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

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

moved that Bill S-226, An Act respecting Jury Duty Appreciation Week, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is with deep respect that I rise today to speak to Bill S-226, the jury duty appreciation week act. The bill was introduced by Senator Lucie Moncion in the Senate. It seeks to designate the second week of May every year as a dedication to jurors and jury duty. It is thanks to Senator Moncion's tireless efforts that I stand here today in the chamber speaking to this bill. She has dedicated decades of her life to raising awareness of these crucial aspects of our criminal justice system.

Having been a juror in 1989, Senator Moncion has bravely shared her harrowing journey in the service of justice. Her summons to serve as a juror, as juror number one no less, was for a case of a first-degree murder charge. The experience had consequences on her personally and on her family, and it left her feeling isolated. However, through outreach, Senator Moncion ascertained that she was not alone in feeling the distress of serving on a jury, and that other jurors had similar impacts on their lives for one reason or another.

Over years of commitment to support past jurors and prepare future ones with the tools necessary to sustain them, Senator Moncion has collaborated with various organizations and stakeholders, and through lengthy studies, testimonies by witnesses and by experts—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the hon. member. There seems to be a cellphone that is too close to the microphone and is making a lot of noise. I would ask the member to move it, because it is causing an issue for the interpreters.

This gives me an opportunity to deliver a very important reminder.

If there are members who are debating or talking to each other in the chamber who would like to take that discussion outside of the House into the lobby, there is ample space there at this time for them to have a private discussion. They are disrupting the chamber's business.

I invite the member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle to continue.

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

Mr. Speaker, the experience had consequences for Senator Moncion personally and her family, and it left her feeling isolated. However, through outreach, Senator Moncion ascertained that she was not alone in feeling the distress of serving on a jury and that other jurors had similar impacts on their lives for one reason or another.

Over years of commitment to support past jurors and prepare future ones with the tools necessary to sustain them, Senator Lucie Moncion has collaborated with various organizations and stakeholders. Through lengthy studies with witness and expert testimonies at committee, she brought this well-thought-out bill to fruition. It raises awareness of the sacrifices jurors have to make in serving the Canadian justice system and highlights the nature of the challenges they face, which include but are not limited to financial, social and mental health aspects.

We see every single year that thousands of Canadians across all of Canada are called upon to serve on a jury. What we do not often see is the aftermath of serving on that jury. Vicarious trauma, lack of workplace support and barriers to jury diversity are just some of the issues they must eventually face once the hearing is terminated and everyone has gone home.

Often, employers do not comprehend that jury duty is obligatory. They believe that their employee can get out of it and often compel them to do so to the point of harassment. They do not understand and often do not care that, unless there is justification, their employee cannot back out of jury duty. Often, employees are threatened with termination of employment and falsely accused of shirking their duties.

Employers need to be aware that jury duty is a fundamental part of our justice system and that, once a summons has been served on a potential juror, their employee is legally obligated to serve on a jury. Of course, an employer does not have to pay them, which means that a juror loses income and is unable to contribute to their financial situation at home.

During deliberations, jurors are sometimes sequestered for days and even weeks, depending on the substance of the trial. They are obliged to stay away from their family and friends, their loved ones, their children and their elderly parents. They are isolated at a hotel, as this is seen as a way to ensure that there is freedom from outside influence on the verdict and that the trial is based on evidence and the verdict is rendered as such.

Mandatory sequestration begins once a judge instructs the jury to go into deliberations. At that time, jurors cannot watch television, access the Internet or have contact with the outside world. They are heavily supervised by court personnel, and this sequestration, although rare, can also take place earlier, during the trial stage, if the judge sees that the high-profile nature of a case could affect the verdict.

We do not often dwell on what it is like for a juror to hear difficult testimonies and be exposed to evidence that can be so filled with raw violence, which speaks to the inhumanity and cruelty a fellow citizen can be capable of. Oftentimes for jurors, facing such a situation, PTSD can be the result of their service.

Jurors sometimes suffer from PTSD following a trial. I had the opportunity to speak with Mark Farrant, the founder and CEO of the Canadian Juries Commission, a national non-profit organization that supports and represents Canadians who serve as jurors. After serving as a juror in Ontario during a murder trial, Mr. Farrant found himself grappling with emotions he could not manage, without knowing where to turn. He explained that he was repeatedly exposed to gruesome details and the sight of burn scars on the victim. The accused was later found guilty of starting the fire that killed his partner. This experience caused Mr. Farrant significant distress, both during and long after the trial. He tried to take refuge in his work and keep himself busy, in the hope that the situation would eventually right itself.

At the time, it was not widely known that indirect witnesses of trauma could experience PTSD. Even today, people are not always aware of that. PTSD can manifest itself through all sorts of symptoms, such as intrusive thoughts related to the trauma, avoidance of traumatic memories, negative mood swings and sudden outbursts similar to those experienced by soldiers, survivors of accidents or abuse, and first responders.

Mr. Farrant started to do research. He talked to veterans and even first responders, and he eventually realized that he himself could have PTSD, even though he had only seen evidence in court and had not been present when the incidents occurred.

Thanks to dedicated people like Mr. Farrant, we now understand that jurors can also suffer from PTSD. British Columbia is leading the way by providing mental health support to jurors and former jurors.

Even though the administration of justice falls under the purview of the provinces, the federal government also acknowledges the essential role of jurors in the Canadian justice system and the need for federal support in recognizing the necessity for mental health services and financial support of jurors.

As was wisely stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Find, “Trial by jury is a cornerstone of Canadian law. It offers the citizen the right to be tried by an impartial panel of peers and imposes on those peers the task of judging fairly and impartially.”

The 1984 Ontario decision in R. v. Bryant provides an overview of the history and significance of the right to a jury trial in Canada.

The right of trial by jury existed in the four original provinces of Canada before Confederation. It was received as part of the common law of England by the colonies of Nova Scotia in 1758 and New Brunswick in 1784. Its history in Quebec and Ontario is more complicated and demonstrates the importance attached to the jury from the earliest times in these provinces, around 1763.

Since justice is a shared jurisdiction, it is crucial for all levels of government to fulfill their responsibilities concerning jury duty. Bill S-226 would provide the proper means to do so while respecting the administration of justice by provinces and territories.

In a 2017 House of Commons justice committee study on improving support for jurors in Canada, gaps in juror supports were highlighted. At the forefront was mental health. Witnesses who appeared spoke of various trauma and the PTSD they had suffered, especially when it came to criminal cases and especially those that involved violence.

This week of appreciation is necessary not only to raise awareness but also to recognize and celebrate those who have served on a jury. Often, vicarious trauma among jurors has been neglected. Concerns about insufficient mental health supports provided before, during and even after jury duty necessitates the awareness that Bill S-226 brings to Parliament. The development of comprehensive trauma-informed programs to support and safeguard the well-being of jurors during this time is absolutely essential.

Another notable element of jury duty is the significant lack of diversity among jurors in Canada. It has also been recognized by experts, particularly in regard to the representation of racialized, Black and indigenous individuals. Measures aimed at improving the diversity of jurors must be examined to answer to this gap and provide a true representation of peers during trials.

Financial barriers, such as lost wages and not being adequately compensated for travel, child care, meals, parking expenses and so forth, cause an undue burden on Canadians called to serve. This financial impediment can lead to juries that may not be reflective of our diverse communities or of Canadians as a whole.

Unfortunately, in several provinces, the compensation paid to jurors has remained unchanged for decades, supplying further evidence of the unfair burden placed on them.

For example, there was a time when jurors were paid just $40 a day, following an initial period during which they were not paid at all. Given all of these factors, serious consideration must be given to the obstacles that have been identified, including low pay, job insecurity, lack of employer support and limited access to mental health services.

These important points that I have briefly outlined paint a revealing picture of why, at the least, recognizing and supporting jurors is imperative. They are the ones who uphold this cornerstone of our justice system and our democracy. Jurors make personal sacrifices, yet their service is often neglected. They are all deserving of our acknowledgement and our gratitude.

That is why our government supports the jury duty appreciation week act. I hope we can count on all colleagues in this chamber to support this incredible bill and to uphold our justice system.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, at first blush, someone might dismiss this bill as merely symbolic, but I could not more strongly disagree with such a sentiment, because there are very real knowledge gaps amongst Canadians with respect to the important role that juries play in the administration of justice, as well as the significant and unique challenges faced by jurors and former jurors.

Can the member speak to the issue of the knowledge gap and how dedicating a week of appreciation will help close it?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the bottom of my heart for his very thoughtful question. He is one of the solution makers.

We want to show Canadians, or express to them, what jurors go through. I am sure a lot of my colleagues, those sitting here or who are listening on their televisions or computers, will have heard certain things that they were not aware of, such as the financial burden, the lack of mental health support and the undue burdens that a juror must face, including being sequestered for weeks without contact, without loved ones and without having access to the outside world. This is very difficult on a human being. People cannot get out of jury duty, unless there is a justification that would allow them to do so.

This kind of bill would raise awareness of what jurors go through, the sacrifices they make and the supports we can give them as a government.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois supports this bill, but only insofar as it is a gesture of recognition that does not involve any programs, administrative structures or spending, because the administration of justice is the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Does my colleague agree with that?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. I could not agree with him more. The administration of justice falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces and Quebec. It is important for us today to also symbolically show what people are doing to advance the justice system. It is important for us to recognize those two things. It will allow us to better support people serving on a jury, so that they can continue to contribute to the administration of justice, while respecting jurisdictions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased and very impressed with my colleague once again. I think of how important this issue is. It is a very critical aspect of our justice system.

I know it is a very special day today. Not only is the member bringing forward a fantastic bill, but it is also her birthday, so I wish her a happy birthday and compliment her on this special day. I wish I could sing it in French, as it is such a beautiful song in French.

I will pose my question. Why, from an emotional perspective and a financial perspective, do our jurors sacrifice so much in order to serve a critical role in our judicial state? Could the member provide further comment on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my beloved colleague for his kind words and for being a source of inspiration to all of us. I really appreciate him from the bottom of my heart. I thank all members for their good wishes.

I practised law and going to criminal court was part of the practice I had. In criminal court, we see the stress jury members themselves are under. They walk in and it is a tense, sombre atmosphere. They sometimes have no idea why they are there; they are just summoned. Once they are summoned, they cannot refuse.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During question period today, in response to my question on the $300 million the government spent on PrescribeIT, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health stated, “our new government has decided to end the program.” However, just three days ago, Canada Health Infoway's CEO was asked directly in—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I am going to interrupt the the member. It sounds like that is a point of debate, so it is not germane.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the good residents of Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations for placing their trust in me to be their voice.

This particular speech has some special significance to me. As a former justice participant, I probably participated in close to 50 jury trials. I personally know the importance, the sacrifices and all the consequences that flow from serving on a jury. It could be a couple of days, it could be several weeks or it could be several months, depending on the circumstances.

I could not be prouder as a representative of the House of Commons, given my background, to support this particular bill. The bill itself may appear modest in scope, but carries profound meaning for our justice system, our democracy and the everyday Canadians who uphold both. At its core, Bill S-226 would designate the second week of May each year as jury duty appreciation week across Canada.

Some may ask why such a recognition matters. Why designate a week for something that has long existed as a civic obligation? The answer, is simple: 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.

Every year, thousands of Canadians are called upon to serve as jurors. They come from all walks of life; they are teachers, tradespeople, parents, students and retirees. They are not legal experts. They are not politicians. They are citizens, ordinary individuals, entrusted with an extraordinary responsibility to weigh evidence, to assess credibility and ultimately determine the fate of another human being within our criminal justice system. That responsibility is immense.

Jurors are often asked to listen, sometimes for weeks or months, to testimony that can be disturbing, emotional and deeply challenging. They set aside personal biases, they follow strict legal instructions and they deliberate with fairness and integrity. In doing so, they safeguard one of the most fundamental principles of our legal system: the right to trial by a jury of one's peers.

Without jurors, our justice system simply cannot function as intended. This bill recognizes that reality. Its preamble clearly states that jury duty is a vital component of our justice system and our democracy. That is not symbolic language. It is a statement of fact. Yet, despite this critical role, jurors often serve in relative anonymity. They are rarely publicly acknowledged. Their contributions are seldom celebrated. Too often, the challenges they face, particularly those related to mental health and financial strain, are not completely addressed.

We must be honest about the burdens of jury service. Serving on a jury can mean time away from work, lost income and disruptions to family life. In some cases, jurors are exposed to traumatic evidence, graphic details, distressing images and heartbreaking testimony. These experiences do not simply disappear when a trial ends. For many jurors, the psychological impact lingers.

The bill speaks directly to that issue. It highlights the well-being and mental health of jurors who are paramount to the proper functioning of our justice system. A justice system that relies on jurors must also support them. Recognition is not a substitute for reform, but it is a necessary step. By establishing jury duty appreciation week, we would create an opportunity to raise awareness about the realities of jury service, to encourage conversation about juror supports and to remind Canadians that this civic duty deserves respect and attention.

Some may argue that a commemorative week is merely symbolic, and that it does not change policy, funding or programs. While it is true that the bill would not create new financial supports or legal mechanisms, it is, at its heart, an act of recognition.

Symbolism matters in a democracy. We designate days and weeks not because they solve problems overnight, but because they focus our collective attention. They educate. They inspire dialogue. They affirm shared values. Let us think of the many observations we already recognize. These observations shape public consciousness. They remind us of who we are and what we value as a nation. Jury duty appreciation week would do the same. It would shine a light on a civic responsibility that is often misunderstood or undervalued. It would encourage Canadians to see jury service not as an inconvenience, but as a meaningful contribution to justice. It would signal to those who have served that their efforts are seen, respected and appreciated.

There is also an educational dimension to the bill. The preamble notes that designating a week of appreciation would help educate citizens, organizations and governments about the issues involved in fulfilling this duty. Many Canadians have a limited understanding of how juries work, what juries experience and why their role is so essential. The week could serve as a catalyst for public education through schools, community organizations and media, helping to demystify the process and strengthen public confidence in our justice system. Confidence matters. A justice system is only as strong as the trust people place in it. When Canadians understand and respect the role of jurors, they are more likely to view the system as fair, transparent and legitimate.

We must also consider the broader democratic principle at stake. Jury service is one of the most direct ways citizens participate in governance. It is democracy in action. It is a reminder that justice is not imposed from above, but delivered by the people. In an era where trust in our institutions is fragile, reinforcing this connection between citizens and the justice system is more important than ever. The bill does exactly that. It affirms that jurors are not peripheral actors. They are central to the administration of justice. It acknowledges that their service is not only necessary but honourable, and it invites all Canadians to reflect on the value of this civic duty.

I would also like to recognize the efforts of those who brought the bill forward. Originally introduced in the Senate and now before the House, the bill reflects years of advocacy and a growing recognition that jurors deserve greater acknowledgement. This is not a partisan issue. It is not a regional issue. It is a national issue, one that touches every province, every territory and every Canadian who may one day be called to serve.

As members of Parliament, we have a responsibility to uphold the institutions that underpin our democracy. Those include our courts, our laws and the citizens who bring them to life. Passing this bill would be a small but meaningful step in that direction. It would send a clear message that Canada values its jurors, that we recognize their sacrifices and that we are committed to supporting them not only in words but in spirit.

In closing, let us remember that justice is not an abstract concept. It is carried out by real people with real lives, who step forward when called upon to serve. They do so quietly, they do so diligently and they do so without expectation of recognition. It is high time we change that. Let us give the jurors the recognition they deserve.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill S‑226 seeks to designate the second week of May as “Jury Duty Appreciation Week”. On the face of it, this is a small step. However, behind this simplicity lies a fundamental reality of our democracy, which is the critical role that citizens play when they are called upon to participate directly in the administration of justice. The bill's preamble clearly states that jury duty is a civic duty. It is a vital component of our justice system and therefore a central element of our representative democracy. In particular, the bill specifically acknowledges that the well-being and mental health of jurors are paramount to the proper functioning of our justice system.

Designating this appreciation week would enable us to officially recognize the commitment and dedication of thousands of Quebeckers and Canadians who are called upon to perform jury duty every year, often out of a legal obligation and at considerable personal, professional and emotional cost to themselves. Serving as a juror is not an abstract role. Jurors have to put their daily lives on hold, cope with financial and professional constraints, and adhere to strict rules of confidentiality. In many cases, they are exposed to extremely disturbing evidence and testimony. We should publicly and formally recognize that reality.

This bill is also a tool for raising public awareness. Greater recognition can help governments, employers and the general public better understand the vital role that jurors play in the justice system. Too often, jury duty is seen as a nuisance or a burden, rather than a fundamental act of democratic participation. Public disengagement with jury service is real and well documented. When a significant portion of the population systematically seeks to evade this obligation, there are serious consequences. We end up with juries that are less representative of the social, cultural and economic diversity of the society they are meant to serve. When a jury is not representative, it undermines the legitimacy of the verdicts and the public's confidence in the justice system.

It is important to remember that jury trials account for only about 1% of criminal cases, but they are generally the most serious, the most complex, and the most consequential, both for victims and for defendants. Jurors have a considerable weight and responsibility on their shoulders. In that context, an appreciation week is a modest but necessary gesture of recognition toward citizens who agree to bear part of the collective burden of justice. For this reason, the Bloc Québécois will support this bill.

That being said, we want to emphasize a fundamental point of principle at the heart of our position. This bill must remain exactly what it is: a gesture of recognition, nothing more, nothing less. The administration of justice is the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, and this has been acknowledged by the government. In Quebec, this responsibility is exercised rigorously and consistently, in accordance with a distinct legal tradition deeply rooted in civil law. The selection of jurors, their compensation, the conditions under which they perform their duties, and support measures fall under the authority of the National Assembly of Quebec, and this must not change.

It is essential to note that Bill S-226 does not impose any obligations on the provinces. It does not impose any standards, programs, expenditures or administrative structures. This is precisely what makes the bill acceptable to the Bloc Québécois and justifies our support.

However, let us be perfectly clear: If the wording or spirit of this bill were to be interpreted, either now or in the future, as a backdoor federal mandate to harmonize, direct or regulate provincial practices regarding support for jurors, we would oppose it. Recognizing the work of jurors is a collective responsibility that we share, but determining how to support them in practical terms—financially, administratively and psychosocially—remains the responsibility of Quebec and the provinces.

The context underlying this bill is nevertheless worth reviewing. For several years now, studies, legal proceedings and personal accounts have highlighted the sometimes severe impact that jury duty has on mental health. We just heard about the well-known example of Mark Farrant, who served as the jury foreman in an Ontario murder trial in 2014. This marked a turning point. His PTSD diagnosis and his public testimony forced institutions to acknowledge a reality that had been ignored for far too long. His testimony was used in parliamentary work and in the report titled “Improving Support for Jurors in Canada”, which highlights the potential psychological vulnerability of jurors and the need for collective awareness.

This problem exists in Quebec, too. Although Quebec has already taken concrete action, including a more generous per diem than what most of the other provinces provide, sustaining a positive civic culture around this legal duty remains challenging. The increased reliance on penalties to compel people to serve on juries signals a wider problem and a lack of social recognition. In the circumstances, publicly recognizing the importance of jury duty may not solve everything, but it will help enhance the image of this act of civic engagement, humanize the juror's role, and serve as a reminder that the justice system also depends on ordinary people called to perform an extraordinary task.

While some will say that an appreciation week is primarily symbolic, Parliament has regularly passed such designations. Examples include Mental Health Week and the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, which is valuable precisely because it is rooted in recognition, remembering and public awareness.

The Bloc Québécois supports Bill S‑226 because it recognizes without constraining, commemorates without imposing and brings people together without requiring uniformity. Any future changes to the practical support provided to jurors must involve voluntary, respectful collaboration consistent with the constitutional division of powers. The strength of this initiative lies in its solemnity and integrity of spirit.

Jury duty appreciation week must remain a tribute to ordinary citizens who perform an extraordinary civic duty in the service of justice. It is in that spirit, and only in that spirit, that the Bloc Québécois will support this bill at second reading.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise.

I had the opportunity to ask the member a question in regard to her initiative. It was interesting that, in a very humble way, she started her speech by talking about the Senate and paying tribute to the senator in advocating for what is being proposed.

I would like to echo toward the member some of the very same words she used of the senator, because I know that the member is very passionate about the issue. We were all able to witness this when she delivered her opening remarks on the bill. It takes a great deal of effort to usher legislation through the House, whether it is government business or private members' business, and I appreciate the effort that she and those individuals who were all involved in making it possible have put in, because it is an important issue.

When we think of Canadian society, we think of the fundamental principles that make us who we are as a nation. Our independent judicial system and the rule of law are things that make us who we are as a nation. Years ago I was the justice critic in the province of Manitoba. The member made reference to jurisdictional control. It is not just about Ottawa. There is a very strong role for provinces to play, and ultimately, when we really want to get down to it, even for our municipalities and other stakeholders.

There are fundamental aspects within our judicial system that I think are really important to recognize, and that is what we would be doing through Bill S-226: recognizing a very important aspect to our judicial system, the right to have jurors listen and to make a determination as to some sort of consequence for a crime that may have been or has been committed.

I think that, compared to other nations, Canada does exceptionally well, but there are areas we could improve upon. Some of the comments we heard today deal directly with how. Maybe it is financial compensation in different fashions. Mental health support is another area we could expand upon.

One thing I really would like to amplify is the issue of education, recognizing that there is a need for us to acknowledge what takes place, what a juror has to go through, why it is so important that we have jurors and why we have a duty as a citizen to participate in a process that, I would ultimately argue, is second to that of no other country in the world. It is because we have that sense of recognition in the House of many other things. As has been pointed out, this is an area we need to give some attention to.

Having an appreciation week would provide all sorts of opportunities. It is not just a matter of another appreciation week that comes by, and we pass it through. The real challenge would be for parliamentarians and others, particularly individuals who are engaged in the judicial system in one form or another, to take advantage of the opportunity to promote and encourage that appreciation week.

Let me give a tangible example. Nothing prevents a local school in the community from being made aware of it and sponsoring something in the classroom. For example, at my local schools, whether it is Sisler High School, Maples or St. John's, any one of those three high schools could have an initiative to recognize this with some sort of a day, class or portion of a class to talk about our judicial system and the important role and sacrifices, and I underline the word sacrifices, of our jurors.

Often when we hear about the court process or the different types of stories that come out of courts, especially with horrendous crimes, we hear that there is a very tangible consequence for those on that jury. Enabling through education, such as the example I am giving with schools, in essence, would support one of Canada's values. It would contribute to the bigger picture of justice.

The member, in introducing the legislation, talked about the issue of compensation, and compensation is important. When we stop to think about it, a great deal is given up when people are called to be on a jury. Some of those calls could be for a fairly long period of time. We expect and hope that, if someone is called to perform jury duty, they will actually show up. The financial component to this does need to be taken seriously. I think the member made reference to $40 a day being suggested. Proper compensation, in whatever form, is what we should be open to.

The other issue is the emotional one and the potential scars that do not go away. People might be on jury duty for two weeks or two months, depending on the situation. Ultimately they may find themselves in a situation where the case is closed, done and dealt with, but people may still have these images in their mind, images that were brought to their attention and shown to them in a court proceeding. We can think of some of the horrendous crimes, such as murder, sexual assault and kidnappings. There are a lot of different types of crimes. It could be crimes involving pornography, and there are all sorts of crimes there. Once people see something, they cannot unsee it. We talk about the duties, and that is great, but let us recognize the sacrifice. The emotional toll can, at times, be very heavy and stick with people virtually for life.

I look at the legislation we have before us today, and I recognize it for what it is, which is a valuable opportunity for Canadians as a whole, in many different ways, to get a better understanding of just how important a trial juror is and of the sacrifices jurors make so that we have a justice system that is the envy of the world. I give my very best to those who have been one, and I wish nothing but the best for those who will be one going forward into the future. I recognize just how important they are.

I thank my colleague for taking the time to do the research, to work with the Senate and to bring the Senate bill here to the House of Commons, so that we could all have this debate and ultimately pass it.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill S-226, legislation to establish national jury duty appreciation week.

Trial by jury is a cornerstone of justice in a free and democratic society. Trial by jury is a profound expression of equality before the law, to be judged by one's peers, 12 fellow citizens. In so doing, juries play an integral role in upholding the right to a fair trial. As Lord Devlin famously said, trial by jury is “the lamp that shows that freedom lives”.

The Law Commission of Canada, in its 1980 report on juries, highlighted the important role juries play in the administration of justice and in safeguarding the right to a fair trial. In that regard, the commission noted that juries tackle trials anew, free from the biases and predispositions that judges may acquire after presiding over similar cases over many years. Also, importantly, juries are not in court when applications to exclude evidence are brought forward. As a result, juries are not tainted by such evidence and the consequent real or perceived bias.

There is something to be said about 12 citizens listening to a trial, being sequestered, deliberating on the evidence, challenging each other's views and reaching a collective judgment. That process gives weight and confidence to trial outcomes. For all of these reasons and more, juries perform a vital role in the administration of justice in Canada. Indeed, the right to a trial by jury is enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for serious criminal matters and serious quasi-criminal matters.

While juries play a vital role in the administration of justice, serving on a jury often comes at a significant personal cost. When someone is called to sit on a jury, they have their work-life balance disrupted. They often have to leave their place of work for sometimes days, sometimes weeks or sometimes months. Jury duty disrupts family and social life, all for very little remuneration. As well, there is no training. There is nothing that can fully prepare someone for discharging the responsibilities that are entrusted to jurors and that are performed every day with the very significant responsibilities that come with that.

Given that there is a right to trial by jury for serious criminal matters, jurors often go through very difficult trials, where they are exposed to horrific evidence in many cases. In the face of such evidence, jurors cannot look away. They cannot close their eyes or cover their ears. They must take in the evidence. They must process the evidence and they must then, at the conclusion of a trial, be sequestered and go through the evidence. It is a stressful process. The stakes are high.

After all, what could be a weightier decision than judging whether the accused in the most serious of criminal cases could spend the rest of his or her life behind bars? That is precisely what is expected of jurors.

I have to say that even though I practised law before I was elected to this place, I did not practice criminal law, and I had not really given much consideration to some of these issues and challenges. It was not until 2017, when I sat on the justice committee, that the committee undertook the first study of its kind on juror supports. During the course of that study, many former jurors testified and told their stories about how jury service had impacted them, how it had changed their lives, former jurors like Mark Farrant and like Tina Daenzer, who served as juror number one in the Paul Bernardo trial.

Mark Farrant and Tina Daenzer still suffer from mental health issues as a result of what they went through in very difficult trials, and they are, of course, not alone. Thousands of jurors experience mental health and other issues. One of the things we heard in the course of that study is that an impediment, in terms of jurors getting the help they need, is the jury secrecy rule. Pursuant to the jury secrecy rule, it is a criminal offence to disclose any aspect of the jury deliberation process, which, by the way, is often the most stressful aspect of jury service, to anyone, for life, even a medical professional.

That begged the question, how can a former juror suffering from mental health issues get better and get the help they need when they cannot even discuss what is the core of their injury with a medical professional?

That is why, in the unanimous report of the justice committee, it was recommended that a carve-out, an exception, be made to the jury secrecy rule. Following the issuance of the report, I worked with Mark Farrant and Tina Daenzer and brought forward a private member's bill to do just that, to carve out an exception whereby former jurors who are suffering from mental health issues arising from their jury service can disclose all aspects of that service to a medical professional bound by confidentiality, thereby respecting the integrity of the jury secrecy rule while seeing that former jurors can get the help and support that they need and that they deserve.

Despite unanimous support at all stages, it took four bills in three different parliaments. I want to acknowledge the advocacy of Mark Farrant and Tina Daenzer, as well as Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu for carrying that bill forward in the other place. That private member's bill, and how it came about, underscores why national jury duty appreciation week is needed.

There are significant knowledge gaps. Dedicating such a week to jurors and their role would help Canadians better understand the vital role that they play in the administration of justice, as well as some of the challenges that they face. Mark Farrant said, quite appropriately, that jury service is the last mandatory form of civic duty in Canada. Each year, thousands of Canadians step up to perform that civic duty. It is time that we recognize these men and women for their contributions to our justice system with a week of appreciation.

[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.