SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

Senate Bill

Bill S-4

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 13, 2022
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)
  • This bill amends the Criminal Code to make changes related to jury selection, remote appearances for accused individuals, remote participation in jury selection, administrative matters for unrepresented accused, fingerprinting, and search warrants. It also corrects technical errors and includes transitional provisions. The bill provides for independent reviews and a parliamentary review of remote proceedings in criminal justice matters. It was assented to on December 15, 2022.
  • H1
  • H2
  • H3
  • S1
  • S2
  • S3
  • RA
  • Yea (27)
  • Nay (43)
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 147 - Dec/13/22
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)
All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
36 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 147 - Dec/13/22
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)
Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion. I move: That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practices of the House: (a) Bill C-278, An Act to prevent the imposition by the federal government of vaccination mandates for employment and travel, standing on the Order Paper in the name of the member for Carleton, shall now stand in the name of the member for Niagara West and be placed in the order of precedence at the same place and stage as Bill C-285, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act, and be deemed to have been reported to the house pursuant to Standing Order 91.1 recommending it not be designated non-votable, and the order for the second reading of Bill C-285 shall be discharged and the bill withdrawn; (b) Bill S-202, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Visual Artist Laureate), standing in the name of the member for Bow River, shall now stand in the name of the member for Cloverdale—Langley City; and (c) 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), be deemed adopted at report stage on division and be deemed adopted at the third reading stage on division.
256 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: Senate Volume 153, Issue 91 - Dec/13/22
Speake

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons returning 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), and acquainting the Senate that they had passed this bill without amendment.

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Loffreda, seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson, for the second reading of Bill C-32, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 3, 2022 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022.
121 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 147 - Dec/13/22
Mr. Randeep Sarai (Surrey Centre, Lib.)
  • Dec/13/22 10:03:55 a.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill S-4 
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation 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 (COVID-19 response and other measures). The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment. I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 10th report, entitled “The Defence of Extreme Intoxication Akin to Automatism: A Study of the Legislative Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision R v. Brown”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report. I would like to thank all of the clerks and the great legislative assistants and analysts who helped us with this report.
157 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 134 - Nov/24/22
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)
  • Nov/24/22 4:51:37 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill S-4 
I therefore declare the motion carried on division. The hon. parliamentary secretary on a point of order.
17 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 134 - Nov/24/22
Mr. Ziad Aboultaif
  • Nov/24/22 4:49:43 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill S-4 
Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot of stories. In my constituency office I was approached by several people who had the same concern over the timing. Again, it is the job of the government and lawmakers to provide all the tools needed so we do not end up facing these circumstances. As I said earlier, justice should be in the justice system itself, which is why there will always be a demand to provide the proper tools to make sure everyone gets the same, equal opportunity.
87 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 134 - Nov/24/22
Mrs. Tracy Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC)
  • Nov/24/22 4:49:00 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill S-4 
Madam Speaker, earlier on in the member's speech, he spoke about the delays in the courts and the justice system, and how that is playing out and can affect communities while people are waiting. There are a lot of delays, and in fact there might be deadlines that are not met. I wonder if the member could speak a little more about that, how he saw it, especially during the time of the pandemic, and if in fact a lot of that has been caught up as the courts got back up and moving again.
96 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 134 - Nov/24/22
Mr. Ziad Aboultaif
  • Nov/24/22 4:48:08 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill S-4 
Madam Speaker, we spoke earlier about cybersecurity, which I think is a bill that will be discussed too. However, any time we use technology, there is a risk of someone breaking through, and they may see the selection of jurors, which has to be anonymous for the protection of the people who get selected to be jurors. It is an observation, but I hope that a bill such as this would be equipped with the proper tools and a high-tech level of protection, so that when a juror gets selected or people get selected to testify, witness or judge, at least they will have that needed protection, because I think that is at the heart of our judicial system.
120 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 134 - Nov/24/22
Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)
  • Nov/24/22 4:47:37 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill S-4 
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend down the way for his speech, for his thoughtful reflections on the bill and for the insights he shared with the House. The member had some reservations about the use of video conferencing or teleconferencing for the selection of jurors, and I am not sure I quite understood what his reservations were. Could my friend elaborate a little on what those concerns might be?
72 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 134 - Nov/24/22
Mr. Ziad Aboultaif
  • Nov/24/22 4:46:54 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill S-4 
Madam Speaker, I referred to it with respect to justice, and hopefully all Canadians would have equal opportunities to use technology and that must be provided, especially in rural areas. With respect to the level of technology that is available to make this bill specifically of better use to Canadians, and to make justice fair, we need to be more technologically fit. We need more Internet, especially in rural areas.
70 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 134 - Nov/24/22
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)
  • Nov/24/22 4:45:47 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill S-4 
Madam Speaker, the legislation, and I have made reference to this in the past, very much recognizes the advancement of technology and how we can make our judicial system better by providing legislation that would allow, in a very formal way, video conferencing. By doing that, one would like to think we would be providing a very viable option that would no doubt be well utilized. I wonder if my colleague could provide further thoughts on that, because he made reference to technological advancements in court proceedings being televised, and so forth. This is all a step forward in the right direction, which is one of the reasons why it is so important to pass the bill, so we can get it to committee to hear the stakeholders.
128 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 134 - Nov/24/22
Mr. Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning, CPC)
  • Nov/24/22 4:36:56 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill S-4 
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today 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 (COVID-19 response and other measures). The judicial system has been facing a series of delays in cases proceeding to trial, which has been made worse by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Conservatives have raised concerns about the delays and the potential for criminals to walk free due to the Supreme Court's Jordan decision, which said that no more than 18 months can pass between the laying of a charge and the end of trial cases in provincial courts, or 30 months for cases in superior courts. We have raised our concerns over the delays in the judicial system a number of times during the pandemic, both in the House and through the media, so it is good that the Liberals are finally listening. I understand that sometimes they have different priorities. The court system scrambled to adapt and learn how to function during the pandemic, and it was obvious that changes were needed. I could have made this speech at the height of the pandemic, when the need was very urgent. The government recognized the need then and introduced Bill C-23, but it was obviously not a priority. That bill died on the Order Paper when the House was dissolved by the Liberals for their unnecessary election. However, as with many efforts of the government, I suppose we can consider it to be better late than never, though it seems sometimes that on truly pressing issues, such as inflation, for the Liberals to do anything, it is more never than late. It is indeed important to support the courts in the technological transition that has been stimulated by the COVID-19 pandemic. It is also important to be as prepared as possible for a future pandemic or similar disruptions. In the past two years, we have all discovered new ways of doing business. Some of those ways have been beneficial, others arguably not as much. So too is the case with this bill. For justice to be truly done, it must be seen to be done. Any citizen has the right to attend court and observe the proceedings. In the past, that has naturally been a right that could be limited by the physical space of the courtroom. Allowing virtual proceedings would change that limitation while bringing with it the issue of controlling the dissemination of images from the proceedings. We have gone from cameras not being allowed into a courtroom to everyone having the ability to take screenshots or even videos of the proceedings. There is no doubt that the COVID-19 pandemic has been felt throughout our criminal justice system. Problems that perhaps we did not realize we had have been brought into focus. A modernization of the system is long overdue. The pandemic has shown us that action is very necessary now. With the technological tools that are now available to us, it makes sense to allow, as this bill would, peace officers to apply for and obtain a warrant using telecommunications rather than having to appear in person before a judge. This would not take away from the necessity of the officer to answer any questions as to whether the warrant is really necessary. The legal necessities would not change, but there is a savings to the taxpayer and the environment in the officer not having to drive to appear before a judge. We are all aware that the criminal justice system has been subjected to delays in proceedings, and sometimes that was exacerbated by the pandemic. While justice delayed is justice denied, no one wants to see a criminal walk free because the system could not bring them to trial fast enough. The reforms suggested in this bill are small but incremental. It is important to remember that the fundamentals of justice would still be being observed, and that the increased use of teleconferencing in the courts would not take away from the fundamental rights of the accused to appear in person, but many, given the choice, might prefer to appear by video conference. This, incidentally, could reduce their legal fees since their lawyer would not have to be with them at the courthouse waiting for their case to be called. One thing that concerns me with these reforms is the issue of fairness. I am not sure how the government can address that. Appearing by video in court proceedings requires access to technology that, at this point, is not available to every Canadian. Not everyone has the financial resources to own a computer. Not everyone has high-speed Internet access available to them. Certainly, the government does not have the resources to provide that. At the same time, I recognize that there are other different burdens that come with having to make a court appearance in person that could bring with it the expense and hardship of travel. I am not certain how we can provide equal access to the justice system for all Canadians, but I know we have to try to keep improving the system until we get it right. One area where I have serious concerns is the proposal in the bill that would allow the jury selection process to be done by video conference in some circumstances. While this would certainly make it less onerous for prospective jurors to take part in the selection process from their home or workplace, it does raise some privacy concerns. While technology makes remote appearances possible, technology could also be used to subvert the process, not to mention the right of an accused to see those who are to pass judgment on his or her case. In Canada, an accused has a right to be tried by a jury of his or her peers, but there are times when, for security reasons, the jurors are anonymous. With the availability of facial recognition software, it is easy to imagine that prospective jurors appearing by video conference could be easily identified. This could leave them open to harassment or attempts to influence a jury's decision. That may sound unlikely, but if we are concerned for the administration of justice, it must be considered. Has the government considered how to deal with this issue? This bill is not perfect, but neither is our justice system. The question we as parliamentarians must ask ourselves is this: Does the legislation make positive improvements to the administration of justice in our country, even if it is not perfect? If so, then we should probably support it.
1115 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 134 - Nov/24/22
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant
  • Nov/24/22 4:36:56 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill S-4 
Madam Speaker, I know people who want to have drug treatment but cannot get into a treatment facility, and they commit crimes because that is the only way they can get access to treatment. Instead of funnelling tons of money to these harm-reduction centres, we need to find a way to get more treatment to people who are not breaking the law. I must say that the bill my hon. colleague has put forth through Private Members' Business is certainly more meaningful. It would have more impact on people's lives and would prevent crimes from happening in the first place if people receive treatment. It is certainly more effective than Bill S-4, so I wish that had come first.
122 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 134 - Nov/24/22
Mrs. Tracy Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC)
  • Nov/24/22 4:36:48 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill S-4 
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke a lot about the revolving door situation in our criminal justice system, and I have a private member's bill, which I call the “end the revolving door” act. It has to do with getting people who have been sentenced to federal penitentiaries into addiction treatment and recovery. I am wondering if she could maybe speak to how that is one piece that might be helpful for people to help end the revolving door.
82 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 134 - Nov/24/22
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant
  • Nov/24/22 4:34:43 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill S-4 
Madam Speaker, the content of the bill is not going to do anything for the victims of crime. There is a constant revolving door of criminals through the justice system. Repeat offenders come in time after time, and then the government cracks down on lawful firearms owners every time there is another mass shooting, or even one shooting. Then we find out that, statistically, since they have been cracking down on lawful firearms owners, shootings have gone up. There was a Statistics Canada report on this huge increase in shootings the very day the government announced another crackdown on lawful firearms owners.
102 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 134 - Nov/24/22
Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)
  • Nov/24/22 4:33:57 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill S-4 
Madam Speaker, I share the dismay of my Bloc colleague across the way at how little of the speech we just heard dealt with the actual content of Bill S-4, but perhaps I will ask a question about one of the opening statements, which was that it is always about protecting criminals, never victims. This is particularly ironic because resolving backlogs and ensuring the timely carriage of justice, the topics of Bill S-4, are very much in the interest of the victims of crime, who the member seems so concerned about. Would she not agree? Perhaps she could take 30 seconds to breeze through where she stands on the content of the bill.
115 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 134 - Nov/24/22
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant
  • Nov/24/22 4:33:30 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill S-4 
Madam Speaker, the courts are clogged up because the Liberal appointed activist judges keep letting murderers, rapists and pedophiles out early, if they even get sentenced to prison at all. That is the reason for the backlogs.
37 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 134 - Nov/24/22
Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)
  • Nov/24/22 4:32:57 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill S-4 
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I have the pleasure of sitting with her on the Standing Committee on National Defence, among others. She spoke at length about victims' rights. We know that victims are generally witnesses, not parties, in criminal hearings. There may be some work to do on this. However, one of the potential positives that could come of Bill S‑4 is a reduction in wait times for cases to be heard. Victims may not have to wait as long to know the outcome of a case. Would my colleague agree that this is at least a step in the right direction for victims?
111 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 134 - Nov/24/22
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant
  • Nov/24/22 4:29:42 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill S-4 
Madam Speaker, there is a recommendation from the inquest for the federal government to explore adding the term “femicide” to the Criminal Code. What do Canadians get? Bill C-5 and Bill S-4. Bill S-4 was so important to the government that it has come before us several times, and the government just lets it lapse on the Order Paper. Borutski, the eastern Ontario man who was sentenced to life with no chance of parole for 70 years for killing three women in 2015, can now challenge his sentence due to the Supreme Court ruling. Bill S-4 is not going to fix that. Even if he is not granted parole, his victims' families are forced to relive the crime and the loss of their loved ones at regular parole hearings after the 25-year mark. Real justice calls for changes that would prevent such a tragedy from happening again. Tinkering with the system by allowing Zoom into a courtroom is no joke to victims' families, and that is what Bill S-4 is doing. The coroner's inquest into the deaths of Carol Culleton, Nathalie Warmerdam and Anastasia Kuzyk wrapped up after hearing extensive testimony from victims' families, their counsel, domestic violence experts and advocates. The jury made 86 recommendations based on the inquest. It is important to know about them since part of accountability is our awareness, and demanding that our public institutions do the right thing to prevent intimate partner violence. However, Bill S-4 tinkers with the administration of the court system. It is time to be more cognizant of what is causing the problems. The first set of recommendations addresses the need for oversight and accountability. These initial recommendations recognize the importance of listening to and learning from victims and survivors, and they emphasize the need to follow up on implementation. We need to create a survivor advocate position. Understanding that domestic violence victims' experiences with police and the justice system can be difficult, the jury recommended having a survivor advocate to advocate on behalf of survivors when they interact with the justice system. They wanted to establish an independent intimate partner violence commission. The jury wants a commission to be established, like the one in the U.K., that can be a voice for survivors and victims' families. Local activists agree that an independent commission would help ensure the inquest recommendations are followed through and engage in meaningful consultation. By speaking with intimate partner violence survivors, victims' families and experts in the field, these consultations would determine the responsibilities and direction of the IPV commission and evaluate the effectiveness of existing community supports and prevention strategies, including program funding. I will conclude my remarks by thanking all those who were involved in the inquest process, including the witnesses who gave their time so generously, along with the women from the anti-violence community in Renfrew county and beyond.
488 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 134 - Nov/24/22
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)
  • Nov/24/22 4:29:21 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill S-4 
The member well knows that there is quite a bit of latitude, and the member has made references to Bill S-4. I would hope that, in the three and a half minutes left in the member's speech, she will come back to the subject at hand.
48 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border