SoVote

Mr. John Williamson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC)

May/12/22 4:59:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I know that debate on the motion is set to adjourn shortly, so I will try to make my remarks brief so we have time for questions should members have any. This is an important vote that will be taken on an important motion, for it seeks to answer questions regarding Canada's complicated and increasingly difficult relationship with the Government of the People's Republic of China. Should the House of Commons pass this motion, a special parliamentary committee would be reconstituted, with MPs from all recognized caucuses, to investigate and study how Beijing is influencing or has influenced the federal government, how Beijing is advancing PRC national interests within our country and how Beijing is even at times skirting Canadian laws meant to protect our citizens, values and security. I am supporting the motion before us because of my commitment to Canada. I am also supporting it because I want better nation-to-nation relations with mainland China. Our connection with Beijing cannot be based on blind trust, especially when we as parliamentarians consider its reversal on Hong Kong, its aggressive posture around the South China Sea, the terrible genocide against Uighurs and Beijing's stated hostilities toward the Republic of China, an independent democracy also know as Taiwan. In the last Parliament, I served as a member on the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations. Over approximately 30 meetings, which I think would have continued had the election not been called, we issued three reports and heard from dozens of expert witnesses concerning Canada's relationship with the People's Republic of China. While it was always illuminating, it was not always news or information that our government wanted to highlight. One example was the concern around security at the Winnipeg lab. There was a debate and struggle at the highest levels on this, including in this chamber, far outside of the special committee. That issue remains unresolved. Nevertheless, despite this at times divisive and heated debate, our work largely was conducted across party lines, even on contentious issues, such as studying the deteriorating democratic and human rights situation in Hong Kong. There was a consensus among members that Canada can and should do more. We saw also consensus on the motion concerning the genocide of the Uighurs within China. The reason for this consensus is that a growing number of Liberal MPs, mainly those who sit outside of cabinet, feel that the Government of Canada has overstated the importance of China to our nation's well-being or, worse, has abandoned our values and has at times even kowtowed to Beijing. This is something that parliamentarians do not want to see and Canadians certainly do not want to see, and it is why I think the committee operated as well as it did to raise issues, ask questions and seek answers. These members on the opposite side believe that it is wrong to promote an economic relationship with Beijing as a primary tenet of Canada's foreign policy while staying largely silent on the mistreatment of Uighurs, Tibetans and Falun Gong practitioners, who are prosecuted, as well as on Christians, citizens of Hong Kong and Taiwan, and democracies throughout Asia. These MPs understand that in the years ahead, it will be more important to partner and ally with democratic nations than with totalitarian regimes. Finally, with the Special Committee on Afghanistan preparing to present its report to the House of Commons, there is opportunity to resurrect the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations. It is an opportunity that I ask other members, regardless of party affiliation, to support by voting in favour of this motion. One reason that I am so outspoken on issues related to Beijing's mistreatment of its own citizens is my time spent in and travelling throughout China. I have long admired China, its diverse people and all its parts. I am what one might have called a Sinophile before relations between Beijing and western nations worsened. I moved to Hong Kong 25 years ago, and within months of my arrival, the territory's national allegiance shifted from British colonial rule to the People's Republic of China. This was done peacefully, and I know Hong Kong's then 6.5 million residents had hope twinned with trepidation. The British government had negotiated a 50-year agreement with Beijing that would maintain Hong Kong's domestic autonomy and basic freedoms. Sadly, today those freedoms are largely gone, or they exist on paper but are not respected in the courts or by Hong Kong's leaders, who are appointed by Beijing in mainland China. Democrats have been jailed or forced to flee, the free press has been shuttered and its owners jailed, and the agreement with Beijing on these supposed freedoms is not worth the paper it was printed on. While Beijing was abandoning its commitment to Hong Kong, it was also becoming more hostile elsewhere. In July 2020, I highlighted the mistreatment of Uighurs. I called on the former minister of Global Affairs to launch an independent investigation into forced labour camps operating in mainland China. In January 2021, Ottawa finally acted by announcing its intention to support tougher restrictions on products being imported from that region. This announcement was six months late, and unfortunately unlike other international allies, which are taking tougher actions to root out forced labour in commercial supply chains, Canada's government will not impose financial penalties on companies that do not comply with our government's directive. This is largely due to its practice of prioritizing mainland China's interests in order to “get along” with Beijing. The government must go further to safeguard Canada's values and interests. Financial penalties on companies that use forced labour in supply chains must be added to its reforms. Also, Magnitsky sanctions must be applied to top Communist Party officials who continue to commit crimes. Now, more than ever, Canada needs a principled foreign policy that promotes freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law abroad. If this special committee was important when it was established several years ago, it is now urgent with the deteriorating war situation in Ukraine. That is because the parallels between what is happening in eastern Europe and possibly in Asia, and I pray it does not, are all too clear. Russia has declared war for no other reason than to gobble up the independent country of Ukraine. Beijing too claims a piece of territory as its own, in this case Taiwan, as a province. Like Russia, it has said it will use force to retake this piece of territory. This should concern parliamentarians not only in this country but around the world. We have been put on notice that this is a real possibility, not only because it is happening now in Ukraine, but because China has said it is an option going forward. Of course, we can see the devastating results every day, sadly, on our televisions and smart phones regarding what is happening in Ukraine. Force is an option that Parliament must deal with, recognize and confront. Questions for this committee could include the following. As we have seen regarding Russia, Canada has imposed many economic sanctions as a way to punish and deter Russia's aggression. Can we do this with respect to mainland China, and if we do, what is Canada's exposure to sanctions? What is our ability to help democratic Taiwan, which many members on the government side profess friendship and even admiration for? Can we help Taiwan continue to govern itself peacefully, should Beijing's rhetoric move from words to military action? Importantly, as well, and this is where the committee could probe the federal government, are there voices or opinions in the federal government that Taipei should simply surrender its autonomy so that other nations can maintain good relations with mainland China, in effect trading off friends for opportunity elsewhere? We see the need for this committee to act and to ask questions by looking at Europe, where Putin's war machine continues to commit atrocities against the Ukrainian people every day for one purpose alone, and that is submission and control. This is something we never imagined would happen after the Iron Curtain fell, but it has created deeper concerns about how the world would respond if Beijing invaded Taiwan in the same fashion. I think parliamentarians have a duty to ask some of these questions and to receive responses from the Government of Canada, if for no other reason than for us to satisfy ourselves that they are being considered and that solutions are being drawn up in concert with our allies. At the same time, there must be a study into how Beijing continues to deepen its influence in our domestic affairs, through our markets, espionage and intimidation. Many of us will recall the Zijin Mining Group, a state-owned enterprise from China, purchasing Canada's Neo Lithium Corporation earlier this year, a fire sale of a critical mineral mine in Canada that should have prompted a national security review and should have been blocked. Unfortunately, this did not happen. This is another area where the committee should investigate to see what information went into this decision. Why, when it comes to Beijing, is the government reluctant to turn down these kinds of purchases? I believe that members on both sides of the House believe that critical mining projects in Canada should be owned and operated by Canadian firms or trusted allies, in order to maintain and protect our national security. There is another study this committee could look at. What about the Canadian success story of Nortel Networks? In 2004, over 70% of the world's Internet traffic ran on Canadian fibre optic technology produced by Nortel. It is believed that the Chinese military launched concentrated cyber-attacks for 10 years against Nortel's headquarters in Canada, stealing thousands of sensitive documents and other company secrets. Nortel simply could not compete against Huawei, and ultimately ended up in bankruptcy. To quote Global News, “it would be similar to a foreign army constructing a hidden tunnel into Canada’s treasury vault, and marching out unimpeded with gold bars.” Were Canadian pensions, life savings and technology stolen? Again, another question for this committee. A third one, which I think is of growing importance, is the use of our capital markets by the People's Republic of China and its state enterprises to advance China's financial interests. This is something that has gone largely unexplored. I do not think there is a sense of the exposure that Canadian capital markets have toward the People's Republic of China. This is something that could be detrimental to our country's well-being, should we ever see a conflict erupt between Taiwan and the People's Republic of China. I have heard some of our friends opposite talk about the need to help Taiwan join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. I think this is welcome news. I think it is a sign of great progress that there is certainly multipartisan support for seeing Taiwan step up and play a greater role in international relations and affairs. Taiwan's entry into the CPTPP would also promote high-standard trade rules. Regrettably, China also wants entry into this organization, but I do not believe it meets the labour, environmental and human rights issues that would see it come in. Having said that, I think this is a discussion for parliamentarians to engage in. I will end with a request that members consider this on the merits of the motion, with some concern that while we saw all opposition parties unite on this in the past, that might not happen this time. I do not know the reasoning or the deal-making that went behind Motion No. 11, which has now tied the NDP and the Liberals into a pact. It is my deep hope that the NDP will show its commitment to human rights and international affairs and vote, as it did before, to continue this committee, for no other reason than to ask questions and see where the answers take us. I think it would be wrong and the NDP's standing would fall should it vote otherwise on this motion just as a way to keep relations happy with the Liberals. It is important that all members, from all parliamentary caucuses, have the opportunity to be heard on these issues, that we ask questions, look for answers and table reports that will protect Canada, ensure that our citizens are safe and, in the long run, work to improve relations between the People's Republic of China and Canada. I appreciate the time to make these comments.

2142 words

All Topics

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, Lib.)

May/12/22 5:16:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I applaud my hon. colleague for the excellent job he did in explaining the complexity of the relationship between Canada and China. However, where he failed to convince is on the necessity of this particular committee, knowing that there are already four existing committees that can deal with the different complexities and issues related to the Canada-China relationship. Could the member explain what this committee would add that is not already covered by the four existing committees?

80 words

Mr. John Williamson

May/12/22 5:17:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the hon. member recently mentioned one, the foreign affairs committee, which is already overworked with looking at a number of international issues. What it would bring that the others do not is a focus on one of our most important foreign relations in the world. That focus would allow it to raise questions, seek answers and hear from Canadians, from expats from mainland China and from observers around the world. It is the intensity and the focus. I can understand why the government would prefer to avoid that, but that makes it all the more important, particularly as we see what is happening in Ukraine, and how Beijing's threats have gone from being something we had a difficult time wrapping our brains around to what we now see every day in eastern Europe.

136 words

Ms. Sylvie Bérubé (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ)

May/12/22 5:18:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from New Brunswick Southwest for his fine speech. We know how important technology is and how serious the repercussions can be if there is no oversight. China has so much economic power that any direct or indirect support for Taiwan would have serious repercussions for Canada's economy, given that a large part of the supply chain is in China. I would like my colleague to tell me once again about the importance of the Special Committee on Canada-China relations. Why is it important?

94 words

Mr. John Williamson

May/12/22 5:19:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I believe this is a key question for the committee to consider. If there is a confrontation between Taiwan and the People's Republic of China, what will be the impact on Canada, our workers and our goods? Until now, no one has asked these questions because we did not really believe it was possible before the war in Ukraine broke out. Today, it is possible. We must ask these questions and get answers for Canadians so that Canada can respond accordingly.

84 words

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

May/12/22 5:19:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we absolutely have to uphold human rights, without qualification. Yesterday, the NDP put forward a motion condemning the murder of a Palestinian journalist. It was voted against by a member of my hon. colleague's party. I wonder if he agrees with me that it is important not to be selective about when to uphold human rights and when not to uphold human rights. Especially with the motion the Conservatives have put forward today, it seems like they are contradicting themselves in terms of the Conservatives being actual human rights defenders.

93 words

All Topics

Mr. John Williamson

May/12/22 5:20:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, like the NDP or any party, the Conservative Party does not speak with a single voice. There are many different opinions. As to the issue that is being raised, illuminating difficulties and challenges in one area where there is a relationship, in this case China, does not mean Parliament or a committee does not look at it elsewhere. The wrong approach would be to say that because a motion was rejected yesterday, this motion should be rejected. To my NDP colleague, who obviously feels very passionately about what has happened with the murder of the journalist, which is something terrible, I would just say that I think she would agree that not looking at either does not make this country a better place. Let us look at the motion ahead of us and vote on it. We can come back to other debates on other days.

148 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

May/12/22 5:21:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, just briefly to the previous question, I think all members of the House agree that it is a terrible thing that a journalist was killed in a war zone. However, to presume, as one member of this House did, that this person was intentionally shot, execution-style, is not something that any independent investigation has concluded. It is important to have that independent investigation before making the presumptions that members of the House make. It is typical of some members of the House, when we try to have a conversation about the genocide going on in China, that they always want to say, “Well, what about Israel?” I know the member spent some time living in Hong Kong. Many people were deeply concerned about the arrest we saw this week in Hong Kong of Cardinal Zen, who is a great champion of democracy. He is a 90-year-old retired cardinal who is much loved within the Catholic community and beyond. There is also the arrest of Denise Ho, a singer who is a Canadian citizen and a prominent activist on LGBTQ issues. There are a number of other people who were arrested as well. It is disappointing to see such prominent figures, including a Canadian and a senior religious leader, arrested. It shows the flagrant disregard of the Chinese government for the agreements it has made with respect to Hong Kong. I wonder if the member, as someone who has spent time in Hong Kong, has a reaction to those events.

256 words

All Topics

Mr. John Williamson

May/12/22 5:22:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do, because it is a pattern we have seen, not just with Beijing's increased heavy-handedness in Hong Kong, but with its outright control of the institutions of government there, which had been free, self-governing and a beacon for people throughout not just Asia but the world. My hon. colleague mentioned a number of people. There is Jimmy Lai as well, who was the owner of the Apple Daily. What the government seeks to do by these arrests, whether of people in the arts, religious figures or business figures, is to send the signal that if it can arrest and stop these people, it can arrest and stop whomever it likes.

116 words

All Topics

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

May/12/22 5:23:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. The committee in question existed before the election was called. That is another consequence of the snap election that was held last year. As far as I know, the situation in China has not changed since then. As the critic for status of women, I am particularly concerned about what is happening to Uighur women. My colleague talked a lot about human rights. Uighur women are being forcibly sterilized. I am also a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking. What is happening in factories in China and the impacts on the supply chain show how important it is that we examine this issue. Those are some other reasons to reinstate the committee. Let us not forget that it existed before the last election.

140 words

All Topics

Mr. John Williamson

May/12/22 5:24:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is absolutely true. Had there not been an election, that committee would still be sitting. When we talk about human rights in China, we are talking about the same rights that we have here in Canada, for indigenous people, women and parents. Those same rights need to apply to citizens of China, Taiwan and Hong Kong. As parliamentarians and Canadians, we need to consider these issues, ask hard questions and find solutions to make the world a more peaceful place with fewer wars.

86 words

All Topics

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

May/12/22 5:25:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am very concerned that we do start such a committee, and that one of the first things we take up is the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement, which has been lopsided and given the People's Republic of China abilities to suppress Canadian interests. As it was the member's government under former prime minister Harper that executed this extremely lopsided agreement, would he support that we study it at this point?

78 words

All Topics

Mr. John Williamson

May/12/22 5:26:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would. I think many of us have miscalculated China. Twenty-three years ago, when I was writing for the National Post, I believed, like a lot of people, that trade and globalization would see China develop and respect human rights. I was wrong, as I think a lot of western commentators were. I am prepared to adjust course now and look at China with a more critical eye. If that includes looking at deals as the member mentioned, I think there should be no bounds on this committee, because, believe me, I think Canada has made mistakes. We could correct those mistakes and move forward.

108 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/12/22 5:26:47 p.m.
Watch

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

23 words

Mr. Larry Maguire (Brandon—Souris, CPC)

May/12/22 5:26:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to stand in the House today to discuss this opposition day motion that has been put forward on the issue of re-establishing a Canada-China committee in the House of Commons. I believe there is a great need for it. I was asking questions earlier in the debate today around some of the issues that I felt strongly about. They are not all to do with defence and those areas, but I believe there are many issues that can be discussed in the committee if it is re-established. When the committee was established before, there were many things for which answers still need to be given. They were not fully reported. Some of them were fully discussed, perhaps, but the reports never came out. We could even go back and discuss some of those issues, but there are many other areas. First of all, I want to comment on the relationship that I have had with Chinese citizens or people of Chinese descent. I say I am of Irish descent, but my family came here in about 1850. Many of them were here long before that. They are in all of our communities across Canada. They have been great Canadians citizens, and have contributed greatly to their families and the Canadian economy, but that is not what we are here to talk about. This is about some of the differences we have had with the communist regime in China, not the people on the ground in China. It is not their fault we are seeing some interference and involvement in Canadian elections and some of the discussions that have taken place around human rights in their own country. We talked a lot about the pandemic in the past. We have talked about the Uighur people in China, as well. They are being oppressed, which may be a mild word for how they are being treated within their country. There is the labour they are being forced to do, as well as other denigrations we have talked about here in the House. China is an authoritarian state, and the people are probably trying to look after their families, just as we are here in Canada, but they are under great duress sometimes to do that. Many of them may know of the freedoms they have, but they are being suppressed. I had the experience of seeing what happened in Russia before the wall came down in Germany, as I had the opportunity to be in Leningrad before Russia even opened up. That is, somewhat, what the whole fight in Ukraine is about with President Putin today. He just did not want his people to continue to have the freedom that they saw from world communications that took place in that time. When the world opened up and people in Russia could get a hold of things called televisions and other media, their attitudes changed. I think we could do the same in other areas of the world and try to create more discussion and greater freedom for some of those folks as well.

520 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/12/22 5:30:46 p.m.
Watch

It being 5:30 p.m., pursuant to order made Monday, May 2, 2022, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply. The question is on the motion. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

78 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/12/22 5:31:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

7 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/12/22 5:31:30 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the division stands deferred until Monday, May 16, 2022, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions. It being 5:30, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.

51 words

Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC)

May/12/22 5:32:17 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-206

, seconded by the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, moved that Bill S-206, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (disclosure of information by jurors), be read the second time and referred to a committee. He said: Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak on Bill S-206, an act to amend the Criminal Code. It is a bill that will go a long way to supporting juror mental health in Canada, and it is quite appropriate that we are debating the bill this week, as it is Jury Duty Appreciation Week. More specifically, this proposed legislation would amend section 649 of the Criminal Code, which is often known as the “jury secrecy” rule. As it stands, it is a Criminal Code offence for a former juror to disclose any aspect of the jury deliberation process with anyone for life, even a medical professional. The bill before us would carve out a narrow exception to that rule, whereby a former juror who is suffering from mental health issues arising from jury service would be able to disclose all aspects of that service, including the deliberation process, to a medical professional bound by confidentiality. The bill would implement a key recommendation from the unanimous report of the justice committee in 2018 arising from a study on juror supports, which was initiated by the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, whom I am very proud to have as a seconder. I want to acknowledge his advocacy for juror mental health. This legislation is based on a law that currently exists in the Australian state of Victoria. It is a bill that has had unanimous support all the way through. I introduced a substantively similar bill back in the 42nd Parliament that passed all legislative stages in the House unanimously. Unfortunately, it died on the Order Paper due to the call of the 2019 election. Following the 2019 election, I reached out to Senator Pierre Boisvenu and Senator Lucie Moncion, who is a former juror who suffered from mental health issues arising from her jury service. Senator Boisvenu, with the support of Senator Moncion, introduced the same bill in the Senate. We hoped that it would proceed expeditiously there. Unfortunately, it did not: not because of a lack of support, but because of COVID and the fact that the other place took up largely government business through the 43rd Parliament. Then, we had another election. Senator Boisvenu introduced a bill yet again and, thanks to his leadership and the leadership of Senator Moncion, it passed the upper place unanimously in December. In the nearly seven years that I have been a member of Parliament, I have not seen very many issues on which there was such broad agreement: unanimous support from all parliamentarians at all legislative stages, and unanimous support from key stakeholders including former jurors, lawyers and medical professionals. Jurors play an integral role in the administration of justice in Canada, often at a considerable cost, including to one's mental health. I think a lot of Canadians appreciate the work of jurors, but unless one is a former juror, sometimes it is difficult to fully comprehend exactly what jury service involves. When we commenced the juror supports study, we heard from former jurors who had gone through very difficult trials, who had been exposed to horrific evidence and who suffered from mental health issues arising from their jury service, including PTSD. I think it is important that some of the testimony we heard before the justice committee is entered into the record of this place to provide an understanding and a context for why this bill is needed. One of the jurors who appeared before the justice committee was Tina Daenzer. Tina served as juror number one in the Paul Bernardo trial. This is what she had to say about her experience: Imagine watching young girls being raped and tortured over and over again. You couldn't close your eyes and you couldn't look away because your duty was to watch the evidence. Tina suffered from PTSD following the Bernardo trial. That trial was in 1995. Twenty-seven years later, Tina is still dealing with the residual effects of that trial. Mark Farrant came before our committee, and I was honoured to have him join me and colleagues across party lines today. Mark is one of the leading advocates for juror supports and addressing the issue of juror mental health. He is the president of the Canadian Juries Commission, which is doing important work in that area, but at one time Mark was a jury foreman in a particularly gruesome trial. This is what he said when he came to the justice committee: As a juror, you are extremely isolated. You cannot communicate with anyone in any form about the events in court or even really with other jurors. I would leave the court in a trance, not remembering even how I got home. I would stare blankly into space during meetings at work or at home while my three-year old daughter tried desperately to engage with me. My then pregnant wife, who had such an engaged husband during her first pregnancy, now had an emotional zombie in me, unable or unwilling to communicate. I expected these feelings to subside as I left the courthouse on the day the verdict was delivered.... My feelings didn't subside. They intensified and deepened. After the trial, I cut off communication with all friends and family, only interacting with colleagues at work, and then only superficially. I became hypervigilant around my kids, refusing to let them walk alone, even a few steps in front of me. I became unable to handle crowds and public spaces. My diet changed. I was unable to look at and prepare raw meat without gagging, something that persists to this day. Patrick Fleming, who was a juror on a 10-month murder trial, also shared a similar story. He spoke about the need to get help. He said, “I so desperately needed to talk to a professional, someone who could help me work through my feelings and thoughts.” That is just a taste of the testimony that we heard at the justice committee from these and other former jurors. Their stories and their experiences are felt by thousands of jurors across Canada. Of course, not everyone has PTSD and not everyone suffers from mental health issues, even jurors who go through very difficult trials, but different people react differently. It is a very serious issue involving jurors that has to be addressed for them to get the help they need. Clearly, jurors should not be cast aside and ignored, when they are merely fulfilling what is the last mandatory forum of civic duty since the abolition of conscription. At the justice committee, one of the things we looked at in impediments for jurors to get the full support and help that they need is the juror secrecy rule. That is because, in part, the deliberation process is one of, if not the, most stressful aspects of jury service. I ask members to imagine being sequestered with other strangers, having to go through horrific evidence with the pressure of making a decision, and having the regard for the gravity of that decision, including, perhaps, sending someone to jail for the rest of his or her life, not to mention the impact that such an outcome could have on victims and victims' families, and the desire to see that justice is carried out. Dr. Sonia Chopra, a psychologist who was a former juror and who has done considerable work around juror supports, identified, as a result of conducting a number of interviews with former jurors, that of the 10 top stressors of jury duty, seven of the 10 involve the deliberation process and the determination of a verdict. That, then, begs the question, of how can one get better. How can one get the help they need to get better when they cannot talk about what is at the core of their injury? That is where this bill comes in. It carves out a narrow exception to the jury secrecy rule so jurors are not inhibited, all the while protecting the integrity of that rule. There are good reasons for the jury secrecy rule. They include the need to see the finality of the verdict, to respect the privacy of former jurors and to respect the sanctity of the deliberation process. None of those things are impacted or impeded upon as a result of this bill because, again, this narrow exception would be posttrial in a strictly confidential context, namely with a medical professional bound by confidentiality. This bill has been studied exhaustively. It has received unanimous support at all stages. We owe it to jurors in Canada to support them and to help them be able to get the help they need. This bill is a small but important step in that direction. I urge its speedy passage.

1510 words

All Topics

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

May/12/22 5:47:11 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-206

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

SoVote

House Hansard - 70