44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 24, 2022 10:00AM
- Nov/24/22 10:01:55 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the next petition is from Canadians from across the country who are concerned about the continued COVID-19 restrictions and mandates that continue to be in place. They note that they are, at this point, suspended.
The petitioners call for an abolition of the vaccine passport requirements for all Canadian citizens and permanent residents taking domestic flights. They note the comments from the WestJet chief medical officer, who noted that, particularly on aircraft, there had not been any known cases of COVID-19 transmission. They have also noted that Canada was one of the last countries to suspend these restrictions. They call for the full removal of these restrictions and mandates.
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to be able to rise today to join in the debate on Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other acts.
As has been mentioned during the course of this debate, we have heard the government speak about the urgency of the passage of this legislation, but some of the measures in here, certainly, were required long before the COVID pandemic. There are others that raise some concerns about justice, particularly when it comes to respect for victims of crime. I will include victims and their families in that.
In Bill S-4 the consent of the offender is mentioned 10 times. Let us contrast that. How many times does Bill S-4 mention the consent of a victim, the consent of a victim's family in proceeding by way other than an in-person meeting? The answer, not surprisingly, is zero. Not once does this bill mention the consent of the victim or their family, all the while speaking about the consent of an offender.
I would love to say I am surprised, or that maybe there is something we are missing here, but the fact is that this is in line with the overall agenda of the government when it comes to our criminal justice system.
We only have to look at the bills that have come before the House. We only have to look at the selective response to certain Supreme Court of Canada decisions to realize that this is a government that does not put the rights of victims first.
To use an example, we saw yesterday, in the public safety committee, a grand expansion of the law when it comes to going after law-abiding citizens, duck hunters, hunters, our constituents, all of our collective constituents who are law-abiding firearms owners. They do this in the name of combatting crime. We are targeting non-criminals in an effort to combat crime.
If we speak to the experts, if we speak to police, if we speak to big-city mayors, they will tell us that the source of illegal firearms, the source of firearms being used by gangs, is our border, our porous border, and the illegal importation of firearms.
Knowing that the illegal trafficking and importation of firearms is the cause of the firearms being on the street, that law-abiding citizens are not the cause, it would lead us to a logical conclusion that we should target that illegal importation, in direct contrast to what the government is doing in Bill C-22, which is targeting duck hunters, farmers and sports shooters, people who are not criminals and people who are not a threat.
What are we doing about the real threat? What are we doing about the importers, the traffickers?
There is another bill that was just passed through the Senate, Bill C-5. What that bill does is say that if someone has trafficked in a firearm, has used a firearm in the commission of an offence or in extortion, or if someone has fired a firearm with intent, they no longer, as the case has been for years, have to serve time in jail. They can go back onto the street. They can go back into the community where they committed the offence.
Where did this law come from that said a person has to serve time in jail if they commit these offences? Did it come from the previous Conservative government?
The government would love us to believe that this tough-on-crime measure came from the previous Conservative government, but if we bother to look at the facts and the evidence, the evidence says all of those mandatory penalties were in place since the 1970s, since the time of the Prime Minister's father being prime minister. Some of them were introduced when the Prime Minister's father was both prime minister and justice minister.
The Liberals love to say these are unconstitutional mandatory penalties.
What does the Supreme Court have to say about this? There was a recent case from just a couple of weeks ago involving a mandatory penalty for drug trafficking, and the Supreme Court considered that and considered the seriousness in our communities of the crisis, whether it is fentanyl, cocaine or heroin.
The government of the day was a Conservative government, and I am proud to say, in an effort to combat those crimes, we said that if someone were going to traffic, produce or import these serious drugs, they were going to have to serve actual time in jail. The current government has said, in Bill C-5, that it does not believe that, and it believes those people should be able to be back on the street.
What did the Supreme Court of Canada say? The Supreme Court of Canada upheld those provisions. It said they are constitutional and that the seriousness of these offences, when weighed with Parliament's legislative prerogative, means that Parliament was entitled, and that it was indeed constitutional, to have brought in that measure that says if someone imports, traffics or produces cocaine, fentanyl or heroin, they are going to go to jail and be taken off the street.
Does being soft on crime work? We have heard it called “hug a thug”, “soft on crime” or “a revolving door justice system”, in which, if someone commits a crime, there are no consequences and they go back on the street. Does that approach work? Why do we not look at the evidence? The evidence was just released this week, not by the Conservative Party but by Statistics Canada. The evidence says that the homicide rate in Canada has increased for three consecutive years.
The homicide rate in Canada is at the highest rate it has been since 2005. Why is 2005 significant? That was the last year of the previous Liberal government. The Conservative government came to power in 2006, and we had an agenda to straighten out our justice system, to respect victims, to put victims at the forefront and to say to serious offenders, “recidivist”.
What is a recidivist? A recidivist is someone who commits a crime; gets caught; gets tried in a court of law; gets sentenced, whether to jail time or house arrest; goes back on the street and does the same thing again and again. That is recidivism. The courts have said, and we have said, that we have to focus on criminals, and we did that.
Over the last seven years we have seen a Liberal government. The percentage I am about to say should shock all of us in the room and should shock all Canadians. The violent crime rate in Canada, since 2015, has increased 32%. That is not acceptable. That is in our rural communities—
Hon. Rick Perkins: What happened in 2015?
Hon. Rob Moore: Madam Speaker, I should remind members that 2015 is the year the Liberal government was elected.
Being soft on crime does not work. In our rural communities, in our suburbs, in our big cities and across this country, we are seeing people who are victimizing. Whether it is property crime, serious violent crime or sexual offences, we are seeing people who should be approached in a tougher manner being let back out onto the street to commit the same offences, and it has resulted in a 32% increase in violent crime.
This is not me saying that; this is Statistics Canada. It produces statistics on these things. That is evidence, and we should take evidence into account when we look at what works and what does not. I feel, and I know my Conservative colleagues feel, that one of our top priorities as members of Parliament should be the protection of innocent Canadians, the protection of families in our communities and the protection of our communities.
Does that mean we do not think offenders should get the help they need and those struggling with addiction should get the help they need? Of course they should, but we are not doing our communities any favours, and we are not doing offenders any favours, by having zero consequence for serious offences.
Bill S-4 mentions the consent of the offender 10 times. In my own riding, we have a serious story from years ago. A young woman, who was 16 years old, was working in her father's grocery store and was murdered by an offender. The offender received a life sentence.
The victim's father became an advocate for victims of crime. I met with him many times. He was a councillor in one of our communities. He spoke passionately about ways governments could support victims of crime. When we were in government, we acted on some of his recommendations and recommendations from other victims of crime.
His family would travel to Quebec for parole hearings to support the loved one who lost her life all those years ago in the eighties. They would go every two years to these parole hearings. There were times when they would have driven 10 hours, and the offender would cancel the parole hearing. The family would have to go back home not having had the parole hearing. They had many recommendations.
This same case was in the news within the last month when Correctional Service Canada, without notifying the family, said that individual was on the loose and it did not know where they were. Every two years, this family has been there in person trying to keep the individual behind bars where they belong. Obviously that caused great concern for this family. The offender is now back in custody but is still eligible for parole hearings every other year.
Those parole hearings, in person or virtual, continue to revictimize families. That is one of the principal reasons one of the pieces of legislation I am most proud of in my career as a parliamentarian, which we brought forward as a Conservative government, was respect for each individual victim's life in the case of mass murderers.
In Canada, when someone gets a life sentence, some people mistakenly think that a mass murderer or someone who commits first-degree murder is going to be behind bars for the rest of their life. We hear “life sentence” and think they will be in for life, but that is not how it works.
After 25 years, parole eligibility begins. An individual is eligible to be released after 25 years. Let us talk about what that means in the case of a mass murderer, like the individual who took the life of Tim Bosma. His widow, Sharlene, appeared at our justice committee recently to speak about victims of crime.
This is someone who has been through unimaginable pain. She eloquently spoke about her efforts and about the one solace she took. The mass murderer, this individual, was convicted of killing not only her husband, Tim, but also two other people. He had taken three lives. The only solace she took in this whole process was knowing her daughter would never have to attend a parole hearing.
The offender received a 75-year parole ineligibility period thanks to Conservative legislation that allowed consecutive periods of parole ineligibility. This means not just 25 years, but if someone takes three lives, it is 75 years. Before this a family would have to go through the very difficult process of ripping off that band-aid and having to relive the worst events of their life. That was the one solace she took.
As members in the House know, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down those provisions. This affects the individual who took the life of Tim Bosma and the individual who took the lives of three RCMP officers in Moncton, New Brunswick.
I remember that day very well. We were gathered here. We were in the lobby and watching this unfold. Three lives were taken, with a 75-year parole ineligibility period.
Because of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision just a couple of weeks ago, all of those individuals are now eligible for parole after 25 years. Does this mean they are going to be on the streets in under 25 years because they have already been serving their sentences? No, not necessarily. Maybe they will; maybe they will not. However, what this definitely means is that all of these families, including Sharlene Bosma's young daughter, are going to some day have to attend a parole hearing, look at the offender and argue why that individual, who took the life of their loved one, should have to stay behind bars.
Why am I speaking about these things? It is because victims have to be at the centre of all legislation, including Bill S-4. When I see a bill that mentions the consent of the offender 10 times and mentions the consent of the victim zero times, it raises concern for me.
Some of what is in Bill S-4 is necessary. It allows for virtual measures where appropriate, allows police officers to apply for and obtain warrants using telecommunications and conduct fingerprinting of the accused at a later date should fingerprints not previously have been taken, expands the power of courts to make case management rules, expands the ability of the accused and offenders to appear remotely by audioconference and video conference in certain circumstances, allows for the participation of prospective jurors in the jury selection process by video conference if deemed appropriate and allows for the use of electronic or automated means to select jurors rather than the current practice of having the clerk of the court draw names from a box.
Some of these measures make sense. That is why, overall, the Conservatives are supporting Bill S-4. However, there are a couple of things we are looking for. One is a recognition of the role of the victims.
The justice committee is completing a study on victims of crime. There was a Conservative motion asking that we study the impact of the justice system and how we can better serve victims of crime. I spoke already to some of the testimony we heard about how the justice system is stacked toward the offenders. Victims' families are in the dark. Victims are in the dark. These are victims of all kinds of crimes, whether it be property crime or violent crime. Individuals who have had a loved one taken from them are in the dark about the system.
The supports are not there as they should be, so when victims see a bill that mentions the consent of the accused 10 times and mentions victims zero times, it leads them to conclude once again that they are the afterthought in a piece of legislation. That perpetuates a justice system that is out of balance and does not put victims first. One of the things we are looking for is a refocus in this legislation on victims, their rights and making sure that nothing is done in this process that undermines the ability of a victim to feel a sense of engagement and justice to the extent they wish to in the process.
We have heard from other speakers about the urgency of this legislation. The Liberals have been in power for seven years. If we listen to them with respect to this legislation, they say these measures were called for and needed pre-COVID. To be very clear, the justice system was already severely delayed before COVID. Of course, COVID made it worse. I mentioned this in a question to a previous speaker. The Prime Minister reset the clock on this bill when he called an unnecessary and ironically COVID-related election, and here we are today debating this bill.
As Conservatives, we are going to continue to focus on the rights of victims and on making sure we have a justice system that takes serious crimes seriously and protects the interests of victims every step of the way.
2695 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/22 11:12:45 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-4
Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary spoke to the importance of the bill, but this is a COVID-related bill. It was born out of the need for remote access and digital means, and as a result of delays in processing times because of COVID, but the passage of this bill was itself delayed because of an unnecessary election call during COVID.
I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary raised those concerns with the Prime Minister when delaying this bill that he has identified as being very important.
87 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/22 11:14:04 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-4
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to stand in this place to represent the constituents of Avalon. I am pleased to have the opportunity to provide an overview of some of the key areas of reform proposed in Bill S-4, an act that would amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and make related amendments to other acts.
Bill S-4 would increase the efficiency and effectiveness of criminal proceedings by giving courts more flexibility and clarity in response to the particular challenges that arose in the pandemic. When the COVID-19 pandemic began, the remote appearance provisions in the Criminal Code had just been reformed through a former bill, Bill C-75, in 2019. Those amendments had been informed by the 2013 report of the Steering Committee on Justice Efficiencies and Access to the Justice System, entitled “Report on the Use of Technology in the Criminal Justice System”, as well as consultations with provincial and territorial governments.
Bill S-4 continues to build on those reforms, taking into account new calls for reform by those working in the criminal justice system during the pandemic and courts' experiences with the increased use of technology that occurred as a result.
My remarks today will focus on the necessity of the proposed amendments relating to remote proceedings, which represent a continuation of existing legal practices here in Canada.
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, criminal court proceedings were presumptively held in person. Remote appearances were permitted under the Criminal Code but were very much the exception. There were provisions in the Criminal Code to allow people to attend some proceedings by way of audio or visual connection, but since they were not routinely used, legal clarification or guidance was needed.
The pandemic had an abrupt and immediate effect on the operation of courts, as courts across Canada shut down for periods of time and had to figure out how to operate without in-person attendance or with very limited in-person attendance. To cope with the pandemic and maintain the administration of justice, including maintaining access to the courts, courts around the country pivoted away from in-person appearances and held numerous hearings and matters in a virtual space.
The COVID-19 pandemic forced changes to how courts operate. Unrestricted in-person appearances were no longer permitted, and initially courts were forced to adjourn the majority of appearances, ranging from pleas to trials. This created a backlog of cases in the court system that still needed to be heard, regardless of the circumstances of the pandemic. In many cases, having participants appear by video conference when possible allowed court operations to resume.
However, even with courts adapting and modernizing to address the challenges they faced during the pandemic, many remain unable to operate at their prepandemic capacity. Indeed, the median length of time for an adult case to resolve in criminal court increased when compared with prepandemic levels. Further complicating matters was the fact that the number of adult criminal court cases that exceeded the presumptive time limits set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Jordan had increased significantly since the onset of the pandemic.
Bill S-4 targets changes to the Criminal Code that would give courts increased flexibility in how they hold criminal proceedings and how they issue orders such as search warrants and production orders in the context of an investigation. These changes are needed to address the ongoing pressures on the criminal court system brought to light by the COVID-19 pandemic and enhance access to justice for all Canadians, now and in the future. A key impact of these provisions would be a more efficient justice system that is equipped to serve Canadians and address the backlog of cases caused by the pandemic.
Allowing and continuing remote appearances is not just about responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. Remote appearances would provide greater flexibility for courts to continue proceedings when it is not possible to do so in person for other reasons, such as natural disasters. During its study of the bill, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs heard witness testimony about the closure of the Calgary courthouse during the floods of 2013. Due to the natural disaster, the court was forced to close proceedings for a period of time. Matters could not be heard and were adjourned.
The changes proposed in Bill S-4 make clear that certain proceedings can move ahead by audio or visual conference, even when in-person attendance is not possible or safe, allowing courts to operate as efficiently as possible in the interest of all participants in the criminal justice system.
While there has been acceptance of proceedings occurring by way of audio or video conference, the reforms included in Bill S-4 do not seek to make this the norm or default. Indeed, as before, the principle set out in the Criminal Code will continue to be: “Except as otherwise provided... a person who appears at, participates in or presides at a proceeding shall do so in person.” This principle would not change. Rather than upending the legal system, the bill would continue to allow the flexibility of proceedings in a manner that makes sense in the circumstances, with appropriate safeguards built in.
When considering whether to authorize remote proceedings, courts will be obligated to consider the impact on the safety of the participants, while supporting greater access to justice moving forward, including for those living in remote communities. Courts would also be required to ensure that decisions to authorize remote appearances are exercised in accordance with the charter, including the right of an accused person to make full answer and defence, and to have a fair and public hearing.
While Bill S-4 would clarify and expand when remote appearances are possible, it would not be the first to introduce these concepts into the Criminal Code. At committee, there were some concerns expressed over a judge's ability to assess the credibility of witnesses and accused persons during remote proceedings, as well as the importance of protecting an accused person's ability to face their accuser.
While these are important considerations the court must turn its mind to in each case, they are not unique to the provisions Bill S-4 would amend. 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 authorized summary conviction trials by video for in-custody accused since 1997. Sections 714.1 and 714.2 have permitted appearances by witnesses by video conference since 1999. Bill C-75, which was passed by this House in 2019, modernized and facilitated some appearances by audio and video conference of all persons involved in criminal cases, including judges, under certain circumstances.
Rather than overhauling criminal procedure, Bill S-4 would continue to permit proceedings by remote appearance. The bill would pick up where Bill C-75 left off, in light of the experience that was gained and the questions that arose with use of technology in the criminal courts during the pandemic. Bill S-4 would make practical and necessary amendments to the Criminal Code. These amendments would facilitate efficient operation of the criminal courts and have a direct impact on people who need or want to access the criminal justice system. The bill is not intended to make remote trials and hearings the norm, but rather would give the courts the flexibility to proceed in this manner when it is appropriate under the circumstances and where the technology exists.
These are limited but necessary reforms that have been developed in consultation with the provinces and territories and take into consideration the views of stakeholders. I am confident the bill and the proposed reforms would improve efficiencies in our criminal justice system while still providing careful oversight by the courts to ensure that the rights of accused persons and offenders are protected with the use of technology.
For these reasons, I urge all members to support Bill S-4.
1368 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/22 11:27:53 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-4
Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to join in the important debates and discussions that take place in the House and to be able to discuss the wide variety of issues, both directly and indirectly, addressed through Bill S-4.
I will be streaming this speech live on Facebook, where I will endeavour to not only address some of the very important aspects of Bill S-4 but also endeavour to take feedback and comments from those who are watching on Facebook. My Facebook handle is “@dckurek”. I look forward to addressing some of the comments and concerns that constituents bring forward.
Bill S-4 would codify some of the dynamics that existed during the course of COVID. These are things like video appearances and certain technical and administrative challenges associated with the circumstances around offices being closed, for example, the fact that the fingerprinting could be a delayed process and a whole host of administrative concerns.
I would highlight and encourage those watching live on Facebook to share their stories as well about some of the dynamics associated with rural crime. Access to justice is something that is not unique to rural Canadians. This did not start in 2020 with COVID, and it certainly has not repaired itself as we have seen life get back normal.
My constituency, for example, as many who are watching from there will know, is about five hours from corner to corner, and it is hours to the nearest courthouse. In many cases, the response time of law enforcement to very serious crimes is measured in hours or even sometimes in days. It is an important context in which we see this soft-on-crime approach.
I happen to agree with a statement that was made the other day by one of my Conservative colleagues that this is a hug-a-thug approach. It is really unfortunate, because we are seeing that my constituents are facing the consequences of that soft-on-crime approach by not seeing our justice system as a system that serves justice. In fact, the most common statements that I receive from constituents are that we do not have a justice system, and that it is simply a poor excuse for a legal system.
I certainly see the Liberal record over the past seven years as being one that piles on failure after failure, whether it be Bill C-5, which would eliminate a whole host of sentences for very serious crimes, or the justice minister, with an astounding level of ignorance and arrogance, who simply says that we will leave it up to the judges. I have more examples than I could fit in days of debate about where the justice system does not actually bring about the punishments that should certainly fit the crime, and we are seeing a massive erosion of trust in the system.
I see, specifically, a member from the government who seems to be participating in my Facebook live. I thank him for his viewership and amplification of the sound, common-sense Conservative message that certainly resonates with Canadians.
I would note something that I think is especially relevant. There is an astounding level of ignorance displayed by the Liberals, and this was highlighted just the other day. The rule of law, to them, seems to be this plaything. I would like to read a text message sent from the Minister of Public Safety that was revealed at the Emergencies Act inquiry commission. The parliamentary secretary who just commented on my feed should maybe pay attention to this. It says:
...you need to get the police to move....
And the CAF if necessary....
Too many people are being seriously adversely impacted by what is an occupation. I am getting out as soon as I can. People are looking to us/you for leadership. And not stupid people. People like Carney, Cath, my team.
The reply goes on to say, “How many tanks are you asking for...I just wanna ask [the Minister of National Defence] how many we've got on hand.”
The response from Canada's Minister of Public Safety was, “I reckon one will do.”
That is astounding, and I would suggest disgusting, that the Liberals would suggest that pulling out tanks to bring to the streets of our capital city would, in any universe, be an acceptable practice. We see how—
739 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/22 12:17:21 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-4
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the stated support for this important bill.
Certainly, this is about modernizing Canada's justice system. It is one step, but it is a concrete step. I know that my colleague would appreciate the fact that Bill S-4 was informed by dialogue between the federal government and the provinces and territories. Bill S-4 is a product of the Action Committee on Court Operations in Response to COVID-19, which was chaired by the justice minister and the chief justice. Collaboration and consultation are at the heart of this bill, and it is just one piece of the fuller modernization of the Canadian criminal justice system.
111 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/22 3:35:58 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-4
Madam Speaker, I support the legislation. I think the mechanisms that it provides for are worthwhile, at least at this stage. I think it needs to be looked at further at committee. Our party will be coming forward with some constructive proposals for strengthening it.
Fundamentally, it is also important to acknowledge the context. Canadians are seeing, for a variety of reasons across the board, delays in delivering vital services. That includes delays in the judicial system. I do not think COVID is the only factor that is contributing to that. We are also seeing, under the government, a significant rise in violent crime and a failure to acknowledge that and respond to the circumstances that are creating that rise in crime.
I like this legislation, yes, but there is more work to do.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/22 3:52:29 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-4
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock.
The pandemic taught us many things. It taught us about how viruses spread or do not spread, whether asymptomatic victims of a virus can be contagious, whether vaccines prevent us from being infected or only prevent us from being very sick when we are infected and also what effects isolation has on mental health. The jury is out on many of these issues. People will be writing Ph.D. theses on the lessons we learned or failed to learn from the COVID-19 experience, but it is not just medical and scientific things that we learned through the COVID-19 years.
We also learned that we could do business differently. More and more people are working remotely and that kept many businesses afloat during the most severe periods of lockdowns and restrictions. Admittedly, working remotely works better in some sectors than others. In my profession of law, for example, working from home or from the office was completely seamless, or from my cabin, for that matter. My clients did not typically ask me where I was, as long as I was serving them. My clients did not tell me where they were. I did not ask. They did not tell me, and it did not matter in most instances. I remember that, after a lengthy conversation with a client one morning, I suggested that we meet for lunch that afternoon and he said it was a five-hour flight from Hawaii where he was and that would be difficult to do. I did not know and it did not matter. Business was seamless in some sectors.
This was before the pandemic, but the pandemic accelerated the need for us to become more and more digital in the way we do business, and that is why we are here today. We are looking at draft legislation that originated in the Senate, Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code to allow for the use of electronic means, for example, to select a jury and allow jurors to participate in hearings via video conferencing. It would allow us to expand the availability of remote appearances by video conference and/or audio conference, and it would modify case management rules, fingerprinting procedures and the issuing of warrants, such as search warrants, just as examples. There is a long, exhaustive list of what this bill would reform in our judicial system. All of this was born out of the pandemic. None of this is novel and very little of it is controversial.
Conservatives have always supported finding new and innovative ways for government operations to be more efficient and cost-effective, but we must raise some concerns.
For video conferencing to be effective, it must be reliable. We have seen even here in the nation's capital, in Ottawa, where one would think the Internet would be world class, that hybrid meetings often get interrupted because a participant in the meeting, perhaps a witness at a committee, gets frozen or the audio is so bad that our highly qualified and professional interpretation teams cannot make out what is being said. It is one thing if a parliamentary or Senate committee is disrupted because of technological deficiencies, but it is quite another when it is a criminal trial and a person's rights, freedoms and liberties are at stake. We must get it right.
That brings me to reflect on a big challenge we have in Canada, particularly in some parts of this vast country, and that is Internet connectivity. Canada's Conservatives have been calling for an end to the digital divide between urban and rural areas in our country. Every aspect of our 21st-century economy is becoming increasingly dependent on the Internet and, therefore, we must ensure that everyone has access to good, reliable broadband.
Canada's productivity metrics lag those of our main competitor nations, our trading partners. For every $100, for example, that an American worker pumps into the economy, the Canadian counterpart contributes only $67. That is a big productivity gap. The Minister of Finance has acknowledged that gap and on several occasions called it our Achilles heel.
In the recent fall economic statement, she said, “We will continue to invest in tackling the productivity challenge that is Canada’s economic Achilles heel.” Earlier in the year, in delivering her budget, the Minister of Finance had this to say about Canada's lagging productivity. She said, “we are falling behind when it comes to economic productivity.... This is a well-known Canadian problem and an insidious one. It is time for Canada to tackle it.”
I could not agree with that more. It is time for us to tackle our productivity lag, and a good place to start would be to vastly improve our Internet accessibility, not only here in Ottawa, not only in my community of Langley where it is far from perfect in some areas, but across the country and particularly in rural areas. We can talk to any worker, any tradesperson, any health care worker, professional, trucker or teacher. They will all tell us that the best way to improve productivity is to get better tools, and the Internet is anyone's tool these days, including for the legal profession, our criminal justice system and our courts. There is nothing special about courts. They need to conduct business like everyone else.
Getting back to Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code, to improve efficiency in our courts, we want to move them toward greater use of electronic tools in jury selection, in jury participation, in witness appearances and even in the appearances of the accused, when the accused and the Crown both agree. We support these measures, but we must listen to the experts.
In her May 2021 report to the standing committee, our former federal ombudsman for victims of crime, Ms. Heidi Illingworth, had this to say on this specific topic. She said, “many courthouses across [the country] have old infrastructure, and implementing videoconferencing has been a challenge. For some in remote areas, bandwidth and internet access remains an issue.”
Ms. Illingworth was saying this in a study being conducted by the justice committee on formerly Bill C-23. Bill S-4 is almost a mirror image of it. Bill C-23 had the support of all parties, but it got bogged down because the government called an election that nobody wanted and was not necessary. That is for another day.
Ms. Illingworth had this to say in support of increasing the availability of technology. She said, “It is my hope that these measures will help to relieve the pressure on the courts by leveraging video and teleconferencing technologies to help speed up filings and hold hearings in an inclusive and efficient way.”
She was the ombudsman for victims of crime. In that capacity, she had this to say in support of victims. She said, “ensuring access to internet service across Canada would address concerns regarding access to justice for victims of crime during COVID-19, by ensuring that victims have a means to participate in the process should they so choose”, but she also warned, “Unfortunately, not all Canadians have equal access to the internet.”
I am hearing from many people in my home province of British Columbia about how important good access to the Internet is for Pacific economic development, which is something I have a great deal of interest in, but that too is for another day.
Today, I am speaking in support of improving access to justice through Bill S-4. It is a step in the right direction. We will be supporting it. I look forward to a deeper dive into the details of Bill S-4 at committee. I welcome any questions.
1331 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/22 4:20:13 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-4
Madam Speaker, I know that my Bloc colleague was a lawyer in a previous life, and I appreciate her input in the discussion today.
I think that looking at as many ways as possible to speed up the judicial system for victims, for those awaiting trial, to either be convicted or cleared, and a whole bunch of other cases in between, is something that should be examined. We have seen massive backlogs, as I mentioned in my speech. COVID was a major contributor, but even before COVID, the backlog in the court system was quite significant. Issues have been raised about that.
I think that there is an opportunity here to have that conversation about what can be done to speed it up, and I look forward to that discussion in the weeks ahead.
134 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
