Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Cooper and Mr. Farrant, thank you for being here.
Mr. Cooper, I know your talents as a parliamentarian, and there is no doubt that this bill is in good hands. I thank you for that.
I think this is an important subject. In our society, the role of juries is important.
I am pleased to have already spoken with Mr. Farrant and to see that he is here to testify before the committee and to shed light on various aspects of the bill.
Of course, I join my colleagues Ms. Diab and Mr. Morrison in their comments about the importance of your role and the need to recognize the essential role of jurors in our society. Jury appreciation week is a good thing, but I think we could go further. We could do more in terms of recognizing the people who agree to serve society in this way. All that to say, I agree.
For my part, I have a few questions. I wouldn't say they are reservations, because I understand the idea of being able to consult a health professional. I have no difficulty imagining that it can indeed be traumatic to be on a jury.
Mr. Farrant, you have served as a juror before. You've had the experience. I'm not going to ask you to tell us how traumatic it can be, because I think everyone here is already convinced of that. However, I would like you to tell me what is important for a juror. I understand that, afterwards, there is consultation, help and recognition. However, when you sit on a jury, there is a rule that everything that is said remains confidential, precisely to allow the members of the jury to feel comfortable expressing their point of view. The reason for choosing 12 jurors is precisely because we want them to think as a team. We don't want one person to decide on the guilt or innocence of an individual, but we want it to be the result of a reflection initiated by 12 people. This reflection must therefore necessarily be completely free and open.
Here is what I fear. If the members of a jury can consult a health professional afterwards, this opens a breach of that secrecy, which I think is of paramount importance for a jury to function or fulfil its role properly.
I wonder what effect this breach would have on the members of a jury. As a former member of a jury, how do you react to sitting around a table with 11 other people knowing that one of them could potentially repeat your words to a therapist?
Doesn't that worry you?