Debates of Nov. 24th, 2022

Foreign Affairs

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), and consistent with the current policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the treaty entitled “Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Concerning Air Services”, done at Leipzig on May 18.

Age Verification Software

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a number of petitions this morning.

The first petition comes from Canadians across the country who are concerned about the ease of access to sexually explicit material for young persons.

The petitioners are concerned about the significant proportion of sexually explicit material available online. It is extremely degrading and not suitable for young people. They are very concerned that porn companies are not doing anything to ensure that young people are not getting access to this material. They also note that Parliament recognized the harm of the increase to the accessibility to sexually explicit material online for young persons in a report back in 2017. They say that online age verification technology is increasingly getting sophisticated and less intrusive and that it can be done without invading privacy.

The petitioners call on the Government of Canada and this Parliament to adopt Bill S-210 with due haste.

COVID-19 Mandates

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the next petition is from Canadians from across the country who are concerned about the continued COVID-19 restrictions and mandates that continue to be in place. They note that they are, at this point, suspended.

The petitioners call for an abolition of the vaccine passport requirements for all Canadian citizens and permanent residents taking domestic flights. They note the comments from the WestJet chief medical officer, who noted that, particularly on aircraft, there had not been any known cases of COVID-19 transmission. They have also noted that Canada was one of the last countries to suspend these restrictions. They call for the full removal of these restrictions and mandates.

Sound Moderators

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the next petition is from Canadians across the country who are concerned about the damaging noise levels that come from the repeated use of firearms.

The petitioners note that Canada is the only G6 nation in the world that bans health and safety products, particularly sound moderators, which is the only health and safety mechanism that is illegal in Canada. They confirm that the Canada v Bedford said that Canadians should be able to take reasonable steps to improve personal safety in hazardous situations. They note that in most of Europe it is mandatory to use sound moderators on firearms; that sound moderators facilitate less friction between animal husbandry and sports shooters; that it is better for hunting companions, pets and those kinds of things; and that hearing damage significantly reduces quality of life and public health, which costs taxpayers millions of dollars annually.

The petitioners therefore call on the Canadian government to take a stand and remove the prohibition on sound moderators from the Criminal Code and allow the legal acquisition and possession of the use of sound moderators on firearms by all legally licenced firearms owners in Canada. They call on the provinces and territories to amend their legislation around this as well.

Medical Assistance in Dying

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the final petition I will present today is from Canadians from across the country who are concerned about coercion, intimidation and other forms of pressure used to force physicians, health care workers and health care institutions to become parties to assisted suicide or euthanasia either directly or through effective referral. This is a violation of people's fundamental rights of freedom of conscience.

The petitioners note that within Canadian medical associations and firms, there are over 24,000 physicians across the country who are willing to perform MAID and therefore there would be no need to force physicians who are not interested in performing MAID to comply with it. They also note that section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects freedom of conscience.

The petitioners therefore call on the Government of Canada and this Parliament to enshrine in the Criminal Code protection of conscience rights for physicians and health care workers to ensure they are not coerced or intimated into performing euthanasia or assisted suicide.

Health Care

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, today, I am tabling a petition on health care.

Many of the constituents of Winnipeg North want the House of Commons, in particular the Prime Minister, in fact, all members from different political parties, to recognize the importance of Canada's Health Act. They emphasize the five principles: public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability and accessibility.

The petitioners emphasize that there is a role for the national government to play on issues such as mental health, cancer care, long-term care and how important it is for national health standards.

It is with pleasure that I table this petition.

Climate Change

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of 74 British Columbians, who add their names to the thousands upon thousands of Canadians who have already petitioned the House of Commons and the government. They are asking for a green new deal for Canada.

The petitioners say that Canadians are living through unprecedented catastrophic climate events. We certainly have seen this in British Columbia with the heat dome and the atmospheric rivers. They also say that our society is suffering from worsening socio-economic inequalities. They are talking about indigenous peoples' frontline and vulnerable communities that are being disproportionately affected, resulting in increased risks to their health and well-being.

The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to support Motion No. 1, a made-in-Canada green new deal, a motion I brought forward in Parliament on behalf of the NDP. It is an initiative that calls on Canada to take bold action to confront the challenge that is represented by climate change by ending fossil fuel subsidies, closing off short tax havens, supporting workers impacted by the transition and creating well-paying unionized jobs in the shift to a clean and renewable energy economy.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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.

Criminal Code

[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.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, we agree. We do not know why the government has taken so long to retable this bill, which was first introduced in the last Parliament, especially given the circumstances. We know there is a huge backlog in Canada's justice system. It is not a new issue.

As a means of addressing court backlogs, why did the government oppose recommendation 1 of the 2017 report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights “Access to Justice Part 2: Legal Aid”, which called on the federal government to remove the legal aid funds currently included in the Canada social transfer in favour of a specific earmarked civil legal aid fund for provinces, administered under the Department of Justice Canada legal aid program?

[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.

[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]

First of all, Madam Speaker, I can assure the member that judges today who are appointed are not appointed on a political basis. There is a process that has been in place, and the government is very careful in terms of the manner in which judicial judges are appointed.

I believe one of the changes was put in place back in 2015, when the Prime Minister was elected and instructed with the Minister of Justice at the time. I see that as a very strong positive. In fact, with respect to the judicial appointments and judges who have been appointed to the different chambers, there is a better cross-section and reflection of what our society looks like.

I would suggest that the government of the day has done a first-class job in terms of judicial appointments. I am anticipating that we will continue to see that, as we are very aware of the importance of ensuring that, as much as possible, we are getting justice as quickly as possible.

[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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague and friend has been a very strong advocate for rural connections with the Internet. In talking to him prior to standing and addressing the legislation, he talked about how the Province of Quebec was able to utilize what we are suggesting. We know, in many ways, Quebec leads the country on many different progressive issues, and it is one of the reasons, for us as a national caucus, to always keep a close eye on what our Quebec members of Parliament are saying.

We recognize that through time things change. Technology and the Internet have had such a profound impact on society. They are second probably to very few other things, if any, in the way that society has evolved. We have seen the Internet interplay with everyone in Canada. Today it is an essential service, and it would be wrong for us not to look at ways we can use that technology to modernize, whether it is our judicial system, the House of Commons or anything else.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's speech, and he mentioned the need for urgency in passing this particular piece of legislation. There was a previous version of this legislation, Bill C-23, that was introduced back in 2021. As the member knows about the procedures and how this place works, when there is an election it wipes clean the slate of all the bills that are currently on the Order Paper.

The member is concerned about urgency. Did the member express his concern to the Prime Minister before he called the snap election in 2021 and wiped this bill completely off the radar?

[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.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, though the intervention by the parliamentary secretary was very interesting, that member does take occasions to speak to a lot of legislation at length. While I hear that he is concerned that members of the opposition want to speak to the legislation, that member just offered a 20-minute stream-of-consciousness experiment for Canadians to follow.

If he is so eager to have this legislation pass, why would he not have shortened his remarks for the benefit of all concerned?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, in order to be able to facilitate additional debate time so that the member opposite would be able to speak, the government has offered the opposition the opportunity to sit until midnight. If the opposition does feel that it would like to have more debate on this legislation, I would invite its members to approach the government House leader and say that they have x number of members who would like to speak, and maybe we could sit until midnight.

Many Canadians from coast to coast to coast work past 6:30. I would suggest that the Conservative Party acknowledge that fact and be prepared to debate late into the evening. If there are more people who would like to be able to speak to legislation, which is virtually unanimous, we will find that I can be exceptionally accommodating to ensure some form of discussion. Whether it is here at second reading, at the committee stage or ultimately at third reading, there are plenty of opportunities for members to be able to speak. There is a good number of stakeholders out there who are anxious to see the legislation ultimately pass.

If everyone is supporting it, then why not allow the legislation to go forward? At the very least, we can have Canadians provide their direct input during the committee stage.

[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—

[Rick Perkins]

What happened in 2015?

[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.