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. Lucie Moncion: Honourable colleagues, I rise today to mark, for the second consecutive year, Jury Duty Appreciation Week in Canada, which is taking place from May 7 to 13 this year. It’s an opportunity to recognize and commemorate the experiences of thousands of Canadians.

I want to sincerely thank those who have served as jurors. The purpose of my statement today is to honour them and to express my great appreciation for them.

Serving as a juror requires investing a lot of time and effort during the period of the summons. This experience can also help people gain an appreciation for the justice system and a greater understanding of how it works.

Every year, thousands of Canadians are called to fulfill this civic duty, which depends on the collaboration of many parties. In performing their duties, jurors need the support of their employers, the federal, provincial and territorial governments, the justice system and their communities. The support of each of those parties is important and must be valued.

Jurors make a civic contribution, but it is also important for us to remember that jurors are people. Serving on a jury can often have a negative psychological impact on jurors both during and well after the trial, and many of them suffer in silence. We need to pay attention to these issues so that we can try to meet their needs.

We must also ensure that the administration of justice is fair and equitable, which involves, among other things, convening diverse and inclusive juries that are truly representative of the Canadian population.

[English]

Playing a vital role in the rule of law, the act of serving as a juror is an essential component of both our justice system and democracy. It is crucial for the administration of justice and the judicial system, and in some cases, it is necessary for Canadians to exercise their constitutional rights. In fact, anyone accused of a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment of five years or more has the right to a trial by jury.

I would like to express my gratitude and admiration for Mark Farrant, former juror and the President of the Canadian Juries Commission, for his efforts in raising awareness and bringing attention to the significance of supporting this civic duty among governments, courts of law and the Canadian public.

I have had the opportunity to share my personal experience as a juror on multiple occasions in this chamber. I hope to have conveyed to my colleagues and the Canadian public about the importance of this civic duty, which is shared by many others who have served as jurors. Moving forward, I am hopeful to witness a continued and robust participation in this annual meeting dedicated to promoting and raising awareness of issues affecting jurors and former jurors. Thank you.

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

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

Every year, thousands of Canadians are called to jury duty. Canadians, provincial governments and the federal government recognize that jury duty is a vital component of our justice system and our democracy. However, this recognition is not expressed annually and is not reflected in governments’ support for this cause. Even less well known are the challenges concerning the mental health supports available to individuals who carry out this civic duty.

Given my experience as a former juror, I have had several opportunities in this chamber to tell you about the challenges faced by jurors. Across Canada, from one province or territory to the next, this lack of understanding impedes the cause of jurors. Jury duty is a part of our justice system that deserves to be promoted and celebrated. My intention with Bill S-252 is to create an annual national event dedicated to promoting and raising awareness of all of the issues affecting current and former jurors.

In order to honour and show my gratitude to these citizens, I tabled a motion in the last session, asking the government to designate the second week of May in each year as Jury Appreciation Week in Canada. This motion was adopted by the Senate on May 12.

In particular, I would like to thank my colleagues, Senators Boisvenu and Dalphond, who have consistently supported the cause of jurors’ well-being for several years now. I would also like to mention Senator Kutcher, who is also concerned about the welfare of jurors and who has spoken in this chamber on that issue.

Senator Gold also spoke in support of the motion on behalf of the government and the Minister of Justice. In his speech, he emphasized the invaluable service of individuals called to do jury duty and said that passing this motion would be a modest gesture of our appreciation.

I would like to read a short excerpt from his speech. He said, and I quote:

While most Canadians understand the importance of jury duty and view it as a part of their civic responsibility in a free and fair democracy, they often don’t fully grasp the potential disruption to their lives and the lives of their families.

I am grateful for the support of my colleagues and the government in designating a Jury Appreciation Week in Canada.

Honourable 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 and democracy, the mental health and well-being of current and former jurors, access to justice, and issues of representation and diversity on juries.

As senators, we have the privilege of being able to introduce bills to proclaim a national day or week. I want to take this opportunity to create a Canadian Jury Duty Appreciation Week through legislation. This official designation will reflect the scope and significance of these citizens’ contribution to the Canadian justice system. The preamble of Bill S-252 is a good starting point for better understanding the importance of this official recognition.

The preamble states:

 . . . whereas designating a week dedicated to the appreciation of jury duty will highlight the work that jurors do and will help to educate citizens, organizations, the justice system as a whole, and the provincial and federal governments about the issues involved in fulfilling this civic duty;

The psychological damage suffered by jurors can sometimes resurface long after a trial. Like other former jurors, I suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. Although the first-degree murder trial for which I served as a juror was held 30 years ago, I live with the repercussions of that experience every day. It would be nice if once a year, for one week, we could recognize this reality that affects thousands of Canadians and their families.

[English]

The annual recognition of jury duty would help encourage and promote ongoing and timely conversations between the federal government, the provinces and territories and the various stakeholders about the importance of improving support for jurors across Canada. It is also the occasion to remind ourselves of the daily struggles some jurors and former jurors experience with regard to their mental health.

Colleagues, the cause of jurors and their welfare has progressed very humbly in recent years. I believe the humble progression is in part due to the absence of a yearly reminder of the importance of jury duty.

In 2014, Mark Farrant was a juror in a first-degree murder trial. He helped raise awareness of the need for more jury support in Canada. Drawing from his own experience, he identified the gaps in support provided to jurors. He discovered that his experience was only the tip of the iceberg. Mark was diagnosed with PTSD after the trial and, like many other former jurors, he struggled to find support.

In 2016, his advocacy helped prompt the Ontario government to launch a free counselling program for former jurors. In 2017, Mark shed light on the issues at a national level. He brought the “12 angry letters” to the attention of parliamentarians and government officials. In those letters, 12 former jurors chronicled their suffering and struggle to find support.

[Translation]

It was not until 2017 that a parliamentary committee studied the issue for the first time. At its June 8, 2017, meeting, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights adopted a motion to conduct a study into counselling and other mental health supports for jurors. The study resulted in the tabling of a report entitled Improving Support for Jurors in Canada in May 2018. The fourth recommendation in this report was the genesis of Bill C-417, which was introduced for the first time on October 29, 2018.

The justice committee had recommended that an exception to the secrecy rule be created. I must congratulate Senator Boisvenu on the passage of Bill S-206, the former Bill C-417, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (disclosure of information by jurors), which implements this recommendation. The bill just received Royal Assent on October 18, 2022.

Despite many obstacles, ranging from prorogation to elections, Senator Boisvenu ably brought this bill to its conclusion. The passage of this bill is a pivotal moment in the quest for adequate support for the psychological well-being of Canadian jurors.

[English]

Colleagues, how can we continue this progress? I strongly believe that to bring change, we need to be reminded of the issues at stake. This is exactly what jury duty appreciation week will help accomplish. This has been the approach in other jurisdictions. The proposed week, the second week of May, coincides with the recognition of such a week by the American Bar Association and by other jurisdictions, notably the states of California and Louisiana. 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.

The California legislature designated that week back in 1998. I think it’s important to go back to the resolution adopted by the legislature at the time. It reads:

Resolved by the Assembly of the State of California, the Senate thereof concurring, That the week of May 10, 1998, to May 16, 1998, inclusive, and the second full week in May of each year thereafter shall be proclaimed and celebrated as annual Juror Appreciation Week throughout the state, in honor of the thousands of citizens who support the jury system, thereby making the cherished right of trial by jury a reality;

This was in 1998, colleagues. In 2022 — or 2023 for that matter — I believe Canada is ready to do the same.

In Canada, the week is now recognized by multiple stakeholders and by the federal government. It is not, however, enshrined in law. It was recognized for the first time in 2022 by the Canadian Juries Commission, which took the lead to put jury duty at the forefront, nationally, from May 9 to May 13.

Let me take the time here to recognize the invaluable contributions of the commission, including its founder and CEO, Mark Farrant; Tina Daenzer, CFO/COO; and all the hard‑working board members who accomplish great and important work with very little. Their advocacy and relentless efforts are truly admirable. The official recognition of the week would help the Canadian Juries Commission fill in the gaps in support for jurors across Canada and help their efforts to implement some of the recommendations of the 2018 report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

[Translation]

Your Honour, colleagues, by supporting Bill S-252, we can remind Canadians and the government, each and every year, of the issues that affect jurors. Since this proposal is very simple, I hope we can pass the bill as soon as possible so that it can be sent to the other place. Thank you for your attention.

Hon. Lucie Moncion: Thank you for being here in the Senate today. My question is about assistance for jury support organizations.

Organizations with a mission to provide support to jurors need funding to implement the recommendations set out in the 2018 report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in the other place, entitled Improving support for jurors in Canada.

The report takes into account jurisdictional issues that limit the support the federal government can provide. Federal funding for non-governmental entities is therefore a critical part of successfully moving this issue forward.

Could you tell us how your department supports these organizations?

Hon. Lucie Moncion introduced Bill S-252, An Act respecting Jury Duty Appreciation Week.

(Bill read first time.)

Senator Moncion: Thank you for your question, Senator Boisvenu. If you are talking about productivity, but you are basing your productivity analysis only on the time spent in committee, then it seems as though your premise, or your reasoning, leads you to think that the only work we do is the work in committee. That is unfortunate. You and I both know that over 90% of the work we did on the bill concerning jury members was not done in committee. You are currently working on a series of bills that you want to introduce, and I am doing the same with regard to universities and other issues. That work is not being done in committee.

The work that we do in committee is on bills that have reached the committee stage. Over the past two years, we have done less work in committee but a lot of work in other areas. You, Senator Boisvenu, are an excellent example because of how much work you accomplished, even if it was not in committee or in the Senate. You worked in your office, in Ottawa or back home, and continued to advance your causes. We therefore need to consider that productivity is not necessarily measured only by our speeches, committee meetings or even time spent in person in the Senate.