Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak in favour of the private member's bill of my hon. colleague which will enable those claiming unemployment insurance to receive their regular benefits while they are engaged in jury service.
First, I congratulate the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur for the thoughtfulness and thoroughness he has shown in redressing this problem in the Unemployment Insurance Act. Through his efforts the House has learned that it is difficult or impossible for unemployed Canadians to fulfil their legal responsibilities as citizens of the country when asked to perform jury duty.
However, what is most impressive is that through the efforts of my hon. colleague, the Government of Canada is now in a position to rectify an unfair situation. This is an excellent example of how people can use the system to make changes that benefit all Canadians. A constituent has voiced an important concern and as a result of my hon. colleague's actions we now have a bill before us that will redress an injustice faced by many Canadians.
I am sure we all agree that private members' initiatives such as this one provide a valuable direct link between the concerns of our constituents and positive legislative change. Furthermore, the enthusiasm of our government to support the process can only strengthen the democratic parliamentary process.
The government's support of the specific bill clearly indicates that we are open to reviewing all aspects of our social programs and correcting flaws therein. We know our current programs are far from perfect. Some may have outgrown their usefulness and others have not kept pace with time.
In this case we must ensure the system does not penalize people who are merely trying to fulfil their responsibilities and duties as Canadians. To vote in support of the bill is simply to acknowledge that UI claimants should not be penalized when they engage in jury service. They are, after all, serving their country by doing a stressful job that ultimately benefits all of us.
It makes no sense for one arm of government to force a person into service while another arm of government punishes a person for providing that service. With no alternative at hand, more and more judges have little choice but to excuse UI claimants from jury duty. This is not a solution but merely a stop gap measure. Judges have stated their disapproval with the current system to both the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Justice. Exempting UI claimants from jury duty removes the claimants from an unfair situation. The question we must ask, however, is: Why not simply stop creating the unfair situation in the first place?
Judges have pointed out that by excusing UI claimants from jury duty on compassionate grounds it makes it more difficult to ensure the accused will receive his or her right to a trial by a fair and true jury of peers.
There are two reasons for this. In regions of higher unemployment, for instance, the routine exemption of potential jury members because they are on UI arbitrarily decreases the pool of jury members available, often to the point where it is difficult to ensure that a jury is selected from a broad cross-section of society.
Furthermore, as my hon. colleague from Restigouche-Chaleur has pointed out, in trials where the defendant is unemployed the automatic exclusion of all UI claimants from the jury could have a serious bearing on the defendant's right to a trial with a jury of peers who understand the circumstances and life situation of the defendant. Under the current system, however, judges
have no other road open to them except to excuse UI claimants from duty.
There are good reasons Canadian citizens are legally obligated to engage in jury service when called upon. Each one of us has a right to trial by a jury selected from among our peers. This is a principle we cannot afford to tamper with. The principles involved and their accompanying social consequences surely warrant the small increase in unemployment expenditures that would be involved.
Finally, we must emphasize that most employees continue to be paid their normal salaries while fulfilling jury duty obligations. Their collective agreements protect them from the injustice of losing their jobs or losing income when they perform this service. It therefore seems unfair for the federal government to cut off UI claimants when so many employers are not permitted to lay off or fire employees for the same reason.
The bill will help our fellow Canadians to fulfil their civic duty without undue hardship. It will also help to ensure that the fundamental principle of a fair trial by jury is maintained. For all these reasons I am convinced all my colleagues in the House will vote in favour of the bill.
I thank my hon. colleague for bringing forward this important piece of legislation. I encourage all members of the House to support the bill before us today.
