Bill C-417 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (disclosure of information by jurors)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to provide that the prohibition against the disclosure of information relating to jury proceedings does not, in certain circumstances, apply in respect of disclosure by jurors to health care professionals.

Criminal Code

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill S-206, an act to amend the Criminal Code on disclosure of information by jurors.

Bill S-206 proposes an amendment that seeks to help jurors who face mental health challenges flowing from fulfilling their civic duty and after completion of a jury trial. It proposes to do so by adding an exception to the offence of disclosure of jury proceedings under section 649 of the Criminal Code.

The substance of this legislation is short and straightforward and I believe is targeting an important issue deserving of our attention. Indeed, when we situate the bill in the present context of the ongoing COVID‑19 pandemic, we can all understand the importance of supporting the well-being and mental health of Canadians, and particularly those who participate in the justice system.

We know the pandemic has affected the mental health of Canadians. According to the Public Health Agency of Canada, almost half of all Canadians have reported that their mental health has worsened since the beginning of the pandemic. A Statistics Canada survey on COVID‑19 and mental health in September 2021 indicated that one in four Canadians, or 25%, age 18 and older screened positive for symptoms of depression, anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder in the spring of 2021, up from one in five, or 21%, in the fall of 2020.

A more recent study in January 2022, from the Angus Reid Institute, found that the population is largely fatigued, frustrated and anxious, with one in three Canadians, or 36%, stating they are struggling with their mental health. According to this study, this represents an increase from the one-quarter who responded in November 2021, prior to omicron becoming the dominant COVID‑19 variant in Canada.

Canadians across the country who are experiencing mental health difficulties are the very same population called upon for jury duty by way of provincial and territorial legislative processes governing the criteria with respect to who may serve and be summoned as a juror. I am very pleased that the government is committed to supporting Canadians and their mental health through the COVID‑19 pandemic and beyond, such as through its record of investing millions into mental health and distress centres.

Thanks to the previous work undertaken by the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to study counselling and mental health supports for jurors, we have a better understanding of the experience of Canadians who serve on juries and the potentially long-lasting impacts of such service. The committee's May 2018 report entitled “Improving Support for Jurors in Canada” documented that many former jurors described their jury duty experience as positive. However, the report also includes testimony from jurors who served on difficult and unfortunately disturbing criminal cases ended up encountering much mental health distress and suffering, and in some instances even reported post-traumatic stress disorder following their service. It is conceivable that jury duty during any pandemic could give rise to additional stresses and strains on an individual, for example, concerns over their safety and physical-distancing requirements being respected at all times.

I believe that if serving on a jury creates a need for mental health supports, then there should not be barriers for those who must access them. Bill S-206 proposes to amend section 649 of the Criminal Code by adding a narrow exception to the offence prohibiting jurors from disclosing information otherwise disclosed in open court to enable them to share this information in the course of receiving mental health treatment from a health care professional.

While the purpose of section 649 of the Criminal Code is to protect the integrity of the jury deliberation process, the offence has been identified as posing a barrier for jurors in accessing mental health supports by former jurors and in the report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The amendment proposed in Bill S-206 would address recommendation 4 of the report of the standing committee, which proposes that there may be a more lenient secrecy rule for jury deliberations. The committee's recommendations were unanimously supported.

I certainly support the recommendation and I support this bill. For instance, former Bill C-417 in 2019 unanimously passed in the House of Commons following the adoption of amendments by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

I call on all members to support Bill S-206 because it would allow former jurors to be freer in expressing their thoughts and feelings to a health care professional on matters that may have deeply disturbed or upset them or caused significant stress during their service as a juror.

It is a remarkable aspect of our justice system that jurors across the country and in countless courtrooms meet the challenges of jury duty, and so it only makes sense that they would be able to receive the support they need to return to their lives afterward. I am pleased that the government expressed its support for former Bill C-417 and is now in support of Bill S-206. The government has introduced, and Parliament has enacted, a number of changes to improve the jury regime in the Criminal Code.

For example, the Government of Canada introduced legislation that was passed by Parliament in 2019, former Bill C-75, which included several Criminal Code amendments to improve the in court jury selection process. These amendments abolished peremptory challenges, which have been linked to discriminatory application to exclude potential jurors from jury duty; simplified and strengthened the challenge for cause process; modernized the grounds for such challenges; and clarified the power of judges to stand aside jurors to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

More recently, on February 8, 2022, the government introduced Senate legislation to help address the challenges faced by criminal courts caused or exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other Acts relating to the COVID-19 response and other measures, includes proposed amendments that would, among other things, increase the use of technology in the jury selection process, including allowing prospective jurors to participate by video conference where the court considers it appropriate and with the consent of the prosecutor and the accused.

The pandemic and the resulting public health guidelines for physical distancing have made it especially challenging for courts to conduct jury selection proceedings, as these proceedings can sometimes involve several hundreds of people being physically present in the same location at the same time.

The amendments proposed in Bill S-4 would help provide courts with greater flexibility in how jury selection processes are held, and it may serve to be a useful tool in accommodating prospective jurors who have been summoned to participate in the selection process.

Our government is proud to support this bill, as it recognizes the vital role and dedicated service of jurors in the Canadian justice system. As we bring the justice system into the 21st century, we will work to ensure jurors can be better supported in their roles in addition to facilitating the sharing of best practices between jurisdictions.

I want to take a moment to commend my colleagues on the justice and human rights committee for working collaboratively to study and pass this important bill. It is an example of the progress we can achieve when we work together, across party lines, to support all Canadians.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to Bill S-206 at third reading stage. It is an act to amend the Criminal Code relating to section 649, otherwise known as the jury secrecy rule. This bill, which I was proud to sponsor in the House of Commons, is a straightforward piece of legislation that would carve out a narrow exception to the jury secrecy rule.

As it currently stands, former jurors are unable to disclose any aspect of their jury service with anyone for life, even a medical professional bound by confidentiality. This bill addresses that by carving out an exception whereby former jurors who are suffering from mental health issues arising from their jury service could disclose all aspects of that service with a medical professional bound by confidentiality.

This bill is a needed piece of legislation that would go a long way to supporting juror mental health, and I will get into the substance of that momentarily. I am very pleased that this bill has been reported back to the House from the justice committee unamended and with unanimous support. This bill has already passed the House unanimously at second reading stage.

A bill that I introduced in the 42nd Parliament, Bill C-417, a bill that is substantively the same as this bill, passed the House at all legislative stages but did not progress due to the call of the 2019 election. Thanks to the leadership of Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, who introduced this bill in the Senate, and Senator Lucie Moncion, a former juror who suffered from mental health issues arising from her jury service, we have seen this bill clear the other place, again with unanimous support.

I speak to the unanimity around this bill because it really does underscore that this is a common-sense fix. It is not often that we can find unanimous support across the board from all parliamentarians and all stakeholders involved, including former jurors, mental health professionals and lawyers, among others.

This bill is a product of the study the justice committee undertook on juror supports, the first parliamentary study of its kind. It was initiated by the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. I had the privilege of serving on the justice committee during the study and continue to serve on that committee. I can tell members that while there are many people I can thank for leading the bill to where it is today in being on the cusp of passing into law, this bill would not have happened but for the jurors who came before the justice committee. These former jurors came to our committee and talked about the impact the jury service had on them.

Jury service is something that I think sometimes we do not know enough about, unless we are summoned to serve on a jury or know someone who has been. Jury service can be stressful. Jurors can be exposed to horrific evidence, and it can have an impact on their mental health.

To provide just a bit of context in terms of the experiences of former jurors who conveyed their stories before the justice committee, I want to take a moment to read into the record some of the testimony we heard four and a half years ago.

Mark Farrant, a jury foreman in a gruesome murder trial, said:

In court as a juror, I took all the evidence in silently, as was my role. As jurors, we ingest the evidence and the facts. We do not interact with it. We are not afforded an opportunity to look away or raise our hands and say to the courtroom, “Turn that off; I've had enough.”

Tina Daenzer, who served as juror number one in the gruesome Paul Bernardo trial, said, “Imagine watching young girls being raped and tortured over and over again. You couldn't close your eyes and you couldn't look away because your duty was to watch the evidence.”

Patrick Fleming, who served on a jury involving a 10-month gruesome murder trial, spoke about jury service and the impact it had on his life. He said:

When my civic duty was done and I was able to go home to my family and return to my “normal” life, I pulled into my driveway and expected feelings of relief to wash over me, but something was different. I did not feel at my place of peace. Something was not right.

He went on to say:

We need assistance getting back to our “normal” life. We are civilians who did not choose this path for ourselves nor are we trained to deal with this type of situation. Being a juror is a monumental job that has had a major impact on my life.

In the course of our study, we heard about the jury secrecy rule and the degree to which it can impede jurors getting the full mental health supports they need. In that regard, there are at least two impediments.

The first is that the deliberation process is often the most stressful aspect of jury service. To not be able to talk about what is often the most stressful aspect of jury service is clearly an impediment to getting the help that a juror suffering from mental health issues requires. The second issue, which is more general in nature, is that it can impact the ability of former jurors to have full and frank discussions with mental health and other medical professionals because there is a lack of understanding about what the boundaries are regarding what can be talked about in light of the jury secrecy rule. We even heard that some medical professionals are reluctant to take on former jurors as clients as a result.

That is where this bill comes in. It provides clarity in the law and ensures that former jurors can have those full and frank discussions in a strictly confidential context. These full and frank discussions are often so vital to getting better in the face of mental health issues. This legislation is not novel. It may be new to Canada, but it has been successfully implemented in the Australian state of Victoria, where it has worked very well.

This issue and the way this bill has moved forward speak to Parliament working at its best. We had a groundbreaking study on juror supports in which an issue was identified regarding jurors getting mental health supports, and a solution was identified.

Rather than letting the unanimous report sit on the shelf and collect dust, I took it upon myself to introduce a bill, Bill C-417, a few months after the release of that report. However, at all stages, up until today, I received full support and collaboration from all members on all sides, including the member for Mount Royal, who was the chair of the justice committee during the study, the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and the former member for Victoria, who is the minister of aboriginal affairs today in the Government of British Columbia, among many others, all of whom recognized that this was an issue and that we needed to work together to implement a key common-sense recommendation that is small but will have a meaningful impact.

This bill is very close to crossing the finish line, and I hope it will cross the finish line today so that we can send it to the Governor General. It is a step forward, but a lot more work needs to be done around juror mental health. When we think about it, in a criminal trial, the lawyers, the Crown, the defence, the presiding judge and court workers all have access to various mental health programs and supports, but guess who often do not. It is the men and women who do not have a choice to be there. They are there because they have been summoned. They are performing their civic duty, and often they have nothing in the way of mental health support programs.

Fortunately, there has been some movement. Four provinces now have juror support programs, but they are not robust enough. In short, jurors in those four provinces have access to up to four counselling sessions free of charge. Often that is about it, and those measures were only implemented in the last number of years. I recognize the member for Ottawa Centre because when he was the minister of justice, he heard Mark Farrant and took it upon himself to see that the Province of Ontario developed a juror support program. However, there is more work to do because in six provinces there are essentially no supports and we need to do better.

What I hope is that after we pass this bill, the government will take seriously the implementation of another key recommendation of the report on juror supports: to work with the provinces to address the patchwork in the lack of supports and the inadequacy of supports, and provide, among other things, one-time funding so that we can have the supports that jurors deserve.

Jurors play an integral role in the administration of justice. We owe this to them. They should not have to suffer from mental health issues, unable to get help. This bill is a step in the direction of helping former jurors. I say very simply that it is a bill that has been studied and debated exhaustively. We all know the issue and we know what needs to be done. Let us get this bill passed and sent to the Governor General today to be brought into law.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Farrant, thank you again for being here, but I have these same questions to ask and I don't have a lot of time. It's hard to get through all of this in five minutes and two and a half minutes, including questions. So I'll ask my question of Mr. Cooper, if I may, Mr. Farrant, since he worked on Bill C‑417, the forerunner of this bill, so to speak, and on this one.

I haven't seen many instances where the negative effects of such bills have been discussed. I don't want to be a spoilsport, but there are always two sides to a coin. We know that in Quebec, the Professional Code, among other things, requires professionals, therapists and others to keep secret the discussions they have with their clients. This might seem to be watertight, but there are cases where the professional may be allowed to disclose what the client or patient has said to him. For example, if they are being sued by a patient who decides that they have had bad service, if the law allows them to do so, or if they want to prevent an act of violence, such as when someone talks about suicide, the professional may disclose what they are told, even when it has been done in confidence. These are extreme and rare cases, but it is a possibility. This is what I called a possible breach of confidentiality earlier. I am concerned about this breach, and I ask you to reassure me.

Have there been any studies, to your knowledge, Mr. Cooper, of the effect that this possibility has had on jurors, who must be able to rely on confidentiality to express themselves freely? Are there really any studies on this issue?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. It's an honour to be here, as the House of Commons sponsor, to present Bill S-206.

Three years ago, I appeared before this committee with Mark Farrant to testify in relation to my then private member's bill, Bill C-417, which was substantively the same as Bill S-206. Just as Bill S-206 has received unanimous support at all legislative stages thus far, Bill C-417 passed the House at all legislative stages in the House of Commons with unanimous support, but unfortunately did not make progress in the Senate due to the call of the 2019 election. I'm hopeful that this will not be the case with Bill S-206.

This legislation is a straightforward piece of legislation. It seeks to implement a key recommendation of the unanimous report of this committee on juror supports, a study that I had an opportunity to participate in as a member of this committee. More specifically, Bill S-206 carves out a narrow exception to the jury secrecy rule, whereby former jurors who are suffering from mental health issues arising from their jury service can disclose all aspects of that service, including the deliberation process, with a medical professional bound by confidentiality.

As it currently stands, section 649 of the Criminal Code makes it an offence for a former juror to discuss any aspect of the deliberation process with anyone for life. There is but one narrow exception, relating to an investigation or criminal proceedings in relation to a juror for obstruction of justice.

During our committee's study on juror supports, we heard from a number of former jurors, including Mark Farrant, who was a jury foreman in a gruesome murder trial. All of these former jurors had gone through difficult trials, been exposed to horrific evidence and suffered from mental health issues—in some cases, PTSD, and in some cases for decades after. These former jurors are not alone. Thousands of Canadians each year take up the summons to serve on a jury, and many of them go through difficult trials and suffer from mental health issues as a result.

The deliberation process, as we heard at the study around juror supports, is one of the most stressful aspects of jury service, if not the most stressful. After all, it is where, as a juror, you are sequestered with other strangers and have to go through difficult evidence, sometimes again and again. There is enormous pressure to make the right decision, having regard for the gravity of rendering a verdict in terms of potentially putting someone away for life, as well as seeing that justice is done.

It begs the following question: If one who is suffering from mental health issues arising from jury service cannot talk about what may be the core of their injury, how is it that they can get the full help and support they need? That is what we heard at this committee four years ago when the committee undertook its study. It was that, indeed, the jury secrecy rule can be an inhibitor for jurors in getting the full support they need. It makes them unable to talk about what is the core of their injury or could be the core of their injury, as well as creating difficulties around having full and frank discussions with medical professionals.

That is where this bill comes in. It carves out a narrow exception, all the while protecting the integrity of the jury secrecy rule. There are many good reasons for the jury secrecy rule, including respecting the finality of a verdict, protecting the privacy of former jurors, and protecting the sanctity of the deliberation process. This carve-out would not impact any of those objectives, because, again, any disclosure would be post-trial, in a strictly confidential setting. This is a common-sense piece of legislation that is much needed and will go a long way to supporting juror mental health in Canada.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, first off, I would like to acknowledge that I am speaking from the traditional lands of the Algonquin people. I also want to acknowledge the work of my friend from St. Albert—Edmonton and his persistence in bringing forward Bill S-206, an act to amend the Criminal Code (disclosure of information by jurors).

The amendment proposed by Bill S-206 would permit jurors to discuss jury deliberations with health care professionals following a trial in order to address the health issues that have arisen as a result of their jury duties. It would do so by adding an exception to the offence of “Disclosure of jury proceedings” under section 649 of the Criminal Code.

I am pleased to say that the government will be supporting this bill. Bill S-206 is nearly identical to former bills introduced in previous parliamentary sessions, notably Bill C-417, which the government also supported. Bill S-206 includes a change to the Criminal Code that has garnered unanimous support, and I believe it should once again receive the same treatment, as it is a worthy objective.

I want to thank Mark Farrant and the Canadian Juries Commission for their tireless advocacy on this bill, and on behalf of Canadians who have served on juries across Canada.

I greatly appreciate the opportunity this bill provides to consider the important civic duty of jurors, including the pivotal role they play in the criminal justice system. I would also like to speak about the purpose of section 649 of the Criminal Code and what effects the amendments proposed in Bill S-206 are expected to have.

Juries are critical in their contributions to the justice system in Canada and have an important role in upholding our Constitution. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to a jury trial for offences carrying a maximum penalty of imprisonment of five years or more. The charter also guarantees a right to a trial before an independent and impartial tribunal.

Under the Criminal Code, certain criminal offences, such as murder, provide for a presumption that the accused will be tried by a judge and jury. For other offences, such as sexual assault and robbery, an accused can elect to be tried by a judge alone or by jury and judge. In a trial involving a judge and jury, jurors act as the triers of fact and replace the judge in this role.

The right to a jury trial is not a constitutional one in the civil context. The right to demand a civil jury trial is a statutory right that is limited to certain circumstances found in provincial and territorial legislation. However, in some jurisdictions, such as Quebec, juries are not available at all for civil cases. Canada also has juries in the context of coroner's inquests, whose important role can involve making recommendations in relation to the death of an individual.

The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Davey held that a jury “reflects the common sense, the values, and the conscience of the community.” The jury has also been described by the Supreme Court, in R. v. Sherratt, as an “excellent fact finder” and a “final bulwark against oppressive laws or their enforcement”, which increases societal trust in the justice system as well as public knowledge of the criminal justice system. Moreover, as the Supreme Court stated in R. v. Find, “Trial by jury is a cornerstone of Canadian criminal 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.”

These statements and observations by our highest court inform us of the great value placed on juries in Canada and the individuals who make up a jury, with notable references to the significance of juries in the criminal justice system.

The provinces and territories are responsible for the administration of justice, and their legislatures enact laws relating to the establishment of juries for civil, criminal and other proceedings, such as coroner's inquests. Provincial and territorial legislation also provides the basis for identifying potential jurors from the community, determining who may meet the criteria to act as jurors and summing jurors to court, among other things.

With respect to matters within the federal jurisdiction, federal responsibility over criminal law includes the Criminal Code's procedural rules regulating jury trials and the jury selection process that takes place in the courtroom. This includes the requirement that 12 jurors be selected, in addition to one or two alternatives at the discretion of the judge.

The challenge for cause process and the trial judge's power to excuse or stand aside prospective jurors provide mechanisms for removing prospective jurors whose impartiality may be in question. The federal government also has a responsibility for enacting criminal offences and penalties, such as those set out in the Criminal Code.

The common law has long provided for a secrecy rule, which excludes the evidence of a juror who reveals statements or opinions made during jury deliberations. Section 649 of the Criminal Code is a codification of this rule. It was enacted in 1972 and provides for a summary conviction offence that criminalizes the disclosure of information obtained during jury deliberations that was not otherwise disclosed in open court. The offence applies to every juror and every person who provides technical, personal, interpretative or other support services to a juror with a physical disability. The offence is currently punishable by a maximum penalty of imprisonment of two years less a day and/or a fine not exceeding $5,000. There are no known or reported convictions pursuant to this offence.

There are existing exceptions under section 649 that permit disclosure of information relating to the proceedings of the jury. These are in respect of an investigation or prosecution of a charge of obstruction of justice in relation to a juror, under subsection 139(2) of the Criminal Code.

The common law jury secrecy rule and offence in section 649 serve the purposes of promoting free and frank debate among jurors, protecting them from harassment, maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice and helping preserve the constitutionally mandated integrity of the jury system. However, section 649 has been identified as a barrier to jurors seeking mental health support.

We heard in the course of testimony before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights during its study and in its report, “Improving Support for Jurors in Canada”, from May 2018, that jury duty for some individuals involved significant personal sacrifice, stresses and strains, with some former jurors experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder or other mental health trauma. Former jurors have reportedly encountered resistance from mental health professionals in serving them because of section 649 of the Criminal Code. This is very concerning, as the individual jurors who make up a jury are invaluable to our justice system and the difficulties they encounter must be recognized and acknowledged.

The narrow exception being proposed in Bill S-206 is meant to make it easier and clearer for jurors to get mental health treatment for issues relating to their service so they are able to disclose information about what went on during jury deliberations that may have impacted them. For example, they would be permitted to disclose information beyond that which was disclosed in open court, such as graphic photos and disturbing testimony, and discuss with a health care professional other aspects of the trial and jury duty that may have affected them, such as the weight of the decision they had to make.

Finally, the bill includes a coming-into-force period of 90 days after the bill receives royal assent. This would allow the provinces and territories some time to effectively implement the change to section 649, given their primary responsibility over the administration of justice and jury trials, as well as juror supports generally.

It seems that this will be welcomed as an improvement for jurors involved in the criminal justice system, who, as previously described, may face the need for mental health support following a trial. This help should be accessible. I hope that all members of the House will join us in supporting Bill S-206.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford is absolutely right. This bill has been studied at the justice committee twice. First, during the study on juror supports and then at the justice committee again when I put forward Bill C-417. It received a clean bill of health all the way through.

There were, in fact, no objections from any witnesses, and as far as it being in place, it has been in place in Victoria, and the evidence that we heard is that it has worked quite well. It is truly a common-sense piece of legislation. It is modest, but it will go a long way to supporting juror mental health in Canada.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

moved that Bill S-206, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (disclosure of information by jurors), be read the first time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be the sponsor of Bill S-206, which passed in the Senate unanimously last week. This bill would implement a key recommendation of the unanimous 2018 justice committee report on juror supports initiated by the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, who I am proud to have as the seconder.

More specifically, this bill would carve out a narrow exception to the jury secrecy rule so that former jurors who are suffering from mental health issues arising from their jury service could disclose all aspects of that service, including the deliberation process, with a medical professional bound by confidentiality. It would protect the integrity of the rule while seeing that former jurors could get the help that they need and deserve.

This bill is identical to Bill C-417 that I introduced, which passed this House unanimously in 2019. This is a common-sense, non-partisan bill that has enjoyed unanimous support. I urge its speedy passage.

(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)

Criminal Records Act

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-93, an act that would provide for the possibility of a record suspension for a conviction in relation to the minor possession of cannabis.

I support the legislation. However, while I support it, I do so reluctantly. I support it because in the absence of other legislation, it is the best we have at this present time. However, it need not have been that way.

A bill was put forward by the hon. member for Victoria, Bill C-415, that would have provided for the expungement of records for minor possession. I would submit that Bill C-415 was a much better approach than Bill C-93 introduced by the government. I was very proud to stand in support of Bill C-415 when it came to a vote at second reading. It is very unfortunate that the Liberals across the way, almost uniformly one by one, voted that legislation down.

Why is Bill C-415 better than Bill C-93?

One of the distinctions between the bills is the difference between an expungement and a record suspension. Oftentimes there is confusion of whether they are one and the same or more or less substantively the same, but they are substantively different. An expungement is the deletion, it is the removal of a record. If people are asked if they had ever been convicted of the offence of minor possession, they can honestly answer, no, that they have not because that record is expunged; it is removed. It is as though that offence and that conviction never occurred. Bill C-415 would have provided that.

By contrast, Bill C-93 provides something quite different. In order to obtain a record suspension, one must apply to the National Parole Board. While the Liberals pat themselves on the back for waiving the $631 fee, the fact is that there are significant costs associated with applying to the National Parole Board for a record suspension. Those costs can include such things as finger printing and other searches of records that may be required. So complicated is an application for many individuals, that there are individuals who provide services on a for-profit basis and charge anywhere from $1,800 to $2,000 to apply for a record suspension. It is nice that the Liberals waived the fee, but again it does not address the other costs, time and effort that will be required in order to apply.

Second, under Bill C-93, the burden falls on the applicant to obtain a record suspension. If people happen to be convicted in relation to another offence, they need not apply because they do not qualify. More than half a million Canadians have been convicted of minor possession. By the way, almost half of Canadians have said that they have consumed a minor amount of cannabis.

Half a million Canadians have been convicted. According to departmental officials who appeared before the public safety committee, the estimated number of individuals who would be eligible to apply was around 250,000 Canadians. Right off the bat, half of Canadians who have been convicted of minor possession are disqualified. Why should they be disqualified?

Why should they be disqualified from having their record suspended, and frankly it should be expunged, for committing an offence that today is perfectly legal? It is an activity that the Prime Minister bragged about engaging in before it was legal, when in fact the Prime Minister was a sitting member of Parliament. He was never charged. He was not convicted. He very proudly sloughed it off.

However, a lot of Canadians who were not so lucky as the Prime Minister are burdened with a conviction. Then, if they happen to go through the application, establish that they qualify and obtain a record suspension, it is not over. Why is it not over then? The record is not deleted. It just goes from one national database to another. At some point in the future, perhaps the individual who has obtained a record suspension will have a traffic ticket violation, and the Parole Board might try to reimpose that conviction on the basis that the individual is no longer of good conduct. There are examples of that and there was testimony to that effect at the public safety committee.

That is not to mention the fact that the minister has broad discretion to share those records where the minister deems it to be in the interests of public safety or where there is some other security purpose. Again, even after one has gone through the cumbersome process, the record continues to hang over one's head.

The consequences of having a conviction are serious. It is an impediment to employment. It can be an impediment to housing. It can be an impediment to being able to volunteer in one's community. All this is for committing an offence that is perfectly legal today.

I did not support marijuana legalization, but it seems to me that if the government is going to go down that road, and it has chosen to go down that road, expungement should be part and parcel of that legalization. It is why, of the 23 U.S. states that have either legalized or decriminalized minor possession, seven states have provided for an amnesty, and six of those states have provided for expungement.

Again, that is something the government has opted not to do. Instead, it has established a costly, burdensome process that in the end is going to exclude nearly half of the Canadians who have been convicted of minor possession. It is a half measure that is totally inadequate.

While I support this legislation as being better than nothing, the government could do a lot better than Bill C-93.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Chair, I thank the hon. member for his work on the justice committee and, indeed, for Bill C-417, which our government supported. It is one of the first things I did when I became the newly appointed minister of justice to make sure that we supported that bill, with the support of the chair of the justice committee as well.

We understand the importance of that bill and how effecting juror support is critically important. I have met with one of the leading advocates to discuss ideas on how to move forward to better support jurors. I hope the hon. member will support us on that.

Criminal Code

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on Bill C-417 and also to state that I am in full support of the bill.

As we know, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has studied this proposed legislation and has reported it back with three amendments. In my view, the amendments to Bill C-417 that were made by the justice committee have improved the drafting of this legislation and will ensure that it will better achieve its stated objective. I encourage all hon. members to support these amendments as soon as possible so that it can go to the other place and be tabled in second reading.

Along with other members of this House, I applaud the small but important change proposed in Bill C-417, which would facilitate better access to mental health support for jurors. As a person who has dealt with mental health issues, I totally understand the need for jurors to be able to have access to professional services so that they can share their story and gain the support that they need.

It became clear through the justice committee's study on counselling and other mental health supports for jurors, which culminated in its May 22, 2018, report, called “Improving Support for Jurors in Canada”, that section 649 of the Criminal Code has been an impediment to jurors seeking support following their service. I appreciate that this bill addresses the serious issue of mental health as it relates to individuals who participate in the criminal justice system.

Our consideration of this bill has been informed by the justice committee's report, which documents the evidence and perspectives of witnesses regarding the impact of the criminal justice system on jurors. As my colleague across the aisle mentioned, a number of former jurors who served on difficult and disturbing criminal jury trials provided testimony before the committee that has highlighted the importance of ensuring that jurors are not left without any means to address the stresses and trauma they may experience as a result of their important civic duty.

In addition, the justice committee heard from a variety of experts, including criminal justice professionals, academics, government representatives of juror support programs, and mental health and lawyers' associations. These experts expressed a common view that the stresses associated with jury service can be prevented or reduced by better preparing jurors, improving the conditions under which they carry out their duty and offering psychological support.

The 11 recommendations made in the report touch upon these issues, including recommendation 4, which calls for an amendment to section 649 of the Criminal Code. Bill C-417 addresses this recommendation, which if implemented will contribute to better psychological support for jurors.

I believe that jurors would continue to feel confident that discussions taking place among them and in the jury room would continue to remain private so that they would be able to continue to engage in full and frank discussions despite the change in the law, yet be able to receive the services they needed once they felt those services were necessary.

As said, we in the government support the objectives of the bill, and that is why our government seeks certain targeted amendments. Those amendments have been identified.

There are three specific amendments. The first one specifically deals with ensuring the health care professional is licensed, as my colleague across the aisle mentioned. The second amendment is a minor amendment making sure that the English and French versions are in sync. The third amendment is basically looking for 90 days after the bill receives royal assent to ensure that all the necessary preparation is carried out for its effective implementation.

I believe that this bill, with the amendments adopted at the committee, strikes the appropriate balance between protecting the privacy interests of jurors and ensuring that jurors can access effective mental health treatment following their service, should they need it.

As I said at the outset, I support Bill C-417 and the amendments adopted by the justice committee, which will ensure it better achieves its objectives. I also believe that this bill aligns with other government initiatives, such as Bill C-75, to improve the juror regime in Canada. I will be voting in favour of this bill.

I thank my colleague for his advocacy for mental health and the great work he is doing. As I have said, I will be voting in favour at third reading of this bill.

As I am the last speaker from this side before the House rises for the next two weeks, I would like to wish all my colleagues and all Canadians a happy Easter.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the NDP caucus to express my support for Bill C-417. I will be brief, because I know everyone wants to see this bill sent to the other place as quickly as possible.

This is a truly common-sense measure, as recognized by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which recommended that the government bring in such an exception for jurors so that they can access mental health services. In many cases, jurors go through traumatic experiences as a result of difficult deliberations. It can be really tough to be part of a jury, to reach a consensus and a final decision, and to come through all that without any lasting effects, any remorse or anything weighing on one's conscience. Offering this support is crucial. Existing legislation prevents jurors from accessing such services and disclosing information relating to jury deliberations, which of course are secret.

It makes sense to let jurors talk to health care professionals who, in any case, are bound by patient confidentiality and cannot disclose anything they hear during their appointments. That would reassure everyone with regard to the importance of the confidentiality of jury deliberations.

It goes without saying that we support such an initiative and that we are asking the other chamber to pass this quickly. It is clear that the senators do not seem to be in any rush on other files, which is unfortunate, because they have in their hands a number of other bills that had the unanimous support of the House. It seems that this bill will also have unanimous support, so we hope that the Senate will study and pass it quickly.

I do not want to take up any more time, because I know that there is not much time left before the end of this 42nd Parliament. I sincerely hope that my colleagues will be brief and that we can move this common-sense bill forward to help those who are having a difficult time dealing with their role and their obligations as jurors.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-417. I want to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for their study on the bill and the hard work they did to advance discussions and debate on the issue of juror mental health.

I support the amendments made by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and I urge all hon. members to do the same. Before I address the amendments made to the bill, I would like to talk about the bill itself and about the purpose of section 649 of the Criminal Code and the way it compares to offences in other countries.

The underlying objective of this bill is no doubt a laudable one, as it proposes a Criminal Code amendment that seeks to help jurors who face mental health challenges following jury duty. It proposes to do so by amending section 649 of the Criminal Code, which has been identified as posing an impediment for jurors needing mental health support after the completion of a jury trial. Like other members of this House, I believe that it is important for jurors to get the support they need in the aftermath of their jury service.

Specifically, the amendment proposed in Bill C-417 would permit jurors to discuss jury deliberations with health care professionals after the trial in order to address health issues that have arisen as a result of their jury duties. It would do so by adding an exception to the offence of disclosure of jury proceedings under section 649 of the Criminal Code.

As has been mentioned by the sponsor and other members of this House, the proposal seeks to implement a unanimous recommendation of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights' May 2018 report entitled “Improving Support for Jurors in Canada”.

With few exceptions, section 649 prohibits jurors from disclosing any information relating to jury deliberations or other information not shared in open court. The prohibition in section 649 applies to matters intrinsic to the jury deliberation process, such as the opinions, thoughts, statements, arguments and votes of individual jurors. It also applies, for example, to the slightest comment between jurors while walking out of the courtroom or while exiting the courthouse.

The purpose of the prohibition is to promote free and frank debate in the jury room and allow for an independent and effective jury free from the pressures of public scrutiny or fear of reprisal. It also supports the finality of verdicts and public confidence in the administration of justice.

Jurors may discuss evidence or other information disclosed in the courtroom, since such information is publicly available. What this means, for example, is that there is currently no legal impediment if a juror wishes to seek mental health support in relation to a gruesome video or photograph presented as evidence in court.

Indeed, as was mentioned in earlier debates, many provinces and territories—Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan and Yukon—offer juror support programs that tackle the mental health consequences of this aspect of jury duty.

Section 649 targets out-of-court discussions about jury deliberations and makes it a summary conviction offence to disclose such information.

The offence applies to every juror and every person providing support services to a juror with a physical disability.

It may also interest members of the House to know that some provincial and territorial legislation, applying to both criminal and civil jury proceedings, establish an offence that seeks to address a similar issue as that in section 649. For example, Yukon’s Jury Act prohibits any person who was a member of the jury from disclosing or discussing in any manner the nature or content of jury discussions.

In testimony provided to the justice committee during its study on jurors, Ms. Tina Daenzer, who had been a juror for the Paul Bernardo trial in the 1990s, described that part of the trauma of serving on a jury came from what jurors were not allowed to discuss.

More recent, Mr. Mark Farrant told the justice committee during its study of Bill C-417 that after he had served on a jury in a murder trial, many mental health professionals were unwilling to take him on as a client at all because of perceived legal conflicts due to the jury secrecy rule, which I was describing. Even though jurors are able to talk about whatever becomes part of the court record, including horrific and traumatic evidence, jury secrecy still operates as a barrier to some jurors in accessing mental health care for their own trauma. Bill C-417 would change that, which makes this such an important bill.

Internationally, a similar rule prohibiting the disclosure of jury deliberations is found in the United Kingdom and in various states in Australia. The justice committee's report takes note of legislation in the Australian state of Victoria, which includes an exception that permits a former juror to disclose information related to deliberations to a registered medical practitioner or a registered psychologist while being treated in relation to issues arising out of their service.

In the United States, once a trial is over, jurors are generally free to discuss the events of the trial and jury deliberations, unless a specific court order bars them from doing so. What that means is that jurors in the United States can talk with nearly anyone about juror deliberations, including a talk show host on national television or across the Internet. This approach, which offers limited protection for juror privacy, is significantly different from the Canadian model.

I think we would all agree that Canadian citizens may be reluctant to serve on juries if it is contemplated that their deliberations would be made public or if they may be subjected to probing and intrusive questioning about discussions and opinions expressed during deliberations. It thus remains critical to ensure the privacy, safety and security of jurors who perform the invaluable civic duty of serving on a jury.

Against this backdrop, I would like to turn my attention to the substance of Bill C-417 and why, as I have already mentioned, the government supports the bill with the amendments that were adopted at committee. The amendments have added clarity to the proposed change to section 649 and they are consistent with what the bill seeks to achieve. One of the amendments was discussed earlier. It is about specifying who is a health care professional by clarifying that it must be a professional who is regulated or licensed in the province or territory, similar to what is found in the Australian example. The impact of this amendment is that it would provide for greater clarity that jurors could only disclose information to a member of a regulated health profession with governing rules of conduct and codes of ethics, including duties of confidentiality.

Such a change is consistent with ensuring that the integrity of the jury secrecy rule is maintained, notwithstanding the new exception to section 649 that is being proposed.

The other amendment is relatively minor, addressing a discrepancy in the language versions of the bill.

Finally, the justice committee agreed on an amendment to the bill to provide for a coming into force date of 90 days after royal assent, to give the provinces and territories time to prepare for the implementation of the change in the law. As the sponsor of the bill noted at committee, the purpose of the amendment is to give provinces and territories the time to get up to speed with the change.

The justice committee's amendments strengthen this bill, responding to the issues raised before the committee. As such, the government will be accepting the committee's recommendation to adopt this bill, as amended, at third reading.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

moved that Bill C-417, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (disclosure of information by jurors), be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise and speak at third reading stage of my private member's bill, Bill C-417.

This is a bill that arises from a key recommendation of a unanimous report by the justice committee respecting juror support. It is a study that was initiated thanks to the leadership of the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

During the course of that study, we heard from former jurors whose lives had forever been changed as a result of doing nothing more than their civic duty. Former jurors who sat through horrific evidence in gruesome trials had, as a result, suffered from mental health issues, including PTSD. I want to thank those jurors who came before us for having the courage to do so, because it was not easy to do, including Mark Farrant, Daniel Cozine, Michaela Swan, Patrick Fleming, Tina Daenzer and Scott Glew.

One thing these jurors said is an impediment to getting the mental health support they require is the jury secrecy rule. The jury secrecy rule makes it a Criminal Code offence, pursuant to section 649, to disclose any aspect of the jury deliberation process for life, even to a mental health professional. It begs the question: How is it possible for former jurors to get the therapeutic or counselling support they require when they are unable to have a free exchange with a medical health professional about what is one of, if not the most, stressful aspects of jury service, if they are to be silenced from being able to speak to a medical health professional about the core of their injury?

This is precisely what Bill C-417 seeks to change by carving out an narrow exception to the jury secrecy rule so that former jurors who are suffering from mental health issues arising from jury service can speak to a mental health professional about all aspects of their jury service. It is a bill that will protect the integrity of the jury secrecy rule, because, again, it will be in a strictly confidential context post-trial, while allowing for that vital exchange between a former juror and a medical health practitioner so that they can get the help they need and the help they deserve.

I have thought long and hard about there being any argument against this bill, and I really cannot think of an argument. It is why, when the justice committee studied this, every witness who appeared, from the mental health community to former jurors to the legal community, endorsed this change. It is why it was a key, unanimous recommendation of the justice committee's juror support study. It is why, when my bill was introduced at second reading, it passed unanimously in the House. It is why, when it went to the justice committee for further study, it passed unanimously, subject to some minor technical amendments.

If there ever was an amendment to the Criminal Code that everyone could agree on, it is surely this change. Therefore, what is needed now is to make sure that we can get this across the finish line and that we can get it passed. The time for debate, really, is over. What we need to do today is allow this bill to go forward and get it over to the Senate so that it has a fighting chance of being passed before the expiration of this Parliament. I implore my colleagues to join me this afternoon in seeing that happen.

There are many members from all sides of the House that I would like to thank, but I would like to specifically acknowledge the leadership of our chair, the member for Mount Royal, who has been tireless in his efforts to see this bill advance.

Let us come together, let us get this over to the Senate and let us get Bill C-417 passed before the end of this Parliament.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-417, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (disclosure of information by jurors), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Justice and Human Rights

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 26th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to my private member's bill, Bill C-417, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to disclosure of information by jurors, which would carve out a narrow exception to the jury secrecy rule so that jurors suffering from mental health issues could get the help they need.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.