Senator Boniface: Would you agree with me that it is appropriate for the committee to take a close look at this issue, as I indicated in my speech, particularly around this issue, and how it’s specific to issues that balance public safety and particularly the unique role of customs in our society — protecting Canada?

Senator Simons: I think that’s a reasonable interpretation, but what they say is that it could be reasonable suspicion or maybe something else, but they explicitly say reasonable suspicion would be an appropriate thing to consider.

My concern is that in creating a novel test of reasonable, general concern, I’m not saying the government didn’t have the right to do that. I’m saying that it’s the wrong choice.

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Boniface, seconded by the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., for the second reading of Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Customs Act and the Preclearance Act, 2016.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. I don’t know how long the review will take, but I’ll make inquiries, senator. I know that the issue of our warning systems and more generally some of the older networks and resources that we have in place to protect Canadians are also a subject of very keen review and consideration.

As I said in response to an earlier question, the money set aside in the budget and the increases in defence funding are part of this government’s ongoing commitment to re-energize, refit and re‑equip the Canadian Armed Forces to do the job that we need it to do — to defend our interests here and also our interests abroad.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Subamendment negatived on the following division:

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Cao Phong Pham, the Ambassador of Vietnam to Canada, Madam Van Thi Le Hien and Nguyen Minh Dao. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Oh.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Senator Lankin: Last night, I received a package of freedom of information-released documents. There are a lot of them. I have thoroughly reviewed them. Senator Gold, I know that you, with your background in constitutional law, will understand the Charter implications of this. The employer refused to disclose the number of masks and syringes stranded in the port due to confidentiality. As you know, the longshoremen members of CUPE local 375 committed to moving such medical supplies through the port despite the strike. However, we were left with the impression that lives were “literally” at stake.

An internal memo from the labour department indicates they counted only five containers of COVID-related materials — none of which, by the way, were vaccines — that were again “stranded” by the strike.

In another freedom of information-released memo, which talks about the majority of the goods moving through being forestry and agricultural goods, the following statement appears:

The most concerning problem is the reputational damage that the strike — the strike hadn’t started yet — has on Canada’s image as a reliable trading partner.

Senator, surely you — and I hope the government — will agree that the stated most concerning problem does not come close to reaching the criteria for a section 1 exemption for the constitutionally protected rights of workers’ freedom of association.

Senator, there is a constitutional challenge going on to this. It was this chamber’s duty to uphold these workers’ constitutional rights. Senator Gold, do you still believe this chamber fulfilled our duty or — as I believe — we spectacularly failed in our duty in the consideration and passage of this legislation?

Hon. Michael L. MacDonald: Honourable senators, I rise to speak at third reading of Bill S-217, known by its short title as the foreign assets repurposing act. This is a bill that has been around the Senate for nearly as long as the senator sponsoring it. It was first introduced by Senator Omidvar in March of 2019 as Bill S-259. When it died on the Order Paper, she reintroduced it two years to the month later as Bill S-226. That too died on the Order Paper and now we have the bill before us, sponsored again by Senator Omidvar.

Senator Omidvar’s efforts in this regard brings to mind the wisdom of the thirtieth president of the United States, the taciturn Calvin Coolidge.

Coolidge was elected vice-president in 1920 on the Republican ticket along with president Warren Harding. Harding would unexpectedly die in 1923, and Coolidge would succeed him then be elected as president in the 1924 election. “Silent Cal,” as he was popularly known, was not much for small talk. In fact, he would often accept invitations to public events only if it was agreed that he would not be asked, nor be expected, to speak. But when he did speak, he had some interesting observations, especially regarding the most important qualities of a politician.

Coolidge said that talent is not enough:

Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.

Coolidge insisted that a politician without persistence will have a hard time getting anything accomplished.

I want to personally congratulate Senator Omidvar for her patience and determination to get this legislation through Parliament – she has provided a great example for all of us on the importance of persistence in pursuing worthwhile goals. Well done, senator.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, the question is as follows: It was moved by the Honourable Senator Seidman, seconded by the Honourable Senator Wells:

That the motion in amendment be not now adopted, but that it be amended —

Shall I dispense, honourable senators?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question, senator.

The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board is an independent organization that makes its own investment decisions based on its perspective on the economy and market conditions.

The board operates at arm’s-length from the federal and provincial governments, and its mandate is to invest the Canada Pension Plan Fund in the best interests of the 20 million Canadians who contribute to and benefit from the plan.

It is important to note that, as stated in the board’s 2019-20 report, the Canada Pension Plan remains secure as a result of the resilience of the fund. I have been assured that the plan continues to reach its performance objectives and provide a base for Canadians’ retirement even in these unprecedented and uncertain times. I would point out that the board independently made a commitment to establish a plan to achieve net zero by 2050.

Hon. Salma Ataullahjan: Honourable senators, my question is for the government leader in the Senate.

According to the Canadian Real Estate Association, in March the average price of a home was over $874,000 — an increase of 27% in just one year. In the Greater Toronto Area, the average cost of a home has gone up another 2.7% in one month.

Right now, the maximum qualifying purchase price under the First-Time Home Buyer Incentive is lower than the average cost of a home across much of Canada. In its recent budget, the NDP-Liberal government is once again promising changes to this program — the third attempt to change this program in the three years it has been in existence.

Leader, why is the NDP-Liberal government doubling down on this failed program, which has never worked in the way it was promised?

Senator Housakos: Senator Gold, I’m aware of this individual. You’re aware of this individual. It’s high time we made the government aware of the inherent dangers of this individual.

B’nai Brith Canada has been raising this issue with your government for quite some time. It has provided intelligence on Barakat’s whereabouts here in Canada, as well as his involvement with a designated terrorist organization. While in Canada, Barakat has published articles in which he calls for targeted terrorist attacks to be carried out against Israel and other Zionist targets beyond the Middle East.

Senator Gold, how is the Jewish community in Canada supposed to take your government’s claim to be committed to fighting anti-Semitism seriously if it allows this man to remain in Canada? Will your government do the right thing and order Barakat out of Canada? It’s not right. We have laws. Individuals of this nature should not be admitted into our country.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Honourable senators, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, which deals with Bill S-203, An Act respecting a federal framework on autism spectrum disorder.

(For text of report, see today’s Journals of the Senate, p. 499.)

Hon. Lucie Moncion, pursuant to notice of November 24, 2021, moved:

That the Senate recognize that, each year, thousands of Canadians are called to jury duty and contribute to the Canadian justice system; and

That the Senate call upon the Government of Canada to designate the second week of May in each year as Jury Appreciation Week in Canada, to encourage those Canadians who provide this public service and to recognize their civic duty.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Motion No. 9, in which I make two proposals. First, I propose that the Senate recognize the contribution made to the justice system by the thousands of Canadians who are called to jury duty each year and, second, that the Senate call upon the Government of Canada to designate the second week of May in each year as Jury Appreciation Week, or Semaine d’appréciation du jury in French.

The week proposed in the motion, the second week of May, coincides with similar jury appreciation weeks in other jurisdictions, including California. The week is also recognized by the American Bar Association. This year, the week will unofficially be held from May 8 to 14. The Canadian Juries Commission will be running a social media campaign in collaboration with prominent Canadians to thank current and former jurors.

Senators, I think you will agree that the issues that affect jurors deserve our attention and the attention of Canadians at least once a year. These include recognition of the contribution of current and former jurors to the justice system, the mental health and well-being of current and former jurors, access to justice, and issues of representation and diversity on juries.

Steady progress has been made over the past few years on the plight and well-being of jurors. Allow me to share some notable events that have helped advance the cause.

[English]

Mark Farrant was a juror in a first-degree murder trial in 2014. He helped shed light on the need for more jury support in Canada. Drawn from his own experience, he identified the gaps in support provided to jurors and discovered that he was not alone. Mark was diagnosed with PTSD after the trial and struggled to find support in his home province of Ontario. In 2016, his advocacy helped prompt the Government of Ontario to launch a free counselling program for former jurors.

In 2017, to help move things forward at a national level, Mark brought to the attention of parliamentarians and government officials what has become known as the “12 angry letters.” In those letters, 12 former jurors chronicled their suffering and struggle to find support to deal with the trauma after exercising their jury duty.

[Translation]

This initiative paved the way for a study on the support provided to jurors, conducted by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and the tabling of the report entitled Improving Support for Jurors in Canada in May 2018. The fourth recommendation in this report turned into a bill, Bill C-417, which was introduced in the House of Commons on October 29, 2018. This bill has had a bumpy ride and is now known as Bill S-206. It is my hope that it will pass in the House of Commons in the coming weeks. I thank the bill’s sponsor in the Senate, Senator Boisvenu, whose work helped ensure this bill’s speedy passage in the Senate during this session.

As you know, this bill amends section 649 of the Criminal Code to authorize jurors to discuss proceedings with mental health professionals after the trial. In the meantime, in 2019, Mark Farrant founded the Canadian Juries Commission. This is the first not-for-profit organization dedicated to representing the interests of jurors specifically. Among the initiatives introduced by this organization, I would like to highlight a pilot project to support jurors in British Columbia called Jury Duty Peer Support and Mental Health First Aid and Wellness Training for Sheriffs and Court Officers. This project supports and encourages Canadians to participate in jury duty by providing in-trial and post-trial support for jurors and promoting the importance of mental health within the justice system.

The commission also conducted a national opinion study in June 2020 that showed only 18% of Canadians are willing to participate in jury duty. The study also found that a number of former jurors experience repercussions long after the trial. Some former jurors reported being re-traumatized by media coverage of similar cases. Others reported being traumatized at parole hearings in their own cases.

In contrast, the House of Commons Justice Committee report indicates that, in general, serving as a juror can be a rewarding experience and result in a sense of having contributed to one’s community. These aspects of the juror experience should also be promoted. The federal government should encourage Canadians from all walks of life to do this civic duty, and it should support them.

If the government were to designate Jury Appreciation Week, we could continue to promote this cause and the implementation of all the recommendations in the report entitled Improving Support for Jurors in Canada across the country. As the critic for Bill S-206 in the Senate, I have certainly spoken at length in this chamber about the report’s fourth recommendation. Today I would like to talk to you about the other 10 recommendations.

[English]

As I had mentioned, in May 2018, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights tabled a report entitled Improving Support for Jurors in Canada. Because the issue of juror support falls mostly within provincial and territorial jurisdiction, given the responsibility for the administration of justice, most of the recommendations contained in the report direct the Minister of Justice to encourage the provinces and territories to implement the recommendations.

Let me go through some of these recommendations. First, the provinces and territories should make available to prospective and selected jurors an information package about jury duty. This package should contain the role and responsibilities of jurors, the compensation provided, the legal concept and mechanism of the trial process or the inquest and the deliberation process, including tools to help jurors manage interpersonal conflict.

The package should be available in both official languages and, where appropriate, in Indigenous and other languages.

The second recommendation provides that the provinces and territories should implement the policy that would ensure that the jurors be offered a debriefing session after the trial.

As a former juror, I can confirm without a doubt that I would have benefited greatly from having access to debriefing sessions. The idea would be to provide debriefing sessions to allow jurors to share, express and better understand their emotions with others who have had similar experiences. This collective process could allow jurors released from their duties to better resume the normal course of their lives.

The third recommendation relates to psychological support and provides for the provinces and territories to offer psychological support and counselling programs to all jurors after the trial. Some provinces have a counselling program for former jurors. I alluded to this earlier in my speech.

The Province of Ontario offers free, confidential and professional counselling services to jurors as part of the Juror Support Program since 2016. Former jurors can speak to a qualified and experienced counsellor 24-7. Saskatchewan has a similar program, the Juror Assistance and Support Program. I invite former jurors to investigate the different resources offered to them in their respective provinces and territories.

The fifth recommendation relates to daily allowance. Jurors should be offered a daily allowance for services rendered of at least $120 throughout the legal proceedings, which should be adjusted to reflect the cost-of-living increases.

The compensation to jurors varies across Canada, but in most cases the compensation offered is lower than the minimum wage in that province or territory. This hurts the diversity on juries in Canada because some individuals simply cannot afford to be jurors.

[Translation]

Similarly, and this is also very important for ensuring greater diversity among our jurors, the report’s sixth recommendation states that the provinces and territories should be encouraged to offer jurors compensation to cover the costs associated with serving as a juror, such as the cost of child care, travel, parking and meals.

The seventh recommendation has to do with providing jurors with the optimal physical environment. The provinces and territories should strive to provide an environment that minimizes casual interactions between jurors and other participants in the proceedings outside the courtroom to reduce the potential for intimidation and awkwardness.

[English]

Some of those interactions can be a significant source of stress for jurors and contribute to mental health issues experienced by jurors during and after a trial.

[Translation]

The discretionary power of certain actors in the judicial system must not be overlooked in the search for solutions. The eighth recommendation is about the federal government providing funding to the National Judicial Institute to develop training designed to increase judicial awareness of the mental health needs of jurors. With proper training, judges, coroners and judicial officials who interact with jurors may be better able to identify stress in some jurors and offer advice and support where appropriate.

[English]

Similarly, the ninth recommendation relates to the importance of increasing awareness. The provinces and territories should support training programs aimed at increasing awareness among judges, coroners and judicial officers who interact with jurors of the potential impact of legal proceedings on the mental health of jurors.

As mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the pilot project in B.C. is an attempt to implement this recommendation in at least one province. The federal government should exercise leadership at a national level to have this program implemented in all provinces and territories.

The tenth recommendation relates to federal funding on a one-time basis for provinces and territories to cover some of the costs resulting from the implementation of this report’s recommendations. More needs to be done with respect to helping the provinces and territories implement the various recommendations.

Finally, the eleventh recommendation provides that the Minister of Justice shall share the practices recommended in this report with the minister’s provincial and territorial counterparts during the next meeting of the federal-provincial-territorial ministers responsible for justice and public safety. The report was shared with provinces and territories and raised during the fall of 2018 federal-provincial-territorial meeting of ministers responsible for justice and public safety.

It is important that high-level conversations like these continue over time and that progress reports be made public and available to all Canadians.

On May 22, 2018, the government responded to the report recognizing the leadership role of the federal government with respect to supporting jury duty across the country. Let me quote part of the response:

The Government of Canada recognizes the importance of supporting jurors in their duties and is committed to working with the provinces and territories to improve support measures for jurors, and facilitate the sharing of best practices between jurisdictions.

Officially recognizing a jury duty appreciation week could be helpful in that regard.

[Translation]

In its response, the government agreed on the importance of continued collaboration with the provinces and territories to ensure that adequate supports are provided to jurors. The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada concluded at the time, and I quote:

Ensuring that they [the jurors] are adequately supported before, during and after their service is an important objective to maintain public confidence in juries, minimize the impact that jury duty has on jurors’ lives, and help ensure jury representativeness in various ways.

One very simple and effective way for the federal government to put words into action would be to officially recognize Jury Appreciation Week in Canada, which would foster and promote ongoing and ad hoc dialogue between the provinces and territories and the various stakeholders on the support provided to jurors across Canada.

Colleagues, I urge you to support this motion calling on the Government of Canada to officially designate the second week of May in each year as Jury Appreciation Week. Furthermore, from May 8 to 14, I invite you to mark this week in your own way, to show your support for this cause.

Thank you for your attention.

(On motion of Senator Housakos, debate adjourned.)

[English]

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: The Honourable Lawrence A. Poitras passed away on April 9 at the age of 91. Today I would like to pay tribute to this remarkable man.

Larry, as he was known to his friends, was the son of a Montreal Star crime reporter, and he himself worked there as a crime reporter while studying arts at McGill University and law at the Université de Montréal, making him the fourth generation of the Poitras family to work for this daily paper.

In 1957, he chose to practise civil and commercial litigation, a field in which he rose to such prominence that he was appointed Queen’s Counsel. In 1975, he was appointed to the Superior Court of Quebec at the age of 44. He earned the respect of litigants, lawyers and colleagues alike.

He was also a man of action, eager to get involved with numerous professional and community organizations. He was a founding member of the Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association and became its president in 1981, 30 years before me.

In 1983, Prime Minister Trudeau appointed him Associate Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Quebec, where he worked closely with the chief justice of the day, the father of our colleague, Senator Gold.

[English]

In 1986, he served on the three-person commission of inquiry examining the wrongful conviction of Donald Marshall, a member of Nova Scotia’s Mi’kmaq community, who served 11 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. The commission’s seven-volume report, released in 1990, described Nova Scotia’s justice system as plagued by racism, unprofessionalism and unfairness. It led to significant changes.

[Translation]

In 1992, Prime Minister Mulroney appointed him as the fifteenth Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Quebec. I had the honour of serving under him and witnessing reforms that reduced wait times for hearings.

[English]

In 1996, when he turned 65, he resigned from the bench. The same year, the Quebec government appointed him to lead a public inquiry into the Sûreté du Québec following allegations of corruption and evidence tampering.

The 2,700-page report described a police force more concerned with protecting its image than investigating misconduct.

[Translation]

To his beloved wife Thérèse Boivin and their children, I offer my deepest condolences and, on behalf of all Canadians, I thank this remarkable man for his contribution to the Canadian justice system.

Thank you.

[English]

Hon. Leo Housakos (Acting Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my question is for the government leader in the Senate.

Senator Gold, last week, Terry Glavin wrote at great length in the National Post about Khaled Barakat, a senior member of the anti-Semitic terrorist group Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Mr. Glavin goes into great detail about the activities of the PFLP, including airplane hijacking, suicide bombings and a 2014 massacre at a Jerusalem synagogue that left several worshippers severely injured and five dead, including Toronto-born Rabbi Howie Rothman. Barakat, 51, is said to have been living in Canada off and on for the past 20 years, and for the past 2 years he has been splitting his time between Vancouver and my home city of Montreal.

Senator Gold, Khaled Barakat has been barred from the United States and Germany, yet the Trudeau government still allows this individual to remain in Canada, despite Canadian laws that forbid any individual with connections to terrorist organizations from entering our country or receiving Canadian citizenship.

Why does your government allow him to remain in the country?

Hon. Donna Dasko: Honourable senators, my question is for the Government Representative.

Senator Gold, we know that Ukraine desperately needs more military support, and they need it now. On April 22, I forwarded a letter on behalf of myself and 15 other honourable senators to Defence Minister Anand stressing the urgent need for military hardware, and armoured vehicles in particular. It has been reported that $120 million in military aid has been provided so far, and $500 million in additional military aid was promised to Ukraine in Budget 2022 for the 2022-23 fiscal year.

Senator, can you tell us how those monies are intended to be spent? In particular, what is your timeline for this aid, given that the need is immediate? Thank you.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. I am very aware of the person you describe and the story that appeared in the press.

Canada has a robust system for dealing with those who seek admission to Canada or those in Canada who may be judged or thought to be inadmissible to remain in Canada. Indeed, in that regard, Canada is well recognized — and has been regularly recognized — by the United Nations for its system, whether it’s that of welcoming refugees or otherwise dealing with those who find themselves within our borders.

The CBSA has a legal obligation to remove inadmissible individuals as soon as possible when that determination has been made. I cannot comment on specific cases, such as the one you’ve identified, but everyone who may be ordered removed remains entitled under our system of justice to due process and is subject to many levels of review and appeal.