Bill S-4

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other Acts (COVID-19 response and other measures)

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.

Criminal Code

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to stand in this place to represent the constituents of Avalon. I am pleased to have the opportunity to provide an overview of some of the key areas of reform proposed in Bill S-4, an act that would amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and make related amendments to other acts.

Bill S-4 would increase the efficiency and effectiveness of criminal proceedings by giving courts more flexibility and clarity in response to the particular challenges that arose in the pandemic. When the COVID-19 pandemic began, the remote appearance provisions in the Criminal Code had just been reformed through a former bill, Bill C-75, in 2019. Those amendments had been informed by the 2013 report of the Steering Committee on Justice Efficiencies and Access to the Justice System, entitled “Report on the Use of Technology in the Criminal Justice System”, as well as consultations with provincial and territorial governments.

Bill S-4 continues to build on those reforms, taking into account new calls for reform by those working in the criminal justice system during the pandemic and courts' experiences with the increased use of technology that occurred as a result.

My remarks today will focus on the necessity of the proposed amendments relating to remote proceedings, which represent a continuation of existing legal practices here in Canada.

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, criminal court proceedings were presumptively held in person. Remote appearances were permitted under the Criminal Code but were very much the exception. There were provisions in the Criminal Code to allow people to attend some proceedings by way of audio or visual connection, but since they were not routinely used, legal clarification or guidance was needed.

The pandemic had an abrupt and immediate effect on the operation of courts, as courts across Canada shut down for periods of time and had to figure out how to operate without in-person attendance or with very limited in-person attendance. To cope with the pandemic and maintain the administration of justice, including maintaining access to the courts, courts around the country pivoted away from in-person appearances and held numerous hearings and matters in a virtual space.

The COVID-19 pandemic forced changes to how courts operate. Unrestricted in-person appearances were no longer permitted, and initially courts were forced to adjourn the majority of appearances, ranging from pleas to trials. This created a backlog of cases in the court system that still needed to be heard, regardless of the circumstances of the pandemic. In many cases, having participants appear by video conference when possible allowed court operations to resume.

However, even with courts adapting and modernizing to address the challenges they faced during the pandemic, many remain unable to operate at their prepandemic capacity. Indeed, the median length of time for an adult case to resolve in criminal court increased when compared with prepandemic levels. Further complicating matters was the fact that the number of adult criminal court cases that exceeded the presumptive time limits set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Jordan had increased significantly since the onset of the pandemic.

Bill S-4 targets changes to the Criminal Code that would give courts increased flexibility in how they hold criminal proceedings and how they issue orders such as search warrants and production orders in the context of an investigation. These changes are needed to address the ongoing pressures on the criminal court system brought to light by the COVID-19 pandemic and enhance access to justice for all Canadians, now and in the future. A key impact of these provisions would be a more efficient justice system that is equipped to serve Canadians and address the backlog of cases caused by the pandemic.

Allowing and continuing remote appearances is not just about responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. Remote appearances would provide greater flexibility for courts to continue proceedings when it is not possible to do so in person for other reasons, such as natural disasters. During its study of the bill, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs heard witness testimony about the closure of the Calgary courthouse during the floods of 2013. Due to the natural disaster, the court was forced to close proceedings for a period of time. Matters could not be heard and were adjourned.

The changes proposed in Bill S-4 make clear that certain proceedings can move ahead by audio or visual conference, even when in-person attendance is not possible or safe, allowing courts to operate as efficiently as possible in the interest of all participants in the criminal justice system.

While there has been acceptance of proceedings occurring by way of audio or video conference, the reforms included in Bill S-4 do not seek to make this the norm or default. Indeed, as before, the principle set out in the Criminal Code will continue to be: “Except as otherwise provided... a person who appears at, participates in or presides at a proceeding shall do so in person.” This principle would not change. Rather than upending the legal system, the bill would continue to allow the flexibility of proceedings in a manner that makes sense in the circumstances, with appropriate safeguards built in.

When considering whether to authorize remote proceedings, courts will be obligated to consider the impact on the safety of the participants, while supporting greater access to justice moving forward, including for those living in remote communities. Courts would also be required to ensure that decisions to authorize remote appearances are exercised in accordance with the charter, including the right of an accused person to make full answer and defence, and to have a fair and public hearing.

While Bill S-4 would clarify and expand when remote appearances are possible, it would not be the first to introduce these concepts into the Criminal Code. At committee, there were some concerns expressed over a judge's ability to assess the credibility of witnesses and accused persons during remote proceedings, as well as the importance of protecting an accused person's ability to face their accuser.

While these are important considerations the court must turn its mind to in each case, they are not unique to the provisions Bill S-4 would amend. Indeed, courts have found that seeing a complainant or witness face to face is not fundamental to our system of justice, and the Criminal Code has permitted remote attendance by witnesses for more than 20 years.

Subsection 800(2.1) has authorized summary conviction trials by video for in-custody accused since 1997. Sections 714.1 and 714.2 have permitted appearances by witnesses by video conference since 1999. Bill C-75, which was passed by this House in 2019, modernized and facilitated some appearances by audio and video conference of all persons involved in criminal cases, including judges, under certain circumstances.

Rather than overhauling criminal procedure, Bill S-4 would continue to permit proceedings by remote appearance. The bill would pick up where Bill C-75 left off, in light of the experience that was gained and the questions that arose with use of technology in the criminal courts during the pandemic. Bill S-4 would make practical and necessary amendments to the Criminal Code. These amendments would facilitate efficient operation of the criminal courts and have a direct impact on people who need or want to access the criminal justice system. The bill is not intended to make remote trials and hearings the norm, but rather would give the courts the flexibility to proceed in this manner when it is appropriate under the circumstances and where the technology exists.

These are limited but necessary reforms that have been developed in consultation with the provinces and territories and take into consideration the views of stakeholders. I am confident the bill and the proposed reforms would improve efficiencies in our criminal justice system while still providing careful oversight by the courts to ensure that the rights of accused persons and offenders are protected with the use of technology.

For these reasons, I urge all members to support Bill S-4.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Madam Speaker, there is never a good or bad time to introduce a bill.

There have already been amendments to the bill introduced last year. We worked with the Senate committee, the provinces and the territories, legal experts and people who offered recommendations. Starting last year, we made improvements to the bill and we made sure that Bill S‑4 was up to date and ready to be introduced.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague across the aisle asks an excellent question.

She listed bills that are part of the reform of the judicial system, but she forgot Bill C-23, which was introduced last year and is a precursor of Bill S-4, the bill we are studying today. It is fair to say that there have been changes since the last legislature.

All of this is thanks to the consultations we conducted with major stakeholders, including the provinces and territories, which took part in the decision-making process and helped us amend the former bill and come up with Bill S-4. It is a step in the right direction.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will repeat a question that seemed important to the Quebec bar association, which made a few recommendations concerning Bill S-4. Some of them were accepted, which is good.

In the House, we studied Bill C-75 to amend the Criminal Code and the Youth Criminal Justice Act. We also studied Bill C-5 to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Now we are studying Bill S-4, and the Quebec bar association made what we think is a very wise recommendation about this bill. Rather than make changes piecemeal, would it not be time for an overall reform that includes all of these changes? It is a question of consistency.

Does my colleague agree?

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Rural Economic Development]

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Avalon.

I am pleased to be here today to take part in the debate on Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other acts regarding the COVID-19 response and other measures. This relates to the changes made during COVID-19.

Bill S‑4 proposes changes to the Criminal Code and other acts to correct procedural problems that criminal courts faced during the COVID-19 pandemic. We used some good examples to draft the bill we are debating today.

From the outset, I would like acknowledge the contribution of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, which carried out an in-depth study of Bill S‑4 last spring. After it heard from more than 20 witnesses and reviewed a large number of documents in a very short amount of time, the bill passed third reading stage in the Senate on June 21, 2022.

The Senate adopted two amendments. The first requires the Minister of Justice to initiate an independent review on the use of remote proceedings in criminal justice matters no later than three years after the day on which the act receives royal assent, and that he report to each house of Parliament no later than five years after the day on which a review is initiated. The second requires a parliamentary review at the start of the fifth year after the day on which the act receives royal assent. These amendments are valid, and they will help ensure an effective review of the use of remote proceedings and other provisions of the act.

The reforms provided for in Bill S‑4 include the following proposals: clarify and expand the availability of remote appearances for certain criminal proceedings; provide for the participation of prospective jurors by video conference in certain circumstances; expand the power of courts to deal with administrative matters related to extrajudicial procedures for accused not represented by counsel; and improve the fingerprinting system.

In my speech, I will focus on how these specific proposals will make the criminal justice system more efficient and improve access to justice across Canada, while alleviating some of the intense pressure on courts to deal with delays and backlogs in the system.

One of the main ways Bill S-4 will make the system more efficient is by making the act clearer with respect to the court's discretion to allow the use of technology in all criminal proceedings involving preliminary inquiries, trials, pleas and sentencing.

The safeguards in the bill requiring consent and the factors that courts will have to take into account in exercising their discretion are key to understanding how the law regarding remote appearances will be clarified and enhanced. Their purpose is to help courts allow the use of technology only where appropriate, while ensuring that the accused's rights and freedoms are protected at all times.

The reforms provided for in Bill S‑4 will also make it possible to use technology in the jury selection process. With the parties' consent, the court will be able to allow or require prospective jurors to participate in the jury selection process by video conference instead of in person at the courthouse. A prospective juror is a person who is summoned to court to take part in the jury selection process. This will improve access to the justice system for ordinary people who are legally required to take part in the jury selection process, but who may not be able to go to the courthouse in person because of certain obstacles.

For instance, they may not be able to take a full day off work, or they may not have access to public transit or amenities in certain regions. They may also simply be unable to find parking downtown, where courthouses are located. This bill could solve a number of mobility issues. Other obstacles may include health problems, a lack of child care or even bad weather, similar to what we have seen recently.

A more flexible jury selection process will also help increase jury participation and diversity, which is essential to keeping our criminal justice system running smoothly. Since the jury selection process can often involve hundreds of people gathering in person at the courthouse at the same time, the use of technology could also ensure that the proceedings do not need to be adjourned because of health risks or other difficulties before the trial even begins. It could prevent jury trials from having to be postponed or suspended, which frequently happened during the pandemic because of physical distancing requirements.

In a way, we are taking advantage of what happened during the pandemic to improve the system, while bearing in mind that, when we came to power in 2015, Internet service was unreliable, or at least less reliable than it is today. Today we can say that we have invested significantly in Internet coverage. By 2026, 98% of Canadians will have Internet access. This means that today, we can think about improving the system to better meet needs in remote regions. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Rural Economic Development, I have visited and travelled through many regions, and I can attest to the fact that we need to provide more services for rural and remote regions.

The amendments to this bill respecting jury selection include safeguards. The accused and the prosecutor will have to consent to an order allowing or requiring prospective jurors to participate by video conference. In addition, the court will have to determine whether such an order is appropriate, taking into account circumstances like the privacy and security of the prospective jurors and the challenges they face when it comes to in-person participation, as well as the accused's right to a fair and public hearing.

What is important to remember is that the use of technology is optional and at the judge’s discretion. It is not compulsory. It will help courts ensure the effective and efficient administration of justice. The proposed reforms will also better equip the courts to continue to operate during difficult times, whether because of a pandemic, which we experienced, a flood, which I experienced twice in my riding since 2015, or any other situation that could have an adverse impact on physical access to courthouses in the future.

Although these reforms can be put to greater use in the management of exceptional and urgent situations, they are not limited to such circumstances. They will apply on an ongoing basis so as to make sure our courts continue to offer technology use options in the years to come. In addition to improving the Criminal Code regime governing the use of technology, other reforms in this bill will improve access to justice and the efficiency of our criminal courts. For example, Bill S-4 will expand the power of courts to make case management rules permitting court personnel to deal with administrative matters related to extrajudicial proceedings for accused not represented by counsel.

We need to act and support this bill.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, we are supporting Bill S-4, but there are concerns about access. The hon. member mentions access to virtual opportunities for victims and offenders. Well, as mentioned in a previous question, not all Canadians have that access right now. Not all Canadians would have the ability to connect from where they are in their communities to a virtual parole hearing or a virtual jury selection procedure.

We need to maintain a focus on improving our justice system, and technology can play an important role in that. However, we always have to have victims at the forefront. I have mentioned to the hon. member the lack of an acknowledgement of victims in other Liberal government legislation, and we continue to see that here. Even in my own riding, individuals are unable to access virtual opportunities because they do not have the capability to do that in a rural community.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has hit on a great point. We have all heard the expression “justice delayed is justice denied”, and in our country currently, under the Jordan principle, justice delayed can result in a case being completely thrown out. The Supreme Court has ruled that if a case is taking too long, charges have to be dropped against an offender.

That is why I call into question the government's narrative on the urgency of this. This bill, as I mentioned in my speech, was introduced originally as Bill C-23 a couple of years ago. What happened in the intervening time? An unnecessary election reset the clock, and here we are today studying Bill S-4.

The Conservatives support Bill S-4. There are some necessary improvements in there, but we need to maintain our focus on supporting victims and their families.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, the member for Fundy Royal spent much of his time not actually talking about Bill S-4. I am not sure if he read the whole bill, but he talked about consent and how it is mentioned in numbers. The bill does provide options for legal counsel. With the consent of the prosecutor and consent of the accused, in proceedings, the accused can appear through a lawyer so that there is not only a reliance on the accused being in court.

Having said that, I know that the member represents a riding that is rural. Does he agree that Canadians living in rural and remote communities, especially given the size of Nunavut, should have the same access to the technology needed for serving a jury summons so that victims whose justice is delayed will actually get the justice they deserve through this bill?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, I should remind members that 2015 is the year the Liberal government was elected.

Being soft on crime does not work. In our rural communities, in our suburbs, in our big cities and across this country, we are seeing people who are victimizing. Whether it is property crime, serious violent crime or sexual offences, we are seeing people who should be approached in a tougher manner being let back out onto the street to commit the same offences, and it has resulted in a 32% increase in violent crime.

This is not me saying that; this is Statistics Canada. It produces statistics on these things. That is evidence, and we should take evidence into account when we look at what works and what does not. I feel, and I know my Conservative colleagues feel, that one of our top priorities as members of Parliament should be the protection of innocent Canadians, the protection of families in our communities and the protection of our communities.

Does that mean we do not think offenders should get the help they need and those struggling with addiction should get the help they need? Of course they should, but we are not doing our communities any favours, and we are not doing offenders any favours, by having zero consequence for serious offences.

Bill S-4 mentions the consent of the offender 10 times. In my own riding, we have a serious story from years ago. A young woman, who was 16 years old, was working in her father's grocery store and was murdered by an offender. The offender received a life sentence.

The victim's father became an advocate for victims of crime. I met with him many times. He was a councillor in one of our communities. He spoke passionately about ways governments could support victims of crime. When we were in government, we acted on some of his recommendations and recommendations from other victims of crime.

His family would travel to Quebec for parole hearings to support the loved one who lost her life all those years ago in the eighties. They would go every two years to these parole hearings. There were times when they would have driven 10 hours, and the offender would cancel the parole hearing. The family would have to go back home not having had the parole hearing. They had many recommendations.

This same case was in the news within the last month when Correctional Service Canada, without notifying the family, said that individual was on the loose and it did not know where they were. Every two years, this family has been there in person trying to keep the individual behind bars where they belong. Obviously that caused great concern for this family. The offender is now back in custody but is still eligible for parole hearings every other year.

Those parole hearings, in person or virtual, continue to revictimize families. That is one of the principal reasons one of the pieces of legislation I am most proud of in my career as a parliamentarian, which we brought forward as a Conservative government, was respect for each individual victim's life in the case of mass murderers.

In Canada, when someone gets a life sentence, some people mistakenly think that a mass murderer or someone who commits first-degree murder is going to be behind bars for the rest of their life. We hear “life sentence” and think they will be in for life, but that is not how it works.

After 25 years, parole eligibility begins. An individual is eligible to be released after 25 years. Let us talk about what that means in the case of a mass murderer, like the individual who took the life of Tim Bosma. His widow, Sharlene, appeared at our justice committee recently to speak about victims of crime.

This is someone who has been through unimaginable pain. She eloquently spoke about her efforts and about the one solace she took. The mass murderer, this individual, was convicted of killing not only her husband, Tim, but also two other people. He had taken three lives. The only solace she took in this whole process was knowing her daughter would never have to attend a parole hearing.

The offender received a 75-year parole ineligibility period thanks to Conservative legislation that allowed consecutive periods of parole ineligibility. This means not just 25 years, but if someone takes three lives, it is 75 years. Before this a family would have to go through the very difficult process of ripping off that band-aid and having to relive the worst events of their life. That was the one solace she took.

As members in the House know, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down those provisions. This affects the individual who took the life of Tim Bosma and the individual who took the lives of three RCMP officers in Moncton, New Brunswick.

I remember that day very well. We were gathered here. We were in the lobby and watching this unfold. Three lives were taken, with a 75-year parole ineligibility period.

Because of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision just a couple of weeks ago, all of those individuals are now eligible for parole after 25 years. Does this mean they are going to be on the streets in under 25 years because they have already been serving their sentences? No, not necessarily. Maybe they will; maybe they will not. However, what this definitely means is that all of these families, including Sharlene Bosma's young daughter, are going to some day have to attend a parole hearing, look at the offender and argue why that individual, who took the life of their loved one, should have to stay behind bars.

Why am I speaking about these things? It is because victims have to be at the centre of all legislation, including Bill S-4. When I see a bill that mentions the consent of the offender 10 times and mentions the consent of the victim zero times, it raises concern for me.

Some of what is in Bill S-4 is necessary. It allows for virtual measures where appropriate, allows police officers to apply for and obtain warrants using telecommunications and conduct fingerprinting of the accused at a later date should fingerprints not previously have been taken, expands the power of courts to make case management rules, expands the ability of the accused and offenders to appear remotely by audioconference and video conference in certain circumstances, allows for the participation of prospective jurors in the jury selection process by video conference if deemed appropriate and allows for the use of electronic or automated means to select jurors rather than the current practice of having the clerk of the court draw names from a box.

Some of these measures make sense. That is why, overall, the Conservatives are supporting Bill S-4. However, there are a couple of things we are looking for. One is a recognition of the role of the victims.

The justice committee is completing a study on victims of crime. There was a Conservative motion asking that we study the impact of the justice system and how we can better serve victims of crime. I spoke already to some of the testimony we heard about how the justice system is stacked toward the offenders. Victims' families are in the dark. Victims are in the dark. These are victims of all kinds of crimes, whether it be property crime or violent crime. Individuals who have had a loved one taken from them are in the dark about the system.

The supports are not there as they should be, so when victims see a bill that mentions the consent of the accused 10 times and mentions victims zero times, it leads them to conclude once again that they are the afterthought in a piece of legislation. That perpetuates a justice system that is out of balance and does not put victims first. One of the things we are looking for is a refocus in this legislation on victims, their rights and making sure that nothing is done in this process that undermines the ability of a victim to feel a sense of engagement and justice to the extent they wish to in the process.

We have heard from other speakers about the urgency of this legislation. The Liberals have been in power for seven years. If we listen to them with respect to this legislation, they say these measures were called for and needed pre-COVID. To be very clear, the justice system was already severely delayed before COVID. Of course, COVID made it worse. I mentioned this in a question to a previous speaker. The Prime Minister reset the clock on this bill when he called an unnecessary and ironically COVID-related election, and here we are today debating this bill.

As Conservatives, we are going to continue to focus on the rights of victims and on making sure we have a justice system that takes serious crimes seriously and protects the interests of victims every step of the way.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to be able to rise today to join in the debate on Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other acts.

As has been mentioned during the course of this debate, we have heard the government speak about the urgency of the passage of this legislation, but some of the measures in here, certainly, were required long before the COVID pandemic. There are others that raise some concerns about justice, particularly when it comes to respect for victims of crime. I will include victims and their families in that.

In Bill S-4 the consent of the offender is mentioned 10 times. Let us contrast that. How many times does Bill S-4 mention the consent of a victim, the consent of a victim's family in proceeding by way other than an in-person meeting? The answer, not surprisingly, is zero. Not once does this bill mention the consent of the victim or their family, all the while speaking about the consent of an offender.

I would love to say I am surprised, or that maybe there is something we are missing here, but the fact is that this is in line with the overall agenda of the government when it comes to our criminal justice system.

We only have to look at the bills that have come before the House. We only have to look at the selective response to certain Supreme Court of Canada decisions to realize that this is a government that does not put the rights of victims first.

To use an example, we saw yesterday, in the public safety committee, a grand expansion of the law when it comes to going after law-abiding citizens, duck hunters, hunters, our constituents, all of our collective constituents who are law-abiding firearms owners. They do this in the name of combatting crime. We are targeting non-criminals in an effort to combat crime.

If we speak to the experts, if we speak to police, if we speak to big-city mayors, they will tell us that the source of illegal firearms, the source of firearms being used by gangs, is our border, our porous border, and the illegal importation of firearms.

Knowing that the illegal trafficking and importation of firearms is the cause of the firearms being on the street, that law-abiding citizens are not the cause, it would lead us to a logical conclusion that we should target that illegal importation, in direct contrast to what the government is doing in Bill C-22, which is targeting duck hunters, farmers and sports shooters, people who are not criminals and people who are not a threat.

What are we doing about the real threat? What are we doing about the importers, the traffickers?

There is another bill that was just passed through the Senate, Bill C-5. What that bill does is say that if someone has trafficked in a firearm, has used a firearm in the commission of an offence or in extortion, or if someone has fired a firearm with intent, they no longer, as the case has been for years, have to serve time in jail. They can go back onto the street. They can go back into the community where they committed the offence.

Where did this law come from that said a person has to serve time in jail if they commit these offences? Did it come from the previous Conservative government?

The government would love us to believe that this tough-on-crime measure came from the previous Conservative government, but if we bother to look at the facts and the evidence, the evidence says all of those mandatory penalties were in place since the 1970s, since the time of the Prime Minister's father being prime minister. Some of them were introduced when the Prime Minister's father was both prime minister and justice minister.

The Liberals love to say these are unconstitutional mandatory penalties.

What does the Supreme Court have to say about this? There was a recent case from just a couple of weeks ago involving a mandatory penalty for drug trafficking, and the Supreme Court considered that and considered the seriousness in our communities of the crisis, whether it is fentanyl, cocaine or heroin.

The government of the day was a Conservative government, and I am proud to say, in an effort to combat those crimes, we said that if someone were going to traffic, produce or import these serious drugs, they were going to have to serve actual time in jail. The current government has said, in Bill C-5, that it does not believe that, and it believes those people should be able to be back on the street.

What did the Supreme Court of Canada say? The Supreme Court of Canada upheld those provisions. It said they are constitutional and that the seriousness of these offences, when weighed with Parliament's legislative prerogative, means that Parliament was entitled, and that it was indeed constitutional, to have brought in that measure that says if someone imports, traffics or produces cocaine, fentanyl or heroin, they are going to go to jail and be taken off the street.

Does being soft on crime work? We have heard it called “hug a thug”, “soft on crime” or “a revolving door justice system”, in which, if someone commits a crime, there are no consequences and they go back on the street. Does that approach work? Why do we not look at the evidence? The evidence was just released this week, not by the Conservative Party but by Statistics Canada. The evidence says that the homicide rate in Canada has increased for three consecutive years.

The homicide rate in Canada is at the highest rate it has been since 2005. Why is 2005 significant? That was the last year of the previous Liberal government. The Conservative government came to power in 2006, and we had an agenda to straighten out our justice system, to respect victims, to put victims at the forefront and to say to serious offenders, “recidivist”.

What is a recidivist? A recidivist is someone who commits a crime; gets caught; gets tried in a court of law; gets sentenced, whether to jail time or house arrest; goes back on the street and does the same thing again and again. That is recidivism. The courts have said, and we have said, that we have to focus on criminals, and we did that.

Over the last seven years we have seen a Liberal government. The percentage I am about to say should shock all of us in the room and should shock all Canadians. The violent crime rate in Canada, since 2015, has increased 32%. That is not acceptable. That is in our rural communities—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, there are a number of factors that have to be calculated into a call of a federal election, such as the opposition's behaviour in playing obstruction and not allowing anything to pass. Canadians should not be fooled to believe that the Conservative Party was even going to be prepared to allow that legislation to pass.

We will have to wait to see what takes place with Bill S-4. I am suggesting that we once again have unanimous support. It would appear that every member of the House of Commons is going to be supporting the legislation. Hopefully, the Conservatives will allow this legislation to pass without time allocation, but only time will prevail. We will find out.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Rural Economic Development]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal government is the one that has been improving Internet coverage since 2015. That has never been seen before in Canada.

Today, we can modernize the systems and make them accessible. Today, we can move forward with technologies that we could not even talk about in 2015.

What is more, we made a commitment to connect nearly 98% of the population by 2026. That is like tomorrow morning in politics.

I would like my colleague to tell us how important it is to pass Bill S-4.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague opposite cannot say that I never agree with him. In general, I agree with him on Bill S-4.

That being said, there are problems that this bill does not resolve. The bill does, however, make it possible to revert back to the standard, usual, traditional way of doing things in the event of connection issues.

The fact remains that there are many judicial vacancies and that the Parole Board of Canada has internal issues.

When will these problems be fixed? When will the government ensure that the judges who are appointed are not appointed for partisan reasons?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member asked two questions and I will provide some detail on both.

Regarding legal aid and the financing of legal aid, we need to recognize that there are jurisdictional responsibilities at both the federal and the provincial level. In terms of legal aid, there is an obligation for the federal government to work with the different provincial jurisdictions. I do not know if that answer will satisfy the member, but that is the reality. There is a sense of obligation to work with the different provincial entities, and I just do not know the more detailed background work that has been done on that.

Regarding Bill S-4 and its predecessor as a piece of government legislation, the original legislation came out through the House of Commons. One of the ways we can ensure we get it passed is to have support, and the Senate has been fantastic in ensuring that we can have the legislation before us today. Hopefully we will be able to get it through even more quickly.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is such a pleasure to speak to legislation. Once again, the government is providing very progressive legislation that will make a real difference in our judicial system.

I very much would like to emphasize just how important it is to take a look at Canada as a society and how we are envied around the world. One of the reasons for that is because we understand the importance of judicial independence. There is the political realm and the judicial realm, the rule of law. Canada is recognized for this around the world and is held in fairly high esteem. In fact, many jurisdictions around the world look to the Canada system. Whether it is our Constitution, Charter of Rights or how our judicial system is so successful in providing the public confidence, they are really second to no other.

I would like to refer to my father. Many years ago, after he was unable to go to work due to personal disabilities, he took a great deal of time, and made it a hobby, to go to the courts to listen to the proceedings. He virtually was there on a full-time basis. As a result, his confidence in the system grew to a point where he had a wonderful relationship with a number of judges and attorneys both on the Crown side and the defence side. He had a very good understanding.

I use that as an example because I believe that if people had a good assessment of what takes place in our judicial system, it would add to public confidence.

Personally, as a chair of a youth justice committee for many years, I had the privilege of working on the balance, the community needs and desires and the need for some form of consequence or disposition that was fair to all sides, including victims and the perpetrators. Through that experience, I gained a deeper respect for our judicial system and the importance of it being independent of politics.

Let us fast-forward to the pandemic. We have heard the Prime Minister, many of my Liberal colleagues and members on all sides of the House recognize that things occurred during the pandemic from which we all can learn. A good example of that is Zoom. Three-and-a-half years ago, I did not even know Zoom existed, and now it is a major part of my life. We can look at the House of Commons' hybrid system. Now members of Parliament from British Columbia, as an example, who are serving their constituents in their ridings, can speak on the floor of the House of Commons.

Why is that relevant to this legislation? Because this legislation, in essence, is about that. We are looking for ways to improve our judicial system. During the pandemic, certain aspects of our judicial system incorporated a more virtual contribution to the delivery of justice. That is the essence of what this bill would do.

It is important to recognize that accessibility, efficiency and effectiveness are three fundamental pillars of justice. We need to strive for that. We in government have been doing that from day one, with a number of substantial pieces of legislation to make our judicial system that much better and stronger. We have seen over the last couple of years, that the courts desire this. When I say “courts”, I mean it in the broader sense of the word, all the different stakeholders at play, whether it is victims, perpetrators, lawyers, court clerks, sheriffs, everyone involved. I suspect we would find universal acceptance on the need for modernization. That is the essence of Bill S-4.

Bill S-4 proposes a range of reforms that would make court proceedings more flexible, while protecting the rights of all participants. It would enable presentations of different forms to be done by video conference. As we look at the whole issue of modernization and how things have changed through time, we all have an obligation to look at ways to support our courts and our judicial system, and it is not unique.

In fact, members will recall Rona Ambrose's private member's bill that had recommendations that we, as legislators, felt would be in the best interest of our judicial system to ensure there was an educational component on sexual violence. After the former leader of the Conservative Party brought forward the legislation, we could not get it passed through the private members' system. The government very quickly then took the initiative and made it happen, and there was unanimous support for it.

Yesterday, during the debate on Bill S-4, we started to see the same thing. Members of the Conservative Party, the Bloc Party, the NDP and Green Party indicated support for it. It seems that once again we have achieved unanimous support for progressive legislation that will help us modernize our court system.

This has been around for a while and there is no reason why we could not see it go to committee and listen to the stakeholders. I know a great number of stakeholders have been waiting to see this legislation advance, and hopefully we will do that.