Anju Dhillon

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.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives love to badmouth the Canadian economy, industries, and workers. They completely ignore the historic challenges we are currently facing and the tangible results of our plan. Instead of these petty partisan slogans and doomsday rhetoric, could the Minister of Finance set the record straight on the state of the Canadian economy?

Mr. Speaker, we have been working hard together, at the justice committee, on this issue. It is historic legislation. Things that have never been addressed before are being covered under this legislation. Can our hon. colleague tell us what kind of impact it will have on future generations, as opposed to what has happened in the past?

Mr. Speaker, the member has given a speech in which she outlined many important aspects of the bill. I would like to ask her about her thoughts on femicide being automatically first-degree, considering the scourge of femicides that we have seen in past years.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my esteemed colleague for her hard work. She has been working on implementing these changes for a long time. As she explained in her speech, many changes have been made. Almost all of Justice Arbour's recommendations have been implemented. I believe this is an important step for justice and for people who want to work in the armed forces. I would like to ask my colleague the following question. For racialized people, for women who have been victims of abuse of power, can she explain to us what we can expect regarding these changes aimed at encouraging more women and people of colour to apply to join the armed forces?

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—

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve to live in communities that are safe, secure and free from gun violence. Our government made a clear commitment to remove assault-style firearms from our communities. Firearms like the AR-15, that are designed to kill people, have no place in Canada. With the March 31 deadline for submitting claims approaching, can the government provide an update on the assault-style firearms compensation program?

moved that Bill S-226, An Act respecting Jury Duty Appreciation Week, be read the first time. Mr. Speaker, good morning. I cannot express how meaningful this moment is for me. Having practised as a lawyer, and now speaking to one of the fundamental aspects of the criminal justice system, I am deeply moved to stand here today for Bill S-226, an act respecting jury duty appreciation week. This incredible bill was first sponsored in the Senate by the hon. Senator Lucie Moncion. Thanks to her tireless efforts over the last few years, it passed third reading on February 10 of this year. Thus, I am able to sponsor Bill S-226 today in the House of Commons. The bill would designate the second week of May each year as jury duty appreciation week across Canada. This week of appreciation is necessary not only to raise awareness but also to recognize and celebrate the people who serve on juries. Often vicarious trauma among them has been neglected. There are concerns about insufficient mental health supports being provided to them. There are also financial barriers, such as lost wages, not being adequately compensated for travel, child care and so forth. These financial impediments are also sacrifices they make. This time of jury appreciation week is absolutely necessary across Canada. I have briefly outlined these important points that will bring a clearer understanding of what the bill means. (Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the motion before the House, but also about something larger than procedure. I rise to speak about responsibility, the responsibility we hold as legislators when Canadians are facing real threats in their communities. Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, has now been before Parliament for months. It was introduced on September 19, 2025. It has been debated in the House. It has been studied at committee. More than 20 witnesses have appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Parliament has now spent more than 30 hours debating and studying this legislation. That is what we call serious scrutiny. That is responsible legislative review, yet despite all of that work, the bill remains stalled, not because Canadians are uncertain about confronting hate and not because the legislation has not been studied, but because procedural tactics have been used to delay the moment when Parliament must make a decision. I want to speak plainly today. Members of the House are free to oppose legislation. They are free to disagree with provisions. They are free to vote against a clause. They are free to vote against the amendment, and they are free to vote against the entire bill. That is democracy, but democracy also requires that Parliament eventually vote. It cannot function if legislation can be delayed indefinitely through procedural manoeuvres. Members of the opposition have had months to present their arguments. They have had hours and hours and hours to debate. They have had the opportunity to propose amendments throughout many, many months. What they do not have is the right to stall Parliament indefinitely, because while this chamber debates procedure, something else is happening outside these walls. Communities across Canada are facing rising hate and intimidation. We see it in the data. We see it in police reports, and we see it on the news. Just recently, shots were fired at a synagogue in the greater Toronto area. Shots were fired at a place of worship, a place where people gather and pray, a place where families bring children, a place where Canadians should feel free and protected. That incident is not isolated. Jewish communities have reported rising threats. Mosques have reported rising threats and facing intimidation, and many other religious institutions have been subjected to hate crimes. Community centres from all backgrounds have been targeted, and hateful symbols have appeared outside schools and cultural institutions. These are not theoretical concerns. They are real events affecting real people. When Canadians see incidents like this, they expect Parliament to respond with seriousness and efficiency. They expect Parliament to strengthen protections, and they expect Parliament to act. Bill C-9 is part of that response. The legislation does three simple things. First, it creates an offence to prevent people from blocking or intimidating others who are trying to enter places like synagogues, mosques, churches, schools, community centres and any other places of worship. Second, it creates a stand-alone, hate-motivated offence, so that when crimes are committed because of hatred toward a person's identity, the law recognizes that harm clearly. Third, it addresses the public display of symbols used to promote hatred and intimidate communities. These are practical measures. They are targeted measures, and they respond directly to what communities have been asking Parliament to address. The legislation before us is only eight pages long, eight pages, yet Parliament has now spent more than 30 hours studying it. Witnesses have testified. Experts have spoken. Communities have shared their experiences. Amendments have been debated. That is thorough scrutiny by any reasonable standard, yet the delays continue. Much of the opposition's argument has focused on the removal of the religious exemption provision in the Criminal Code. Let us examine that argument carefully. Freedom of religion in Canada is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That protection is fundamental. It is one of the cornerstones of our constitutional system, and it is not changing. Courts in Canada have repeatedly confirmed that hate propaganda offences require an extremely high legal threshold. That threshold requires proof that someone wilfully promoted hatred against an identifiable group. Reading scripture does not meet that threshold. Teaching religious doctrine does not meet that threshold. Practising one's faith does not meet that threshold. Those freedoms remain fully protected. In fact, the religious exemption provisions that have become the focus of this debate have never been relied upon in a prosecution, not once. The protection for religious expression in Canada comes from the charter and from the high legal threshold built into the Criminal Code of Canada. Nevertheless, concerns were raised, and when those concerns were raised, Parliament responded responsibly. A “for greater certainty” clause was introduced to explicitly confirm that peaceful religious expression, including sermons, teachings and discussion of scripture, would never be criminalized under this legislation. That clarification was introduced in good faith. It addressed the concern directly, and it reaffirmed what the charter already guarantees, but even after the clarification, the delay continued. Canadians watching this debate might reasonably ask a simple question. If the Charter protects religious freedom, if the courts already set a very high threshold, and if the bill now contains an explicit clarification protecting religious expression, then why does the delay continue? That is a question members of the opposition should answer, because Canadians expect Parliament to deal honestly with the facts, and the facts are clear: Freedom of religion is protected, and peaceful religious expression is protected. This legislation targets something entirely different. It targets intimidation. It targets harassment. It targets the deliberate promotion of hatred. When people block the entrance to a synagogue, to a mosque or to any other place of worship to frighten worshippers, that is intimidation. When people surround a mosque, shouting threats, that is intimidation. When hateful symbols are displayed outside synagogues, schools or community centres to frighten families, that is intimidation. Canadians are asking Parliament to respond to that intimidation. There is another consequence to this ongoing delay that we must acknowledge. Parliament's time is not unlimited. Every hour spent delaying one bill is an hour that cannot be spent advancing other legislation, including legislation addressing public safety, legislation addressing justice reform and legislation addressing economic issues that Canadians expect Parliament to address. When procedural tactics are used to stall legislation indefinitely, they slow the entire work of Parliament. That is not responsible opposition. Responsible opposition means debating legislation seriously. Responsible opposition means proposing amendments. Responsible opposition means voting according to one's principles. What it does not mean is preventing Parliament from reaching a decision. The motion before us today is straightforward. It would not eliminate debate. Debate has already happened for hours and hours and months and months, with more than 30 hours of it just in committee. What this motion would do is ensure that the committee could complete its work and that the House could finally vote on Bill C-9. Every member of the House would then have the opportunity to make their position clear. Those who support confronting hatred would vote for the legislation. Those who oppose would vote against it. That is how democracy functions. Canadians are watching this debate.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians should believe us because there has been an increase in hate crimes that we cannot imagine. There have been 67% more religious incidents than in 2022. Those based on sexual orientation have increased by 69%. How could we not pass this legislation? How could we not try to protect Canadians? How could we not attend to the safety of our citizens? There is an increase in hate crime. Everybody knows that there are statistics supporting this, so yes, it is crucial that we pass this bill as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague, who explained the situation in a sensitive and intelligent way. I appreciate everything he just explained. It is really important to address this type of issue, otherwise hatred will continue. People can say anything, whatever they want. They can incite discrimination, defamation or hatred based on beliefs or what others wear as symbols. This type of bill will help us introduce stricter sentences for this type of crime.

Mr. Speaker, every day that this bill is delayed, lives are lost and safety is compromised. Threats and hatred, however, are not abating. As the days go by, we see them increasing. We must respond to this. It is our responsibility as legislators. It is our responsibility as elected officials. It is our responsibility in Parliament to pass this kind of legislation to protect citizens and ensure that hatred does not continue to spread in this way.

Mr. Speaker, International Women's Day is a moment to recognize the leadership, resilience and contributions of women across Canada. Women strengthen our communities, drive innovation and shape a more inclusive future. When women succeed, everyone benefits. The women's program supports projects that break down systemic barriers to economic equality and leadership. That is why our government is investing in women's economic participation, improving affordable child care, supporting women entrepreneurs and removing barriers to opportunities. The women entrepreneurship strategy has helped over 490,000 women start, scale and grow businesses. Supports include access to capital, mentorship, skills training and business networks. As we celebrate International Women's Day, we celebrate the progress that has been made, recognize the work that still needs to be done and reaffirm our commitment to advancing equality so that every woman and girl—

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, after weeks of Conservative delays, the justice committee finally resumed its work on the combatting hate act, and we will continue that work on Thursday. Will the Conservatives make sure bail reform is passed before Christmas? Could the minister speak to the importance of keeping this work moving so Canadians can have these important justice reforms take place?

Mr. Speaker, Canada recently hosted our G7 partners in Toronto to advance the G7 alliance. Can the minister explain how the alliance will help stabilize critical mineral prices, protect us from forced supply disruptions and translate into good jobs and cleaner, more affordable, climate-competitive energy technologies for Canadians and Quebeckers?