Moved second reading of Bill S-226, An Act respecting Jury Duty Appreciation Week.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today as sponsor of Bill S-226, An Act respecting Jury Duty Appreciation Week, to speak at second reading.

Bill S-226 would designate the second week of May each year as national jury duty appreciation week.

Enshrining this week in law would officially recognize the contributions and dedication of the thousands of Canadians called to serve in this capacity every year. This recognition has become increasingly necessary to raise awareness among governments, employers and members of the public about the mental health issues associated with this civic duty.

Unfortunately, during the previous Parliament, this bill, formerly Bill S-252, died on the Order Paper because of prorogation and the election. I am therefore reintroducing this bill for your consideration in hopes that the work done during the last Parliament will be taken into account to allow for quick, efficient deliberation.

After the multiple speeches I’ve given in this chamber and in committee, I’m sure that many of you have a clearer understanding of the reality facing many Canadians called on to perform jury duty. For senators who haven’t heard those speeches or who may be less familiar with that aspect of our judicial system, I’d like to take this opportunity to offer a few reminders and present you with information relevant to an informed debate.

On June 4, 2024, this bill reached third reading in the Senate after it was carefully scrutinized by the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. No amendments to the bill were ever proposed, but it took some years to reach that outcome.

In 2017, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights conducted a study on counselling and other mental health supports for jurors. The study culminated in the release of a report in May 2018 entitled Improving support for jurors in Canada. The report contained a series of recommendations calling for strong federal leadership considering that the administration of justice is the responsibility of provincial and territorial governments. This is where my bill comes in.

A motion I moved in this chamber calling on the government to recognize Jury Appreciation Week was adopted on May 12, 2022. The Government Representative in the Senate then spoke in support of the motion on behalf of the government and the Minister of Justice. His speech highlighted the invaluable service provided by jurors and reiterated that adopting a motion is a modest gesture. In the same vein, I believe that official recognition through a bill is a very modest gesture, given the sacrifices that jurors and former jurors make to ensure the proper functioning of our judicial and democratic systems.

Following that motion, I introduced Bill S-252. This bill is identical to Bill S-226, which is the subject of my speech today.

As part of its study of the bill, the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology heard from a number of witnesses at its meetings on February 8 and February 15, 2024. I invite you to read their testimonies.

The witnesses unanimously reiterated the urgent need to formally recognize the contribution made by former jurors to the justice system, particularly given the major sacrifices they must make and the consequences associated with performing their duties, such as post-traumatic stress disorder diagnosed in some who served as jurors in particularly difficult criminal trials.

I had the privilege of appearing before the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology as part of that study. The members of the committee listened to my testimony with compassion. The committee members not only showed great sensitivity toward me and 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 makes three constructive observations.

The first concerns the lack of diversity in juries in Canada and recommends that the federal, provincial, territorial and Indigenous governments try to identify measures to 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 those in mental health programs and services. Health Canada defines vicarious trauma as follows:

. . . 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.

Understanding the science behind our experience can be powerful in our recovery, and having access to evidence-based programs is crucial. 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.

With respect to this second observation, the committee recommends the creation of a comprehensive government program focused on trauma management to support and protect the well-being of jurors.

The third observation draws attention to the financial impact on the participation of Canadians on jury duty, not only in terms of lost wages but also the lack of adequate compensation for expenses incurred in the performance of jury duty, including childcare and travel. These 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.

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.

The advocacy of many former jurors, the work of the Canadian Juries Commission and of their CEO Mark Farrant, as well as the study we did here in this chamber and in committee, have had some impact on the modest increase in juror pay in certain provinces. Just a few weeks ago, on October 1, juror compensation in Ontario was increased to $120 per day from the first day of service. Attorney General Doug Downey stated that the reform was “. . . long overdue . . .” and noted that the province’s jury fee structure had been “. . . neglected . . .”, having remained unchanged since 1989. That was the year I sat as a juror.

This is great progress and shows that advocacy can make a difference. A national jury duty appreciation week would lay the groundwork for sustained advocacy and educational outreach on a broader scale, ensuring that progress continues across the country.

Introducing a jury duty appreciation week could help improve decision-makers’ awareness of gaps in the support available.

Inadequate financial support, particularly for people on low incomes, is a major stress factor that makes Canadian juries less representative and diverse than they should be. Jurors are currently paid less than minimum wage.

Employers often underestimate the difficulties that employees called upon to serve as jurors encounter. Support and compensation offered by employers, provinces and territories is generally negligible and insufficient. Inadequate support can make jury duty difficult for employees. It can sometimes lead to financial hardship and even job loss.

Then, once the trial is over, our society expects jurors to return to their normal lives as if nothing had happened.

Employers often see this long absence as a holiday. Raising awareness among employers in particular is essential. They need to be aware of the challenges jurors face, and they must be prepared to support employees who are called upon to fulfill this civic duty.

We must challenge these unrealistic expectations and start talking about how to remove these barriers so we can build a fairer, more inclusive system.

Supporting the well-being of the women and men who make sacrifices to ensure the proper functioning of Canada’s justice system and our democracy is essential. This includes providing adequate financial support and ensuring job security and access to mental health resources for jurors.

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.

Over the years, the bill’s relevance has been proven time and time again, and it has earned broad support from stakeholders and numerous parliamentarians.

Essentially, this bill proposes a nationally celebrated initiative that will help address the fragmentation in our current system, which fosters disjointed discussions between various organizations and the provinces and territories, not only concerning the administration of justice, but mental health services as well. 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.

The Senate has already voted in favour of recognizing jury duty appreciation week through a motion and in favour of this legislation at third reading. Colleagues, I hope I can count on your support for this modest and simple legislative proposal.

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, Science and Technology 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 therefore humbly ask for your support so that this bill can be quickly sent to the other place. Thank you for your attention.

Yes.

Thank you for the question. That’s right. Jury work is not well-known. For example, when I became a juror 37 years ago, I didn’t know what I was getting into. I was summoned to the courthouse. We sat down. There was a bingo barrel. They put all the names in there. Your name comes up. In my case, I had to walk up to both of the accused. They had to agree to every juror who came up.

If you are not chosen, you go home. But if you are chosen, what’s next? You are sequestered when you work on the judgment, but you also spend the next 10, 20, 40 or however many days in the courthouse, except for weekends. These are all things that people don’t know.

People don’t know about the different reactions that may arise once you leave the court. To elaborate, in my case, there was a first-degree murder conviction. One of the things I left the courthouse with was this question: Had I made the right decision? Had I condemned two men with a fair and just decision? That haunted me for a number of years.

I still have information on these two gentlemen. A few years ago, I looked to see if they were on the internet. One of them was. That person now lives in Vancouver. He visits universities and gives lectures to law students. Something he said was that he had committed the murder. He was explaining the circumstances and saying, “I’m not asking for forgiveness. I’m acknowledging this was done and that it was wrong.”

For me, having that closure on everything told me the decision I made was the right one.

When you are a juror, you have no knowledge about this. When you are an employer, you have no knowledge of what it entails or why your employee has to be there. The jury appreciation week is to provide that kind of information.

In Ontario, they now prepare commissioners who are in the courthouse to help newly named jurors understand the work they will do and how long the trial might last. Today, they help them understand the work that they will do, why they are doing it and what it entails in terms of mental health issues that may arise from what they see and are exposed to. This week will bring many things to the surface and help people understand this important part of our judicial system — which is unknown to most Canadians.

I will take a short one.

Thank you for the question. It is done in some states in the United States, and the level of success is good. That is why people from Ontario — Mark Farrant, who participated in a very difficult trial, along with Tina Daenzer, who was on the Bernardo case — started talking about creating this for Ontario. It was the first jurisdiction where it was brought forward here in Canada. They are now working with jurisdictions across Canada to get this to other provinces because of the way our system is made. There are some examples in the United States, and their levels of success are pretty good.