This bill has received Royal Assent and is, or will soon become, law.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.
This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) allow for the use of electronic or other automated means for the purposes of the jury selection process;
(b) expand, for the accused and offenders, the availability of remote appearances by audioconference and videoconference in certain circumstances;
(c) provide for the participation of prospective jurors in the jury selection process by videoconference in certain circumstances;
(d) expand the power of courts to make case management rules permitting court personnel to deal with administrative matters for accused not represented by counsel;
(e) permit courts to order fingerprinting at the interim release stage and at any other stage of the criminal justice process if fingerprints could not previously have been taken for exceptional reasons; and
(f) replace the existing telewarrant provisions with a process that permits a wide variety of search warrants, authorizations and orders to be applied for and issued by a means of telecommunication.
The enactment makes amendments to the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act to correct minor technical errors and includes transitional provisions on the application of the amendments. It also makes related amendments to other Acts.
The enactment also provides for one or more independent reviews on the use of remote proceedings in criminal justice matters.
Lastly, the enactment also provides for a parliamentary review of the provisions enacted or amended by this enactment and of the use of remote proceedings in criminal justice matters to commence at the start of the fifth year following the day on which it receives royal assent.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member was elected in 2019, when I think the bill was introduced, I am wondering whether he discussed it with his leader at the time and said that in order to get the bill passed, he should not call an unnecessary election, since it was such a priority.
Irek Kusmierczyk Liberal Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Mr. Speaker, this is a concrete step the government is taking in consultation with our provincial and territorial partners and other stakeholders. It is an important step to modernize Canada's justice system to make it more efficient and more participatory. I certainly appreciate the fact that it looks like all members of the House will be supporting this critically important bill.
Rachel Bendayan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking to Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other acts at second reading today.
Bill S-4 would reform the Criminal Code and related acts in order to modernize the criminal justice system here in Canada. The bill seeks to provide courts with greater flexibility in the manner in which they conduct their business, while respecting the rights of all participants in our justice system. As a former litigator, I understand and truly believe in the importance of doing this. While I will detail some of the specific measures included in the bill in my speech today, I would like to take a moment to speak more broadly about why modernizing our justice system is so critical, particularly at this time.
Let us take, for example, gender-based violence. Gender-based violence is on the rise. Frontline organizations saw increases in gender-based violence of about 20% during the pandemic. Domestic violence, in particular, is on the rise. We are at the beginning of our 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. Access to justice is a critical piece of solving this puzzle. We have seen backlogs in the courts due to the pandemic. We have seen increases in the demand for our justice system and, in particular, for the time of our judges. Therefore, freeing up resources and ensuring that judges are available in the courts in order to do the work that Canadians need them to do is of fundamental importance in respect of gender-based violence and all forms of violence in this country. Bill S-4 would go a long way toward ensuring that our justice system is not only modernized but is in fact streamlined, and that additional resources are available for litigants who require them.
I will now speak more specifically to the telewarrant-related amendments of Bill S-4, which have been well received by many witnesses. Witnesses noted that these new provisions would simplify the warrant application process, improve access to judicial services and, very importantly, save police resources.
Under the current Criminal Code provisions on telewarrants, peace officers can apply for and obtain only certain investigative warrants by telephone or other means of telecommunication. The telewarrant regime was enacted in the Criminal Code in 1985, so it is time to reform that system.
It is important to remember that the telewarrant regime was established to provide law enforcement with greater access to judges for the purpose of obtaining search warrants. It was established to make it easier to meet some of the challenges associated with policing in a country so vast that the nearest courthouse can easily be 1,000 kilometres away.
The telewarrant provisions have been amended only occasionally since they were first enacted. For instance, they were amended in 1994 to allow for an applicant to request a search warrant by a means of telecommunication capable of rendering the communication in written form. The purpose at the time was to accommodate new forms of written communication, including the fax machine.
During the pandemic, the courts were able to rely on new technologies to reduce the health risks to those involved in the judicial system. This experience demonstrated the important role that technology can play in addressing challenges in the criminal justice system. Accordingly, the expansion of the telewarrant process would provide greater flexibility in how the courts and police can meet the requirements for obtaining investigative tools without having an impact on judicial protections that apply to the issuance of search warrants and other judicial authorizations.
Judges and justices of the peace will continue to rule on these matters in the manner they deem to be most appropriate. With this approach, we are modernizing our judicial system to make justice more efficient and freeing up time and resources for our judges and law enforcement.
Let us talk again about gender-based violence. We know that it is growing at a very alarming rate, and that access to justice is fundamental for women. We are embarking on the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence and we must make the necessary changes to our justice system to ensure better access to justice for all. That is fundamental.
The amendments to the telewarrant process address the following issues. First, the current telewarrant regime is available for only some warrants and investigative orders under the Criminal Code, such as a general warrant or a warrant to obtain blood samples in impaired driving cases. However, the telewarrant regime cannot be used for many common judicial authorizations sought by law enforcement, such as warrants to seize firearms, warrants for trafficking devices and orders to produce data.
In addition, at the present time, telewarrants, as opposed to warrants obtained by personal attendance, may be issued only in respect of indictable offences, and telewarrant applications may be made only to specially designated justices. Furthermore, while public officers responsible for enforcing federal statutes may apply for Criminal Code search warrants and other judicial authorizations, they can do so only by applying in person.
Given the limited scope of the telewarrant process, police officers spend countless hours on the road and waiting outside the office of the justice of the peace at the courthouse to get warrants that cannot currently be requested by a means of telecommunication.
Bill S-4 replaces the current provisions on telewarrants with a simplified, standardized process that will apply to a wide variety of search warrants, orders and investigative authorizations, while maintaining the protective measures for the issuance of judicial authorizations.
One key element of this new process is that where the search warrant application is submitted by means of a telecommunication that produces a writing, for example, an email, a peace officer will no longer be required to meet the existing precondition that is in place right now, that it has to be impracticable to appear in person.
The current in-person search warrant application process often involves hand delivery of applications by police officers at the courthouse, without even an interaction with a judge. By removing the impracticable appearance in person requirement, search warrant applications submitted in written form will be treated in the exact same way, whether they are submitted electronically or in person.
However, the police officer's ability to make an oral application for a search warrant by phone, for example, will be maintained in situations in which it is impracticable to present the application electronically, for example, where the officer is in a remote location with no Internet access. These changes to the current law on accessing telewarrant regimes promote the use of written applications as a standard approach to be followed by law enforcement when applying for their authorizations.
In closing, making it possible to obtain a wider variety of search warrants and other judicial authorizations through technological means will make the criminal justice system more effective by reducing the number of cases where law enforcement is required to obtain those judicial authorizations in person and to physically submit requests for search warrants.
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech on Bill S‑4, among other things.
My colleague spoke at length about the justice system, and I think it is important that we have a strong one. In that regard, there is something that Quebec has been calling for for years but that my colleague did not mention in her speech, nor did I see it in Bill S‑4, which is before us today. I am talking about the whole issue of judicial appointments. Why is it that Quebec judges are appointed by the federal government?
I think it would make sense for Quebec to choose the judges who will be ruling on cases involving Quebeckers. I wonder if her government is open to agreeing to this long-standing request of Quebec's. Is there any chance that might happen one day?
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question, but he obviously did not read Bill S‑4. That is not what we are debating in the House today.
I would be happy to discuss that with him further. I understand very well the issue he raised. However, since it is not part of the bill we are discussing today, I think we should stick to the current topic of debate.
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to work with the hon. member across the way. I put this question to another member of the Liberal caucus in their response to this, but the member could not answer it. I know this member is a learned lawyer with a lot of experience. She spoke at length about how providing resources and materials to the justice system helps access the process of justice.
As a means of addressing the court backlogs, why did the government oppose recommendation 1 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which called on the federal government to remove legal aid funds currently included in the Canada social transfer in favour of a specific earmarked civil legal aid fund for provinces administered under the Department of Justice Canada legal aid program?
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Mr. Speaker, I do not sit on the committee in which that debate took place. I would be happy to take cognizance of the evidence that was before the committee. Like any good lawyer, I will not opine on an issue without having all the facts before me. I certainly appreciate the member's work on the Emergencies Act committee and look forward to continuing the conversation with him.
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Mr. Speaker, today's technology enables us to do things that used to be much harder to do. My colleague mentioned this in her speech, particularly with regard to court delays.
Does my colleague believe that this bill makes sufficient improvements to ensure that fewer cases are thrown out because of the Jordan decision?
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Mr. Speaker, more needs to be done. I agree with my colleague. The question is whether the bill does enough. I think more could be done. As mentioned earlier, Bill S‑4 was introduced in the previous Parliament, and we are receiving it from the other place.
I believe it will improve access to justice and ease the burden on judges, which is good. Is that the end of the story? The answer is no. More needs to be done.
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Mr. Speaker, I will ask the same question I asked the previous member from the government, who did not seem to be able to answer the question. This member was also a member of the government in the last Parliament, when a similar bill was introduced, but the Prime Minister called an unnecessary and early election.
If the bill was such a priority for the government, did the member, as a member of the government then, raise the issue that an election should not be called while we had this kind of legislation pending?
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question to the best of my ability. In my opinion, that election was important. It was a question that was put to Canadians, and Canadians went to the ballot. When Parliament is dissolved, there are always bills before the House that unfortunately do not get passed due to the fact that an election is called. The fact that this bill has returned in this session and could potentially move quickly with the co-operation of all members of the House, is something I feel is important. If all members of the House agree on the importance of this legislation, I am not sure why we cannot move swiftly in order to pass it.
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to speak to Bill S-4. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac. We are looking forward to hearing his comments as well.
As we all know, the goal of this bill is to increase the efficiency, the effectiveness and the accessibility of the criminal justice system in response to the challenges that we had with the COVID-19 pandemic, which has contributed to the enormous backlog that we have in the criminal justice system today.
The Conservatives have been raising concerns about delays and potential for criminals to simply walk free due to the Supreme Court's decision on Jordan. That decision said that no more than 18 months could pass between laying a charge and the end of a trial case in provincial courts or 30 months for cases in superior courts. We have seen a number of cases throughout Canada, provincially, certainly exceeding the 18 months over the last couple of years.
In the interest of serving justice, why would we not implement all the modern tools and resources at our disposal today to maximize productivity?
The resources being considered include amending the process for peace officers to apply and obtain a warrant using telecommunication rather than appear in person and expanding the ability to conduct fingerprinting of the accused at a later date, in exceptional circumstances, should fingerprinting not previously have been taken. The justice would have the discretion to determine what would be considered necessary in these circumstances.
Also being considered is expanding the power of courts to make case management rules permitting court personnel to deal with administrative matters for accused who are not presented by counsel. We currently have a case in Saskatoon to which this certainly applies. Currently, this only applies to those represented by counsel.
Also being considered is expanding the ability for the accused and offenders to appear remotely by audio conference or even video conference in certain circumstances and the allowing of the participation of prospective jurors in the jury selection process by video conference if deemed appropriate and if the prosecutor and the accused consent, as well as using electronic and automatic means to select jurors.
Some of these modernizations are beneficial from both a safety and a financial perspective. For example, participating virtually would cut down on the transportation time and the cost and the resources needed to transport and protect the accused.
As we know, transportation costs are skyrocketing, it seems like every day. We all know that. It is not an insignificant consideration, considering the price of diesel and gas, especially in remote and northern communities.
The federal ombudsman for victims of crime has also raised a number of concerns regarding the impact of COVID-19 on the justice system, which must be carefully weighed in the consideration of Bill S-4.
The ombudsman pointed out that accessing justice in remote areas of the country, where bandwidth and Internet access remain an issue, could have a negative impact on the delivery of justice. We would not want to see that.
She also flagged the issue of ensuring that jurors remain anonymous and the potential to compromise their privacy with facial recognition software. For some victims and their families, it is an important part of their healing process to see the accused and the offenders in person or by video conference. In these situations, the use of a telephone would certainly deprive them of this opportunity.
The needs of the victim must, and I repeat, must always be weighed when considering an amendment to the Criminal Code.
Access to the Internet for rural Canadians has been a long issue in our country. The current government has promised for years to improve access to the Internet, and we know that this is a big issue in rural Saskatchewan, where I live, and certainly in remote and northern spots in Canada. It is blotchy at best, as it cuts in and out, and it has been an issue for the last seven years that the government has been in office.
Not everyone has access to the Internet. We saw this during COVID where schools tried to participate in classrooms and some did not even have access to a computer. There are issues with the Internet, which is a concern for prospective jurors to appear by video conference during the jury selection.
A jury summons, as we all know, is a very serious responsibility. However, I think many Canadians simply cannot take time off, particularly if one is a small business owner. It is near impossible for many to be compensated properly. As we all know, time is money and for the majority in our country, the two are certainly hard to fit in when someone does open that letter up and has been selected for jury duty.
Our legal system, without question, and we have talked about it for the last two days in this place, needs to improve. Bill S-4 aims to increase the efficiency, effectiveness and accessibility of the criminal justice system in response to the challenges that we have heard of over the last two years with the pandemic. The bill would also clarify and somewhat broaden the circumstances under which accused individuals, the offenders and others involved in criminal proceedings, may appear by audio conference or video conference.
I want to step back and have members think about the horrible incident we had at the James Smith reserve in my province of Saskatchewan, where, unfortunately, 11 people lost their lives over a warrant that had been out for months for Myles Sanderson.
If members recall, Sanderson became one of the worst mass murders in Canadian history. That day was September 4. Sanderson murdered 11 and injured 18 others during an early morning killing spree. In total, when Sanderson did die, he had been charged with 125 crimes. James Smith is a small community, roughly about 1,900, in northeast Saskatchewan. Therefore, when we see tragedies like this occur, we often have to ask ourselves if we could have prevented this. The warning signals were there for months, if not years.
It is not a coincidence that, since 2015, the violent crime rate in Canada has gone up 32%. This is a staggering statistic that for which the government must answer.
The community of James Smith is now left to pick up the pieces of this senseless act. The community has been victimized. Victims should be given at least as much consideration as offenders, but in Bill S-4, they are not even mentioned once. This soft-on-crime agenda by the Liberal government is not serving justice in our country.
The bill follows other pre-pandemic efforts to modernize the criminal justice system and reduce the delays in court proceedings. Delays in the criminal justice were already a serious issue before the pandemic. The measures contained in Bill S-4 would both modernize and make it more efficient, hopefully, for certain aspects of the delivery of justice.
Several family members have come forward in recent weeks with traumatic stories from the James Smith Cree Nation tragedy. Their stories are a crucial part in the healing process in the delivery of justice on that reserve. These are people we must be mindful of when crafting, carefully, this legislation. If we get the bill right, it will balance the need to improve efficiency with the rights of the people it serves, and always consider the victims and their families as a cornerstone of any justice legislation.
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
November 24th, 2022 / 12:45 p.m.
See
context
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, Bill S-4 takes into consideration the idea of technology and the experiences we had during the pandemic. The judicial system sees the benefits of having video conferencing and incorporating that. It is legislation that has been around for quite a while now. It even predates the last federal election.
I understand the Conservatives will be supporting the legislation, and they have taken the opportunity to add additional comments. The additional comments leave the impression that the Conservatives are tough on crime and that they think about the victims. They can say what they like but it is important to recognize that I believe all parties in the chamber understand and have a great deal of sympathy and empathy for victims. We have a judicial system to protect the interests of all Canadians. It is something of which we can be proud.
Does the member not feel that given the very nature of the support of the legislation that we can all get behind it? It is important to recognize technology and the advancements of it.
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
Mr. Speaker, I brought up the victims, because they are not mentioned in Bill S-4. The tragedy in James Smith Cree Nation in Saskatchewan happened on September 4. Now we are at the end of November. Many families and relatives have been victimized more than ever over the last three months. We have not spoken to that.
Every day, the Saskatoon Star Phoenix or other news organizations in Saskatchewan talk about the healing process. It might take months, if not years, if ever to forget what happened when Myles Sanderson took the lives of 11 people.
There is no question that we need to modernize the justice system. If we had the time, we probably should modernize the House of Commons. We get stuck in our ways over the years and the decades, but this is one thing on which we can all agree. The justice system needs to end the backlog and get people in front of the courts sooner rather than later.
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Mr. Speaker, approximately 80% of communication is non-verbal. An individual can say something and their face and movements will convey something different. Although video conferencing allows people to see each other, part of the message is lost because of the framing, lighting or other factors. Conversely, the message can also be amplified for the same and other reasons. It can lead to misinterpretation, both in the case of jury selection or the reaction of suspects.
I would like to know if, in cases such as the ones I described, my colleague could provide some solutions to avoid judicial mistakes being made because of the misinterpretation of non-verbal clues.