SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 134

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 24, 2022 10:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 134 - Nov/24/22
Mr. Ken McDonald
  • Nov/24/22 11:24:22 a.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill S-4 
Madam Speaker, I do not think we are showing favouritism to one side or the other. From my perspective, victims should have every opportunity to appear by video conference or in person, if they want to face the perpetrator in any particular case. I hope everybody will support this going forward. When the bill goes to committee, maybe some amendments could be made to enhance it and make sure that is the case for anyone who has a problem with the courts or the decisions being made today.
88 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 134 - Nov/24/22
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
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 134 - Nov/24/22
Ms. Christine Normandin
  • Nov/24/22 3:28:42 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill S-4 
Madam Speaker, we cannot take something into account if we have no knowledge of it. Unfortunately, when people testify by video conference, we do not have a 360-degree view of what is happening, much like when we operate by video conference here in the House. It is not just about people's facial expressions. They might be shuffling their feet, looking nervous, tapping their foot or passing a note to their lawyer. It could also be about how the reaction of the entire room, about seeing how a witness reacts when they hear another witness or when they see what is happening in the courtroom. We get information from more than just what we see framed on a screen. A number of factors are involved. Some information could be lost, and this too must be analyzed by the committees. As I was saying, there may be a risk that lawyers could agree at the start to proceed by video conference, and that during the proceedings, they realize that the procedural safeguards are not being upheld and they must return to an in-person format. At that point, there would be less efficiency rather than more. I am wondering what would happen if the consent to proceed by video conference were revoked. I hope that will be studied as well.
220 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border