44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 24, 2022 10:00AM
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- 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 3:24:26 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-4
Mr. Speaker, the issue as to whether it should be expanded was raised by the Barreau du Québec in the brief it submitted when debate began on this bill.
I understand that audio conferencing can be part of the solution in exceptional circumstances when video is not allowed, but it must be interpreted very narrowly. That is why I welcome the fact that the law will be reviewed in three years' time by an independent committee and in five years' time by a parliamentary committee, to see whether it is actually working and whether procedural safeguards are being maintained, which the courts may be called upon to do.
Furthermore, we could see the law evolve when it comes into force, particularly in relation to procedural safeguards and fairness. Perhaps this will be one of the sections of the law that will not hold up at that time. It remains to be seen.
154 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/22 3:39:21 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-4
Madam Speaker, if video conferencing is going to become more prevalent in our court systems, what is the state of our Internet particularly in rural areas? Is that going to be able to service the judicial system adequately?
38 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/22 3:50:00 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-4
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question, which is very important to this bill.
On the connectivity issue, obviously our government is working in a collaborative fashion with the provinces, putting funds forward to ensure all Canadians are connected to the Internet. If the opportunity arises via Bill S-4 for criminal justice system procedures or cases to occur in a manner where audio conferencing or video conferencing can take place and provides for an effective, efficient and accessible criminal justice system, we would continue to do that in a very expeditious manner.
95 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
