Bill S-226

Jury Duty Appreciation Week Act

An Act respecting Jury Duty Appreciation Week

This enactment designates the second week of May in each and every year as “Jury Duty Appreciation Week”.

Jury Duty Appreciation Week Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

It being 2:30 p.m., the motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)

The House resumed from April 24 consideration of the motion that Bill S-226, An Act respecting Jury Duty Appreciation Week, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in support of Bill S-226, the jury duty appreciation week act. This is an important piece of legislation that would recognize the hard and difficult work of our jurors by designating the second week of May as jury duty appreciation week.

A previous iteration of this bill died on the Order Paper last session. As we approach the second week of May this year, I hope we can all agree to move this importantly symbolic legislation swiftly through the House so that jurors can officially receive the recognition and appreciation they deserve.

I would like to begin by acknowledging that the recognition of jurors is not a new concept. Across Canada, many individuals and organizations have worked for years to highlight the vital role jurors play in the administration of justice. The work of jurors has already been celebrated informally for the past four years during the second week of May, including by the Canadian Juries Commission, with support from previous ministers of justice. These efforts have been essential in reminding all of us that jury service can be demanding, time-consuming and, at times, emotionally difficult. They have also helped emphasize that the people who take on this responsibility deserve our respect, understanding and support.

These initiatives have laid important groundwork building awareness and momentum, helping to ensure that jurors are seen and heard. It is therefore fitting that we are now debating legislation that would formally recognize jury duty appreciation week. This legislation sends a clear message about our shared values. It signals that jury service is not simply a civic responsibility, but a fundamental contribution to our democracy and to the protection of rights and freedom. Formal recognition elevates public awareness and underscores the importance of those who participate directly in the administration of justice.

Juries are the cornerstone of our justice system. When jurors are selected, they represent the communities from which they are drawn. In criminal trials, they determine guilt or innocence. In civic trials, they determine liability. There are profound responsibilities. Jurors must carefully weigh evidence, assess credibility and apply legal instructions provided by the court. Their decisions can have life-altering consequences for the individuals involved, as well as broader implications for public confidence in the justice system.

The right to a trial by jury is guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Anyone charged with an offence punishable by five years imprisonment or more has a right to a trial by jury. This constitutional protection reflects the fundamental importance of juries in ensuring fair and impartial trials. It recognizes that justice is strengthened when ordinary citizens participate in decision-making and when verdicts reflect community standards.

Closely connected to this is the principle that the individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty. This is a fundamental principle of our legal system. Jurors play a central role in upholding this principle by evaluating the evidence presented before them and determining whether the prosecution has met its burden of proof. Through their impartial deliberations, jurors help ensure that decisions are made fairly, thoughtfully and independently.

In passing the jury duty appreciation week act, Parliament would be thanking individuals who uphold these principles. We would be formally recognizing the thousands of Canadians whose lives are interrupted, and whose work and families are put on pause, so they can carry out this important civic responsibility. Jury service often requires individuals to rearrange professional obligations, family commitments and personal responsibilities. Despite these challenges, Canadians continue to step forward and fulfill this duty. Their contribution strengthens the legitimacy and integrity of the system.

Although the administration of justice falls primarily within provincial and territorial jurisdiction, the federal government has an important role to play in acknowledging jurors. Jurors represent a link between the federal government, which establishes criminal law; provincial and territorial governments; and administrative justice, including the courts. Jury service helps ensure that justice is both nationally coherent and locally administered. By recognizing jurors at the federal level, we would reinforce the collaborative nature of our justice system and the shared responsibility for maintaining public confidence.

Bill S-226 would build upon recent legislative efforts aimed at improving jury diversity and juror well-being at the federal level. It would also complement the initiatives in some jurisdictions that provide psychological supports for jurors following difficult trials. These developments reflect a growing recognition that jury service, while essential, can have significant personal impacts. Formal recognition through the bill would further encourage continued attention to these issues.

The jury duty appreciation week act would go beyond recognizing jurors for their civic duty. It would also promote awareness of their well-being. When citizens are called to serve, they may be exposed to traumatic testimony and graphic evidence, all while remaining impartial and setting aside personal views. This experience can be emotionally taxing. Jurors may also face financial hardship from missing work, particularly in lengthy trials. They must navigate the weight of difficult decisions and, at times, challenging group dynamics during deliberations. These realities demonstrate that jury service involves not only civic participation but also personal sacrifice.

By increasing public understanding and encouraging open conversation, we can begin to remove barriers that make it difficult for jurors to feel supported during and after their service. Valuing jurors means embracing their health, dignity and mental health. Jury duty provides individuals with the opportunity to serve their communities and contribute directly to the administration of justice. It is a responsibility that strengthens democratic participation and reinforces confidence in our institutions. Recognizing jurors formally would help ensure that their contributions are acknowledged and that their experiences are better understood.

It is time for Canada to formally acknowledge the people who perform jury duty, by designating the second week of May as jury duty appreciation week. We would educate Canadians, justice system participants and governments about the importance of jury service. We would raise awareness of what to expect, how individuals can prepare and how jurors can be supported throughout their service. The passage of the bill would demonstrate not only that we are thankful for jurors but also that we recognize the importance of supporting them. It would reinforce appreciation for those who uphold fairness, impartiality and justice in our courts.

I thank past, present and future jurors for their contributions to a fair and effective justice system, and I urge all members of the House to support the swift passage of Bill S-226.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, and it is always a pleasure as well when it is a matter that is close to our hearts.

Before I begin, I want to recognize a very special person from my community. Ron Popoff has given so much to Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. For about 25 years, he coordinated the Hot Nite in the City car show and shine. Ron has done so much work. This was a massive event that he led. In fact, we had a show and shine for A&W MS day, and he lent me his Ford Mustang, Bullitt edition. I told him I had not driven a stick shift in about 25 years, but he insisted I take his special edition Mustang on the highway and drive it all through Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola that day for multiple sclerosis awareness and fundraising. I want to give a very special shout-out to Ron because he has done incredible work.

Also doing incredible work in Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola is Kayla Hermiston. I worked with Kayla's dad, Mark Hermiston, when he protected me as a lawyer and prosecutor at the Kamloops courthouse when he was with the BC Sheriff Service. Here we are talking about jury appreciation week, and it is very appropriate that I recognize him.

More important, for the purposes of recognizing people who have contributed lately, is Mark's daughter, Kayla. Kayla started the Miles for Smiles project for fundraising for young children who have cancer. She is in her early twenties, and I am deeply inspired by Kayla's commitment to those who have cancer. She put on a bang-up fundraiser recently in Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, and I salute her for that.

I am not sure how many people in the House have run a jury trial. I have run a few, so it is my pleasure to speak about jury duty appreciation week and to endorse the passage of this bill. I still remember the first jury trial I ever ran. It was about the homicide of a young woman named Taylor Van Diest. Taylor was an 18-year-old who was walking home on Halloween. It was about 6:30 p.m. in a small community called Armstrong, which is in Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, about 15 minutes or 20 minutes out of Vernon.

Taylor was in a costume. She was 18 years old, but she loved Halloween. She was walking home when a sexual predator, someone who her mom said is the face of evil, approached Taylor. I cannot disagree with her mom, Marie Van Diest. We never did find out exactly what happened, but we do know that Taylor said no to this monster's advances and that he killed her.

That was my first introduction to the jury system, fighting for the truth in that matter as a junior prosecutor. In fact, I am still occasionally in touch with Marie Van Diest. To this day, I still remember her phone number because this case had such an impact on me. The police did such an amazing job in that case. In fact, I told my wife that if something ever happens to me, I want the police who caught Taylor's killer to investigate the case, because they were that good. They found a tiny bit of DNA under Taylor's fingernail, which they then connected to an unsolved sex assault, which they solved and thereby found Taylor's killer. I am very happy to say that he was recently denied parole. Taylor was killed in, I believe, 2011.

I remember the jury's receiving photos from the autopsy but not receiving certain photographs because, frankly, they were just too graphic. Juries, judges and police in our system do not get a choice about what they see, just as somebody who happens upon a scene does not get a choice in what they see. One distinction that I do not think always gets drawn is this: When somebody who is dealing with a case, such as in a jury room when juries have exhibits available, they can see those photographs or videos 20, 30 or 40 times. While somebody may see something in person one time, a juror, lawyer or police officer might see something 30, 40 or 50 times. From experience, I can say that seeing the photographs or a video repeatedly can really bring about vicarious trauma.

I spoke with someone I know from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola who told me that after she sat on a jury, she went to the judge and said, “Well, what do we do? We have seen all this traumatic evidence. What do we do?” The judge was seemingly at a loss, because in Canada, up until my colleague from Alberta changed the law with his bill to allow jurors to speak about their experiences to health care professionals such as psychologists or counsellors, it could not be revealed what was said in the jury group. Even to this day, people cannot discuss it. When somebody sees something that is traumatic, it can be very difficult because there is nobody to talk to. Even to this day, jurors can talk only to their health care provider. They cannot talk to their spouse, partner or friends.

This is an area that is unheralded in lots of respects. People also do not know that jurors do not really get paid. They just get a small stipend. A small business owner, for instance, or somebody who has employment that does not have a union contract or an employer who is prepared to pay them, is serving the public. In the House, we always like to think of ourselves as entering public service when we run. I always thank people I meet who are running for office. I just heard that we have an election coming up in B.C. I will reserve comment on that for another time. We also have municipal elections happening in B.C. Thank goodness there is no federal election happening at this time.

People are actually giving a lot of themselves when they are prepared to sit on a jury. My experience is that most people do it and do it happily. My mom always wanted to sit on a jury. Then I became a prosecutor, and that kind of ended her dream of ever sitting on a jury, because Kamloops is a relatively small town. If someone has the same last name as a prosecutor, they are probably not going to sit on a jury. Instead, she just watched.

I will say this. I have seen juries that have sat for three or four days of deliberations, and when we see the jurors, they look like they just want to go to sleep and have a good day off, because they have done a ton of work. People have a right to a jury trial in a certain number of circumstances in Canada, and I am grateful that people selflessly give what they give.

I am happy to support the bill. I see my colleague across the way is here. I congratulated her outside the chamber, and I thank her for bringing the bill forward. It is always nice when we have legislation that all parties can get behind.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see you again and to be back here in the House with all my colleagues. I hope that everyone had a good summer and that we will have productive debates in the pursuit of the common good.

A few years ago, I received a call from an acquaintance who was in a bit of a panic. This person was calling me because they knew I was a lawyer. They had been summoned for jury duty and wanted to know how to get out of it. They told me they did not have the time because they were working. It is true that being a juror is not an easy task.

Jurors have to stop working for the duration of the trial, and it is no vacation. They make decisions of critical importance not only for the accused, but also for the victim and their loved ones. In the Gaspé in 2015, for example, 12 members of a jury sat through a trial that lasted a month and a half. It was the first trial of Johanne Johnson, who was accused of murdering her partner, James Dubé. It involved a month and a half of trial proceedings, followed by three full days of deliberations before reaching a verdict, which was subsequently overturned on appeal, meaning the trial had to start all over again.

All this to say that being a juror takes time. Above all, it means accepting a heavy responsibility involving tragic events. Each juror must join with 11 other jurors in deciding another person's fate by finding him or her guilty or not guilty. They must weigh the evidence presented and judge the credibility of the testimony given. Usually, jurors are exposed to horrific accounts of crimes involving sordid facts. In our criminal system, this is the most solemn type of case and involves the most serious types of crime, like murder. Although they represent only about 1% of criminal cases, these are usually the most grave, complex and impactful cases, both for the victims and the accused. A heavy load and responsibility are therefore placed on the jurors' shoulders.

Of course, while serving on a jury may be a civic duty, it comes with no training. Members of the public are randomly selected from the Quebec voters' list. This is what prompted the call from my acquaintance seeking an exemption from jury duty. Their wish for an exemption is nothing unusual.

The Canadian Juries Commission conducted a national opinion poll in June 2020 that found that only 18% of Canadians expressed a willingness to participate in jury duty. There is some degree of civic disengagement in our justice system when it comes to jury duty. In fact, it is at a point where some judges are now used to issuing arrest warrants and summoning people who fail to appear in order to improve participation rates. In Quebec, the issue falls under the Jurors Act, and people are required to appear. The use of sanctions to ensure participation is a consequence of the lack of a positive culture around this obligation.

Civic disengagement is not the only issue. After speaking with some Crown prosecutors, I learned that most jurors complete their service with a feeling of accomplishment and of having served justice. However, other jurors come out of the experience traumatized.

The first to make this point was Mark Farrant, who was the jury foreman in an Ontario murder trial in 2014. He was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder after the trial. He sued the Government of Ontario and the Government of Canada, alleging a failure in the duty of care. His public testimony sparked a collective reflection and a series of reforms that led to the founding of the Canadian Juries Commission.

As I understand it, it also motivated the work of Senator Lucie Moncion, which led to the introduction of the bill we are debating this afternoon, Bill S‑226, an act respecting jury duty appreciation week. We in the Bloc Québécois support this initiative. Establishing a jury duty appreciation week would recognize and value the essential work done by ordinary citizens, without whom our criminal justice system could not function. It is also a way to address civic disengagement with positive action.

Jury duty is one of the few truly binding civic obligations under Canadian law. People have the right to vote, but they are not required to do so, and mandatory military service has been abolished. Jury duty, however, remains mandatory, and yet it is the only civic duty that has not been recognized with a national week of appreciation. Bill S-226 fills that gap.

Some people might argue that designating jury duty appreciation week is merely symbolic. That is true, but there is value in symbolism. Parliament regularly adopts national designations. Mental Health Week, Black History Month and the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation are examples of this. The value of all these initiatives lies precisely in recognition.

That said, as members of the Bloc Québécois, we are firmly devoted to defending Quebec's jurisdiction when it comes to the administration of justice. The division of powers set forth in the Constitution Act, 1867, expressly gives the provinces jurisdiction over the administration of justice. This jurisdiction unambiguously encompasses everything related to jury duty, including jury selection, compensation, conditions of service and post-trial support.

Quebec exercises its jurisdiction with rigour and a consistency that deserves to be highlighted. As the only civil-law jurisdiction in North America, Quebec has developed robust judicial institutions over several centuries, rooted in the values and culture of its society—notably by increasing daily allowances for jurors to a rate that is much more generous than in most other Canadian provinces. Quebec also reimburses psychotherapy fees for jurors who are traumatized by a trial. We know full well that these advances are the result of thoughtful Quebec governance, not a federal directive.

It is in this spirit that we support Bill S-226, because it recognizes without constraining, commemorates without imposing and brings people together without requiring uniformity. Any concrete action arising from this initiative must be carried out through voluntary collaboration, with full respect for the autonomy of Quebec and the provinces. Jury duty appreciation week derives its value from its simplicity. Let it therefore remain what it is: a tribute to citizens who serve justice.

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in the House today on behalf of the people of Bow River.

I want to begin by being honest with the House about where I usually stand on bills of this kind because I think it matters as to what I am going to say. I have argued in rooms, both public and private, that this Parliament has developed a habit. We designate days, we designate weeks and we designate months, and we do it with good intentions. We do it constantly until the calendar is so crowded that a proclamation from this place carries less weight each time we issue one. If everything is special, then nothing is. Recognition is a currency, and like any currency, it can be devalued by printing too much of it, and, wow, does the government know how to print money.

With all seriousness, I do not come to this debate as someone easily moved by a proposal to name a week. I come to it as a skeptic. I want to explain to this House why. In this case, I think the exception is not only defensible but overdue. Here is the distinction I would draw. Most of what we recognize in this place is an interest, an industry, a cause, a community or a commodity. What Bill S-226 asks us to recognize is something different in kind. It is a duty. It is not chosen. It arrives in the mail, it is compulsory and it is very nearly the last one we have. We do not conscript. We do not compel Canadians to vote. We ask remarkably little of our citizens in the classical sense, not in the sense of what they pay, because they pay, but in the sense of what they are personally required to give.

Jury service stands almost alone as an obligation that citizenship still imposes on an individual. It is not simply another cause asking for a place on the calendar. It is one of the highest civic responsibilities that an ordinary Canadian can be asked to undertake. As my colleague, the former member for Brantford—Brant South, stated in this House earlier this year, “Jury service is not just a duty; it is a cornerstone of justice in a free and democratic society and, like many cornerstones, it is often overlooked until we pause to reflect on its importance.” That gets to the heart of the discussion, in addition to the words of my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, who spoke earlier.

Our country depends on institutions that most of us rarely stop to think about. We depend on elections. We depend on Parliament. We depend on an independent judiciary. We depend on the rule of law, and when Canadians are accused of the most serious offences, our system depends on 12 ordinary people answering a summons, putting their normal lives aside and accepting the responsibility of sitting in judgment on another person. That is an extraordinary responsibility.

The right to a jury trial is not merely a tradition. As we know, section 11(f) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the benefit of a trial by jury, and Bill S-226 recognizes the citizens who make that guarantee work.

A jury brings something to a courtroom that nothing else in the building can supply. A judge who has presided over the same category of case for 20 years accumulates experience. Experience is valuable, but it can also accumulate to predisposition. A jury arrives without that. Its members have not heard the evidence before. They have not heard 100 cases like it and have formed no view of how such cases usually end. Because 12 people must arrive together at a single judgment, that judgment carries a weight that no individual verdict could. This is democracy in its most direct form. Justice is not handed down to the people from above; it is delivered by them.

We sometimes speak about civic duty in fairly abstract terms, but jury duty is anything but abstract. What do we ask of a juror? A person may receive a summons with little idea of what awaits them. They may have a job, a business to run, children to care for and more responsibilities at their home and in their community. Then for days or weeks, sometimes longer, those normal responsibilities are set aside. They enter a courtroom. They listen carefully to the evidence. They are required to set aside preconceptions. They apply the law to the evidence before them, and then they enter a room with their fellow jurors and deliberate.

In some cases, the question they must answer could hardly be more serious. Has the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the person sitting before them is guilty? Most Canadians will never be asked to make a decision carrying this kind of weight. Instead of placing every factual determination in the hands of a single individual, citizens deliberate collectively. They hear one another's perspectives, and they arrive at a verdict according to the evidence and the law. That collective judgment is an important part of the confidence that Canadians place in our justice system.

This seems a little dry, but we should not romanticize the responsibility. There is a real personal cost. Jurors in serious cases, as noted in some examples provided by my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, can be required to examine photographs, videos and testimony dealing with violence, abuse, death and some of the most disturbing circumstances imaginable. Their duty requires them to pay attention because someone's liberty may depend upon their ability to understand the evidence and assess it fairly. True justice for the victim demands their attention.

When the trial concludes, these jurors return home, and some silently bear lifelong wounds. The proceedings may be over, but that does not necessarily mean their effects disappear. In 2022, Parliament amended section 649 of the Criminal Code. Former jurors can now talk with their health care professionals when receiving medical or psychiatric treatment, therapy or counselling related to health issues arising from their jury service. That change recognizes something very important. Our responsibility to jurors should not end when they announce a verdict. If our justice system asks ordinary Canadians to expose themselves to difficult evidence and shoulder the responsibility of determining guilt or innocence, we should at least recognize what we have asked them to do.

This is where recognition such as this can serve a purpose. It does not replace mental health services. It does not resolve every challenge with the jury service. We should be clear about that. However, the recognition can provide an opportunity to talk about those challenges. It gives Canadians an opportunity to better understand what jury service requires.

Just as importantly, it gives us an opportunity to talk about citizenship itself. We spend a great deal of time discussing the rights that accompany Canadian citizenship, and justly so. Rights matter, but a healthy democracy also depends on responsibilities. It depends on citizens who participate, who vote, who respect the law, who contribute to their communities and who, when summoned, are willing to walk into a courthouse and perform one of the oldest and most consequential civic duties in our democratic tradition. There is something valuable about reminding ourselves of that.

We live in a time when confidence in public institutions cannot simply be taken for granted. The jury, perhaps, is one of the clearest examples. A jury is not comprised of government officials or exclusively of judges or lawyers. It is composed of Canadians, such as a teacher, a farmer, a tradesperson, a small business owner, a parent or a retiree. People who may otherwise never enter a courtroom are entrusted with enormous responsibility within it for the duration of that trial to become indispensable participants in the administration of justice.

For obvious reasons, there is usually very little public recognition at all. They simply return to their families, their communities and their jobs, and they carry with them an experience few people around them may fully understand. This is why this proposal is different from simply adding one date to the calendar. It asks Canadians to reflect on an institution and recognize our civic duty. Democracy survives because people are willing to participate in it. Justice works because people are willing to shoulder responsibilities, even if it is inconvenient.

In an era where institutional trust is fragile and skepticism of government runs deep, we must preserve and celebrate the direct mechanisms of civic governance. Trial by jury is classical democracy in its purest form: justice administered not by a ruling class but by the people themselves.

I urge all members to support this, on both sides of the House, honouring our jurors and reaffirming our commitment to this essential civic institution.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle has five minutes for her right of reply.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the jury system balances out our justice system. Regardless of what a juror's socio-economic background is, everyone serves equally and in the best interests of our legal system. Without safeguards such as the jury system, our democracy would not have the strong foundation it needs to be successful. These are peers of an accused who balance the rights and obligations of all members of a functioning society. It is ordinary people from all walks of life who are the guardians of our system in that moment. They give a voice to us all.

The importance of jurors has often been overlooked. It is only in the recent past that the true nature of this duty has been emphasized. The jury system is an integral part of criminal justice. Without these members having to make sacrifices, everything would come to a standstill.

Most jurors come into this role unsure of what they are to experience and what will unfold during a criminal trial. What they do experience right at the onset is trepidation, uncertainty and the knowledge that they will be missing out on their personal lives.

After hearing all the evidence, a jury deliberates. These deliberations also carry a heavy weight because while deciding on the guilt or innocence of an accused, a juror must grapple with their own conscience and their sense of what is right and what is wrong. They must grapple with everything that makes us human: our thoughts, compassion and understanding of one another. There are questions a juror might ask of themselves. Am I making the right decision about this defendant? Am I condemning an innocent person to jail? Am I declaring the innocence of someone who might truly be guilty and deserves to not be set free?

It is not just in that moment that a juror thinks about what they must do. They live with these decisions for years to come. Maybe it is not every day, but once in a while they will have the thought cross their minds: Did I make the right decision? Did I do the right thing?

These are very meaningful moments in a juror's life, in the life of an accused and overall in the criminal justice system. Once this service is rendered, everyone comes away with the opinion that their counsel mattered.

Serving on a jury is an extraordinary opportunity to have a profound impact on someone's life. It is a chance to stand up for the most vulnerable, to bring justice to a voiceless victim and to ensure that justice is truly served—for both the victim and the defendant.

In our legal system, protecting the most vulnerable is impossible without the help of jurors. That is why we strongly encourage every citizen to respond to their jury summons. Admittedly, this can involve its share of challenges, but the only way to preserve our justice system and protect every member of our society is to be able to count on informed, compassionate and dedicated individuals who are willing to give their own time.

The transformative power of jurors is invaluable, as is their contribution to our democratic institutions. Where else in the world are ordinary citizens given that trust? Where are they entrusted with such a weighty responsibility as deciding the fate of a person who appears before them? It is a truly remarkable role. Whether someone is a business owner or a retail worker, they have the same power in the courtroom. That is precisely how we keep equality and democracy alive every day. In a way, each juror embodies the law itself. Once a guilty verdict or acquittal has been rendered, it can only be overturned in exceptional circumstances. Where else in our society do people have the ability to change lives and uphold the integrity of our justice system?

The fundamental right to trial by jury could not be respected without jurors. Jury duty appreciation week would be an opportunity for Canadians to understand our own role in society and raise awareness of the importance of jury service while expressing appreciation to those who are called to serve.

I thank all who serve.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[An hon member]

On division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I declare the motion carried on division. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 6:30 p.m. at this time.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.