Gary Anandasangaree

[Criminal Code, November 23rd, 2022]

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.

[Criminal Code, November 23rd, 2022]

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.

[Sentencing Reform, November 18th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, yesterday, Bill C-5 passed in the Senate and received royal assent. For the first time in modern history, we repealed mandatory minimum penalties and empowered judges to impose sentences that fit the crime committed. These sentencing reforms will reverse failed Harper-era policies and address the overrepresentation of indigenous, Black and racialized Canadians in the justice system.

In keeping with our government's public health approach to simple drug possession, Bill C-5 allows for a greater use of early diversion programs. This is essential in the context of the overdose crisis, which is devastating communities across Canada.

I am grateful for the support of all parliamentarians in both chambers for their assistance to advance this bill expeditiously so that Canadians can see the important results of its passage.

With Bill C-5, we kept our promise to Canadians. We believe in a justice system that is tough when it needs to be tough but is always fair.

[Criminal Code, November 17th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to join the second reading debate on Bill C-291, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts, child sexual abuse material, introduced by the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap on June 17, 2022.

At the outset, I would like to acknowledge that I am speaking from the traditional lands of the Algonquin people.

I want to thank my colleague for introducing this bill. It has a very important objective, which is to ensure that the terminology used to refer to child pornography names what this abhorrent material actually is. It is the abuse of children.

The Government of Canada is committed to preventing and protecting children from sexual abuse and exploitation of any kind, in Canada and abroad. Canada works closely with international partners to combat online child sexual exploitation. This includes international co-operation regarding new and emerging threats, as well as sharing of best practices and lessons learned in combatting this crime.

Here at home, our government continues to fight child sexual exploitation through our national strategy for the protection of children from sexual exploitation. Four pillars underpin this important initiative: raising awareness, reducing the stigma associated with reporting, increasing Canada's ability to pursue and prosecute offenders, and working with tech leaders to find new ways to combat online sexual exploitation of children.

Under this strategy, we are working to build a safer Canada. We are protecting Canadian children by intensifying our engagement with digital industry leaders to encourage new online tools to prevent online abuse; increasing prevention activities, such as research and public engagement; and enhancing the capacity of Internet child exploitation units in provincial and municipal police forces, to name a few projects.

We are grateful to the many organizations that work tirelessly to halt the sexual exploitation of children, as well as Canadian parents, educators and civilians who remain vigilant for signs of potential abuse and work to educate others on how to recognize and report this despicable behaviour. However, there is still more work to be done. The incidences of making or distributing child sexual abuse and exploitation material increased by 26% from 2019 to 2021, contributing to a 58% increase over a five-year period from 2017 to 2021.

I welcome the opportunity that this bill provides to address a problem that has emerged in recent years, both domestically and internationally.

More specifically, there has been a shift away from the term “child pornography” to terms that are more descriptive of the harm caused by the production of such material. Some people feel that the term “child pornography” is too close to ordinary pornography, which is of course generally legal when produced by consenting adults and does not contain obscene material.

This bill, on its face, appears simple. It proposes to replace the term “child pornography” with the term “child sexual abuse material” in the Criminal Code and in four other federal statutes that use that term: An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service; the Corrections and Conditional Release Act; the Criminal Records Act; and the National Defence Act.

It is important to acknowledge that the definition of the term “child pornography” in Canadian criminal law has been part of the Criminal Code for almost 30 years, having been enacted in 1993, and expanded in 2002 and 2005. Our existing definition is very broad and includes a wide range of material involving the depiction of abuse of a child, both real and fictional, as well as materials that advocate engaging in sexual activity with a child.

This definition has been interpreted and applied by the courts for almost 30 years, including by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2001 in R. v. Sharpe. In this case, the Supreme Court made clear that the prohibitions against child pornography, including the broad scope of the definition, seeks to prevent the exploitation of children, both actual or real and imaginary or fictional, through material that sexualizes them and fuels the demand for such material. This decision also ruled that a person includes both actual and imaginary children.

I think it is important to be clear that the intent is not to change the definition. Rather, it is to more accurately reflect the definition in the name. Courts should not change their interpretation of the law based on the change in title.

I also want to be satisfied that the proposed new term of “child sexual abuse material” accurately reflects the full scope of material that is captured by the existing definition. For example, I think it is important to ensure that the new term cannot be interpreted more narrowly than the current definition. While I do not think this is intended by the bill, I think it would be important to consider it more fully and consider whether the proposed term should be clarified.

While there is no one term that has been universally adopted, terms like “child sexual abuse material”, which is the one proposed in this bill, or “child sexual exploitation and abuse material”, and other variations, are gaining favour on the international stage. The Luxembourg Guidelines, otherwise known as the Terminology Guidelines for the Protection of Children from Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse, suggest using “child sexual exploitation material” as a more general term to encompass material that “sexualises and is exploitative to the child although it is not explicitly depicting the sexual abuse of a child.” As such, I have had discussions with my colleague about potentially expanding his bill to include the term “exploitation”, and I look forward to continuing those discussions at committee.

Lastly, I think it would be important to consider whether there are other implications of changing the term. For example, although Bill C-291 proposes consequential amendments to four other federal statutes, which are the ones I mentioned at the outset, it would not amend the federal regulations made pursuant to An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service, also known as the Internet child pornography reporting regulations. Of course, the making of regulations falls generally to the executive branch of government and is not normally done by Parliament. When this legislation passes, the government will likely have to also update the regulations to match.

Most provinces have legislation that refers to the Criminal Code's child pornography prohibitions and definition. It is estimated that there are at least 50 such provincial and territorial statutes and regulations that refer to it. In some cases, the reference is made to the term “child pornography” as well as to section 163.1 of the Criminal Code. However, there are some instances where a reference is made only to the term “child pornography, as defined by the Criminal Code”. Should this bill pass, we will work with our provincial and territorial partners to ensure the legislation is updated accordingly.

I want to conclude by expressing my thanks to the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap and his colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo for providing us with an opportunity to review the Criminal Code's definition of “child pornography” and the way that provision is incorporated into not only federal but provincial and territorial legislation.

The government will be supporting the bill, and I look forward to working with my colleagues opposite at committee to ensure that this legislation is as strong as it can be.

[Criminal Code, November 17th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from North Okanagan—Shuswap for introducing Bill C-291.

I want to ask him about what kinds of consultations he has had with victims and survivors, as well as those in the policing and justice communities. Could he maybe comment on who he has consulted and how that has informed the bill presented today?

[Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022, November 17th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend for his hard work on a number of files.

I had the opportunity to meet with members of Unifor a couple of days ago, and many of the issues the member identified were brought up, including the anti-scab legislation, which is coming forward from the Minister of Labour, and the need for EI reform.

One thing we have to look at is that during the pandemic, during the worst economic crisis our country faced, our government was there for Canadians every step of the way. As we go forward, I can assure all members in the House, particularly my friend from the NDP, because there is consensus on how we need to support workers, that we will work with him and his party to achieve what is right for workers.

[Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022, November 17th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I find it hard to believe that the member opposite is suggesting we have not made structural changes.

I can assure members that the Canada child benefit is the single biggest contributor to the reduction of poverty among young people. I can assure him that the introduction of the $10-a-day child care, although it has existed in Quebec for many years, will be a game changer in Ontario. The elimination of interest on the federal student loan program is critical. Dental care for young people is critical.

I would ask my friend opposite to rethink his perception of the things we have done.

[Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022, November 17th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to a number of people who are well versed in economics, more so than myself, and I can assure members that the measures we have put in place are very measured. They would allow Canadians to have support without contributing to inflation.

I am very confident, as is the Minister of Finance, that this fall economic statement is prudent and is one that reflects the current needs as well as the current realities of inflation.

[Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022, November 17th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak in support of the fall economic statement. Let me begin by acknowledging we are all gathered here on the traditional unceded lands of the Algonquin people.

I want to acknowledge that yesterday the mayor of the city of Toronto appointed my municipal colleague, Dr. Jennifer McKelvie, as the deputy mayor for the city of Toronto. I want to congratulate her on this enormous responsibility she has. I have every confidence she will serve the people of Scarborough—Rouge Park as well as the people of the city of Toronto exceptionally. I look forward to working with her and the mayor as he starts his third term.

There are a number of things in the fall economic statement, but the most glaring issue I see is the current economic situation faced by Canadians. Inflation, although it has tapered down a bit from its high, is at 6.9% and has been persistent for the last couple of months. We had our constituency week last week, and many of us in the House were able to speak to families, individuals and students about some of the challenges they have. Many spoke to me about the increasing cost of living, the increasing cost of housing, transportation and gasoline. They talked about some of their anxieties, especially students who attend the U of T Scarborough in my riding, as well as Centennial College.

Canadians have been struggling a great deal over the last several months, but I want to assure them that, as a government, we are here to support them. We are here to ensure affordability remains front and centre in the work we do and to make sure we are there for them every step of the way. In fact, this is the reason we brought forward several months ago, and the cheques went out two weeks ago, the doubling of the GST credit. This has a significant impact on millions of Canadians who need the support.

We have also adopted dental care for young people with family incomes of less than $90,000. There is no question that it is a critical component of what is required for the health and well-being of Canada's youth. Unfortunately, many families simply are not able to afford it, and this is a very important step in ensuring young people have dental care.

We have been building supports for Canadians since 2015. The Canada child benefit, for example, supports young people and families across Canada. In my riding alone, it has had a significant impact on addressing the issue of poverty among our young people, and that is something we can all take pride in. As a government, we work very hard and diligently to make sure we target supports to those who need them and not give cheques to millionaires and those who really do not need them. It is a means-tested approach, one that is very smart and has had a significant impact on addressing the issue of poverty.

The adoption of $10-a-day child care in Ontario is a game-changer for many families. Look at how we are supporting, for example, someone with two kids in child care. We are talking about thousands of dollars in savings on an annual basis. It is something that is going to change our workforce. More women will enter the workforce, and they will be supported by the government. With the introduction of $10-a-day child care in Ontario, this year alone child care expenses will be reduced by 50%, with a goal of it being reduced to $10 a day. That too is a very important aspect of addressing the issue of affordability.

The national housing strategy is another perfect example of how we are addressing a number of things, including chronic homelessness, the need for transitional housing as well as affordable housing within the market space. We know there are many different players.

In Scarborough—Rouge Park, for example, we have a number of initiatives, one that we just announced several months ago with Fred Victor. We have modular housing being built, which will be available, with the proper supports, for those who need it. In fact, that is being replicated across not just the city of Toronto, but across Canada. It is also supplemented. We have a project called 250 Brenyon Way, which the national housing strategy and the CMHC are intricately involved in providing those supports.

Given the limited time I have, I would like to speak to a key aspect of the fall economic statement, namely the elimination of interest on student loans, the Canada student loan program as well as the Canada apprenticeship loan program.

I have always said, and I have repeated it many times in the House, that education is the ultimate equalizer in society. If we look at it, whether through history, youth, people in the House, or my personal lived experience, education has certainly given me the tools to do the things I do. Whether as a lawyer, someone who was previously in business or working with youth, it has given me those skills.

We know that the youth of today need that formal education. Whether they go to college, university or enrol in apprenticeship or trade programs, they need that education to compete in this world. We have seen some phenomenal successes whether in AI or health care. We have seen an enormous amount of young people rising to the challenge with respect to COVID–19 or developing state-of-the-art technologies.

I cannot tell members the number of times I have met people, whether during Christmastime or the summer, who have gone from Canada to the Silicon Valley or to other countries, such as Germany. Very recently I spoke with someone who went to Finland to work in a high-tech firm. However, oftentimes young people are very apprehensive of going forward with such a huge debt, if they or their families do not have the means to support it. We know that programs such as law and medicine, in particular, have a very high cost of tuition, with the assumption that once students finish the program they have the ability to earn a higher income.

The challenge, and this is very true for many racialized first generation or indigenous peoples, is that the burden of the high level of debt they would have to incur to pursue a specialized program, or any program, can be a deterrent to them being able to pursue post-secondary education or training. Therefore, the elimination of the federal interest portion on the student loan program is a game-changer.

I was able to drop by the University of Toronto's Scarborough campus, as well as Centennial College, to speak with some of the students. They are very happy about this elimination. I have also spoken with some people who have already graduated and are working. They also feel this is a very important measure that will allow them to be more secure and save some money over the next few months. I am really pleased to support that.

With that, I look forward to questions and comments from my friends.

[Sri Guggan Sri-Skanda-Rajah, October 31st, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Sri Guggan Sri-Skanda-Rajah. Sri Anna, as he was affectionately known, worked for a better, inclusive and just Canada since coming here in 1975. He served as the president and founding member of the Tamil Eelam Society of Canada and as commissioner on systemic racism in the Ontario criminal justice system, was a member of the Immigration and Refugee Board and the Ontario Human Rights Commission, was an adviser at the Jane-Finch community legal clinic, was a facilitator at the Canadian Tamil Youth Development Centre, and volunteered with many organizations, including the Urban Alliance on Race Relations, the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants, the Ontario Tamils with disabilities and many more organizations that empowered Black, racialized, newcomer and Tamil-Canadian communities.

On a personal note, he was a mentor, a friend, an elder and a highly principled man who was universally admired. He has been recognized with many lifetime achievement awards, including from CanTYD, the Urban Alliance on Race Relations, the Ontario New Democratic Party, OCASI and OCTD.

He will be missed by his partner and soulmate, Janet, his daughter, Anya, and a grateful Tamil nation.