond me.
The Chair: We have a difference.
Senator Dasko: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to echo the thoughts of Senator Moodie and pick up on the comments of the official who I think said that the interpretation would be based on the English, which is a broader interpretation than we have now in French, “violence conjugale.” That is a narrower definition, the English being “intimate partner violence,” including dating and so on.
I think I heard that it would be interpreted by the English version, but why would that be? I don’t understand.
Senator Cormier: My understanding is that they would refer to the Criminal Code definition, which is broader and a more recent definition. Probably the interpretation would do that.
But I’m not comfortable, Madam Chair, with any of this. I will not make a statement here about bilingualism in this institution, but I’m definitely not comfortable with this. I agree that it’s an important bill, but it’s difficult for us at this stage to have a clear vision of what we think is the best version. I don’t know if we can continue.
The Chair: Is it agreed that we postpone clause-by-clause consideration of this bill to a future date?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Great. Thank you, colleagues. We will postpone.
Senator Manning, possibly after the break, we can come back to address this, and that gives you, your office, your staff and WAGE staff a lot of time to get this in the best shape so that we can actually finish it off.
Senator Manning: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the committee. I fully understand.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
We will now proceed to witness testimony on Bill S-276, An Act respecting Ukrainian Heritage Month, followed by clause-by-clause consideration of this bill.
I invite Senator Dasko to take a seat at the witness table and deliver opening remarks. Senator Dasko, we have gained time. You have five minutes-plus to make your comments.
Hon. Donna Dasko, as an individual: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just as a bit of background, our colleague Senator Kutcher is the sponsor of this bill, and yesterday he became sick with COVID and asked me if I would step in to take on this role here today, so that is why I am here.
My comments are Senator Kutcher’s, but of course, the answers to the questions will be mine. Senators aren’t permitted to appear via video conference. He said:
Thank you, chair, and thank you, colleagues, for making the time today to study Bill S-276, An Act respecting Ukrainian Heritage Month, which aims to designate the month of September as Ukrainian Heritage Month in Canada to celebrate from coast to coast to coast the contributions Ukrainian-Canadians have made and will continue to make for our country.
I would especially like to thank Senator Dasko for presenting my intervention to the committee — let’s emphasize that — due to my medical inability to be with you.
From whence we came is integral to all of us individually and as a society. Our heritage is what we have inherited from the past, those things that we value and enjoy in the present and that which we strive to preserve and pass on to future generations. Heritage is a mixture of things. It is something that we use to understand and respect ourselves, to share that with others and to help us better understand each other. In short, our heritage is a celebration of who we are, who we aspire to be and part of the glue that binds us to each other.
I introduce this bill to honour my Ukrainian heritage with the support and encouragement of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, the Ukrainian diaspora and recently arrived Ukrainians seeking refuge here. During my second reading speech, I spoke to the experience of my parents, grandparents and extended family, of their journey and contributions to Canada. They came from Ukraine having lost all their property, many of their friends and most members of their own families to Russian and Nazi murderers. They sought refuge in Canada following World War II so they could live in peace and without fear. They became part of a much larger Canadian diaspora that traces its roots to Eastern European farmers who came to Canada between 1896 and 1914 to open up Western agriculture. They not only helped build Canada into a global agricultural powerhouse but also preserved Ukrainian culture when the Russian occupation of Ukraine sought to destroy it. We see Russia again destroying Ukrainian culture by spreading propaganda, stealing children, killing innocent civilians and destroying iconic cultural sites. The Ukrainian people are fighting back and holding strong to their identity.
In one small way, this bill reinforces their heritage of resilience in Canada and in the world. I have family in Ukraine, including in Kyiv, which is the target of frequent night attacks on civilian residences, hospitals and energy infrastructure. Every morning, I check to see if they have survived another night. Many Canadians share this experience and are shouldering this heavy burden. This bill will give them a much-needed emotional boost, helping them to carry on.
Russia’s genocidal war on Ukraine has reminded us of the historic tragedies that we hoped were long gone but are now re-emerging. This invasion not only threatens to destroy Ukraine but is also an attack on the shared values that bind us together, such as human rights, democracy and the international rule of law — values on which our multicultural Canada is built.
You may ask, “Why September?” Well, September is a notable month for Canadians of Ukrainian heritage as it was in September over 125 years ago when the first Ukrainian immigrants arrived in Canada. Ivan Pylypow and Wasyl Eleniak arrived on September 7, 1891. This day is marked in Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario as Ukrainian Heritage Day. Marking the month of September nationally would include these days while concurrently allowing for celebrations to occur from coast to coast to coast at times that would serve the needs of various communities.
This year, I’ve had the privilege to attend many Ukrainian cultural events across the country. It was a highlight to be the parade marshal of the Bloor West Village Toronto Ukrainian Festival in September. I got to share that with our colleagues Senators Omidvar, Dasko and Yussuff, a celebration of hope in the face of darker realities.
There are many Ukrainian-Canadians of note. One I would like to revisit is Senator Paul Yuzyk. His leadership informs the Canada we know today. He has been called the father of multiculturalism. In his first speech in our chamber, he insisted that all ethnic groups deserve to be recognized as partners in the Canadian mosaic. He saw our multicultural reality as unity in our diversity and challenged our nation to embrace and celebrate that reality.
Senators, we all recognize the value of unity in our diversity. We are living in a time that calls for more celebration of things that weave us together in the face of things that pull us apart. Next September, I hope that we can mark Ukrainian Heritage Month together.
I thank Senator Dasko for her assistance in presenting this bill to you, and I am delighted that she will answer questions in my COVID-induced absence. D’akuju. Thank you. Wela’lioq.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Dasko, for delivering those remarks on behalf of Senator Kutcher. What do you think of the bill?
Senator Dasko: Madam Chair, I think it’s an excellent bill. I really take note of the expressions in the bill. In particular, the bill encourages us to remember three things: to look to the past, to our history and heritage; to celebrate, which speaks to our present and how we understand our ethnic backgrounds in the present; and to educate future generations about the impactful role that this community has played in Canadian society and history.
I would like to say a few other things. We’ve had many bills at this committee that speak to the heritage of different groups, and two things are very important.
First, these bills, and this recognition of heritage, underscore and build the pride we have in our own heritage. They build our pride, on the one hand, and at the same time, they build respect from other people in our communities regarding our backgrounds. Pride is internal to ourselves and our groups, and respect is what we achieve from these efforts in the larger society.
Every group in Canada deserves respect. I think these initiatives help build respect for all groups in this country.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much, Senator Dasko, for being the courier or conduit for this bill. I’m also a believer that we sometimes look at these bills and minimize them, but there was just a celebration last night of sickle cell, and I had brought in a National Sickle Cell Awareness Day bill for June. Last night, the sickle cell community probably visited some of your offices, but there was also a celebration last evening and discussion about how far we’ve come in knowing about it.
When I first brought the bill to the chamber, one person — a Conservative senator — was a nurse, and she was the so-called critic, although she wasn’t a critic. We were the only two who knew anything at all about it. To be there last night and to hear everybody talking about it and the things that are happening was a real celebration.
I think the same thing happens when you talk about Ukrainian Heritage Day or whatever. I grew up in Cape Breton, and there were so many groups that came from Europe in the 1940s and 1950s, worked at the steel plant and in the coal mines and brought their culture. We always had celebrations with all of the different heritages in the Cape Breton region.
I think you touched on it already, that there’s the promotion of Ukrainian heritage within Canada, but will it also bring more knowledge to Canadians about Ukraine and Ukrainian heritage?
Senator Dasko: Yes, absolutely. Thank you, senator.
I recall that you also sponsored the Lebanese heritage bill in this very committee. I remember being here and participating in the discussion, and I learned a lot from that experience.
Senator Cordy: We did have a big celebration last year on Lebanese Heritage Day with the Ambassador to Lebanon, who was here on that day.
I can’t believe I forgot that.
Senator Dasko: I think it builds appreciation and knowledge of the ethnic communities who are celebrating these events.
As I mentioned in the remarks, there is one day — September 7 — that’s already recognized in some provinces. This takes it to a whole month of Ukrainian celebration. It gives the opportunity for communities across the country. There are Ukrainians across this country. Winnipeg, Senator Osler, my hometown, has a huge Ukrainian population. Ukrainian-Canadians live across the country, and having a month like this will provide the opportunity to have events, such as festivals, and to engage with and have stories in the media. I think that’s another really good effect of this, how the media will pick up on stories, go to communities and cover stories.
There is, of course, food. There are film festivals. There are a whole range of opportunities and events that can be held over the course of a month, and I think it’s very positive.
I think it’s definitely a learning experience and a positive one.
Senator Cordy: Thank you.
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much, Senator Dasko, for rising to a crisis situation for Senator Kutcher, I suppose.
And thank you very much to Senator Kutcher for his timely piece of legislation.
We always ask, “Why now?” In this case, it probably could never be clearer as to why now. I agree, as you say, that it allows us to appreciate and also gives us knowledge. It raises awareness. It’s interesting, because I actually looked up the Ukrainian population in Canada. It is 3.5% of Canadians, and I was quite surprised that it was that many.
I think we are one of the largest diasporas or the largest diaspora. Is that correct?
Senator Dasko: It is the third-largest population in the world: Ukraine, Russia and then Canada.
Senator Seidman: Exactly. So it expresses a real appreciation for what the Ukrainians are going through in the homeland to raise awareness here.
Do you know if there is an international Ukrainian day or other countries that have Ukrainian heritage days?
Senator Dasko: That’s a very good question. I don’t have the answer to that, I’m afraid.
In Canada, we have a lot of days of appreciating different ethnic communities, racial communities and Indigenous communities. We do that very well, I think, but I’m afraid I don’t know about the international situation.
Senator Seidman: I know we have a National Fiddling Day. I’m sure Senator Cordy would remember that. This committee actually passed that bill some years ago. We actually had fiddlers here.
You’re right that this committee really prides itself on recognizing different heritages and customs in this country.
Senator Dasko: Yes. And it is positive, because, as I say, I really believe it builds respect for groups. That is what ethnic and racial minority groups want. They want to be respected, and they want to have opportunities, obviously, in society, but respect is so important.
I grew up in a time when we didn’t have quite the same attitude, and I’ve seen it evolve in a much more positive way. Although, obviously, there are issues with some groups and discrimination and racism. Of course, that’s there, but this is a positive development.
Senator Seidman: Yes, I certainly fully support it. Thank you, and I congratulate Senator Kutcher for bringing this forward.
Senator Dasko: He’s watching, or so he tells me, anyway.
Senator Osler: Thank you, Senator Dasko. I know you have roots in Manitoba, and I believe that in Manitoba, we have one of the largest populations of Ukrainian-Canadians, maybe about 15%, 16% or 17% of the total population.
My question for you is this: How do you think this bill will be received in communities, such as Manitoba, with a large percentage of Ukrainian-Canadians?
Senator Dasko: I think the bill is going to be received very well, and it would be important for organizations like the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and others to get the word out that we would now have a Ukrainian Heritage Month. I think it will be very positive.
I remember growing up in Winnipeg. We had something called “Folklorama.” Is Folklorama still going strong?
Senator Osler: Yes.
Senator Dasko: It was an innovation when I was young, this multi-ethnic folk festival. Toronto has a similar one. All the ethnic groups would have different pavilions, and we would go there, eat all the wonderful food and spend an evening going to five different countries. It was all so much fun.
It was a true innovation, and I’m happy to see it is still happening. I think this is a positive development for the Winnipeg Ukrainian community, of which I was a part, of course.
Senator Osler: Thank you, senator.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Senator Dasko, Senator Kutcher, I think that’s a very important point. When I look at what Black Heritage Month and Latin American Heritage Month have brought, it’s a good way to organize activities, raise awareness of these communities and talk about their presence in the host community of Canada. Even for young people, the next generation, it’s a way for them to learn about themselves and their own community. Sometimes they are there, immersed in the host community, in American culture, and they don’t have the opportunity to sit down and take the time to learn about where they come from.
It’s a good initiative. In fact, it’s thanks to this bill that I learned that there has been a Ukrainian community here for 125 years. I didn’t know that. I knew you were here, but I did not know it had been 125 years. I learned that thanks to this bill. I know that it rubs some of our colleagues in the House the wrong way when we mention certain months or weeks of recognition.
We need to support this bill to get a positive vote. In any case, it’s an excellent initiative.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Yes. Thank you very much, Senator Mégie.
Yes, I think so too. Of course, participation in all of these events is entirely voluntary, but I think we can see the excitement. I’ve been to many Black history events here in Ottawa, and they’ve been so much fun. Every year, they seem to be bigger and better. It attracts all the politicians.
I read in my comments that Senator Kutcher mentioned the Toronto Ukrainian Festival. Well, of course, Senator Omidvar and I were both there, and we were onstage with all the other politicians, quote unquote. Of course, everybody is there: the provincial, local, federal, four senators, MPs. Everybody is there just dying to get a word in and to speak to the Ukrainian community. It attracts a lot of that interest, and then that interest gets translated into the media — not just the ethnic media but local media and so on. I think it has a really good ripple effect. We had a good lunch there, didn’t we, Senator Omidvar?
The Chair: When and if this bill is passed, I’m sure we will all look forward to a month full of perogies, dancing and blue and yellow everywhere.
Senator Cormier: Thank you for your statement, Senator Dasko and Senator Kutcher. My questions might be out of scope, but I will ask them. I can see that a bill like this, a month like this, will bring, as you said, pride and respect for Ukrainians who live in Canada.
I was reading the preamble where it says:
Whereas the people of Canada and the people of Ukraine share strong bonds of friendships and commitment to the universal values of human rights, democracy and respect for international law;
Since the invasion of Russia in Ukraine, I’m thinking of LGBTQ rights. It’s difficult right now for the LGBTQ people in Ukraine, although there was great progress in Ukraine. For example, in the army right now, if you’re a gay couple, if one dies, for example, the other one cannot have access to make decisions for the person who is not there.
That’s the context of my question. I’m wondering how this month could help the situation in Ukraine in terms of human rights. The Ukrainians in Canada embrace democracy and human rights here. I’m sure it’s the same in Ukraine, but because of these challenges, what can you tell us? What can you imagine this month could bring to Ukrainians in Ukraine?
Senator Dasko: Well, there are many ways to look at it. Thank you for your question, Senator Cormier. There are many ways to analyze this. I think Ukraine is an evolving democracy, especially since independence was achieved right after the fall of the Berlin Wall and also especially after the Maidan. Ukraine has evolved as a democratic society, but its civil society still has evolution ahead of it.
At the same time, the Russian influence is pervasive. We have all heard about Russian disinformation in this country and in other Western countries. Disinformation is clearly directed toward Ukraine every single day by the Russians. Part of the disinformation is the disassembling, trying to create divisions in democratic countries, including Ukraine. Part of the way to do that is to weaponize groups and to spin hatred and division. Unfortunately, the LGBTQ community is often used by Russian disinformation people to do this.
Obviously, the blame is not all on Russia, but there is a huge factor there. That’s part of the context. Of course, war makes it more difficult because of the strain on the resources and families and communities. The war situation is not going to improve things.
At the same time, because of the war, there has certainly been increased interaction among Canadians of Ukrainian background and other Canadians who very much care about the situation in Ukraine, as well as increased communication. Through that communication, we communicate our values too, and our values show respect for equality and diversity.
I think through that process, we can work with the Ukrainians we know to advance those kinds of values in Ukraine. I think a week like this is just part of the context of what we’re trying to do. That was a long answer.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: These days of recognition are important, as we have all said. What I often think — in particular, for arts and culture — is that we tend to celebrate traditions and the past through these special days. I hope that it will also be an opportunity for the Ukrainian community in Canada to better showcase the contemporary artists of Ukraine to Canadians — contemporary, and also some less contemporary. I was thinking of Maria Prymachenko, for example, a visual artist who was deeply respected by Pablo Picasso and Marc Chagall. Canadians are unfamiliar with the quality of the Ukrainian community’s arts and culture. I hope this will be a month to celebrate everything Ukraine has to offer, no matter how contemporary.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Thank you.
Senator Senior: Thank you, Senator Dasko — as well as Senator Kutcher, who is listening in — for bringing this forward. I guess where my mind has gone is thinking about when Black History Month came into being. My son at the time was in public school. I remember, as a parent, asking the principal, “What are we going to do to celebrate Black History Month?” And the answer was, “Nothing.”
Being who I was, I gathered some parents and we put something together. We took over a part of the assembly, invited folks in and organized an event.
I’m sharing that because I think it’s a matter of pride. But when I think about Black History Month back then, it wasn’t just important for adults. It was important for youth to be able to see themselves reflected in the larger society.
What do you anticipate the impact on young people will be, particularly in the times we’re living in, in terms of their pride and in terms of being Ukrainian?
Senator Dasko: Thank you for your question. It’s a perfect example of what this initiative will do. There is a month, Black History Month. Your son went to school and asked what they were going to do, they said nothing and you organized something. That was the opportunity; that was the door opening, because of the event, to actually promoting understanding of the Black community in Canada.
It’s a perfect example of the value of this kind of recognition. This will do the same.
Right now with the Ukrainian community, there is a particular situation, and that is the war that Russia has perpetrated against Ukraine. It has really raised awareness already of the Ukrainian community and among a lot of Canadians.
It’s also a reason why this bill is so important. Every day, Ukraine is getting bombed by the Russians, and I think this will serve as a positive development in Canada and with the community here. I think they will see this as a positive development. It’s something to be positive about in the context of a terrible situation.
But I think your example is perfect as to why we would do this. Well, that’s why we do it, because we can build awareness, acceptance and respect for the communities. Let’s celebrate Black History Month. Let’s talk about Black Canadians and their contribution and who we are talking about, and let’s talk about people in our history, politics and so on of various backgrounds. That’s what we can do.
Senator Senior: Thank you.
Senator Bernard: Thank you, Senator Dasko, and Senator Kutcher, we wish you a speedy recovery.
I have been thinking and reflecting. Let me start by saying I support this bill, but the question that comes to mind is this: Is there institutional accountability for ensuring that the bill does what it’s expected to? It is expected to educate, raise awareness and enact celebrations, but I know with Black History Month, as an example, if those of us from the Black-Canadian community didn’t do things to celebrate the month, I’m not sure there would be much celebration.
It’s the same thing with Lincoln Alexander Day. It’s one of Canada’s best-kept secrets, and that was a bill that was passed. Emancipation Day is one of our best-kept secrets. And so if it’s left to the individuals who champion these issues, my question is this: Is there something built into this bill that has some institutional accountability for ensuring that it has a life beyond the individuals who are its champions in the moment?
Senator Dasko: That’s an excellent question. The short answer is no, if I could put it so bluntly. There’s no funding that’s attached to this and no government accountability on the part of any department. It’s an opportunity that is there, essentially for the organizations in the communities across the country to take this up and have a Ukrainian heritage month, do a book festival or take over a television station or something like that.
No, there isn’t any accountability. It’s an opportunity to be taken up by not just individuals but organizations, and perhaps schools and festivals. There are all of these possibilities for building awareness, but it doesn’t come with any money attached to it.
Senator Bernard: Should there be some institutional accountability?
Senator Dasko: That’s a very good question. I don’t know how to answer that. Since nobody is charged with doing anything, the bill doesn’t say this body or that body has to do something or have a framework or whatever. Nobody has to do that. It really does rest on individuals, organizations and communities to take this up.
Senator Burey: Thank you to Senator Dasko and Senator Kutcher for bringing this bill forward. We didn’t plan this, and today I made a statement on Caroussel of the Nations in Windsor-Essex which, of course, involves all this ethnic diversity and bringing that to the forefront.
I also highlighted in that speech that this is Mental Illness Awareness Week, and tomorrow is World Mental Health Day. And I’m always someone connecting the dots and emphasizing the connection between community cultural engagement and mental well-being. This is really important when we think of a whole-of-society approach to having inclusive, resilient communities and that sort of thing.
In your experience — and I know you love data and numbers — have you encountered any such data regarding these cultural events, particularly in the Ukrainian community and with respect to mental well-being and connectedness?
Senator Dasko: That is a very interesting question, senator. We know that there are various connections among the issues and factors that you’ve just identified. Connectedness is attached to mental health. Connectedness can be with respect to family, community or whatever it may be. I would say there is a connection, although maybe we can’t measure it absolutely perfectly in terms of some sort of causal analysis or something like that, but I would think there is a connection.
Your question takes this in a different direction, but the topic of identity is one that we talk about a lot now. Many years ago, when I started studying sociology, there used to be this idea that we should only have one national identity, and if you identify with others, you’re going to take away from this. But we don’t think that way anymore. We know that we have many different identities in our lives. We are parents. We are wives, husbands or sisters. We are members of an ethnic community. We are Canadian. All of these identities are important for us, or may be important in different degrees, and I think that contributes to mental health.
Thinking about myself, well, I’m a Ukrainian-Canadian, but I’m also a Canadian, a Torontonian and a Winnipegger. I still identify with my hometown.
The way we think about identity has evolved, and I think that’s good for mental health because we have different statuses and ways of connecting, so that’s a different way to answer your question.
Senator Burey: Thank you for bringing it up. You brought us into identity, and I am aware of the research in the Black community, especially with Black youth and connecting them to understanding their history and culture and how well that helps in terms of mental health. Mental health identity, academic achievement, those things are very important, and I just wanted to underscore that these kinds of months are very important.
Senator Dasko: Those are exactly the connections I see.
Senator Burey: Thank you.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you. I didn’t intend to ask a question, but Senator Bernard, as often happens, gave me a bit of a question.
Would you agree that with a bill like this one, it’s up to the individuals and organizations to do something with it? There is no funding, but my thinking is that what it gives organizations and individuals is leverage. I would think it would allow an organization to say, “Well, I need some time on your TV show because it’s heritage month,” or, “I need a room in the school.” It offers some leverage.
Senator Dasko: Yes, that’s an excellent point. That’s right. It’s an opportunity to do things like that, to go out and take hold of the idea, just like Senator Senior said. She took hold of the idea, went to her son’s school and made it happen. That’s exactly what it offers: those kinds of opportunities.
Senator Cormier: In the same direction, I want to put this on the record. Would you agree that if you’re an artist, for example, or if you’re a community organization, and you’re applying for funding, in the arguments that you will bring, the context of this month is another argument to bring forward and to give sense to the project?
In my previous life as an artist, we used all the leverage that we could, such as national days and Canada Day. There’s no money attached to it, but indirectly, they are relevant. Would you agree?
Senator Dasko: Yes. These are good words: “leverage” and “opportunities.”
The Chair: Colleagues, is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report, given the vibrant conversation we had here?
Is it agreed that I report this bill to the Senate in both official languages?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Congratulations, Senator Kutcher — I’m sure you are watching — and Senator Dasko.
(The committee adjourned.)