This bill is from the 44th Parliament, 1st session, which ended in January 2025.
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.
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 Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other S-4s:
This is a computer-generated summary of the speeches below. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Bill S-4 aims to modernize the criminal justice system by amending the Criminal Code and related acts. The bill expands the use of technology in court proceedings, including remote appearances, electronic jury selection, and telewarrants, while maintaining judicial discretion and ensuring the protection of accused persons' rights. It seeks to address court backlogs exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and improve efficiency, but concerns have been raised regarding potential impacts on victim's rights, fairness, access to technology, and the overall administration of justice.
Conservative
NDP
Bloc
Liberal
Ken McDonald Liberal Avalon, NL
Madam Speaker, I do not think we are showing favouritism to one side or the other. From my perspective, victims should have every opportunity to appear by video conference or in person, if they want to face the perpetrator in any particular case.
I hope everybody will support this going forward. When the bill goes to committee, maybe some amendments could be made to enhance it and make sure that is the case for anyone who has a problem with the courts or the decisions being made today.
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois does agree that this is a good bill, although it does not address all the issues. No one will be surprised to hear that we will be supporting it.
However, we can all agree that the bill does not resolve all the problems with the Criminal Code. There is something wrong with the Criminal Code. Non-governmental organizations, or NGOs, that want to work in Afghanistan to help the people there cannot do so because they could be prosecuted, given that the Taliban are on the Criminal Code’s list of terrorist organizations. They cannot deal with the Taliban because they could be charged under the Criminal Code. The government could have changed that, but it did not.
I would like to know whether my hon. colleague would agree to amend the Criminal Code so that our NGOs could do their work in Afghanistan.
Ken McDonald Liberal Avalon, NL
Madam Speaker, I certainly would support that amendment to make sure everybody could have an opportunity to appear as a witness or take part in any court proceeding. I do not think people should be limited by not being able to appear on their own behalf or on behalf of others.
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Madam Speaker, there is a fundamental principle that justice delayed is justice denied. We have heard all the various ways in which our legal system is falling apart with backlogs. This bill addresses one administrative part, but I think about those who are awaiting trial in custody, being held on remand, and the great delay in the government's bringing this legislation back.
In particular, as a means of addressing court backlogs, why did the government oppose recommendation 1 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights 2017 report on access to justice? Legal aid called on the government to remove legal aid funding currently included in the Canada social transfers in favour of a specific earmarked civil legal aid fund for provinces, to be administered under the Department of Justice.
Ken McDonald Liberal Avalon, NL
Madam Speaker, I am not quite familiar with that provision. I will certainly look at it to see exactly what it says, but I am sure there was a valid reason for not removing it from one part of the judicial system when it comes to witnesses appearing or adjudicating and not being put in some other section.
Sometimes we can bog ourselves down in paperwork if we move things around. If it is not broken or if it is still working, why destroy it and put in something that we do not know is going to work?
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to join in the important debates and discussions that take place in the House and to be able to discuss the wide variety of issues, both directly and indirectly, addressed through Bill S-4.
I will be streaming this speech live on Facebook, where I will endeavour to not only address some of the very important aspects of Bill S-4 but also endeavour to take feedback and comments from those who are watching on Facebook. My Facebook handle is “@dckurek”. I look forward to addressing some of the comments and concerns that constituents bring forward.
Bill S-4 would codify some of the dynamics that existed during the course of COVID. These are things like video appearances and certain technical and administrative challenges associated with the circumstances around offices being closed, for example, the fact that the fingerprinting could be a delayed process and a whole host of administrative concerns.
I would highlight and encourage those watching live on Facebook to share their stories as well about some of the dynamics associated with rural crime. Access to justice is something that is not unique to rural Canadians. This did not start in 2020 with COVID, and it certainly has not repaired itself as we have seen life get back normal.
My constituency, for example, as many who are watching from there will know, is about five hours from corner to corner, and it is hours to the nearest courthouse. In many cases, the response time of law enforcement to very serious crimes is measured in hours or even sometimes in days. It is an important context in which we see this soft-on-crime approach.
I happen to agree with a statement that was made the other day by one of my Conservative colleagues that this is a hug-a-thug approach. It is really unfortunate, because we are seeing that my constituents are facing the consequences of that soft-on-crime approach by not seeing our justice system as a system that serves justice. In fact, the most common statements that I receive from constituents are that we do not have a justice system, and that it is simply a poor excuse for a legal system.
I certainly see the Liberal record over the past seven years as being one that piles on failure after failure, whether it be Bill C-5, which would eliminate a whole host of sentences for very serious crimes, or the justice minister, with an astounding level of ignorance and arrogance, who simply says that we will leave it up to the judges. I have more examples than I could fit in days of debate about where the justice system does not actually bring about the punishments that should certainly fit the crime, and we are seeing a massive erosion of trust in the system.
I see, specifically, a member from the government who seems to be participating in my Facebook live. I thank him for his viewership and amplification of the sound, common-sense Conservative message that certainly resonates with Canadians.
I would note something that I think is especially relevant. There is an astounding level of ignorance displayed by the Liberals, and this was highlighted just the other day. The rule of law, to them, seems to be this plaything. I would like to read a text message sent from the Minister of Public Safety that was revealed at the Emergencies Act inquiry commission. The parliamentary secretary who just commented on my feed should maybe pay attention to this. It says:
...you need to get the police to move....
And the CAF if necessary....
Too many people are being seriously adversely impacted by what is an occupation. I am getting out as soon as I can. People are looking to us/you for leadership. And not stupid people. People like Carney, Cath, my team.
The reply goes on to say, “How many tanks are you asking for...I just wanna ask [the Minister of National Defence] how many we've got on hand.”
The response from Canada's Minister of Public Safety was, “I reckon one will do.”
That is astounding, and I would suggest disgusting, that the Liberals would suggest that pulling out tanks to bring to the streets of our capital city would, in any universe, be an acceptable practice. We see how—
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On a point of relevance, I know the Conservatives love to defend the convoy, but we are not talking about the illegal occupation of Ottawa or the Emergencies Act. We are talking about Bill S-4. I wonder if the hon. member could get back to talking about the bill.
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order as well. It is interesting that the Liberals are intent on pivoting away from their many failures not only on access to justice—
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
I want to remind members that the debate is on Bill S-4. I also want to remind members and make sure that, although there is a bit of latitude during members' speeches, their speeches should be relevant to the bill that is before the House. I am sure the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot will bring it back to the bill itself.
The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Absolutely, Madam Speaker.
We see how the Liberal government is refusing access to justice for Canadians.
Bill S-4 has some practical steps to ensure that my constituents would see a small step forward to be able to access the court system through things like video conference and whatnot. However, this is in the context of the larger trend where we have the Liberals more concerned about tanks on our streets than ensuring that Canadians have justice.
Somebody watching made the comment that we need time that fits the crime. We have a justice system, as is being highlighted by some of those who are commenting, where instead of prioritizing the rights of victims, in some cases those who have seen absolutely devastating crimes, including sexual assault or a firearm being discharged with intent, the Liberals are eliminating sentences.
My constituents have made it very clear. The Liberals like to say that somehow we do not support justice or whatever the case is. There is one party in the House that stands up for victims, and that is the Conservative Party. That is increasingly clear, as we see the Liberals demand that somehow a soft-on-crime approach is a good way to stand up for victims of crime. That could not be further from the truth. We see a backlog within the court system that is leaving serious crimes without even seeing their day in court.
Imagine a victim, such as a senior in my constituency who came to me with respect to being held up at gunpoint. This was with an illegal gun, and it was not by a law-abiding firearms owner. That individual skipped bail, and in less than four hours they were back on the street. There were threats made against RCMP officers in my constituency, and we saw that within less than a day somebody who had threatened the life of an RCMP officer was back out on the street. This has a very significant correlation to the way that we have access to justice in this country.
I would suggest that the Liberals pay close attention, because there are many victims. These are not traditional Conservative supporters. I am not talking about just the folks I represent in rural Alberta. I am talking about folks from Liberal ridings who in some cases have reached out to Conservatives and said they are frustrated with that Liberal approach.
Somebody in the comments asked when the Prime Minister is going to resign. Certainly, I would have a whole host of constituents who would be very interested in finding the answer to that question.
Here is another example. Somebody on Facebook highlighted that the government spends more time persecuting law-abiding firearms owners than it does those who perpetrate serious crimes, including serious gun crimes. The hypocrisy that is demonstrated in that on a daily basis has contributed to that erosion of trust that is taking place within our system. This is something that I hope that the Liberals listen to very closely.
An erosion of trust is something that is very difficult to earn back. That is not something that is simply a platitude, a campaign-platform promise or whatever the case is. It takes time, it takes effort and it takes a demonstration. I have said this before in this place and I will say it again: If the Liberals are good at one thing it is politics, but when it comes to actually governing they fail each and every time.
In fact, I find it very interesting that, whether it be on the issues directly related to Bill S-4, which has a lot to do with access to the justice system and that sort of thing or the host of other concerns that MPs in this place hear on a regular basis, we see that over the past seven years the—
Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the member, during his remarks, mentioned that he is live broadcasting his debate. I wonder what the rules are around taking videos or live broadcasting through Facebook while we are debating. I do not know. I just want to ask about it.
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
I just want to indicate that the hon. member is actually bringing a point of order on something that the hon. member may have said, but I do not know if that was done in the House. If it was done in the House, then I would remind members that they are not to do any of those types of recordings while in the House.
On the same point of order, the hon. member for Hamilton Centre.
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Madam Speaker, this is not something I do regularly, but I rise to support the hon. member from the Conservative caucus. I am watching the livestream here. It is pretty clear it is being re-streamed from CPAC. I commend him on his innovation.
I had wondered if he was doing it from his phone and whether the livestream would be going up his nose, catching his chin or something of that nature, but that is not the case. It is well streamed, and I support the member for using technology to bring his residents into the chamber.
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
On that point, if the livestream from whatever platform he is using, like ParlVU, is public, the hon. member is free to do that as long as he is not filming in the House. If the member is virtual, he is not able to livestream what is happening virtually.
Does the hon. member for Edmonton Manning have anything to add to that point of order?
Ziad Aboultaif Conservative Edmonton Manning, AB
Madam Speaker, I want to point out one thing. This bill is not a controversial bill by any stretch. We are all in agreement about the importance of putting this bill back—