Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you, senator, for the question. I’m not sure that I would agree with you — although you are certainly more of an expert in this area than I — that our agricultural sector is underperforming. I think many factors have conspired to affect the industry over the last number of years. This includes the usual suspects these days, if you will: COVID-19, but also floods and drought.

However, the agricultural sector has demonstrated great resiliency. The government has always been there and will continue to be there to support our producers and processors in times of need.

Budget 2022 says the following:

Federal, provincial, and territorial governments will work together over the coming year to renew the programs under the next agricultural policy framework that begins in 2023.

Colleagues, there is strong political will to renew the partnership and to position the agricultural sector for continued success over the next five years.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Senator Gold, the Halifax Examiner just published an article entitled, “RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki tried to ’jeopardize’ mass murder investigation to advance Trudeau’s gun control efforts.”

In the article, we learn that Brenda Lucki made a promise to Public Safety Minister Bill Blair and the Prime Minister’s Office to leverage the mass murders of April 18 and 19, 2020, in Nova Scotia to get gun-control law passed.

Here is a quote, Senator Gold, from the notes of one of the RCMP officers who participated in the meetings with the commissioner:

The Commissioner said she had promised the Minister of Public Safety and the Prime Minister’s Office that the RCMP (we) would release this information. . . .

Senator Gold, is this true? Did the RCMP commissioner promise to use the mass murders in Nova Scotia to advance Liberal government policies?

Senator Plett: Senator Gold, the accusation is made in the Halifax Examiner, not by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. I ask that you investigate this, Senator Gold, and report back to us.

Senator Gold, if this report is true, do you believe that Commissioner Lucki can remain the head of the RCMP?

Hon. Victor Oh: Honourable senators, my question is for the government leader in the Senate. It is regarding the Health Canada proposal for the front-of-package labelling for ground beef and pork which would require ground beef and pork sold at retail to carry a “high-in-saturated-fat” warning label.

As Senator Plett noted yesterday, this small label stands to have a significant negative impact on the Canadian beef and pork industries. As most other single-ingredient foods are exempt from this labelling, such as milk and eggs, it seems unfair to target ground beef.

In addition, we must remember that this discouraging people from ground beef consumption may have other negative consequences given that, one, ground beef contributes iron, zinc and other important nutrients that are vital for a balanced diet; two, with current food supply chain issues and high inflation and food costs, ground beef offers consumers these nutrients at a more cost-conscious way than more expensive cuts of beef.

Leader, yesterday you said Canadians would continue to purchase ground beef. Does the government understand that the cost of changing the labelling will be passed down to consumers, making ground beef more expensive at a time when families cannot afford to pay more? Thank you.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. The government is of the view that the labels that provide information to consumers are an important tool so that Canadians can make choices as to how they want to eat and to understand better the consequences of the choices they make.

The government will continue to work with experts in the scientific community, but also with stakeholders to make sure that the information that is communicated to Canadians is appropriate.

These labels work. For example, in Chile, which introduced labelling, they saw major improvements in healthy eating in the country just a year and a half after the implementation.

I cannot generalize about every household in Canada, but I can assure you that in our household we continue to eat beef but over the years we have moderated our consumption of certain foods and replaced them with others out of consideration for our own health. In my household we continue to enjoy beef, but we have also made choices based upon what we now understand is best for our health, in terms of immediate and long-term effects.

The approach that the government is taking with regard to beef and pork is exactly that: to provide Canadians with the information that they need and deserve to make the free choices that they can and should make in terms of what they want to eat.

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Dalphond, seconded by the Honourable Senator Bovey, for the third reading of 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), as amended.

Hon. Denise Batters: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Criminal Code.

Over the past two years, Canada’s criminal justice system — like nearly every facet of society — had to adapt quickly and substantially to function during a time of enforced social distancing and a myriad of other challenges posed by COVID-19. When we needed to put our modern communications technology to the test, most organizations found ways to advance efficiency, functionality and convenience that will certainly endure past the pandemic.

Having practised law for many years, and being a member of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee during our 18‑month comprehensive study on court delays, I am acutely aware of the problem of excessive backlogs and the need to innovate and modernize our criminal justice system. However, as the justice system grapples with how to change in a digital age, the integrity of Canada’s court processes must remain paramount and should never be compromised for the sake of expediency.

Bill S-4 permits the continuation of many electronic processes that began during the initial COVID lockdowns. However, it also extends permanency to the option of virtual appearances before we have enough data and experience to assess the impact. I have specific apprehension with the proposal to allow an accused to appear and testify at their criminal trial by video. Under this bill, all criminal trials for both summary and indictable offences, and regardless of the severity of the offence, could be conducted this way.

What I find most concerning is the impact that could have on a judge’s ability to assess the credibility of the accused. Those of us who have spent extensive time in a courtroom know that is a critical factor in almost all criminal trials. While we are a long way from fully understanding the total impact of virtualizing meetings, conversations and proceedings that have always been face to face, the data we have suggests cause for concern.

In a 2017 U.S. Government Accountability Office report on immigration courts, judges in 50% of the surveyed courts identified instances where they had changed credibility assessments made during a video hearing after holding a subsequent in-person hearing. In one instance, an immigration judge failed to identify a respondent’s cognitive disability over video, which the judge said was clearly evident when the respondent appeared in person. In another case, the poor audio quality led to a misunderstanding of the facts of the case, which was not clarified until the respondent was able to appear in person. The change in the credibility assessment ultimately changed the judge’s decision.

Another study by Swedish psychology professors Sara Landström, Karl Ask and Charlotte Sommar found a substantial difference in perceived credibility between video testimony and in-person testimony. They described the “vividness effect” whereby live testimony due to its face-to-face immediacy is more “. . . emotionally interesting . . . and proximate in a sensory, temporal, or spatial way,” is generally “. . . perceived as more credible . . .” and “. . . better remembered. . . .”

In an article in the Tulane Law Review, law professor Anne Bowen Poulin points to a body of literature suggesting that video conferencing may have a negative impact on the way the defendant is perceived by those in court as well as the representation the defendant receives. She further notes that “when decisionmakers interact with the defendant through the barrier of technology, they are likely to be less sensitive to the impact of negative decisions on the defendant.”

In committee, Senator Pate drew our attention to the research done at the University of Surrey in England, which studied the merits of electronic proceedings and found that defendants were more likely to be jailed following video hearings, and suspects whose cases were dealt with remotely were less likely to have legal representation.

Witnesses at our Legal Committee raised additional concerns with video conferencing. Emilie Coyle, the Executive Director of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies and the daughter of Senator Coyle, testified about stigma against an accused appearing by video from prison and often in prison clothing rather than, for example, a suit that their family had given them. This can cement in the trier of fact’s mind — in this case, a judge — that someone being seen in a jail setting during a trial should, perhaps, remain in jail and it potentially gives a bias to a guilty verdict.

Ms. Coyle expanded, by stating:

. . . society assigns judgment to people who are in prison without understanding their background. . . .

Because we have this idea that people in prison are bad — we put bad people in prison — that judgment that we cast upon people who are in prison would lead potentially to an outcome in a trial that would not necessarily have been the outcome had that person not been in prison. . . .

Mark Knox from the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers testified at committee about the “. . . slippery slope. . . .” and “. . . the movement away from the humanity, the decorum, all of these factors that are associated with an in-court trial. . . .” He cautioned against rushing to implement these supposed modernizations “. . . for efficiency’s sake in a rush.”

When I asked him about an amendment to remove the ability to have trials by video while leaving the other proceedings as proposed, he responded:

. . . I agree with you. . . . There are places that we could start to see how it works.

Our committee also heard from Ms. Eva Tache-Green from Nunavut Legal Aid. She told us that 24 out of 25 communities in Nunavut don’t have the technology to do a video conference in court. Coincidentally, early in her testimony, her face froze, with the message “network bandwidth is low” on the screen. She was in a legal aid office with comparatively high connectivity, and even her ability to communicate with our committee was impeded. She then had to do the rest of her testimony using only audio, turning off her video.

When I asked for her input on this amendment, she agreed, suggesting that we hold off on making video conferencing available for trials and start with “. . . proceedings that have lesser jeopardy. . . .” She added the following:

I am very concerned about the possibility of trials proceeding with an accused who is, of course, the person with the most at stake, being potentially cut out of the proceeding by the technology breaking down. . . .

Colleagues, even the best technology has its limitations. Look no further than this very chamber and the limitations a hybrid Parliament has placed on our ability to do our work. We often run into connectivity issues, and this is on Parliament Hill in Canada’s capital city with state-of-the-art technology and a sizable IT department. Sometimes a senator who has lost their connection is in a fairly remote location, but there have been many other times that we lose connection with a senator from their home office in our largest cities or, even worse, from their office on Parliament Hill.

One can only imagine the substantial issues as the courts attempt to rely on video technology from northern, rural and remote locations. For example, it is no surprise that there are major technological gaps in northern Saskatchewan, but there are courtrooms in Regina that still don’t have Wi-Fi. We are not talking about relying on a consistent connection for a 15-minute Zoom speech; this could potentially be several hours of accused testimony.

While carefully considering this amendment, I consulted with several people who work in courtrooms and conduct criminal proceedings every day, including defence attorneys and judges from provincial court and Queen’s Bench court. I spoke to judges who were initially enthusiastic about using video technology for criminal trials, but who have completely changed their minds after seeing it in practice for two years. They believe strongly in the merits of non-trial efficiencies, such as adjournments by emails, video for guilty pleas, et cetera, yet they have now seen first-hand that far too much is lost in conducting a trial this way.

The stakes are simply too high. One judge I spoke with made an excellent point. A courtroom is a serious place, and everything inside it — from the well-appointed interiors to the elevated dais to the judges’ robes to the requirement to address judges as “Your Honour” or “My Lord” — evokes a sense of seriousness, sombreness and respect. That is crucial so that those testifying are more likely to feel bound by their oath and respect the judge’s decisions. There is no comparison between putting your hand on a Bible in a courtroom full of people, including possibly a victim, your accuser, reporters and your family, versus taking an oath by video.

When an accused is sitting at home on his couch or in jail, not only is his Charter right to properly consult with his lawyer in jeopardy, but the gravity of the situation is unquestionably diminished. There is serious concern that, over time, there will be a major deterioration of respect for the court and the trial process to the profound detriment of all.

Judges relayed troubling examples from the past two years, such as an accused, testifying from his couch, who actually swore at the judge; a witness testifying from his shower during a criminal trial; and, most disturbingly, a domestic violence victim testifying from home with her abusive spouse in the next room. In these cases, testimony by video robbed the judges of any control over the environment.

In many sexual assault cases, the dynamic is very often he‑said‑she‑said. If an accused appears by video, the judge often loses the ability to assess demeanour and to even examine any interplay between the accused and the accuser in the courtroom. The impact of this should not be underestimated.

Trial judges are trained how to assess credibility of witnesses, including a defendant, in a courtroom, and that assessment is considered extremely valuable. In fact, findings of credibility made by a trial judge are not to be overturned by an appeals court other than in very rare circumstances. This is because trial judges can assess credibility right in front of them, not in a remote way.

When I introduced my amendment to remove video from criminal trials at the Legal Committee, Senator Campbell, stating that he had testified at many trials, reminded the committee that “. . . a trial is a big deal, especially if you are the one who is on trial.”

He further stated, “I don’t think you can discount credibility. I believe that credibility is important in every single case.”

He went on to say that:

I will support this amendment. I don’t believe it is a step back. I believe it is protecting Canadians from a technology that we have not perfected yet. . . .

Then, Senator White, when he spoke in support of this amendment, questioned whether the impact on victims and the importance of their ability to fully participate in a trial had been adequately considered in this bill. He said:

I think we need to walk before we run. I’m not sure in the last two years that we have proven that we walk very well.

Rather than adopting the very reasonable amendments that Senator Carignan and I put forward, our Legal Committee decided to append several observations reiterating the very serious concerns of our witnesses — concerns about inequitable access to technology, interpretation, privacy, security, confidentiality and the ability of the accused to confer with defence counsel. One observation went so far as to say witnesses “. . . raised concerns that these rights were not being sufficiently respected.”

Honourable senators, this is not observation material; this is amendment material. If the Trudeau government is willing to procrastinate on and ignore mandatory parliamentary reviews written directly into legislation, what hope does a mere observation have in catching the government’s attention?

With respect to the amendment I’m bringing forward today, some have argued that there is minimal risk, as all parties must consent. However, many witnesses raised concern with the very concept of consent in this context, especially given the profound power imbalance that could impact an accused’s ability to make free, informed decisions.

Ms. Emilie Coyle from the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies said that an accused may be told they will face delayed time frames if they don’t proceed virtually. And if they are not made keenly aware of what is at stake by forgoing a traditional day in court, can we honestly consider that a free choice? Just think about the Charter challenges that could arise when an accused has been told by their counsel that this is their only option, or they will spend less time in jail or save them money. It is easy to foresee an accused agreeing, then getting convicted and later challenging the decision based on a violation of their Charter rights.

Some maintain this is a non-issue, as the judge can simply decide not to sign off on this. On paper, there may be no reason to not proceed by video for a particular trial. A judge may later deem unforeseen connectivity issues as minor, but will never truly know what was missed. There may even be circumstances where the virtual trial appeared to be a success. However, a judge is a human being, and the research is clear: There are intangible qualitative elements that do not come through in a virtual setting that will likely result in an incomplete or even inaccurate assessment of the accused, even for the most experienced and well-intentioned judges.

To be clear, the amendment I am proposing will not remove all video capability for the accused in criminal proceedings. In fact, my amendment would allow the accused to use video technology for the many other types of criminal court proceedings and appearances permitted by Bill S-4, including bail, preliminary inquiries, pleas and sentencing. My proposal is simply to eliminate this option for trials and start with these matters of “less jeopardy.” This is very much a cautious, compromise proposal.

As the judges I spoke with emphasized, the provision to operate this way in an emergency already exists in the Criminal Code. If there is another lockdown, they can use video conferencing as necessary. Their concern was that Bill S-4 suggests that trial by video is the default or preferred method going forward, and the evidence is clear: making this the default approach comes at a tremendous price.

I will conclude with a quote from the Barreau du Québec, who recommended to our Legal Committee that all testimonial evidence should be excluded from video conferencing. First of all, the lawyers in this group work on the ground every day, and they state:

In an in-person trial, a simple note passed to counsel, or even a glance shot at them by the judge or a witness, is likely to change their approach or strategy and affect the outcome of the trial. . . .

They further state that, under this bill, “. . . remote trials become the rule rather than the exception.”

Hon. Denise Batters: Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:

That Bill S-4 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended, in clause 46,

(a) on page 21, by deleting lines 4 to 16;

(b) on page 22, by replacing line 5 with the following:

“means, other than a trial for a summary conviction or indictable offence, the court may allow the accused or offender to”.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it agreed, honourable senators?

Senator Batters: Thanks very much. Yes, the emergency provisions that are being used are exactly what has been used for the last two years. There is a provision of the Criminal Code that was put into place with Bill C-75, I think, that was passed a couple of years ago. In the courts throughout Canada, judges have been interpreting that as being able to use video and audio as need be for their criminal court proceedings for the past two years. So they have had that trial run. That’s why judges are telling me that that trial run has been a dire failure, particularly on trials. However, it works well for some other types of proceedings. That is why I am limiting my amendment to trial only.

They already have the particular provision in the Criminal Code and they’ve been using it for the last two years. This just cements it. I quoted the Barreau du Québec. Their concern is that it makes it more of a default provision to go forward. That is, video trials would always be the way to go.

Senator Tannas: One other question, just for the record. It is my understanding that the formula talked about here does not work out exactly right for representation by population — chronically — for Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. But it does work out more or less even for Quebec, and it is the other provinces — the Maritimes, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and, obviously, the territories — that on a representation-by-population basis are slightly overrepresented. So in other words, it is correct that Quebec has not enjoyed any kind of disproportionate favour over the formula discussed yesterday, which is not part of this bill.

Senator Dawson: Senator Tannas, it is not something that is creating a different imbalance. There are imbalances — and we mentioned them yesterday — but this only gives a floor for Quebec. It does not penalize other provinces.

Senator Tannas: I have been following the questions and debate on this, and I just want to be clear. Nothing in this bill favours Quebec or any other province or changes the calculation for representation by population. If we use the example of Quebec, we are setting a floor of 78 seats. Right now, the population of Quebec relative to the population of Canada is about 22.5%. But it has fallen significantly over the last four decades. If we went forward, say, four decades, and it was 20%, all we would do is take the 78 seats for Quebec at, say, 20%, and true everybody else up to make this work. Is that your understanding?

Senator Dawson: It seems that you were listening to me quite closely, senator. Yes, it is my understanding. As we did for the Maritime provinces a few years ago, it is giving a floor. When that floor is established, it means that everybody else will have to go up.

That’s what we are doing now. In the case of Quebec, we were not part of that floor, and now we will be part of the floor.

And I hope the percentage doesn’t continue going down. I wouldn’t want to be as pessimistic as you are, but, that being said, it won’t change the balance of representation in the House of Commons.

Senator Tannas: Thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: It was moved by the Honourable Senator Dawson, seconded by the Honourable Senator Klyne, that this bill be read a third time.

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

An Hon. Senator: On division.

(Motion agreed to, on division, and report adopted.)

Hon. Paul J. Massicotte moved the adoption of the report.

He said: Honourable senators, your committee has completed a study of Bill S-5, Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act, in obedience to order of reference of Thursday, April 7, 2022.

Bill S-5 represents the first major review and improvement made to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, or CEPA, in over 20 years. The primary purpose of CEPA is pollution prevention. It provides a legislative and regulatory basis for many programs at the Department of Environment and Climate Change. The bill will, among other things, recognize Canadians’ right to a healthy environment in CEPA’s preamble. It will enshrine the Government of Canada’s duties to protect this right, consider vulnerable populations and cumulative effects in toxic substance assessments and implement a two-track system for the regulation of toxic substances under CEPA.

[Translation]

The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources spent five meetings studying Bill S-5 and putting questions to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change as well as officials, members of the industry, associations, Indigenous representatives, non-governmental organizations and experts in various fields. The committee then dedicated another eight meetings to the clause-by-clause study of Bill S-5. Throughout this process, government representatives were present to answer committee members’ questions. I also want to point out that the minister, the sponsor of the bill, and government representatives all indicated that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act will be amended again and that Bill S-5 does not represent all the changes that the government intends to make to the act.

[English]

In its report, the committee is proposing 32 amendments to Bill S-5 and addressing five observations to the Government of Canada.

During the committee’s study and debate, several themes emerged, which are reflected in the committee’s amendments to the bill. These themes address the right to a healthy environment, Indigenous peoples’ rights and participation, animal testing and animal rights, transparency and accountability.

[Translation]

Part 5 of Bill S-5 would enshrine the right to a healthy environment in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and would require the two departments responsible for this legislation to develop an implementation framework that sets out how that right will be considered in the act. The right to a healthy environment is a new concept in Canadian federal law, but similar laws have already been enshrined in constitutions, laws, legal decisions and treaties in countries around the world for several decades. The committee recognized that the establishment of this right would represent a significant improvement to Canada’s environmental laws.

Although the bill introduces the right to a healthy environment, it does not define this right. The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources has proposed a number of amendments to part 5 of the bill. These amendments would help ensure that the implementation framework is consistent with the purposes of the legislation and would require that the ministers define the reasonable limits that the proposed new right would be subject to. The amendments also add the principle of intergenerational equity to the ministers’ considerations.

[English]

Throughout the Energy Committee’s study of Bill S-5, we heard how Indigenous peoples’ rights and their participation in pollution prevention are affected by CEPA. The committee also received evidence that First Nations experience disproportionate exposure to toxic substances. Among other things, the bill would acknowledge the Government of Canada’s commitment to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, in the preamble of CEPA.

The committee considered and adopted several amendments to the bill that strengthened the rights and participation of Indigenous peoples under CEPA and which are in concert with the principles of reconciliation. For example, the committee proposed to amend the preambular commitment of the Government of Canada on UNDRIP by specifically including in the text of CEPA the principles of “free, prior and informed consent,” words that are taken from article 19 of UNDRIP.

This amendment was proposed in recognition of free, prior and informed consent being, as Senator McCallum described it, “instrumental in bringing about self‑determination and self‑governance and independence of Indigenous people.”

The committee is also proposing further amendments to the preamble that promote the meaningful integration of Indigenous knowledge in the CEPA decision-making process. Considering the evidence that the committee heard and the critical concerns raised by its members, it has proposed an amendment that would add a new clause to the bill requiring the ministers to report to Parliament every five years on the operation of CEPA with respect to Indigenous peoples.

[Translation]

Next, the preamble to Bill S-5 discusses animal testing in the context of scientific decision making, toxicity and environmental protection. The Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources is concerned about animal testing and animal rights in general. On this basis, the committee is proposing several amendments related to this issue.

Overall, these amendments would require the federal government to reduce its reliance on animal testing, prevent unnecessary animal testing, prioritize alternatives to animal testing and improve the conditions and processes adopted for animal testing where it remains necessary.

[English]

The Energy Committee is proposing amendments in several areas of Bill S-5 that would heighten government transparency and accountability. In addition to the new requirement for reports every five years on the operation of CEPA with relation to the Indigenous peoples of Canada, the committee is proposing a set of amendments that, when it comes to novel living organisms, would increase public participation and environmental protection. The committee heard that there is an urgent risk to Canadian wild species and Indigenous peoples’ rights arising from the introduction of genetically engineered living organisms into the environment.

The committee is also proposing an amendment that would require the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry to table in Parliament, no later than one year after the bill receives Royal Assent, a report regarding the environmental standards of countries that export products to Canada.

Colleagues, your committee recommends that the Senate pass Bill S-5, including our amendments that strengthen some important aspects of the bill. These changes represent an opportunity to modernize this important legislation all while introducing a new right for Canadians and improving its purpose of pollution prevention.

Your committee also requests that the Government of Canada address the five observations in the report as soon as possible. Thank you very much.

Senator Simons: You make a really compelling argument, and many of the things you’re saying are deeply disturbing. I guess my concern is, given the backlog we have in our courts, if there is another outbreak of a new COVID variant in the fall — you said there is an emergency provision. How easy is it to use that emergency provision? As very legitimate as the concerns you are raising seem to be, I am also concerned that if there is another bad outbreak, people’s trials could be postponed to an extent that is also very deleterious.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I rise briefly on debate to speak to the amendment proposed by Senator Batters. I thank you for your intervention, senator.

In short, the proposed amendment would remove the possibility of trials in virtual mode, both in the context of summary conviction and in the context of prosecution by indictment. In effect, the proposed amendment would remove the express possibility of the accused appearing remotely during the entirety of a summary conviction or indictable trial and it would further limit what is currently expressly permitted: for an accused to appear remotely in these instances. For these reasons, this amendment represents significant changes that are at odds with both the intent and the purpose of Bill S-4. The intent and purpose is to expand and to clarify the ability of accused persons to appear remotely, particularly to attend their trial remotely.

As I understand it, many of my colleagues on the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs noted, along with many witnesses who participated in the committee’s proceedings, that at this point in time, particularly as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic, there really is no going back, which would be the case if amendments were made to prevent virtual trials entirely or even just those where the evidence of a witness was being taken, as I think was implicit in the questions already posed.

Honourable senators, it is important to highlight that Bill S-4 contains several built-in protections to address these concerns, including a list of considerations to be used in determining whether to allow or require a remote appearance by an accused or an offender as well as enabling a court at any point to cease the use of a remote appearance and to require an in-person appearance where a court “considers it appropriate in the circumstances.” I think that was the thrust of Senator Cotter’s question.

It is also important to note that a significant number of stakeholders, including the provinces, territories, many members of the judiciary and defence bar, are eager to see Bill S-4 enshrined into law, including those provisions which explicitly authorize accused persons to appear at trial by video conference when the evidence of a witness is taken, except during a jury trial.

I also note my understanding that this amendment was proposed at committee and discussed at length but not accepted by the committee, whose work I respect, as I know we all do. For these reasons, honourable senators, I would respectfully urge this chamber not to the support the amendment. Thank you very much.

Some Hon. Senators: Question.