- Member of Parliament
- Caucus Chair
- NDP
- Cowichan—Malahat—Langford
- British Columbia
- Voting Attendance: 65%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $140,733.69
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to rise and offer my thoughts on Bill S-242, which was first introduced into the Senate by Senator Dennis Glen Patterson of Nunavut and, of course, the bill is being sponsored here in the House by the member for Bay of Quinte.
Essentially, what we need to discuss with respect to this bill is spectrum. A lot of people may wonder what that is.
I would say, first and foremost, that it is a very important public resource. It is essentially the resource that refers to the range of frequencies used for wireless communications, such as Wi-Fi and cell service. These are services that many of us take for granted, especially in urban areas and in work environments such as this.
Every time we pull our phone out, we just know that we are going to have access to the Internet and to important information. It allows us near-instantaneous communication with many of our work colleagues and our constituents, even though the constituents that I represent are three time zones away from Ottawa.
There are different lanes, or frequency bands, within the wireless spectrum. They all have different speed limits, and each is suited to a different type of data traffic. The government's job in this is to regulate and allocate frequency bands to different companies and organizations for use to ensure that there is enough spectrum available for everyone and that different devices can communicate without interfering with one another.
That regulation of wireless spectrum is the responsibility of one department, that is, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. ISED is responsible for developing and implementing policies and programs related to the efficient and effective use of spectrum resource. This includes licensing and allocating spectrum to various users, such as wireless carriers, broadcasters and government agencies. The decisions that ISED makes affects how quickly Canadians are connected.
I want to talk about rural Canada, especially my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. My riding is about 4,700 square kilometres of beautiful southern Vancouver Island real estate, and it is a very rural riding. I would say that about 90% of my riding's population lives along the east coast of Vancouver Island, going from Chemainus down to Langford. The most beautiful part of my riding, I would argue, is over on the southwest coast.
When a person is driving up to Lake Cowichan, gets down to Mesachie Lake and takes a left turn to go to Port Renfrew, they know that they are out of luck in terms of cell service until they get to the water's edge. This happens within a few kilometres of having departed the highway.
There are significant geographical chunks of my riding where, when one is out there, one does not have access to cell service. Indeed, this is true for most of British Columbia.
I acknowledge that British Columbia is a very complex province to get these services to. This is because of our terrain. We are the most mountainous province. It is a source of great pride and great beauty, but it comes with its challenges when one lives there. The mountains make a perfect physical barrier between two devices trying to connect with one another.
My constituents are experiencing these problems but, right across Canada, we know that the stats show a picture in which 63% of rural households do not have access to high-speed broadband. That includes 14% of highways and major transport roads that do not have access to LTE wireless services, the really fast kind of wireless service.
Up in the Northwest Territories, Yukon and Nunavut, no households have access to high-speed broadband. Moreover, 72% of highways and major transport roads do not have access to LTE wireless services.
This is a critical service that is important in connecting us to the outside world, to safety services and for our work. However, so much of rural Canada still does not have access to that.
The Canadian Internet Registration Authority released 2021 data as a part of its Internet performance test. This showed that the median rural download speeds were measured at 3.78 megabits per second, compared with an astounding 44 megabits per second in urban Canada, a difference of 11.7 times.
The digital divide between urban and rural Canada is starkly seen in these statistics. We know that urban speeds have actually been climbing, while the rural Canadian upload speeds, on average, are falling and have not been keeping the same pace.
Let us turn to Bill S-242. I was looking at the introduction speeches in the Senate and here in the House, and I have looked at how other colleagues have responded to the bill. I think the senator who sponsored the bill in the other place summed it up quite well when he said that the bill is essentially the “use it or lose it” bill.
Bill S-242 would essentially amend Canada's spectrum policy to ensure that this very important and critical resource is used to connect Canadians and is not used as a vehicle for billionaires to be trading back and forth with one another. It would require that all spectrum licence holders deploy spectrum to 50% of the population within prescribed geographic regions contained in the licence area, known as tier 5 areas, within three years of acquiring the licence. It would ensure that those buying larger licence areas would not be able to meet deployment conditions simply by deploying to the urban areas within those larger tiers. They would also be required to service the smaller rural and remote areas nestled within. It would give the minister the flexibility to decide whether to revoke the entire licence outright or to reallocate those tier 5 areas within the licence to other providers that are ready and able to service the underserved areas.
There is also a third component to the bill, which is a civil liability clause. The intent of this clause is to ensure that if the licence holder, by acting in bad faith, does not meet the deployment conditions and has had its licence revoked, the population that had been serviced by it and had the service lost due to the revocation could initiate a civil claim for damages.
I will conclude by saying that we have a situation here in Canada where, if we look at the history of spectrum sales and allocation, we know that the Canadian government, over time, has been deeply discounting spectrum for smaller regional carriers that have consistently failed to deploy it. There are areas all across this great country of ours that are sitting unserved by broadband because of limited access to the spectrum resources. It is a scarce public resource, but it has been squandered because it has been licensed to regional carriers that have preferred to flip it for profit rather than improve the lives of the Canadians it is supposed to serve. This is very important, because it is estimated that next-generation 5G connectivity will add billions of dollars to Canada's GDP over the next half-decade. The lack of reliable connectivity in rural communities is depriving them of access to the 21st-century economy and all the opportunities that it has.
As the NDP's agriculture critic, I know that in rural communities right across the country, with the incredible advancements in agricultural technology and innovation, connectivity to the Internet is so crucial, especially with the next-generation machinery that is coming out, with its ability and artificial intelligence. If we want our farmers to stay on the cutting edge of agricultural technology and to continuously punch above their weight as the agricultural powerhouse that is Canada, we need to solve this problem and make sure that connectivity is where our farmers are doing their important work for our country.
Fundamentally, Bill S-242 is about making sure that those who buy spectrum actually use it. When somebody buys a public resource, especially at significant discounts, as has been our country's history, they should be buying an obligation to connect Canadians. This is an essential service. We must find pieces of legislation that would protect it and protect consumers, and that is why I am proud to say that I will be voting in favour of the bill's going to committee for further study. I believe there is an opportunity for some amendments to be made there. I look forward to listening to other colleague's comments.
1434 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 12:06:57 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, to hear the Conservatives complain about time allocation is incredibly rich given what we saw from the Harper government. When a government bill was being debated in the House for the very first time, the Harper government would give notice of time allocation on that same day. The Conservative Party has no leg to stand on when it comes to this particular issue.
Ultimately, this bill started its journey in the Senate. We are now at third reading. We are at a stage where members have acquainted themselves quite well with this bill. I think it has some very important aspects, and I am proud of how our team was able to strengthen the bill.
For this particular bill, with the ways the New Democrats strengthened it, it is important for the House to arrive at a decision so members can make their opinions known on it. Could the minister expand on some of the reasons for this?
160 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/12/22 1:57:23 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-8
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Edmonton Strathcona, who has done incredible work on this file.
Throughout the debate today, I have heard issues raised about the lack of clarity in this bill and the fact that there is not enough parliamentary oversight into the sanctions regime. I am just wondering if my hon. colleague could tell the House if that would inform her committee strategy. Does she see that there might be opportunities amongst the government and opposition sides to reach a compromise to make sure that the important aspect of parliamentary oversight is there?
I have noticed that, in public safety bills introduced earlier in this session, notably in Bill C-20 and in Bill C-26, there was a clear lack of parliamentary oversight specified. That will inform our strategy going forward. I am just wondering if the member could add some further comments on that.
154 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/12/22 1:13:52 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-8
Mr. Speaker, I enjoy sitting on the agriculture committee with my colleague.
I think there is general agreement in the House that what is in the bill is important, and there is a desire to get it to committee. However, I would like to ask for the member's and the Bloc Québécois's thoughts on what is missing from the bill and what could be worked on at committee. For example, the bill would not fix the lack of parliamentary oversight. The bill would not fix the clarity issue of why some names are added to the sanctions list and some are not, and for what reasons.
I am wondering if he could offer some thoughts on those two key missing pieces that could have been in the bill and how that might inform committee work at the next stage.
145 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/12/22 12:56:18 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-8
Mr. Speaker, in several other public safety bills, notably Bill C-20 and Bill C-26, I have noticed, in the way the bills are written, there is a lack of avenue for parliamentary oversight.
One thing that has been missing with this sanctions regime is also a lack of parliamentary oversight. Would Conservatives join with New Democrats at committee to look for avenues in which this bill could be strengthened to buttress up parliamentary oversight so members of the House could make sure the government is doing its job when it should be doing its job?
97 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a real honour to be able to rise today to speak to Bill S-223. Before I get into my remarks, it is important to recognize the two individuals who have been working diligently over the years to shepherd this bill through Parliament, starting in the other place, with Senator Ataullahjan, and here, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. Both individuals have been long involved in this process, over several Parliaments.
The bill, of course, passed very quickly through second and third reading in the other place. In fact, it even skipped consideration by the committee on December 9 of last year. It gives a sense of the arduous journey that private members' bills, both from the Senate side and from the House side, have to make in order to pass the entire parliamentary process: the fact that we are here in December 2022, only now considering its third reading, and it has taken a full year to get to that stage.
Before I get into the details of why this legislation is necessary, I would like to talk about a few key points in terms of what the bill is going to do, so we are all very clear on what the House is going to be debating and hopefully passing in short order.
Essentially, it is a substantive amendment to a narrow section of the Criminal Code in relation to the crime of trafficking in human organs. We know that organs like kidneys and livers are being forcibly removed from many people, but this bill, with a new section 240.1, is going to create some new offences: anyone who obtains organs without informed consent, either for use in another person or for themselves; anyone who is involved in the carrying out of the procedure to remove those organs without informed consent; and anyone who does anything in connection with the removal of the organs without informed consent.
That is quite broad. It could involve anyone who was involved in allowing a place to be used for the surgery and anyone who is involved in the transportation of the organs or their smuggling across borders. It is a very real problem. It is something that, through several Parliaments, we have been waiting for substantive action on.
We know this is a crime that disproportionately affects people who live in impoverished countries and who live under authoritarian rule and do not have access to the same rights, privileges and equality under the law that we sometimes take for granted here in Canada. It is important that countries like Canada, with its well-known track record in standing up for human rights and the rule of law, not only here in our own country but abroad, follow suit and really establish what we think should be the norm and what all citizens of the world should be able to enjoy.
There is also a very important amendment to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, so that a permanent resident or any foreign national would be inadmissible to Canada if the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship is of the opinion that they have engaged in any activities related to the new offence that is going to be put into the Criminal Code through the passage of this bill.
Through the conversation today, I have heard several members talk about how having this provision in Canadian law for a crime that occurred in another country is important. It reminds me that we sometimes have a double standard in this place about how we apply Canadian law.
I have been a member of this House for seven years now. I was here in the 42nd Parliament. I remember a previous private member's bill, which was sponsored by the member for New Westminster—Burnaby. It was Bill C-331. In the dying days of the 42nd Parliament, we managed to come to a vote on that bill at second reading. It was June 19, 2019, pretty much the very last day of the 42nd Parliament.
That was an important bill, because it intended to amend the Federal Courts Act so that people from other countries who wanted to bring a civil claim could do so under the jurisdiction of federal court.
The nature of the claims could have to do with genocide, a war crime or a crime against humanity, slavery or slave trading, extrajudicial killings, torture, prolonged arbitrary detention, or the sale or trafficking of persons. These are all crimes that every member of this House agrees are abhorrent and certainly need the full force of the law.
The problem is that when the member for New Westminster—Burnaby was attempting, for many good reasons, to bring that bill forward, the House voted against it. In fact, the Liberals and the Conservatives joined together to shut the bill down at second reading.
I do not want to take away from the debate on the bill today. Bill S-223 is going to have our full support. I just hope that when Parliament is conducting itself and when we see value in these types of measures that try to apply Canadian law to things that happen abroad, we can do so on a consistent basis.
We need to recognize that there are huge problems out there, not just with human trafficking in organs, but also in war crimes, slavery and other methods. Should the member for New Westminster—Burnaby try to bring that initiative back, I hope the House will apply the lessons from the debate on Bill S-223 to that similar and worthy initiative.
Bill S-223 is no stranger to us. In the 42nd Parliament, it was before the House as Bill S-240. The reason I think it is a forgone conclusion that this bill is going to pass the House is that it is identical to the version we debated and passed as Bill S-240. In fact, in the 42nd Parliament it received the unanimous support of the House at second reading and again at third reading on April 30, 2019.
The important and notable difference with Bill S-223 is that it incorporates the amendments the House made to the previous version of the bill. That is what caused the delay on Bill S-240. It had to be sent back to the Senate so it could consider House amendments.
Unfortunately, at that time, the bill was held up because of the procedural shenanigans going on in the other place related to the old bill, Bill C-262, which was introduced by my former colleague, Romeo Saganash. That was his attempt with a private member's bill to enshrine the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
I am glad to see, from the tone and content of the speeches so far, that there is recognition that this is an important and long-overdue change to criminal law. It sends a strong message, not only to people around the world who are facing these barbaric practices under regimes such as China, and we have heard well-documented testimony on what the Uighur population is going through, but also to impoverished people living in countries where the rule of law is applied selectively at best.
These people may be targeted by criminal organizations. We have heard testimony from people who have woken up in a drugged haze to someone wearing a surgical mask and gloves telling them that their kidney has just been removed and that they need to take care. Often, these victims can suffer very serious, lifelong health consequences from that, and because of the nature of the operation, some people have ultimately died from it. It is a very real issue.
We know the demand for organs is very high worldwide, and we need to take steps to encourage people to put themselves on an organ donor registry. I am pleased to see that this Parliament has tried to address that by making it easier for people to sign up and so on. However, those are problems that are not going to go away. The demand for organs is high, and as our population ages we certainly need to have smart and effective policy to address that.
On behalf of the New Democratic caucus, I will indicate that we are looking forward to supporting this bill and voting on it so it gets sent to the Governor General for royal assent. We have long opposed all forms of trafficking, whether it be human trafficking for sexual exploitation, labour trafficking or the trafficking of human organs. We must do all we can to protect vulnerable people. With that, I will conclude my remarks. I appreciate this opportunity.
1464 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for shepherding this bill to this stage. It has been a long journey. I have a question based on the earlier intervention, aside from what is happening with the Uighur population.
Over the many years the member has been involved in trying to shepherd this bill through the Parliament of Canada, can he inform the House what the trends and statistics have been like worldwide that underline a strong a case and necessity for this bill being passed into law at this moment in time?
91 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks, I want to acknowledge and thank my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois, who switched their spot with me so that I would be able to make committee tonight at 6:30 p.m.
I am very proud to be speaking to Bill S-227, and I want to acknowledge the member for Perth—Wellington for sponsoring it here in the House fo Commons, but also Senator Rob Black. I have known Senator Black for a little while now, and he and I share a definite passion for farming and soil health. It is nice to see that we have those kinds of champions not only for our agricultural sector, but for the key role that it plays in establishing food security in Canada. They recognize that farmers are going to be one of our greatest tools in effectively combatting climate change.
As I mentioned in my intervention with the member for Perth—Wellington, this bill is no stranger to Parliament. We have seen several versions of it over several Parliaments. I also want to acknowledge the former member for Kootenay—Columbia, Wayne Stetski, who was a colleague of mine for four years in this place during the 42nd Parliament. He introduced what I believe was Bill C-281. That bill actually passed through the House of Commons before arriving at the Senate, but unfortunately did not go further. I am pleased to see that with this version of the bill, I think we may have enough runway to pass it into law.
I am very proud to be standing here, not only as a proud member representing the great riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, but also as the NDP's agriculture critic. I have been privileged to hold that position for four and a half years now, and for me, agriculture is not work. It is a passion of mine, and I have been incredibly blessed in this role over four and a half years to have spoken with farm organizations from coast to coast to coast. To represent the farmers in my riding, take their feedback and be a part of the national policy discussion on food, food security, agriculture and how well our farmers are doing has been a real privilege.
I am also the owner of a small-scale farming property. It is nowhere near a commercial operation, but even the work on that property has given me a small insight into how hard our farmers actually work. I raise livestock. I have a small flock of chickens and raise ducks. I also have pigs and three elderly sheep. This teaches me a certain level of responsibility. It makes me appreciate that care for animals and the land is something we should all aspire to.
I think this is something that, through the enactment of this bill, will become part of our national discourse. It is an appreciation for what farmers do for our communities, big and small, because sometimes in our large urban centres, there can be a bit of a disconnect from where our food actually comes from. If this bill helps further the conversation, strengthening those links between our urban centres and our rural centres, I think it is doing nothing but good for our national unity.
In Canada, we already have Agriculture Day, which we celebrate in February of every year, but I like the fact that Bill S-227 is going to establish the Saturday before the first Monday in August as food day in Canada. That is important because Agriculture Day is, of course, a very broad topic. There are multiple different kinds of agriculture, but this bill is making it more specific and is centring, really, on the concept of food.
I think every member of Parliament realizes that food is not just a commodity. It is important. The thing that makes all humans equal is that we all have to eat to survive. It is very much a social determinant of health too. We know that there are far too many people in Canada who suffer from food insecurity. Food security and food sovereignty have been key issues for me personally.
We are a country, of course, that is very blessed with the amount of arable land we have. We produce far more food than our population consumes, so we are net exporters of food. We are actually one of the top agricultural producers in the world, and that is something we should definitely carry around with pride.
What I love about the country is the huge variety of growing regions we have from coast to coast. It truly is a learning experience, no matter what province we are visiting. I think we should have a country where we have the ability to produce food locally for everyone who needs it, not only to give the bare minimum amount but to achieve the good, high-quality food we all need. We need that high level of nutrition. It is a very strong factor in the social determinants of health.
As New Democrats, this has been a central issue for us in many parliaments for many years. Back in 2011, we ran on a commitment to introduce a Canadian food strategy that would combine health and environmental goals and food quality objectives. We have had incredible MPs, like Alex Atamanenko and Malcolm Allen, who in the past really set the stage for the debates we are able to have today. We have to recognize those members of Parliament who did that heavy lifting in previous parliaments to establish the building blocks we truly have today to get to where we are.
We created a strategy called “Everybody Eats: Our Vision for a pan-Canadian Food Strategy”, which really focused on how food travels from the farm to the factory to the fork. It was very comprehensive and I think played no small part in forcing the Liberals to come up with their own strategy in the 42nd Parliament, when they last had a majority government.
I stay in close contact with the farmers in my region. I depend very much on their feedback, and I try to be as true as I can, as their representative in this place, to ensure their voices are being heard.
The other thing is looking at how food is produced in Canada. I think this bill is also going to force us to look at the concept of food miles. I can remember going to grocery stores when we could see oranges from New Zealand and apples from South Africa and the amazing distances those foods had to travel to make it to our plates. I know in British Columbia we have the ability to grow a lot of seasonal produce, and I think we need to establish those stronger links. I hope this bill will help achieve that.
I am also incredibly proud to come from a province that I think arguably has the most diversified agricultural sector in the country. British Columbia has a variety of different climates, given our mountainous province, and we are able to grow a lot of different things in many different regions. Depending on which valley and which part of the province we are in, we will always find a little niche market somewhere.
Bringing it home to Vancouver Island, to my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, we have some fantastic farmers' markets where we can go and see where our food is coming from locally and the incredible diversity that is being grown right in our backyard. I appreciate the efforts that the locals are going to in order to highlight that incredible work that is going on our backyard.
The Cowichan region, believe it or not, is Canada's only maritime Mediterranean climatic zone. We have the highest mean average temperature in all of Canada, and this allows our farmers to get a head start on growing some amazing food. In fact, in the local Halkomelem language, Cowichan, which is the anglicized version of the word, means “the warm land”. We are blessed with incredibly warm, hot summers and get an incredible amount of rainfall in the winter. That allows us to produce an amazing agricultural bounty. It is on display everywhere we go. We can get organic fruits and vegetables; local honey, cheese, eggs and sustainably harvested seafood; meat from grass-fed and ethically raised animals; homemade jams, jellies, chutneys and sauces; artisan breads, pies, pastries and cookies; locally grown and produced wines and spirits; and even gourmet treats for our pets.
To cap it off, because I know I have only a minute left, I am incredibly proud to stand here to support this bill. It sounds like we are going to have a lot of agreement in the House. I hope that when it finds passage, reaches royal assent and becomes law, it will be yet one more tool we have in our tool basket of policy to remind Canadians of how important local food is, to celebrate the farmers who produce it for us, and to start a conversation on how we, as parliamentarians, can better support food security so that everybody in every region has the ability to access good, high-quality food with no barriers whatsoever.
1569 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I offer my personal congratulations and thanks to the member for Perth—Wellington for bringing this bill forward. This bill is no stranger to Parliament. Several parliaments have seen some version of it or another, and it is nice to see that we might have enough runway to get this passed into law.
As the agriculture critic for the last four and a half years, I have really been consumed by the theme of resiliency and how we build resiliency into our local food systems and communities. I am wondering if the member can share some thoughts about how this bill may further that conversation in building local resiliency in our communities.
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, allow me to thank the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan for tenaciously sponsoring this legislation again. He should get an award for the number of times he has appeared on this very same bill.
In the House, we all recognize the importance of this bill. We have had several Parliaments debate it. I do not think there is any argument against this kind of an amendment being necessary to the Criminal Code and to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
I did have a number of comments I wanted to make, but in the spirit of what has already been said today, I would conclude by saying that the NDP absolutely does support this legislation. It is a shame that we did not see the former Bill S-240 pass through the 42nd Parliament quickly. If people remember correctly, that piece of legislation was held up, literally yards away from the finish line, because of the procedural shenanigans that were going on in the other place, when Conservative senators were trying to hold up Romeo Saganash's Bill C-262. That ultimately prevented the Senate from voting on the House amendments to Bill S-240.
That being said, we are here now with Bill S-223. I am proud to support this bill at second reading. We look forward to seeing it get to committee, back to the House and on to the Governor General's desk as quickly as possible.
245 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
1401 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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?
109 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
