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: Official language minority communities refer to groups who have historically faced discrimination, and continue to face discrimination through policies, legislation and funding of their institutions by provincial and territorial governments. These communities are afforded special constitutional guarantees to address historical and ongoing challenges.

Official languages, on the other hand, undeniably served as a tool of colonization, contributing to the eradication and weakening of numerous Indigenous languages — a regrettable legacy that we now seek to reverse. My hope is that Bill C-35, along with other legislation that this government brought forward, such as the Indigenous Languages Act, can facilitate the revitalization and reappropriation of these languages by Indigenous peoples.

We need to collaborate and stand united in an effort toward reconciliation. Polarizing politics should have no place in this chamber, and both the government and this chamber have a duty to protect minorities.

Both official language minority communities and Indigenous peoples benefit from specific constitutionally guaranteed rights. It is essential to give due consideration to these rights in our deliberation on Bill C-35. As is often the case in government bills, numerous constitutional rights and guarantees coexist within the same legal framework. It does not mean that they are the same, or that they need to be compared. Explicit references to the holders of some guaranteed rights do not, in any way, diminish those of other groups.

[Translation]

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.

Senator Moncion: I believe that it is similar.

Senator Moncion: Yes, I will.

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: Honourable senators, I rise today to mark Co-op Week, which was from October 15 to 21, 2023, with the theme “All for one.”

Co-op Week is an opportunity to celebrate the cooperative model and raise awareness of its virtues among the business community, Canadians and governments. Unlike capitalist businesses, which are primarily profit-driven, the cooperative model is rooted in a perspective of sustainable, responsible socio-economic development that puts people, communities and their needs first.

The cooperative model has proven itself over the years, both nationally and worldwide, through innovation, goodwill and a surprising ability to adapt.

To illustrate my point, I’d like to highlight a few success stories from across Canada and around the world. They include Agropur, Federated Co-operatives Limited, Co-operators, Sollio Cooperative Group, Gay Lea, Arctic Co-operatives Limited, Fogo Island Co-Operative Society Ltd. and many others. They also include the Green Bay Packers, Ocean Spray, Crédit Mutuel and Mondragon.

Although the cooperative business model doesn’t always lead the way in terms of rapid return on investment, the fact remains that it meets the needs of those who choose to work together.

I’ve spoken to you before about the Coopérative régionale de Moonbeam Ltée. Senators will recall that, in 2012, the local grocery store was about to close its doors because it couldn’t find a buyer to take over.

The people of Moonbeam took action to form a cooperative, raise funds and elect a board of administrators. Eleven years later, the co-op is still in operation and has been so successful that it is now expanding. A new, bigger and more modern store will be built in the coming year, so that the co-op can do an even better job of serving its customers.

Co-op Week is an opportunity to promote the co-op model and business success stories like that of the Coopérative régionale de Moonbeam Ltée.

I’d like to take this opportunity today to thank the representatives and organizations in this sector, who work hard and promote the interests of co‑ops to local, provincial and federal governments. Your contributions are essential in developing inclusive laws and policies that make the co-op model a solution of choice.

Thank you for your attention.

[English]

Hon. Lucie Moncion: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration entitled Annual Report on Parliamentary Associations’ Activities and Expenditures for 2022-23.

Senator Moncion: Thank you for the question.

I completely agree with you, senator. It’s important to hear from the people involved in those calculations because they can connect those dots for us — we’re running out of time, and I don’t know if senators want to give us a little more.

Senator Moncion: Of course, Senator Cormier.

Senator Moncion: Thank you, colleagues.

The group that deals with that sent us the dollar amounts and number of child care spaces, and, yes, we’ll give you that information. We’re going to ask the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology to invite those people because they really have a lot of information gathered from coast to coast to coast. These people, who are with the FCFA, will be able to provide guidance as we revise the act to ensure that it recognizes and enforces the rights of francophones outside Quebec and anglophones in Quebec.

I don’t think I answered your question fully, but I believe that, as we study this matter, we’ll monitor things carefully and some people will keep an eagle eye on the bill and its potential impact on francophone families outside Quebec and anglophone families in Quebec.

[English]

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, yesterday, September 25, was Franco-Ontarian Day, an opportunity to recognize and celebrate our language, culture and diversity.

For many years, Ontario’s governments treated its francophones with contempt, even though they made significant contributions to the province’s economic success. Take, for example, Regulation 17, which was adopted in 1912 and prohibited the use of French as a language of instruction.

Over time, that contempt would evolve, leading to important changes for Ontario’s francophones. In 1968, under the leadership of Conservative premier John Robarts, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario passed the Schools Administration Act, or Bill 140, and the Secondary Schools and Boards Act, or Bill 141, which provided for the creation of a French-language school board.

Then, a milestone was reached with regard to the recognition of the rights of francophones in Ontario when Bernard Grandmaître, the minister responsible for francophone affairs under David Peterson’s Liberal government, introduced the French Language Services Act in 1986. That legislation came into force in November 1989.

That legislation recognizes the historic, honourable role of the French language, as well as its status as an official language of Canada in the courts, in education and in all institutions of the legislature and government of the province. It also recognizes the contribution of the cultural heritage of the francophone population, enriched by its diversity and by a desire to preserve it for future generations.

In June 2001, the Ontario government recognized the Franco‑Ontarian flag as a symbol of solidarity and irrevocable involvement in the province’s economic and political environment. In April 2010, it officially designated September 25 as Franco-Ontarian Day, formally recognizing the language rights and cultural identity of the minority community.

Finally, on March 2, 2017, the song Notre place, meaning “our place,” became the official anthem of the Franco-Ontarian community following a motion moved by Grant Crack, the MPP for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell. This inclusive song invites all francophones in Ontario, no matter where they live or where they come from, to stop hiding their language, to put French accents where they belong, and to sing their pride.

Through more than 100 years of history, perseverance, sustained effort and collective solidarity, Franco-Ontarians have freed themselves and now occupy a special place in the huge tapestry that is Ontario.

With this statement, I wish to acknowledge all those who have fought over the years, and those who continue to fight, for the recognition of the rights of francophones in Ontario.

It’s thanks to them that I can say, loud and clear, “I’m a Franco-Ontarian and proud of it.” Thank you.

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 rise today to speak on the unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation at third reading of Bill C-13, an act for the substantive equality of Canada’s official languages.

In speaking to this bill, I must once again acknowledge the colonial nature of official languages and point out the importance of supporting Indigenous people in the reclamation, revitalization and strengthening of Indigenous languages in Canada.

We know that the time to review the Indigenous Languages Act is quickly approaching. I would like to remind senators, as we also did in the report of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, that this act provides for an independent review within five years of its coming into force, which was on June 21, 2019.

It will be our duty to vigilantly monitor that work to make sure that it is done in accordance with the requirements of the act, and especially in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. More specifically, our report indicates that this work must be done in the following manner, and I quote:

In the spirit of reconciliation and decolonization, your committee expects the federal government to meet — and exceed — minimum legal expectations in respecting the governance and self-determination rights of Canada’s Indigenous peoples.

[English]

The decolonization of Canada’s language rights regime, as called for in our Official Languages Committee report, cannot be achieved within the restrictive framework of the Official Languages Act. This work requires adequate time and space, as my colleague Senator Cormier, the bill’s sponsor, explained in his speech in reference to Warren Newman, Senior General Counsel, Constitutional, Administrative and International Law Section at the Department of Justice Canada, during his testimony before our committee.

In the context of the development of identity-related legislation, Mr. Newman told us that we must respect the different fields of application and the raison d’être of each act, which shall be interpreted in a harmonious and complementary manner.

These principles of interpretation allow me to be optimistic about the future of Indigenous languages. Official language minority communities will be allies in the cause, knowing full well the role of language in the construction — or even reconstruction — of identity. We are and will remain in solidarity with Canada’s Indigenous peoples.

[Translation]

This brings me to the decline of French in Canada, and a justifiably asymmetrical approach. This steady decline in the demographic weight of francophones in the country has pushed the government to propose a reform with an asymmetrical approach.

Although this principle has long been recognized in jurisprudence, it has arguably always been theoretical or even unrealistic in its implementation.

A simple reading of the extensive jurisprudence illustrates the systemic unequal relationship between official language minorities and the majority in a given province. Inequalities are worse when the minority language is French.

Along with a remedial nature and a broad, liberal interpretation of language rights, the principle of substantive equality is one of the key principles for interpreting the provisions of Bill C-13.

By proposing this asymmetrical approach, the government is trying to give meaning to the principle of substantive equality between the two languages, knowing that the vulnerability and fragility of the French language in Canada and North America legitimize and justify this approach.

In an article published today in the newspaper Francopresse, François Larocque, the University of Ottawa Research Chair on Language Rights, was quoted as saying:

To achieve substantive, not formal, equality, we need to do more for the more vulnerable side.

He is convinced that:

 . . . the generic reference to the Charter [of the French Language] will not erase more than 40 years of jurisprudence . . . . Principles of interpretation have been established and will not disappear [because of the reference to the charter].

[English]

This asymmetry is particularly disturbing for Quebec anglophones, who have many concerns and views diametrically opposed to those of their provincial government. I understand their concerns, as I belong to an official language minority community. Provincial policy can, indeed, be crushing for official language minorities. We must therefore remain vigilant.

During the pre-study, our committee received contradictory testimony and briefs on whether it would be appropriate to include a reference to the Charter of the French Language in the Official Languages Act and in the use of French in federally regulated private businesses act. How, you may ask, do we sort out these positions? It was the other place, really, that decided that question.

[Translation]

The grievances of both official language communities in Quebec monopolized proceedings in the other place, which then delayed the bill’s arrival in the Senate. The passage of Bill C-13 by the House of Commons was fraught with uncertainty for several weeks, but an agreement on 11 amendments between the Government of Quebec and the Liberal government unblocked this bill.

I respect the legitimacy, urgency and importance of studying and debating these issues. However, the length of the debate on the situation in Quebec definitely limited the legislator’s ability to pay equal attention to the linguistic rights of official language minorities elsewhere in the country.

The Senate has been studying this matter for a very long time and we understand it very well. That is fortunate, because otherwise it would have been impossible for us to vote on such a bill, which had many amendments in the other place, after less than eight hours of study in committee.

Esteemed colleagues, you will see that I am satisfied with Bill C-13 and its amendments. I mentioned that in my speech at second reading. However, because I care so much about francophone and minority language rights, I must say how disappointed and displeased I am that the Senate was given a very limited amount of time to study the bill.

We all know it: The end of the session is approaching, and several bills must cross the finish line before the Senate adjourns for the summer. I feel uneasy about studying a bill under these circumstances, particularly one that will have such a major impact on official language minorities and on the survival of a language, a culture and an identity, however pluralistic, diverse and colourful it may be.

As a counterweight to the House of Commons, the upper chamber is mandated to look after the rights and interests of minorities and regions by acting as a chamber of sober second thought. This work complements that of the lower house, which is made up of elected representatives, and where partisanship reigns.

[English]

Discussions in the committee in the other place have sometimes given the impression that the understanding of Canadian bilingualism is no more advanced than it was when Hugh MacLennan wrote Two Solitudes in 1945. I would hope that this notion is now outdated, and that we aspire to a less divided vision of Canadian society. By listening to each other, understanding each other’s grievances and empathizing with the most vulnerable groups, we can counter these tendencies towards divisive identity and language politics.

Despite this dissatisfaction with the process, I would like to express my strong support for this bill, as its adoption is vital to the survival of our communities.

[Translation]

In 1997, Justice L’Heureux-Dubé, in the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Lifchus, gave an eloquent metaphor for bilingualism and minority rights by offering a more unifying vision than MacLennan’s two solitudes.

She said, and I quote:

Bilingualism and minority language rights are forever as closely linked as Romeo with Juliet or Oberon with Titania and they must be presented together as a unit.

As I tried to show at second reading, Bill C-13 is of capital importance to the survival of francophone minority communities. Canadian bilingualism is the bearer of the rights of its linguistic minorities.

In a more optimistic spirit, I’d like to share another observation that is in the report of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages and has to do with the Official Languages Act keeping vigil.

This allays the concerns I just talked to you about and seems especially important for what comes next. As the Commissioner of Official Languages reminded us during our study in committee, we have a bill that, although imperfect, is very acceptable. Now, it will be important for the government to have an effective and comprehensive mechanism for overseeing the implementation of this legislation.

This mechanism should assess compliance by entities subject to the act with its various provisions and include appropriate indicators, particularly the demographic weight of francophone minorities and the enumeration of the children of rights-holders. This oversight role will be exercised mainly by the Treasury Board, but also by the commissioner, with the support of Statistics Canada primarily through the short-form census.

The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages could also provide this oversight by inviting the different departments and stakeholders to appear. This will make it possible to provide timely follow-up and identify trends in the demographic weight of francophones and the enumeration of the children of rights-holders.

Esteemed colleagues, the work is just beginning, or, actually, beginning again. However, this time it is no longer utopian and we have a real chance of success. Surviving as a francophone in a minority situation means being constantly vigilant and worrying about preserving one’s language from one generation to the next when confronted with the many different pressures to assimilate and to conform to the anglonormativity found across the country.

It could be a lack of services provided in French by an entity subject to the act. However, sometimes and quite often, the injustices are more pernicious and harmful when it comes to health services, the numerous and costly barriers to asserting our rights in court, or the lack of access to a continuum of education in one’s mother tongue in one’s home region.

On that subject, I would like to quote from the 2020 decision of the Supreme Court in Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique v. British Columbia, which reminds us of the raison d’être of section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

A school is much more than just a place to pass on theoretical and practical knowledge. It is also a setting for socialization where students can converse with one another and develop their potential in their own language and, in using it, familiarize themselves with their culture. That is the spirit in which the right to receive instruction in one of Canada’s official languages was elevated to constitutional status by means of s. 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . . . .

It’s important to give credit where credit is due. The Senate, and in particular the Official Languages Committee, whose chair, Senator Cormier, I congratulate, has laid the foundations for this legislative reform. We successfully presented the organizing principles for a piece of legislation that could effectively reverse the downward trend in the demographic weight of francophones and improve access to education in the minority language, which makes me optimistic for the future of our communities and their survival.

Colleagues, I encourage you to vote in favour of this bill, while recognizing that the process has been imperfect and that, in future, it would be wise to respect the unique role of the upper chamber, which legislates with particular attention to the interests of minorities and the regions.

In closing, please allow me to borrow the words of Yves Duteil in his song La langue de chez nous:

It is a beautiful language with splendid words

whose history can be traced in its variations . . .

It is a beautiful language to those who know how to defend it

It offers treasures of untold richness . . .

Bill C-13 allows us as francophones to take our place, today and in the future, so that we can create a better tomorrow by reaching out to one another. Thank you very much.

Senator Moncion: Thank you for the supplementary question. Thank you for your suggestions. I will bring them to the attention of the communications service to ask it to expand access and check capabilities. I will then come back to you with an answer. I sincerely thank you for the question.

[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?

Senator Moncion: My question is about our role in the Senate. Although it has been approved by four different committees, does it necessarily have to be approved by the Senate?