44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 24, 2022 10:00AM
- Nov/24/22 10:56:42 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-4
Madam Speaker, much of my hon. colleague's speech related to some other legislation that we have dealt with lately, and I fail to see anything in this bill that would meet the general narrative of his speech related to being tough on crime or soft on crime. This is, as I read it, and please inform me if I have mistaken the bill, entirely about how to use modern technology, including video conferencing and telecommunications methods, which have come up in the criminal justice system as a result of the pandemic.
I totally agree with him that there was an unnecessary election. I totally agree with him that this could have been passed earlier. However, I fail to see anything controversial here. Perhaps he can find something in this bill that actually relates to the rights of victims.
139 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/22 11:50:41 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-4
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I notice that some of the members across the way are repeatedly interrupting my hon. colleague's speech. I want to remind them that there is an all-party agreement to have this debate collapse, but if they continue with the interruptions, that is going to have to be revisited—
58 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/22 1:25:45 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-4
Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. If the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona has an ambition to run provincially and to have a role there, her speech today is not related, by any chance, to the subject of Bill S-4.
I would really appreciate it, Mr. Speaker, if you would point that out to the member.
61 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/22 1:28:07 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-4
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am respectfully asking you to really point out to the member that this speech is about Bill S-4, and she must stick to the subject.
34 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/22 1:29:02 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-4
Mr. Speaker, this is helping us. It demonstrates that we truly have no business being here, in this Parliament, and that Quebec must really become its own country.
I genuinely want to follow up on my honourable colleague's speech and say that I would like it if everyone could stop interrupting, even if it does give us additional ammunition to ensure that we no longer have to sit here and can instead sit in the National Assembly of Quebec, in an independent country.
84 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/22 1:37:44 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-4
Mr. Speaker, I thank the cheering crowd behind me who will make my speech a lot more interesting than it would be otherwise.
I rise today to speak to Bill S‑4 and the improvements that we hope it will make to the justice system through telecommunications and technology.
When I prepare a speech, I always seek inspiration by looking at what other intelligent people have already said on the subject. In this case, I referred to what Judge Pierre Dalphond had to say. I know him more as a judge than as a senator. He said that necessity is the mother of all invention. That is how I wanted to open my speech.
I am, or was, a lawyer in life. I was a civil lawyer. That being said, there are commonalities among all types of practices. I would like to talk about some of the things I experienced as a lawyer where these measures would have made things much more effective. COVID‑19 helped to resolve some problems.
About five years ago, a partner and I tried to set up an online divorce service for people who wanted to proceed with mediation amicably but lived some distance apart. Affidavits needed to be signed in order to complete the files. We contacted Quebec's justice minister, but we did not manage to obtain permission for the oaths to be done via video conference. We tried Quebec's Register of Commissioners for Oaths and were told that it was not under their jurisdiction but instead fell to Quebec City. In short, we ended up giving up because it was far too complicated.
Every cloud has a silver lining, though. One of the first things that happened when COVID‑19 hit was that virtual swearing-in was allowed. That also prevented a gaggle of lawyers from showing up at court in the morning to set a date. Sometimes they would travel from Montreal to Saint‑Jérôme, wait an hour and a half in the hall, spend five minutes in front of a judge, set a date, return home and send legal aid a bill for $80, end of story.
When COVID‑19 hit, a solution was found to the problem of too many people showing up at the courthouse in a pandemic, and we figured out how to do everything virtually within a reasonable period of time. I do hope that Bill S‑4 will have that kind of positive impact on the way courts operate.
Here is another example from the civilian side of things, the Tribunal administratif du logement, which updated its operations a few years ago. Now all cases are digitized, because sometimes remote hearings had to be held and it was better not to move physical case files, which tended to get lost on the way from one tribunal to another. Video conferencing made the tribunal as a whole more technologically advanced, and that made things easier for lawyers, who had access to their case files online.
We hope that Bill S‑4 will have a positive impact and, more importantly, that we can avoid bad ideas masquerading as good ones. I am going to raise a few of these points.
The bill changes two main types of things. First, it clarifies and expands the rules for remote appearances and seeks to increase the use of technology in the jury selection process. It also expands the telewarrant system under the Criminal Code, allowing a wider variety of search warrants, authorizations and orders, for example, to be obtained through telecommunications.
The main areas amended by Bill S‑4 relate to juries. The bill would allow for the use of electronic or other automated means for the purposes of jury selection. It would provide for the participation, in certain circumstances, of prospective jurors in the jury selection process by video conference. This would be only in certain circumstances, with the consent and at the discretion of the court.
It would avoid certain problems. For example, when I would arrive at the courthouse in the morning and see a crowd in the entrance hall, everyone knew that jury selection was taking place. It would avoid bringing together between 100 and 500 people in the same place during a pandemic.
It would also avoid situations where the first 10 jurors to be interviewed can be hand-picked. Another advantage is that it would not result in all potential jurors being in one place together, discussing amongst themselves and giving advice to one another on how to avoid jury duty, because people can be quite creative when they do not want to serve on a jury.
There is something else that Bill S‑4 amends: It expands the opportunities for remote appearances by audio conference or video conference in certain circumstances for accused individuals and offenders. I will come back to this and the potential pitfalls. It would also expand the powers of the courts to establish case management rules that permit court personnel to deal with administrative matters for unrepresented accused persons.
Currently, only in cases where an accused is represented by counsel is it possible to communicate with a judge by video conference to deal with routine issues, which can be done much more quickly by video conference. If this measure were also applied to accused persons who are not represented by counsel, then court officials could be used instead of taking up hearing rooms and a judge's time, which could be better spent. This could potentially increase efficiency.
The bill would also permit courts to order fingerprinting, for identification purposes, at the interim release stage or any other stage of the process to avoid delays if fingerprints could not previously have been taken for exceptional reasons. For example, during the arrest, an accused—
981 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/22 1:43:33 p.m.
- Watch
Order.
I am sorry to interrupt the member for Saint-Jean. There was a problem with the audio, but it is fixed now.
The hon. member for Saint-Jean has 14 minutes left to finish her speech.
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/22 3:24:00 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-4
Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed the speech that my colleague from Saint-Jean made earlier.
I would like to ask her a simple question. There is a lot of talk about improving technology, and this bill talks about using audio conferencing. Video conferencing is relevant, but what does she think about the possibility of using audio conferencing only?
58 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
