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. Fabian Manning: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-233, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act (violence against an intimate partner). While I am speaking today as the critic of this bill, I should state at the outset that I support the legislation and its objectives. However, as I have said before, I believe that much more needs to be done at the national level to address the growing rate of violence against an intimate partner.

The topic of intimate partner violence has been discussed at length in this chamber over the past couple of months. It has been the topic of motions, amendments and new legislation amending the Criminal Code, as is the case with Bill C-233. The discussions have also been the impetus for my own private member’s bill, Bill S-249, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy for the prevention of intimate partner violence. I look forward to your support on this very important and timely piece of legislation.

While the statistics on intimate partner violence are heartbreaking, the fact that we are simultaneously bringing forward multiple initiatives to target this heinous reality fills me with a sense of hope.

This legislation has two key provisions which seek to protect against domestic and intimate partner violence. First, it requires a justice, before making a release order for an accused who is charged with an offence against their intimate partner, to consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the safety and security of any person, to include as a condition of the order that the accused wear an electronic monitoring device. I support this requirement.

In 2021, the Quebec government commissioned a study to examine the use of electronic tracking devices in domestic violence cases. Jean-Pierre Guay and Francis Fortin, professors of criminology at the Université de Montréal, found that:

. . . the bracelets increases victims’ sense of safety and spawn a “feeling” of empowerment and autonomy in victims, while “allowing for a more focused and optimized police response.”

An article in The Lawyer’s Daily pointed out some other important findings from this study. In particular, in Spain, where tracking devices have been used in domestic violence cases since 2009, there was some effectiveness, as there was a decrease in the number of women killed by their intimate partners: 45 in 2020, compared to 72 in 2004. However, the most conclusive evidence came from Australia, which demonstrated an 82% reduction of high-risk incidents. Of course, this is a relatively small tool in a judge’s tool box, but I believe it is an important one.

While I am certain the technology is not perfect, I do believe that anything that can improve the feeling of safety and control for abuse victims can serve as a powerful instrument toward the rebuilding of their lives.

The second major provision is the amendment to the Judges Act. Bill C-233 stipulates a continuing education requirement for judges on matters related to intimate partner violence and coercive control. This part of the bill is called “Keira’s Law” as it is named in the honour of four-year-old Keira Kagan, a girl from Milton, Ontario, who was tragically killed in what her family believes to have been a revenge-driven murder-suicide by her abusive father, Robin Brown. Keira’s mother, Jennifer Kagan‑Viater, described Brown as a controlling, violent man and a pathological liar who created a fictional existence.

The judge who presided over their divorce hearing when Keira was eight months old contended that Ms. Kagan-Viater was, in fact, leaving an intolerable situation. However, the judge who oversaw the custody hearing determined that the history of lies and abuse was of little relevance when it came to Keira. The judge acknowledged Mr. Brown’s propensity for lying and acknowledged at least one confirmed incident of physical abuse; however, he concluded, “I am of the view that there is no risk to Keira.” As a result, Mr. Brown received a very generous custody arrangement.

When Keira turned three, her mother remarried and had a baby boy with her husband. There were signs that Keira was being emotionally abused by her father. Judges had given Keira’s father warnings that his access would be curtailed due to his behaviour and failure to obey court orders. Two weeks prior to Keira’s death, Ms. Kagan-Viater sought a motion to suspend or supervise Brown’s access to their daughter because she was worried that Keira was at risk. The presiding judge said the evidence was “serious” and “persuasive and compelling,” yet said the motion was “not urgent.”

Jewish Family and Child Service was called in to investigate. They sent in a caseworker to meet with Mr. Brown on a Friday. According to the Viater family, the caseworker confirmed that Mr. Brown was in fact displaying behaviour consistent with someone who would harm or kill their child, but that her supervisor wanted to wait and talk about it on Monday. But Monday was too late; Keira died on Sunday.

While it may be baffling to some of us that a father with a proven history of domestic abuse and subsequent court warnings could have this level of unsupervised access to his child, family law experts say courts often look at custody cases with the belief that an abusive partner can still be a good parent, even though the evidence suggests children are at a greater risk.

Last year, the Department of Justice Canada studied and reported on the risk factors for domestic violence and child abuse and noted there is indeed an overlap in risk, meaning those who abuse an intimate partner pose an increased risk to their children. The risks are amplified when there is a divorce or separation, as the non-abusive parent is unable to monitor or intervene.

Despite these risk factors, judges, who are tasked with making weighty, life-altering decisions in custody cases, are not required to undergo intimate partner violence training. Bill C-233 seeks to correct that. In effect, the bill signals to the Canadian Judicial Council the importance of continuing education seminars for judges on matters related to intimate partner violence and coercive control in intimate partner and family relationships.

This provision builds on the work of our former colleague and former Conservative Party leader the Honourable Rona Ambrose. After identifying a disconnect between the experience of sexual assault victims and the societal assumptions and misconceptions often leading to an unjust outcome in trials, Ms. Ambrose worked tenaciously to advance her goal of enhanced judicial education. Her tireless efforts ensured the passage of Bill C-337, requiring the Canadian Judicial Council to establish seminars relating to sexual assault and social context, which will undoubtedly lead to more just and fair outcomes for sexual assault victims.

Given the risk factors that are statistically overlooked in cases of intimate partner violence, we too have an opportunity to give judges the tools they need to make the right decisions for families like Keira’s and to keep children safe from those who present serious risks.

Colleagues, while I support this legislation, I am hopeful that this is just the start of a broader reform and, indeed, a national strategy to protect victims of family and intimate partner violence. Please join me in moving forward this legislation and all initiatives seeking to prevent abuse. The further we force the truth about intimate partner and family violence out of the shadows, the closer we will be to putting an end to this shameful reality.

Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Duncan, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That, pursuant to section 3 of the Statutes Repeal Act, S.C. 2008, c. 20, the Senate resolve that the Act and the provisions of the other Acts listed below, which have not come into force in the period since their adoption, not be repealed:

1.Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, R.S., c. 33(2^nd Supp.):

-Part II;

2.Contraventions Act, S.C. 1992, c. 47:

-paragraph 8(1)(d), sections 9, 10 and 12 to 16, subsections 17(1) to (3), sections 18 and 19, subsection 21(1) and sections 22, 23, 25, 26, 28 to 38, 40, 41, 44 to 47, 50 to 53, 56, 57, 60 to 62, 84 (in respect of the following sections of the schedule: 2.1, 2.2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 7.1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 16) and 85;

3.Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act, S.C. 1998, c. 32;

4.Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, S.C. 1999, c. 34:

-sections 155, 157, 158 and 160, subsections 161(1) and (4) and section 168;

5.Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, S.C. 2000, c. 12:

-subsections 107(1) and (3) and section 109;

6.Yukon Act, S.C. 2002, c. 7:

-sections 70 to 75 and 77, subsection 117(2) and sections 167, 168, 210, 211, 221, 227, 233 and 283;

7.An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, S.C. 2003, c. 26:

-sections 4 and 5, subsection 13(3), section 21, subsections 26(1) to (3) and sections 30, 32, 34, 36 (with respect to section 81 of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act), 42 and 43;

8. Budget Implementation Act, 2005, S.C. 2005, c. 30:

-Part 18 other than section 125;

9.An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to financial institutions, S.C. 2005, c. 54:

-subsection 27(2), section 102, subsections 239(2), 322(2) and 392(2);

10.Budget Implementation Act, 2009, S.C. 2009,c. 2:

-sections 394, 399 and 401 to 404;

11.Payment Card Networks Act, S.C. 2010, c. 12, s. 1834:

-sections 6 and 7;

12.An Act to promote the efficiency and adaptability of the Canadian economy by regulating certain activities that discourage reliance on electronic means of carrying out commercial activities, and to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Telecommunications Act, S.C. 2010, c. 23:

-sections 47 to 51, 55 and 68, subsection 89(2) and section 90.

13.Financial System Review Act, S.C. 2012,c. 5:

-sections 54 and 56 to 59;

14.An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act, S.C. 2012, c. 7:

-subsections 7(2) and 14(2) to (5);

15.Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act, S.C. 2012, c. 17:

-sections 70 to 77;

16.Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, S.C. 2012, c. 19:

-sections 432, 433, 459, 460, 462 and 463; and

17.Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, S.C. 2012, c. 31:

-sections 361 to 364.

[English]

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Senator Gold, on October 17, I asked you a question about the ongoing backlog of applications of highly skilled immigrants being forced to return to their home countries as their work permits expired. At the time, you said:

 . . . I’m assured that the government will be doing even more to tackle the backlog in the short term while making our system more sustainable in the long term.

Senator Gold, this morning we are learning that the situation at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada isn’t getting any better. This is from an article in The Globe and Mail:

. . . hundreds of people are seeking a judicial order that compels Immigration to finish processing their applications.

As of Oct. 31 . . . . Around 1.2 million were in backlog . . . .

Senator Gold, basic government services are not being provided by your government, and now this will cost taxpayers money to deal with the barrage of legal cases due to this backlog. What will it take for your government to take this backlog seriously, Senator Gold?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Senator Gold, in April your government tabled a budget in which it announced that it would establish a permanent council of economic advisers, and promised more details in the coming months.

Eight months later, leader, and there’s still no such a council in place, nor have we received the details we were promised in April. There isn’t even a mention of the council in the Fall Economic Statement tabled this month. Senator Gold, is this council still something your government intends to put in place? If so, what is taking so long? Or will your government be announcing another task force to look into this council as yet another way to pass the buck to someone else?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. This is very much still something that the government is committed to, and I’m told that the government is working on it in an ongoing fashion, and it looks forward to announcing further details in due course.

Senator Plett: Senator Gold, I don’t need to remind you that we currently find ourselves with the worst inflation in decades, and there is a recession on the horizon.

Many Canadians are struggling under the skyrocketing cost of living. Students are going to school hungry, Senator Gold. People are turning to food banks in record numbers — in Canada. Your government’s plan is clearly not working, Senator Gold. If ever there was a time for sage, economic counsel, now would be the time.

How much longer do Canadians have to wait for the government to fulfill its promise to take the economy seriously?

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Housakos, seconded by the Honourable Senator Wells, for the second reading of Bill S-237, An Act to establish the Foreign Influence Registry and to amend the Criminal Code.