SoVote

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

Mr. Matthew Green (Hamilton Centre, NDP)

Nov/24/22 12:30:30 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to work with the hon. member across the way. I put this question to another member of the Liberal caucus in their response to this, but the member could not answer it. I know this member is a learned lawyer with a lot of experience. She spoke at length about how providing resources and materials to the justice system helps access the process of justice. As a means of addressing the court backlogs, why did the government oppose recommendation 1 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which called on the federal government to remove 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?

138 words

All Topics

Ms. Rachel Bendayan

Nov/24/22 12:31:30 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Mr. Speaker, I do not sit on the committee in which that debate took place. I would be happy to take cognizance of the evidence that was before the committee. Like any good lawyer, I will not opine on an issue without having all the facts before me. I certainly appreciate the member's work on the Emergencies Act committee and look forward to continuing the conversation with him.

69 words

All Topics

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Nov/24/22 12:32:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Mr. Speaker, today's technology enables us to do things that used to be much harder to do. My colleague mentioned this in her speech, particularly with regard to court delays. Does my colleague believe that this bill makes sufficient improvements to ensure that fewer cases are thrown out because of the Jordan decision?

54 words

All Topics

Ms. Rachel Bendayan

Nov/24/22 12:32:39 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Mr. Speaker, more needs to be done. I agree with my colleague. The question is whether the bill does enough. I think more could be done. As mentioned earlier, Bill S‑4 was introduced in the previous Parliament, and we are receiving it from the other place. I believe it will improve access to justice and ease the burden on judges, which is good. Is that the end of the story? The answer is no. More needs to be done.

81 words

All Topics

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

Nov/24/22 12:33:28 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the same question I asked the previous member from the government, who did not seem to be able to answer the question. This member was also a member of the government in the last Parliament, when a similar bill was introduced, but the Prime Minister called an unnecessary and early election. If the bill was such a priority for the government, did the member, as a member of the government then, raise the issue that an election should not be called while we had this kind of legislation pending?

94 words

All Topics

Ms. Rachel Bendayan

Nov/24/22 12:33:57 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question to the best of my ability. In my opinion, that election was important. It was a question that was put to Canadians, and Canadians went to the ballot. When Parliament is dissolved, there are always bills before the House that unfortunately do not get passed due to the fact that an election is called. The fact that this bill has returned in this session and could potentially move quickly with the co-operation of all members of the House, is something I feel is important. If all members of the House agree on the importance of this legislation, I am not sure why we cannot move swiftly in order to pass it.

119 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Waugh (Saskatoon—Grasswood, CPC)

Nov/24/22 12:34:52 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to speak to Bill S-4. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac. We are looking forward to hearing his comments as well. As we all know, the goal of this bill is to increase the efficiency, the effectiveness and the accessibility of the criminal justice system in response to the challenges that we had with the COVID-19 pandemic, which has contributed to the enormous backlog that we have in the criminal justice system today. The Conservatives have been raising concerns about delays and potential for criminals to simply walk free due to the Supreme Court's decision on Jordan. That decision said that no more than 18 months could pass between laying a charge and the end of a trial case in provincial courts or 30 months for cases in superior courts. We have seen a number of cases throughout Canada, provincially, certainly exceeding the 18 months over the last couple of years. In the interest of serving justice, why would we not implement all the modern tools and resources at our disposal today to maximize productivity? The resources being considered include amending the process for peace officers to apply and obtain a warrant using telecommunication rather than appear in person and expanding the ability to conduct fingerprinting of the accused at a later date, in exceptional circumstances, should fingerprinting not previously have been taken. The justice would have the discretion to determine what would be considered necessary in these circumstances. Also being considered is expanding the power of courts to make case management rules permitting court personnel to deal with administrative matters for accused who are not presented by counsel. We currently have a case in Saskatoon to which this certainly applies. Currently, this only applies to those represented by counsel. Also being considered is expanding the ability for the accused and offenders to appear remotely by audio conference or even video conference in certain circumstances and the allowing of the participation of prospective jurors in the jury selection process by video conference if deemed appropriate and if the prosecutor and the accused consent, as well as using electronic and automatic means to select jurors. Some of these modernizations are beneficial from both a safety and a financial perspective. For example, participating virtually would cut down on the transportation time and the cost and the resources needed to transport and protect the accused. As we know, transportation costs are skyrocketing, it seems like every day. We all know that. It is not an insignificant consideration, considering the price of diesel and gas, especially in remote and northern communities. The federal ombudsman for victims of crime has also raised a number of concerns regarding the impact of COVID-19 on the justice system, which must be carefully weighed in the consideration of Bill S-4. The ombudsman pointed out that accessing justice in remote areas of the country, where bandwidth and Internet access remain an issue, could have a negative impact on the delivery of justice. We would not want to see that. She also flagged the issue of ensuring that jurors remain anonymous and the potential to compromise their privacy with facial recognition software. For some victims and their families, it is an important part of their healing process to see the accused and the offenders in person or by video conference. In these situations, the use of a telephone would certainly deprive them of this opportunity. The needs of the victim must, and I repeat, must always be weighed when considering an amendment to the Criminal Code. Access to the Internet for rural Canadians has been a long issue in our country. The current government has promised for years to improve access to the Internet, and we know that this is a big issue in rural Saskatchewan, where I live, and certainly in remote and northern spots in Canada. It is blotchy at best, as it cuts in and out, and it has been an issue for the last seven years that the government has been in office. Not everyone has access to the Internet. We saw this during COVID where schools tried to participate in classrooms and some did not even have access to a computer. There are issues with the Internet, which is a concern for prospective jurors to appear by video conference during the jury selection. A jury summons, as we all know, is a very serious responsibility. However, I think many Canadians simply cannot take time off, particularly if one is a small business owner. It is near impossible for many to be compensated properly. As we all know, time is money and for the majority in our country, the two are certainly hard to fit in when someone does open that letter up and has been selected for jury duty. Our legal system, without question, and we have talked about it for the last two days in this place, needs to improve. Bill S-4 aims to increase the efficiency, effectiveness and accessibility of the criminal justice system in response to the challenges that we have heard of over the last two years with the pandemic. The bill would also clarify and somewhat broaden the circumstances under which accused individuals, the offenders and others involved in criminal proceedings, may appear by audio conference or video conference. I want to step back and have members think about the horrible incident we had at the James Smith reserve in my province of Saskatchewan, where, unfortunately, 11 people lost their lives over a warrant that had been out for months for Myles Sanderson. If members recall, Sanderson became one of the worst mass murders in Canadian history. That day was September 4. Sanderson murdered 11 and injured 18 others during an early morning killing spree. In total, when Sanderson did die, he had been charged with 125 crimes. James Smith is a small community, roughly about 1,900, in northeast Saskatchewan. Therefore, when we see tragedies like this occur, we often have to ask ourselves if we could have prevented this. The warning signals were there for months, if not years. It is not a coincidence that, since 2015, the violent crime rate in Canada has gone up 32%. This is a staggering statistic that for which the government must answer. The community of James Smith is now left to pick up the pieces of this senseless act. The community has been victimized. Victims should be given at least as much consideration as offenders, but in Bill S-4, they are not even mentioned once. This soft-on-crime agenda by the Liberal government is not serving justice in our country. The bill follows other pre-pandemic efforts to modernize the criminal justice system and reduce the delays in court proceedings. Delays in the criminal justice were already a serious issue before the pandemic. The measures contained in Bill S-4 would both modernize and make it more efficient, hopefully, for certain aspects of the delivery of justice. Several family members have come forward in recent weeks with traumatic stories from the James Smith Cree Nation tragedy. Their stories are a crucial part in the healing process in the delivery of justice on that reserve. These are people we must be mindful of when crafting, carefully, this legislation. If we get the bill right, it will balance the need to improve efficiency with the rights of the people it serves, and always consider the victims and their families as a cornerstone of any justice legislation.

1264 words

All Topics

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

Nov/24/22 12:45:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-4 takes into consideration the idea of technology and the experiences we had during the pandemic. The judicial system sees the benefits of having video conferencing and incorporating that. It is legislation that has been around for quite a while now. It even predates the last federal election. I understand the Conservatives will be supporting the legislation, and they have taken the opportunity to add additional comments. The additional comments leave the impression that the Conservatives are tough on crime and that they think about the victims. They can say what they like but it is important to recognize that I believe all parties in the chamber understand and have a great deal of sympathy and empathy for victims. We have a judicial system to protect the interests of all Canadians. It is something of which we can be proud. Does the member not feel that given the very nature of the support of the legislation that we can all get behind it? It is important to recognize technology and the advancements of it.

178 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Waugh

Nov/24/22 12:46:29 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Mr. Speaker, I brought up the victims, because they are not mentioned in Bill S-4. The tragedy in James Smith Cree Nation in Saskatchewan happened on September 4. Now we are at the end of November. Many families and relatives have been victimized more than ever over the last three months. We have not spoken to that. Every day, the Saskatoon Star Phoenix or other news organizations in Saskatchewan talk about the healing process. It might take months, if not years, if ever to forget what happened when Myles Sanderson took the lives of 11 people. There is no question that we need to modernize the justice system. If we had the time, we probably should modernize the House of Commons. We get stuck in our ways over the years and the decades, but this is one thing on which we can all agree. The justice system needs to end the backlog and get people in front of the courts sooner rather than later.

165 words

All Topics

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Nov/24/22 12:47:41 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Mr. Speaker, approximately 80% of communication is non-verbal. An individual can say something and their face and movements will convey something different. Although video conferencing allows people to see each other, part of the message is lost because of the framing, lighting or other factors. Conversely, the message can also be amplified for the same and other reasons. It can lead to misinterpretation, both in the case of jury selection or the reaction of suspects. I would like to know if, in cases such as the ones I described, my colleague could provide some solutions to avoid judicial mistakes being made because of the misinterpretation of non-verbal clues.

110 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Waugh

Nov/24/22 12:48:40 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes a very good point. Today, we are on screens. Sometimes when they zoom in, someone is fidgeting. We do not see that. I think of the court case and jury selection in a very controversial court case about Colton Boushie in North Battleford, Saskatchewan a few years ago. There was a lot of finger pointing and questions about who was on the jury and who had been declined. We will have to work through this. There is no perfect answer. The member is right. We often see in the House of Commons that the video or the sound is not as good. There will be challenges, certainly, going forward when we do video conferencing or even audio conferencing.

124 words

All Topics

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Nov/24/22 12:49:41 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Mr. Speaker, my sympathies to my colleague for the horrific events that happened in Saskatchewan, his province, and the James Smith Cree Nation. I think all Canadians have been horrified by that. He spoke a lot about the failures of the Liberal government to deal with crime and policing adequately. I probably do not agree how that should happen, but I think we can both agree that the Liberals can and must do much more to make our judicial system and our policing system strong. The member was very critical of the Liberal government. I wonder if he sees his Conservative government in Saskatchewan as also having some obligations with regard to that joint jurisdiction of policing and justice.

119 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Waugh

Nov/24/22 12:50:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Mr. Speaker, I think all provincial jurisdictions are looking at justice right now. Whether in Saskatchewan or the member's province of Alberta, these are questions that are being spoken about every day. Whether in Regina or Edmonton, there are changes that have to be made, and provincial governments are looking at this, just as we are in Ottawa.

59 words

All Topics

Mr. Richard Bragdon (Tobique—Mactaquac, CPC)

Nov/24/22 12:51:23 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise here today to speak in the House about Bill S-4. We have been spending some time reviewing the attributes of the bill and the importance of making sure we address the backlog issue in the criminal justice system and the ways we can better expedite that. This is obviously in relation to the aftermath and effects of COVID-19 and the ever-increasing backlogs. One way of addressing them is to make sure that the technology available and disposable to us is utilized effectively to help address issues where possible. That is why overall in principle we support the bill. There may be some friendly amendments we want to see passed through the process of the bill working its way through the House, but the need to address the challenges and the backlogs in the criminal justice system should be paramount. There is a rising frustration with the backlog issue and people who are facing delays in justice. There is an expression for this: Justice delayed is ultimately justice denied. We need to do whatever we can as parliamentarians to effectively address that backlog and make sure that justice is delivered fairly, equitably and expeditiously. In preparation for my remarks today, I could not help but think of an old country song. I think it is a folk song. I will not sing it today, as all members would leave here very quickly, but it is an old song they may recognize: There's a hole in the bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza, There's a hole in the bucket, dear Liza, a hole. Then she says: So fix it dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry, So fix it dear Henry, dear Henry, fix it. Then he goes through all of the excuses about straw and needing an axe, which will not work because it is dull. Then she says to use a rock and sharpen the axe. Well, he cannot find a rock. Then she says they will get water and fix that. They go back and forth, and the bottom line is that the excuses kept coming for not addressing the hole in the bucket. He kept offering up reasons as to why it could not be fixed. The hole never got addressed, but the excuses kept being offered. Well, I stand in the House today to say that there is a hole in the justice bucket, dear Speaker, dear Speaker, and we need to address the hole. It is not just the backlogs, so today I want to address the bigger issue, which is stopping the revolving door into and out of our prison system. We cannot address the backlog issue without discussing the bigger picture. How do we make sure that those who have committed crimes, served their time, paid their debt to society and returned back to their communities do not re-enter the judicial system, clog it up again and create more backlogs? The best way to do that is to address the hole in the bucket, as it were, and make sure we are addressing the rates of recidivism and how we can collectively get those rates down. The best way we can do that is through effective partnerships. Yes, government has a role. Yes, the judicial system has a role. However, so do some tremendous organizations and groups in our country, across the nation, that help make sure we address the root causes of the hole in the individual's bucket. How do we do that? It is not just by reaching across the aisle here to get good legislation passed, which is important and one step, and making sure that bills are improved upon and made the best they can be to address backlogs. It is also by looking at the best practices around the world, not just here at home within our country, where there are some great practices having great results that need to be looked at. Let us look across the world for systems and programs that are having a tremendous effect in reducing the overall rates of recidivism. This is a passion for me. In the last Parliament, I had the privilege of seeing my private member's bill, Bill C-228, pass and become a law thanks to the overwhelming support of members on both sides of the aisle. I am very thankful for that and had good input on that bill from various parties. We saw it come out of the Senate unanimously and it became a law in June 2021. That bill was for addressing recidivism and making sure we do what we can to bring those rates down and stop the revolving door into and out of our prison system. At the time, just a year and a half ago, when I proposed the bill and the bill went through, the rates of recidivism in this country were close to 25%. That means that up to 25% of people who served their time and got out of federal prison were ending up back in the criminal justice system within two years. That is a tragic statistic, but what is even more tragic is that those stats have gotten worse in the last 18 months. I can tell members that right now it is nearly a third, or close to 33%. According to the latest StatsCan statistics on the Department of Justice website, over 30% of adult offenders are finding themselves reconvicted. Talk about a hole in the bucket. We have a massive hole in the bucket in the criminal justice system in Canada that needs to be addressed. Some would say we have to do “this”, and it is going to be the ultimate answer, or we could do “that”, and it is going to be the ultimate answer. I think it is going to take different types of approaches to get the balance right to correct this problem. There is a punitive role in criminal justice. There absolutely has to be adequate punishment for severity of crimes, absolutely. If someone does a crime, time has to be served, and we must make sure they pay their debt to society, especially for heinous and violent crimes. That is absolutely critical, and we advocate for that on this side of the House. However, we also need to recognize that there is a role for restorative justice. It is a role for those who come alongside and are complementary on the back end to make sure that those who have committed a crime, once they have done their time, are not only getting help while they are serving their time. Perhaps this is done with new and innovative programs, like what is being proposed by my hon. colleague from Kelowna—Lake Country with her recent private member's bill to address addictions while people are incarcerated. It would be a great step in the right direction to start some of that good programming while they are on the inside. Let us also make sure that when they get on the outside, we are partnering with effective organizations that are doing tremendous work. Then, once people are released from the prison system, they can find a place to go where they can get their education completed, get 12-step programming, get life skills development and get job opportunities and placements. Often when people come out of the criminal justice system, it is hard for them to find meaningful employment because they have a criminal record. How can we effectively work together with other organizations to find solutions, not only at the front end while they are incarcerated but also once they have been released? What would go a long way in addressing the backlogs in the criminal justice system is reducing crime overall. We need to deter crime with a punitive approach to make sure that if someone does criminal activity, there is a consequence. However, there also needs to be a restorative approach that makes sure that if someone has messed up and made a mistake, we have supports that can bring them the help they need to make sure they do not go back to a life of crime. I think this two-pronged approach is going to help address the proverbial hole in the bucket that needs to be addressed. I thank the Speaker for the opportunity to address this today and to be in the House. I cannot help but think of all those who are serving in the field, volunteering and helping to make a difference in keeping people from going back to a criminal lifestyle. I pay tribute to them today. I thank the volunteer organizations, non-profit organizations, chaplains and others who are doing the hard work, the necessary work, the work of coming alongside the wounded in our society to make sure they are getting the help they need. Let us help our communities as a whole, help victims and make sure that those who perpetrate crimes do not reoffend and that they help others in need. With that, I conclude my remarks today, and I thank the House for the opportunity to address this. Let us do all we can to fix the hole in the justice bucket.

1555 words

All Topics

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

Nov/24/22 1:00:29 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Mr. Speaker, I echo my friend's final sentiments with respect to those who work in the system, especially the chaplains. I was able to meet with many prison chaplains this week. I want to get to the bill. The substance of the bill is to modernize our court system. Can the member highlight the top three things in the bill that could help make the system more efficient?

69 words

Mr. Richard Bragdon

Nov/24/22 1:01:01 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Mr. Speaker, I commend my hon. colleague for meeting with the chaplains this week. I think that is important. The role the chaplains play in the system is critical. Often, it does not get nearly the appropriate acknowledgement it should, so I thank him for doing that. What I like about the bill is that it addresses the backlog issue and uses technology to try to make sure that people in remote areas or rural areas, who would not have normal access or could not get in easily, are able to be part of the process and help streamline it. It is so important that when we are considering any bill to do with criminal justice and justice reform, we address the rural component. We have a rise in rural crime, and there seems to be a disproportionality in the level of response between those who live in urban centres and those who live in rural areas and small towns, like where I come from. It is important that we get techniques and technology in place to help address those kinds of issues.

183 words

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

Nov/24/22 1:02:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Mr. Speaker, it is the classic tough on crime approach being promoted once again. I agree in principle. We have to stand up and violent criminals have to serve their sentence or at least enough of their sentence for it to fit the crime. Nonetheless, there are many other factors to consider. Every inmate in the Canadian prison system costs $110,000 or $120,000 a year. We have to keep that in mind. We also need to bear in mind that the longer the sentence, the less chance there is of rehabilitation. When inmates are identified as having potential for reintegration, society is much better off investing in that inmate's reintegration and rehabilitation. Obviously, if the inmate wants nothing to do with that, then he can serve his full sentence. I have no problem with that. I think the problem has much more to do with the laxness and gaps in the parole system, as well as the pressure on the Parole Board of Canada to release inmates before they fully serve the sentence they were given for their crime. I would like to know what data my colleague is using to claim that it would be more effective, when it comes to reintegration and public safety, to have tougher sentences for crime, as he mentions.

218 words

All Topics

Mr. Richard Bragdon

Nov/24/22 1:03:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if my hon. colleague heard my address, but I feel like I spent quite a bit of time talking about the absolute necessity of the two-pronged approach. We certainly need what we call tough-on-crime measures and want the punishment to meet the crime for heinous crimes that have major consequences on victims of those crimes. People out there must understand that we do not take crime lightly. There are consequences for violent, heinous crimes and there has to be a punishment for them. At the same time, we need to be working hard on the restorative side and putting in place effective partnerships with organizations that are having tremendous effects in dealing with the root causes of some of these crimes. Whether it is for addictions or other social ailments, we need effective partnerships that can work on the inside when people are serving sentences and on the outside when they get out.

162 words

All Topics

Mr. Jamie Schmale (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC)

Nov/24/22 1:04:32 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words from the member. I think we were all enlightened and enthralled by what he had to say. It is certainly a topic that has captured the interest of many Canadians. Hopefully, given that magnitude, I can take some lessons from him and one day live up to that bar. He spoke about rural crime. That is something my communities have been facing for quite some time now. A number of pieces of legislation passed by the government have created problems, and police and prosecutors in my area are raising a flag about them. I am wondering if the member can expand a bit more on that topic.

113 words

All Topics

Mr. Richard Bragdon

Nov/24/22 1:05:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my esteemed hon. colleague. He always has questions that are astute and astounding, and I am forever thankful for that. I will say this. The issue of rising crime in rural communities needs to become a priority and a priority fast. The numbers are staggering. We are finding that remote and rural areas are having a harder and harder time getting access to law enforcement, and our law enforcement resources in the rural and remote areas are stretched to their limits. We need greater investment in the area of law enforcement. We also need to make sure there are consequences for the actions and crimes of those who live in rural areas. Let us make sure the people in those rural areas know that the government has their backs. We are going to be at their side and do everything we can to empower them to defend their property and stand up for their rights.

162 words

All Topics