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: Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:

That Bill C-234 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended, in clause 2,

(a) on page 2, by replacing lines 24 to 37 with the following:

(b) on page 3, by deleting lines 1 to 9.

Thank you.

Hon. Lucie Moncion, pursuant to notice of September 27, 2023, moved:

That, in light of the recent changes to the Senate Room Allocation Policy by the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, the Senate Administrative Rules be amended as follows:

1.That the Senate Administrative Rules be amended

(a)in Chapter 5:03 by replacing sections 2 and 3 with the following:

“Basic staff

Additional Staff

(2) The Internal Economy Committee may direct the Clerk Assistant, Committees, to provide a committee with any additional staff that the Committee sees fit.

Schedule and room allocation

(b)in Chapter 5:04 by replacing subsection 2(2) with the following:

“Meeting schedule

(2) The Clerk Assistant, Committees, in consultation with the caucus spokespersons, will assign a meeting schedule and reserve a room for each caucus that meets regularly. Due consideration should be given to the size of a caucus and its status as a recognized party or recognized parliamentary group, as defined by the Rules of the Senate.”; and

2.That the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make any necessary technical, editorial, grammatical or other required, non-substantive changes to the Senate Administrative Rules as a result of these amendments, including the updating of cross-references and the renumbering of provisions.

Hon. Lucie Moncion, pursuant to notice of June 13, 2023, moved:

That, in light of the adoption of the Financial Policy for Senate Committees by the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration on June 1, 2023, the Senate Administrative Rules be amended in Chapter 3:05

(a)by repealing the heading before section 1, section 1, subsections 10(2) and (3) and section 11; and

(b)by replacing the heading before section 2 and subsections 2(1) and (2) with the following:

“Committee Budgets

(a) adopted by the committee;

(b) submitted by the committee to the Internal Economy Committee for its consideration; and

(c) presented to the Senate by committee report, with the budget and a report of the Internal Economy Committee attached.

(2) A budget prepared for the purposes of subsection (1) must contain a detailed estimate of the committee’s special expenses for the fiscal year.”; and

That the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make any necessary technical, editorial, grammatical, or other required, non-substantive changes to the Senate Administrative Rules as a result of these amendments, including the updating of cross-references and the renumbering of provisions.

She said: Honourable senators, this motion proposes consequential changes to the Senate Administrative Rules that are necessary to implement a new financial policy for Senate committees, which was adopted by the Senate Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration on June 1, 2023. The new policy will come into force at the end of September 2023.

[Translation]

I want to point out that this policy compiles into one comprehensive document long-standing decisions, policies, practices and guidelines of the Internal Economy Committee that apply to Senate committees in the area of financial management and committee budgets. Most of these measures are nothing new and will be familiar to senators who have participated in committee travel activities in the past.

[English]

The new policy streamlines the committee budget process to reflect the activity-based budgeting system that has been in place for over 10 years. It also replaces outdated financial reports on committee expenditures with the new legislative requirement for proactive disclosure. I would also note that last week, the Senate adopted changes to the Rules of the Senate, which also repealed obsolete sessional financial reports. Committees will continue to post quarterly, public, proactive disclosure reports, along with an annual report, which follow the fiscal years on the Senate of Canada website. These changes are simply to align our Senate Administrative Rules with the new policy, and will help ensure that the Senate continues to inform the public about spending by its committees in an open and transparent manner.

Thank you again, colleagues, for your consent.

Hon. Lucie Moncion: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That, in light of the recent changes to the Senate Room Allocation Policy by the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, the Senate Administrative Rules be amended as follows:

1.That the Senate Administrative Rules be amended

(a)in Chapter 5:03 by replacing sections 2 and 3 with the following:

“Basic staff

Additional Staff

(2) The Internal Economy Committee may direct the Clerk Assistant, Committees, to provide a committee with any additional staff that the Committee sees fit.

Schedule and room allocation

(b)in Chapter 5:04 by replacing subsection 2(2) with the following:

“Meeting schedule

(2) The Clerk Assistant, Committees, in consultation with the caucus spokespersons, will assign a meeting schedule and reserve a room for each caucus that meets regularly. Due consideration should be given to the size of a caucus and its status as a recognized party or recognized parliamentary group, as defined by the Rules of the Senate.”; and

2.That the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make any necessary technical, editorial, grammatical or other required, non-substantive changes to the Senate Administrative Rules as a result of these amendments, including the updating of cross-references and the renumbering of provisions.

Hon. Lucie Moncion: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That the following documents, which form part of the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration from the Second Session of the Forty‑first Parliament, be referred to the Committee so that it may then authorize their disclosure for the purposes of an adjudication under the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act:

1.email from the Honourable David Wells to the Honourable Leo Housakos dated November 30, 2015, at 11:17 a.m.; and

2.email from the Honourable George Furey, K.C., to the Honourable Leo Housakos dated November 30, 2015, at 1:55 p.m.

[English]

Hon. Lucie Moncion: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That, in light of the adoption of the Financial Policy for Senate Committees by the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration on June 1, 2023, the Senate Administrative Rules be amended in Chapter 3:05

(a)by repealing the heading before section 1, section 1, subsections 10(2) and (3) and section 11; and

(b)by replacing the heading before section 2 and subsections 2(1) and (2) with the following:

“Committee Budgets

(a) adopted by the committee;

(b) submitted by the committee to the Internal Economy Committee for its consideration; and

(c) presented to the Senate by committee report, with the budget and a report of the Internal Economy Committee attached.

(2) A budget prepared for the purposes of subsection (1) must contain a detailed estimate of the committee’s special expenses for the fiscal year.”; and

That the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make any necessary technical, editorial, grammatical, or other required, non-substantive changes to the Senate Administrative Rules as a result of these amendments, including the updating of cross-references and the renumbering of provisions.

[English]

Hon. Lucie Moncion: Would you take another question, Senator Black?

Hon. Lucie Moncion moved the adoption of the report.

She said: Honourable senators, this report contains a recommendation of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration to amend a section of the Senate Administrative Rules.

The provision in question, section 11 of Chapter 3:03, currently states that the consent of the Internal Economy steering committee is required for any commercial use of the Senate’s intellectual property, except by way of fair dealing, an exception set out in the Copyright Act.

The committee recommends that this provision be amended such that the steering committee’s consent is no longer required when the commercial use is insignificant in nature or when a statutory exception other than fair dealing applies.

[English]

The Senate of Canada creates and owns a variety of intellectual property, from the recordings of debates in the chamber or in committee to the material we make available on our website to communicate our work to Canadians. Per the Senate Administrative Rules, requests from members of the public to use this intellectual property are addressed by the Administration, specifically by the Communications Directorate, with the support of the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel. As is currently required by the section at issue in this report, whenever a request has a commercial element to it, no matter how incidental, insignificant or improbable, the Administration will bring it to the steering committee for direction.

By adopting this report, the Senate will simplify the process by which requests from the public are addressed, as it will reduce the number of requests that must be considered by the steering committee while preserving its role in approving or rejecting significant commercial uses of intellectual property.

I would add here that the Administration will provide quarterly reports on the requests it receives and how they have been handled.

Finally, this report will also add reference to statutory exceptions to intellectual property generally and confirm the Administration’s current practice, which is to comply with Canadian law and any exceptions that might apply.

Thank you. With this, if there are no questions or debate, I move the adoption of the report.

Hon. Lucie Moncion, Chair of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, presented the following report:

Tuesday, May 16, 2023

The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration has the honour to present its

EIGHTH REPORT

Your committee, which is authorized by the Rules of the Senate to consider financial and administrative matters, now reports that it has reviewed the Senate Administrative Rules to streamline the Senate’s intellectual property permissions process and recommends as follows:

1.That the Senate Administration Rules be amended, in Chapter 3:03 by adding the following after subsection 11(a):

(a) by way of fair dealing or any other statutory exception to the scope of intellectual property protection;

(b) if the commercial use is insignificant in nature; or

(c) with the consent of the Steering Committee.

2.That the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make any necessary technical, editorial, grammatical, or other required, non-substantive changes to the Senate Administrative Rules as a result of this amendment, including the updating of cross-references and the renumbering of provisions.

Respectfully submitted,

LUCIE MONCION

Chair

She said: Madam Speaker, my warmest congratulations.

Hon. Lucie Moncion: Would the senator agree to take a question?

Hon. Lucie Moncion moved the adoption of the report.

She said: Honourable senators, I am sure that you read this report religiously. For those who may have missed the opportunity, I would like to highlight some of the main points.

[English]

The Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, or CIBA, has carefully reviewed the Senate Administrative Rules in light of the creation of the new Standing Committee on Audit and Oversight, or AOVS, and recommends a few non-substantive changes to the Senate Administrative Rules. Simply put, this report is about housekeeping to align the Senate Administrative Rules with the mandate and role of AOVS. It is therefore my pleasure to propose the adoption of the sixth report of CIBA.

Hon. Lucie Moncion moved, for Senator Wells, third reading of Bill C-228, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act and the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985.

She said: Honourable senators, I apologize for taking the floor without giving notice. I couldn’t do it on Thursday so I chose to do it today.

I rise to speak at third reading of Bill C-228, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act and the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985.

The purpose of Bill C-228 is to offer better protections for pensioners. For that, it addresses the issue of pension plan solvency in three ways. First, before each chamber of Parliament, it would require the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to table an annual report on the solvency of federal pension plans.

Second, it would provide a mechanism allowing money to be transferred into the fund without tax implications to ensure the insolvent portion until the funds could be restored. These two components will help monitor solvency and allow corrective measures to be taken as needed.

Third, in the case of bankruptcy, the bill improves the protection provided to those who have defined benefit pension plans that are underfunded. In that case, the pensions would be paid in priority to the pensioners ahead of secured, preferred and unsecured creditors.

I want to begin by expressing my support for this bill and thanking its sponsor, Senator Wells, and the critic, Senator Yussuff. I’m pleased to see that this bill has already made it to third reading stage of the legislative process. That is rather unexpected. Unlike its predecessors, it has made it through most of the steps in the legislative process, where many others before it have failed.

The existing legal framework perpetuates not only an unfair system for the sharing of bankruptcy costs but also an unwise laissez-faire approach to underfunded pension plans, and that is the crux of the problem. The fact that many bills similar to Bill C-228 have been introduced over the past 20 years is significant. The urgent need to find solutions to this problem has been brought to light many times. Many Canadians continue to suffer the loss of their retirement income because the defined benefit plans they paid into were underfunded when their employer filed for insolvency or bankruptcy.

By way of example, I’m thinking of Nortel Networks’ insolvency in January 2009, where company heads gave themselves bonuses and spent large sums on performance pay for executives. I’m also thinking of Sears Canada’s bankruptcy in 2018 and the millions of dollars in dividends paid to shareholders a few years prior.

More recently, in February 2021, a new precedent was set when the first publicly funded post-secondary institution sought protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act. In the case of Laurentian University, the pension plan had been cut considerably through the elimination of guaranteed benefits indexed post-retirement. Bill C-228 would ensure a more equitable sharing of the costs of bankruptcy and restructuring.

As they currently have no protection when a company files for bankruptcy, pensioners are forced to accept significant reductions in their benefits from the start of restructuring to avoid even more devastating cuts in the event of bankruptcy. When a company goes bankrupt, having a priority claim is certainly more advantageous than being in the lowest class of creditors. Funds must remain to be distributed, but often there are none when a company goes bankrupt. In this process, the likelihood of a pensioner receiving their share will depend on the position of their pension fund at that point. Despite the improvement that the bill makes to the financial security of pensioners, its scope remains narrow. The intent of my intervention today is to shed light on the broader context of this bill so we can continue searching for solutions closer to the source of the problem. More specifically, I’d like to address the problematic issue of underfunded pension plans and the rights regimes that tolerate that the financial security of pensioners is put at risk.

I’m pleased to see that Bill C-228 includes a provision to address the problem when it comes to federally regulated plans. The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions already has a mandate to ensure that federally regulated plans are financially sound and in compliance with the regulations governing them and the requirements of the oversight regime. Clause 6 of the bill gives the Office of the Superintendent new responsibilities, requiring it to table an annual report in Parliament explaining the extent to which pension plans are meeting funding requirements and the corrective measures taken or ordered to remedy the problems of pension plans that aren’t meeting requirements.

I’m delighted that the bill includes provisions to rectify the situation of underfunded plans. However, I’m not convinced that this provision will have a real impact on the funding of plans that are in arrears, especially given its scope, which is limited to federally regulated plans.

I understand the jurisdictional hurdles involved in regulating provincially regulated pension plans. However, I believe that issues related to the funding of a pension plan of an entity that is at risk of insolvency are within the federal government’s jurisdiction and that the federal government has a responsibility to pensioners and pension plan members.

[English]

I would like to read a passage from the appearance of Canadian Labour Congress President Bea Bruske that illustrates this issue:

The federal government legislated changes in response to the Sears Canada debacle but they were woefully inadequate. This is especially frustrating, since the evidence shows that many companies with underfunded pension plans could eliminate the solvency deficiency in their plans by allocating just a portion of their shareholder payouts to the pension plan. Many firms consciously choose to reward shareholders and senior executives, boosting the stock price, rather than fully fund their pension obligations. That leaves pensioners and plan members at risk if the company becomes insolvent.

We need to bring forward a comprehensive model to prevent the insolvency deficiency of pension funds. The issue of underfunded pension plans is critical, in my view, and deserves further attention.

The narrow scope of the bill is also felt in other respects. While some witnesses at the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy raised the possibility that the creditor order provisions could also apply to pension plans where registered deficits are charged to participating employers, the bill is really aimed at defined benefit plans, since only these plans are able to develop underfunded liabilities.

I would therefore like to draw honourable senators’ attention to the many Canadians whose pension plans are not covered by the legislation given that fewer than 10% of private sector workers belong to a defined benefit plan. In addition, we have seen a significant decline in these pension plans over the past 10 years, as they are often too costly and unsustainable for private sector employers.

For these reasons, it would be appropriate to continue our reflection in order to study other options that would have a broader scope and that would allow for greater protection of pensioners and pension plan members.

[Translation]

Although well beyond the scope of the bill, we must also address the financial security of seniors. There are significant disparities and inequities between Canadians who have access to a defined benefit pension plan, those who have access to a defined contribution pension plan and those who don’t have a registered pension plan. There are significant differences between public and private sector employers in terms of the availability of defined benefit pension plans compared to defined contribution plans. The labour shortage could change some of these trends by rebalancing the power relationships between workers and employers. It’s worth keeping an eye on the situation.

Despite the narrow scope of the bill, it is an improvement in the protections that are afforded to beneficiaries of certain pension plans. This bill has managed to make it through almost every step of the legislative process.

Colleagues, I therefore encourage you to vote in favour of this bill, which represents an important first step toward a fairer pension system in Canada.

Thank you for listening.

(On motion of Senator Martin, for Senator Wells, debate adjourned.)

[English]

Hon. Lucie Moncion moved the adoption of the report.

She said: Honourable senators, it is my pleasure to speak on this report, which deals with the Senate’s budget for the financial year 2023-24.

In summary, the anticipated budget is estimated at $126.7 million, which is $4.9 million or 4% over the 2022-23 budget.

The process of arriving at the budget is based on the recommendations of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets. The subcommittee is comprised of myself as chair; Senator Marshall as deputy chair; and Senators Bovey, Moodie and Tannas. I thank them for the substantial time and effort they spent on reviewing the estimates.

The members of the subcommittee met with the Senate Administration Executive Committee and most of the directors on many occasions. Detailed presentations were made by the directorates to the subcommittee. The members had the opportunity to discuss and question funding, staffing and expense requirements during this process.

Throughout its consideration of the 2023-24 Main Estimates, the committee took into consideration not only the changes in the Senate, but also the effects of the new economic and operational realities resulting from two years of the pandemic that has had a significant impact on the Senate’s operation. The committee was also very mindful of the Canadian economic environment and the importance of balancing operational needs with proper stewardship of public funds.

Moving to the detail of the expenditures, I would remind senators that there are two parts to the budget: statutory funding and voted funding. The statutory portion deals with money allocated by legislation. This includes senators’ basic and additional allowances, pensions, senators’ travel and living expenses, telecommunications and employee benefit plans. Any shortfalls in these categories at the end of the year are covered by the Treasury Board. Conversely, surpluses are automatically returned to the Treasury Board as they cannot be reallocated. The second part of the budget is the voted budget, which is for the workings of the Senate. They cover senators’ office budgets and Senate Administration.

Moving to the numbers, the total amount of the statutory budget is $38.1 million, an increase of $800,000, or 2.2%, from last year. The main reason for the increase is the senators’ travel budget, which is increasing by $418,000 to reflect the recent increase in travel costs. The other increase is the contribution to the employee benefit plan, which rose by $391,000 due to the increase of 0.2% of the Treasury Board rate from 15% to 15.2%.

Moving to the second part of the voted budget, this portion is $88.6 million, an increase of $4.1 million or 4.8%. The major components of the voted budget growth are the International and Interparliamentary Affairs Directorate, which increased by $201,000 to cover the cost of the 47th annual session of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie and the 31st annual session of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly. There was an increase of $100,000 for the diversity, equity and inclusion program and additional funding of $2.5 million to maintain and renew the IT infrastructure and technologies, for new resources to support human resources activities and for services and funding for the East Block and the Senate of Canada building’s cafeteria.

[Translation]

The new requests for funding approved by the Internal Economy Committee over the course of the year represent $1.1 million, mainly because of economic increases for the Senate Executive Group and the Middle Management Group for two additional resources for the new enhanced security measure for senators and staff, which the Parliamentary Security Department will be responsible for, and for two additional resources for the Committees Directorate.

An amount of $146,00 was included mainly to cover position reclassifications. The following two budget transfers were approved. The first is a reallocation of $179,000 from the Senate committees budget to the Senate Administration to cover the salaries of two resources to support witnesses who appear virtually. The second is a reallocation of $178,000 from the Audit and Oversight Committee’s budget to the Senate Administration to cover the salary of a new chief audit executive.

Initiatives requiring one-time funding will be self-funded up to $924,000, particularly for strategic planning of human resources for the employment participation study and the review of compensation, maintenance and the ongoing renewal of the Senate network, and the renewal of two resources to support the renewal of the network and the redesign of many processes.

As a result of the decision made by the members of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration on December 15, there is a temporary hiring freeze, which means that the employee threshold is 441.2 full‑time equivalents. A review of operational efficiency is currently being conducted by the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets. This committee is responsible for evaluating the expenditures and performance of the Senate Administration in key areas in order to identify opportunities for savings and for the streamlining of services. It should be noted that any proposed amendment will be presented and have to be approved by the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.

Before concluding, I want to once again thank the members of the subcommittee, staff of the Senate Administration and members of the Executive Committee. They all considered the budget in a thoughtful and prudent manner.

At this point, I’d also like to provide some clarification respecting certain recent newspaper articles on the financial situation of the Senate. This information was confusing and painted an inaccurate picture of the Senate’s real expenditures.

[English]

Actual expenses and budgets are often used to explain the cost of operating the Senate. Colleagues, there is a difference between “budget” and “actual expenses.” The budget is the overall amount allocated for the functioning of the Senate during a year, whereas the expenses are the amount that is actually spent. Here are the figures for both budget and expenses.

If you remember, in the newspapers, we had comparison from 2015-16. The budget at that time was $88.8 million. The 2023-24 budget is $126.7 million. The increase in the budget between 2023-24 and 2015-16 is $37.9 million, or 42.6%, representing an annual budget increase of 5.3%. If you compare the actual expenses — so I’m talking about expenses now, not about the budget — they were $74.6 million in 2015-16 and $96.4 million for the year 2021-22. That represents an increase of $21.8 million, or 4.9% a year over six years.

The budget for the upcoming fiscal year of 2023-24 totals $126.7 million. This represents an increase of $4.9 million, or 4%, over the fiscal year from 2022-23. So we’re back to talking about budgets.

The annual average budget increase for the past three years is approximately $3.7 million per year, or 3.1%. The 2023-24 budget is based on the principles of maintaining high quality services to senators and some management of public funds in the context of the pandemic and post-pandemic recovery. It includes inflation, economic salary increases, increase in costs, investments in technology and new initiatives.

Some of the new initiatives are actually required by law. The Canada Labour Code, the Pay Equity Act and the Accessible Canada Act require the Senate to implement new programs with deadlines predefined by the regulation, including pay equity, accessibility and harassment prevention.

In addition to these regulatory requirements, the Senate is working to implement initiatives on diversity and inclusion, recruitment and audit and oversight. As a reminder, the Senate has actual expenses. In the last six years, all surplus amounts were returned to the government’s central funds.

My last remark will be on the amount of work done by staff just to keep this institution running. We have 18 permanent committees, 7 subcommittees and 4 joint committees. We have three Senate sittings a week and we have four groups and caucuses that meet on a weekly basis. Every time there is a committee meeting, there are at least 20 to 25 people who are involved. If you were to add up all of these committee meetings and the work done during the week, there is a lot of staff who are at our service in the Senate. I will say that the service we receive from our staff is excellent, and I have no complaints whatsoever. On this note, colleagues, I rest my case.

Hon. Lucie Moncion, Chair of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, presented the following report:

Tuesday, February 7, 2023

The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration has the honour to present its

SEVENTH REPORT

Your committee, which is authorized by the Rules of the Senate to consider financial and administrative matters, pursuant to the Senate Administration Rules, to prepare estimates of the sum that will be required from Parliament for the services of the Senate, has approved the Senate Main Estimates for the fiscal year 2023-24 and recommends their adoption.

A summary of these Estimates is appended to this report. Your committee notes that the proposed total is $126,694,386.

Respectfully submitted,

LUCIE MONCION

Chair

(For text of budget, see today’s Journals of the Senate, p. 1225.)

Hon. Lucie Moncion: I’m sorry, Your Honour. Senator McCallum is not on debate. I am calling on rule 5-13(2). She cannot move the adjournment of the debate.

Hon. Lucie Moncion: Will the senator take a question?

Senator Wells, we have discussed this before. I want to understand the number of people who have access in Canada to a defined benefit plan and which of it is publicly funded and which of it is privately funded.

Senator Wells: Thank you very much for your question. I do know that there is approximately $350 billion under defined plans now. I don’t know how many people that represents, and $350 billion is a lot of money, of course. The number of companies that go bankrupt every year is in the hundreds. Recently, it has been in the low hundreds. About 10 years ago, it was in the high hundreds. I hate to say that the numbers are quite low, but they are.

Again, I don’t know the number of people under private or public, but that is something we could explore at committee.

Hon. Lucie Moncion: Would Senator Plett take a question?

Hon. Lucie Moncion: Honourable senators, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, which deals with amendments to the Senate Administrative Rules.

(For text of report, see today’s Journals of the Senate, p. 1097.)

Hon. Lucie Moncion: Welcome to the Senate, minister.

In your mandate letter, the Prime Minister asks you to do the following:

 . . . continue to implement the Rural Economic Development Strategy to build on existing investments . . . and identify improvements that could be made to programs, policies and future investments to benefit rural communities.

We know that financial cooperatives are generally the last to be consulted when it comes to program and policy development. I am thinking in particular of the Canada Emergency Business Account, or CEBA, during COVID-19. The government eventually made members of these institutions eligible, but they had to work hard to make themselves heard.

Nevertheless, these financial institutions represent nearly one quarter, or 21%, of the Canadian SME market share. Their belated inclusion in critical discussions is hampering rural economic development.

In keeping with the spirit of the objectives set out in your mandate letter, can you tell us how your government intends to consult financial cooperatives systematically rather than belatedly?

[English]