Debates of May 12th, 2022

Opposition Motion—A Special Committee on the Canada-People's Republic of China Relationship

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We will resume debate with the hon. member for Brandon—Souris, but he will have only four minutes to deliver his speech.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to stand in the House today to discuss this opposition day motion that has been put forward on the issue of re-establishing a Canada-China committee in the House of Commons.

I believe there is a great need for it. I was asking questions earlier in the debate today around some of the issues that I felt strongly about. They are not all to do with defence and those areas, but I believe there are many issues that can be discussed in the committee if it is re-established. When the committee was established before, there were many things for which answers still need to be given. They were not fully reported. Some of them were fully discussed, perhaps, but the reports never came out. We could even go back and discuss some of those issues, but there are many other areas.

First of all, I want to comment on the relationship that I have had with Chinese citizens or people of Chinese descent. I say I am of Irish descent, but my family came here in about 1850. Many of them were here long before that. They are in all of our communities across Canada. They have been great Canadians citizens, and have contributed greatly to their families and the Canadian economy, but that is not what we are here to talk about. This is about some of the differences we have had with the communist regime in China, not the people on the ground in China. It is not their fault we are seeing some interference and involvement in Canadian elections and some of the discussions that have taken place around human rights in their own country.

We talked a lot about the pandemic in the past. We have talked about the Uighur people in China, as well. They are being oppressed, which may be a mild word for how they are being treated within their country. There is the labour they are being forced to do, as well as other denigrations we have talked about here in the House. China is an authoritarian state, and the people are probably trying to look after their families, just as we are here in Canada, but they are under great duress sometimes to do that. Many of them may know of the freedoms they have, but they are being suppressed.

I had the experience of seeing what happened in Russia before the wall came down in Germany, as I had the opportunity to be in Leningrad before Russia even opened up. That is, somewhat, what the whole fight in Ukraine is about with President Putin today. He just did not want his people to continue to have the freedom that they saw from world communications that took place in that time. When the world opened up and people in Russia could get a hold of things called televisions and other media, their attitudes changed. I think we could do the same in other areas of the world and try to create more discussion and greater freedom for some of those folks as well.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It being 5:30 p.m., pursuant to order made Monday, May 2, 2022, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the division stands deferred until Monday, May 16, 2022, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

It being 5:30, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.

Criminal Code

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

, seconded by the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, moved that Bill S-206, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (disclosure of information by jurors), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

He said: Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak on Bill S-206, an act to amend the Criminal Code. It is a bill that will go a long way to supporting juror mental health in Canada, and it is quite appropriate that we are debating the bill this week, as it is Jury Duty Appreciation Week. More specifically, this proposed legislation would amend section 649 of the Criminal Code, which is often known as the “jury secrecy” rule.

As it stands, it is a Criminal Code offence for a former juror to disclose any aspect of the jury deliberation process with anyone for life, even a medical professional. The bill before us would carve out a narrow exception to that rule, whereby a former juror who is suffering from mental health issues arising from jury service would be able to disclose all aspects of that service, including the deliberation process, to a medical professional bound by confidentiality.

The bill would implement a key recommendation from the unanimous report of the justice committee in 2018 arising from a study on juror supports, which was initiated by the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, whom I am very proud to have as a seconder. I want to acknowledge his advocacy for juror mental health.

This legislation is based on a law that currently exists in the Australian state of Victoria. It is a bill that has had unanimous support all the way through. I introduced a substantively similar bill back in the 42nd Parliament that passed all legislative stages in the House unanimously. Unfortunately, it died on the Order Paper due to the call of the 2019 election.

Following the 2019 election, I reached out to Senator Pierre Boisvenu and Senator Lucie Moncion, who is a former juror who suffered from mental health issues arising from her jury service. Senator Boisvenu, with the support of Senator Moncion, introduced the same bill in the Senate. We hoped that it would proceed expeditiously there. Unfortunately, it did not: not because of a lack of support, but because of COVID and the fact that the other place took up largely government business through the 43rd Parliament.

Then, we had another election. Senator Boisvenu introduced a bill yet again and, thanks to his leadership and the leadership of Senator Moncion, it passed the upper place unanimously in December. In the nearly seven years that I have been a member of Parliament, I have not seen very many issues on which there was such broad agreement: unanimous support from all parliamentarians at all legislative stages, and unanimous support from key stakeholders including former jurors, lawyers and medical professionals.

Jurors play an integral role in the administration of justice in Canada, often at a considerable cost, including to one's mental health. I think a lot of Canadians appreciate the work of jurors, but unless one is a former juror, sometimes it is difficult to fully comprehend exactly what jury service involves.

When we commenced the juror supports study, we heard from former jurors who had gone through very difficult trials, who had been exposed to horrific evidence and who suffered from mental health issues arising from their jury service, including PTSD. I think it is important that some of the testimony we heard before the justice committee is entered into the record of this place to provide an understanding and a context for why this bill is needed.

One of the jurors who appeared before the justice committee was Tina Daenzer. Tina served as juror number one in the Paul Bernardo trial. This is what she had to say about her experience:

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.

Tina suffered from PTSD following the Bernardo trial. That trial was in 1995. Twenty-seven years later, Tina is still dealing with the residual effects of that trial.

Mark Farrant came before our committee, and I was honoured to have him join me and colleagues across party lines today. Mark is one of the leading advocates for juror supports and addressing the issue of juror mental health. He is the president of the Canadian Juries Commission, which is doing important work in that area, but at one time Mark was a jury foreman in a particularly gruesome trial. This is what he said when he came to the justice committee:

As a juror, you are extremely isolated. You cannot communicate with anyone in any form about the events in court or even really with other jurors. I would leave the court in a trance, not remembering even how I got home. I would stare blankly into space during meetings at work or at home while my three-year old daughter tried desperately to engage with me. My then pregnant wife, who had such an engaged husband during her first pregnancy, now had an emotional zombie in me, unable or unwilling to communicate.

I expected these feelings to subside as I left the courthouse on the day the verdict was delivered....

My feelings didn't subside. They intensified and deepened. After the trial, I cut off communication with all friends and family, only interacting with colleagues at work, and then only superficially. I became hypervigilant around my kids, refusing to let them walk alone, even a few steps in front of me. I became unable to handle crowds and public spaces. My diet changed. I was unable to look at and prepare raw meat without gagging, something that persists to this day.

Patrick Fleming, who was a juror on a 10-month murder trial, also shared a similar story. He spoke about the need to get help. He said, “I so desperately needed to talk to a professional, someone who could help me work through my feelings and thoughts.”

That is just a taste of the testimony that we heard at the justice committee from these and other former jurors. Their stories and their experiences are felt by thousands of jurors across Canada. Of course, not everyone has PTSD and not everyone suffers from mental health issues, even jurors who go through very difficult trials, but different people react differently. It is a very serious issue involving jurors that has to be addressed for them to get the help they need. Clearly, jurors should not be cast aside and ignored, when they are merely fulfilling what is the last mandatory forum of civic duty since the abolition of conscription.

At the justice committee, one of the things we looked at in impediments for jurors to get the full support and help that they need is the juror secrecy rule. That is because, in part, the deliberation process is one of, if not the, most stressful aspects of jury service. I ask members to imagine being sequestered with other strangers, having to go through horrific evidence with the pressure of making a decision, and having the regard for the gravity of that decision, including, perhaps, sending someone to jail for the rest of his or her life, not to mention the impact that such an outcome could have on victims and victims' families, and the desire to see that justice is carried out.

Dr. Sonia Chopra, a psychologist who was a former juror and who has done considerable work around juror supports, identified, as a result of conducting a number of interviews with former jurors, that of the 10 top stressors of jury duty, seven of the 10 involve the deliberation process and the determination of a verdict. That, then, begs the question, of how can one get better. How can one get the help they need to get better when they cannot talk about what is at the core of their injury?

That is where this bill comes in. It carves out a narrow exception to the jury secrecy rule so jurors are not inhibited, all the while protecting the integrity of that rule. There are good reasons for the jury secrecy rule. They include the need to see the finality of the verdict, to respect the privacy of former jurors and to respect the sanctity of the deliberation process. None of those things are impacted or impeded upon as a result of this bill because, again, this narrow exception would be posttrial in a strictly confidential context, namely with a medical professional bound by confidentiality.

This bill has been studied exhaustively. It has received unanimous support at all stages. We owe it to jurors in Canada to support them and to help them be able to get the help they need. This bill is a small but important step in that direction. I urge its speedy passage.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton for championing this bill. It is not often that we see a New Democrat seconding a Conservative PMB, but that speaks to what this bill is all about.

I do not really have a question for my colleague, just more of a comment. I want him to reiterate that the concept behind this bill has been studied. Could the member offer his comments about the House doing its job to see this bill through speedily so we could get it before the Governor General to be signed into law, where it so rightfully deserves to be?

[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.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite may know, one of my former constituents, Mark Farrant, has been a very strong advocate on this issue and has really pushed it far.

This is a very great piece, and I am really happy the member is bringing it as a private member's bill. What does he see as what can be complemented from our provinces and territories in addition? I know that some changes were made in Ontario as well. What can this drive as change at the provincial and territorial level?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Toronto—Danforth for her support of the bill and her support of Mark Farrant, who I know has engaged with her on multiple occasions. There is a long way to go in terms of providing juror supports across Canada. There has been some progress in recent years, but we still have a patchwork.

The federal government does have a role to step up to provide funding to the provinces to implement better juror supports. That was a key recommendation of the justice committee report. What I will stress from the justice committee report is that the only recommendation that falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of Parliament is to fix the jury secrecy rule to carve out this exception because it is a Criminal Code issue, which falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of Parliament. The first thing we need to do is our job to get this piece of that report implemented into law.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech on the bill.

As he mentioned, this week, we are highlighting the importance of jurors' work within our justice system. Jury duty is an obligation. Because it is an obligation, the government has to help jurors as best it can by making their task less arduous.

The testimony in certain trials can be difficult to listen to. Would recognizing the possibility of PTSD in that context be a way to help jurors in some of these cases?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Shefford is absolutely right. There are jurors, and we heard from them at the justice committee. Mark Farrant, who is a leading advocate, suffered from PTSD. His life has forever been changed. Despite the enormous difficulties that he experienced, he is trying to put those challenges to good use to help other jurors so they can get support and they can get help.

I do want to underscore one thing. These former jurors are not complaining about jury service. They are proud of having been a juror. They are proud of having performed their civic duty. All they are asking for is that they should not have to do their civic duty at the expense of their mental health.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-206 proposes a change to the existing rules regarding the confidentiality of deliberations between members of a jury who have to decide the fate of an accused person.

The rule about the confidentiality of jury proceedings is set out in section 649 of the Criminal Code and is also called “Lord Mansfield's rule”. It is a cornerstone of common law and the British criminal justice system.

This rule is anything but trivial. The jury is the trier of fact. The judge presiding over a trial is the trier of law. The judge adjudicates matters of law that arise over the course of the trial and gives the necessary advice to inform and guide the jury regarding these matters. That said, at the end of the day, as intended by the legislator, it is the members of the jury who decide whether the accused is guilty or innocent.

The role of jurors is therefore vitally important to the judicial process. When they deliberate, they need to feel completely free to say what they think out loud without later worrying about being publicly quoted as having put forward a certain idea or opinion. Obviously, the jurors will often disagree with one another when they first begin their deliberations, but they will work together to consider all of the facts entered into evidence during the trial, which could go on for many weeks in some cases.

At that point, the success of their work will basically depend on the flow of their debate and how comfortable they feel talking freely and unreservedly among themselves. I am thinking of the ability to share the uninhibited, unfiltered thoughts that come into our minds as we think about what we are going to say.

The legislator grants the jury a type of legal status—a partial, temporary status—that lasts only as long as the trial. The jury will then speak with one voice and render a unanimous verdict, like a single person who speaks after carefully considering and weighing all aspects of an issue.

It is therefore easy to see that a sound decision requires absolute confidence in the confidentiality of their deliberations, just as every one of us refuses to compromise the integrity and inviolability of our thoughts. Anyone who, rightly or wrongly, believes someone else is probing their thoughts will self-censor and be unable to think freely. That is anathema to a healthy thought process and wise deliberation.

Section 649 of the Criminal Code states that it is an offence for a member of a jury or anyone assisting them to:

[disclose] any information relating to the proceedings of the jury when it was absent from the courtroom that was not subsequently disclosed in open court....

This is the rule that ensures sound, reasonable decisions.

That said, jury duty is not always easy. Sometimes, the facts and evidence of a criminal case can be so intense that they have a significant impact on the jury members hearing the case. Unfortunately, violence and horror can feature prominently in the crimes a person is accused of.

In some cases, jury members can be traumatized to such an extent that they have to consult a health professional to deal with it. Some experiences have drastically transformed the lives of jurors left to cope with their trauma alone.

These people did not choose to be jurors. They were chosen, and they had a legal obligation to fulfil that duty. They clearly deserve our gratitude and our support. As things stand now, it is more difficult for them to receive care and adequate treatment when they are suffering, as they cannot freely speak about their trauma without contravening section 649 of the Criminal Code.

Bill S‑206 proposes to allow members of a jury to be exempt from this rule of confidentiality if they require professional health services for medical or psychiatric treatment, therapy or counselling provided after the trial.

Ensuring access to adequate and efficient health services for those who generously contributed to the justice system is obviously paramount, as common sense dictates. I can only concur with what is fair and obvious.

Bill S-206 asks us to examine a proposed new paragraph (c) under section 649 of the Criminal Code, adding new exceptions to those already established in paragraphs (a) and (b) to allow for evidence to be given in obstruction of justice cases. The proposed paragraph (c) adds an exemption from the confidentiality obligation for the purposes of:

any medical or psychiatric treatment or any therapy or counselling that a person referred to in subsection (1) receives from a health care professional after the completion of the trial in relation to health issues arising out of or related to the person's service at the trial as a juror or as a person who provided support services to a juror.

The proposed subsection 649(3) also adds that the health care professional who provides any medical or psychiatric treatment or any therapy or counselling must be entitled to do so under the laws of a province.

To conclude, Bill S‑206 clearly deserves to be adopted at this stage and referred to a committee. After hearing from experts, we will determine if it can be passed in its current form or if it should be improved or even rejected. At this time, the Bloc Québécois intends to vote in favour of sending Bill S‑206 to a committee.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand in the House today to speak to Bill S-206. I want to acknowledge that I am doing so in the midst of Canadian Jury Duty Appreciation Week, which runs from May 8 until May 14.

It is very timely that we are having a discussion on Bill S-206. I also want to acknowledge the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, who has sponsored this Senate bill here in the House. I have stood to second the bill. As I mentioned in my comments to him earlier, it is not very often that one will see a New Democrat standing to second a Conservative private member's bill, but that does speak to the fact that this is an important bill.

In the House, we get exposed to all kinds of ideas for legislation. We have to look at them on their merits and look at what they are trying to achieve, but sometimes a bill of the calibre of Bill S-206 comes around and one knows it is going to make a measurable difference in people's lives, and those people are jurors.

I want to take a moment to acknowledge the extremely important role that they play not only in our society, but specifically in our justice system. These are people who are our ordinary peers. Trial by jury means, essentially, a trial by one's peers. They are selected from a broad cross-section of Canadian society, so that we get an exposure to all kinds of viewpoints and all kinds of different backgrounds.

They are, in a sense, ordinary Canadians who are essentially dragooned into service and, in the course of their deliberations, have to make extremely heavy decisions. With regard to some trials, their decisions are going to have extremely serious consequences, either for the accused or for the victims. That weighs heavily on people's minds.

In order for those jurors to make those verdicts, they have to be exposed to all of the evidence collected by police services in the course of the investigation. Sometimes that can involve very disturbing photographs that the coroner had to take, the results of autopsies and pictures of murder weapons. In very disturbing cases, it has involved photos of the crime that was perpetrated, and sometimes even video footage.

Jurors have to be exposed to all of that evidence so that no stone is left unturned when they are making their deliberations, and so that they can render an appropriate verdict based on the evidence they have been subjected to.

The problem is that when the jurors do their duty, after having been exposed to horrific evidence, they are essentially let loose back into the public realm with a handshake and thanks for their service. There is no ability for them to discuss, in any way, what they saw during their deliberations. The evidence that they had to deal with, and the discussions they had with other jurors, have to stay bottled up inside them. They have to carry that to the grave, because of a requirement of our existing Criminal Code.

My colleague, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, quoted several jurors during the course of his speech: testimony from Mark Farrant, testimony from Tina Daenzer and testimony from Patrick Fleming. These are the jurors who have really been spearheading this campaign, and it was their work that made sure that, in 2018, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights conducted the first-ever parliamentary study on juror supports.

During that committee, we had jurors come before us to relive their experiences, to share with the committee what they had gone through, and to say why these reforms were so very necessary.

My role in that whole process started a year earlier, in 2017. That is when I first met Mr. Mark Farrant and Mr. Patrick Fleming, two of the individuals who organized the 12 Angry Letters campaign. It was a campaign on behalf of jurors across Canada who had been witness to some of the most horrific and graphic crimes imaginable. I sat in on that press conference with former NDP MP Murray Rankin, and it was at that time that I made the decision that this issue had to be looked at: It had to be studied at the justice committee.

On June 8, 2017, I presented a motion at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. It was during that year that I had the honour of serving as the NDP's critic for justice. I was very fortunate, when I presented the motion, that my colleagues on the committee immediately saw the value in that study, and we had a unanimous vote on it. Stepping forward a year, the motion resulted in a comprehensive report, with one of its recommendations leading us to the conversation we are having today: it very solidly recommended the bill that the House is now deliberating.

The issue comes down to section 649 of the Criminal Code, commonly known as the “jury secrecy rule”. In its current form, it essentially prevents all jurors from relating anything about proceedings. That is the crux of the matter.

We can just imagine putting ourselves in jurors' shoes. They have just gone through a trial and had to render a verdict that has had a very real consequence on someone's life, they have spent time away from family and work colleagues, and they are suddenly back at home and reliving all of those images. They cannot escape them, and are suffering post-traumatic stress disorder with no ability to speak to a mental health professional to try to find some guidance to work through it. This is something that we owe to these men and women to fix. The recommendation in question was very specific, which was that the government amend section 649 so that jurors are permitted to discuss the deliberations with a designated mental health professional once the trial is over.

We are not doing this is in a vacuum. Juror access to mental health professionals already exists in the state of Victoria in Australia. That state's Juries Act stipulates that jury deliberations are to remain confidential, but it does provide for an exception. The law states that:

Nothing…prevents a person who has been a juror from disclosing any statements made, opinions expressed, arguments advanced or votes cast in the course of the deliberations of that jury to a registered medical practitioner or a registered psychologist in the course of treatment in relation to issues arising out of the person’s service as a juror.

Our committee studied the approach, and we recommended that Canada adopt a similar model, because there have been no negative consequences from having that law in existence.

In the final couple of minutes that I have, allow me to say this: If Bill S-206 is adopted, it would implement an important recommendation, and I underline that point. This issue has been studied to death. We are now five years past when we initiated this study. We have had witness after witness confirm that this would be a beneficial change. I see no negative drawbacks from us proceeding down this route. Really, it is about our service as parliamentarians to recognize what the men and women on our juries do for us pretty much every day, right across this country from coast to coast to coast.

There were some conversations around the House today to see if we could get this bill expedited. Ultimately, we could not find agreement on that front, so I will close by saying that I hope the House sees value in passing this bill as expeditiously as possible, and when we send it to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I hope that the members of that committee take note of the great amount of work that has already been done on this bill, that they seek to report it back to the House as soon as possible, and that we vote on it a final time and send it to the Governor General, where it rightly belongs, so that she may sign it into law and we can finally make sure that jurors in Canada have access to mental health professionals as they so rightly deserve.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the member for St. Albert—Edmonton for asking me to speak to Bill S-206. It has a personal part in my life and in my family. I also want to thank him for his tenacity. He has a gift of identifying an injustice and also suggesting a solution. He is able to recognize a weakness in our system and offer a very sensible, common sense remedy.

Some people may think this is a very small change, but it is going to make a huge difference in the lives of Canadians who have done their civil duty to serve as a juror, which is the last mandatory civil duty. As was mentioned, conscription was previously the other mandatory civil duty, but it was abolished.

This bill would carve out an exception to the jury secrecy rule and allow the disclosure of the deliberation process by jurors to a health care professional who is bound by confidentiality. I can only imagine these trials and deliberations subject jurors to traumatizing evidence and stress. We heard about Paul Bernardo and some of these other trials, and it has been proven that these can cause post-traumatic stress disorder.

These jurors almost always have mental health challenges, and they need the services they deserve. Sadly, today they do not have access to them. As an advocate for victims' rights, I am so proud to speak to this bill because sometimes these jurors, who are stepping up, become other victims of these crimes. I want to thank my colleagues in the House for speaking positively to the bill, as well as those in the Senate. Senator Boisvenu was acknowledged.

The goal here is to help Canadians who step up to accept the duty of being a juror and perform these essential services to the Canadian public. Our system of justice, sadly, often forgets the victims of these crimes. These jurors become victims because of the jury experience, and it is only right we support them. We can and we must do better.

The member for St. Albert—Edmonton originally introduced this initiative in October of 2018, so it has been going for almost four years now. It is about time, and maybe the third time we will be lucky and we will get this passed. This is an example of a bill supported across party lines. It is a solution brought about from witnesses who were listened to at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Parliamentarians heard first-hand from jurors who had lived through some of the most difficult trials in Canadian history. These are jurors who were exposed to horrific evidence, evidence that in some cases has made permanent changes in their lives.

Imagine someone who sees these horrible pictures. They cannot unsee them. They cannot unhear the screams and the victims' stories. We need to be there to support these people who are so essential to our justice system. There are incessant questions when they go back to their ordinary lives, their work and their families. I ask members to imagine dealing with these incessant questions and repetitions after their duty has been done, as well as the suffering that can occur. There are also the questions from their loved ones who are wondering why they are not the same person they were before jury duty.

Can members imagine being diagnosed with PTSD and not being able to talk to a professional who could make a real difference in their life? This is something that is affecting each and every one of us. As I said earlier, it has affected my family. I have one family member who was asked to be a juror in a child pornography case. That case was only two weeks long, but that was two weeks away from work, family and friends. One cannot not be affected by the things one sees, yet he says he would do it again. He was proud to do it and to step up.

However, we need to make sure they get the support they need. I have another family member who was a juror in a horrible murder trial that was on for two months, and she was in the same situation. She said that it was a horrific case and that one could not go through this case and not be affected after. She realized that Canadians who serve as jurors should not become sick themselves.

With that, I support this bill. I want to thank all members in this House, particularly the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, for allowing this bill to go through.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be very—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Is this a second hour of debate?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

It is the first hour of debate.

The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is great to see there is continued unanimous support for this bill. As the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford noted, this is a bill that has been studied exhaustively, twice at the justice committee. It has passed in both this House and in the other place, unanimously.

I wish we could have sent it off to the Governor General this evening, but obviously that is not the case. We were not able to reach the consensus to do that. As soon as we can move this forward, the faster and the better it is to get it to committee. I honestly do not know what more about this could be studied at committee. However, it appears that is where we are.

Let us get it done. Let us get it done as quickly as possible. It has already been four years, three Parliaments and three bills. We owe it to the jurors who sacrifice a great deal and play such an important role in the administration of justice to see that this important bill passes.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. opposition House leader.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would request a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 18, 2022, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Message from the Senate

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I have the honour to inform the House that messages have been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-203, an act respecting a federal framework on autism spectrum disorder, Bill S-209, an act respecting pandemic observance day, and Bill S-227, an act to establish food day in Canada.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 6:30 p.m. so we can continue with the business of the House.