44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 9, 2022 10:00AM
- Jun/9/22 2:54:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Quebec did not wait for Ottawa and just offered the Akwesasne Mohawk Police Service $6.2 million to patrol the St. Lawrence river for arms traffickers 24 hours a day.
It is a good thing that Quebec did not wait because Quebec's public safety minister informed us today that she still has not received a single cent of the money promised by Ottawa months ago.
She said that she is still waiting to sign the agreement with the federal government for the money it put on the table to have Quebec police forces address armed violence. She repeated her appeal to the minister. Where is the money?
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, yesterday there were another three shootings in less than six hours in Montreal, and the Government of Quebec has said that it has not yet received the money it was promised to combat gun violence.
Quebec is putting in the work. For example, it has announced a special patrol to combat gun trafficking in Akwesasne. Ottawa, however, has not even sent Quebec the money it was promised. How shameful.
When will the government finally transfer the money it promised Quebec? Montreal has a gun problem right now, not “one day”, “maybe”, “if we have the time”, “if it is not too hot” or “if it is not raining”. The problem is now. I also want to inform the minister that this has nothing to do with Bill C‑21.
143 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
1234 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/9/22 7:28:18 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-5 deals with the issue of minimum sentences and diversion. Beyond the question of whether or not minimum sentences should be abolished, what impact will their abolition have on the communities in my colleague's riding or province?
We are seeing a rise in gun violence, and the government is proposing to eliminate minimum sentences for a number of firearm offences. I would therefore like to hear my colleague's views on this. Once again, I am not talking about whether these minimum sentences should be eliminated; rather, I would like to know what impact eliminating them would have and what people in his riding think about this.
112 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague's comment about it not being true that the opposition parties never propose anything. The Bloc Québécois has been proposing a joint peacekeeping unit with the United States for months. Today we learned that Quebec invested $6.2‑million to address this issue, even though borders are a federal responsibility. It is a little strange, but things are not moving quickly on the federal government side.
The Minister of Public Safety tells us that Bill C‑21 will address the dramatic increase in daily shootings in Montreal and elsewhere in Canada. However, I read Bill C‑21, and it deals with weapons that are legally purchased in Canada.
I may be mistaken, but from what I understand, criminal gangs are behind these shootings, and they get their illegal firearms from traffickers. I could be wrong, though, because the Minister of Public Safety seems to think that criminals buy their guns at Canadian Tire or some other gun shop before going out to shoot up schools or other places.
Does my colleague think I am mistaken or does she also think that criminal gangs, and not local businesses, are supplying these guns?
207 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
