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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The preamble states:

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

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

[English]

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

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

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

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

[Translation]

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

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

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

[English]

Colleagues, how can we continue this progress? I strongly believe that to bring change, we need to be reminded of the issues at stake. This is exactly what jury duty appreciation week will help accomplish. This has been the approach in other jurisdictions. The proposed week, the second week of May, coincides with the recognition of such a week by the American Bar Association and by other jurisdictions, notably the states of California and Louisiana. Courts across the U.S. as well as the Texas and Oregon legislatures and the Pennsylvania State Senate also recognize a week dedicated to honouring jury duty in the month of May.

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

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

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

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

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

[Translation]

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

Hon. Lucie Moncion moved second reading of Bill S-215, An Act respecting measures in relation to the financial stability of post-secondary institutions.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise at second reading as the sponsor of Bill S-215, the Post-Secondary Institutions Bankruptcy Protection Act.

The post-secondary sector is an industry that generates $55 billion a year and represents roughly 2.4% of the national economy. The contribution of the post-secondary sector to Canada’s economy is considerable, and for francophone minority communities, it is colossal. Post-secondary institutions play an indispensable role in the economic, social and cultural development of communities. We must act now to save communities from the same fate as northern Ontario, with the restructuring of Laurentian University under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act. The case of Laurentian University is a first. It sets a dangerous precedent, but above all, it is a call to action.

Well before the health crisis, many post-secondary institutions were in a precarious financial situation. We know that some of them have been suffering from chronic structural and operational underfunding for years. To cope with this situation, these institutions turn to volatile sources of funding and are often forced to make budget cuts that affect the programs they offer and jobs.

[English]

I am particularly concerned about the institutions serving francophone minority communities, which have the additional responsibility of fostering the vitality of the French language and francophone cultures across Canada. I’m thinking in particular of Laurentian University, Université de Moncton, the University of Alberta’s Campus Saint-Jean, Université de Saint-Boniface, Université de l’Ontario français, University of Sudbury, Université de Hearst and so forth.

The cuts at Laurentian University are compromising access to post-secondary education in French in northern Ontario. French programs that have been cut include engineering, political science, law, education, history, philosophy, literature, drama and midwifery.

Despite the emergence of institutions by and for francophones such as the University of Sudbury, which has clear unified community support, governments have been slow to act. For example, the Government of Ontario took over one year to intervene in the case of Laurentian University and only intervened because it was compelled to. Laurentian University was losing its operational funding, which would have accelerated the actual bankruptcy. This waiting game lasted a year with the Government of Ontario. In the meantime, the francophone community’s next generation is being undermined with devastating consequences to ensure that minority language communities have ownership and control over the institutions that support a strong and prosperous francophonie.

[Translation]

In an interview with ONFR+, Carol Jolin, president of the Assemblée de la francophonie de l’Ontario, reacted to the significant drop in applications to Laurentian University from francophones by saying, and I quote, “The message is clear: Our Franco-Ontarian youth have lost faith in Laurentian University.”

People no longer say “francophones at Université Laurentienne;” they just say “Laurentian University.” He also said, and I quote, “The exodus of northern youth to other parts of the province and the country has begun.”

I recently spoke to the president and vice-chancellor of the Université de Moncton, Denis Prud’homme. He explained that his institution runs a structural and operational deficit every year. Because of inflation, the Université de Moncton has to pay an extra $2 million to $3 million per year, which is not covered by the provincial funding framework. The deficit is already starting to affect programs, human resources, infrastructure and student services, including mental health. The Université de Moncton needs a solid funding base because project-based funding may be good for governments, but it’s not sustainable for small institutions. Competitions for federal subsidies have criteria that favour big universities because they have the capacity and resources to do large-scale projects.

For an institution that has few resources to begin with, project‑based funding requires additional effort to prepare and manage the project. Plus, it’s all temporary. He confided in me, saying:

It’s exhausting, destabilizing and unpredictable. We need core funding with cost-of-living indexing.

[English]

Looking at Laurentian’s situation, President Prud’homme told me that the only thing keeping the University of Moncton from a similar fate is the fact that every year, they take the difficult decisions to make cuts.

Out West, the situation at the University of Alberta’s Campus Saint-Jean is unsustainable. There, the money that the university gets in tuition is not based on actual enrolment numbers but instead on a quota. As a result, Campus Saint-Jean does not receive funding for at least one third of its enrolment. On top of the chronic operational and structural underfunding that has been going on for several years, the Alberta government announced budget cuts in 2019 and prohibits post-secondary institutions from using the reserve funds. For the University of Alberta, this is a cut of 34%.

For at least the past two years, the university has been going through a restructuring process and making several budget cuts that threaten Campus Saint-Jean’s very survival.

[Translation]

I recently spoke with the dean of Campus Saint-Jean, Pierre‑Yves Mocquais. He explained, and I quote:

There is a real trend towards centralizing the university, and this is constantly encroaching on the campus’ autonomy through a gradual erosion of its capacity to function as a francophone institution.

Campus Saint-Jean is treated as though it’s just another department, which is completely unrealistic considering its francophone mandate.

This crisis, which continues to this day, has led to civic action. The community is mobilizing to put pressure on governments through the “Save Saint-Jean” campaign. The budget cuts required to maintain the financial viability of the institution threaten the existence of entire programs and may force students to complete their degrees in English. The university has already laid off more than 1,000 people, and the layoffs continue.

In what the president of the Association canadienne-française de l’Alberta, or ACFA, described as a David-versus-Goliath battle, ACFA is advocating on behalf of the community to save Campus Saint-Jean by suing the Government of Alberta and the University of Alberta. To illustrate how lopsided this battle is, ACFA requested between $1 million and $1.3 million for the 2020 school year, while the Alberta government spent $1.5 million on legal fees to avoid providing this funding.

Several sectors have been affected by the pandemic, but it is too early to determine its actual impact on the financial viability of the post-secondary education sector in Canada. However, we have noted certain effects, particularly on the share of revenue generated by foreign students’ tuition fees, which dropped considerably because of the pandemic.

Bill S-215 seeks to prevent post-secondary institutions from becoming financially unstable and to improve the position of those on the brink in order to ensure the vitality and development of communities across the country.

[English]

In my speech today, I will first provide a general overview of post-secondary funding in Canada. I will then explain how funding issues are compounded when it comes to institutions providing French language minority education. I will bring attention to the problems with the legal status quo, including the ability of universities and colleges to make use of bankruptcy and insolvency law. This will provide context for my legislative proposal, Bill S-215, which calls for concrete and effective government action to address this crisis and prevent the use of inappropriate legal tools as part of the restructuring process. I will conclude by presenting some of the solutions proposed by stakeholders.

Funding the post-secondary sector. What does the sector’s funding look like and why is it cause for concern? The State of Postsecondary Education in Canada, 2021 report by Higher Education Strategy Associates reveals various trends seen in the sector over the past 20 years. Post-secondary funding comes from three main sources: government grants, tuition fees and private sources. Prior to the 2008-09 fiscal crisis, the three main sources of funding for post-secondary education grew by 5% per year on average. After the crisis, tuition fees, particularly those by international students, have played a significantly more important role. Tuition fees went from accounting for 19% of funding in 2000-01 to 29% in 2018-19.

What about government funding? Over the past 20 years, the portion of funding coming from provincial governments has decreased. Nationally, the provincial share, which was 43% in 2000-01, dropped to 35% in 2018-19. Federal funding has been stagnant since about 2008. In real dollars, funding for the Official Languages in Education Programs has been in steady decline.

The important thing to note is that proportionately, we are seeing the government steadily backing away from the post‑secondary sector. The decline is largely what is behind the sector’s precarious financial situation.

[Translation]