Bill S-4 (Historical)

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 enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) allow for the use of electronic or other automated means for the purposes of the jury selection process;
(b) expand, for the accused and offenders, the availability of remote appearances by audioconference and videoconference in certain circumstances;
(c) provide for the participation of prospective jurors in the jury selection process by videoconference in certain circumstances;
(d) expand the power of courts to make case management rules permitting court personnel to deal with administrative matters for accused not represented by counsel;
(e) permit courts to order fingerprinting at the interim release stage and at any other stage of the criminal justice process if fingerprints could not previously have been taken for exceptional reasons; and
(f) replace the existing telewarrant provisions with a process that permits a wide variety of search warrants, authorizations and orders to be applied for and issued by a means of telecommunication.
The enactment makes amendments to the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act to correct minor technical errors and includes transitional provisions on the application of the amendments. It also makes related amendments to other Acts.
The enactment also provides for one or more independent reviews on the use of remote proceedings in criminal justice matters.
Lastly, the enactment also provides for a parliamentary review of the provisions enacted or amended by this enactment and of the use of remote proceedings in criminal justice matters to commence at the start of the fifth year following the day on which it receives royal assent.

Criminal Code

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I echo my friend's final sentiments with respect to those who work in the system, especially the chaplains. I was able to meet with many prison chaplains this week.

I want to get to the bill. The substance of the bill is to modernize our court system. Can the member highlight the top three things in the bill that could help make the system more efficient?

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my hon. colleague for meeting with the chaplains this week. I think that is important. The role the chaplains play in the system is critical. Often, it does not get nearly the appropriate acknowledgement it should, so I thank him for doing that.

What I like about the bill is that it addresses the backlog issue and uses technology to try to make sure that people in remote areas or rural areas, who would not have normal access or could not get in easily, are able to be part of the process and help streamline it. It is so important that when we are considering any bill to do with criminal justice and justice reform, we address the rural component.

We have a rise in rural crime, and there seems to be a disproportionality in the level of response between those who live in urban centres and those who live in rural areas and small towns, like where I come from. It is important that we get techniques and technology in place to help address those kinds of issues.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is the classic tough on crime approach being promoted once again. I agree in principle. We have to stand up and violent criminals have to serve their sentence or at least enough of their sentence for it to fit the crime.

Nonetheless, there are many other factors to consider. Every inmate in the Canadian prison system costs $110,000 or $120,000 a year. We have to keep that in mind. We also need to bear in mind that the longer the sentence, the less chance there is of rehabilitation.

When inmates are identified as having potential for reintegration, society is much better off investing in that inmate's reintegration and rehabilitation. Obviously, if the inmate wants nothing to do with that, then he can serve his full sentence. I have no problem with that.

I think the problem has much more to do with the laxness and gaps in the parole system, as well as the pressure on the Parole Board of Canada to release inmates before they fully serve the sentence they were given for their crime.

I would like to know what data my colleague is using to claim that it would be more effective, when it comes to reintegration and public safety, to have tougher sentences for crime, as he mentions.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if my hon. colleague heard my address, but I feel like I spent quite a bit of time talking about the absolute necessity of the two-pronged approach. We certainly need what we call tough-on-crime measures and want the punishment to meet the crime for heinous crimes that have major consequences on victims of those crimes. People out there must understand that we do not take crime lightly. There are consequences for violent, heinous crimes and there has to be a punishment for them.

At the same time, we need to be working hard on the restorative side and putting in place effective partnerships with organizations that are having tremendous effects in dealing with the root causes of some of these crimes. Whether it is for addictions or other social ailments, we need effective partnerships that can work on the inside when people are serving sentences and on the outside when they get out.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words from the member. I think we were all enlightened and enthralled by what he had to say. It is certainly a topic that has captured the interest of many Canadians. Hopefully, given that magnitude, I can take some lessons from him and one day live up to that bar.

He spoke about rural crime. That is something my communities have been facing for quite some time now. A number of pieces of legislation passed by the government have created problems, and police and prosecutors in my area are raising a flag about them. I am wondering if the member can expand a bit more on that topic.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my esteemed hon. colleague. He always has questions that are astute and astounding, and I am forever thankful for that.

I will say this. The issue of rising crime in rural communities needs to become a priority and a priority fast. The numbers are staggering. We are finding that remote and rural areas are having a harder and harder time getting access to law enforcement, and our law enforcement resources in the rural and remote areas are stretched to their limits.

We need greater investment in the area of law enforcement. We also need to make sure there are consequences for the actions and crimes of those who live in rural areas. Let us make sure the people in those rural areas know that the government has their backs. We are going to be at their side and do everything we can to empower them to defend their property and stand up for their rights.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

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.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will pay tribute to my colleague from Tobique—Mactaquac, because I am going to quote a statistic shortly.

As has been signalled, Conservatives support the measures that go to modernizing our system, decreasing the backlogs and speeding up justice. However, we are concerned about the lack of focus on victims. As my colleague from Tobique—Mactaquac illustrated, recidivism is up 25%. In the earlier intervention we heard that violent crime is up 32%.

Why is this happening when all of us have it in our best interest to reduce recidivism and violent crime?

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

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.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's intervention this afternoon was very interesting. I was particularly struck by her personalized experience with youth incarceration, and she did speak about how we need to do much more to ensure indigenous people, BIPOC people and young people are not disproportionately represented within our judicial system. I am wondering what very specific steps she thinks would be next in line for the government to take.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

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.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Fredericton, New Brunswick, for sharing her experience working with youth at risk. It is such an important field for addressing these concerns on the front end and making sure we are doing all we can to keep as many as possible from entering the criminal justice system.

Also, I would love to hear the hon. member's comments and reflection on the critical importance of effective partnerships with non-profit, faith-based organizations and indigenous communities on addressing the issue of recidivism and putting in place programs. This applies not only on the inside while people are completing their sentences but also on the back end when they are being released into the community and how we can most effectively work together with them. I would appreciate her comments.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

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.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a deep honour that I am allowed to stand in this place and represent the incredible people of Edmonton Strathcona, and particularly to speak about Bill S-4.

Bill S-4 is all about increasing access to justice. It would make sure that all Canadians have the equal right or the equal access to our judicial system. It would remove barriers to justice and do all of the things that everyone in the House will and can support.

I am very happy to see this legislation. I commend the government for bringing this legislation forward. It makes sense. Our judicial system has been neglected. We have not modernized our judicial system to keep up with the times, to stay current and to be as accessible as it could be.

This would make part of our judicial system better. It would increase the use of technology in appropriate ways. It would include increasing audio and video conferencing options, which will vastly improve the ability of people in remote or northern communities to access justice. As I have said, it will modernize our system, and this is an important thing that we need to do as legislators. As parliamentarians, our role is to continuously look at how we can improve our judicial system, how we can make it more accessible and make it better for all Canadians.

The hope is that it would fundamentally fix the backlogs in our system. There were backlogs that we saw during COVID and that we saw even before COVID. The backlogs have meant that justice has been denied. As many have said before me today in the House, justice delayed is justice denied.

I am happy that the government brought this forward, and the New Democrats will be supporting it. However, I have some serious concerns about why it took the government so long to bring it back. It was something that was put before us in the last Parliament. An unnecessary election was called and therefore it died on the Order Paper. The election was in September 2021, so it has been 14 months since that time, and we have not seen this legislation before now. While I am commending the government for bringing it forward, I would have liked to see this come sooner.

When I look at this legislation, I have to reflect on what more could be done. We have seen some real challenges and questions, both at a provincial level and a federal level, in terms of appointing judges, making sure that judges are adequately appointed and making sure that questions around how judges are appointed are transparent and Canadians can trust that.

One area that is very important to me is the failure to support legal aid properly. This is both a federal and a provincial jurisdiction. As a member of Parliament who represents the citizens of Alberta, I have to say that Alberta is in crisis right now with our legal aid system.

I will read from an article in The Globe and Mail that was published earlier this year by Deborah Hatch, who is the director of the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers and the past president of the Criminal Trial Lawyers' Association of Alberta. She said, “For as long as the provincial government resists increasing legal aid funding in a substantial and immediate way, individuals in the justice system, and ultimately our democracy, will suffer.” It is quite shocking that, ultimately, our democracy will suffer.

It is clear to me that in recent years, with the failures to appoint judges and with the failures to fully support our legal aid system, in fact, Albertans have had less access to legal services. Albertans' access and ability to interact with our legal services have been reduced. While it is happening in Alberta, and it is a provincial jurisdiction, it is something that all parliamentarians must be watching and be deeply concerned with.

The Canadian Bar Association wrote last month that without adequately funded legal aid, our justice system will continue to deteriorate.

The Alberta Crown Attorneys' Association said, “lawyers in the defence bar who represent the accused through legal aid deserve fair and competitive compensation”. However, that is not happening right now in Alberta.

One interesting statistic, when I look at legal aid, that I find fascinating, is in this quote: “Independent research has shown that $2.25-million is saved for every $1-million injected into legal aid”. Therefore, for every $1 million that we spend on legal aid, we save two and a half million dollars. Even my very fiscally minded Conservative friends can surely see that this would be a very compelling argument.

I have other concerns with what is happening in Alberta as well. We have a new premier, Danielle Smith, who is proposing a sovereignty act—

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. If the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona has an ambition to run provincially and to have a role there, her speech today is not related, by any chance, to the subject of Bill S-4.

I would really appreciate it, Mr. Speaker, if you would point that out to the member.