Jury Duty Appreciation Week Act

Bill S-226, Jury Duty Appreciation Week Act · Second reading · now at committee in the House Where it stands

What Bill S-226 would do

The bill would designate the second week of May each year as Jury Duty Appreciation Week. The published material gives no further detail.

Official text (opens in a new tab)

2 statements

Mario Beaulieu, La Pointe-de-l'Île

Bloc Québécois
“We support this bill only because it is a simple thank-you. It must not spend money or create programs. Justice is the job of Quebec and the provinces, not Ottawa. Does the member agree?”
Official Hansard

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?

Mario Beaulieu, La Pointe-de-l'Île

Bloc Québécois
“I support this bill to create Jury Duty Appreciation Week. Serving on a jury is hard work, and we should thank the citizens who do it. But managing juries is still a provincial responsibility, and the federal government must not interfere with how Quebec runs its justice system.”
  • A repeated line

    “That the Bloc Québécois will support this bill at second reading.”

    Said 3 times by 3 members since April 24.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

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.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 110

  1. Government Orders Strong and Free Elections Act 24 statements
  2. Oral Questions Finance 12 statements
  3. Oral Questions Natural Resources 6 statements
  4. Oral Questions Finance 6 statements
  5. Oral Questions Ethics 2 statements
  6. Oral Questions Public Services and Procurement 4 statements
  7. Oral Questions Labour 4 statements
  8. Oral Questions Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship 4 statements
  9. Oral Questions Health 4 statements
  10. Oral Questions International Trade 2 statements
  11. Oral Questions Taxation 2 statements
  12. Oral Questions International Trade 18 statements
  13. Oral Questions Foreign Affairs 2 statements
  14. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 2 statements
  15. Oral Questions Public Safety 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions The Environment 2 statements
  17. Oral Questions Steel and Aluminum Industry 5 statements
  18. Government Orders Strong and Free Elections Act 41 statements
  19. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  20. Private Members' Business Jury Duty Appreciation Week Act 13 statements
  21. Oral Questions International Trade 4 statements