“I want the House to pass this bill to create a jury appreciation week. Serving on a jury is hard work. Jurors get paid very little, they often see upsetting evidence, and the law limits who they can talk to about it.”

“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.”

“I usually vote against bills that create special weeks because Parliament creates too many of them. But I support this bill. Jury duty is one of the only legal duties regular Canadians must do. Jurors have to pause their lives, make hard choices, and sometimes see terrible things. We should have a week to thank them and to remember our duties as citizens.”

“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.”