“There will always be work to do”: Senator Dupuis bids the Senate farewell
An accomplished lawyer and author, Senator Renée Dupuis was appointed to the Senate of Canada in November 2016. During her tenure representing the Laurentides division of Quebec in the Upper Chamber, she contributed her vast expertise and experience in human rights law, the rights of Indigenous peoples and administrative law to her committee work and her many interventions in the Red Chamber. Considered by her colleagues to be a wise, witty and tireless worker, she sat on many committees, notably the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and the Senate Committee on Audit and Oversight.
Before leaving the Upper Chamber on January 17, 2024, Senator Dupuis sat down with SenCAplus to reflect on her time in the Senate, her ongoing work to advance human rights and Indigenous peoples’ rights, and her plans for life after the Red Chamber.
You first learned the word “injustice” in elementary school. Can you describe that moment?
In fact, I should say I learned the “reality” of injustice. When I was eight, in fourth grade, my best friend broke her arm, so her right arm was in a cast. We were in art class and she had trouble drawing the pear on the desk in front of her. The nun who was teaching us saw her drawing, which she thought was bad, and smacked my friend’s cast. I don’t know why she did that, it was so sudden! At that moment, what shocked me was that a nun would hit someone so vulnerable. To me, that’s an injustice. So I stood up and told her what she did was wrong, and she told me, “You’re going to go to the front of the class, get down on your knees and make an act of contrition. That was rude.” The abuse of authority — it was an additional act of injustice. I believe she abused her authority because she was personally insulted. That’s probably what made me become a lawyer.
Senator Renée Dupuis delivers a speech at Université Laval on October 6, 2023. (Photo credit: Office of Senator Renée Dupuis)
After earning your law degree, you worked alongside two lawyers who represented the Mohawks of Kahnawake and the Huron-Wendat of Wendake and the Association des Indiens du Québec. How did this experience influence your decision to pursue a career dedicated to the rights of Indigenous peoples?
What struck me when I met not only those two lawyers but also the Association des Indiens du Québec’s leading chiefs, was that it was a whole new world. They were working on developing a draft motion for an injunction to stop the James Bay development project. It was a shock to enter such a totally different world right outside my doorstep, but even more so to realize that I had managed to complete my entire education — university, articling, the bar — without once having heard of two constitutional laws: the Quebec Boundaries Extension Act, a federal act, and the Quebec act of 1912, which clearly provides that Quebec will recognize the rights of the “Indian inhabitants in the territory” and obtain surrenders of such rights as Canada had done.
I was interested in the fundamental rights of individuals and groups, and there I was looking at a practical problem of fundamental rights, the rights of Indigenous peoples in Canada, and a political project. So I said to myself, “this is the perfect case for me to dive into,” and that’s what I’ve been doing ever since.
Can you tell us about an initiative you were involved in during your mandate as a senator?
My involvement with the Senate’s Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee — this committee considers most bills introduced by the government or by members of Parliament or senators. For me, it’s about holding the government to account, examining legislation, seeing if human rights are being respected. My question for every bill and to every minister who appears before us is: “Can you provide us with the gender-based analysis plus?” It’s an analysis we feel should be known and made public and shared with the committee. For the past seven years, we haven’t been successful. I hope that one day we will.
You were a member of the joint working group of the Barreau du Québec−Collège des Médecins du Québec that studied the right to die with dignity. How did this experience influence your contribution to Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)?
One lesson I learned stems from testimonies given by doctors who say that their main challenge is when they’re faced with a person unable to express their views. Their testimonies and the positions of families and loved ones are often contradictory — it seems to be almost always the case. And that’s the real challenge for doctors. I think that’s the issue behind assisted dying: we’re shifting the authority to decide from the doctor to a person who may one day lose awareness. It’s a really delicate matter.
Your request to the Parliamentary Budget Officer led to a report in 2021 on budget sufficiency for First Nations water and wastewater systems. Since that report was released, has the federal government made any significant progress in resolving the problems associated with these water systems?
For me, the issue of access to drinking water is a form of discrimination that is deeply rooted in legislation, policies and practices, and that is tolerated today. Until we recognize that this discrimination is systemic, we won’t be able to eliminate the gap. When I see so many drinking water advisories on government websites, it doesn’t satisfy me to hear, “Yes, but we’ve dramatically reduced their number.” I don’t consider this a solution. It’s the evolution of a program that forces First Nations to go to court to seek compensation for past discrimination. With all the money that’s being invested in legal proceedings, there’s no reason why that money shouldn’t be invested in fixing infrastructure, in improving services to eliminate the gap. This means coming up with a plan with objectives. That would make it measurable. We’d know there’s an end. We’d know there’s mandatory benchmarks and we’d know that people would be held accountable for achieving these measurable objectives.
As you approach retirement, what are your personal plans and dreams for the future?
In my mind, there’s no connection between the end of my mandate in the Senate and my potential retirement. Achievements are always fragile. We have to be vigilant. There will always be work to do.
I have plans to continue pushing my grandson’s stroller. I’m a long-distance walker — on my own or with a stroller — and I’ll keep at it. I’ll keep reflecting on issues related to public policy, democracy, fundamental rights and artificial intelligence.
I’ll be busy planting trees. I’m already doing that now and I’ll continue.
I’ve never had a career plan. I’ve always thought that it’s better not to want something too specific in life because if you don’t get it, you risk being disappointed. So, I remained open to what life had to offer and I’m amazed at what it did provide me over the years. And so, I’ll remain open to what life has to offer.
What valuable advice would you offer to future senators?
When I arrived at the Senate, I studied the Rules of the Senate. It was long, hard work… but I felt it was essential if I were to understand the workings of the institution in which I was going to work. It wasn’t just a question of understanding the rules. It was about understanding where authority lies, who has the authority to do what and what the scope of parliamentary privilege is, to better determine what my contribution would be. There are all sorts of ways to get involved in the Senate.
When I was appointed, most people said to me: “What are you going to do in the Senate? The Senate doesn’t do anything, no one does any work in the Senate.” I tell people, “I work hard in the Senate of Canada. People can work hard in the Senate.” It’s clear it takes a lot of research because the subjects are so varied. The issues we face are so complex. I did a lot of research and that’s why I chose not to meet lobbyists. I studied their papers, I studied their briefs, I asked them questions in committee. That was my choice.
Related articles
Tags
Committee news
“There will always be work to do”: Senator Dupuis bids the Senate farewell
An accomplished lawyer and author, Senator Renée Dupuis was appointed to the Senate of Canada in November 2016. During her tenure representing the Laurentides division of Quebec in the Upper Chamber, she contributed her vast expertise and experience in human rights law, the rights of Indigenous peoples and administrative law to her committee work and her many interventions in the Red Chamber. Considered by her colleagues to be a wise, witty and tireless worker, she sat on many committees, notably the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and the Senate Committee on Audit and Oversight.
Before leaving the Upper Chamber on January 17, 2024, Senator Dupuis sat down with SenCAplus to reflect on her time in the Senate, her ongoing work to advance human rights and Indigenous peoples’ rights, and her plans for life after the Red Chamber.
You first learned the word “injustice” in elementary school. Can you describe that moment?
In fact, I should say I learned the “reality” of injustice. When I was eight, in fourth grade, my best friend broke her arm, so her right arm was in a cast. We were in art class and she had trouble drawing the pear on the desk in front of her. The nun who was teaching us saw her drawing, which she thought was bad, and smacked my friend’s cast. I don’t know why she did that, it was so sudden! At that moment, what shocked me was that a nun would hit someone so vulnerable. To me, that’s an injustice. So I stood up and told her what she did was wrong, and she told me, “You’re going to go to the front of the class, get down on your knees and make an act of contrition. That was rude.” The abuse of authority — it was an additional act of injustice. I believe she abused her authority because she was personally insulted. That’s probably what made me become a lawyer.
Senator Renée Dupuis delivers a speech at Université Laval on October 6, 2023. (Photo credit: Office of Senator Renée Dupuis)
After earning your law degree, you worked alongside two lawyers who represented the Mohawks of Kahnawake and the Huron-Wendat of Wendake and the Association des Indiens du Québec. How did this experience influence your decision to pursue a career dedicated to the rights of Indigenous peoples?
What struck me when I met not only those two lawyers but also the Association des Indiens du Québec’s leading chiefs, was that it was a whole new world. They were working on developing a draft motion for an injunction to stop the James Bay development project. It was a shock to enter such a totally different world right outside my doorstep, but even more so to realize that I had managed to complete my entire education — university, articling, the bar — without once having heard of two constitutional laws: the Quebec Boundaries Extension Act, a federal act, and the Quebec act of 1912, which clearly provides that Quebec will recognize the rights of the “Indian inhabitants in the territory” and obtain surrenders of such rights as Canada had done.
I was interested in the fundamental rights of individuals and groups, and there I was looking at a practical problem of fundamental rights, the rights of Indigenous peoples in Canada, and a political project. So I said to myself, “this is the perfect case for me to dive into,” and that’s what I’ve been doing ever since.
Can you tell us about an initiative you were involved in during your mandate as a senator?
My involvement with the Senate’s Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee — this committee considers most bills introduced by the government or by members of Parliament or senators. For me, it’s about holding the government to account, examining legislation, seeing if human rights are being respected. My question for every bill and to every minister who appears before us is: “Can you provide us with the gender-based analysis plus?” It’s an analysis we feel should be known and made public and shared with the committee. For the past seven years, we haven’t been successful. I hope that one day we will.
You were a member of the joint working group of the Barreau du Québec−Collège des Médecins du Québec that studied the right to die with dignity. How did this experience influence your contribution to Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)?
One lesson I learned stems from testimonies given by doctors who say that their main challenge is when they’re faced with a person unable to express their views. Their testimonies and the positions of families and loved ones are often contradictory — it seems to be almost always the case. And that’s the real challenge for doctors. I think that’s the issue behind assisted dying: we’re shifting the authority to decide from the doctor to a person who may one day lose awareness. It’s a really delicate matter.
Your request to the Parliamentary Budget Officer led to a report in 2021 on budget sufficiency for First Nations water and wastewater systems. Since that report was released, has the federal government made any significant progress in resolving the problems associated with these water systems?
For me, the issue of access to drinking water is a form of discrimination that is deeply rooted in legislation, policies and practices, and that is tolerated today. Until we recognize that this discrimination is systemic, we won’t be able to eliminate the gap. When I see so many drinking water advisories on government websites, it doesn’t satisfy me to hear, “Yes, but we’ve dramatically reduced their number.” I don’t consider this a solution. It’s the evolution of a program that forces First Nations to go to court to seek compensation for past discrimination. With all the money that’s being invested in legal proceedings, there’s no reason why that money shouldn’t be invested in fixing infrastructure, in improving services to eliminate the gap. This means coming up with a plan with objectives. That would make it measurable. We’d know there’s an end. We’d know there’s mandatory benchmarks and we’d know that people would be held accountable for achieving these measurable objectives.
As you approach retirement, what are your personal plans and dreams for the future?
In my mind, there’s no connection between the end of my mandate in the Senate and my potential retirement. Achievements are always fragile. We have to be vigilant. There will always be work to do.
I have plans to continue pushing my grandson’s stroller. I’m a long-distance walker — on my own or with a stroller — and I’ll keep at it. I’ll keep reflecting on issues related to public policy, democracy, fundamental rights and artificial intelligence.
I’ll be busy planting trees. I’m already doing that now and I’ll continue.
I’ve never had a career plan. I’ve always thought that it’s better not to want something too specific in life because if you don’t get it, you risk being disappointed. So, I remained open to what life had to offer and I’m amazed at what it did provide me over the years. And so, I’ll remain open to what life has to offer.
What valuable advice would you offer to future senators?
When I arrived at the Senate, I studied the Rules of the Senate. It was long, hard work… but I felt it was essential if I were to understand the workings of the institution in which I was going to work. It wasn’t just a question of understanding the rules. It was about understanding where authority lies, who has the authority to do what and what the scope of parliamentary privilege is, to better determine what my contribution would be. There are all sorts of ways to get involved in the Senate.
When I was appointed, most people said to me: “What are you going to do in the Senate? The Senate doesn’t do anything, no one does any work in the Senate.” I tell people, “I work hard in the Senate of Canada. People can work hard in the Senate.” It’s clear it takes a lot of research because the subjects are so varied. The issues we face are so complex. I did a lot of research and that’s why I chose not to meet lobbyists. I studied their papers, I studied their briefs, I asked them questions in committee. That was my choice.