Debates of April 24th, 2026

Strong and Free Elections Act

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I had to get my headset back on. I know I am late to say that I would like to give a speech on Bill C-25.

If it is not too late, before debate collapses—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. member is indeed too late. I had already called the question. I did call, twice, “Resuming debate” and I heard no answers. I also called it in French and I heard no response. It is too late now.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I am sorry, it is because I had surgery on Tuesday.

I am very disappointed not to be able—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I am going to interrupt the member and simply refer to the fact that I called “Resuming debate” twice. I then did it once in French as well, and I called the question. I am going to invoke Standing Order 10, which says that there is no debating once a ruling has been made.

I am just going to restart from the beginning so the House understands what it is voting on.

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that it be passed on division, please.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Motion carried on division. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

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

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.)