Debates of Nov. 24th, 2022

Business of the House

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is the best part of Thursday. It is the Thursday question. I just want to ask the government House leader if he can inform the members as to the business for the rest of this week and for next week as well.

I would like to take the opportunity to make a couple of suggestions for government business. We had the Bank of Canada governor admit at committee that deficits fuel inflation, so I was wondering if there would be an opportunity for the government to introduce another fall economic update where it would lower its deficits.

Also, I was wondering if the government might schedule a take-note debate at some point next week so that the House can really study the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report that concludes, based on numbers that the government has provided, that the vast majority of Canadians pay far more in the carbon tax than anything they hope to receive in the form of a rebate.

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

Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to ruin the best part of Thursday, although the opposition House leader and I may be alone in the opinion that this is the best part of Thursday.

I am beginning to think, and I could be wrong in this supposition, that the hon. opposition House leader is making statements and not asking questions. However, in the event that there is a question, I would be happy to respond.

First, it is not enough, of course, when we take a look down the list, that we have lower inflation rates than many countries, whether it is the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Austria, Denmark, the entire eurozone, Iceland, Spain, Italy, the United Kingdom, Mexico, the United States or Ireland. I could go on and on. It does not matter that we have one of the lowest inflation rates in the world. That is cold comfort to somebody who is working hard and trying to pay the bills. That is why—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[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.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I was squirming in my chair when both House leaders were up. I just want to remind them of something. I know both of them have a bit of knowledge on procedure in the House, and the Thursday question is a question, not a statement. I know they did not do it on purpose. Well, I will let the jury out on that.

I just wanted to remind them of that before we proceed to the point of order being put forward by the hon. member for Perth—Wellington.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would draw your attention to the article, “It Being Thursday: The Weekly Business Statement in Minority and Majority Parliaments”, which does a great job, I might say, of outlining the evolution of the Thursday question and how wonderful statement of the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle was.

Frankly, if we were to go back in history, to when the Liberals were last in power, we would find that it was a time when the Liberals used it as a partisan shenanigan. It was actually the Conservatives who were able to rein that in to have an excellent way of making statements, as the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle did earlier today.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I am sure the hon. member is not arguing for shenanigans to continue. I would not want that. I would want the question asked to find out what is going to happen from both sides so we can move on.

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.

Criminal Code

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed the speech that my colleague from Saint-Jean made earlier.

I would like to ask her a simple question. There is a lot of talk about improving technology, and this bill talks about using audio conferencing. Video conferencing is relevant, but what does she think about the possibility of using audio conferencing only?

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

Mr. Speaker, the issue as to whether it should be expanded was raised by the Barreau du Québec in the brief it submitted when debate began on this bill.

I understand that audio conferencing can be part of the solution in exceptional circumstances when video is not allowed, but it must be interpreted very narrowly. That is why I welcome the fact that the law will be reviewed in three years' time by an independent committee and in five years' time by a parliamentary committee, to see whether it is actually working and whether procedural safeguards are being maintained, which the courts may be called upon to do.

Furthermore, we could see the law evolve when it comes into force, particularly in relation to procedural safeguards and fairness. Perhaps this will be one of the sections of the law that will not hold up at that time. It remains to be seen.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my hon. colleague feels, like I do, that reducing court backlogs is so important that this bill should have been introduced much earlier in this parliamentary sitting, and whether she could share her thoughts with the House as to why that was not the case.

[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.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

What we are trying to do here is improve the legal system as a whole. In this particular case, the issue is connectivity. I would like my colleague to comment on the problem of judicial vacancies, internal problems at the Parole Board and, of course, the existence and use of the “Liberalist”.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Joliette for his question. I did touch on that in my speech.

Connectivity is one interesting aspect. One of the downsides I see is the emergence of regional disparities. Some people may be required to come to court to testify in person because of poor connectivity in the region. Conversely, people who live some distance away may be pressured to communicate via audio conference and testify by video conference on the grounds that it is easier for them to do so remotely even though they might prefer to do it in person. Either scenario poses a risk of unequal treatment. This is one of the important factors that the House and perhaps the independent commissions will have to study. The Barreau du Québec also raised the issue in its recommendations.

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

Madam Speaker, before question period, the member made reference to facial expressions and other things that may be lost in a virtual setting.

Would she not agree that those types of considerations would be taken into account in situations where they might be of concern to a defence lawyer or the Crown attorney?

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

Madam Speaker, we cannot take something into account if we have no knowledge of it. Unfortunately, when people testify by video conference, we do not have a 360-degree view of what is happening, much like when we operate by video conference here in the House.

It is not just about people's facial expressions. They might be shuffling their feet, looking nervous, tapping their foot or passing a note to their lawyer. It could also be about how the reaction of the entire room, about seeing how a witness reacts when they hear another witness or when they see what is happening in the courtroom. We get information from more than just what we see framed on a screen. A number of factors are involved. Some information could be lost, and this too must be analyzed by the committees.

As I was saying, there may be a risk that lawyers could agree at the start to proceed by video conference, and that during the proceedings, they realize that the procedural safeguards are not being upheld and they must return to an in-person format. At that point, there would be less efficiency rather than more. I am wondering what would happen if the consent to proceed by video conference were revoked. I hope that will be studied as well.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, the legislation itself is, in a very real way, a reflection of what the provinces were looking at seeing some changes on. It also takes into consideration some of the things we witnessed through the pandemic; in other words, modernization to a certain extent and recognizing the importance of technological advances.

I understand that the Conservatives are supporting the legislation, which is a really good thing. Providing this opportunity is healthy for our judicial system, which is in fact independent, and there seems to be fairly good ground support to see this legislation pass.

Could the member provide his thoughts on the importance of the legislation itself?

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

Madam Speaker, I support the legislation. I think the mechanisms that it provides for are worthwhile, at least at this stage. I think it needs to be looked at further at committee. Our party will be coming forward with some constructive proposals for strengthening it.

Fundamentally, it is also important to acknowledge the context. Canadians are seeing, for a variety of reasons across the board, delays in delivering vital services. That includes delays in the judicial system. I do not think COVID is the only factor that is contributing to that. We are also seeing, under the government, a significant rise in violent crime and a failure to acknowledge that and respond to the circumstances that are creating that rise in crime.

I like this legislation, yes, but there is more work to do.

[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 agree with the sentiment of my colleague, that the government is broken. We have significant problems and delays in the justice system. I think that, as he is from the Bloc, he will particularly appreciate the point that it is the federal government that has presided over a significant increase in crime, yet it is the provinces that are left holding the bag in terms of paying the resources that are required when it comes to the administration of justice at the local level.

What the government needs to do, in addition to moving this bill forward, is to come up with real solutions that address crime. So far, their only solution to crime is to target people who do not break the law and to add additional red tape for law-abiding citizens who happen to own firearms. We see last-minute proposals at the committee stage from this government to ban hunting rifles. That is not a solution to the crime that we see at all. That is merely harassing law-abiding citizens with, in some cases, red tape and, in some cases, outright bans. That is not going to address the problem that we are seeing.

The government has presided over a significant increase in serious, violent crime. It needs to take stock of that problem. There are a lot of strategies we can talk about for reducing delays and backlogs in our court system. One great way to do it, though, is to actually reduce crime.

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

Madam Speaker, if video conferencing is going to become more prevalent in our court systems, what is the state of our Internet particularly in rural areas? Is that going to be able to service the judicial system adequately?

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

Madam Speaker, I think that is a problem. Mine is kind of a mixed suburban-rural riding that is relatively close to the city of Edmonton compared to some areas. However, there are still some issues in terms of coverage in my riding, and it is very important for a whole host of reasons: access to justice, access to government services, the ability to participate in the digital economy—

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

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

[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.