On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson:

That the following Address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor General of Canada:

To Her Excellency the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Chancellor and Principal Companion of the Order of Canada, Chancellor and Commander of the Order of Military Merit, Chancellor and Commander of the Order of Merit of the Police Forces, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY:

We, Her Majesty’s most loyal and dutiful subjects, the Senate of Canada in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Excellency for the gracious Speech which Your Excellency has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Hon. Lucie Moncion moved third reading of Bill S-252, An Act respecting Jury Duty Appreciation Week.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak at third reading as the sponsor of Bill S-252, An Act respecting Jury Duty Appreciation Week.

Bill S-252 proposes to recognize jury duty appreciation week during the second week of May each year in Canada.

Over the past few years, I’ve had the privilege of speaking on a number of occasions in this chamber in support of the recognition of jury duty in Canada. In particular, a motion I moved calling on the federal government to recognize a national jury duty appreciation week was adopted by the Senate on May 12, 2022. I was also the critic for Bill S-206, a bill sponsored by Senator Boisvenu that lifted the rule of secrecy in very specific cases and therefore allowed jurors to talk to a mental health professional about jury deliberations after a trial. That bill was passed and received Royal Assent in 2022. These interventions enabled me to shed light on an issue that was previously little known to parliamentarians.

As senators, we have the privilege of proposing bills to establish national days or weeks. Although the symbolic scope of this process sometimes draws criticism, it helps fill certain gaps by generating a national dialogue on issues that are important but less well known to governments and Canadians.

Weeks like this offer an opportunity to achieve a number of goals. In addition to promoting recognition, education and awareness among Canadians about this civic duty, a national week honouring the role of jurors would foster collaboration and coordination efforts by organizations, courts and provincial and territorial governments in implementing the recommendations of the 2018 report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights entitled Improving support for jurors in Canada. The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology made observations on the bill, and a national week would also permit an examination of those observations.

Why does the bill propose the second week of May as jury duty appreciation week? It’s a question that I was asked in committee and that I would like to answer in this chamber as well, to explain the reason for this choice.

Spring marks the end of many trials, making it an appropriate time to express our gratitude to jurors and recognize their contribution to the justice system. The conclusion of a trial is also an opportunity to inform jurors about the support available to them.

In the United States, the second week of May coincides with the recognition of such a week by the American Bar Association and by other jurisdictions, notably California and Louisiana. In addition, courts across the U.S., as well as the Texas and Oregon legislatures and the Pennsylvania State Senate, also recognize a week dedicated to honouring jury duty in the month of May.

In Canada, the second week of May has already been acknowledged as a week of recognition for two years by various stakeholders and by the federal government, through the Minister of Justice. The Senate recognized the week in question when it adopted a motion on May 12. As you can understand, colleagues, it is not very efficient to propose a similar motion every year. These recognitions are not legislated and therefore provide no long-term certainty to those involved in and affected by this cause. We are talking about thousands of Canadians every year.

Bill S-252 is not just about the symbolic recognition of jury duty. Enshrining an official week in legislation could be a catalyst for change in many ways. The bill’s preamble not only helps us understand the bill’s purpose, but also enables us to look ahead to understand the potential scope of the proposal. The preamble recognizes that thousands of Canadians are called upon to serve as jurors every year and that jury duty is a vital component of our justice system and our democracy. Promoting jury duty could foster a sense of pride and accomplishment that would help jurors feel that their sacrifices are seen and recognized by the government and the justice system.

The preamble also draws attention to the link between the mental health and well-being of jurors and the proper functioning of our justice system. This is something that I really care about, since I myself have suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of my experience as a juror. Tangible measures must be put in place to support jurors before, during and after their service. Better informing and preparing jurors before the trial could make a huge difference in their ability to handle this responsibility calmly and objectively. This means clear and transparent communication about how the trial will unfold, the rules the jurors must follow and the different types of cases that they may have to deal with.

When people are called for jury duty, they often have no idea what awaits them. All they get is an order to show up at court, or else they’ll be fined $5,000 or have to serve time. They’re told nothing about what’s in store for them. Faced with a complex system and strong emotions, they’re often unprepared to manage the stress and the psychological impact of the experience. Jurors also need support after the trial. They may need time to process the testimony and the verdict, time to talk about their experiences with others who have been through the same thing and time to talk to mental health professionals if necessary.

Jurors must receive better support throughout the process, right from that first summons. Designating an official week each year would increase awareness of how jurors’ well-being and the proper functioning of the Canadian justice system are interrelated. This will help certain key players understand the nature of that connection.

Lastly, the preamble states that this legislation will serve as an educational initiative seeking to inform and mobilize citizens, organizations, the justice system as a whole, and the provincial and federal governments, by promoting greater awareness and understanding of the complex issues involved in performing this civic duty. An initiative to celebrate a national appreciation week will help address the fragmentation in our current system, which encourages discussions in silos between various organizations and the provinces and territories when it comes to the administration of justice or even the delivery of mental health services. While respecting the jurisdictions of the provinces and territories, the bill lays the foundations for cooperative federalism in juror support and builds a bridge between a variety of civil society actors who work in fields related to justice, education and health.

[English]

To address gaps in support for jurors, a dedicated jury duty appreciation week could significantly enhance the juror experience across multiple aspects. Drawing on the accounts of former jurors and my own firsthand observations, the following examples highlight key needs that such a week could address.

Serving as a juror can be a psychologically challenging experience and may even lead to symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. Jurors and their families face a variety of pressures, and the repercussions of serving on a jury can be felt long after the trial is over.

The lack of financial support, especially for low-income individuals, is a major stress factor that undermines the representation and diversity of Canadian juries. Juror pay is currently below the minimum wage. In Ontario, for example, a juror receives $5 per hour, which does not compensate for the loss of income incurred by participating in the justice system. The lack of financial support can make it difficult for low-income individuals to serve on juries and can lead to a lack of diversity in the jury-selection process.

Employers often underestimate the challenges faced by employees called for jury duty. Support and compensation from employers, provinces and territories are mostly negligible and insufficient. The lack of support can make it difficult for employees to serve on juries and can lead to financial hardship and job loss.

Finally, after a trial our society expects jurors to return to their normal lives as if nothing had happened. Employers often perceive this extended absence as vacation time. Educating employers, in particular, is essential. Employers need to be made aware of the challenges faced by jurors, and they need to be prepared to support their employees who are called for jury duty.

It is imperative to address these unrealistic expectations and start discussions about removing these barriers in order to create a more inclusive and equitable jury system. Supporting the well-being of those who make sacrifices to ensure the proper functioning of the Canadian judicial system and democracy is essential. This includes providing adequate financial support, ensuring job security and offering mental health resources to jurors.

[Translation]

Bill S-252 is the key to creating an environment conducive to achieving these goals.

Based on my experience as juror number one in a first-degree murder trial, conversations with former jurors and stakeholders, and the reflections of our parliamentary committees, I’ve come to believe that federal leadership is necessary. There is a real gap that needs to be filled at the national level.

I will now briefly discuss the federal government’s role with respect to jury duty. The lack of federal leadership partly results from the fragmented and inconsistent services and supports provided to jurors. This same deficiency also accounts for the failure to recognize how the juror’s role contributes to justice and democracy in Canada.

Justice is a shared jurisdiction. The role of the federal government and the Department of Justice is pivotal in each of the recommendations made in the 2018 report entitled Improving support for jurors in Canada. All this is also consistent with the purpose of Bill S-252.

For example, the report recommends federal funding in certain areas and the sharing of best practices with the provinces and territories. It also highlights the importance of raising awareness among judges, coroners and judicial officers about the potential impact of court proceedings on the mental health of jurors.

[English]

While jury duty is a vital function of our justice system and democracy, the federal government has not yet taken a leading role in supporting jurors. This bill proposes an effective way for the federal government to address this gap, all while respecting the provincial and territorial administration of justice.

I had the privilege of appearing before the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology as part of its study of Bill S-252. The members of the committee listened to my testimony with attention and compassion. I am very grateful for their kindness and consideration.

The committee members not only showed great sensitivity toward me and the other witnesses, but also took a pragmatic and analytical approach to examining these issues. The committee’s report does not contain any amendments, but it does make three constructive observations.

The first observation concerns the lack of diversity in juries in Canada, particularly with respect to the representation of racialized, Black and Indigenous peoples. The committee therefore recommends that the federal, provincial, territorial and Indigenous governments try to identify measures that improve the diversity of juries in accordance with the intent to be judged by a jury of our peers.

The second observation concerns vicarious trauma experienced by jurors, and mental health programs and services. As defined by Health Canada:

Vicarious trauma is the experience of bearing witness to the atrocities committed against another. It is the result of absorbing the sight, smell, sound, touch and feel of the stories told in detail by victims searching for a way to release their own pain. . . . Vicarious trauma is the energy that comes from being in the presence of trauma and it is how our bodies and psyche react to the profound despair, rage and pain.

I wish I’d known the notion of vicarious trauma when I was going through difficult times as a result of my experience as a juror. It would have helped me understand that my feelings were both normal and valid, and I’m sure it’s the case for many other former jurors. Understanding the science behind our experience can be powerful in our recovery, and having access to evidence-based programs is crucial.

With respect to this second observation, the committee expresses concern about the lack of mental health support for jurors before, during and after a trial. It therefore recommends the creation of comprehensive government programs focused on trauma management to support and protect the well-being of jurors.

The third observation underlines the financial impact on the participation of Canadians in jury duty, particularly in terms of lost wages, but also the lack of adequate compensation for expenses incurred in the performance of jury duty, including child care and travel. These financial barriers partly explain the lack of diversity on juries. In response, the committee proposes that the Government of Canada consider using the Employment Insurance program to provide financial support to jurors during their service.

On the subject of financial compensation, Tina Daenzer, a former juror who testified before the committee, explained as follows:

Jury pay is still woefully inadequate in order to ensure a truly well-balanced jury panel. In fact, in Ontario, it has not changed since I sat on the Bernardo trial in 1995. The initial ten days are unpaid until the tenth day, when you receive $40 per day.

She sat in 1995, I sat on a jury in 1989, and the same rules applied then.

Millions of Canadians work in minimum wage jobs or in the gig community, which means that they are financially unable to participate in the jury process. If we truly want a jury of our peers, then we need to ensure that every Canadian can participate.

The former jurors and other witnesses heard by the committee were unanimous in their view that this week of appreciation is necessary not only to raise awareness but also to recognize and celebrate those who have exercised this duty. A national week would provide an opportunity for in-depth reflection and discussion on the observations made by the Social Affairs Committee and the recommendations contained in the Justice Committee report from the other place, which now dates back six years.

The Senate has already voted in favour of recognizing jury duty appreciation week through a motion. I hope, colleagues, that I can count on your support for this modest and simple legislative proposal. The adoption of Bill S-252 by Parliament would reflect the scope and importance of the contributions of citizens who serve as jurors. This recognition would show our appreciation for the sacrifices they make and the important role they play in ensuring the proper functioning of our justice system.

I’d like to quote Tina Daenzer once again, this time on Canadian society’s lack of appreciation for jurors. During her testimony before the Social Affairs Committee on Bill S-252, she said:

If the job of sitting on a jury is so important to our entire legal system, why are the people selected so underappreciated in both adequate pay and mental health support? Many studies have shown that recognition in the workplace boosts engagement, attracts better employees, helps employees find meaning and reinforces the positive. As a country, we should all want that not just for employees but also for those who are chosen as jurors. We must ensure they feel supported and appreciated, and at the end of the trial, they can walk away feeling like it was a rewarding and enriching experience.

I’m going depart from my speech for a minute. This is probably the last time I will speak on my experience as a juror, and I will tell you a story.

For the last 35 years, I’ve been worried that the people who were convicted would someday come out of jail and come after me or anyone who was on the jury. That was one of my concerns. The other concern that I had as a juror was about the first-degree murder verdict that we decided upon. There was always a doubt — not because we didn’t have the evidence, but because there was always a thought: “What if I made a mistake, or what if it was the wrong verdict?”

A little while I go, I decided to google the names of the two convicts. I came up with the name of one of them. That person has been out of jail since 2014. He is now 62 years old. He is a reformed inmate. In the segment that I saw, he was speaking about his life as an inmate. Not only did he confirm that he had killed the person who was the subject of the jury trial upon which we served when he was first convicted, but he also killed again when he was in prison.

What I could see from his testimony today is that this man is reformed. Like I said, he is a 62-year-old man. He lives somewhere in this country. He’s a grandfather, and he is reformed. He has written a book. He goes into schools and testifies and speaks to young people there, and he talks about his experience. He talks about how he became an inmate, how he got into the life that he did, what happened to him in prison to make him change his way of thinking, and that what he developed while he was in prison was empathy. He started to understand that everything he was doing had consequences on others.

This man is now a reformed man. He’s now a working Canadian. He is part of our society. After reading this, I told my husband, “I saw this.” He said, “Are you telling me that you pardon him for what he did?” I said to him, “I’m not sure if I pardon him, and I’m not sure how I feel about this man today.” But I’ve always wanted to make sure that there was something good that came out of the work that I had done 35 years ago. I only googled the name of the person, so I was only able to find the information on one person. This man has also written a book.

It’s just a story. For me, it is like closing the loop on this. I still don’t know how I feel about this man and where he is in his life today. One of the things that he said is that he is not proud of what he has done. He was incarcerated for 32 years, but he said, “I still live in a prison of my own making because I’m still living with what I have done, and this is something I will carry to my death.”

[Translation]

On that note, I would remind senators that by supporting Bill S-252, we are raising awareness among Canadians and governments, every year, about the many issues associated with jury duty.

I’m sure you can see that time is of the essence. This bill needs to go back to the House of Commons. I humbly request your support so this bill can go through the process in the other place quickly.

Thank you for your attention.

[English]

Hon. Brent Cotter moved the adoption of the report.

He said: Honourable senators, I have the honour of presenting to the chamber the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s report on Bill S-231, which began consideration before our committee before December 13, 2023. Our report came to the Senate on December 13, 2023. This constitutes my brief speech with respect to the committee report. I want to thank the chair of the committee, Senator Jaffer, for making this opportunity available to me.

The bill, sponsored by Senator Carignan, is entitled “An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Criminal Records Act, the National Defence Act and the DNA Identification Act.” The short title of the bill, which better conveys its import, is “Increasing the identification of criminals through the use of DNA Act.”

Generally speaking, the bill proposes legislation that amends a series of laws — the laws I have just mentioned — so that the collection of DNA from people convicted of serious criminal offences and people found not guilty on account of mental disorder would be expanded in terms of the categories of persons and offences where DNA can be collected and placed in the DNA data bank.

The bill would also expand, in limited circumstances, the ability of investigative police agencies to obtain information with respect to investigations under way in what are known as familial searches. This is when there was not a direct match between the DNA found in an investigation and a person whose DNA profile is in the data bank, but there shows a match with a person who has a genetic affiliation to the person whose DNA is in the bank. These are known as familial searches. The bill was substantially amended at committee. In a moment, I will highlight these amendments.

Your committee met on four occasions to consider the bill, beginning on November 9, 2023. There was one committee meeting for a clause-by-clause study, which was held on December 7, 2023.

Three amendments proposed at committee were adopted, and four clauses of the bill were defeated. The key changes to Bill S-231 are as follows:

First, clause 3 of the bill regarding mandatory DNA orders was defeated.

The Criminal Code currently requires a defendant to provide a DNA sample where they have been convicted of or received a discharge for what are known as “primary designated offences.” Primary designated offences are serious offences under the Criminal Code, including several sexual offences, murder, manslaughter, aggravated assault, robbery and others.

A court also has the discretion in these circumstances to order a defendant to provide a DNA sample where they have been convicted, discharged or found not criminally responsible in cases of what are known as “secondary designated offences.”

Clause 3 of the original bill would have amended the Criminal Code to require a DNA order following conviction, discharge or a finding of not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder for any primary or secondary designated offence, with some exceptions.

The committee removed this clause from the bill, leaving the Criminal Code unchanged with respect to the authority of the courts to either have the power to or make a requirement to issue these DNA orders.

Second, clause 4 of the bill, which is the timing for such orders, was also defeated.

Clause 4 of the original bill set out the timelines during which a court would have been required to make a mandatory DNA order. This clause was connected to and followed the proposed amendments under clause 3, about which I have spoken.

The committee — by majority — removed this clause from Bill S-231.

A third clause related to what are known as “familial DNA searches” was also defeated.

Clause 18 of the bill would have amended the DNA Identification Act to allow familial searches of the National DNA Data Bank in certain limited circumstances. This would have enabled a search of the National DNA Data Bank for a DNA profile that could identify a biological relative of the person whose DNA was in the data bank.

The committee — as I say — removed this clause from the bill.

Fourth, clause 20 deals with amendments related to destroying DNA profiles contained in the convicted offenders index of the data bank if the person is acquitted of the charges tied to the original DNA order, and if the accused had no other findings of guilt, discharges or findings of not criminally responsible for a designated offence that could have triggered a DNA order originally. The committee amended this clause to remove references to findings of not criminally responsible.

The result of this amendment is that an individual who has been acquitted of a designated offence may request that their DNA profile be removed from the data bank despite a separate finding of being not criminally responsible for another designated offence.

Finally, in terms of major amendments, clause 24 of the bill requires that the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Emergency Preparedness report on the advisability of taking a DNA sample on the same basis as fingerprints taken under the Identification of Criminals Act. The committee amended this clause to require that such a report proceed, and should include specific analysis of the inculpatory and exculpatory effects toward the liability or the absence of liability that DNA sampling might have on Indigenous, Black and racialized populations.

I think it’s fair to say — and I’m about to conclude — the committee has conducted serious and often spirited consideration of the bill, and was assisted greatly by the 17 witnesses who appeared before the committee. On the committee’s behalf, I want to extend our thanks to the witnesses who met with the committee.

I would like to make two final observations — if I may — which are a little more personal than the committee report. I think it’s fair to say that committee members did not oppose the use of DNA for investigative purposes. However, a majority of the committee was concerned about the specific situations where the capture and use of DNA would be expanded by this bill, leading to clauses that were uncomfortable for them, and leading to their defeat or amendment.

I anticipate that members of the Senate, members of the committee and its sponsor, Senator Carignan, will expand on these bare-bones comments during the Senate’s study of this report. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Carignan, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Housakos, for the second reading of Bill S-220, An Act to amend the Languages Skills Act (Governor General).

Hon. Jane Cordy: Would you take a question?

I really want to thank you so much for doing this. I was on the Social Affairs Committee, and I remember that we heard that your bill was coming before us, it was Jury Duty Appreciation Week and I thought, “Oh, well, that’s nice.” But then you were our first witness, and you spoke about your experiences, what happened afterwards and how you had no preparation going in. Then the day after the trial, you go back to your regular life — as regular as it can be after going through the trauma.

I think you spoke about the underappreciation of jurors. I have known people who have served on juries. You see them again, and it’s great that they’re finished, but they can’t talk about what they went through. It’s not even right to ask them what they have gone through.

I guess my question would be this: During Jury Duty Appreciation Week — which I think will do really good things — what types of activities do you envision taking place so that Canadians understand what jurors have gone through? We often think that a trial lasts a week or two, but we heard one witness tell us that it was months and months, and then after all this period of time, walk back into his office the next day and move along just as if life had been going on as “normal” for the previous six or nine months he was doing it.

I’m wondering if you can give us some ideas of what you envision. Hopefully, people are very creative in what they do if this bill passes. Can you tell us some of the things you think might happen that would help jurors or potential jurors understand what’s going to happen, but also to help the general public have a better appreciation of the role that members of a jury play in our society?

Senator Moncion: Thank you for the question, senator, and thank you for all the good questions that you and all your colleagues on the Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee were asking when we, the witnesses, attended.

A lot of things are already in the process, and they were used last year in Jury Duty Appreciation Week. This information is being built as different provinces come into the program. Since we started working on the changes to the legislation for the secrecy rules, a Canadian Juries Commission has been created, and their work is to bring awareness to the work that jurors have to do.

They are working with provinces that want to come onboard. So there is information on the web that is available. There are all kinds of courses people can take or sessions they can participate in to prepare them for jury duty. There are different things that are done in different provinces.

This work has been building over the last couple of years, so more and more material is available. There is going to be more information provided for employers whenever a staff member is asked to be on jury duty. Understanding the obligations as an employer, the work that the juror is going to have to do and how time consuming that is — all this information is provided. But it will also be made more accessible.

The appreciation week just brings awareness. Then people will maybe start looking at that information and see what happens when they are called to become jurors. There is going to be more information available, and all kinds of tools are out there now to help jury duty.

Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Downe, seconded by the Honourable Senator Quinn, for the third reading of Bill S-258, An Act to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act (reporting on unpaid income tax).

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Hon. Wanda Thomas Bernard: Honourable senators, I rise today in support of Bill S-280, An Act respecting a national framework on sickle cell disease. Thank you to my colleague Senator Mégie for giving us a comprehensive overview of sickle cell disease. We are privileged to have her medical expertise to inform the chamber about the complex medical details and challenges of this hereditary disease impacting descendants of Africa, the Caribbean, the Middle East, South America and certain regions of India and the Mediterranean.

I would also like to thank my colleague Senator Cordy for being a champion of this issue for many years, including her work in 2017 to have National Sickle Cell Awareness Day recognized. I want to thank and recognize the work of the honourable Tony Ince, MLA for Cole Harbour-Portland Valley, who presented and supported Bill 396, An Act to Establish a Sickle Cell Awareness Day, in November 2023 in my home province of Nova Scotia. June 19 will now be observed as Sickle Cell Awareness Day in Nova Scotia.

I support Bill S-280 and urge that it be sent to committee to be studied as soon as possible. Sickle cell disease impacts people living at a particularly vulnerable intersection — the intersection of race and disability. With daily life being so significantly impacted by the forces of racism and ableism, I believe this framework has a particularly important role in improving the lives of Black people with sickle cell disease. This intersection is the result of systemic issues and policy gaps. It requires policy solutions like this framework.

I agree with the importance of creating a national research network, improving training and diagnostic tools, setting evidence-based national standards, creating equitable neonatal screening, supporting public awareness campaigns and implementing a tax credit for families.

Members of my extended family and kinship group have been impacted by sickle cell anemia. For many years, African Nova Scotians suffered in silence because this chronic illness was considered a taboo topic — one you didn’t talk about anywhere or to anyone. I am grateful for the leadership of people like Dr. Josephine Etowa, which began when she was a graduate nursing student — she had the courage to take a stand — and Rugi Jalloh, who has led the volunteer work in Nova Scotia and across Canada on this issue. Their efforts have helped to raise awareness, reduce stigma and create policy changes. Now, colleagues, it is time to broaden the scope of this work nationally, and Bill S-280 positions us to do that.

In 2013, the Nova Scotia government announced the introduction of the Maritime Newborn Screening Program. Dr. Josephine Etowa was — as I said earlier — a graduate nursing student instrumental in bringing the sickle cell screening of newborns to Nova Scotia. The ability to screen babies as early as possible saves lives. It means that babies can access life-saving treatments early, preventing irreversible damage, reducing future hospitalizations and preventing serious symptoms from developing.

Dr. Etowa studies racism in health systems, and through her research, she identified the issue of a lack of screening for sickle cell disease. This early screening program is an excellent working example of race equity in the health system. A test that in mainstream medical systems may not seem to make a remarkable change for most children has the power to make a significant change specifically for Black families and other racialized families whose quality of life would be improved with the knowledge of an early diagnosis. Essentially, colleagues, this is an example of bringing a culturally responsive lens to health care systems.

I consulted with Ase Community Foundation for Black Canadians with Disabilities, who stated that they are in support of Bill S-280 in principle due to the capacity the bill has to improve the lives of Black people with this chronic illness. They recommend that the bill explicitly recognize the intersectionality of race and disability and how anti-Black racism impacts health outcomes and access to support and care. They also suggest that the bill explicitly recommend the framework include culturally responsive training for health care professionals.

They stated:

Bill S-280 represents a crucial step toward recognizing and addressing the unique challenges Black Canadians face with sickle cell disease.

When this bill goes to committee, I encourage you to invite Dr. Etowa and the Ase Community Foundation as witnesses. You will be enlightened.

The Sickle Cell Disease Association of Atlantic Canada recently sent out a newsletter, and in it the founder and President, Rugi Jalloh, recounted an interaction they had when they asked a person with sickle cell disease how they were doing. Their response was, “It hurts to breathe, but hey, I’m glad to be alive.”

They shared that this person was unable to attend the entire semester at university due to multiple hospitalizations, even with the usual educational accommodations that were offered. I share this person’s story to highlight how sickle cell disease can prevent people from accessing education and, subsequently, meaningful employment.

Honourable colleagues, for a person with sickle cell disease, the impact touches every area of their life, and a framework addressing this disease has the capacity to change lives for Black Canadians who live with sickle cell anemia.

I believe their lives are worth it. I urge you to see the importance of supporting Bill S-280, and I look forward to the committee work our colleagues will do to examine the whole impact of this proposed framework.

Asante. Thank you.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

(At 5:47 p.m., the Senate was continued until tomorrow at 2 p.m.)

Hon. Brent Cotter: Honourable senators, I rise to speak as the critic on Bill C-280, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (deemed trust — perishable fruits and vegetables).

I realize I have as much as 45 minutes today. I want to tell you that my speech is 21 pages long. I could call out the pages as I go, if you like.

I want to start on page 0. When I came to the Senate, I confess that I was surprised that I had, almost by accident and by experience in my career, bumped into many of the issues that we are addressing here, and I used to sit over in that corner in the nosebleed seats. I was there with former senator Judith Keating. We would compare notes on, remarkably, the kinds of things that we knew and perhaps didn’t even know that we knew.

One of the things I learned from former Senator Keating during those conversations was why she had asked Senator Percy Mockler to be her sponsor. I am sorry that he is not here at the moment. Some of you who are new to the Senate may know that former Senator Keating unfortunately passed away after only serving here for a couple of years. The temerity of the question was on my part, to ask her why she had asked Senator Percy Mockler to be her sponsor. She told me the reason was that, although she may not have agreed with everything that Senator Mockler stood for, she wanted to be a senator just like Percy Mockler.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Simons, do you have a question?

Hon. Yuen Pau Woo: Will Senator Cotter take another question?

Hon. Paula Simons: I do. Senator Cotter, would you accept a question?

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?