Debates of June 9th, 2022

Criminal Code

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

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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.

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

I request that it be adopted on division.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I declare the motion carried on division. When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[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.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, given the member was involved in the initial study that was done by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, perhaps he could outline some of the other recommendations that were part of the report on juror support.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the key recommendations was to see that former jurors who are suffering from mental health issues can access as many counselling sessions as required.

Another important component was to see that former jurors have information packages so they have a better idea of what jury service entails, because a big stressor is that of the unknown. Many jurors, until they are summoned, have very little experience with the criminal justice system, what a trial looks like and what impacts a trial could have. That is a very straightforward recommendation that all provinces can work toward offering in the way of information.

Another recommendation that I think is key is seeing that there is training, not of jurors, but of judges and other actors in the justice system to recognize and better understand some of the stressors that jurors face and to work to help alleviate those in the course of a trial as a result of that greater awareness.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his very impassioned speech and his advocacy on this issue continuously throughout many Parliaments.

I could not agree more. We need to get this out the door for sure so that we can see jurors across this country supported in a meaningful way.

I want him to expand on one of the things he touched on. This is a civic duty. That is what jurors are doing, yet we are leaving them in this country at this point with a great amount of suffering. It is like being wounded while serving one's country.

Could he talk about how important it is to recognize that and make sure that is not the legacy we leave?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for North Island—Powell River is absolutely right. Jury service is a mandatory form of civic duty. As Mark Farrant notes, it is the last form of mandatory civic duty since the abolition of conscription.

The former jurors that we heard from I think reflect most former jurors across Canada. They are proud of their jury service. They also believe that they should not suffer from mental health issues, unable to get help, because they performed their civic duty. Jurors undertake work integral to the administration of justice in Canada at a considerable personal cost. We have to recognize that and we have to do more to support them.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said, jury service is mandatory, but people are not always ready to hear all the horrific details in the testimony.

I find it interesting that former jurors could also benefit from assistance and support in recognition of all that they saw and experienced. That was another proposal.

We are all well aware of the long-term negative effects that PTSD can have on jurors. That is why it is important that my colleague's bill be retroactive to help those who have already gone through this kind of experience.

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

Mr. Speaker, it would be retroactive in the sense that former jurors would be able to disclose all aspects of their jury service with a medical professional even if the trial concluded years ago.

One thing I do want to add is that some of the former jurors who did appear before our committee, Mark Farrant and Tina Daenzer, who are here in Ottawa, have done incredible work to support jurors through the Canadian Juries Commission. They have taken an incredible amount of suffering and difficulty and have worked to bring greater awareness around some of the issues facing jurors. They are to be commended for their leadership.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill S-206, an act to amend the Criminal Code relating to disclosure of information by jurors.

We heard quite eloquently from the member for St. Albert—Edmonton of the need for and importance of the bill. I want to thank him again for his leadership, determination and co-operation with all members in this House and the Senate in getting the bill to this point.

I will start by acknowledging the two people whom the member spoke about as being instrumental. I think they would argue that they are just the voices that raised these issues and that there are many people who have served as jurors across this country who are the motivation behind the work they are doing. Those two people are Mark Farrant and Tina Daenzer. I am happy to acknowledge that both of them are with us in the House. I want to thank them personally for joining us here today and for their advocacy over the years. They both are part of the Canadian Juries Commission, an organization that is very much focused on creating and promoting awareness around jury duty, support for jurors and, of course, educating all of us not only at the federal level in this House and in the Senate, but also in the provincial and territorial legislative assemblies across the country.

As the member for St. Albert—Edmonton mentioned, I have had the opportunity to work on this important issue from the perspective of the provinces in terms of ensuring there are mental health supports for jurors. It is an interesting story as to how I came to work on this, and it is because I met Mark Farrant.

The first time I saw Mr. Farrant, it was not in person. As many of us do after a full day at the legislative assembly, I was watching the national news when I saw a story about a juror who had suffered significant mental health challenges, described as post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, as a result of being part of a fairly gruesome and horrific murder trial. That person was Mr. Farrant, who was brave enough to speak on television about his trials and tribulations.

We have a special responsibility by virtue of the fact that we are elected and have some impact on the things that we see and hear in our society. I was quite taken aback by his story. At the time, I was not just a member of provincial Parliament, but I was also the attorney general of the province, and I was watching on TV this person describing his suffering. He was talking about how the justice system, as much as it had asked of him as a citizen of this country to participate in a critical element of our justice system, was not there to give him the support that he needed to continue on with his life.

I personally felt guilty, because I was not even aware at the time that this issue existed. As a result of that, we started to work on the issue. I had the opportunity to meet with Mr. Farrant who, of course, in his very calm, persuasive manner, was able to educate me and officials of the ministry of the attorney general as to the impact on jurors when they go through trials that are gruesome and horrific, and when they are given evidence of that nature.

By working together, we were able to introduce in a very short period of time a support program for jurors, albeit limited in scope. I am confident there is more work to be done, as was stated earlier. However, it is a program that jurors can access for mental health support and, importantly, have that information provided ahead of time. I remember reviewing some of the draft documents that were being created to hand over to jurors and, of course, working with the judiciary and other court officials, and providing them training so that they would be able to speak with jurors in advance of trials in order to make them aware.

It is interesting for me to come a bit full circle now that I am elected as a member of Parliament. As the federal jurisdiction, we are responsible for the Criminal Code. There actually is a barrier in our Criminal Code that prevents, by law, our jurors from seeking medical help if they need it by virtue of the fact that section 649 of the Criminal Code requires non-disclosure of information that jurors have received.

We encourage people, if they need mental health supports, to go see a mental health care professional. That requires one to share information and to be able to speak of things that one is feeling and facing. This particular rule that exists in our Criminal Code prevents this. We are putting a juror in a position of actually breaking the law, because they are to keep secret the information they have seen, even though they are in front of a health care professional.

The solution that is presented before us is part of Bill S-206. It is something that I fully support and will be voting in favour of. It creates an exception to the jury secrecy rule to allow jurors, in a very limited, narrow scope, to seek health support so that they can look after their own personal health, especially their mental health.

In my view, there is no reason why all members of the House would not support the bill to pass it into law as soon as possible. As we heard from the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, other members from all parties have worked on this issue. I want to also acknowledge the engagement and participation of the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. Of course, there is the work that has been done in the Senate by Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu. All of this has resulted in our being on the cusp of passing this bill into law, so that we can get into the elements of supports that are needed by our jurors. I would encourage all members to support this bill, so that it can be passed into law.

In my limited time, I also want to mention the great resource we have in the Canadian Juries Commission. It has been doing some incredible work in creating awareness around the kind of supports that jurors need. I think we need to spend more time with it.

I understand that, in fact, some work has been done. The Department of Justice, under the leadership of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, has partnered with the Canadian Juries Commission to do some pilot projects in British Columbia. These are very good steps, because the results from those pilots can be applicable across the country, but also recognize and appreciate our jurors.

Most recently, many members will remember, through the initiative of the Canadian Juries Commission, we had a week-long appreciation of jurors, to understand the work they do and their contributions to our justice system, which is the essence of our democratic system.

That is the work we have to do. I very much look forward to working with all members on this important issue, but particularly with the Canadian Juries Commission. Hopefully, we will start by passing this bill into law.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill S‑206, which is before the House for a fourth time, if we count the three previous versions of the bill introduced in previous Parliaments. Regardless, the bill we are studying today is still the same bill.

Bill S‑206 essentially 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 jury secrecy rule 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 worrying about being publicly quoted later as having put forward a certain idea or opinion. Obviously, jurors will often disagree with one another when they first begin their deliberations, but they will work together to consider all the facts entered into evidence during the trial, which may have gone 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 jury member 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”.

In this regard, the Supreme Court has already ruled as follows in R. v. Pan and R. v. Sawyer in 2001:

The common law rule, in combination with s. 649 of the Code, helps to ensure that jurors feel comfortable freely expressing their views in the jury room and that jurors who hold minority viewpoints do not feel pressured to retreat from their opinions because of possible negative repercussions associated with the disclosure of their positions.

We therefore understand that 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.

Furthermore, jury deliberations can often be very emotional. It is extremely stressful to stand alone against 11 other jurors and defend a point of view that none of them agree with. Add to that the often heavy consequences that the jury's decision will have for the accused, and I have no difficulty imagining that the situation can become untenable.

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 for what they are suffering, as they cannot speak freely about their trauma without contravening section 649 of the Criminal Code.

Ensuring access to adequate and efficient health services for those who generously contributed to the justice system is obviously paramount. It is our responsibility. It is only common sense that we concur with what is fair and obvious.

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.

This bill 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:

(c) 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.

This is a small loophole in the absolutely essential integrity of the confidentiality of jury deliberations. However, the loophole is closed by the confidentiality obligation in the rules of ethical conduct that professional associations impose on their members.

The House must now weigh the benefits to the justice system of keeping jury deliberations confidential against the benefits to jury members of having more accessible and certainly more effective consultation services between each other and, if applicable, their health professionals.

These decent individuals already do not receive the compensation and consideration they deserve in light of their valuable contribution to the justice system. They are at the heart of some legal as well as moral debates for which they were never prepared. They are calling for a bit of support and recognition, which seems like the bare minimum. As I said, they deserve our respect, our recognition and better working conditions. One day, we will probably have to think about what more we can do to acknowledge their true value.

Under the circumstances, the Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of this bill.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I just want to say a deep thanks to the member for St. Albert—Edmonton for his advocacy on this very important issue. I want to recognize the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford from the NDP caucus, who has worked very hard as well with this member, and, of course, I want to thank Murray Rankin, a former member of the House who is now a minister in British Columbia for the NDP, for his work on it. I also have to recognize Senator Boisvenu for getting it to the House again.

Quite frankly, though, I am tired of debating this. I want to see this become law. I want to see this move forward because we need the action to happen. I thank all the people who have brought it forward. I certainly hope today that people do not take up all the time, so that we can see this bill actually do what I want it to do, which is collapse and get into the system so we can see the results.

This bill would amend section 649 of the Criminal Code to allow jurors to speak to mental health professionals about their experience as jurors. We know that all the parties in this place unanimously support it and have done it multiple times. Now we need to see the action taken.

We know that people who sit in those duties do their civic duty and sometimes they have to hear tremendously painful stories that leave them wracked with a lot of difficult feelings. Currently, we know that the folks in this country who serve our country and our communities by doing jury duty are left alone to deal with this. They have stress. They have anxiety. We have heard stories of post-traumatic stress disorder. We know that they are receiving a lot of harm.

Their job is to witness sometimes very horrendous things that have happened in our communities. They have to witness things that most of us, hopefully, will never have to witness. Therefore, it is important that we serve them by making sure that, when they do their civic duty, they are given the supports they need.

We know right now that secrecy is important. There is an element of secrecy that we need to have. It preserves the process and it keeps jurors from being harassed because they are not put in a position where they are forced to tell the story of what happened, but that secrecy should not go into the field of mental health. That needs to stop. When people are traumatized, they need to receive help so they can process those very difficult things.

We know that juror silence is creating a pattern of serious mental health challenges that sometimes result in life-long consequences. In fact, I perceive it as them being punished for doing their civic duty. Mark Farrant, the founder and CEO of Canadian Juries Commission, said very clearly, “Jury duty is a civic duty, but not a duty to suffer psychologically”.

That is all I am going to say on this. I hope that other members in this House will take the leadership to speak quickly to this so we can see it collapse. We need to get it into the legal framework so jurors in this country are respected and treated better by being able to access services.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to participate in the third reading debate on Senate Bill S-206. This bill would amend section 649 of the Criminal Code to add an exception for the offence of disclosure of jury proceedings to enable jurors to disclose information in the course of receiving mental health treatment.

Our government recognizes the importance of supporting jurors in their duties and is committed to working with the provinces and territories to improve support measures for jurors and to facilitate the sharing of best practices between jurisdictions. I want to thank the members of all parties on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for studying and passing this important bill collaboratively, and ensuring that we could debate it today.

There could be significant mental health and other stresses associated with jury duty, and the toll that criminal trials could take on jurors is something that we cannot ignore. Thanks to former jurors who have come forward and advocated for improved juror supports, we have a greater appreciation of the challenges jurors face and the intense personal and mental health impacts that could follow an individual after their jury duty has ended.

Notably, over the years we have benefited from the testimony and lived experiences of former Ontario juror Mark Farrant, who is also the founder and CEO of the Canadian Juries Commission, a national not-for-profit organization representing Canadians on jury duty and in coroner's inquests. I am very pleased to have learned that the Department of Justice recently provided funding to the Canadian Juries Commission for a jury-related project.

The project is with respect to the Canadian Juries Commission's creation of two mental health training and support programs for Canadians performing jury duty and piloting them exclusively in British Columbia. Our government agrees that meaningful support to jurors who play an essential role in the Canadian justice system is needed to ensure that they can effectively perform this important civic duty and limit negative consequences.

The standing 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 included testimony from jurors who served on difficult and disturbing criminal cases, and who have encountered mental health distress, suffering and in some instances even reported post-traumatic stress disorder following their service.

The committee's recommendation 4 in its report was “That the Government of Canada amend section 649 of the Criminal Code so that jurors are permitted to discuss jury deliberations with designated mental health professionals once the trial is over.”

Bill S-206 proposes an amendment that would address this recommendation and concerns over the offence in section 649 providing an obstacle to jurors seeking mental health support following the completion of a trial. The committee's recommendations were unanimously supported. I certainly support the recommendation and I support this bill.

The Criminal Code sets out the procedural rules regulating jury trials and jury selection, as well as the offence of disclosing information relating to jury proceedings in section 649. This offence applies to every juror and every person that provides technical, personal, interpretative or other support services to a juror with a physical disability.

There are existing exceptions under section 649 which permit disclosure 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. However, the general rule is that a juror cannot discuss anything that has to do with the deliberations of the jury with anyone apart from the other members of that same jury.

The substance of this legislation is short and straightforward, and I believe it 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, particularly those who are participants in the justice system.

We know that the pandemic has affected the mental health of Canadians. 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 year earlier.

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%, saying that 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 that is 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 committed to supporting Canadians and their mental health through the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond, such as through its record of investing millions in the mental health and distress centres that exist across the country. If serving on a jury creates the need for mental health supports, then there should not be barriers for those who must access them.

Encouraging citizens to perform their civic duty and supporting former jurors is one way in which we can ensure our justice system remains strong and fair. The Canadian Juries Commission conducted a national opinion survey in June 2020, which identified that only 18% of Canadians indicated their willingness to participate in jury duty. One can imagine that the criminal justice system would fare better in attracting jurors if individuals summoned for jury duty or who serve on a jury know that despite how difficult that service might be, they will not be impeded in accessing the support that they need to remedy any potential mental health impacts that they may face.

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 it only makes sense that they would be able to receive the support that they need to return to their lives afterward.

[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.

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

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

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

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

June 9, 2022

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bill listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 9th day of June, 2022, at 5:09 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Ian McCowan

Secretary to the Governor General and Herald Chancellor

The schedule indicates the bill assented to was Bill C-8, An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update tabled in Parliament on December 14, 2021 and other measures—Chapter 5

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise virtually to speak to Bill C-5, a bill I support, although it does not go far enough in the two areas it proposes to address. Other members today in debate have wished that the bill had been proposed as two separate bills, but in any case, what we have is a bill that deals in the first part, and in the main, with removing certain sentences that are referred to as mandatory minimums, and the second part in dealing with the ongoing crisis of drug poisonings. I do not refer to them as overdoses any longer. The more I learn about what is going on in the opioid crisis with the fentanyl contamination of drug supply, the more I realize this is a poisoning crisis in which many people die.

The bill in this case introduces a second section called “Evidence-based Diversion Measures”. There really is not anything in common between the first part and the second part of Bill C-5. Let me address the first part first. I hope I can fit in all my comments, because there are many.

The use of mandatory minimums, as many Conservatives have pointed out in the debate, is not entirely a legacy of the government under former prime minister Stephen Harper, but I was here in the House during the debates on the omnibus crime bill, Bill C-10, which introduced many more mandatory minimums. Let us say, just to get it out of the way, that former Liberal governments under former prime ministers Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chrétien did bring in some mandatory minimums. Others were brought in under Bill C-10 while I was serving in this place.

Even as we brought in the mandatory minimum sentences that were under Bill C-10, it was well understood that there was no competing literature from experts in criminology and proper sentencing practices about the impacts of mandatory minimums. It was not that there were two different sources of evidences, as there was only one. All studies that looked at mandatory minimums concluded they did not work. All of them concluded that. Jurisdictions around the world that had brought in mandatory minimums, including in the state of Texas, were getting rid of them because they did not affect the crime rate, but they did have many serious negative effects on our criminal justice system. Let us try to walk through some of those.

We certainly know that Canada's crime rate has not been rising dramatically, as has been suggested by some in debate here. The last statistic I could find of our homicide rate is 1.95 homicides per 100,000 people. Obviously that should be zero. It would be ideal not to have any homicides in our society. Our rate is approximately two times the rate of the European Union, but three times lower than our neighbours to the south. The United States has an appalling rate, as we all know, of gun crime and murder. It is something that legislation we will be talking about even later tonight proposes to deal with.

We do not have a crime wave, but we do have a problem that mandatory minimums have exacerbated. Certainly, the courts have been very busy because so many of the mandatory minimum sentences, as we argued in this place as opposition members when Bill C-10 was brought in, violate the charter. We could see that it was going to violate the charter. We argued that at the time.

Currently, there have been hundreds of charter challenges against mandatory minimums in Canada: 69% of such challenges related to drug offences have been found to violate the charter and 48% of those related to firearms have been found to violate the charter. Bill C-5, when I talk about it not going far enough, does not even eliminate all of the mandatory minimums that the courts have already struck down.

Let us look at those negative side effects. We have heard primarily, and I think it is a huge issue, that mandatory minimums are one of the reasons there is a disproportionate number of people of colour and indigenous people in our prisons, which exacerbates systemic racism against members of those communities.

However, that is not the only problem with mandatory minimums. Mandatory minimums clog up our court dockets by removing the incentive for the accused to plead guilty early in the process. Mandatory minimums take away a judge's discretion to look at the person who has committed the crime before him or her and decide that this person would benefit far more from being diverted into a program that helps them with mental health issues. However, under this mandatory minimum, they have to sentence them to, for example, five years.

We know that mandatory minimums and longer incarceration times increase the risk that someone will be coming back. Mandatory minimums and longer incarceration times take someone who may have had one offence that was serious, and that one offence may lead them to basically getting an education in crime from spending time with criminals in prison and not having the opportunity to rehabilitate and get back into normal, civilian, non-criminal life and out of jail.

Prosecutors have a problem with dealing with mandatory minimums in that they are then the ones who take the discretion, taking it away from the judges. There is a lot wrong with mandatory minimums, including overcrowding prisons, and they have a knock-on effect of increasing the costs for the provincial governments that have to deal with prisoners. Overcrowding in our prisons is another big problem.

In the time remaining, I want to turn to the second part of the bill, which is about evidence-based diversion measures. For the first time, this is to say that, for the law enforcement officer who comes upon someone who has a relatively small amount of prohibited drugs, it encourages that law enforcement to think about whether, in that instance, it would be better to divert this person from criminal justice to a different set of programs for mental health and to give them a warning as opposed to prosecuting them.

I have been very educated in this crisis we are facing of deaths due to opioids by one of my constituents who is extraordinarily brave. Her name is Leslie McBain. She lost her son in he opioid crisis, and she is one of the founders of a group called Moms Stop The Harm. There are now hundreds of parents who are active in that group. It breaks my heart every time I talk to someone who has lost a child in the opioid crisis.

This tiny little measure in Bill C-5 is okay but not nearly what is required. In the same way for Bill C-5, I brought forward amendments for which have I been pilloried. Members would not believe the words used against me for introducing amendments to get rid of more mandatory minimums. Let us be clear. Getting rid of mandatory minimums is not about letting prisoners walk free. It is about making our communities safer. It is about ensuring that the punishment fits the crime, and it is up to a judge to decide that.

People are not going to walk free out of prison if they have committed offences without a mandatory minimum, but they will be sent to jail for the time appropriate to their circumstances and the offence they have committed.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was a little disappointed during committee. There were certain amendments brought forward to remove mandatory minimums for heinous crimes committed against children. As the father of an eight-year-old son and a soon to be seven-year-old daughter, I find that revolting.

Would the member care to apologize for entering those amendments?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely will not apologize. This is based on evidence. In fact, the Canadian Criminal Justice Association, the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Sentencing Commission, which met in 1987, have recommended getting rid of all mandatory minimum sentences other than the one for murder. That is because they do not work. They do not deter crime.

We want to ensure this absolutely. I am not only a mother. I am also a grandmother, and I completely understand where the hon. member is coming from, but when we dig into the evidence and ask if these mandatory minimums keep our children safe or have any impact whatsoever on someone who is twisted and horrific with an impulse to hurt a child? No, they do not.

What we need to do is make sure those people get the punishment that fits the crime. Judges in this country will not let people who abuse children, and who were brought through the criminal justice system and found guilty, walk out of jail.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

She mentioned examples of what is being done internationally. We know, for example, that the tough‑on‑crime approach did not work. It has not worked in Switzerland.

Portugal, however, has a model for decriminalizing drugs that has worked well. As my colleague surely knows, in the case of Portugal, what has worked is that the whole system has really recognized the opioid issue as a public health issue.

In Quebec, we share that vision. Community and social service workers are part of a system that shares this vision of restorative justice. I worked for a community organization that did this.

However, what we lack is the means. I am talking about the financial means. It is important that the federal government do its part by increasing federal health transfers to 35% to help these organizations and to enable Quebec to reinvest in its health care system. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Bloc colleague from Shefford for her question.

She is absolutely right. Portugal's innovative model is an example for the whole world. It is clear that we should not treat drug addicts like criminals, but rather take an approach that focuses on public and mental health.

We need to make this change here in Canada. We need to adopt the same system as Portugal to protect the lives of citizens who are suffering in our society.