SoVote

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

Nov/24/22 4:20:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, I know that my Bloc colleague was a lawyer in a previous life, and I appreciate her input in the discussion today. I think that looking at as many ways as possible to speed up the judicial system for victims, for those awaiting trial, to either be convicted or cleared, and a whole bunch of other cases in between, is something that should be examined. We have seen massive backlogs, as I mentioned in my speech. COVID was a major contributor, but even before COVID, the backlog in the court system was quite significant. Issues have been raised about that. I think that there is an opportunity here to have that conversation about what can be done to speed it up, and I look forward to that discussion in the weeks ahead.

134 words

All Topics

Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, NDP)

Nov/24/22 4:21:07 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, I just want to recognize that, for those of us who represent rural and northern areas, the ability for people to access the justice system remotely, as well other systems, is a very serious matter. I wonder if the Conservatives agree that Canadians living in remote and rural areas should have the same access to serving on a jury remotely, as urban Canadians do, to make jury selection. How important is it, in the member's view, to make access to jury selection as fair as possible, particularly for rural and remote communities?

95 words

All Topics

Mr. Jamie Schmale

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

Madam Speaker, rural communities have a number of challenges. I live in one. I represent a rural community, and I know the challenges. There are challenges related to connectivity, but as I mentioned in my speech, there needs to be protection for those applying to be a juror. There are concerns around hacking or facial recognition software, which could be used to identify, so all those considerations need to be taken into account.

73 words

All Topics

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC)

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

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton Manning. I begin my comments regarding Bill S-4 by acknowledging the hard-working and law-abiding citizens of my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. During these challenging economic times and the troubling revelations Canadians are hearing every day in testimony from the Emergencies Act trial, Canadians in my riding and across the country know that I will always defend whomever the target is for this week's two minutes of hate from a Prime Minister who likes to make fun of other cultures by mocking them in their native attire and wearing blackface. Why is it that whenever the Liberal Party brings forth legislation to change criminal laws or the administration of justice, it is always about protecting criminals, never about the victims or their families? The system is failing everyone. lt is failing victims, it is failing the accused and it is failing everyone working in it. We have a situation where the public lacks faith in the justice system, and that is what we are beginning to see happen. There is even a call for the Liberal-appointed head of the RCMP to resign. People have lost trust in our public institutions. Everything the government touches breaks. Everything is broken. Bill S-4 is about technology. Knowing how the government thinks, could Judge Dredd be far behind? The fact is that technology is not a quick fix for what ails the criminal justice system in Canada. The government has all the wrong priorities. For once, the government needs to think about the victims of criminal justice. Someone has to speak for the victims. Earlier this year, a coroner's inquest was concluded in one of the worst cases of multiple-partner violence in Canadian history. Basil Borutski murdered Anastasia Kuzyk, Nathalie Warmerdam and Carol Culleton in separate incidents on the morning of September 22, 2015, in Renfrew County. Borutski was well known to all of his victims and to police for a long history of violence. He was a dangerous serial offender with a history of beating women. The three grieving families and our entire community relived the horror of that event through the inquest. Borutski went on a violent rampage in the Ottawa Valley on that day and murdered three women: Carol Culleton, Nathalie Warmerdam and Anastasia Kuzyk. In their verdict, the jurors determined that Culleton, Warmerdam and Kuzyk all died by homicide. Carol Culleton's cause of death was upper airway obstruction, which is a polite way of saying she was choked to death, while Anastasia Kuzyk and Nathalie Warmerdam both died of shotgun wounds to the chest and neck. The violence did not happen without warning. All the women were former intimate partners of Borutski, and the murders were a culmination of abusive behaviour that had been happening for over 40 years. He was sentenced to life in prison with no eligibility of parole for 70 years. Multiple sentences were to be served concurrently for the multiple murders he committed. Prior to the law passed by the Conservative government, the maximum sentence for first-degree murder, even when multiple victims were killed, was a life term with no chance of parole for 25 years. The Conservative government law that I was pleased to vote in favour of allowed for parole terms to be stacked on top of one another in cases involving multiple victims. The sentence of serial mass murderer Basil Borutski is an example of a sentence that takes into consideration the severity of the crime. The Supreme Court has since ruled that there can be no more multiple sentences. Alexandre Bissonnette, the Quebec City mosque shooter who was initially sentenced to 40 years for the murder of six people, had his sentence struck down on appeal. The Supreme Court upheld the appeal and ruled that sentences of that length are cruel and unusual and violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Unless the Liberal government brings in new legislation, the court's ruling will mean the maximum sentence a person can receive for first-degree murder, even in cases of multiple murders, is life with no chance of parole for 25 years. When women are killed because they are women, that is different than first-degree murder, second-degree murder, manslaughter or the general term “homicide”. It sends the wrong message to the courts. In the case of serial killer Basil Borutski, a violent offender who openly ignored court orders that were part of his probation, he was released anyhow. Bill C-5 is a slap in the face to every woman in Canada by a Prime Minister who is consumed by his own toxic masculinity. By reducing or eliminating mandatory minimum sentences, a downward pressure on all sentences is exerted, especially in circumstances in which supposedly determinate periods of imprisonment are routinely reduced, halved or more by early release. If a man such as Borutski is released early after a triple murder, what sentence will a mere murder receive? What does all this mean to the people of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke? In the case of Bill C-5, which was brought to the House instead of the Senate like Bill S-4, Bill C-5 is a radical, left-wing bill that would eliminate mandatory minimum penalties. It sends the wrong message to the community and the families of Carol Culleton, Nathalie Warmerdam and Anastasia Kuzyk, and women who live in fear of domestic violence.

923 words

All Topics

Mr. Mike Morrice

Nov/24/22 4:29:21 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been listening attentively to the speech by the member. I am hearing her talk of Bill C-5 and mandatory minimum penalties. I do not believe any of that is relevant to Bill S-4. I am wondering what your thoughts are on the relevance of the speech.

59 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Nov/24/22 4:29:21 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

The member well knows that there is quite a bit of latitude, and the member has made references to Bill S-4. I would hope that, in the three and a half minutes left in the member's speech, she will come back to the subject at hand.

48 words

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Nov/24/22 4:29:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, there is a recommendation from the inquest for the federal government to explore adding the term “femicide” to the Criminal Code. What do Canadians get? Bill C-5 and Bill S-4. Bill S-4 was so important to the government that it has come before us several times, and the government just lets it lapse on the Order Paper. Borutski, the eastern Ontario man who was sentenced to life with no chance of parole for 70 years for killing three women in 2015, can now challenge his sentence due to the Supreme Court ruling. Bill S-4 is not going to fix that. Even if he is not granted parole, his victims' families are forced to relive the crime and the loss of their loved ones at regular parole hearings after the 25-year mark. Real justice calls for changes that would prevent such a tragedy from happening again. Tinkering with the system by allowing Zoom into a courtroom is no joke to victims' families, and that is what Bill S-4 is doing. The coroner's inquest into the deaths of Carol Culleton, Nathalie Warmerdam and Anastasia Kuzyk wrapped up after hearing extensive testimony from victims' families, their counsel, domestic violence experts and advocates. The jury made 86 recommendations based on the inquest. It is important to know about them since part of accountability is our awareness, and demanding that our public institutions do the right thing to prevent intimate partner violence. However, Bill S-4 tinkers with the administration of the court system. It is time to be more cognizant of what is causing the problems. The first set of recommendations addresses the need for oversight and accountability. These initial recommendations recognize the importance of listening to and learning from victims and survivors, and they emphasize the need to follow up on implementation. We need to create a survivor advocate position. Understanding that domestic violence victims' experiences with police and the justice system can be difficult, the jury recommended having a survivor advocate to advocate on behalf of survivors when they interact with the justice system. They wanted to establish an independent intimate partner violence commission. The jury wants a commission to be established, like the one in the U.K., that can be a voice for survivors and victims' families. Local activists agree that an independent commission would help ensure the inquest recommendations are followed through and engage in meaningful consultation. By speaking with intimate partner violence survivors, victims' families and experts in the field, these consultations would determine the responsibilities and direction of the IPV commission and evaluate the effectiveness of existing community supports and prevention strategies, including program funding. I will conclude my remarks by thanking all those who were involved in the inquest process, including the witnesses who gave their time so generously, along with the women from the anti-violence community in Renfrew county and beyond.

488 words

All Topics

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

Nov/24/22 4:32:57 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I have the pleasure of sitting with her on the Standing Committee on National Defence, among others. She spoke at length about victims' rights. We know that victims are generally witnesses, not parties, in criminal hearings. There may be some work to do on this. However, one of the potential positives that could come of Bill S‑4 is a reduction in wait times for cases to be heard. Victims may not have to wait as long to know the outcome of a case. Would my colleague agree that this is at least a step in the right direction for victims?

111 words

All Topics

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Nov/24/22 4:33:30 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, the courts are clogged up because the Liberal appointed activist judges keep letting murderers, rapists and pedophiles out early, if they even get sentenced to prison at all. That is the reason for the backlogs.

37 words

All Topics

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

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

Madam Speaker, I share the dismay of my Bloc colleague across the way at how little of the speech we just heard dealt with the actual content of Bill S-4, but perhaps I will ask a question about one of the opening statements, which was that it is always about protecting criminals, never victims. This is particularly ironic because resolving backlogs and ensuring the timely carriage of justice, the topics of Bill S-4, are very much in the interest of the victims of crime, who the member seems so concerned about. Would she not agree? Perhaps she could take 30 seconds to breeze through where she stands on the content of the bill.

115 words

All Topics

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Nov/24/22 4:34:43 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, the content of the bill is not going to do anything for the victims of crime. There is a constant revolving door of criminals through the justice system. Repeat offenders come in time after time, and then the government cracks down on lawful firearms owners every time there is another mass shooting, or even one shooting. Then we find out that, statistically, since they have been cracking down on lawful firearms owners, shootings have gone up. There was a Statistics Canada report on this huge increase in shootings the very day the government announced another crackdown on lawful firearms owners.

102 words

All Topics

Mrs. Tracy Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC)

Nov/24/22 4:36:48 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke a lot about the revolving door situation in our criminal justice system, and I have a private member's bill, which I call the “end the revolving door” act. It has to do with getting people who have been sentenced to federal penitentiaries into addiction treatment and recovery. I am wondering if she could maybe speak to how that is one piece that might be helpful for people to help end the revolving door.

82 words

All Topics

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning, CPC)

Nov/24/22 4:36:56 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today 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 (COVID-19 response and other measures). The judicial system has been facing a series of delays in cases proceeding to trial, which has been made worse by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Conservatives have raised concerns about the delays and the potential for criminals to walk free due to the Supreme Court's Jordan decision, which said that no more than 18 months can pass between the laying of a charge and the end of trial cases in provincial courts, or 30 months for cases in superior courts. We have raised our concerns over the delays in the judicial system a number of times during the pandemic, both in the House and through the media, so it is good that the Liberals are finally listening. I understand that sometimes they have different priorities. The court system scrambled to adapt and learn how to function during the pandemic, and it was obvious that changes were needed. I could have made this speech at the height of the pandemic, when the need was very urgent. The government recognized the need then and introduced Bill C-23, but it was obviously not a priority. That bill died on the Order Paper when the House was dissolved by the Liberals for their unnecessary election. However, as with many efforts of the government, I suppose we can consider it to be better late than never, though it seems sometimes that on truly pressing issues, such as inflation, for the Liberals to do anything, it is more never than late. It is indeed important to support the courts in the technological transition that has been stimulated by the COVID-19 pandemic. It is also important to be as prepared as possible for a future pandemic or similar disruptions. In the past two years, we have all discovered new ways of doing business. Some of those ways have been beneficial, others arguably not as much. So too is the case with this bill. For justice to be truly done, it must be seen to be done. Any citizen has the right to attend court and observe the proceedings. In the past, that has naturally been a right that could be limited by the physical space of the courtroom. Allowing virtual proceedings would change that limitation while bringing with it the issue of controlling the dissemination of images from the proceedings. We have gone from cameras not being allowed into a courtroom to everyone having the ability to take screenshots or even videos of the proceedings. There is no doubt that the COVID-19 pandemic has been felt throughout our criminal justice system. Problems that perhaps we did not realize we had have been brought into focus. A modernization of the system is long overdue. The pandemic has shown us that action is very necessary now. With the technological tools that are now available to us, it makes sense to allow, as this bill would, peace officers to apply for and obtain a warrant using telecommunications rather than having to appear in person before a judge. This would not take away from the necessity of the officer to answer any questions as to whether the warrant is really necessary. The legal necessities would not change, but there is a savings to the taxpayer and the environment in the officer not having to drive to appear before a judge. We are all aware that the criminal justice system has been subjected to delays in proceedings, and sometimes that was exacerbated by the pandemic. While justice delayed is justice denied, no one wants to see a criminal walk free because the system could not bring them to trial fast enough. The reforms suggested in this bill are small but incremental. It is important to remember that the fundamentals of justice would still be being observed, and that the increased use of teleconferencing in the courts would not take away from the fundamental rights of the accused to appear in person, but many, given the choice, might prefer to appear by video conference. This, incidentally, could reduce their legal fees since their lawyer would not have to be with them at the courthouse waiting for their case to be called. One thing that concerns me with these reforms is the issue of fairness. I am not sure how the government can address that. Appearing by video in court proceedings requires access to technology that, at this point, is not available to every Canadian. Not everyone has the financial resources to own a computer. Not everyone has high-speed Internet access available to them. Certainly, the government does not have the resources to provide that. At the same time, I recognize that there are other different burdens that come with having to make a court appearance in person that could bring with it the expense and hardship of travel. I am not certain how we can provide equal access to the justice system for all Canadians, but I know we have to try to keep improving the system until we get it right. One area where I have serious concerns is the proposal in the bill that would allow the jury selection process to be done by video conference in some circumstances. While this would certainly make it less onerous for prospective jurors to take part in the selection process from their home or workplace, it does raise some privacy concerns. While technology makes remote appearances possible, technology could also be used to subvert the process, not to mention the right of an accused to see those who are to pass judgment on his or her case. In Canada, an accused has a right to be tried by a jury of his or her peers, but there are times when, for security reasons, the jurors are anonymous. With the availability of facial recognition software, it is easy to imagine that prospective jurors appearing by video conference could be easily identified. This could leave them open to harassment or attempts to influence a jury's decision. That may sound unlikely, but if we are concerned for the administration of justice, it must be considered. Has the government considered how to deal with this issue? This bill is not perfect, but neither is our justice system. The question we as parliamentarians must ask ourselves is this: Does the legislation make positive improvements to the administration of justice in our country, even if it is not perfect? If so, then we should probably support it.

1115 words

All Topics

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Nov/24/22 4:36:56 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, I know people who want to have drug treatment but cannot get into a treatment facility, and they commit crimes because that is the only way they can get access to treatment. Instead of funnelling tons of money to these harm-reduction centres, we need to find a way to get more treatment to people who are not breaking the law. I must say that the bill my hon. colleague has put forth through Private Members' Business is certainly more meaningful. It would have more impact on people's lives and would prevent crimes from happening in the first place if people receive treatment. It is certainly more effective than Bill S-4, so I wish that had come first.

122 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Nov/24/22 4:36:56 p.m.
Watch

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Haldimand—Norfolk, Infrastructure; the hon. member for Calgary Centre, Taxation; and the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Taxation.

55 words

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

Nov/24/22 4:45:47 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, the legislation, and I have made reference to this in the past, very much recognizes the advancement of technology and how we can make our judicial system better by providing legislation that would allow, in a very formal way, video conferencing. By doing that, one would like to think we would be providing a very viable option that would no doubt be well utilized. I wonder if my colleague could provide further thoughts on that, because he made reference to technological advancements in court proceedings being televised, and so forth. This is all a step forward in the right direction, which is one of the reasons why it is so important to pass the bill, so we can get it to committee to hear the stakeholders.

128 words

All Topics

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif

Nov/24/22 4:46:54 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, I referred to it with respect to justice, and hopefully all Canadians would have equal opportunities to use technology and that must be provided, especially in rural areas. With respect to the level of technology that is available to make this bill specifically of better use to Canadians, and to make justice fair, we need to be more technologically fit. We need more Internet, especially in rural areas.

70 words

All Topics

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

Nov/24/22 4:47:37 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend down the way for his speech, for his thoughtful reflections on the bill and for the insights he shared with the House. The member had some reservations about the use of video conferencing or teleconferencing for the selection of jurors, and I am not sure I quite understood what his reservations were. Could my friend elaborate a little on what those concerns might be?

72 words

All Topics

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif

Nov/24/22 4:48:08 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, we spoke earlier about cybersecurity, which I think is a bill that will be discussed too. However, any time we use technology, there is a risk of someone breaking through, and they may see the selection of jurors, which has to be anonymous for the protection of the people who get selected to be jurors. It is an observation, but I hope that a bill such as this would be equipped with the proper tools and a high-tech level of protection, so that when a juror gets selected or people get selected to testify, witness or judge, at least they will have that needed protection, because I think that is at the heart of our judicial system.

120 words

All Topics

Mrs. Tracy Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC)

Nov/24/22 4:49:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, earlier on in the member's speech, he spoke about the delays in the courts and the justice system, and how that is playing out and can affect communities while people are waiting. There are a lot of delays, and in fact there might be deadlines that are not met. I wonder if the member could speak a little more about that, how he saw it, especially during the time of the pandemic, and if in fact a lot of that has been caught up as the courts got back up and moving again.

96 words

All Topics