SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 134 - Nov/24/22

Mr. Chris Bittle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.)

Nov/24/22 11:54:26 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, I was watching on Facebook, and I guess I understand why the hon. member was dog whistling to the convoy crowd. There were a number of comments on there, which he does not seem to be correcting, including that the Prime Minister should be arrested, so on and so forth. It is disappointing to see the hon. member play to the lowest common denominator. However, I did ask a question in that forum, and I would like to give him an opportunity to answer. He and his colleagues talk about U.S.-style laws. In the United States, especially in the southern United States, could he give us an example of the types of laws he wants, laws that have actually made those communities safer?

127 words

All Topics

Mr. Damien Kurek

Nov/24/22 11:55:13 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, it is interesting how that member seems to suggest that the opinions of many Canadian do not matter. However, I will specifically address the question. This is the reality. That member and many members of the Liberal Party are attempting to paint Conservatives as somehow being something that very clearly we are not, We are standing up for and with victims of serious crime. In fact, a bill brought forward by a Conservative MP from the Maritimes in the last Parliament was passed to ensure there would be a strategy to address recidivism. Those members are trying to compare what we are doing in standing up for victims to Trump. The biggest comparison to Trump in this place is the Prime Minister, who has more ethical violations than he can count. The Conservatives have and will continue to stand up for victims. That is what Canadians expect in this place.

152 words

All Topics

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

Nov/24/22 11:56:22 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Battle River—Crowfoot on his speech and on taking the initiative to stream it live on his Facebook page. I had a look, and I thought that was a good idea. I also found it interesting that other House of Commons colleagues commented on my colleague's Facebook page. Anyway, he talked about how he thinks sentences should be tougher, especially for more serious crimes. I visited the Drummond Institution in my region, a medium-security penitentiary that is proud of its successful approaches to supporting inmates' rehabilitation, even when they have committed violent crimes. Personally, what I think we should be looking at is the parole system, which may have too many gaps and shortcomings. I would really like to know what data my colleague and his fellow Conservatives are using to support their assertion that a tougher stance on criminal penalties is more effective than the current approach, which is based on reintegration.

163 words

All Topics

Mr. Damien Kurek

Nov/24/22 11:57:33 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question, although it feeds into the false premise that somehow we are asking for stiffer penalties. It is the Minister of Justice who often suggests they should raise the maximum penalty that is allowable for serious crimes. However, I have yet to hear the Minister of Justice acknowledge the number of times the maximum penalty is brought forward on any offence. I am proud to represent many correctional officers in my constituency. There is an institution in Drumheller. In fact, I speak often with members of Correctional Services Canada who are incredibly frustrated about some of the ways that, even in prisons, the rights of serious criminals are prioritized over the rights of the well-being of correctional officers.

124 words

All Topics

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Nov/24/22 11:58:35 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Alberta did not speak an awful lot about the bill at hand. There was not an awful lot there on Bill S-4, so I certainly hope later on today, as I do my speech, I am afforded the same leniency to expand upon thoughts. One thing he did talk about was the attack on an RCMP officer, and I think everyone in the House finds it incredibly appalling to hear that. From my perspective as an Albertan, I remember last year when the RCMP officers in Coutts were threatened with illegal guns and with crime. I wonder why the member has such a different perspective on what should have been done in that situation. Why the Emergencies Act should not have been enacted? Why we should not have done everything we could to protect those RCMP officers? Why the different perspective for what should be done to protect RCMP officers in his community?

159 words

All Topics

Mr. Damien Kurek

Nov/24/22 11:59:41 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, we have before us a member who, by the very premise of her question, is suggesting that somehow the rights of Canadians should be something that depends on the respect of the Prime Minister's Office. If somebody breaks the law, there should be a penalty for it, whether it is somebody I support with respect to the protest movement or not. The rights of Canadians should not be something that is negotiable at the whim of a Prime Minister, who seems to have no concerns with anything other than his political fortune. That member should be very careful when she talks so flippantly about how the rights of Canadians matter, because those who break the law should face the penalty. I do not know why that is so controversial for the member from Edmonton. Further to that, we need to ensure, when it comes to the administration of justice in our country, that it is done fairly, so the very real concerns of Canadians are not dismissed at the whim of ideologues who happen to sit in the front benches.

183 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Nov/24/22 12:01:12 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

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

95 words

All Topics

Mr. Damien Kurek

Nov/24/22 12:01:54 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Mr. Speaker, as I very specifically highlighted within my speech, there is absolutely that need to the administration of justice, specifically when it comes to things like video conferencing and teleconferencing, and the inclusion of some of what seems like small administrative matters like fingerprinting. I live in a rural constituency. It takes hours for the RCMP to respond. In some cases, I have constituents who live more than 100 kilometres from their nearest police detachment, in most cases RCMP. Therefore, access to justice is absolutely key and fundamental, and some of the small administrative changes that are being proposed in the bill are things I think most Canadians would suggest are common sense. However, I want to highlight that the member said that serious crimes deserve the punishment. I would suggest that member take his message to his justice minister, because that is the opposite of what that Liberal Party is bringing forward with respect to policy.

158 words

All Topics

Mr. Matthew Green (Hamilton Centre, NDP)

Nov/24/22 12:03:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Mr. Speaker, I have heard the hon. member speak at length about the fundamental rights of Canadians, yet when it comes to people who are held on remand, who are charged but not yet convicted, would the hon. member not agree that improving the administration of justice to allow those people to have their day in court would also help protect their rights? I would like the member to even go a bit further, perhaps, and reflect on the notion that even when convicted, people in our country still maintain their civil rights?

93 words

All Topics

Mr. Damien Kurek

Nov/24/22 12:03:38 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Mr. Speaker, again, rights should not be negotiable, certainly at the whim of a Prime Minister who seems to suggest they are. The member made an interesting point. I certainly hear his frustration that when people are arrested for a serious crime, they are simply back out on the streets, sometimes a few hours later. In many cases, not just a handful of cases but through the personal testimony given to law enforcement officers, it revictimizes people once again. We need a system that works. We need a system that ensures the presumption of innocence, so that people who have been alleged to have committed a crime have their day in court to ensure that all barriers are removed and that it can be done in a timely manner. As has been said, justice delayed is certainly not justice served.

140 words

All Topics

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, Lib.)

Nov/24/22 12:04:40 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Outremont. I am pleased to speak to Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other acts. Bill S-4 addresses issues that the COVID–19 pandemic has brought to light regarding the ways in which criminal trials are conducted in this country. It also builds on past government initiatives, including Bill C-75, which came into force in 2019 and made significant progress in modernizing our criminal justice system, including by facilitating the appearance of accused persons, lawyers and judges by audioconference or video conference throughout the criminal justice process. Bill C-75 also enacted Criminal Code amendments to improve the jury selection process. Bill S-4's amendments support the increased use of technology in criminal courts across Canada, including in the following areas: remote appearances for accused persons and offenders, remote participation of prospective jurors and the use of technology in a jury selection process. My remarks today will focus on the amendments relating to the use of technology during the jury selection process. As many members know, a jury is a group of randomly selected citizens who act as the fact-finders in criminal trials, replacing the judge in this role when accused persons exercise their subsection 11(f) charter right to a jury trial after being charged with certain offences. It is the civic duty of all Canadians over the age of 18 to serve on a jury if selected. Jurors make critical contributions to the criminal justice system in Canada, and the Supreme Court of Canada has held that a jury reflects the common sense, values and conscience of the community. Subsection 11(d) of the charter also guarantees an accused person an independent, impartial and representative jury. The Criminal Code sets out the procedural rules regulating jury trials and jury selection and includes safeguards that reflect this charter right. The jury selection process is a hearing held for the purposes of selecting qualified members to form the jury. Typically, persons referred to as prospective jurors are identified and summoned in accordance with provincial or territorial laws, and directed to attend at a specified courthouse or other location at a specified date and time in order to partake in a jury selection process. Being summoned for jury duty does not necessarily mean that a person will be asked to serve on the jury. However, compliance with the summons is mandatory, and people may only be excused from jury duty for certain reasons, including where it would cause personal hardship for them to serve. The COVID–19 pandemic and public health requirements for physical distancing posed significant challenges for the jury selection process since it sometimes involves several hundred people being physically present in the same location at the same time. Bill S-4's amendments provide courts with the flexibility to hold jury selection processes with prospective jurors appearing by video conference rather than in person. These amendments aim to not only address the challenges caused by the pandemic, but also optimize the jury selection process beyond the pandemic and moving forward. Importantly, a key aspect of Bill S-4 will be increased efficiency of the justice system, facilitated by the use of technology. The amendments enable a court to allow or require prospective jurors to participate by video conference so long as the court considers it appropriate and the accused person and Crown prosecutor consent to the jury selection process occurring this way. Where a court allows a prospective juror to participate by video conference, it would be that individual's choice whether they want to participate in person or remotely. Where the court requires prospective jurors to participate in a jury selection process by video conference, it will need to approve a location that is equipped with the technological infrastructure for them to participate by those means, such as a community centre or a courtroom set up with the requisite equipment. If the court does not approve such a location, it will only be able to permit prospective jurors to participate by video conference from another location, such their home or office, if they choose to participate that way. However, in this case, the court will also need to provide the option for prospective jurors to participate in the jury selection process in person. These amendments aim to maintain the representativeness of the jury selection process in two ways. First, they facilitate the participation of persons in the jury selection process by reducing the burdens and barriers of attending in person. Although participating by video conference from home or the office would not eliminate the need to take time off work, it would likely lessen the time commitment required compared to commuting to the courthouse and waiting sometimes several hours for the process to commence. This can facilitate the participation of prospective jurors living in rural or remote areas by minimizing travel time and costs, and help those who need to find child care or who hold precarious employment by reducing the time required for child care or the time they need to take off work. These changes would both reduce the burden for individual jurors and enhance the efficiency of the overall system. Second, the changes would ensure that persons who do not have access to adequate video conferencing technology or who have a limited understanding of the technology will continue to be able to participate in the jury selection process and ultimately form part of the trial's jury. Our government recognizes that there is a digital divide in Canada and that many Canadians, particularly those in rural and remote areas, do not have adequate access to a high-speed and stable Internet connection. Although the government is committed to closing the divide, the amendments would ensure that at least a properly equipped location or an option to appear in person will always be available to prospective jurors to ensure participation by as many Canadians as possible. The bill's amendments to the jury selection process also include important safeguards. As mentioned previously, prior to permitting or acquiring prospective jurors to participate by video conference, both the accused person and the prosecutor will need to consent to such an order being made. Also, the court will need to determine that making such an order is appropriate by considering listed factors, including the challenges related to the in-person participation of prospective jurors, their privacy and security, and the accused person's right to a fair and public hearing. I would also like to take a moment to touch on the related proposals that would permit the use of electronic or automated means to randomly select prospective jurors during the jury selection process. The current process is both time- and resource-intensive, as it requires a large number of physical cards with juror identification information on them to be manually created for each prospective juror and then manually drawn as well. This amendment would provide courts with the option of a more efficient and less resource-draining process. Along with the amendments previously discussed, it also aims to optimize the jury selection process beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. I believe this bill helps transform and modernize our criminal justice system while ensuring respect for all persons involved in the criminal court process, including accused persons and prospective jurors. A more efficient justice system will benefit all Canadians, and I ask that all members of the House support the passage of this bill as quickly as possible.

1274 words

All Topics

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Nov/24/22 12:13:53 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech. We sit on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates together. My colleague knows that the backlog in Canada's justice system is not a new issue. The government has known that the system has needed an overhaul since before the Liberals first took office after the previous Harper government. I am wondering why they took almost a full year before bringing this legislation back. It is essentially a carbon copy of a bill first introduced in the last Parliament. The member knows that I live in a remote, rural community, and it takes me 11 hours to get here. There are 31 communities in my riding. What specific steps will the government take to ensure that Canadians who live in remote and rural communities, where Internet connections are less stable, receive equitable access to Internet to participate in a jury summons remotely, just as urban Canadians do where he lives?

163 words

All Topics

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk

Nov/24/22 12:14:58 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I respect very much the work of my hon. colleague. We sit together at the OGGO committee, and I really enjoy working with him and collaborating on projects. Bill S-4 would take concrete steps to make the Canadian justice system more participatory. It would remove many barriers. It would allow more rural, northern and remote communities to access and participate in Canada's justice system. It would allow more Canadians with disabilities to participate, for example, in the jury selection process. It would also allow a lot of parents, the moms and dads who face barriers in terms of child care, to participate in the Canadian justice system. I can tell the member about our government's record and the historic investments in expanding broadband to rural and remote communities across Canada. We have put record amounts of funding through the universal broadband fund. These are exactly the types of measures and concrete steps we are putting forward to make sure that Canadians from coast to coast to coast, in urban areas and rural and remote areas, are able to fully participate in the life of our country, and that includes the Canadian justice system.

201 words

All Topics

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ)

Nov/24/22 12:16:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my hon. colleague's speech. As everyone knows, we will be voting in favour of this bill. That said, I get the impression that anytime we talk about Canada's Criminal Code, we are always putting out fires instead of taking in-depth action. It is a bit like modernizing the Income Tax Act, which we have been talking about for several years. Modernizing the Criminal Code and the rules governing the overall operation of the Canadian justice system requires a deep reflection and comprehensive review. Society is changing. We know more about such things as mental illness, prevention and rehabilitation, especially in Quebec. We will vote in favour of the bill, but rather than always dealing with the Criminal Code in piecemeal fashion, should we not do a comprehensive review of the whole act and modernize it once and for all, for the good of our constituents? What does my colleague think?

158 words

All Topics

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk

Nov/24/22 12:17:21 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

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

111 words

All Topics

Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC)

Nov/24/22 12:18:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member was elected in 2019, when I think the bill was introduced, I am wondering whether he discussed it with his leader at the time and said that in order to get the bill passed, he should not call an unnecessary election, since it was such a priority.

53 words

All Topics

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk

Nov/24/22 12:18:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Mr. Speaker, this is a concrete step the government is taking in consultation with our provincial and territorial partners and other stakeholders. It is an important step to modernize Canada's justice system to make it more efficient and more participatory. I certainly appreciate the fact that it looks like all members of the House will be supporting this critically important bill.

62 words

All Topics

Ms. Rachel Bendayan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance, Lib.)

Nov/24/22 12:19:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking to Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other acts at second reading today. Bill S-4 would reform the Criminal Code and related acts in order to modernize the criminal justice system here in Canada. The bill seeks to provide courts with greater flexibility in the manner in which they conduct their business, while respecting the rights of all participants in our justice system. As a former litigator, I understand and truly believe in the importance of doing this. While I will detail some of the specific measures included in the bill in my speech today, I would like to take a moment to speak more broadly about why modernizing our justice system is so critical, particularly at this time. Let us take, for example, gender-based violence. Gender-based violence is on the rise. Frontline organizations saw increases in gender-based violence of about 20% during the pandemic. Domestic violence, in particular, is on the rise. We are at the beginning of our 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. Access to justice is a critical piece of solving this puzzle. We have seen backlogs in the courts due to the pandemic. We have seen increases in the demand for our justice system and, in particular, for the time of our judges. Therefore, freeing up resources and ensuring that judges are available in the courts in order to do the work that Canadians need them to do is of fundamental importance in respect of gender-based violence and all forms of violence in this country. Bill S-4 would go a long way toward ensuring that our justice system is not only modernized but is in fact streamlined, and that additional resources are available for litigants who require them. I will now speak more specifically to the telewarrant-related amendments of Bill S-4, which have been well received by many witnesses. Witnesses noted that these new provisions would simplify the warrant application process, improve access to judicial services and, very importantly, save police resources. Under the current Criminal Code provisions on telewarrants, peace officers can apply for and obtain only certain investigative warrants by telephone or other means of telecommunication. The telewarrant regime was enacted in the Criminal Code in 1985, so it is time to reform that system. It is important to remember that the telewarrant regime was established to provide law enforcement with greater access to judges for the purpose of obtaining search warrants. It was established to make it easier to meet some of the challenges associated with policing in a country so vast that the nearest courthouse can easily be 1,000 kilometres away. The telewarrant provisions have been amended only occasionally since they were first enacted. For instance, they were amended in 1994 to allow for an applicant to request a search warrant by a means of telecommunication capable of rendering the communication in written form. The purpose at the time was to accommodate new forms of written communication, including the fax machine. During the pandemic, the courts were able to rely on new technologies to reduce the health risks to those involved in the judicial system. This experience demonstrated the important role that technology can play in addressing challenges in the criminal justice system. Accordingly, the expansion of the telewarrant process would provide greater flexibility in how the courts and police can meet the requirements for obtaining investigative tools without having an impact on judicial protections that apply to the issuance of search warrants and other judicial authorizations. Judges and justices of the peace will continue to rule on these matters in the manner they deem to be most appropriate. With this approach, we are modernizing our judicial system to make justice more efficient and freeing up time and resources for our judges and law enforcement. Let us talk again about gender-based violence. We know that it is growing at a very alarming rate, and that access to justice is fundamental for women. We are embarking on the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence and we must make the necessary changes to our justice system to ensure better access to justice for all. That is fundamental. The amendments to the telewarrant process address the following issues. First, the current telewarrant regime is available for only some warrants and investigative orders under the Criminal Code, such as a general warrant or a warrant to obtain blood samples in impaired driving cases. However, the telewarrant regime cannot be used for many common judicial authorizations sought by law enforcement, such as warrants to seize firearms, warrants for trafficking devices and orders to produce data. In addition, at the present time, telewarrants, as opposed to warrants obtained by personal attendance, may be issued only in respect of indictable offences, and telewarrant applications may be made only to specially designated justices. Furthermore, while public officers responsible for enforcing federal statutes may apply for Criminal Code search warrants and other judicial authorizations, they can do so only by applying in person. Given the limited scope of the telewarrant process, police officers spend countless hours on the road and waiting outside the office of the justice of the peace at the courthouse to get warrants that cannot currently be requested by a means of telecommunication. Bill S-4 replaces the current provisions on telewarrants with a simplified, standardized process that will apply to a wide variety of search warrants, orders and investigative authorizations, while maintaining the protective measures for the issuance of judicial authorizations. One key element of this new process is that where the search warrant application is submitted by means of a telecommunication that produces a writing, for example, an email, a peace officer will no longer be required to meet the existing precondition that is in place right now, that it has to be impracticable to appear in person. The current in-person search warrant application process often involves hand delivery of applications by police officers at the courthouse, without even an interaction with a judge. By removing the impracticable appearance in person requirement, search warrant applications submitted in written form will be treated in the exact same way, whether they are submitted electronically or in person. However, the police officer's ability to make an oral application for a search warrant by phone, for example, will be maintained in situations in which it is impracticable to present the application electronically, for example, where the officer is in a remote location with no Internet access. These changes to the current law on accessing telewarrant regimes promote the use of written applications as a standard approach to be followed by law enforcement when applying for their authorizations. In closing, making it possible to obtain a wider variety of search warrants and other judicial authorizations through technological means will make the criminal justice system more effective by reducing the number of cases where law enforcement is required to obtain those judicial authorizations in person and to physically submit requests for search warrants.

1194 words

All Topics

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ)

Nov/24/22 12:28:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech on Bill S‑4, among other things. My colleague spoke at length about the justice system, and I think it is important that we have a strong one. In that regard, there is something that Quebec has been calling for for years but that my colleague did not mention in her speech, nor did I see it in Bill S‑4, which is before us today. I am talking about the whole issue of judicial appointments. Why is it that Quebec judges are appointed by the federal government? I think it would make sense for Quebec to choose the judges who will be ruling on cases involving Quebeckers. I wonder if her government is open to agreeing to this long-standing request of Quebec's. Is there any chance that might happen one day?

148 words

All Topics

Ms. Rachel Bendayan

Nov/24/22 12:29:44 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question, but he obviously did not read Bill S‑4. That is not what we are debating in the House today. I would be happy to discuss that with him further. I understand very well the issue he raised. However, since it is not part of the bill we are discussing today, I think we should stick to the current topic of debate.

73 words

All Topics