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.

Business of the House

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

Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion.

I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practices of the House:

(a) Bill C-278, An Act to prevent the imposition by the federal government of vaccination mandates for employment and travel, standing on the Order Paper in the name of the member for Carleton, shall now stand in the name of the member for Niagara West and be placed in the order of precedence at the same place and stage as Bill C-285, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act, and be deemed to have been reported to the house pursuant to Standing Order 91.1 recommending it not be designated non-votable, and the order for the second reading of Bill C-285 shall be discharged and the bill withdrawn;

(b) Bill S-202, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Visual Artist Laureate), standing in the name of the member for Bow River, shall now stand in the name of the member for Cloverdale—Langley City; and

(c) 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), be deemed adopted at report stage on division and be deemed adopted at the third reading stage on division.

Justice and Human Rights

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation 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 (COVID-19 response and other measures). The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 10th report, entitled “The Defence of Extreme Intoxication Akin to Automatism: A Study of the Legislative Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision R v. Brown”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

I would like to thank all of the clerks and the great legislative assistants and analysts who helped us with this report.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank Mr. Taylor for the reminder for all of us that the presumption in the Criminal Code is that appearances will be in person and that what we're dealing with are exceptions. I don't share the optimism that others have about either this or future pandemics.

I also have a great deal of pessimism about the impacts of climate change as it affects all of our systems. I think having the exceptional provisions in place in advance will serve us well as we head into the future. I'm convinced that the requirement of consent by both prosecutors and the accused provides sufficient protection.

Admittedly, there's one circumstance when that doesn't apply. However, I'm also reassured by the section on “appearance by audioconference or videoconference”, where it says, “the court must be of the opinion that the appearance by those means would be appropriate having regard to all the circumstances”.

Therefore generally, with regard to amendments to Bill S-4, I will be voting against them. I think the existing protections are simply being reinforced here, and we are creating some exceptional circumstances to deal with the world we live in today. I will be voting against the amendments.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Not to answer Mr. Fortin's question, but discussion on these two provisions, clause 46 and then, by extension, clause 39.... We had a very abbreviated opportunity to study this bill, of course, but it has been in the Senate, so I looked at some interesting Senate testimony.

We did have the benefit of hearing from the Quebec bar this morning. For some of this, there was a long-standing need pre-COVID. Some of what we see in Bill S-4 is certainly a reflection of being in a pandemic time when there were major limitations on in-person meetings and a desire to be able to do things differently in every aspect of our lives, including the judicial.

I looked at the amendments being put forward by Mr. Fortin and at the CPC amendments. I know there's probably some conflict between the two. However, I look at that as maybe reflective of the fact that we are past the COVID pandemic lockdowns right now, and while there are many aspects that are very important in Bill S-4, there are aspects—certain presumptions that are included—that I think we may want to put the brakes on a little bit.

Today I have the unique opportunity, just because of an Air Canada flight cancelled for no apparent reason, to participate in this meeting virtually. Normally I'm there in person, so I can tell you that there are major limitations on the ability to understand what's happening in the room and get a perspective on how people are receiving what is or isn't being said, and all the non-verbal cues one might get.

That's lacking in any kind of virtual meeting. The most important proceeding, at the highest level, is going to be a judicial proceeding in which someone's life, and possibly his or her future, hangs in the balance, or one in which victims are being asked to participate in a system that all too often revictimizes them.

Without belabouring the point, I think there are some reasons that I'm very receptive to the comments made by the Barreau du Québec as well as the amendments that have been put forward, and I think I'm inclined to support them, for sure.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Taylor, for that clarification.

I think, based on what you have said and on what the witnesses have said, that it's very clear that the scope of Bill S-4 is very important. It makes remote proceedings available in some circumstances when all parties agree to these proceedings.

Some of us have practised for some years in courtrooms, and we know that at some point, access to witnesses can be difficult. There were a number of examples cited. I think Ms. Brière brought one up as well.

I also think it's important to note that Criminal Code section 715.24 is not a new provision. It would merely re-enact a new part of the Criminal Code to clarify and consolidate the provisions on criminal proceedings.

It would also be preferable to have these existing powers located in the part on remote proceedings, because that will ensure that the court is required to take into consideration the factors set out in section 715.23. This recommendation would also undo long-standing court powers that I understand go back to 1999. In some cases, some are from the mid-2000s.

For this reason, we will not be supporting clause 46 and subsequently clause 39.

[Matthew Taylor, General Counsel and Director, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

Thank you.

Good morning.

I'm hoping that someone could provide me a copy of that motion, because I don't have the BQ motions. I gather it relates to section 650 of the code, but if I could have a copy, that would help.

I think I understand. To me, this looks like a consequential amendment to another substantive amendment that will come later, and specifically to remove reference to certain proposed sections in the bill.

If I understand correctly, the concern relates to the remote appearance provision, meaning this clause and clause 46 of the bill, and maybe I can start with some general information.

The first thing I would point out to the committee is that clause 45 of the bill re-enacts a provision that already exists in the Criminal Code—or would re-enact a provision that already exists in the Criminal Code—which states the principle that as a general matter, proceedings would be done in person. That's the starting point. Then, what clause 46 proposes to do is to consolidate and clarify a bunch of different rules that already exist in the Criminal Code with respect to remote appearances.

In effect, when I say “consolidate”, there are provisions, for example, as in clause 39, in section 650 of the Criminal Code. There are provisions in other clauses of the bill that are being opened, such as section 537 of the Criminal Code and section 800 of the Criminal Code, that all deal with the rules around remote appearances. Bill S-4 doesn't propose to change those rules, so to the extent that an individual can appear by video conference, Bill S-4 doesn't propose to change that.

If I understand as well the concern around proposed section 715.241 with the requirement of an accused to appear in in a situation where there isn't consent provided, that is simply a re-enactment of existing rules. It doesn't change the law in that respect.

The goal here is really to ensure that if an individual in custody is going to appear in a proceeding, the court ensures they have access to legal advice before they do so.

I know that's a lot of different pieces of information, but I think the main point to convey is that Bill S-4 really seeks to consolidate and clarify existing laws around remote appearances.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Amendments BQ-1 and BQ-2 go together.

In amendment BQ-2, we are proposing to delete lines 7 to 11 on page 22, to reflect the recommendations made by the Barreau du Québec relating to the problem associated with section 715.241, which deals with mandatory appearance by videoconference. That section seems to us to be a bit counterproductive. That is the idea behind recommendations BQ-1, BQ-2 and BQ-3.

I am not going to add to what was said earlier. The bâtonnière and the lawyer who accompanied her clearly described the problem associated with requiring someone in custody to appear by videoconference. It opens the door to possible appeals and undermines public confidence in the sound administration of justice. It also appears to me to be a major breach of the protections granted by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

If an individual who is in custody agrees to appear virtually, there is no problem. However, provisions as worded in section 715.241 open the door to anything at all if, for some reason, the judge then imposes it on an accused who is not represented by counsel. A lawyer can say, a month or a year later, that their client consented without being aware of the effects of their consent and without having an opportunity to meet with counsel because they were in custody. The lawyer can say that the court compelled an appearance by videoconference.

Bill S‑4 is a fine bill that proposes a modern way of proceeding and, overall, respects the parties' rights. I am going to agree to Bill S-4, but there is this one hitch that seems to me to pose a serious problem. I think we must protect ourselves from it.

In amendment BQ-1, we want to make an amendment by replacing, for consistency, line 19 on page 18, where it refers to sections 715.231 to 715.241. Because I am going to propose that section 715.241 be eliminated, an amendment has to be made there.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

We'll resume.

We'll be doing clause-by-clause consideration.

From the Department of Justice, we have Matthew Taylor, director and general counsel, criminal law policy section.

Do we have anyone online, Mr. Clerk?

We also have Normand Wong, senior counsel, criminal law policy section, by video conference.

I have some considerations. I'd like to provide members of the committee with some instructions and a few comments on how the committee will proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-4.

As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote.

If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill and in the package each member received from the clerk.

Members should note that amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee. The clerk has advised me that if you want an amendment resulting from the testimony we just heard, you can still send it to the clerk in writing and we shall consider it.

The chair will go slowly to allow members to follow the proceedings properly. Amendments have been given an alphanumeric number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on amendments, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment.

Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment to the amendment is moved, it is voted on first. Another subamendment may then be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the short title, the title and the bill itself. If amendments are adopted, an order to reprint the bill may be required so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage. That report contains only the text of any adopted amendments, as well as indications of any deleted clauses.

We'll begin the clause-by-clause study. Before I call clause 1, in the interest of time, and given that there are no amendments to most clauses, I seek the unanimous consent of the committee to regroup clauses for the purpose of voting, starting with clauses 1 to 38. We'd then debate the amendment on clause 39 and group subsequent clauses as we go along.

Is there unanimous consent?

[Nicolas Le Grand Alary]

We acknowledge that this procedure is conditional on consent. However, we have to recall that section 715.221 that is created in Bill S‑4 provides that the judge must give written reasons for denying video appearance and must include those reasons in the record. If the request is denied, there must be a justification. So this is the start of a move toward an application that is solely conditional on consent.

There is the case of parties who are not represented by counsel and who might sometimes agree to it without knowing the consequences.

Again, we are not opposed to video appearance. However, apart from that, the most important point we want to make is that we want to make sure the process is carried out in accordance with the rules and that all guarantees are provided, whether they be technological or under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We have to make sure that everything is respected.

What we are doing is codifying, making certain measures that we adopted temporarily during COVID-19 permanent. We may not have studied all the potential consequences and possibilities. It also calls for an effort to obtain data and statistics that might reassure the legal community.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here, Madam Bâtonnière and Mr. Le Grand Alary. I'm pleased that you are here this morning to testify.

As my colleague Ms. Diab pointed out, you appeared before the Senate previously, last spring, as part of the study of Bill S‑4. I am satisfied that the Senate has done a thorough job. However, the committee also has a job to do, and we have to do it just as thoroughly. I don't think we can rely solely on the work done by others.

You have raised important issues in relation to Bill S‑4. What I understand is that you have the same concern as Parliament and many justice system participants. We want to modernize the justice system to allow working by videoconference where it is useful. Videoconferencing is an excellent tool that should be used when the time is right, which is the key.

In your third recommendation, you raised the subject of section 715.241, which allows the court to require a videoconference hearing where the accused has not necessarily consented.

What would the consequences of a provision like that be if it were not amended?

[Nicolas Le Grand Alary]

Thank you for your question.

We are not aware of the positions taken by other law societies in Canada, but we have the same objective as the committee when it comes to Bill S‑4: to improve the justice system and adopt the positive lessons learned from the pandemic. As you said, there has been an ongoing effort to modernize the courts for several years now. It continued and accelerated during the pandemic because of public health requirements, for example, when hearings in person could not take place.

I would reiterate that we are not opposed to continuing that effort, but the bill provides for certain tools used during the pandemic to be implemented permanently for the future.

What the Barreau du Québec is proposing is that we step back a little and assess the effectiveness of these measures. Have they shown that they allowed for the procedural guarantees and rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to be respected? That is the reason we are here today.

We agree on the objective of the bill, in large part, but we still want to point out certain problems.

You said that it would remain an option. That's true: the judge must decide it, with the consent of the parties. However, the judge must justify the denial, if that is the case. There therefore seems to be an opening for video appearances to become the norm and not the exception. We wanted to draw your attention to that as well.

[Catherine Claveau, Bâtonnière du Québec, Barreau du Québec]

Mr. Chair, committee members, I will introduce myself again. My name is Catherine Claveau, and I am the Bâtonnière du Québec. I am joined by Nicolas Le Grand Alary, who is a lawyer with the Secretariat of the Order and Legal Affairs of the Barreau du Québec.

Thank you for inviting the representatives of the Barreau to testify before you concerning Bill S‑4.

For over two years, the COVID‑19 pandemic has created issues and imposed constraints on the criminal justice system. The courts have managed to adapt to the challenges that faced them while complying with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The objective of Bill S‑4 is to modernize criminal procedure by giving the courts broader powers regarding the conduct of criminal proceedings and allowing them to make orders.

Like other legislative initiatives, Bill S‑4 aims to make the solutions relating to the administration of justice that were implemented in order to respond to the problems experienced during the COVID‑19 pandemic permanent. The impact of these amendments, and particularly the anticipated benefits, must therefore be evaluated well beyond the pandemic context. While the Barreau supports any measure that facilitates access to justice and the efficiency of criminal trials, the quality of the justice done must remain a priority.

One of the bill's provisions is the possibility of appearing by videoconference at various stages of the trial, whether the trial proceeds summarily or by indictment. That possibility is conditional on the consent of the prosecutor and the accused and the permission of the court, which must determine whether proceeding remotely is appropriate. Remote trials are therefore imposed as the rule rather than the exception.

While there are numerous advantages to using technological methods for holding a trial, we wonder about the impact of this new rule. More specifically, we are concerned by the effects of videoconferencing on assessing a witness's credibility. The assessment of testimonial evidence, particularly in emotionally charged cases, lies in the nuances and details. In our opinion, the virtual nature of testimony could affect the ability to do the assessment during an examination.

In an in-person trial, something as simple as a note passed to the lawyer, or a look aimed at a lawyer by the judge or a witness, can send cause the lawyer to veer off course and have a major impact on their strategy and the outcome of the trial. The fact that the parties and their representatives are in close proximity during the trial is not to be disregarded, from the perspective of lawyers who are carrying out their client's instructions. It can be hard to determine whether that proximity will be helpful or otherwise before the trial begins. We therefore recommend that the bill provide that all testimony be heard in person.

We are also concerned about lawyers' professional responsibility to their clients, for example when they are unable to communicate with the clients in real time in a way that preserves the confidentiality of their discussion.

Our last concern is that if the principle of trials by videoconference is incorporated into the bill it will be implemented at the expense of people who live in remote areas, for whom travel may be expensive and more complicated to undertake.

The measures introduced by the bill could therefore vary widely in their application in Quebec, where the availability of resources differs from one region to another. On that point, we would point to the issues associated with self-representation by accused persons who will be appearing virtually.

To summarize, we are afraid that the new status assigned to video appearance in the Code will institute a two-tier justice system, depending on the region, and compromise the lawyer-client relationship.

In addition, the new section of the Criminal Code states: — the court may allow or require an accused who is in custody and who has access to legal advice to appear by videoconference in any proceeding referred to in those sections, other than a part in which the evidence of a witness is taken.

The Barreau du Québec believes that this new section is problematic. We therefore recommend that this proposal be deleted. It is our opinion that the parties must always have the option of asking to proceed in person if they wish.

Denying accused persons who are in custody that option raises serious issues regarding the right to make full answer and defence and the right to a fair trial.

That is an overview of the main issues that the Barreau du Québec wanted to raise with the committee in its consultations on Bill S‑4. We hope that our presentation has contributed to your study, and we are now prepared to answer questions from committee members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 44 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to the order of reference of November 24, 2022, the committee is meeting to begin its study 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 in relation to the COVID-19 response and other measures.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and by using the Zoom application.

I would like to take a few moments for the benefit of the witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating via video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you're not speaking.

There is interpretation. For those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of “floor”, “English” or “French”. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I remind everyone that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

On our agenda today, we will proceed with Bill S-4. First we'll hear from the Barreau du Québec. Then, right afterward, per the motion adopted last Thursday, we'll do the clause-by-clause study. We also need to reserve a few minutes to complete our review, in camera, of the draft report on the subject matter of Bill C-28. As you all know, we have to report it before December 16.

Before Mr. Fortin asks me, I believe all the witnesses' mikes have been tested.

Judges Act

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I understand that I have about 18 and a half minutes left. I will do my best, but I cannot promise that I will use up all of that time. I am just pointing that out for the benefit of the person who is speaking next.

Now that all the Christmas wishes and greetings have been sent, I want to come back to Bill C-9, which I spoke about in June, as I mentioned. It will come as no surprise to anyone that the Bloc Québécois will support this bill at third reading for a number of reasons. One of them is that the community has been calling for this bill for quite a long time. It has been calling for a review of the system for removing judges who engage in conduct unbecoming of the profession.

This bill will also help shorten the process and, incidentally, reduce the cost associated with assessing judicial misconduct, while still maintaining sufficient procedural equity that a judge who is facing sanctions can make their case and ultimately exercise their right to full answer and defence. In a way, this bill is streamlining a process that, in the past, was unfortunately inconsistently applied and abused, as in the case of Judge Girouard, who has been mentioned quite a bit in the House. It took nearly a decade to come to a final decision on the acts he was accused of.

It is worth mentioning that this bill introduces a mechanism to deal with less serious complaints that would not necessarily require removing a judge who has committed wrongdoing. This mechanism would still allow the judge to be punished for their actions. It is no longer a purely black-and-white system where there are only two possible outcomes to a sanction: either to reject the sanction outright or to remove the judge from office, which is the ultimate sanction for misconduct. Under the old law, there was no in-between. The new bill allows for a slightly fuller range of options, with different shades of grey—not that I am naming a particular book—in terms of the sanctions that can be imposed.

Realistically, we cannot expect Bill C‑9 to change much on a day-to-day basis, because not that many judges face possible sanctions, which is a good thing. My colleagues have said that about eight cases have come under the microscope. This is not something that happens very often.

However, the bill will affect the way people perceive the justice system. If a judge is put under the microscope, we can expect the process to elicit far less criticism and complaint from the public, because it will presumably be much more effective.

As I said, we will vote in favour of the bill. Based on what my colleagues have said, most if not all members of the House will do likewise. The only real criticism we heard during members' speeches had less to do with the content of the bill than with the timeline of its passage, which should take place in the coming days.

This is not our first time studying a bill like Bill C-9 in the House. We saw a previous version, Bill C-5, which ended up dying on the Order Paper because the government decided to call a basically useless election in August 2021, so again, this is not the first time we are indirectly talking about Bill C-9 in the House. However, there is so much consensus on it that, hopefully, this will be the last time.

Bill C-9 upholds a principle that is absolutely critical in our democracy, namely, the principle of security of tenure for judges. This principle is set out in section 99(1) of the Constitution. I think section 99(1) bears quoting.

It states:

...the judges of the superior courts shall hold office during good behaviour, but shall be removable by the Governor General on address of the Senate and House of Commons.

With respect to this aspect, Justice Dalphond, who is now a senator, spoke to Bill S‑5. He said the following:

By imposing a process that makes it the responsibility of judges, first and foremost, to deal with allegations of misconduct against a judge, the Judges Act protects judges from acts of intimidation or retaliation by the executive power or litigants. In addition, since the act provides for parliamentarians to exercise their constitutional power to remove a judge only after having received the report and recommendation of the council in this regard, Canadians can rest assured that this measure, intended to be exceptional, will only be taken when it is truly justified.

This essentially separates the different branches of democracy, namely the executive, legislative and judicial branches, by ensuring that if a judge is removed, it is not for purely political reasons, for example.

Although the current system for removing judges in cases of wrongdoing is recognized as one of the best in the world, there was room for improvement. I will name a few of the drawbacks that have been identified.

As I mentioned, the current process can be extremely long. Along the way, there is always the possibility of countless appeals and judicial reviews. Under the act, the review panel was seen as a sort of administrative tribunal that opened the door to using the regular court system, meaning filing an appeal, reviewing a decision or applying for a judicial review. As a result, some cases dragged on for over a decade.

One of the problems that was identified is that a judge who may be at fault could have a financial interest in dragging out the proceedings with stalling tactics, because the judge still gets paid while the process is underway. They can keep contributing to their retirement fund, so the benefits continue to add up. The judge therefore has an incentive to make sure the final decision on their alleged conduct does not come out too quickly.

That is something that has been corrected through proposed section 126 of the new bill. Proposed subsection 126(1) states:

For the purposes of calculating an annuity under Part I, if a full hearing panel decides that the removal from office of a judge who is the subject of a complaint is justified, the day after the day on which the judge is given notice of the full hearing panel's decision is the day to be used to determine the number of years the judge has been in judicial office and the salary annexed to the office held by the judge at the time of his or her resignation, removal or attaining the age of retirement unless

(a) the decision is set aside by a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, or by the decision of an appeal panel if the appeal panel's decision is final;

(b) the Minister's response under subsection 140(1) provides that no action is to be taken to remove the judge from office; or

(c) the matter of removal of the judge from office is put to one or both Houses of Parliament and is rejected by either of them.

Should the complaint be rejected, the judge could retain all benefits associated with their office. From now on, pension and benefits accumulation ceases as of the day on which notice of the decision is given. That removes any incentive for a judge to draw out proceedings.

As I also mentioned, one of the benefits of the bill is that it now offers a wider range of sanctions than was available under the old act. The act did not, for example, allow for mandatory sanctions, so it made them seem like half-measures. The parties could make them mandatory by mutual agreement, but there was no real possibility of imposing anything. That is no longer the case. There is now a range of different measures.

Let me read some more of the bill. Proposed section 102 of the new bill provides as follows:

If the review panel does not refer the complaint to the Council under section 101, it may dismiss the complaint or take one or more of the following actions if it considers it appropriate to do so in the circumstances:

(a) issue a private or public expression of concern;

(b) issue a private or public warning;

(c) issue a private or public reprimand;

(d) order the judge to apologize, either privately or publicly, by whatever means the panel considers appropriate in the circumstances;

(e) order the judge to take specific measures, including attending counselling or a continuing education course;

(f) take any action that the panel considers to be equivalent to any of the actions referred to in paragraphs (a) to (e);

(g) with the consent of the judge, take any other action that the panel considers appropriate in the circumstances.

It uses the word “order”. That means it would be mandatory, and the panel has a lot of latitude.

There are plenty of measures that can be taken to improve the quality of a judge's work in the future, without having to resort to the extreme punishment of removing their right to sit on the bench. The bill improves what can be done within the system while also reducing the burden of what is required to make the review process work.

In the past, under the Judges Act, no fewer than 17 judges might be needed to convene a review panel to examine a case. There is currently a shortage of judges. The courts are operating at a slower pace. If a judge were to be accused of something, we cannot afford to take 17 judges out of the system when there is a shortage everywhere.

Under the new version of the act, a panel can be formed with slightly fewer judges than what was required in the past. The bill also creates an internal appeal process, which will limit reliance on external courts and therefore limit the possibility of invoking the legal system for disciplinary matters involving judges.

I am making an aside on this aspect because the issue of tying up courts and judges cannot be solved by Bill C‑9 alone. We had a discussion about Bill S‑4 and the possibility of making greater use of virtual tools to hear cases. This debate may continue in the days to come. That would help, but even if we add the option of virtual hearings, if there are no judges to hold these hearings, it does not matter that platforms like Zoom are available because the system will not work.

That is why, in addition to Bills C‑9 and S‑4, it is important that the Minister of Justice quickly appoint judges to fill vacancies. Currently, there are nine vacancies. The chief justice of the Quebec Superior Court is even recommending that a dozen judges be added to those currently sitting. This would increase the minimum number of justices that can sit on the Quebec Superior Court. Let us hope that this message will be heard by the Minister of Justice.

Basically, Bill C‑9 is about improving people's trust in the judicial system. However, as I said, it may be relatively limited in scope, because most people will not read the contents of Bill C‑9. If a judge were to commit a wrongful act, people might be interested in this new process that exists to reprimand judges.

Beyond the possibility of reprimanding a judge who has already been appointed, if we really want to improve public trust in the system, we must also address the issue of judicial appointments. Some work has been done. The Liberals have mentioned that they are going to abandon the infamous Liberalist, but that may not be enough. The process is still potentially partisan. The power to select and recommend who will be appointed as a judge is still in the hands of the executive branch of government.

That is why the Bloc Québécois recommends creating a truly all-party committee tasked with evaluating candidates for judicial positions in courts under federal jurisdiction, such as superior courts.

This is what Albania did in hopes of joining the EU. It had to change a lot of its judicial practices to meet EU standards and bolster public confidence in its institutions.

At present, Albania's justice minister has no power over judicial appointments. An independent committee is in charge. The justice minister's primary responsibility is to oversee sound administration of the courts. The minister monitors statistics to ensure that hearings are progressing without wait lists or undue delays, but is not actually responsible for appointing judges. That allows for true separation between the powers of the executive and the judiciary. The House may consider following suit as it develops a different judicial appointment system.

It is on this wish that I will end my speech. Bill C‑9 is a good thing. It is an improvement that has long been called for. It may have taken a long time for it to come to fruition, but we commend the initiative nonetheless. There is still work to be done on the judiciary. The Bloc Québécois will always be a very approachable partner when it comes to improving the legal system. I think that begins with a review of the judicial appointment system.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. We will continue our discussions about when the House will adjourn for Christmas. This afternoon, we will continue debate on the Conservative Party's opposition day motion.

After that, we will vote on the adoption of the supply for the current period. Tomorrow, we will be begin debate at report stage of third reading of Bill C-9, the judges bill.

Next week priority will be given to Bill S-8, the sanctions legislation; Bill S-4, COVID-19 justice measures legislation; and Bill C-18, the online news act.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm glad to be here today for the committee's study of the 2022‑23 supplementary estimates (B) of the Department of Justice Canada.

I would like to start by acknowledging that we are located on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabeg Nation.

I'm joined today, as you said, Mr. Chair, by François Daigle, deputy minister of justice and deputy attorney general of Canada; Michael Sousa, senior assistant deputy minister of the policy sector; and Bill Kroll, chief financial officer and assistant deputy minister. I thank the three of them for being in support of me today.

Over the past year, the Department of Justice Canada has continued working to address the tremendous pressures on the justice system.

We have made good progress on the postpandemic recovery, now that the health restrictions have been lifted. We have reduced the backlog of cases before the courts, and we have strengthened the justice system to better support the people affected most. We hope to continue that work through Bill S‑4, which is now before you.

We are continuing to support government-wide priorities, such as addressing inequality, systemic racism and discrimination, advancing reconciliation with indigenous peoples and assisting newcomers to Canada and refugees.

The funds we seek in the 2022-23 supplementary estimates (B) will allow us to build on this work by delivering on key commitments to transform our justice system and make sure that it truly focuses on the people whom it serves.

In particular, that means ensuring that the justice system is accessible and fair to everyone in Canada, no matter their background, income, beliefs or gender identity.

This work stems from our overarching objective of addressing systemic discrimination and the overrepresentation of indigenous, Black, racialized and marginalized people in the criminal justice system. We have taken an important step this year with the passage of Bill C‑5, which includes numerous reforms to make the justice system more fair and equitable.

We are continuing our work together with indigenous peoples to achieve the objectives of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and to make progress toward reconciliation.

Let me explain how the supplementary estimates funds will allow us to deliver on these priorities.

First, access to justice is a fundamental Canadian value and an integral part of a fair and just society. A strong legal aid system is one of the pillars that supports Canada's justice system.

We are continuing to make investments to address the strain on the legal aid system and to ensure the continued delivery of legal aid in immigration and refugee cases.

This is an essential investment, without which, some legal aid providers might have to stop providing services that vulnerable refugee claimants depend on.

Without proper resources and services we would see delays at the Immigration and Refugee Board and the Federal Court. This in turn would hinder government investments aimed at improving the asylum system's processing capacity.

This funding feeds into the department's work to fulfill the Government of Canada's commitment to addressing systemic racism in Canada.

The supplementary estimates (B) also include funding to support our efforts to address the overrepresentation of indigenous people, Black and racialized Canadians and members of marginalized communities in our justice system. As mentioned, this funding complements our work in other areas, including law reform, improving the diversity of judicial appointments and my mandate commitments to develop an indigenous justice strategy and Canada's first Black justice strategy.

The opioid crisis has laid bare the need for public health solutions to substance abuse rather than criminal penalties.

We have seen a growing demand all over the country for court-supervised addictions treatment programs provided by drug treatment courts. In an effort to address those needs, the government allocated $40.4 million in budget 2021 over five years, beginning in 2021‑22, and $10 million ongoing for the justice department and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

That includes $24.5 million over five years starting this year and $7 million ongoing in contributions funding for the justice department.

These measures will work to support justice for all.

This brings me to our efforts to advance reconciliation with indigenous peoples, which is central to so much of my mandate.

A key component of reconciliation is ensuring that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is properly implemented, in consultation and co‑operation with indigenous peoples.

We are in the process of an extensive distinctions-based process to engage first nations, Inuit and Métis communities to develop an action plan by June 2023.

We are also working with indigenous peoples on an indigenous justice strategy. This past year, our government appointed a special interlocutor for missing children, unmarked graves and burial sites associated with Indian residential schools. The special interlocutor, Ms. Kimberly Murray, will work closely and collaboratively with indigenous leaders, communities, survivors, families and experts to identify needed measures and recommend a new federal legal framework to ensure the respectful and culturally appropriate treatment and protection of unmarked graves and burial sites of children at former residential schools.

We are also supporting Indigenous Services Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada in their work to implement An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, which came into force on January 1, 2020.

Accordingly, Justice Canada is requesting $510,000 in supplementary estimates (B) to enhance the department's capacity to provide expert legal advice on interpretation and implementation issues related to section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

We expect that this additional funding will be essential over a period of five years given the national scope of the legal issues, the extent of their impact and their newness.

In short, Mr. Chair, the funding requested through supplementary estimates (B) will enable the Department of Justice Canada to continue playing an essential role in building a robust, equitable and effective justice system that protects Canadians, their rights and their communities.

Thank you for your time.

I am now happy to take your questions.

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and privilege to bring the voice of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to this place, and today it is to put some comments on the record regarding Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments.

Before I get into the content of the bill, I want to begin by thanking the women and men who wear the uniform to keep Canadians safe.

Canadians expect accountability. They expect law and order, and they expect strong oversight mechanisms to ensure that there is no abuse of power. We recognize that our RCMP and CBSA agents put themselves in the possibility of harm's way every time they put on the uniform.

Canada and the U.S. share the world's longest, undefended border, and we as Canadians share this border with a country that owns more firearms than they have citizens. This is part of a different culture and a different history, and that is not the subject of today's debate.

The point I am making is that the CBSA has received much attention recently, and we look to them for their role in preventing gun violence, particularly in our cities. We ask that they address the issue of criminals smuggling illegal guns into this country, and we know that this activity is often also tied up with drug smuggling and trafficking. We ask that these people, along with law enforcement, put themselves in harm's way to keep us safe, and for that I want to thank them.

Let us look at the content of the bill.

The legislation would rename the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or RCMP, to the public complaints and review commission, which I will refer to as the PCRC. Under its new name, the commission would also be responsible for reviewing civilian complaints against the CBSA. The bill's goal is to ensure that all of Canada's law enforcement agencies have an oversight body.

What I really do like about the bill is that it would codify timelines for the RCMP and CBSA responses to the PCRC. We have all heard of complaints that went into the civilian body, but then there was no response back. The reports, reviews, recommendations, and the information sharing between the RCMP and the PCRC, and the CBSA and the PCRC would be mandated and codified. The bill also stipulates annual reporting by the RCMP and CBSA on actions taken in response. This would be a further mechanism to ensure action follows complaints. As well, the bill would mandate reporting of disaggregated race-based data, provides for public education and provides for a statutory framework to govern the CBSA responses to serious incidents.

By way of some further background, the bill was introduced in the 43rd Parliament as Bill C-3. However, it did not pass second reading. It was introduced very late in the session and died on the Order Paper when that unnecessary election was called. In the 42nd Parliament, it was known as Bill C-98, but it died awaiting a vote in the Senate.

I want to put on the record that Conservatives have supported this legislation at each stage. I also want to note that this legislation appears to be straightforward and meets its objectives, but the newly created PCRC can only recommend disciplinary action and cannot enforce it. There will still need to be a further step as this process unfolds.

Conservatives believe in upholding the dignity of our borders and ensuring that our Canadian Border Services Agency is properly resourced, both in manpower and equipment. The civilian review commission should improve oversight and help the CBSA be an even more effective agency in its duties and functions, similar to the function of the renamed Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP.

As I stated earlier, Canadians expect effective oversight of federal law enforcement agencies, but what is disappointing is the length of time it has taken to get this done. The Liberals promised oversight in the 2015 election, then squandered two Parliaments in fulfilling their promise. Now, one month before Parliament breaks, the House is supposed to hurry up and pass this legislation. We are supportive, as we have been in the past, but we will review it, and we will do our job in this place. We have always stood for the security of Canadians and will continue to do so.

I live in Leamington, only 45 minutes away from the Windsor-Detroit border. I have crossed that border to the U.S. numerous times. By and large, I have had many good experiences and professional interactions with CBSA staff as I returned to Canada either from travelling to the U.S. or abroad, or just from an evening or afternoon in Detroit.

However, several years ago, while my four daughters were still quite young, my wife did not have such a pleasant experience. It was some time ago, in 2003 during the SARS outbreak, so there are similarities to today's times. My brother-in-law, a Canadian, was working in St. Louis at the time and flew to Detroit to come back to Canada to renew his status paperwork.

While my wife answered the questions asked by the CBSA agent, the agent assumed some information regarding my brother-in-law’s citizenship that he had not confirmed through questioning. Frustrated once he learned of his error, he swore at my young children, and literally threw the paperwork of six people into the van. I was not there; I was tied up elsewhere, so my wife took my four young daughters, a credit to her, into the U.S. to pick Darrell up. This agent now demanded that the paperwork be returned in a different order.

If the PCRC would have been in existence then, it would have heard from us, and this officer’s conduct would have been reported. This is a relatively minor incident in the scheme of things that could have happened, but there is a role for this oversight agency.

This situation occurred 19 years ago, so some time has gone by, but I know that it has been seven years since an idea for this oversight body was introduced in this place. The government campaigned on that promise. Let us hope it will not take 19 years to get this promise to Canadians completed.

Yesterday, in the House, we debated Bill S-4, a bill that enjoyed support at second reading on all sides of the aisle. Bill S-4 was Bill C-23 in the last Parliament, which also did not see the light of day in this chamber, but I digress. It seems that good bills do not receive good priority for this file in this place, but we will leave that for another day.

Bill S-4 asks to improve the efficiency of our court system through bringing in the use of video and other changes to address the huge backlog of cases. This backlog, of course, was exacerbated by the pandemic. We have all heard the expression “justice delayed is justice denied”, and the Jordan decision by the Supreme Court has codified this expression.

My purpose is not to redebate yesterday’s work in this chamber. Bill S-4 is off to committee, and hopefully it will be improved through amendments. Then hopefully it will be quickly returned to this place for third reading. My point in raising Bill S-4 is that during debate, several statistics were tabled during the interventions and I found them troubling.

There has been a 32% increase in violent crime since 2015. There were 124,000 more violent crimes last year than in 2015. There were 788 homicides in Canada last year. There were 611 in 2015, a 29% increase.

As we have heard before, there has been a 92% increase in gang-related homicides since 2015 and a 61% increase in reported sexual assaults since 2015. Police-reported hate crimes have increased 72% over the last two years, and 31,000 Canadians lost their lives to overdose between 2016 and 2022. There have been 7,169 deaths from opioid overdose in Canada in 2021 alone, and 21 people are dying per day from overdoses. Before the pandemic, it was 11.

Thus far, this is the record of the government when it comes to keeping Canadians safe over the past seven years. At their core, Bill S-4 and Bill C-20 are pieces of legislation that take us in the right direction. This cannot happen soon enough. I hope they now receive the priority they deserve.

Criminal Code

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak 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 (COVID-19 response and other measures).

The judicial system has been facing a series of delays in cases proceeding to trial, which has been made worse by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Conservatives have raised concerns about the delays and the potential for criminals to walk free due to the Supreme Court's Jordan decision, which said that no more than 18 months can pass between the laying of a charge and the end of trial cases in provincial courts, or 30 months for cases in superior courts.

We have raised our concerns over the delays in the judicial system a number of times during the pandemic, both in the House and through the media, so it is good that the Liberals are finally listening. I understand that sometimes they have different priorities.

The court system scrambled to adapt and learn how to function during the pandemic, and it was obvious that changes were needed. I could have made this speech at the height of the pandemic, when the need was very urgent. The government recognized the need then and introduced Bill C-23, but it was obviously not a priority. That bill died on the Order Paper when the House was dissolved by the Liberals for their unnecessary election. However, as with many efforts of the government, I suppose we can consider it to be better late than never, though it seems sometimes that on truly pressing issues, such as inflation, for the Liberals to do anything, it is more never than late.

It is indeed important to support the courts in the technological transition that has been stimulated by the COVID-19 pandemic. It is also important to be as prepared as possible for a future pandemic or similar disruptions.

In the past two years, we have all discovered new ways of doing business. Some of those ways have been beneficial, others arguably not as much. So too is the case with this bill.

For justice to be truly done, it must be seen to be done. Any citizen has the right to attend court and observe the proceedings. In the past, that has naturally been a right that could be limited by the physical space of the courtroom. Allowing virtual proceedings would change that limitation while bringing with it the issue of controlling the dissemination of images from the proceedings. We have gone from cameras not being allowed into a courtroom to everyone having the ability to take screenshots or even videos of the proceedings.

There is no doubt that the COVID-19 pandemic has been felt throughout our criminal justice system. Problems that perhaps we did not realize we had have been brought into focus. A modernization of the system is long overdue. The pandemic has shown us that action is very necessary now.

With the technological tools that are now available to us, it makes sense to allow, as this bill would, peace officers to apply for and obtain a warrant using telecommunications rather than having to appear in person before a judge. This would not take away from the necessity of the officer to answer any questions as to whether the warrant is really necessary. The legal necessities would not change, but there is a savings to the taxpayer and the environment in the officer not having to drive to appear before a judge.

We are all aware that the criminal justice system has been subjected to delays in proceedings, and sometimes that was exacerbated by the pandemic. While justice delayed is justice denied, no one wants to see a criminal walk free because the system could not bring them to trial fast enough.

The reforms suggested in this bill are small but incremental. It is important to remember that the fundamentals of justice would still be being observed, and that the increased use of teleconferencing in the courts would not take away from the fundamental rights of the accused to appear in person, but many, given the choice, might prefer to appear by video conference. This, incidentally, could reduce their legal fees since their lawyer would not have to be with them at the courthouse waiting for their case to be called.

One thing that concerns me with these reforms is the issue of fairness. I am not sure how the government can address that. Appearing by video in court proceedings requires access to technology that, at this point, is not available to every Canadian. Not everyone has the financial resources to own a computer. Not everyone has high-speed Internet access available to them. Certainly, the government does not have the resources to provide that.

At the same time, I recognize that there are other different burdens that come with having to make a court appearance in person that could bring with it the expense and hardship of travel. I am not certain how we can provide equal access to the justice system for all Canadians, but I know we have to try to keep improving the system until we get it right.

One area where I have serious concerns is the proposal in the bill that would allow the jury selection process to be done by video conference in some circumstances. While this would certainly make it less onerous for prospective jurors to take part in the selection process from their home or workplace, it does raise some privacy concerns. While technology makes remote appearances possible, technology could also be used to subvert the process, not to mention the right of an accused to see those who are to pass judgment on his or her case.

In Canada, an accused has a right to be tried by a jury of his or her peers, but there are times when, for security reasons, the jurors are anonymous. With the availability of facial recognition software, it is easy to imagine that prospective jurors appearing by video conference could be easily identified. This could leave them open to harassment or attempts to influence a jury's decision. That may sound unlikely, but if we are concerned for the administration of justice, it must be considered. Has the government considered how to deal with this issue?

This bill is not perfect, but neither is our justice system. The question we as parliamentarians must ask ourselves is this: Does the legislation make positive improvements to the administration of justice in our country, even if it is not perfect? If so, then we should probably support it.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know people who want to have drug treatment but cannot get into a treatment facility, and they commit crimes because that is the only way they can get access to treatment. Instead of funnelling tons of money to these harm-reduction centres, we need to find a way to get more treatment to people who are not breaking the law.

I must say that the bill my hon. colleague has put forth through Private Members' Business is certainly more meaningful. It would have more impact on people's lives and would prevent crimes from happening in the first place if people receive treatment. It is certainly more effective than Bill S-4, so I wish that had come first.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I share the dismay of my Bloc colleague across the way at how little of the speech we just heard dealt with the actual content of Bill S-4, but perhaps I will ask a question about one of the opening statements, which was that it is always about protecting criminals, never victims.

This is particularly ironic because resolving backlogs and ensuring the timely carriage of justice, the topics of Bill S-4, are very much in the interest of the victims of crime, who the member seems so concerned about. Would she not agree? Perhaps she could take 30 seconds to breeze through where she stands on the content of the bill.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I have the pleasure of sitting with her on the Standing Committee on National Defence, among others.

She spoke at length about victims' rights. We know that victims are generally witnesses, not parties, in criminal hearings. There may be some work to do on this. However, one of the potential positives that could come of Bill S‑4 is a reduction in wait times for cases to be heard. Victims may not have to wait as long to know the outcome of a case.

Would my colleague agree that this is at least a step in the right direction for victims?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is a recommendation from the inquest for the federal government to explore adding the term “femicide” to the Criminal Code. What do Canadians get? Bill C-5 and Bill S-4. Bill S-4 was so important to the government that it has come before us several times, and the government just lets it lapse on the Order Paper.

Borutski, the eastern Ontario man who was sentenced to life with no chance of parole for 70 years for killing three women in 2015, can now challenge his sentence due to the Supreme Court ruling. Bill S-4 is not going to fix that. Even if he is not granted parole, his victims' families are forced to relive the crime and the loss of their loved ones at regular parole hearings after the 25-year mark. Real justice calls for changes that would prevent such a tragedy from happening again. Tinkering with the system by allowing Zoom into a courtroom is no joke to victims' families, and that is what Bill S-4 is doing.

The coroner's inquest into the deaths of Carol Culleton, Nathalie Warmerdam and Anastasia Kuzyk wrapped up after hearing extensive testimony from victims' families, their counsel, domestic violence experts and advocates. The jury made 86 recommendations based on the inquest. It is important to know about them since part of accountability is our awareness, and demanding that our public institutions do the right thing to prevent intimate partner violence. However, Bill S-4 tinkers with the administration of the court system.

It is time to be more cognizant of what is causing the problems. The first set of recommendations addresses the need for oversight and accountability. These initial recommendations recognize the importance of listening to and learning from victims and survivors, and they emphasize the need to follow up on implementation.

We need to create a survivor advocate position. Understanding that domestic violence victims' experiences with police and the justice system can be difficult, the jury recommended having a survivor advocate to advocate on behalf of survivors when they interact with the justice system.

They wanted to establish an independent intimate partner violence commission. The jury wants a commission to be established, like the one in the U.K., that can be a voice for survivors and victims' families. Local activists agree that an independent commission would help ensure the inquest recommendations are followed through and engage in meaningful consultation. By speaking with intimate partner violence survivors, victims' families and experts in the field, these consultations would determine the responsibilities and direction of the IPV commission and evaluate the effectiveness of existing community supports and prevention strategies, including program funding.

I will conclude my remarks by thanking all those who were involved in the inquest process, including the witnesses who gave their time so generously, along with the women from the anti-violence community in Renfrew county and beyond.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The member well knows that there is quite a bit of latitude, and the member has made references to Bill S-4. I would hope that, in the three and a half minutes left in the member's speech, she will come back to the subject at hand.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been listening attentively to the speech by the member. I am hearing her talk of Bill C-5 and mandatory minimum penalties. I do not believe any of that is relevant to Bill S-4.

I am wondering what your thoughts are on the relevance of the speech.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton Manning.

I begin my comments regarding Bill S-4 by acknowledging the hard-working and law-abiding citizens of my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

During these challenging economic times and the troubling revelations Canadians are hearing every day in testimony from the Emergencies Act trial, Canadians in my riding and across the country know that I will always defend whomever the target is for this week's two minutes of hate from a Prime Minister who likes to make fun of other cultures by mocking them in their native attire and wearing blackface.

Why is it that whenever the Liberal Party brings forth legislation to change criminal laws or the administration of justice, it is always about protecting criminals, never about the victims or their families? The system is failing everyone. lt is failing victims, it is failing the accused and it is failing everyone working in it.

We have a situation where the public lacks faith in the justice system, and that is what we are beginning to see happen. There is even a call for the Liberal-appointed head of the RCMP to resign. People have lost trust in our public institutions. Everything the government touches breaks. Everything is broken.

Bill S-4 is about technology. Knowing how the government thinks, could Judge Dredd be far behind? The fact is that technology is not a quick fix for what ails the criminal justice system in Canada. The government has all the wrong priorities. For once, the government needs to think about the victims of criminal justice. Someone has to speak for the victims.

Earlier this year, a coroner's inquest was concluded in one of the worst cases of multiple-partner violence in Canadian history. Basil Borutski murdered Anastasia Kuzyk, Nathalie Warmerdam and Carol Culleton in separate incidents on the morning of September 22, 2015, in Renfrew County. Borutski was well known to all of his victims and to police for a long history of violence. He was a dangerous serial offender with a history of beating women. The three grieving families and our entire community relived the horror of that event through the inquest. Borutski went on a violent rampage in the Ottawa Valley on that day and murdered three women: Carol Culleton, Nathalie Warmerdam and Anastasia Kuzyk.

In their verdict, the jurors determined that Culleton, Warmerdam and Kuzyk all died by homicide. Carol Culleton's cause of death was upper airway obstruction, which is a polite way of saying she was choked to death, while Anastasia Kuzyk and Nathalie Warmerdam both died of shotgun wounds to the chest and neck. The violence did not happen without warning. All the women were former intimate partners of Borutski, and the murders were a culmination of abusive behaviour that had been happening for over 40 years.

He was sentenced to life in prison with no eligibility of parole for 70 years. Multiple sentences were to be served concurrently for the multiple murders he committed.

Prior to the law passed by the Conservative government, the maximum sentence for first-degree murder, even when multiple victims were killed, was a life term with no chance of parole for 25 years. The Conservative government law that I was pleased to vote in favour of allowed for parole terms to be stacked on top of one another in cases involving multiple victims. The sentence of serial mass murderer Basil Borutski is an example of a sentence that takes into consideration the severity of the crime. The Supreme Court has since ruled that there can be no more multiple sentences.

Alexandre Bissonnette, the Quebec City mosque shooter who was initially sentenced to 40 years for the murder of six people, had his sentence struck down on appeal. The Supreme Court upheld the appeal and ruled that sentences of that length are cruel and unusual and violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Unless the Liberal government brings in new legislation, the court's ruling will mean the maximum sentence a person can receive for first-degree murder, even in cases of multiple murders, is life with no chance of parole for 25 years. When women are killed because they are women, that is different than first-degree murder, second-degree murder, manslaughter or the general term “homicide”. It sends the wrong message to the courts.

In the case of serial killer Basil Borutski, a violent offender who openly ignored court orders that were part of his probation, he was released anyhow. Bill C-5 is a slap in the face to every woman in Canada by a Prime Minister who is consumed by his own toxic masculinity.

By reducing or eliminating mandatory minimum sentences, a downward pressure on all sentences is exerted, especially in circumstances in which supposedly determinate periods of imprisonment are routinely reduced, halved or more by early release. If a man such as Borutski is released early after a triple murder, what sentence will a mere murder receive?

What does all this mean to the people of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke? In the case of Bill C-5, which was brought to the House instead of the Senate like Bill S-4, Bill C-5 is a radical, left-wing bill that would eliminate mandatory minimum penalties. It sends the wrong message to the community and the families of Carol Culleton, Nathalie Warmerdam and Anastasia Kuzyk, and women who live in fear of domestic violence.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I accept the fact that there are a number of contributing factors. I also agree with the member that in most cases, especially in the cases I laid out in my speech in my community, it is definitely a small number of people doing a disproportionate number of these crimes. At the end of the day, whether a person is a victim of crime or just a law-abiding citizen who likes to feel safe in their community, we like to see that repeat offenders, especially violent repeat offenders, are not continually rotated back into our community causing this kind of frustration, as I said in my speech about the community meeting where people said they were sick and tired of being revictimized over and over again.

I think there are ways that organizations can work together, and the member opposite laid out a few. I have a few instances in my community where not-for-profits come together and work together to try to help people and rehabilitate those who want the help. We need to look at all facets of this, and I urge the committee that is going to study Bill S-4 to do that.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make other related amendments. While I have much to say on this bill, I want to briefly talk about some the failures of the Liberal government on crime in general and crime specifically.

Rural crime is a serious issue, and one that has been ignored by the Liberal government for far too long. In my area, in Haliburton County for example, incidents increased from 526 back in 2017 to 758 in 2021. Police are now trying to keep up with more people charged than in any of the previous four years.

The crime severity index, or CSI, is a measure of police-reported crime in which more serious crimes are given a higher weight in the overall measurement of all crimes. The index provides a picture of regional crime trends. In the case of Kawartha Lakes, specifically in Lindsay, the picture is not as good. Like Haliburton County, the CSI numbers for Lindsay in 2021 showed a significant increase compared to previous years. Lindsay's overall CSI was 93.1 last year, which is a jump of more than 20% over 2020, and is significantly higher than the country's CSI of 73.7 and nearly double the province's CSI of 56.21 for the same period.

Kawartha Lakes Police Service Chief Mark Mitchell described the increase as “death by 1,000 cuts”, referring to the lack of murders but an overall increase in other non-violent crimes. He further added, “Our calls for service were up 20% in 2021, our criminal charges were up 25%, break and enters, frauds were all significantly higher, and our theft charges were up 80% compared to the year before and the current year.”

I have spoken with residents who are afraid to walk in their community. They are afraid to basically be inside their own homes. They are frustrated and angry. These concerns came to a boiling point about a year ago at a community meeting I attended that was hosted by the Kawartha Lakes Police Service.

At the meeting, residents learned that the Ross Memorial Hospital's mental health program had already received roughly 1,700 referrals just this year. Concerns were raised about the impact the Central East Correctional Centre is having on the community. The John Howard Society noted the challenge given the number of those who have come to the area to support the incarcerated and those who are released into the community on their own recognizance, bail or after completing their sentence.

The Kawartha Lakes Police Service is doing everything it can, but the government is sadly making its job harder. While it was distressing to hear the first-hand stories shared by many in attendance, it was evident to me that Canada's justice system has failed those law-abiding citizens. Lindsay resident Al Hussey raised concerns about the victims of crime, asking, “When does the support start flowing to us?” He was speaking of the victims of crime such as the residents living next to known drug houses, the business and property owners who are being robbed and the people who are afraid to walk near certain areas of town.

It is true a small number of people are creating a disproportionate amount of work for our law enforcement agencies, the court system, social services and not-for-profit organizations. However, those who continually refuse help and continue to reoffend should not be repeatedly returned to the streets in a revolving door justice system.

A big part of this is linked to the passage of Bill C-75. In 2017, the Liberal government's legislation watered down penalties for over 100 serious crimes, including the use of date rape drugs, human trafficking and impaired driving causing bodily harm. Sadly, the government severely underestimated the heartbreaking impact this decision would have on individuals, communities and families. It is unacceptable that taxpayers are once again being forced to pay more while at the same time receiving a lower quality of life.

Police officers I speak with say that Bill C-75 is the root of much of the issue regarding the catch and release bail concepts through the ladder principle, a principle that instructs justice system actors to release the accused at the earliest opportunity under the least restrictive conditions.

I firmly believe that serious crimes deserve serious penalties. Most importantly, the law should always put the rights of victims and law-abiding citizens above dangerous or reoffending criminals.

It is clear that Bill C-75 has hurt our community. To that end, I recognize that federal lawmakers must make bold changes to our criminal justice system. New methods, such as restorative justice, should be expanded, especially for those who show a desire to be rehabilitated and released as productive members of our society.

This brings me to Bill S-4. It may come as no surprise to anyone listening that the first thing I looked at was how much this bill would impact crime in the communities I represent and how it would impact those victims of crimes. The impetus for this bill is born from the increasing backlog facing the court system here in Canada. I believe we all have stories about that.

The judicial system has been facing a series of delays in cases proceeding to trial, which has been exacerbated by COVID. This is not lost on us here in the official opposition. We have continuously raised concerns about the delays and the potential for criminals to walk free due to the Supreme Court's Jordan decision, which said that no more than 18 months can pass between laying a charge and the end of the trial case in provincial courts or 30 months for cases in superior courts. We have raised our concerns in the House and in the media.

It was the Conservatives who called for a study into the impacts of COVID–19 on the judicial system at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Now Bill S-4 hopes to alleviate this backlog through several initiatives. It will amend the process for peace officers to obtain warrants without appearing in person, will expand the provisions to fingerprint the accused later should fingerprints not previously have been taken at the time of arrest, and will allow the courts to deal with administrative matters for accused persons not represented by lawyers.

Of these provisions I have no issue. Anything to move the process along that does not diminish the rights of the accused persons or victims or brings the justice system into disrepute is a good thing. I expect that these initiatives will be thoroughly examined at committee and perhaps even acted on.

However, I do have concerns, perhaps cautions is a better word, with the remaining provisions in the legislation, particularly around the expansion of the accused's ability to appear remotely by audio or video conference and to allow the participation of prospective jurors in the jury selection process by video conference. I would caution the members at committee to pay particular attention to the rights of victims and those citizens who are doing their duty as jurors.

We must ensure that the anonymity of jurors is protected. Technology has come a long way and the risk that recognition software might compromise jurors and risk the integrity of the trial is a real concern.

We must also take into consideration the impact of the expansion of telecommunication options, particularly when allowing accused persons to call in using a phone, which may impact the healing process for victims and their families. The bill will permit an offender to appear remotely for sentencing purposes. This measure would require the consent of the criminal prosecutor. The court would also weigh the rights of the offender to have a fair public hearing.

Nowhere is the victim asked or required to consent to the offender being allowed to call in for his or her sentence. The balance of rights in the court process is already heavily weighted in favour of the accused and I am afraid that Bill S-4 tips the scale even further.

That reminds me of another failure of the Liberal government, which is the delay in the filling of long vacancies, such as the federal ombudsman for victims of crime. Without that person in place, Bill S-4 will not be critically analyzed by a key advocate for victims to advise on how the bill will impact victims of crime.

Conservatives remain steadfast in our commitment to victims of crime and will ensure that legislation like Bill S-4 helps victims and their families in their pursuit of justice. We will stand up for law-abiding Canadians to ensure communities remain safe places to live and that delays in the court process do not allow criminals to walk free.

With that, I look forward to questions from my colleagues.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, this bill does take a number of positive steps, but I am curious as to why the government left out the recommendation from the justice committee's report on access to justice and legal aid. It called on the federal government to replace the legal aid funds currently included in the Canada social transfer with a specific earmarked legal aid fund for provinces, administered under the Department of Justice Canada's legal aid program. This would help with backlogs and access to justice.

Does the member support this recommendation, and does he agree that the government should have included this in Bill S-4?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is a great question. I believe that the reforms in Bill S-4, if properly implemented, will have the overall effect of speeding up the judicial system and increasing accessibility to it, particularly for remote communities. I believe that all in all, it is a big improvement, but the point is well taken that there have been a lot of delays.

There has been an increase in crime, unfortunately, as we have heard from other speakers on this topic. The best way to speed up the judicial system is to not only have more judges and improve our technology, but also bring crime levels down. There is no easy solution to that, but that must be part of the solution.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would like to hear what he thinks about a situation that could result from the application of Bill S‑4.

For example, since there is often a shortage not only of judges but also of court rooms, clerks, public servants and constables, we could potentially find ourselves in a situation where a person could get an earlier court date if they decided to have their case heard via video conference, whereas those who chose to have an in-person hearing would have to wait longer.

Ultimately, that would perhaps put pressure on people to proceed via video conference even if they would rather have their case heard in person.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate many of the words the member has put on the record regarding Bill S-4. I do not necessarily agree with everything, but I agree with some of it.

We have had a fairly good discussion on Bill S-4 today. I believe a vast majority of us, if not all members, will be voting in favour of the legislation going to committee. I have consistently made reference to the fact that this legislation is before us today because of provincial input and the fact that we are going through COVID, which clearly demonstrates the importance of recognizing technological change and how that change can assist us in the judicial system.

It is important for us to recognize the issue of judicial independence, which goes to my question. It is really encouraging when we pass legislation like this, because of the direct impact. It is also always good to get unanimous support wherever possible, as we saw, for example, with Rona Ambrose's private member's bill, which ultimately became a government bill.

I wonder if the member can provide his thoughts regarding the importance of judicial independence.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock.

The pandemic taught us many things. It taught us about how viruses spread or do not spread, whether asymptomatic victims of a virus can be contagious, whether vaccines prevent us from being infected or only prevent us from being very sick when we are infected and also what effects isolation has on mental health. The jury is out on many of these issues. People will be writing Ph.D. theses on the lessons we learned or failed to learn from the COVID-19 experience, but it is not just medical and scientific things that we learned through the COVID-19 years.

We also learned that we could do business differently. More and more people are working remotely and that kept many businesses afloat during the most severe periods of lockdowns and restrictions. Admittedly, working remotely works better in some sectors than others. In my profession of law, for example, working from home or from the office was completely seamless, or from my cabin, for that matter. My clients did not typically ask me where I was, as long as I was serving them. My clients did not tell me where they were. I did not ask. They did not tell me, and it did not matter in most instances. I remember that, after a lengthy conversation with a client one morning, I suggested that we meet for lunch that afternoon and he said it was a five-hour flight from Hawaii where he was and that would be difficult to do. I did not know and it did not matter. Business was seamless in some sectors.

This was before the pandemic, but the pandemic accelerated the need for us to become more and more digital in the way we do business, and that is why we are here today. We are looking at draft legislation that originated in the Senate, Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code to allow for the use of electronic means, for example, to select a jury and allow jurors to participate in hearings via video conferencing. It would allow us to expand the availability of remote appearances by video conference and/or audio conference, and it would modify case management rules, fingerprinting procedures and the issuing of warrants, such as search warrants, just as examples. There is a long, exhaustive list of what this bill would reform in our judicial system. All of this was born out of the pandemic. None of this is novel and very little of it is controversial.

Conservatives have always supported finding new and innovative ways for government operations to be more efficient and cost-effective, but we must raise some concerns.

For video conferencing to be effective, it must be reliable. We have seen even here in the nation's capital, in Ottawa, where one would think the Internet would be world class, that hybrid meetings often get interrupted because a participant in the meeting, perhaps a witness at a committee, gets frozen or the audio is so bad that our highly qualified and professional interpretation teams cannot make out what is being said. It is one thing if a parliamentary or Senate committee is disrupted because of technological deficiencies, but it is quite another when it is a criminal trial and a person's rights, freedoms and liberties are at stake. We must get it right.

That brings me to reflect on a big challenge we have in Canada, particularly in some parts of this vast country, and that is Internet connectivity. Canada's Conservatives have been calling for an end to the digital divide between urban and rural areas in our country. Every aspect of our 21st-century economy is becoming increasingly dependent on the Internet and, therefore, we must ensure that everyone has access to good, reliable broadband.

Canada's productivity metrics lag those of our main competitor nations, our trading partners. For every $100, for example, that an American worker pumps into the economy, the Canadian counterpart contributes only $67. That is a big productivity gap. The Minister of Finance has acknowledged that gap and on several occasions called it our Achilles heel.

In the recent fall economic statement, she said, “We will continue to invest in tackling the productivity challenge that is Canada’s economic Achilles heel.” Earlier in the year, in delivering her budget, the Minister of Finance had this to say about Canada's lagging productivity. She said, “we are falling behind when it comes to economic productivity.... This is a well-known Canadian problem and an insidious one. It is time for Canada to tackle it.”

I could not agree with that more. It is time for us to tackle our productivity lag, and a good place to start would be to vastly improve our Internet accessibility, not only here in Ottawa, not only in my community of Langley where it is far from perfect in some areas, but across the country and particularly in rural areas. We can talk to any worker, any tradesperson, any health care worker, professional, trucker or teacher. They will all tell us that the best way to improve productivity is to get better tools, and the Internet is anyone's tool these days, including for the legal profession, our criminal justice system and our courts. There is nothing special about courts. They need to conduct business like everyone else.

Getting back to Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code, to improve efficiency in our courts, we want to move them toward greater use of electronic tools in jury selection, in jury participation, in witness appearances and even in the appearances of the accused, when the accused and the Crown both agree. We support these measures, but we must listen to the experts.

In her May 2021 report to the standing committee, our former federal ombudsman for victims of crime, Ms. Heidi Illingworth, had this to say on this specific topic. She said, “many courthouses across [the country] have old infrastructure, and implementing videoconferencing has been a challenge. For some in remote areas, bandwidth and internet access remains an issue.”

Ms. Illingworth was saying this in a study being conducted by the justice committee on formerly Bill C-23. Bill S-4 is almost a mirror image of it. Bill C-23 had the support of all parties, but it got bogged down because the government called an election that nobody wanted and was not necessary. That is for another day.

Ms. Illingworth had this to say in support of increasing the availability of technology. She said, “It is my hope that these measures will help to relieve the pressure on the courts by leveraging video and teleconferencing technologies to help speed up filings and hold hearings in an inclusive and efficient way.”

She was the ombudsman for victims of crime. In that capacity, she had this to say in support of victims. She said, “ensuring access to internet service across Canada would address concerns regarding access to justice for victims of crime during COVID-19, by ensuring that victims have a means to participate in the process should they so choose”, but she also warned, “Unfortunately, not all Canadians have equal access to the internet.”

I am hearing from many people in my home province of British Columbia about how important good access to the Internet is for Pacific economic development, which is something I have a great deal of interest in, but that too is for another day.

Today, I am speaking in support of improving access to justice through Bill S-4. It is a step in the right direction. We will be supporting it. I look forward to a deeper dive into the details of Bill S-4 at committee. I welcome any questions.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to see Bill S-4 coming forward today to begin the much overdue work of modernizing Canada's judicial system. We know the government has known about the need for a much required overhaul since before the Liberals took over office from the previous Harper government.

I was speaking to a constituent just yesterday here in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith. She expressed to me that she had to apply to be excused from jury duty due to the costs associated with it.

I am wondering if the member could clarify why the government had to wait for almost a full year before bringing forward this legislation, which essentially is a carbon copy of a bill which was first introduced in the last Parliament, before the House, while maintaining existing systems with backlogs and barriers for jurors.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question, which is very important to this bill.

On the connectivity issue, obviously our government is working in a collaborative fashion with the provinces, putting funds forward to ensure all Canadians are connected to the Internet. If the opportunity arises via Bill S-4 for criminal justice system procedures or cases to occur in a manner where audio conferencing or video conferencing can take place and provides for an effective, efficient and accessible criminal justice system, we would continue to do that in a very expeditious manner.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I have to say that Bill S‑4 needs improvement.

What does my colleague think about the issue of connectivity in this case? We know it is a problem. My colleague mentioned it earlier, and he also talked about the existence and use of the “Liberalist”. There are currently judicial vacancies.

I would like to hear some solutions from my colleague.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his well-informed and well-researched speech on Bill S-4.

My question relates to Jordan's principle, which is the requirement that people in indigenous communities receive justice in a fair and equitable manner. I wonder if my colleague could comment on whether Bill S-4 adequately addresses that.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is wonderful to be here this afternoon and rise to speak on Bill S-4, a bill that demonstrates co-operation on a jurisdictional basis with the provinces, and a bill that moves our justice system forward so Canadians know our justice system is accessible, efficient and effective, and provides true access to justice for all Canadians from coast to coast to coast. It is with much pleasure that I rise to speak to the bill.

I am pleased to be here and to have the opportunity to provide an overview of some of the key areas of reform proposed in Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other acts.

Informed by federal, provincial and territorial dialogue and key stakeholder input, the proposed amendments are intended to mitigate the impact of court delays on accused persons and on victims by supporting the efficient and effective operation of the criminal courts during and in the aftermath of the pandemic. They are designed to enhance the courts' ability to ensure that their operations respect both public health concerns for all participants in the criminal justice system and the charter rights of accused persons to be tried within a reasonable time in order to maintain public confidence in our justice system.

The proposed amendments are based on the following criteria: One, they were critical to increasing the efficiency of the criminal justice system during the conditions of the pandemic; two, they address the current impediments to efficiency in the Criminal Code; three, they would have little or no prejudicial impact on accused persons; four, they are likely to receive broad-based parliamentary support; and five, they would result in amendments to the Criminal Code that would continue to provide efficiencies post pandemic.

The pandemic significantly impacted the operation of the criminal courts in Canada, as we all know, with courts either temporarily closing or severely restricting their operations due to public health orders. Furthermore, the pandemic exposed weaknesses in our criminal court system that can be fixed by providing remote access to proceedings under special circumstances. Bill S-4 would go beyond correcting for issues discovered during the pandemic and would make the justice process in Canada more efficient and accessible.

Bill S-4 addresses issues that the COVID-19 pandemic has brought to light regarding the ways in which criminal trials are conducted in this country. It also builds on past government initiatives, including Bill C-75 from a previous Parliament, which came into force in 2019 and made significant progress in modernizing our criminal justice system, including by facilitating the appearance of accused persons, lawyers and judges by audio or video conference throughout the criminal justice process.

Criminal justice is an area of shared jurisdiction, and co-operation with provincial and territorial partners is key. Parliament has exclusive authority to enact criminal law, including criminal procedure. Provinces and territories have jurisdiction over the administration of justice, including criminal courts.

While the courts and criminal justice professionals are, for the most part, managing to maintain essential services in the criminal justice process during the pandemic, accused persons, offenders, victims and witnesses are nonetheless being impacted by delays.

While many challenges facing the criminal courts have been operational in nature, some have arisen due to legislative impediments in the Criminal Code. Consequently, the pandemic has revealed the need for a number of amendments to the Criminal Code to provide clarity to the courts on issues that have arisen and to make the criminal process more efficient and effective by expanding the permissible use of technology during the pandemic, for the recuperation period and beyond. These proposed reforms are for the benefit of all participants in the criminal justice system.

Bill S-4 would modernize our criminal justice system by employing video conference and audio conference technology to accommodate for pandemic-era challenges, and it would equip our courts to handle similar challenges that may arise in the future. Furthermore, we would improve all Canadians' access to justice.

The bill would not change the principle that all persons involved in the criminal justice process must physically appear in person unless otherwise authorized under the Criminal Code. Courts will still have discretion in this area. However, this bill would ensure that the judicial process is not unduly stalled, by permitting remote conference options under extenuating circumstances.

Canadians deserve a justice system that is accessible, efficient and effective, and that provides true access to justice for all. The pandemic has taught us that technology can help make the justice system work better for all people who come in contact with it. Bill S-4 proposes a range of reforms that will make court proceedings more flexible while protecting the rights of all participants.

The reforms proposed in Bill S-4 flow from the important work of the Action Committee on Court Operations in Response to COVID-19, co-chaired by the Minister of Justice and Chief Justice Richard Wagner. They are also informed by important contributions from the provinces and territories, as well as other justice system stakeholders. With Bill S-4, we have the opportunity to improve our justice system by making those good ideas permanent.

Since March 2020, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada has engaged regularly on the impacts of the pandemic on criminal courts with provincial and territorial ministers responsible for justice and public safety. The proposed amendments take into consideration input received from provinces, territories and other key stakeholders.

In addition, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada has continued to be kept apprised of the challenges faced by courts across Canada in his role as co-chair of the Action Committee on Court Operations in Response to COVID-19. These discussions have all informed the proposed changes introduced in the bill.

A more efficient justice system will benefit all Canadians. I ask that all members of this House support the quick passage of the bill. I believe Bill S-4 helps transform and modernize our criminal justice system while ensuring respect for all persons involved in the criminal court process, including accused persons and prospective jurors.

I am confident Bill S-4 and the proposed reforms will improve our criminal justice system while facilitating careful oversight by the courts to ensure that the rights of accused persons and offenders are protected.

The gist of this bill, its main purpose, is that Canadians deserve a justice system that is accessible, efficient and effective, and that provides access to justice for all. I thank everyone for allowing me the time to speak on a very important bill for all Canadians.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I very much liked and agreed with some of the points my colleague raised in his speech. I am thinking about his concerns about the delays in the delivery of federal government services. These delays are so bad that we wonder if the government is working at all or if it is simply broken.

I would now like to talk more about Bill S‑4. The member talked about wait times, but the bill is on the justice system. When we talk about wait times, we often think about the justice system where the wait times are very long. It is hard to have an effective justice system.

I wonder if my colleague is satisfied with this bill and if, in reading this bill, he gets the impression that it will make major improvements to the wait times in the justice system. If not, are there other changes that could be made to improve the situation and shorten the wait times in the justice system?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be taking the unprecedented step of sharing my time with the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge. I hope it will be some encouragement for him to see the light on some issues. We are co-chairs of the Canada-Holy See parliamentary friendship group, and I would invite members of the House to watch their inboxes for upcoming events.

My remarks will be a bit more abbreviated than usual today because of some other commitments.

I want to speak to Bill S-4, and the context of the bill we are debating is some proposals from the government on measures relating to digital access to various aspects of our criminal justice system. However, the larger context of it is that we have a government that so many Canadians are experiencing as a government of delay. The defining impression of the current Liberal government is that of significant delays in being able to access the vital services they need.

We have seen outrageous delays with people trying to access passports. They were standing in incredibly long and sometimes dangerous lines, needing to be there early in the morning. We have totally unacceptable delays in our immigration system. People who are waiting to sponsor vulnerable refugees have to wait, in some cases, three years or more before they can bring them to this country. They are waiting to be reunited with spouses or have employees coming to the country. We have delays when it comes to passports, immigration, and accessing benefits. It is delay that reflects the current government's poor management of so many files.

In particular, in the context of this bill, we are seeing delays and challenges in accessing the justice system in a timely way. That is particularly dangerous because, when there are significant delays in getting to a hearing or to the adjudication of issues, people who have committed crimes may not be charged or have their charges not proceed on the basis of the delays that have occurred, which is a grievous injustice for victims. There are a number of steps I think the government needs to take when it comes to addressing this issue of delays in our justice system.

One of the things that is driving further delays and putting strain on our justice system is the increase in crime. We are seeing a dramatic increase in crime under the government, especially violent crime, and its strategy of reducing sentencing is not working, but it is adding to the burden on communities, police and also our justice system. We are seeing, in a variety of areas, increasing demand for services driven by the increase in violent crime the current government has presided over and the resources to match that have not been available and we are seeing significant delays.

Of course, there have been challenges throughout the pandemic period that relate to the adjudication of hearings, but the fundamental reality underlying that is that we are seeing an increase in crime, which is increasing demand on our justice system and causing significant delays not only in court hearings but also across the spectrum of different services the government provides.

What we are calling on the government to do is to focus on the hard work of actually running the country and to find ways of delivering services better, more efficiently and more effectively. It is not enough for it to tell people about its aspirations, hopes and intentions, because good intentions are not enough. What Canadians want to see is the ability of the government to deliver results, which means delivering services that people need in a timely way. They are not seeing that. They are seeing platitudes about good intentions from the Liberals, but a failure to actually deliver on services.

Ironically, we have a government that wants ever-expanding control. It says it is going to keep offering more, yet it cannot deliver the core services of government efficiently and effectively. We need a government that is going to focus on delivering the core responsibilities of government well, effectively and in a timely way.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley for his question.

In the House, we have often talked about the fact that when the government called elections, many good bills died on the Order Paper. When my constituents tell me that elections are expensive, I tell them to consider how much more expensive they really are when they are triggered unexpectedly and negate all the work accomplished in the House.

That said, with regard to reducing backlogs, I do not believe that this bill will have miraculous results. We also have to take that into consideration. We are doing things piecemeal, and it should not be seen as a magic solution. Even though Bill S‑4 is being studied, we must not stop doing the work that needs to be done on other parts of the Criminal Code to reduce court backlogs. There is much work to be done, and Bill S‑4 does not address everything.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are not going to stop the supports we have for Canadians. In fact, I would suggest to the member opposite that making sure our most vulnerable are protected is critical. That is why we have a number of things we are going to be doing in that regard, which I will illuminate in a moment.

As to the other question that was put, I do seriously want to ask, if the Conservatives are opposed to action on the climate, whether they have reflected about what the costs are. These are not costs that will be borne for a year or two but for all time. It is something to reflect on regarding the questions that were posed to me.

I am pleased that this afternoon we are going to complete the second reading debate of Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other acts. Tomorrow, we will go back to the second reading debate of Bill C-20, concerning the public complaints and review commission act. On Monday, we will resume second reading debate of Bill C-27, the digital charter implementation act, 2022. For Tuesday and Wednesday, we will call Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation, which was reported with amendments from committee earlier this week.

Mr. Speaker, I see you moving in your chair, so you will be happy to know that, finally, for next Thursday, our plan is to commence second reading debate of Bill C-26, the critical cyber systems protection act.

Criminal Code

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pretty sure everyone knows that the Bloc Québécois will support Bill S‑4, because my colleagues have said so. However, one clause in the bill states that appearances by video conference should not be optional. The Barreau du Québec actually recommends deleting that clause.

We should not see this as a solution. There are problems with distance and access to courts, and we cannot tell ourselves that we do not need to deal with the issue of access to courts because we have this band-aid solution, a plan B that lets us do things another way.

We have to make sure people always understand that they can choose between in-person attendance in court and appearing by video conference and that they are not indirectly forced to choose one over the other.

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

Mr. Speaker, in acknowledging the importance of judicial independence, it is important we recognize that Bill S-4 is a reflection of the desire of a lot of provinces to make changes coming out of the pandemic, taking advantage of the technology today that is always an option. That is what the bill would provide: options for our courts to take advantage of the technology.

I am wondering if the member would concur that it is a positive thing and a reason to support the legislation.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was talking about identification processes and fingerprinting. This bill would allow it to be done at any point in the process because, in certain situations, there is not always an opportunity to do it at the time of the arrest. During the pandemic, it became clear that it is difficult to hold someone's thumb to take their fingerprint while standing a metre away.

Finally, some of the telewarrant provisions would also be replaced, to further expand the type of warrant that could be issued by telecommunication. This does not change the legal threshold for issuing the warrant. It does not change the criteria for granting warrants. It simply frees up judges and police officers who would otherwise have to meet in person to discuss whether issuing a warrant is appropriate.

There is, however, perhaps a downside to this. Since everything would happen in writing and the arguments would be sent along with an affidavit to the judge, who would then issue the telewarrant, it prevents the judge from being able to ask a police officer questions to get a little more clarification on whether issuing a warrant is appropriate. There are still some pitfalls.

There have already been discussions about this bill. Given that it originated in the Senate, the various stakeholders have submitted their recommendations. The Barreau du Québec has been working hard on this. I would like to come back to one aspect in particular, and that is the part concerning appearances by video conference.

The Barreau du Québec made some recommendations. The bill will clarify, for accused persons, the availability of remote appearances by video conference at preliminary inquiries and trials for indictable offences or offences punishable on summary conviction, including when testimony is heard, but not when evidence is presented before a jury.

Therefore, a jury trial will always take place in person, but there will be exceptions for non-jury proceedings. I would remind members that, in certain cases, video conferencing can hide certain mannerisms or amplify certain facial expressions that could be misinterpreted by a judge or lawyer and alter their perception of an individual's body language during a hearing.

It is also harder to gauge what is happening between the parties when we are not in close proximity to them. For example, if a lawyer passes their client a note, it is not possible to kick someone under the table to indicate that it would be best to keep silent in that moment. This has an impact on our ability to fully understand what is happening at a hearing.

I want to give another example from my practice. When I was working in international family law and dealing with child kidnapping cases, I had to question witnesses in France in a context where we had to make sure that they were always alone in the hearing room to avoid witness contamination. I questioned the first witness, but when I asked him to go and get the other witness because it was her turn to testify, he just pulled his wife into view. She was beside him and had heard the whole thing. There can be concerns about witness contamination, and we can assume that we will not be exempt from that risk if we proceed with Bill S-4.

This is a serious issue. For example, what happens if this kind of irregularity occurs during a trial? Would the trial have to be scrapped? Would the whole thing have to start over? That would mean wasting even more time than if all the witnesses had been there in person from the start. This is something we have to consider.

Here is another issue. People can testify via video conference with the parties' consent and the court's authorization. What happens if an accused becomes aware along the way that their constitutional rights have been violated by the fact that they made that choice, so they decide to switch? Does the whole process have to start over? Does a new hearing date have to be set if the accused is participating remotely? Efficiency can suffer because of that too, and I think that should be one of the factors we consider in our study of this issue.

Another aspect that the Barreau du Québec suggests studying is the long-term repercussions of Bill S‑4. We are still in “COVID mode”, and we still need to respond to COVID-19, but Bill S-4 will change courtroom proceedings in the long term, even after the pandemic is over. The other problem is that, rather than making remote proceedings the exception, Bill S‑4 makes them the norm. That will fundamentally change the face of our justice system.

This could affect the attorney-client relationship. What impact will this have on the lawyer's professional responsibility in recommending, for example, that the client choose to testify remotely? This question will have to be studied.

We will also need to examine the open court issue. Trials are supposed to be public in almost every case. If they are held by video conference, the average person will not have access to them. I am thinking of my colleague from Drummond because I remember how, at one time, seniors used to go and watch hearings at the courthouse and make bets on the outcome, just to pass the time. I cannot help but think of those people, who will be losing an interesting source of entertainment if the courts start operating only by video conference.

The use of video conferencing might also compromise the right to a fair trial. We spoke about non-verbal communication and how it is important in assessing witnesses' credibility. This approach may impact that.

Another issue is that this could create a disparity between large urban centres and the regions. There might be a tendency to think that, since it is easier for people who live far away to do things by video conference, then we should favour that approach for them. In big urban centres, it does not cost witnesses and parties as much to travel, so their court proceedings would always be held in person. That would create a two-tiered justice system. These are some of the issues arising from Bill S-4 that will need to be assessed over the long term.

The Barreau du Québec also recommends deleting the new proposed section 715.241 of the Criminal Code, which allows the court to “require an accused who is in custody and who has access to legal advice to appear by videoconference in any proceeding referred to in those sections, other than a part in which the evidence of a witness is taken”. The Barreau du Québec is of the view that this should never be at the court's discretion, that the parties should always have to consent to proceeding by video conference and that it should not be imposed on anyone. The Barreau du Québec also recommends that, before the bill comes into force, we clarify the distinction between an accused who has access to legal advice and one who is represented by counsel in a context where only accused persons with representation can communicate with counsel.

Clients who are receiving legal advice and are in a video conference might not technically have the right to call or request their right to counsel during a trial if they are not formally represented by a lawyer. In a courtroom, they could still get legal advice from a lawyer, if one is present.

It is important to keep in mind that we need to strike a balance between the convenience of new technology and actual gains in efficiency. We can compare this to the long-term hybrid format people want for the House. When we talk to journalists about changes to the debate format here, they complain about not having direct access to witnesses. For example, when all they can see is a person talking on screen, they do not get a general sense of what is happening in the committee room. They do not see people's reactions to what the witness just said. Those reactions make journalists' work easier. They also do not have access to members leaving the House. Virtual might be easier, but it does not necessarily do as good a job of protecting democracy.

Another thing to consider is the work of interpreters. When Centre Block reopens, they might be thrown together in a room quite separate from the House and committee work. What we are hearing on the ground is that this makes their work a lot harder, because when they are considering what is being said, they look at more than just the spoken word. Emotions are important in conveying a message in another language, and this includes analyzing non-verbal cues and facial expressions, which is harder to do by video conference.

Another pitfall that must be avoided is thinking that Bill S-4 is going to solve all of the world's problems. While we may improve the issue of delays somewhat, that does not mean that everything is fixed and we can turn around and walk away.

For example, bringing into force Bill S‑4 without addressing the connectivity problems would be like trading four quarters for a dollar. It will change nothing because the system will not be equipped to properly install the technology for appearances. This will not fix the infamous Liberalist file. My colleagues have talked about that here as well. This will not necessarily address the issue of public trust in the justice system.

I spent a bit of time in Albania not that long ago. The justice minister explained that his role was not to appoint judges, but to ensure that the infrastructure or the administrative aspect of the judicial branch works properly.

He knows the statistics, the number of files that come in each day, the number of rooms and the technology required, but he is not responsible for appointing judges. We could perhaps follow the example of that country in future.

The issue of judicial vacancies has also not been resolved. Many judges are appointed in Quebec and the provinces. I am thinking of Quebec court judges. There are also the clerks, constables and others required for the orderly administration of justice. Some cases do not move forward because of delays in appointing federal or Superior Court judges.

To avoid the problems I mentioned from occurring in the future, the bill provides for a review in three and five years. The bill at least has a certain advantage. It provides for a review after three years by an independent committee, which is excellent.

Clause 78.1(1) of the bill reads as follows:

The Minister of Justice must, no later than three years after the day on which this Act receives royal assent, initiate one or more independent reviews on the use of remote proceedings in criminal justice matters that must include an assessment of whether remote proceedings

(a) enhance, preserve or adversely affect access to justice;

(b) maintain fundamental principles of the administration of justice; and

(c) adequately address the rights and obligations of participants in the criminal justice system, including accused persons.

The bill also provides for a parliamentary review at the start of the fifth year of its existence. I hope this will allow us to determine whether there were any bad ideas masquerading as good ones in the implementation of this bill.

I hope that the feedback of lawyers will be sought on this because they are the ones who will see how this is actually working on the ground. When they are not consulted enough, that is often when mistakes are made. A bill that started off with good intentions may end up being a bad bill. As I said, we are going to make permanent something that basically resulted from a temporary situation like COVID‑19.

I hope that when this legislation is reviewed in three or five years, legislators will have the humility to correct the measures that did not work rather than waiting until they are challenged in court where it will take more time and energy to correct them.

The review of the act will certainly be a useful exercise. I hope that legislators will backtrack if needed and that doing so will not be seen as a sign of failure but as a real will to advance justice, reduce delays and prevent the Jordan ruling from applying because of issues that can be easily resolved. That is my wish. Perhaps it is asking too much of politicians to show some humility, but that is my wish for this bill going forward.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the cheering crowd behind me who will make my speech a lot more interesting than it would be otherwise.

I rise today to speak to Bill S‑4 and the improvements that we hope it will make to the justice system through telecommunications and technology.

When I prepare a speech, I always seek inspiration by looking at what other intelligent people have already said on the subject. In this case, I referred to what Judge Pierre Dalphond had to say. I know him more as a judge than as a senator. He said that necessity is the mother of all invention. That is how I wanted to open my speech.

I am, or was, a lawyer in life. I was a civil lawyer. That being said, there are commonalities among all types of practices. I would like to talk about some of the things I experienced as a lawyer where these measures would have made things much more effective. COVID‑19 helped to resolve some problems.

About five years ago, a partner and I tried to set up an online divorce service for people who wanted to proceed with mediation amicably but lived some distance apart. Affidavits needed to be signed in order to complete the files. We contacted Quebec's justice minister, but we did not manage to obtain permission for the oaths to be done via video conference. We tried Quebec's Register of Commissioners for Oaths and were told that it was not under their jurisdiction but instead fell to Quebec City. In short, we ended up giving up because it was far too complicated.

Every cloud has a silver lining, though. One of the first things that happened when COVID‑19 hit was that virtual swearing-in was allowed. That also prevented a gaggle of lawyers from showing up at court in the morning to set a date. Sometimes they would travel from Montreal to Saint‑Jérôme, wait an hour and a half in the hall, spend five minutes in front of a judge, set a date, return home and send legal aid a bill for $80, end of story.

When COVID‑19 hit, a solution was found to the problem of too many people showing up at the courthouse in a pandemic, and we figured out how to do everything virtually within a reasonable period of time. I do hope that Bill S‑4 will have that kind of positive impact on the way courts operate.

Here is another example from the civilian side of things, the Tribunal administratif du logement, which updated its operations a few years ago. Now all cases are digitized, because sometimes remote hearings had to be held and it was better not to move physical case files, which tended to get lost on the way from one tribunal to another. Video conferencing made the tribunal as a whole more technologically advanced, and that made things easier for lawyers, who had access to their case files online.

We hope that Bill S‑4 will have a positive impact and, more importantly, that we can avoid bad ideas masquerading as good ones. I am going to raise a few of these points.

The bill changes two main types of things. First, it clarifies and expands the rules for remote appearances and seeks to increase the use of technology in the jury selection process. It also expands the telewarrant system under the Criminal Code, allowing a wider variety of search warrants, authorizations and orders, for example, to be obtained through telecommunications.

The main areas amended by Bill S‑4 relate to juries. The bill would allow for the use of electronic or other automated means for the purposes of jury selection. It would provide for the participation, in certain circumstances, of prospective jurors in the jury selection process by video conference. This would be only in certain circumstances, with the consent and at the discretion of the court.

It would avoid certain problems. For example, when I would arrive at the courthouse in the morning and see a crowd in the entrance hall, everyone knew that jury selection was taking place. It would avoid bringing together between 100 and 500 people in the same place during a pandemic.

It would also avoid situations where the first 10 jurors to be interviewed can be hand-picked. Another advantage is that it would not result in all potential jurors being in one place together, discussing amongst themselves and giving advice to one another on how to avoid jury duty, because people can be quite creative when they do not want to serve on a jury.

There is something else that Bill S‑4 amends: It expands the opportunities for remote appearances by audio conference or video conference in certain circumstances for accused individuals and offenders. I will come back to this and the potential pitfalls. It would also expand the powers of the courts to establish case management rules that permit court personnel to deal with administrative matters for unrepresented accused persons.

Currently, only in cases where an accused is represented by counsel is it possible to communicate with a judge by video conference to deal with routine issues, which can be done much more quickly by video conference. If this measure were also applied to accused persons who are not represented by counsel, then court officials could be used instead of taking up hearing rooms and a judge's time, which could be better spent. This could potentially increase efficiency.

The bill would also permit courts to order fingerprinting, for identification purposes, at the interim release stage or any other stage of the process to avoid delays if fingerprints could not previously have been taken for exceptional reasons. For example, during the arrest, an accused—

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I represent an urban riding, but as only one of two New Democrats who represent the province of Alberta. I also feel that I often need to think about the needs of progressive voters across Alberta, so I look at these things such as access in remote and rural areas.

I agree with him that what the government has done is made us promises to make Internet available, and to make broadband available, and it has not delivered on that. It has not delivered on that across the country.

If Bill S-4 is a tool we are going to use to improve our justice system, but we have not yet put in place the infrastructure to allow that tool to be accessed equally by all Canadians, that is a massive problem. The government must do more to reduce costs and make things more accessible for all Canadians in all areas of our country.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too wish to touch on the technology aspect of Bill S-4. With technology, obviously the Internet is a very important component of that. I know in northern Ontario and across many parts of the country, Internet access is unaffordable, is unattainable and is not reliable for many individuals.

The Liberal government has been in power for seven years, and it has made many bold promises on improving Internet access with very few results in my region and many other rural and remote regions across the country. I wonder if the member opposite has any comments on what the government should be doing to ensure Internet access is stronger across the country.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Do we have it all out of our systems now?

We are speaking to Bill S-4. Let us try to keep to that.

The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am respectfully asking you to really point out to the member that this speech is about Bill S-4, and she must stick to the subject.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that in past Parliaments, when, for example, Rachel Notley was the premier of the Province of Alberta, there were an awful lot of attacks on Rachel Notley. I think it is reasonable when we are talking about justice and about Albertans' access to justice, because Bill S-4 is ultimately about Albertans' and Canadians' access to justice, that I am able to talk about the particular circumstances that my constituents are encountering with regard to access to justice.

When several of my colleagues from the Conservative Party have talked about gun laws and a number of different things during their speeches, I did give them the benefit of the doubt so that they will return that favour when I have the opportunity to speak.

I hope that they will recognize that leeway for me as well, because what I want to talk about next is something that is deeply concerning to me in Alberta as well. It is how our current premier has talked about using the Alberta Human Rights Act to include vaccination status.

Again, I have this quote, and it is from a lawyer, so I certainly hope that my Conservative colleagues can see the link. Lorian Hardcastle, who is the associate professor in the faculty of law at the University of Calgary, said, “vaccination choice is not the same as codifying rights around gender, sexual orientation, race or religion.” I also have some very deep concerns that the access to justice for Albertans is being—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I thank the hon. member for that intervention. We do allow a lot of leeway in members' speeches. I know that we are specifically speaking to Bill S-4 and I hope that everybody will keep their comments to that.

The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. If the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona has an ambition to run provincially and to have a role there, her speech today is not related, by any chance, to the subject of Bill S-4.

I would really appreciate it, Mr. Speaker, if you would point that out to the member.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a deep honour that I am allowed to stand in this place and represent the incredible people of Edmonton Strathcona, and particularly to speak about Bill S-4.

Bill S-4 is all about increasing access to justice. It would make sure that all Canadians have the equal right or the equal access to our judicial system. It would remove barriers to justice and do all of the things that everyone in the House will and can support.

I am very happy to see this legislation. I commend the government for bringing this legislation forward. It makes sense. Our judicial system has been neglected. We have not modernized our judicial system to keep up with the times, to stay current and to be as accessible as it could be.

This would make part of our judicial system better. It would increase the use of technology in appropriate ways. It would include increasing audio and video conferencing options, which will vastly improve the ability of people in remote or northern communities to access justice. As I have said, it will modernize our system, and this is an important thing that we need to do as legislators. As parliamentarians, our role is to continuously look at how we can improve our judicial system, how we can make it more accessible and make it better for all Canadians.

The hope is that it would fundamentally fix the backlogs in our system. There were backlogs that we saw during COVID and that we saw even before COVID. The backlogs have meant that justice has been denied. As many have said before me today in the House, justice delayed is justice denied.

I am happy that the government brought this forward, and the New Democrats will be supporting it. However, I have some serious concerns about why it took the government so long to bring it back. It was something that was put before us in the last Parliament. An unnecessary election was called and therefore it died on the Order Paper. The election was in September 2021, so it has been 14 months since that time, and we have not seen this legislation before now. While I am commending the government for bringing it forward, I would have liked to see this come sooner.

When I look at this legislation, I have to reflect on what more could be done. We have seen some real challenges and questions, both at a provincial level and a federal level, in terms of appointing judges, making sure that judges are adequately appointed and making sure that questions around how judges are appointed are transparent and Canadians can trust that.

One area that is very important to me is the failure to support legal aid properly. This is both a federal and a provincial jurisdiction. As a member of Parliament who represents the citizens of Alberta, I have to say that Alberta is in crisis right now with our legal aid system.

I will read from an article in The Globe and Mail that was published earlier this year by Deborah Hatch, who is the director of the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers and the past president of the Criminal Trial Lawyers' Association of Alberta. She said, “For as long as the provincial government resists increasing legal aid funding in a substantial and immediate way, individuals in the justice system, and ultimately our democracy, will suffer.” It is quite shocking that, ultimately, our democracy will suffer.

It is clear to me that in recent years, with the failures to appoint judges and with the failures to fully support our legal aid system, in fact, Albertans have had less access to legal services. Albertans' access and ability to interact with our legal services have been reduced. While it is happening in Alberta, and it is a provincial jurisdiction, it is something that all parliamentarians must be watching and be deeply concerned with.

The Canadian Bar Association wrote last month that without adequately funded legal aid, our justice system will continue to deteriorate.

The Alberta Crown Attorneys' Association said, “lawyers in the defence bar who represent the accused through legal aid deserve fair and competitive compensation”. However, that is not happening right now in Alberta.

One interesting statistic, when I look at legal aid, that I find fascinating, is in this quote: “Independent research has shown that $2.25-million is saved for every $1-million injected into legal aid”. Therefore, for every $1 million that we spend on legal aid, we save two and a half million dollars. Even my very fiscally minded Conservative friends can surely see that this would be a very compelling argument.

I have other concerns with what is happening in Alberta as well. We have a new premier, Danielle Smith, who is proposing a sovereignty act—

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Edmonton Strathcona.

I am pleased today to have an opportunity to speak 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 on the COVID-19 response and other measures. This bill would increase our justice system's efficiency and ensure that all Canadians have equal access.

The COVID-19 pandemic altered our everyday lives, including necessitating new ways of accessing the criminal justice system. The solutions invented to accommodate our circumstances proved efficient and should be used going forward to optimize the ways in which criminal trials are conducted in Canada. This bill's proposed amendments support the increased use of technology in criminal courts across Canada. This has a variety of applications, such as the use of technology in the jury selection process, remote participation of prospective jurors and remote appearances for accused persons and offenders.

I want to focus first on the amendments relating to the jury selection process. The amendments would enable a court to allow or require prospective jurors to participate by video conference so long as the court considers it appropriate and the accused person and Crown prosecutor consent to the jury selection process occurring this way. When a court allows prospective jurors to participate by video conference, it will be an individual's choice whether they want to participate in person or remotely.

Importantly, Bill S-4 accompanies the government's efforts to increase remote Internet access across our country and close the digital divide. However, while we work toward efficient Canada-wide Internet access, there are measures in place to help individuals who may not have optimal connection. When the court requires prospective jurors to participate in the jury selection process by video conference, it would need to approve a location equipped with the technological infrastructure for them to participate by those means, such as a community centre or courtroom set up with the requisite equipment.

If the court does not approve such a location, it will only be able to permit prospective jurors to participate by video conference from other locations, such their homes or offices, if they choose to participate that way. However, in this case, the court would also need to provide the option for prospective jurors to participate in the jury selection process in person.

These amendments would help our jury system represent the face of Canada. Increased representativeness would be ensured by first reducing the barrier of attending in person. Prospective jurors living in rural or remote areas would enjoy minimized travel time and costs, and those who need to find child care or who hold precarious employment would experience reduced time required to find alternative child care or time needed off work. It would also reduce emissions, I will add.

Second, the changes would ensure that persons who do not have access to adequate video conferencing technology, or who have limited understanding of the technology itself, would continue to be able to participate in the jury selection process and ultimately form part of the trial jury. These are critical measures to bridge discrepancies in Internet access while we work to shore up connection across Canada, including in my home province of New Brunswick.

In addition to improving the Criminal Code regime governing the use of technology, other reforms in this bill would improve access to justice and efficiencies in our criminal courts. For example, Bill S-4 would expand the power of courts to make case management rules to allow court personnel to deal directly with unrepresented accused persons on administrative matters for out-of-court proceedings. Currently this is only permitted if the accused person is represented by counsel. This may represent a relatively small change to the Criminal Code, but I believe it would go a long way to improving access to justice for unrepresented accused persons.

It is very important to note that these uses of technology are optional and subject to the judge's discretion, as opposed to being mandatory. I want to stress this point. These measures would assist courts in continuing to deliver justice in an effective and efficient way. The proposed reforms would also better equip courts with the tools to keep things moving during challenging times, because of a pandemic, a flood or any other situation that could hinder physical access to the courts in the future. While these reforms may be relied on in a more significant way in managing exceptional and emergency circumstances, they would not be limited to such circumstances. They would apply on a permanent basis to ensure that the options to use technology continue to be available to our courts for years to come.

Another important element of increased efficiency in this bill pertains to digital fingerprinting. Bill S-4 would amend the Criminal Code to allow a court to issue a summons for fingerprinting if an accused was previously required to appear but such identification was not completed for exceptional reasons. In addition, courts would be able to make an order for the fingerprinting of an accused person being released on bail. These reforms would facilitate the efficient collection of fingerprints, which is critical for the smooth functioning of our court system. When courts operate efficiently, more Canadians access justice and our country is better off.

The expanded telewarrant system is also critical. Expanding the possibility of obtaining a greater number of search warrants and other judicial authorizations by means of telecommunication would contribute to efficiency gains in the criminal justice system by reducing the need for in-person attendance and physical delivery of search warrant applications by law enforcement. 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, since 1997, authorized summary conviction trials by video for accused persons in custody. Sections 714.1 and 714.2 have permitted appearances by witnesses by video conference since 1999.

Bill C-75, which was passed by the House in 2019, modernized and facilitated some appearances by audio or video conferences of all persons involved in criminal cases, including judges, under certain circumstances.

Rather than overhauling criminal procedure, Bill S-4 continues to permit proceedings by remote appearance. This bill picks up where Bill C-75 left off, in light of the experience gained and the questions that arose with the use of technology in the criminal courts during the pandemic.

I would like to personalize this for a bit, if I may. Before I joined the House, my work was centred on supporting youth at risk in the education system. From time to time, students would find themselves interacting with the justice system. I had the opportunity to help them navigate these public institutions, understand their rights, and when the circumstances permitted, to also pursue justice. I remember a particularly frustrating time in which unnecessary delays prolonged the personal suffering of a survivor of sexual assault, adding to their trauma. I remember the anger and frustration this evoked and the feelings of helplessness for all involved.

Canadians deserve a justice system that is accessible, efficient and effective, and that provides true access to justice for all. The pandemic has taught us that technology can be used to help make the justice system work better for all people who come in contact with it. Bill S-4 proposes a range of reforms that will make court proceedings more flexible while protecting the rights of participants.

The reforms proposed in Bill S-4 flow from the important work of the action committee on court operations in response to COVID–19, co-chaired by the Minister of Justice and Chief Justice Richard Wagner. They are also informed by important contributions from the provinces and territories, as well as other justice system stakeholders. With Bill S-4, we have the opportunity to improve our justice system by making those good ideas permanent.

Bill S-4 is an example of how we can improve the legal system, but there are other ways we can also discuss pushing things forward. I would like to mention restorative justice, which is an approach that seeks to repair harm by providing an opportunity for those harmed and those who take responsibility for the harm to communicate about it and address their needs in the aftermath of a crime.

It will invest in programs for first nations and indigenous courts as well, creating more pathways for healing by including indigenous knowledge and traditions, restorative justice practices and elders in the court process.

It will reform how sexual assault cases are prosecuted in Canada through a feminist equality lens.

It will ensure that everyone, regardless of income level, should be able to use the remedies that Canadian laws and the Canadian legal system provide.

It focuses on a system truly built on preventing youth crime by addressing its underlying causes, responding to the needs of young persons, and providing guidance and support.

Without continuing our work on multiple fronts, we cannot claim that there will be true justice for anyone who is involved in legal proceedings. Bill S-4 is part of the solution, and we need to continue to build on it to restore confidence in our legal system.

In 2022, the national justice survey revealed that 49% of Canadians are not confident the Canadian criminal justice system is fair to all people, and that 39% think it is not accessible to all. These numbers are incredibly alarming, and Bill S-4 is a step in the right direction.

In conclusion, Bill S-4's measures are both practical and necessary. They would assist the provinces and territories, which are responsible for the criminal administration of justice, by giving criminal courts additional tools to tackle delays. They would also benefit everyday court users. For these reasons, I urge everyone in the House to support Bill S-4.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise here today to speak in the House about Bill S-4. We have been spending some time reviewing the attributes of the bill and the importance of making sure we address the backlog issue in the criminal justice system and the ways we can better expedite that. This is obviously in relation to the aftermath and effects of COVID-19 and the ever-increasing backlogs. One way of addressing them is to make sure that the technology available and disposable to us is utilized effectively to help address issues where possible.

That is why overall in principle we support the bill. There may be some friendly amendments we want to see passed through the process of the bill working its way through the House, but the need to address the challenges and the backlogs in the criminal justice system should be paramount.

There is a rising frustration with the backlog issue and people who are facing delays in justice. There is an expression for this: Justice delayed is ultimately justice denied. We need to do whatever we can as parliamentarians to effectively address that backlog and make sure that justice is delivered fairly, equitably and expeditiously.

In preparation for my remarks today, I could not help but think of an old country song. I think it is a folk song. I will not sing it today, as all members would leave here very quickly, but it is an old song they may recognize:

There's a hole in the bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza,
There's a hole in the bucket, dear Liza, a hole.

Then she says:

So fix it dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry,
So fix it dear Henry, dear Henry, fix it.

Then he goes through all of the excuses about straw and needing an axe, which will not work because it is dull. Then she says to use a rock and sharpen the axe. Well, he cannot find a rock. Then she says they will get water and fix that.

They go back and forth, and the bottom line is that the excuses kept coming for not addressing the hole in the bucket. He kept offering up reasons as to why it could not be fixed. The hole never got addressed, but the excuses kept being offered. Well, I stand in the House today to say that there is a hole in the justice bucket, dear Speaker, dear Speaker, and we need to address the hole.

It is not just the backlogs, so today I want to address the bigger issue, which is stopping the revolving door into and out of our prison system.

We cannot address the backlog issue without discussing the bigger picture. How do we make sure that those who have committed crimes, served their time, paid their debt to society and returned back to their communities do not re-enter the judicial system, clog it up again and create more backlogs? The best way to do that is to address the hole in the bucket, as it were, and make sure we are addressing the rates of recidivism and how we can collectively get those rates down.

The best way we can do that is through effective partnerships. Yes, government has a role. Yes, the judicial system has a role. However, so do some tremendous organizations and groups in our country, across the nation, that help make sure we address the root causes of the hole in the individual's bucket.

How do we do that? It is not just by reaching across the aisle here to get good legislation passed, which is important and one step, and making sure that bills are improved upon and made the best they can be to address backlogs. It is also by looking at the best practices around the world, not just here at home within our country, where there are some great practices having great results that need to be looked at. Let us look across the world for systems and programs that are having a tremendous effect in reducing the overall rates of recidivism.

This is a passion for me. In the last Parliament, I had the privilege of seeing my private member's bill, Bill C-228, pass and become a law thanks to the overwhelming support of members on both sides of the aisle. I am very thankful for that and had good input on that bill from various parties. We saw it come out of the Senate unanimously and it became a law in June 2021. That bill was for addressing recidivism and making sure we do what we can to bring those rates down and stop the revolving door into and out of our prison system.

At the time, just a year and a half ago, when I proposed the bill and the bill went through, the rates of recidivism in this country were close to 25%. That means that up to 25% of people who served their time and got out of federal prison were ending up back in the criminal justice system within two years.

That is a tragic statistic, but what is even more tragic is that those stats have gotten worse in the last 18 months. I can tell members that right now it is nearly a third, or close to 33%. According to the latest StatsCan statistics on the Department of Justice website, over 30% of adult offenders are finding themselves reconvicted. Talk about a hole in the bucket. We have a massive hole in the bucket in the criminal justice system in Canada that needs to be addressed.

Some would say we have to do “this”, and it is going to be the ultimate answer, or we could do “that”, and it is going to be the ultimate answer. I think it is going to take different types of approaches to get the balance right to correct this problem.

There is a punitive role in criminal justice. There absolutely has to be adequate punishment for severity of crimes, absolutely. If someone does a crime, time has to be served, and we must make sure they pay their debt to society, especially for heinous and violent crimes. That is absolutely critical, and we advocate for that on this side of the House.

However, we also need to recognize that there is a role for restorative justice. It is a role for those who come alongside and are complementary on the back end to make sure that those who have committed a crime, once they have done their time, are not only getting help while they are serving their time. Perhaps this is done with new and innovative programs, like what is being proposed by my hon. colleague from Kelowna—Lake Country with her recent private member's bill to address addictions while people are incarcerated. It would be a great step in the right direction to start some of that good programming while they are on the inside.

Let us also make sure that when they get on the outside, we are partnering with effective organizations that are doing tremendous work. Then, once people are released from the prison system, they can find a place to go where they can get their education completed, get 12-step programming, get life skills development and get job opportunities and placements. Often when people come out of the criminal justice system, it is hard for them to find meaningful employment because they have a criminal record.

How can we effectively work together with other organizations to find solutions, not only at the front end while they are incarcerated but also once they have been released?

What would go a long way in addressing the backlogs in the criminal justice system is reducing crime overall. We need to deter crime with a punitive approach to make sure that if someone does criminal activity, there is a consequence. However, there also needs to be a restorative approach that makes sure that if someone has messed up and made a mistake, we have supports that can bring them the help they need to make sure they do not go back to a life of crime. I think this two-pronged approach is going to help address the proverbial hole in the bucket that needs to be addressed.

I thank the Speaker for the opportunity to address this today and to be in the House. I cannot help but think of all those who are serving in the field, volunteering and helping to make a difference in keeping people from going back to a criminal lifestyle. I pay tribute to them today. I thank the volunteer organizations, non-profit organizations, chaplains and others who are doing the hard work, the necessary work, the work of coming alongside the wounded in our society to make sure they are getting the help they need. Let us help our communities as a whole, help victims and make sure that those who perpetrate crimes do not reoffend and that they help others in need.

With that, I conclude my remarks today, and I thank the House for the opportunity to address this. Let us do all we can to fix the hole in the justice bucket.

[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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary 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, 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.

[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.

[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.

[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, Parliamentary 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.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the stated support for this important bill.

Certainly, this is about modernizing Canada's justice system. It is one step, but it is a concrete step. I know that my colleague would appreciate the fact that Bill S-4 was informed by dialogue between the federal government and the provinces and territories. Bill S-4 is a product of the Action Committee on Court Operations in Response to COVID-19, which was chaired by the justice minister and the chief justice. Collaboration and consultation are at the heart of this bill, and it is just one piece of the fuller modernization of the Canadian criminal justice system.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I respect very much the work of my hon. colleague. We sit together at the OGGO committee, and I really enjoy working with him and collaborating on projects.

Bill S-4 would take concrete steps to make the Canadian justice system more participatory. It would remove many barriers. It would allow more rural, northern and remote communities to access and participate in Canada's justice system. It would allow more Canadians with disabilities to participate, for example, in the jury selection process. It would also allow a lot of parents, the moms and dads who face barriers in terms of child care, to participate in the Canadian justice system.

I can tell the member about our government's record and the historic investments in expanding broadband to rural and remote communities across Canada. We have put record amounts of funding through the universal broadband fund. These are exactly the types of measures and concrete steps we are putting forward to make sure that Canadians from coast to coast to coast, in urban areas and rural and remote areas, are able to fully participate in the life of our country, and that includes the Canadian justice system.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Outremont.

I am pleased to speak 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. Bill S-4 addresses issues that the COVID–19 pandemic has brought to light regarding the ways in which criminal trials are conducted in this country. It also builds on past government initiatives, including Bill C-75, which came into force in 2019 and made significant progress in modernizing our criminal justice system, including by facilitating the appearance of accused persons, lawyers and judges by audioconference or video conference throughout the criminal justice process. Bill C-75 also enacted Criminal Code amendments to improve the jury selection process.

Bill S-4's amendments support the increased use of technology in criminal courts across Canada, including in the following areas: remote appearances for accused persons and offenders, remote participation of prospective jurors and the use of technology in a jury selection process. My remarks today will focus on the amendments relating to the use of technology during the jury selection process.

As many members know, a jury is a group of randomly selected citizens who act as the fact-finders in criminal trials, replacing the judge in this role when accused persons exercise their subsection 11(f) charter right to a jury trial after being charged with certain offences. It is the civic duty of all Canadians over the age of 18 to serve on a jury if selected. Jurors make critical contributions to the criminal justice system in Canada, and the Supreme Court of Canada has held that a jury reflects the common sense, values and conscience of the community.

Subsection 11(d) of the charter also guarantees an accused person an independent, impartial and representative jury. The Criminal Code sets out the procedural rules regulating jury trials and jury selection and includes safeguards that reflect this charter right.

The jury selection process is a hearing held for the purposes of selecting qualified members to form the jury. Typically, persons referred to as prospective jurors are identified and summoned in accordance with provincial or territorial laws, and directed to attend at a specified courthouse or other location at a specified date and time in order to partake in a jury selection process. Being summoned for jury duty does not necessarily mean that a person will be asked to serve on the jury. However, compliance with the summons is mandatory, and people may only be excused from jury duty for certain reasons, including where it would cause personal hardship for them to serve.

The COVID–19 pandemic and public health requirements for physical distancing posed significant challenges for the jury selection process since it sometimes involves several hundred people being physically present in the same location at the same time. Bill S-4's amendments provide courts with the flexibility to hold jury selection processes with prospective jurors appearing by video conference rather than in person. These amendments aim to not only address the challenges caused by the pandemic, but also optimize the jury selection process beyond the pandemic and moving forward.

Importantly, a key aspect of Bill S-4 will be increased efficiency of the justice system, facilitated by the use of technology. The amendments enable a court to allow or require prospective jurors to participate by video conference so long as the court considers it appropriate and the accused person and Crown prosecutor consent to the jury selection process occurring this way.

Where a court allows a prospective juror to participate by video conference, it would be that individual's choice whether they want to participate in person or remotely. Where the court requires prospective jurors to participate in a jury selection process by video conference, it will need to approve a location that is equipped with the technological infrastructure for them to participate by those means, such as a community centre or a courtroom set up with the requisite equipment.

If the court does not approve such a location, it will only be able to permit prospective jurors to participate by video conference from another location, such their home or office, if they choose to participate that way. However, in this case, the court will also need to provide the option for prospective jurors to participate in the jury selection process in person.

These amendments aim to maintain the representativeness of the jury selection process in two ways.

First, they facilitate the participation of persons in the jury selection process by reducing the burdens and barriers of attending in person. Although participating by video conference from home or the office would not eliminate the need to take time off work, it would likely lessen the time commitment required compared to commuting to the courthouse and waiting sometimes several hours for the process to commence. This can facilitate the participation of prospective jurors living in rural or remote areas by minimizing travel time and costs, and help those who need to find child care or who hold precarious employment by reducing the time required for child care or the time they need to take off work. These changes would both reduce the burden for individual jurors and enhance the efficiency of the overall system.

Second, the changes would ensure that persons who do not have access to adequate video conferencing technology or who have a limited understanding of the technology will continue to be able to participate in the jury selection process and ultimately form part of the trial's jury.

Our government recognizes that there is a digital divide in Canada and that many Canadians, particularly those in rural and remote areas, do not have adequate access to a high-speed and stable Internet connection. Although the government is committed to closing the divide, the amendments would ensure that at least a properly equipped location or an option to appear in person will always be available to prospective jurors to ensure participation by as many Canadians as possible.

The bill's amendments to the jury selection process also include important safeguards. As mentioned previously, prior to permitting or acquiring prospective jurors to participate by video conference, both the accused person and the prosecutor will need to consent to such an order being made. Also, the court will need to determine that making such an order is appropriate by considering listed factors, including the challenges related to the in-person participation of prospective jurors, their privacy and security, and the accused person's right to a fair and public hearing.

I would also like to take a moment to touch on the related proposals that would permit the use of electronic or automated means to randomly select prospective jurors during the jury selection process. The current process is both time- and resource-intensive, as it requires a large number of physical cards with juror identification information on them to be manually created for each prospective juror and then manually drawn as well. This amendment would provide courts with the option of a more efficient and less resource-draining process. Along with the amendments previously discussed, it also aims to optimize the jury selection process beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

I believe this bill helps transform and modernize our criminal justice system while ensuring respect for all persons involved in the criminal court process, including accused persons and prospective jurors. A more efficient justice system will benefit all Canadians, and I ask that all members of the House support the passage of this bill as quickly as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, there should always be an appropriate consequence for a crime that is committed, but I want to shy away from that and refer to the fact that Bill S-4 is really about the partial modernization in which our judicial system would be able to incorporate video conferencing or video taping to assist the system. We learned that through the pandemic. Could the member reaffirm, which I understand to be the case, that the Conservative Party will be supporting the legislation and getting the important feedback on it once it goes to committee?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Alberta did not speak an awful lot about the bill at hand. There was not an awful lot there on Bill S-4, so I certainly hope later on today, as I do my speech, I am afforded the same leniency to expand upon thoughts.

One thing he did talk about was the attack on an RCMP officer, and I think everyone in the House finds it incredibly appalling to hear that. From my perspective as an Albertan, I remember last year when the RCMP officers in Coutts were threatened with illegal guns and with crime.

I wonder why the member has such a different perspective on what should have been done in that situation. Why the Emergencies Act should not have been enacted? Why we should not have done everything we could to protect those RCMP officers? Why the different perspective for what should be done to protect RCMP officers in his community?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to respond to that. When it comes to the administration of justice within my constituency, the RCMP members, the hard-working men and women who wear the Serge, are the ones facing the consequences of Liberal mismanagement. The reason it has such a close correlation to Bill S-4 before the House is because it is fundamentally associated with access to justice.

I talk about many of these things, and made it very clear in Facebook Live, and I have been happy to endeavour to expand Canadians' access to this place, as is fundamental. Democracy is not simply about election day, but each and every day in between. It certainly has been an interesting experiment. I found it interesting, but very disappointing, that members specifically of the Liberal Party would hate any attempt to be progressive in the ability of Canadians to access our democracy.

The rule of law is fundamental to a modern functioning democracy, and we are seeing an erosion of that. We need to prioritize access to justice in every way possible. In some ways that has to do with ensuring there are video conference options and that administrative details can be sorted out so there are no unnecessary delays.

Our Criminal Code was written by Prime Minister John Sparrow back in the 1800s, although it has been updated significantly since then over the course of our country's history. We need to ensure it is updated to ultimately ensure that Canadians have access to justice, that victims are protected and that those who commit crimes face the time that is due them.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind members that points of order have to be used judiciously as well. I ruled on the point of order that the hon. member for Fundy Royal put forward.

I want to remind members that they are to ensure that they are speaking about the bill that is before the House. I understand that there is some latitude, but the hon. member is actually going over that as well.

I want to remind the hon. member to stick to the debate on Bill S-4.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know the hon. member is reading comments off Facebook, but we should be focused on the bill, which is Bill S-4. It does not deal with the RCMP, or the brass or whatever his constituents are thinking. It is nice he is responding to that, but he needs to be relevant and he needs to speak to the bill before us.

[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 whom 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—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, 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.

[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, 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—

[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.

The House resumed from November 23 consideration of the motion that 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), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, yes, he was one of the only individuals who mentioned it today. In the past, I, and others, have had the opportunity to recognize the importance of victims and how we can be there to support victims. I appreciated the member's comments.

We are taking a look at ways we can use technology, and this would not only make our courts more efficient, but it would also assist victims who have been put in difficult positions. If we can make it easier by working through the courts and getting that consensus to ensure that person can appear via video conference, then we should take advantage of that situation.

I was quite encouraged by what appears to be unanimous consent to go forward with the legislation. That is very encouraging. When the legislation comes before us next, I will continue on that point, recognizing that we do have an opportunity to hopefully get Bill S-4 to committee.

I respect what the members from the Bloc were saying, that the Quebec legal bar association is looking at ways it can enhance or improve the legislation. I suspect there could be some amendments coming forward. I look forward to its ultimately passage, and I will conclude my remarks the next time this comes before the House.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to an important piece of legislation. I had the opportunity to ask a couple of questions of a number of members on Bill S-4. It is a piece of legislation that was in the House previously, but in a different form. It originated in the House of Commons, where there was a great deal of discussion about it, and it has been reintroduced to the House in the form of a Senate bill, with very few substantial changes.

Having said that, I look at the legislation as a form of modernization. I do not say that lightly. I recall a couple of instances from years ago when I was a justice critic in the Manitoba legislature. There was a great deal of talk about how we could utilize technology to ensure that our judicial system was more effective.

One thing that used to really frustrate me was, when I would drive to the Manitoba legislature from home, I would pass the courts and see all the police cars parked there due to police waiting for trial, many of whom would never even get to testify on that particular day and would be called upon to come back another day, or I would be at another facility where there was serious police traffic, all court related. I remember talking to law enforcement officers who indicated it would be far better to capitalize on some of the technology, such as video conferencing, and the positive impact that would have. I believe it would be quite effective.

When I heard about the legislation coming from the Senate, legislation that originated in the House and was then reintroduced through the Senate, I looked at it from the perspective that, at the end of day, Canadians want a system that will be there in an independent fashion, independent of politics. We very much believe in the rule of law and judicial independence, but there is still a role for legislators and parliamentarians to look at ways to improve the system. That is what we are seeing here. This legislation that the government brought forward would ensure better accessibility. It would make the system more efficient and, ultimately, more effective.

As was cited earlier, we hear a great deal about the importance of getting justice as quickly as possible. There are certain things we have learned from the pandemic. We often heard, when the pandemic was at its peak, that we should look for ways to learn from the pandemic to improve our systems. The technology can easily be brought into our judicial system. We should at least provide the opportunity for its usage. I like to think that providing that opportunity would make a difference.

Bill S-4 proposes a range of reforms that would make court proceedings more flexible while protecting the rights of all participants. The reforms would flow from important work that was done and conducted by the Action Committee on Court Operations in Response to COVID-19, co-chaired by the Minister of Justice and Chief Justice Richard Wagner.

When we look at the tangible things coming out of the legislation, we see one would allow an accused person to appear by video conference at a preliminary inquiry, on consent of the parties and where the court considers it appropriate, including when evidence is actually being presented. In addition, it would allow an accused person to appear by video conference for trial for a summary conviction offence, on consent and where the court considers it appropriate, including when evidence is being presented.

Another important point to recognize in the legislation is that it would allow an accused person to appear via video conference for a trial for an indictable offence on the consent of parties and where the court considers it appropriate, including when evidence is being presented, except in the case of evidence before a jury.

I have two more points to highlight. It would allow an accused person to appear by video conference and audio conference for making a plea on consent of the parties and, where the court considers it appropriate, a plea by audio conference. This would only occur when the court was satisfied that video conferencing was not readily available, and the court could still inquire about the conditions of accepting a guilty plea under subsection 606(1.1), despite not being able to see the accused person, which was proposed in clause 715.234.

The last point I would make to Bill S-4 is that it would allow the offender to appear by video conference or audio conference for sentencing purposes, on the consent of the parties and where a court considers it appropriate. Sentencing by audio conference would only occur when the court was satisfied that video conferencing was not readily available, as proposed in clause 715.235.

I do appreciate the importance of video conferencing. My New Democratic friend from James Bay—

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think the question brings up an important point. In this bill, we are looking to adopt a broader use of technology, not just for the sake of a broader use of technology, but to provide greater access to justice, as part of this, and that flexibility.

I think we had the important suggestion made by the member for Timmins—James Bay about how sometimes using technology allows victims to participate more freely in these kinds of systems than if they have to appear in front of someone who has caused them great harm in person.

I think that there are lots of advantages, in addition to the efficiency advantages, in Bill S-4.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke for his learned presentation. I think there are some very important elements there. I wanted to just pick up on the issue of access to justice and how this bill would expand that. I know it has been one of those challenging issues that, across provincial jurisdictions, we have had to deal with.

Can he maybe talk about his province of British Columbia and how it has been able to adopt this, how that has impacted access to justice and how that has informed Bill S-4?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill S-4, although I have to place it in the category of “better late than never”. This legislation responds primarily to what we learned as a result of court delays during the pandemic. How quickly we forget that the court system in Canada essentially shut down completely, sometimes for weeks and sometimes for months in different parts of the country, as a result of widespread illness and the fear of illness. Essentially, we had a collapse of the court system looming.

Therefore, in this Parliament, through all-party agreement, we enacted quickly some measures that allowed the courts to keep functioning during the pandemic. Most of those measures are now appearing here to become permanent, because they were adopted on a temporary basis. They would now be made permanent in Bill S-4.

We also tend to forget that this bill was on the Order Paper before the unnecessary election. Most of my constituents have completely forgotten we had a 2021 election. People talk to me about the last election as though it were 2019. However, this bill was one of the casualties of the Liberals' calling that election during the pandemic, and it died on the Order Paper.

Therefore, I am glad to be back here today talking about Bill S-4 and how to address delays in the court system.

It is very clear that we already had delays before the pandemic. In the period between the Supreme Court decision called “Askov” in 1990 and the decision called the “Jordan decision” in 2016, we had more than 50,000 criminal cases dismissed in the province of Ontario alone because of delays of the court system. This included literally hundreds of cases of sexual assault that were dismissed because of court delays.

Therefore, it is important that we tackle this in the long run and not find ourselves back in that situation where delays deny justice to the victims of what are quite serious and horrendous crimes, in many cases.

With the Jordan decision, the Supreme Court specified that depending on the seriousness of the case involved, a reasonable time to get to court is something between 18 months and 30 months. That is a deadline that we face in our court system. If we do not have the system functioning for that, we will see dismissals of cases again. We have large backlogs in the system as a result of the pandemic, and we are in danger of seeing more dismissals of cases again in the future if we do not get moving. That is why Bill S-4, which would improve the efficiency of the court system, is really important.

The other thing about delays is that they affect public confidence in the justice system, both for those who have been accused, who would like to see their case dealt with in a reasonable time and who have a right to that under our Constitution, and also for victims of crime, who do not want to see cases drawn out for months and years. Victims of crime do not want to have this necessity of reliving the trauma and having what happened to them come back again and again over long periods of time, so we have this important task in front of us to try to reduce those delays.

There are some obvious obstacles that would cause delays in court. I will give credit to the government that it has tried to tackle one of those obstacles, which is filling vacancies on the bench. In doing so, the government has paid a lot of attention to making the judiciary look a lot more like Canadians as a whole, and that is a good thing.

However, there is another way of reducing delays that the government would not take up the NDP proposal on, which would be reducing the number of things that we consider criminal offences. One of the things we did was put forward the proposal that we decriminalize the personal possession of drugs. This would have taken literally hundreds of cases out of our court system in which there is no victim to the crime. Also, for cases in which we are talking about the use of very serious drugs, it would help get them into the health care system instead of the criminal justice system. Therefore, the government has not always taken our advice on the best way to reduce delays, but we are glad to see the changes that are coming forward here.

I want to talk quickly about two major changes and then two other changes in this bill.

Probably the change that is most important for the elimination of delays is the change with respect to remote appearances. Previously, there was no provision in our system for the accused to appear by video in preliminary inquiries, in trials, for lodging pleas or for sentencing, so a lot of time was spent moving accused individuals around, back and forth to the courts, so they could appear in person.

The changes here will remove the necessity that was there to make sure someone was always in person for what was sometimes two minutes of a routine proceeding, for things like lodging a plea. It will also make a change to allow those who have been selected for possible jury duty to make their appearances by video or remotely and reduce the inconvenience to members of the public who might be called to jury duty.

That is an important section of the bill, to allow the greater use of technology and remote appearances.

The second part, probably not so publicly visible but related to efficiencies in the court and policing system, is the provision for updating telewarrants. Our law before the pandemic envisioned that for a narrow range of criminal cases only, a judge could be called by phone. What we found during the pandemic was that we could use remote technologies to expand the range of cases in which a warrant could be obtained through remote methods.

Again, the bill provides for a wider variety of cases where a wider variety of technologies can be used in order to get warrants. This will save the time of both judges and police in our system.

I have a couple of things I want to mention quickly. One is the changes in case management rules for the unrepresented. One of the problems we have in our court system is that while people have the right to appear in court unrepresented, a lot of people are not exercising some kind of right. Rather, they cannot afford a lawyer to assist them in their case because they do not qualify for legal aid. Perhaps they earn just enough money to be out of the range of legal aid programs.

I think it is a significant improvement, both in terms of case delays but also in terms of justice for ordinary Canadians, who cannot always afford to get a lawyer. This would allow court administrators to provide a lot more assistance to the unrepresented.

The justification is often the court delays, but I think there is a second justification that is important there, and that is improving access to justice for those who are unrepresented.

There is obviously a better solution, and that would be to expand legal aid, so that people do not end up appearing in court on serious matters unrepresented. Again, though, that takes a lot of federal-provincial co-operation, something that is sometimes in short supply in our legal system.

The fourth thing I want to talk about, and I mentioned it briefly, is the provisions that make it easier for the public who are called for jury duty to participate remotely. Here is an area in which I think we have a lot more to do. We need to make sure jurors are not in fact penalized by serving on a jury. In our federal system, most of the rules about compensating jurors are in provincial jurisdictions, even though they are sitting on cases under the federal Criminal Code.

We need national standards on how we compensate jurors and what kinds of things they are compensated for. When we look at how people are compensated for jury duty right now, it ranges usually between $40 and $100 a day. Very few people have compensation in terms of getting paid leave from their employers. It increases people's resistance to serving on juries. There are lots of other expenses that are covered in various ways in various provinces. Are meals covered? Is parking covered? The one that is most important to me, which is rarely covered, is child care.

The Province of Quebec allows compensation for child care on a case-by-case basis. I think it is on the basis of application. That is also true in Nunavut. I believe that is the only other place where there is compensation for child care. If we really want to make sure juries represent the breadth of Canada and the face of Canada, then parents quite often are going to be very reluctant to serve if they do not have compensation for the child care that is going to be required.

Some people might say they would already be going to work so they would have child care, but we have a lot of parents who make choices about who is going to stay home and do child care. If that person is summoned for jury duty, that is a big expense.

That is something that is not in the bill, but I look forward to our taking this spirit of co-operation we have on this bill and maybe making some progress on what I would call a national standard of how jurors are compensated for serving in this country.

I want to say again that we have broad agreement on the bill. That is a good thing. It took a long time to get it here, but maybe now that we are in gear it will not take so long to get it out of here and into committee, and maybe it will not take so long in committee to get it back to the House. I share the optimistic suggestion of my Conservative colleague, who wanted to see us get this done by Christmas. I think that would be a good thing, and I think we can all work toward that.

We do not always co-operate well in the House. Sometimes our divisions keep us from dealing expeditiously with things that are real problems. I think delays in the court system are a real problem, and I am very happy all parties have come together to try to address this in Bill S-4.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge my colleague's considerable expertise; he has a lot of experience in this area. It is a great honour for the Bloc Québécois to have a resource like my colleague speak to this bill.

I would like to share a personal anecdote. My husband had a career with the Sûreté du Québec. I cannot remember how many times he was called to court. He often went in on overtime, because it was not part of his regular schedule, only to be told, upon arrival, that the hearing had been postponed. When he came home, he told me how ridiculous it all was. It had cost the government a lot of money to have all those people show up and then go home because the hearing had been postponed for whatever reason.

I wanted to add to my colleague's comments that, in some circumstances, it is really effective to have a bill like S‑4, but not in all cases. I think he is right. I want to commend his position of taking into account the legal context and of not passing this legislation as a whole, but making amendments. I think that will happen in committee. I hope so. With my colleague there, we will be very well equipped.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I hope that he and I both enjoy our lives after our time serving here in Parliament. I am sure we will.

I agree with my colleague. The bill could indeed speed up the process. As a lawyer, there were times when I had to wait all morning in a courtroom because of various procedures that unnecessarily had to be done in person. Some of these procedures could easily have been done remotely, virtually or in writing.

These days, the courts are constantly working to improve the flow of the legal system. I think the proposals in Bill S-4 are a step in that direction. As I said earlier, people are travelling unnecessarily. When we know that a hearing postponement is going to be requested in a case and that the lawyers all agree on this request for postponement, is it really necessary for everyone to travel there, to clog up the court and to take up five, 10 or 15 minutes of the court's time just to hear everyone tell the judge that they all agree?

I think this could all be done remotely and efficiently as long as everyone agrees. If a litigant is at home and cannot follow the proceedings in an efficient and intelligible way, then that would be counterproductive and would create unwanted frustration.

Yes, remote proceedings, like all the provisions set out in Bill S-4, will be a useful tool if used with the consent of the parties and with discernment.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really liked what my colleague from Rivière‑du‑Nord had to say, as well as what we heard from the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, who spoke before him and is a member of our party.

The member's comments were based on his experience. We all had lives before politics and we all want lives after politics. When we speak from our experience and when lawyers talk about justice when we are studying a bill about justice, that tends to be very interesting, as we saw today.

When I talk to lawyers in my riding, their main concern is delays in the justice system and the fact that no judges are available to hold trials. These delays cause people to lose confidence in the justice system.

Based on his own experience, can the member tell us whether Bill S‑4 will speed up access to justice and restore people's confidence in the justice system? Some people think that new technology can speed things up.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to express the Bloc Québécois' support for Bill S‑4, formerly Bill C‑23. Bill S‑4 was requested by many provinces and justice system stakeholders seeking to benefit from the lessons learned during the pandemic.

Bill S‑4 seeks to amend the Criminal Code by introducing provisions to make the system more effective. The pandemic was disastrous on many levels. We all agree on that. We certainly hope never to see it again; that goes without saying.

We also all learned from this crisis, and we can certainly try to benefit from the lessons learned. We worked virtually over the past two years like we never have before. This way of doing things certainly has some disadvantages. I will come back to that. However, there were some benefits that we cannot ignore. Our justice system could most definitely be improved through the use of this little-known or often misused tool. Bill S‑4 proposes instructions to ensure that the proceedings that can be carried out remotely are managed and used effectively.

This bill proposes to allow for the use of electronic or other automated means for the purposes of the jury selection process. It also proposes to expand, for the accused and offenders, the availability of remote appearances by audioconference and videoconference in certain circumstances and to provide for the participation of prospective jurors in the jury selection process by videoconference in certain circumstances.

The bill would expand the power of courts to make case management rules permitting court personnel to deal with administrative matters for accused not represented by counsel and it would 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.

Finally, it would 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.

Bill S-4 also 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.

Finally, Bill S-4 makes related amendments to other acts and also provides for independent reviews on the use of remote proceedings in criminal justice matters.

It also provides for a parliamentary review of the provisions enacted or amended by this act, and of the use of remote proceedings in criminal justice matters, to begin at the start of the fifth year after it receives royal assent. There is a review of the whole process after five years. I think that is very wise, given that many of the provisions in Bill S-4 are new.

Bill S-4 is basically a tool. As we have seen here in the House and elsewhere, working remotely definitely has its advantages, but it also has significant drawbacks. Like any tool, it must be used judiciously. It has limitations that must be considered. When the time comes to assess a witness's credibility, body language is an important element that the judge wants to take into account. In remote proceedings, that type of language is redacted, so to speak. In my opinion, it is an important element that could, in some cases, radically change the outcome of a trial, particularly when the evidence consists of contradictory testimony.

Once again, like any tool, it must be used with discernment. A screwdriver is very useful; so is a hammer. However, if we use a hammer to drive in a screw we will have a problem. If we use a screwdriver to pound a nail, we will have another problem. In each case, we must determine what is appropriate. This is not a cure-all. In that regard, the Quebec bar association urges us to be cautious with certain provisions. I will come back to that.

However, proceeding remotely in some cases will accelerate the judicial process. It will minimize time wasted and postponements. We often see courtrooms packed with people in the morning waiting to appear, and then half the cases may be postponed for various reasons. If the proceedings are held remotely, delays due to postponements will be reduced, and the same applies for administrative matters, which do not require lawyers to appear in person. That already exists and is already being used to manage cases where parties are represented by lawyers. Under Bill S‑4, this could also apply when the parties are unrepresented. We will have to examine how to proceed, because this does pose certain challenges.

I think it is a useful measure that will reduce travel, inconvenience and often the frustration of people facing a judicial system that is manifestly too slow and opaque and that imposes costs and travel that could well be avoided. It is therefore a good thing if, I repeat, it is used with discernment.

I mentioned the drawbacks, including issues around witness and juror credibility. In a jury trial, the lawyers selecting jurors have to evaluate the candidates based on factors that are not always technical. Lawyers listen to them, ask them questions, consider their answers and also take into account their body language and the way they answer. In many cases, that is how they decide whether to accept or reject a potential juror.

The same goes for witnesses. There have been many trials in which key evidence consists of contradictory testimony. How are judges to decide whether one witness is telling the truth and the other is lying? Judges will use the witnesses' answers, certainly, as well as their body language. They will consider how witnesses react. They get a sense of people's credibility based on many criteria that are not necessarily explicitly stated in written procedures. It is important for judges and lawyers working on a trial to have face-to-face access to witnesses and potential jurors.

Could they not in some cases be heard virtually? I think so. Could jurors not in some cases appear virtually? I think so, but that has to be determined with the consent of the parties and not systematically imposed in every trial.

There is also talk of the problem of hacking. We know that we are constantly having to deal with hackers. We all receive unsolicited emails and proposals. I often receive messages warning that I have been summoned for a trial at a certain location and that I have to click on a link or the world will come to an end. All sorts of things like that happen, so our computer systems are not always as safe as we might think. Even banks get hacked. We saw that roughly two years ago when Desjardins suffered a data breach. Holding trials virtually is one thing, and we need to be careful, but Bill S‑4 also talks about telewarrants, meaning a warrant to conduct a search of someone's home.

If we computerize all telewarrants, warrants obtained virtually, and if we proceed based on a virtual model, are we not exposing ourselves to piracy and perhaps searches or actions of a legal nature that would be contrary to the interests of litigants, contrary to what we are trying to achieve in the administration of justice? I think we need to ask the question. I do not want to be an alarmist. Once again, I see Bill S‑4 as a positive thing, but I am just saying that we do need to ask some questions. It is not a panacea. It must not be applied without careful consideration.

There is the issue of regional disparities. As we saw during the pandemic, not everyone in Quebec, nor elsewhere in Canada, has equal access to computer systems. It is rather lacking in some regions.

Some people are able to work at home all day with two people on computers and hold meetings with multiple people without any issues. Others have a hard time making a phone call without being interrupted. That also has to be taken into consideration.

It is also the mandate of our federal government to ensure that everyone in Quebec and Canada has proper Internet coverage, but we are not there yet. Admittedly, the government is working on it, but there is still a long way to go. That has to be taken into account if we want to computerize the justice system, so how can we do that?

Once again, I think that, before we impose virtual proceedings, we need to make sure that we have the consent of the parties. If someone says, “Just a second. Where I live, we do not have very good coverage and I will not be able to follow along”, then perhaps the proceedings need to be held in person.

There is a process, and adjustments will have to be made. We need to take that into account, even though I think that Bill S-4 is an important step forward for the administration of justice.

Speaking of compromises, the Barreau du Québec submitted a brief in April that set out four recommendations. I want to read them because I think they are sensible.

The first recommendation from the Barreau du Québec is:

Exclude testimonial evidence from the new videoconferencing system. Testimonial evidence must be heard with all parties present.

As I was saying earlier, for the purpose of observing body language alone, I think it is important to see people.

The second recommendation is:

Carry out an in-depth study on the potential impact of making measures developed in a pandemic context, namely, those relating to technology and the automation of procedures, permanent in the Criminal Code. Carry out an in-depth study on the impact of videoconferencing on:

The attorney-client relationship...

It is a matter of professional responsibility for the attorney to properly represent the client and to ensure that he or she fully understands the brief and explains to the client what he or she believes is in the client's interest.

... and confidentiality.

Again, we know that the Internet and computers are not 100% secure, and this could lead to unwanted challenges and drawbacks.

Open court (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms).

This is set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and we have to take that into account. I will come back to that.

The right to a fair trial (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms).

Quality and consistency of justice (regional disparities in resources, Indigenous realities, self-representation).

Regional disparities in resources also affect the right to a fair trial and the quality and consistency of justice. What about indigenous realities? Are indigenous communities equipped to hold trials remotely? Can they do that? It is hard to be sure, but probably not all of them can. For people who self-represent, it is one thing for a lawyer at home or participating remotely to handle case management, but it can be problematic for a self-represented individual to deal with one, two or three lawyers in addition to a judge and a clerk, all participating remotely. At the very least, it can weigh down the process instead of streamlining it. We have to give that some serious thought.

The Barreau du Québec's third recommendation is as follows:

Delete new proposed section 715.241 of the Criminal Code, which allows the court to “require an accused who is in custody and who has access to legal advice to appear by videoconference in any proceeding referred to in those sections, other than a part in which the evidence of a witness is taken.”

I said it earlier. I think that, as long as everyone agrees, it is perfect. Going virtual is the appropriate tool. If all the parties agree and the judge agrees, that is what should happen. However, there is an issue if not everyone agrees. The proposed section 715.241 allows the court to require the accused to appear by video conference. This seems to me to be a potential problem, and I believe that the Barreau du Québec is right to warn us about this aspect.

The fourth recommendation of the Barreau du Québec reads as follows:

Clarify the distinction in Bill S‑4 between an accused who has “access to legal advice” and one who is “represented by counsel” in a context where only accused persons with representation can communicate with counsel.

Having access to legal advice is a vague concept. Access when and on what subject? What exactly are we talking about? Does having had access to a lawyer yesterday to discuss a number of issues mean that the individual is prepared to deal with any and all situations that may arise during a trial? That is not a given. This will have to be clarified, as Bill S‑4 is not very clear in this regard.

An accused who is represented by counsel and an accused who has access to legal advice seem to be given the same credit or treatment. I think we will have to take a closer look at that.

As I stated, the Bloc Québécois will support the bill and probably move amendments in committee. We shall see, but I think that this bill should be referred to a committee.

Having said that, I would be remiss if, in the last five minutes at my disposal, I did not bring to the attention of the House other major problems that need to be addressed to achieve sound and efficient administration of justice. We must not forget about them. Bill S‑4 is not a cure-all. I have spoken at length about the issue of connectivity in all regions, so I will not say any more about it. Still, it is an important aspect and is one of the things we must work on if we want to have an efficient virtual legal system.

There is also the question of judicial vacancies. Several positions are still vacant. I was speaking with a Quebec Superior Court judge two or three weeks ago who told me that there are about 15 vacancies in Quebec. I do not know what our government is waiting for to fill those judicial vacancies. It seems absurd to me. It is not even the federal government that pays those judges, it is Quebec. I should say, rather, the federal government does pay them, but it does not pay for the infrastructure, the clerks and the courtrooms. All associated costs are assumed by Quebec. There are vacancies, and our government has failed to fill them. It is a serious problem. A sound administration of justice requires sufficient resources on the ground, and judges are the primary resource we need.

We have spent a lot of time talking about the issue of appointing judges based on the “Liberalist”, and we will come back to that again. It does not make sense that, to this day, the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister are still trying to reassure me that the “Liberalist” is used only after receiving applications that are deemed suitable. I personally believe that it should never be used, because partisan appointments, or appointments tainted by partisanship, are unacceptable in our society.

Finally, we recently talked again about the matter of secret trials, and that issue was in the news again yesterday. The Minister of Justice says he cannot tell us how many secret trials there are. He cannot even tell us whether there are any. I can understand that things need to be done differently than the charter dictates in some cases to keep witnesses safe, but it is certainly not acceptable for things to be done in a secret, non-transparent way like they are now. These trials need to be governed by the provisions of the charter. As members know, there can be a departure from the charter in exceptional circumstances that can be justified in a free and democratic society. I can accept that, but it cannot be done just any which way. When the Minister of Justice says that he cannot tell us how many of these trials are happening or even whether any such trials are happening or how the process works, that is a problem. This is not the wild west. Things need to be organized better. It is unacceptable for the government to operate like that.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound raises a point that really should be prominent and is salient in this discussion.

The efficiency of the justice system should be sacrosanct, because, in my view, we should have been making the mandatory minimums that have been struck down constitutionally compliant. On the one hand, we may have people who say that we need a lot more mandatory minimums. On the other hand, we will have people, generally across the aisle, who would say that we do not need any mandatory minimums.

My view is that we should have a middle ground where we have mandatory minimums that have room for exceptional circumstances so that they do not apply, because it is the outlier cases that result in mandatory minimums getting struck down. Why do we not address that in legislation?

I do not think anybody in the House would say we do not want to go after gangsters, so why are we having Bill C-5 at the beginning of this Parliament, as my colleague pointed out, and Bill S-4 at this point? In fact, we should be changing it and flipping the script to bring back legislation that focuses on these mandatory minimums when gun crimes have consistently gone up.

Community-based sentences for discharging a firearm with intent, I believe, was a constitutionally upheld mandatory minimum in a case called Oud from the B.C. Court of Appeal. I believe in that case it was five years. That mandatory minimum was upheld by the B.C. Court of Appeal, and now a person can get a conditional sentence order for it. I do not understand how that is possible.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo on his very eloquent speech. He said that he had 15 pages to read.

The member raised a major issue with the justice system, namely its efficiency, as well as another directly related issue, access to justice. Would the member agree with me that Bill S-4 could improve the justice system in terms of accessibility and efficiency? Could he continue his speech by telling us more about what should be added to Bill S-4 to make it even more effective in terms of access to justice? Maybe he covers that in the other 15 pages of his speech.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec has some good lawyers as well. There are good lawyers everywhere. We will just leave that aside for now.

The importance of fingerprinting is not actually that well known, but it is very important. This is something that must be modernized.

Moving to the substance of the act, judicial systems have massive backlogs. I believe a few years ago the maximum time to lay a summary conviction offence expanded from six months to one year. I was happy to see that, but we still have a massive backlog. Trials are just not getting on.

Members may have heard the saying, “Justice delayed is justice denied.” This is problematic. A right to a fair trial is embraced within the charter text, obviously. We have often thought about an accused person's right to a fair trial that has a speedy element required, constitutionally obviously, but what about a victim's right to a fair trial? With time, memory fades. It is a proven fact. I do not know anybody who says that their memory is better a year and a half later than it was two weeks after an incident or even six months after an incident. A backlog in the justice system actually contributes to a less efficient system.

At the end of the day the court should exist to get to the truth in a just manner. If getting to the truth is not necessarily a memory contest, then we have a problem when there is a massive backlog. I remember a victim saying that to me one time early on in my career. I said the trial had been adjourned, and he asked about his right. I had to tell him that, as a victim, he did not have a right.

A lot of victims often come to the courts and say they just figured it would be adjourned. I have actually seen instances when courts generally sit for about five hours a day, if we were to compress all of the time together, and up to 12 to 15 hours of court time is crunched into that five hours. That is how much of a backlog there is. This could result in people being released back into the community who should not be released into the community.

One thing we do not generally talk about here is delay, and that delay has been discussed by the Supreme Court of Canada in a case called Jordan. The Jordan decision talked about the right to trial within a reasonable time, the constitutional right to be tried, which is within 18 months, or a year and a half, if the matter is preceded by summarily, which is considered a less serious type of offence, or 30 months, or two and a half years, by indictment.

The greater the strain on resources, the longer it takes for a trial to occur. More cases mean a greater backlog and a greater backlog means even longer, and this affects bail. The problem we have is the following. With the Jordan principle, the clock, and what I mean by clock is the time, the two and a half years, starts ticking the moment a charge is laid.

There have been expansive requirements for disclosure since the Stinchcombe decision in, I think, 1988. There have been massive changes in disclosure, to the point where disclosure is probably one of the single biggest reasons we have delays. It is one of them. We, as Parliament, have not addressed that issue. One might be asking why disclosure matters. It matters because it takes months, sometimes years, to get disclosure together on major cases. If someone, a police officer or a prosecutor, has a case, that case may have literally 30,000 pages of documents.

Because of the Jordan decision, there is a hesitation to lay a charge, because it may take a year to a year and a half, maybe two years, to get those documents together. This might include people who are dangerous, a person who, at this point in time, should not be roaming freely and should at least have conditions on bail or be detained pending their trial.

However, because of the Jordan decision, those people will often be free for the duration, so a year and a half to two years, without any conditions and without any detention. Frequently, these are the most serious cases, because the most serious cases generate the most paperwork, and the most paperwork generates the most disclosure. These are frequently homicides, so we are not talking about cases that are not serious. In fact we are talking about cases that are the most serious in nature.

I will give another example. Members have heard me talk frequently in the House about sexual offences. This is how the Jordan issue affects these offences and why we need to address the streamlining of these cases, especially for sexual offences.

I am being hypothetical here. A person has child sexual abuse material, which is what we voted on today in Bill C-291, and has that material found on their computer. In order to prove that case beyond a reasonable doubt, a prosecutor needs to prove who owns that computer, who possessed that computer and who accessed those materials. That is typically done by an expert. Right now there are not a lot of experts out there, and it takes time to go into a hard drive. These are the same people who go into hard drives often for terrorism-related offences or for homicides, or who are looking at text messages or messages that were sent digitally.

There is a strain on resources when it comes to these sorts of things. Therefore, a person who is alleged to have committed a sexual offence against a child, like possession, production or distribution of child sexual abuse material or Internet luring, some of the most serious cases against children, will have their computer seized, and it will be 12 months or more before that computer can be analyzed. For 12 months that person is roaming the community without conditions. We are not even talking out on bail. They have no conditions at all because of the Jordan decision.

The question is this. How should Parliament respond? This is not a question of admonishing the rule of law; it is a question of how we should respond to these obviously prominent issues that are before the House in Bill S-4. How do we respond? While Bill S-4 would make some changes, we have so much further to go.

I had 14 pages of notes and I am on page 3. I may have to cut out a bit.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people in Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. I am mindful of the fact that I cannot point out people in the gallery, even if three of them 11 and under bear a striking resemblance to me.

Today we are discussing Bill S-4. Bill S-4 is 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.

Before I begin, and this is somewhat related to what we discussed, I want to note the pleasure I have here that I just voted for Bill C-291, and the House unanimously, as I understand it, voted to bring Bill C-291 to committee. That bill will hopefully change the name of child pornography to “child sexual abuse material” to reflect the fact that sexual abuse of children is not pornographic but is abuse, and we should call it what it is. Words do matter. When I stood on doorsteps prior to my election, this is something I said I wanted to come to Parliament to do.

I am very happy and pleased to have partnered with my colleague and friend from North Okanagan—Shuswap to have addressed this problem at second reading. I look forward to our having a strong bipartisan effort at committee in hopes of having this bill passed by Christmas.

Bill S-4 relates to the efficiency of the criminal justice system. When we talk about efficiency in the justice system, we are often talking about inefficiency in the justice system. In fact, prior to my being elected, I contemplated doing some academic writing in law that talked about inefficiencies in the justice system and how we might address them. I am going to talk about some of those here today, some of those things that are, in fact, missing.

We cannot forget that there are people within the justice system who make it go around who really do not get the recognition they deserve. Sheriffs in British Columbia, for instance, are tasked with courtroom security. Frankly, they are underpaid for what they do. They escort people into custody. They are dealing with people on the front line, often who have just been arrested, who are coming down off of drugs, and they put their personal health, well-being and safety on the line in order to protect other criminal justice system practitioners. I thank them for it.

I thank our clerks, our judicial case managers, who keep our courtrooms running. I thank our judges, who often leave lucrative careers behind to serve the public good for the benefit of the rule of law.

When we talk about the justice system, we have to remember something, which is that times change and the law should change as well. This is most notable when we look at a section that is not contemplated here. That is section 525 of the Criminal Code. Section 525 of the Criminal Code deals with bail reviews.

I am not sure exactly when section 525 of the code was passed, but if we were to look I am sure we would see it was passed at a time when people went to trial much more quickly than they do today. Section 525 says, and I am simplifying this, that if somebody is detained on bail, they are entitled to a bail review at 90 days. How often has a trial date even been set in that time? That in itself is a bit of an issue, but sometimes it has not even been set within that time.

That was a different time. I remember looking at a homicide file from 1984 when I was practising law as a prosecutor. Around that time, a trial date would be set within two months, or three months perhaps, and somebody would go to trial often within six, seven or eight months. Times have changed. The system is backlogged. The evidence is different.

I looked at that file, which I believe was from 1984, and it looks like a file that would now be reflected with a “theft under” file, as in a shoplifting file. That was the thickness. There were a few photos of the alleged homicide and a few statements maybe a couple of pages long, and that was it.

Times have changed. Now the system is dealing with section 525, which says that somebody should not languish in custody. The reality is that a person now does not go to trial so quickly. That is the type of thing I would have liked to see addressed in Bill S-4.

I note, as has been noted by others, that Bill S-4 is essentially the same as Bill C-23. What changes is when the bill will come into force. I believe there is a 30-day lag period in order to allow courts to prepare. This legislation also identifies the Identification of Criminals Act.

As a bit of a sidebar, a local lawyer in Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, Jay Michi, has frequently told me, or at least he has told me once or maybe twice about the Identification of Criminals Act. His point has always been that it should not be called the Identification of Criminals Act, because a person is not yet convicted. Mr. Michi is now in Hansard, and his point has been made in the House of Commons.

Believe it or not, the Identification of Criminals Act could actually, as I recall, be the basis for a failure to appear in court, which could relate to detention on a primary ground of bail. It could also cause a number of issues.

When it comes to the importance of fingerprinting, a lot of people do not know this, but that is how criminal records are generally kept across Canada, through fingerprints. An FPS number is a fingerprint serial number. Somebody has their fingerprint taken, and that is how, on a CPIC record, it is called, a criminal record can be identified for somebody who has a conviction in Nova Scotia, where most good Speakers come from, or from British Columbia, where most good lawyers come from. I guess a few good lawyers have attended the University of Alberta, but we will put that aside for the time being.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-4 looks to modernize the court system. My friend is talking about very specific changes to the release conditions. Again, as I indicated earlier, I would be glad to sit down and talk to him about his ideas on this. We may disagree fundamentally on what they look like, but certainly we are able to have that conversation.

With respect to Bill S-4, it is critical in many ways that the accused have their constitutional rights protected with respect to appearances and being there. Virtual appearances just add another element of access in some cases, where appropriate. In some cases it may not be appropriate, and in those cases they will not be able to have virtual appearances.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very relevant observation, because what we are trying to do is modernize our court system and our justice system. With Bill C-5, it is the first time in Canadian history. The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada is the first attorney general to repeal many mandatory minimum penalties that were seen to be harmful to indigenous, Black and other racialized communities. It was not based on a focus of keeping people safe, but putting away people who ought to have off-ramps in the criminal justice system.

Bill C-5 is very similar to Bill S-4 in the sense that we are modernizing. We are looking at the 21st century, the science and the technology available and moving forward on very important reforms that will help make sure our justice and court systems are modernized.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-4 is yet another piece of legislation that the Department of Justice is looking at. I know the member has been a very strong advocate for Bill C-5 and has a few thoughts on it that would be of benefit in terms of reinforcement. We recognize that when it comes to Bill S-4, the modernization is an absolute. It is relatively non-controversial and should pass. There has been time on it in the Senate already.

I know the member has some very strong thoughts on Bill C-5, and I would ask him to maybe provide a different perspective on another piece of legislation that he is bringing through.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I addressed most of my friend's concerns in my speech. First and foremost, we are investing in technology. We have invested $40 million in the criminal justice system to modernize this technology. We have also committed to ensuring that there is rural connectivity across Canada.

What is important for colleagues to understand is that Bill S-4 would allow for virtual hearings where appropriate, where it is not impeded by Internet access or technological limitations, and it is really subject to the consent of the parties involved, including both the accused and counsel, as well as the Crown.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the bill has gone through the Senate. It was introduced by Senator Dalphond, who is an eminent jurist in his own right and has a great deal of experience in the court system. As Bill S-4 moves to committee, we definitely look forward to working with my friend opposite on amendments potentially proposed by the Quebec bar association and others. This is the second reading of this bill, and as it goes to committee we will engage and work with all parties to get this done.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure my friend opposite that the government has been working very hard on a number of very important criminal justice matters, including with my friend from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke. We look forward to working with him on the passage of Bill S-4.

This is something that has already passed the Senate, so in many ways we are working on the bill backwards. The Senate has passed it. Now it is in the House, and it is up to us to get it passed as soon as we can.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that was a very comprehensive review of Bill S-4. My question relates to timing.

During the pandemic we worked very quickly in this House to allow the use of technology to try to compensate for the restrictions from the pandemic, yet this bill was prepared and on the Order Paper in the last Parliament. This is identical; it is the same bill in this Parliament, yet it took the government almost a year to get it back in front of us.

I just want to ask the parliamentary secretary why there has been a long delay, when we all know this is something that will help alleviate court delays?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today 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, COVID-19 response and other measures.

I will begin by acknowledging that we are gathered here on the traditional, unceded lands of the Algonquin people.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, the criminal justice system, like many institutions in our country, faced significant and unprecedented challenges in continuing its operations while respecting the necessary public health and safety requirements imposed by all jurisdictions. The criminal courts and court users adopted quickly and admirably to the realities of the pandemic, finding innovative ways to provide essential justice services to the public safely and effectively.

Bill S-4 would reform the Criminal Code and other related legislation to respond to some of the practical challenges identified during or exacerbated by the pandemic. These reforms would modernize and enhance the flexibility and efficiency of the criminal justice system moving forward.

Members might be wondering whether the changes proposed in Bill S-4 are still needed, given we are now well into living with COVID-19, and the fact that the courts have adapted their practices during this period. These changes remain critically important and will help address the ongoing pressures on the criminal courts brought by the COVID-19 pandemic, including the backlog of cases.

I would note that this bill is the product of significant consultations with the provinces and is supported by provincial premiers of all stripes. I understand that last month, at the federal, provincial, territorial meeting of ministers of justice and public safety, all justice ministers reiterated their support for seeing this legislation advance to help improve court operations in their provinces and territories.

The pandemic seriously affected court operations, and we have heard from lawyers and judges alike that changes are needed so that the court system does not fall further behind. Canadians need to have confidence in our justice system, and a court system that does not keep up with the times will not provide that confidence. For instance, virtual hearings and remote services have been an important aspect of ensuring access to justice for court users while coping with pandemic-related issues. This bill would enhance and clarify rules on the use of technological means in the criminal justice system.

Before I delve into the details of Bill S-4, I would like to thank hon. Senator Pierre Dalphond for his sponsorship of the bill and leadership in working with all senators in the other place to get this bill to us.

I would also like to acknowledge the diligent work of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in studying Bill S-4 and thank those witnesses who shared their views on the bill. The committee's study and consideration of witness testimony resulted in two amendments to this bill, new clauses 78.1 and 78.2, which would mandate reviews of the use of remote proceedings in criminal justice matters.

I will now turn to the changes in the bill and explain how they would address issues identified during the pandemic and seek to ensure greater efficiencies and access to justice for accused persons, victims and other criminal justice system participants.

The bill would, one, enhance and clarify the rules for remote appearances in criminal proceedings; two, revise the telewarrant process so that a wider variety of search warrants and other investigative orders may be obtained by means of telecommunication; three, allow fingerprinting of accused persons or offenders to occur at a later time than what is currently permitted and; four, improve judicial case management rules.

On remote appearances, Bill S-4 builds upon a former bill, Bill C-75, which introduced a new general part on remote appearances in the Criminal Code, which is part XXII.01, and expanded the availability of remote appearances for accused persons, participants and judges. Notably, those amendments were developed in a prepandemic era and did not anticipate the exponential reliance on technological solutions that followed.

This bill would expand and clarify the process allowing accused persons to appear by video conference during preliminary inquiries and trials, for both summary and indictable offences, even when witness evidence is being heard, except in circumstances where evidence is before a jury. The bill would also expressly enable an accused person to appear remotely when making a plea, either by video or audio conference, depending on the circumstances. Further, the bill would clearly permit an offender to appear remotely for sentencing purposes.

The new measures addressing remote appearances include a consent requirement, so an accused person or offender and the Crown prosecutor would need to give their consent to appear in this way. In addition, all decisions to proceed virtually would be at the discretion of the court based on a number of factors the court would be required to consider. For example, courts would need to consider the right of accused persons or offenders to a fair and public hearing and the suitability of the location from which they would be appearing before allowing it.

I would also emphasize that the bill does not make virtual court hearings mandatory or change the general principle that all those who participate in criminal proceedings must physically be present in court unless otherwise authorized. Bill S-4 does not seek to replace in-person proceedings, which remain important, but instead offers alternative ways of proceeding where the technological means exist and when considered appropriate.

Bill S-4 would also enact clear safeguards to virtual appearances, some of which I have mentioned, such as ensuring judicial approval and consent of all the parties. In addition, the bill would require that accused persons or offenders who are represented by counsel and appearing remotely are given the opportunity to consult privately with their counsel. Moreover, courts need to be satisfied that an accused person or offender who does not have access to legal advice would be able to understand the proceedings and that any decisions made by them during the proceedings will be voluntary.

Given that the jury selection process can involve hundreds of people summoned to appear at the same location, many jury selections for criminal trials were postponed or delayed during the pandemic. Some jurisdictions are concerned about the delays in conducting jury trials. Bill S-4 would give courts the option to hold a jury selection process by video when both parties consent and appropriate safeguards are in place, such as ensuring the courts approve the use of a location where the technological infrastructure would be available for prospective jurists to participate in the process.

Since May 2020, the Minister of Justice has been co-chairing the Action Committee on Court Operations in Response to COVID‑19 with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Right Hon. Richard Wagner.

The minister shared with me that, in this capacity, he has continued to learn how the pandemic has affected court operations, as well as exacerbated pre-existing issues, such as the growing backlog of cases and access to justice challenges. We are confident that Bill S-4 would contribute to efforts to address these issues by facilitating an increased use of technology in the criminal justice system.

I am aware that, during the Senate committee study of Bill S-4, some witnesses expressed concern about the lack of technological capabilities in courthouses and correctional facilities and the inability of persons who may be vulnerable or disadvantaged to access technology, either entirely or in a private manner. I acknowledge these concerns, and the government is committed to addressing them.

Indeed, the government has made a commitment to bring our court system into the 21st century and to work with the provinces and territories in doing so. In the 2020-21 economic statement, the government announced approximately $40 million in technology investments for courts across Canada. The government has also committed to connect 98% of Canadians by 2026, and 100% by 2030.

I am equally aware that many witnesses who appeared before the Senate committee on Bill S-4 voiced their support for the reforms and considered the increased use of technology by courts and participants as beneficial and a tremendous opportunity for access to justice.

In sum, Bill S-4 strikes an appropriate balance by not making remote appearances mandatory, but rather by enabling courts to hold proceedings in a flexible way, and provide for the consent of both parties and judicial discretion. It would also ensure the consideration of the technological resources available to the courts and users. Bill S-4 would also help ensure that virtual court proceedings are held in a manner that respects the charter rights of accused persons and offenders.

I would now like to turn to the amendments to the telewarrant process provided in the Criminal Code, which currently allows a peace officer to apply for certain specific warrants by technological means when certain prerequisites are met.

Bill S-4 streamlines the telewarrant process and expands its application, including by making it available to a wider range of investigative warrants and orders, such as warrants to seize weapons, tracking warrants, and production orders for documents and financial records.

Under this more streamlined process, it will be possible for a police officer to submit a search warrant application by means of a telecommunication in writing, such as by email, without meeting the current prerequisite that requires a peace officer to show that it is impracticable to appear in person to present an application.

Police may continue to apply for a warrant by means of telecommunication that does not produce a writing, for example, by telephone. However, in this situation, the judge or justice to whom the search warrant application is presented would have to be satisfied that it is impracticable for the applicant to present the application by means of telecommunication that produces a writing, such as an email.

The revised telewarrant process would also be expanded to apply more broadly in two ways.

First, the process would now apply to the investigation of all offences, rather than indictable offences.

Second, the process would be accessible to law enforcement officials other than peace officers, notably public officers.

This would include, for example, Canada Revenue Agency officials responsible for investigating tax-related offences, who may currently apply for search warrants, and other judicial orders by personal attendants.

Similarly, the process would now be available to any justice or judge who issues a warrant, order or authorization, thereby removing the current requirement that only specifically designated justices may issue telewarrants.

Bill S‑4 also harmonizes the rules regarding the execution of telewarrants and warrants obtained in person and the report required following the seizure of assets.

In particular, Bill S-4 adds an obligation for the police executing a search warrant to provide the occupant of the place searched with a copy of the warrant, as well as a new notice. This notice would contain essential information about where to obtain a copy of the report of the person's seized property and the location where such property is detained.

I note, however, that these requirements would not apply in relation to warrants authorizing a search of a property that has already been seized and is in the lawful possession of the police. This would make it clear that the officer is not required to provide the notice and a copy of the warrant to the person in charge of a police evidence locker.

The bill also makes changes to the fingerprinting process. The pandemic disrupted the ability of police to obtain the fingerprints of accused persons and offenders because of physical distancing requirements, which led to significant operational challenges for the criminal courts.

Currently, individuals charged with an offence can be ordered by police or a judge to attend at a specific time and place for the purpose of identification.

However, in most cases, if something prevents a police officer from taking fingerprints at the specified time, there is no mechanism that allows a police officer to require an individual to come back at another time. The bill addresses this and allows fingerprints to be taken at other times, where earlier attempts to do so were not possible due to exceptional circumstances like those posed by COVID-19.

The bill would not change the rules in terms of who may be subject to fingerprinting.

Further, Bill S-4 addresses judicial case management by allowing courts to make rules permitting court personnel to deal with administrative matters related to proceedings out of court, including for unrepresented accused persons.

The Criminal Code currently allows courts to make rules only for situations in which accused persons are represented by counsel. Judicial case management improves the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system. By expanding the court's ability to make such rules for unrepresented accused, Bill S-4 will assist in reducing unnecessary court appearances of those who are self-represented.

I know that the Minister of Justice is committed to modernizing the criminal justice system and supporting the courts' technological achievements during the pandemic. I support those objectives, and we should continue to adopt technological solutions when available and appropriate.

Many of our partners and stakeholders and, in particular, our provincial partners, continue to stress urgently that these amendments are needed. I am eager to see the bill enacted in the future, and I look forward to working with our friends in all parties to get this important bill through.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Minister of Seniors]

moved that 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), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. Bloc Québécois colleague, who is a very reasonable person. He is right, but when someone asks me a question, it is my job to answer. Every time I am asked the Thursday question, I try to answer as clearly and directly as possible.

Moving back to the calendar, as I know the hon. House leader for the opposition is keenly awaiting this information, this afternoon and tomorrow we will continue with the debate on Bill C-32, concerning the fall economic statement. Of course, we look forward to that hon. colleague's support for this.

Next week, we will be focusing on the second reading debate of Bill C-20, the public complaints and review commission act; Bill S-4, COVID-19 measures; and Bill C-27, the digital charter implementation act, 2022.

Judges Act

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and pleasure to speak in this House on behalf of the citizens of Saskatoon West. Of course, I am rising today to speak to the bill before us, Bill C-9, which makes changes to the way federally appointed judges can be removed for misconduct.

My approach today will be a bit different. I am not a lawyer, so I am not well versed in how law works and all the details and technicalities of it. The best example of that was from yesterday when I was privileged to attend the justice committee. I was listening to witnesses on the subject of Bill C-28, the extreme intoxication law. It is unbelievable that in this country, a person who gets so drunk that they commit a crime that results in great harm to a person can get off for it and there are no consequences. That is exactly what happened. That is why the government brought in Bill C-28 earlier. It was supposedly to fix this.

As a layperson at the committee yesterday, I was listening to all my learned colleagues ask very intelligent questions that were going over my head. I was listening to professors explain the legal technicalities of everything. However, one thing that did come out clear was that it is absolutely wrong that if a person commits a crime, they do not face consequences simply because they were too drunk. Clearly, that needs to be fixed.

The more troubling thing that came across to me was that the government attempted to fix this law in a very hurried way earlier this year. Essentially, it rammed through legislation to supposedly close a loophole. What I heard yesterday was that what the Liberals rammed through in a hurry, without proper consultation and without actually talking to people, has not solved the problem. In fact, it may have made it worse. We need to be very careful in the House when we propose solutions and ram them through the House without proper due diligence, because we can actually make things worse. That was the main thing I took away from yesterday.

I also want to note another piece of legislation going through the House right now. It is Bill S-4. It amends the process for peace officers to apply for and obtain a warrant using telecommunications rather than appearing in person. It expands the abilities for accused and offenders to appear remotely by audio conference and video conference. It also allows prospective jurors in a jury selection process to appear by video conference.

This is a bill that came about because of COVID. There were some changes needed in our system to accommodate more remote appearances, as members can see. What I find interesting is that these changes were due to the COVID epidemic we have, which started two years ago. It has taken two years for the Liberal government to get this to second reading in this House.

I find it odd that on one hand, some legislation gets rammed through almost instantaneously, like Bill C-28, while in the case of Bill S-4, it lollygags along for a while. Maybe COVID will be in the rear-view mirror when it finally gets passed. I find it quite rich when the government talks about those on the Conservative side obstructing things, when we are trying to do the proper due diligence and trying to make sure that we do not get bad laws.

This brings me to Bill C-9. This bill was originally introduced as a Senate bill, Bill S-5, in 2021. The bill modifies the existing judicial review process by establishing a process for complaints serious enough to warrant removal from office and another for offences that would warrant other sanctions, such as counselling, continuing education and reprimands. Currently, if the misconduct is less serious, one Canadian Judicial Council member who conducts the initial review may negotiate with the judge for an appropriate remedy.

The bill states that the reasons a judge could be removed from office include:

(a) infirmity;

(b) misconduct;

(c) failure in the due execution of judicial office;

(d) the judge is in a position that a reasonable, fair-minded and informed observer would consider to be incompatible with the due execution of judicial office.

Also, a screening officer can dismiss complaints rather than referring them to the review panel should they seem frivolous or improper.

Federal judges are appointed for life, and it is absolutely critical that they are free of political inference. It is important that we have mechanisms in place to deal with them and remove them from office if that extreme point is necessary. Parliament sets laws, though, and judges need to respect the will of Parliament. A good example is the mandatory minimum sentences that the previous Conservative government brought in.

Any violent criminal, regardless of race, gender and sexual orientation, should be treated as equal. The offender should face a jury of their peers and if convicted should get the appropriate punishment. Prison time will keep that person off the streets so they cannot engage in further criminal activity.

Mental health issues, as well as drug and alcohol abuse, need to be addressed and monitored by trained personnel. Therapy and 12-step programs that are offered in prisons must be made mandatory for prisoners. Under house arrest, there is no way to ensure that these offenders get the help they need.

We also need to consider victim safety when we are sentencing offenders. A sad but real truth is that violent crime is often committed within a family. It can be spousal abuse, sexual exploitation of a child, custodial kidnapping or robbery for the purposes of illicit substances. The people in closest proximity are always the most accessible victims. If a judge is required to sentence a spousal abuser to live at home rather than go to prison, what happens to the abused spouse and children? Do they flee to a crisis centre, or will they will get revictimized?

I want to talk a bit about Saskatoon and my riding of Saskatoon West. It is an awesome and beautiful place to live and work. My wife and I call it home. For years before I became a member of Parliament, I was a home builder. I built new homes for families moving into the riding.

First as a candidate and now as an MP, I can say that I have knocked on almost every door in Saskatoon West. As I have walked through those neighbourhoods, I have seen some of the areas of highest crime. In the past year, there have been 389 cases of reported sexual violations in Saskatoon, 2,303 reported cases of assault, 65 reported cases of kidnapping and abduction and 759 cases of violation under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Saskatoon is well above the national crime severity index of 73.4 in Canada's largest cities and has a crime severity index of 118, and it was ranked fourth behind Lethbridge, Winnipeg and Kelowna in 2020. Much of this crime is in the areas right around my constituency office. My constituency office is on the convergence of these neighbourhoods, and according to the Saskatoon Police Service, it is in the highest crime area of Saskatoon. As a result, we have to be very diligent in our office. We have gotten to know many of the people who live in the neighbourhood. They frequent our office and frequent the area by our office, and we have developed relationships with them.

My staff have a security door and a buzzer system in place to screen people before they come into the office. Still, my office has been broken into and I have had my House of Commons computer stolen. An employee of mine had the window on his car broken just because somebody wanted a few quarters that were sitting in there. A lot of this is because of addicts. We have a lot of addiction issues that drive many of the crime problems we have.

This is something that I agree with the government on. The approach on how to fix it, though, is where we differ. I believe in the miracles of alcohol and drug treatment through 12-step programs and abstention. The NDP-Liberals believe in what is called harm reduction.

What I think needs to happen is that addicts need to be treated with love and compassion, which is offered through 12-step programs. These programs offer alcoholics and addicts a way to get clean and help others get clean at no cost to the individual or taxpayer. Unfortunately, there are two things that the government does not like. First, these are programs of spirituality. They require the addict to “turn their will and lives over to the care of God”. Second, as I explained, this does not require big government intervention. These programs deliver miracles; I know that for a fact. I know people who have been through them and care about them.

As I wrap up, I just want to say that there are so many areas that we need to be working on in this House to improve our criminal justice system. Bill C-9 is a good step forward. We need to make sure that our judges are independent and that they are worthy of the positions they hold.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is always a chance. I hear the member opposite saying there is a chance. Although we have many and great differences, there is always hope for us, and I look forward to that hope.

I am very pleased to say that this afternoon, we are going to complete third reading debate of Bill C-31 with respect to dental care and rental housing. Tomorrow, we will finish second reading debate of Bill C-9 concerning the Judges Act. On Monday, we will continue to the fifth day of the second reading debate for Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Tuesday, as members will be happy to note, is an allotted day. On Wednesday, we will commence debate on Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act (COVID-19 response and other measures). On Thursday, we will call Bill C-20, the public complaints and review commission act. For next Friday, our plan is to start second reading debate of Bill C-27, the digital charter implementation act, 2022.

I would also like to inform the House that next Wednesday during Routine Proceedings, under ministerial statements, the Minister of Veterans Affairs will be pleased to deliver a statement for Remembrance Day.

Opposition Motion—Ties Between the Canadian State and the Monarchy

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all day long, both the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party have been trying to dodge the issue. They say it is not the right time to talk about this and we should talk about inflation and fighting the pandemic instead.

Over the past few weeks, however, we have talked about bills C‑3, C‑5, C‑9, C‑20 and S‑4, none of which have anything to do with inflation or fighting the pandemic.

Does my colleague think we waste our time in the House every day? Should we talk about nothing but inflation and the pandemic? Can we not walk and chew gum at the same time?

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, what I can assure the member opposite, my hon. opposition House leader, is that the government will continue to be introducing legislation that helps Canadians with affordability and makes their lives easier in these globally difficult and conflicted times.

With respect to the immediate term, I can tell the House that tomorrow we will turn to Bill C-9, which concerns the Judges Act at second reading. On Monday, we will continue with the second reading debate on Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Tuesday shall be an allotted day.

On Wednesday, we will commence with the second reading debate on Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act, related to COVID-19 response and other measures. On Thursday, we will deal with the report stage and third reading of Bill C-31, with respect to dental care and rental housing.

We also hope to make progress next week on Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, let me echo the comments of my hon. colleague. Thanksgiving is one of my favourite times. It is an opportunity to be with family and friends. As the hon. member said, we have not had that chance in a very long time, so it makes this a very special Thanksgiving. As the member correctly stated, and we should reflect on this, we really do have an enormous amount to be grateful for in our country. It is a special occasion to give thanks and to be with the people I love. I hope every member has a wonderful time with their family and friends, and with their constituents, over the upcoming constituency week.

With respect to the member's question about when we come back, I will be talking about what we are going to be doing, but first, in answer to this question, we absolutely cannot, and I will say it every time he asks me this question, give up on action on climate. While we take action to make life more affordable, and in a minute I will talk about what we will do over the next coming weeks, we cannot afford to make pollution free again.

We cannot allow pollution to be something that spews into the environment without consequence. We will continue to return that money to Canadians. Eight out of 10 Canadians will see more back. We can fight climate change, we can do affordability and we can do those things at the same time.

I am proud to say that our agenda to make life more affordable for families continues. It continues tomorrow when we take action, again, on the environment with Bill S-5, making important amendments to the Environmental Protection Act to improve and protect our environment, and at the same time take essential action to move forward with Bill C-31, which would provide families right across Canada the opportunity to ensure they have dental care, that this is not something, as life gets globally more challenging, that is left to the wayside. We know how important dental care is to health. I hope the member opposite will be supporting us in that as it comes forward.

On the Monday, when we return from our constituency week, we will continue with debate on Bill C-31, as I referenced earlier, with respect to dental care and support for housing.

On Tuesday, we will move forward with Bill C-22, the Canada disability act, which is critical support to help lift hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are disabled out of poverty. This is essential action to help them, and I hope the Conservatives would support that. I know other parties are.

On Wednesday, we will return to Bill S-5.

Thursday will be an allotted day.

On Friday, we hope to make progress on Bill S-4, which is an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act, COVID-19 response and other measures. We also look forward to advancing Bill C-9, with respect to the Judges Act.

Last, I would like to inform the House that the Wednesday, following question period, there will be a really important opportunity to pay respects and tribute to our friend and former colleague, who we are all mourning, the late Bill Blaikie.

Criminal Code

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice]

moved that 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), be read the first time.

(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time)

Message from the Senate

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I have the honour to inform the House that messages have been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed the following bills, to which concurrence of the House is desired: 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, and Bill S-9, an act to amend the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.

Criminal Code

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill S-206, an act to amend the Criminal Code on disclosure of information by jurors.

Bill S-206 proposes an amendment that seeks to help jurors who face mental health challenges flowing from fulfilling their civic duty and after completion of a jury trial. It proposes to do so by adding an exception to the offence of disclosure of jury proceedings under section 649 of the Criminal Code.

The substance of this legislation is short and straightforward and I believe is targeting an important issue deserving of our attention. Indeed, when we situate the bill in the present context of the ongoing COVID‑19 pandemic, we can all understand the importance of supporting the well-being and mental health of Canadians, and particularly those who participate in the justice system.

We know the pandemic has affected the mental health of Canadians. According to the Public Health Agency of Canada, almost half of all Canadians have reported that their mental health has worsened since the beginning of the pandemic. A Statistics Canada survey on COVID‑19 and mental health in September 2021 indicated that one in four Canadians, or 25%, age 18 and older screened positive for symptoms of depression, anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder in the spring of 2021, up from one in five, or 21%, in the fall of 2020.

A more recent study in January 2022, from the Angus Reid Institute, found that the population is largely fatigued, frustrated and anxious, with one in three Canadians, or 36%, stating they are struggling with their mental health. According to this study, this represents an increase from the one-quarter who responded in November 2021, prior to omicron becoming the dominant COVID‑19 variant in Canada.

Canadians across the country who are experiencing mental health difficulties are the very same population called upon for jury duty by way of provincial and territorial legislative processes governing the criteria with respect to who may serve and be summoned as a juror. I am very pleased that the government is committed to supporting Canadians and their mental health through the COVID‑19 pandemic and beyond, such as through its record of investing millions into mental health and distress centres.

Thanks to the previous work undertaken by the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to study counselling and mental health supports for jurors, we have a better understanding of the experience of Canadians who serve on juries and the potentially long-lasting impacts of such service. The committee's May 2018 report entitled “Improving Support for Jurors in Canada” documented that many former jurors described their jury duty experience as positive. However, the report also includes testimony from jurors who served on difficult and unfortunately disturbing criminal cases ended up encountering much mental health distress and suffering, and in some instances even reported post-traumatic stress disorder following their service. It is conceivable that jury duty during any pandemic could give rise to additional stresses and strains on an individual, for example, concerns over their safety and physical-distancing requirements being respected at all times.

I believe that if serving on a jury creates a need for mental health supports, then there should not be barriers for those who must access them. Bill S-206 proposes to amend section 649 of the Criminal Code by adding a narrow exception to the offence prohibiting jurors from disclosing information otherwise disclosed in open court to enable them to share this information in the course of receiving mental health treatment from a health care professional.

While the purpose of section 649 of the Criminal Code is to protect the integrity of the jury deliberation process, the offence has been identified as posing a barrier for jurors in accessing mental health supports by former jurors and in the report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The amendment proposed in Bill S-206 would address recommendation 4 of the report of the standing committee, which proposes that there may be a more lenient secrecy rule for jury deliberations. The committee's recommendations were unanimously supported.

I certainly support the recommendation and I support this bill. For instance, former Bill C-417 in 2019 unanimously passed in the House of Commons following the adoption of amendments by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

I call on all members to support Bill S-206 because it would allow former jurors to be freer in expressing their thoughts and feelings to a health care professional on matters that may have deeply disturbed or upset them or caused significant stress during their service as a juror.

It is a remarkable aspect of our justice system that jurors across the country and in countless courtrooms meet the challenges of jury duty, and so it only makes sense that they would be able to receive the support they need to return to their lives afterward. I am pleased that the government expressed its support for former Bill C-417 and is now in support of Bill S-206. The government has introduced, and Parliament has enacted, a number of changes to improve the jury regime in the Criminal Code.

For example, the Government of Canada introduced legislation that was passed by Parliament in 2019, former Bill C-75, which included several Criminal Code amendments to improve the in court jury selection process. These amendments abolished peremptory challenges, which have been linked to discriminatory application to exclude potential jurors from jury duty; simplified and strengthened the challenge for cause process; modernized the grounds for such challenges; and clarified the power of judges to stand aside jurors to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

More recently, on February 8, 2022, the government introduced Senate legislation to help address the challenges faced by criminal courts caused or exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other Acts relating to the COVID-19 response and other measures, includes proposed amendments that would, among other things, increase the use of technology in the jury selection process, including allowing prospective jurors to participate by video conference where the court considers it appropriate and with the consent of the prosecutor and the accused.

The pandemic and the resulting public health guidelines for physical distancing have made it especially challenging for courts to conduct jury selection proceedings, as these proceedings can sometimes involve several hundreds of people being physically present in the same location at the same time.

The amendments proposed in Bill S-4 would help provide courts with greater flexibility in how jury selection processes are held, and it may serve to be a useful tool in accommodating prospective jurors who have been summoned to participate in the selection process.

Our government is proud to support this bill, as it recognizes the vital role and dedicated service of jurors in the Canadian justice system. As we bring the justice system into the 21st century, we will work to ensure jurors can be better supported in their roles in addition to facilitating the sharing of best practices between jurisdictions.

I want to take a moment to commend my colleagues on the justice and human rights committee for working collaboratively to study and pass this important bill. It is an example of the progress we can achieve when we work together, across party lines, to support all Canadians.

Bill C-5—Time Allocation Motion

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I would say that we diminish democracy when we talk to fellow colleagues in the way the member opposite just did. To talk about working collaboratively as parliamentarians and to categorize it in the way the member did is disrespectful to this place.

We had a minority government that was elected in the last election, and there was an expectation that Canadians had of us that we would come together, work collaboratively, reach across the aisle and try to find common cause and common purpose, and that, even as we criticize each other and even as we are in different parties and often have different views, we would respectfully try to find middle ground.

I would suggest that out of the gates the Conservatives were doing that on Bill C-3 and on Bill C-4, but somewhere along the line that disappeared. Suddenly, collaboration of any kind, working together in any way, is seen as undemocratic. That is preposterous. Having votes in the House of Commons is not undemocratic. Moving legislation through the House of Commons is not undemocratic. It debases this institution to say that it is, and it particularly debases this institution when the Conservatives themselves use time allocation more than anybody else in any government that has ever been, so it is dishonest—

[Shannon Davis-Ermuth]

In terms of technological capacity, particularly in remote areas and the north, we do hear that access to justice is an issue. The Minister of Justice appeared on Bill S-4. When similar issues were raised, he spoke to the commitment that the Government of Canada has made to bring the court system and protective services in relation to that into the 21st century. He added that the Government of Canada has been making investments to connect 98% of Canadians across the country to high-speed Internet by 2026, and all Canadians by 2030.

I know that the question of high-speed Internet is—