44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 24, 2022 10:00AM
- Nov/24/22 1:06:16 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-4
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Edmonton Strathcona.
I am pleased today to have an opportunity 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 on the COVID-19 response and other measures. This bill would increase our justice system's efficiency and ensure that all Canadians have equal access.
The COVID-19 pandemic altered our everyday lives, including necessitating new ways of accessing the criminal justice system. The solutions invented to accommodate our circumstances proved efficient and should be used going forward to optimize the ways in which criminal trials are conducted in Canada. This bill's proposed amendments support the increased use of technology in criminal courts across Canada. This has a variety of applications, such as the use of technology in the jury selection process, remote participation of prospective jurors and remote appearances for accused persons and offenders.
I want to focus first on the amendments relating to the jury selection process. The amendments would enable a court to allow or require prospective jurors to participate by video conference so long as the court considers it appropriate and the accused person and Crown prosecutor consent to the jury selection process occurring this way. When a court allows prospective jurors to participate by video conference, it will be an individual's choice whether they want to participate in person or remotely.
Importantly, Bill S-4 accompanies the government's efforts to increase remote Internet access across our country and close the digital divide. However, while we work toward efficient Canada-wide Internet access, there are measures in place to help individuals who may not have optimal connection. When the court requires prospective jurors to participate in the jury selection process by video conference, it would need to approve a location equipped with the technological infrastructure for them to participate by those means, such as a community centre or courtroom set up with the requisite equipment.
If the court does not approve such a location, it will only be able to permit prospective jurors to participate by video conference from other locations, such their homes or offices, if they choose to participate that way. However, in this case, the court would also need to provide the option for prospective jurors to participate in the jury selection process in person.
These amendments would help our jury system represent the face of Canada. Increased representativeness would be ensured by first reducing the barrier of attending in person. Prospective jurors living in rural or remote areas would enjoy minimized travel time and costs, and those who need to find child care or who hold precarious employment would experience reduced time required to find alternative child care or time needed off work. It would also reduce emissions, I will add.
Second, the changes would ensure that persons who do not have access to adequate video conferencing technology, or who have limited understanding of the technology itself, would continue to be able to participate in the jury selection process and ultimately form part of the trial jury. These are critical measures to bridge discrepancies in Internet access while we work to shore up connection across Canada, including in my home province of New Brunswick.
In addition to improving the Criminal Code regime governing the use of technology, other reforms in this bill would improve access to justice and efficiencies in our criminal courts. For example, Bill S-4 would expand the power of courts to make case management rules to allow court personnel to deal directly with unrepresented accused persons on administrative matters for out-of-court proceedings. Currently this is only permitted if the accused person is represented by counsel. This may represent a relatively small change to the Criminal Code, but I believe it would go a long way to improving access to justice for unrepresented accused persons.
It is very important to note that these uses of technology are optional and subject to the judge's discretion, as opposed to being mandatory. I want to stress this point. These measures would assist courts in continuing to deliver justice in an effective and efficient way. The proposed reforms would also better equip courts with the tools to keep things moving during challenging times, because of a pandemic, a flood or any other situation that could hinder physical access to the courts in the future. While these reforms may be relied on in a more significant way in managing exceptional and emergency circumstances, they would not be limited to such circumstances. They would apply on a permanent basis to ensure that the options to use technology continue to be available to our courts for years to come.
Another important element of increased efficiency in this bill pertains to digital fingerprinting. Bill S-4 would amend the Criminal Code to allow a court to issue a summons for fingerprinting if an accused was previously required to appear but such identification was not completed for exceptional reasons. In addition, courts would be able to make an order for the fingerprinting of an accused person being released on bail. These reforms would facilitate the efficient collection of fingerprints, which is critical for the smooth functioning of our court system. When courts operate efficiently, more Canadians access justice and our country is better off.
The expanded telewarrant system is also critical. Expanding the possibility of obtaining a greater number of search warrants and other judicial authorizations by means of telecommunication would contribute to efficiency gains in the criminal justice system by reducing the need for in-person attendance and physical delivery of search warrant applications by law enforcement. Indeed courts have found that seeing a complainant or witness face to face is not fundamental to our system of justice, and the Criminal Code has permitted remote attendance by witnesses for more than 20 years.
Subsection 800(2.1) has, since 1997, authorized summary conviction trials by video for accused persons in custody. Sections 714.1 and 714.2 have permitted appearances by witnesses by video conference since 1999.
Bill C-75, which was passed by the House in 2019, modernized and facilitated some appearances by audio or video conferences of all persons involved in criminal cases, including judges, under certain circumstances.
Rather than overhauling criminal procedure, Bill S-4 continues to permit proceedings by remote appearance. This bill picks up where Bill C-75 left off, in light of the experience gained and the questions that arose with the use of technology in the criminal courts during the pandemic.
I would like to personalize this for a bit, if I may. Before I joined the House, my work was centred on supporting youth at risk in the education system. From time to time, students would find themselves interacting with the justice system. I had the opportunity to help them navigate these public institutions, understand their rights, and when the circumstances permitted, to also pursue justice. I remember a particularly frustrating time in which unnecessary delays prolonged the personal suffering of a survivor of sexual assault, adding to their trauma. I remember the anger and frustration this evoked and the feelings of helplessness for all involved.
Canadians deserve a justice system that is accessible, efficient and effective, and that provides true access to justice for all. The pandemic has taught us that technology can be used to help make the justice system work better for all people who come in contact with it. Bill S-4 proposes a range of reforms that will make court proceedings more flexible while protecting the rights of participants.
The reforms proposed in Bill S-4 flow from the important work of the action committee on court operations in response to COVID–19, co-chaired by the Minister of Justice and Chief Justice Richard Wagner. They are also informed by important contributions from the provinces and territories, as well as other justice system stakeholders. With Bill S-4, we have the opportunity to improve our justice system by making those good ideas permanent.
Bill S-4 is an example of how we can improve the legal system, but there are other ways we can also discuss pushing things forward. I would like to mention restorative justice, which is an approach that seeks to repair harm by providing an opportunity for those harmed and those who take responsibility for the harm to communicate about it and address their needs in the aftermath of a crime.
It will invest in programs for first nations and indigenous courts as well, creating more pathways for healing by including indigenous knowledge and traditions, restorative justice practices and elders in the court process.
It will reform how sexual assault cases are prosecuted in Canada through a feminist equality lens.
It will ensure that everyone, regardless of income level, should be able to use the remedies that Canadian laws and the Canadian legal system provide.
It focuses on a system truly built on preventing youth crime by addressing its underlying causes, responding to the needs of young persons, and providing guidance and support.
Without continuing our work on multiple fronts, we cannot claim that there will be true justice for anyone who is involved in legal proceedings. Bill S-4 is part of the solution, and we need to continue to build on it to restore confidence in our legal system.
In 2022, the national justice survey revealed that 49% of Canadians are not confident the Canadian criminal justice system is fair to all people, and that 39% think it is not accessible to all. These numbers are incredibly alarming, and Bill S-4 is a step in the right direction.
In conclusion, Bill S-4's measures are both practical and necessary. They would assist the provinces and territories, which are responsible for the criminal administration of justice, by giving criminal courts additional tools to tackle delays. They would also benefit everyday court users. For these reasons, I urge everyone in the House to support Bill S-4.
1684 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/22 1:16:05 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-4
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to reiterate the great work of the member for Tobique—Mactaquac, a fellow New Brunswicker.
It is an issue that should concern us all. We certainly do not want reoffenders to come back into our justice system. We want to make sure that while they are there we can work on whatever needs they might be dealing with. We know that many who are incarcerated in federal institutions are experiencing mental health issues and high rates of substance abuse and alcoholism. It is a multi-faceted issue and it is going to take a multi-faceted approach. I really believe that is what government is trying to do with this bill as well. I think improving access through video conferencing and telecommunications will also help victims.
133 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/22 1:17:28 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-4
Mr. Speaker, I mentioned a bit about restorative justice circles. This is something we are seeing used a lot in community, and I would love to see this applied more broadly, for more Canadians to access this indigenous lens, this approach. Again, it is to go toward healing, which is something that really needs to be added into this conversation.
The use of elders as well in the courtroom is really important. We see the use of the Gladue principles that have been put in place in court systems to allow judges to use that discretion and take into consideration someone's background and the trauma they might have experienced that led them to interact with the justice system. These are all really concrete pieces.
I would also like to highlight Bill C-5. I know it is a bit controversial for some members on the opposite side, but we need to address the discrimination our justice system has perpetrated upon indigenous Canadians and members of racialized communities. Reducing those mandatory minimums and using a judge's discretion is critically important, and it is going to ensure justice for all.
190 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/22 1:19:18 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-4
Mr. Speaker, absolutely, it is about applying a trauma-informed lens, so those discussions could happen while someone is incarcerated, in hopes that it would set them on the right path once they are on the outside and rejoining society after they have paid their debt. I mentioned some of the staggering statistics. The Mental Health Commission of Canada, and this is from 2020, said that 73% of men and 79% of women who are federally incarcerated have some kind of mental health issue as well. These are things we absolutely need to use as a lens when we are discussing these kinds of issues and reforms in the justice system, particularly when it comes to youth, which is of course is a very deep passion of mine.
128 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/22 2:04:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, two-thirds of women in Canada have experienced physical, sexual or emotional abuse. November 25 is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. Gender-based violence encompasses many types of abuses that are perpetuated toward women, girls, two-spirit, trans and nonbinary people. Only a couple of years before the Montreal massacre, MP Margaret Mitchell was heckled in the House of Commons for raising awareness about domestic abuse.
Today, the laughter has faded and the conversation has evolved, but women are still dying. The roots of gender-based violence are entrenched and persist in our society, one that upholds patriarchal ideology. In 2021, 173 women and girls were killed by violence in Canada alone. One in five women killed were first nations, Métis or Inuit.
Including femicide in the Criminal Code is a needed move and one that must be backed by an action plan for change. I am standing in the House today asking each and every one of us to take action. In the words of Susana Chávez Castillo, “Not one woman less; not one more death.”
190 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to first recognize the unceded Anishinabe territory that we are gathered on this evening, because for the Anishinabe people everything is interconnected, and it is a good reminder that the work we are doing in the House has a ripple effect outside of these walls on the lives of every Canadian. I am proud today and every day of our collective commitment to making Canada more inclusive and culturally safe.
I want to thank everyone who took part in this debate, shared their thoughts and, most importantly, told Isabella that we are listening, that her advocacy matters and that she has the full support of the members of the House. It is indeed a positive message for all indigenous women from coast to coast to coast.
I also want to recognize the member for London West for seconding the bill. I forgot to recognize that the first time I was able to speak to this legislation, and I am grateful for it.
I want to celebrate the member for Halifax West for her intervention in this debate, and the personal commitment she has made in her own riding.
I thank the member for Manicouagan for her passion and grace, and the members for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock and Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River for their support and excellent work at the indigenous and northern affairs committee. I look forward to further studying this bill there.
I thank the member for Lethbridge, who just gave a very emotional address and asked for better for indigenous people across this country. I want to echo that.
I thank the member for Nunavut for her leadership and collaboration and the member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski for speaking about missing and murdered indigenous women and wanting to put forward amendments, which I am certainly open to discussing.
I thank the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou for her meaningful intervention this evening, and the members for Kitchener Centre and Saanich—Gulf Islands for their support and friendship.
This is truly a team effort, and these are the good days when we get to be united on something that is so very important and so meaningful.
I want to thank, once again, Senator McCallum for giving me the honour of being the voice of this bill in the House of Commons. She is an inspiration, and I am forever grateful for the privilege of bringing forward her work. I look forward to studying this bill in committee and seeing if there is any way for it to be improved.
As a final note to Isabella, meegwetch. She is an inspiration. Look what she has done; look what she has accomplished. I think she should be so proud. Again, it is an honour to carry her voice in this amazing place.
January 4 is just around the corner, and I am hoping that this day will be enacted in time to celebrate it for the first time in 2023.
506 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
