This bill is from the 44th Parliament, 1st session, which ended in January 2025.
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.
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.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other S-4s:
This is a computer-generated summary of the speeches below. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Bill S-4 aims to modernize the criminal justice system by amending the Criminal Code and related acts. The bill expands the use of technology in court proceedings, including remote appearances, electronic jury selection, and telewarrants, while maintaining judicial discretion and ensuring the protection of accused persons' rights. It seeks to address court backlogs exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and improve efficiency, but concerns have been raised regarding potential impacts on victim's rights, fairness, access to technology, and the overall administration of justice.
Conservative
NDP
Bloc
Liberal
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
I thank the hon. member for that intervention. We do allow a lot of leeway in members' speeches. I know that we are specifically speaking to Bill S-4 and I hope that everybody will keep their comments to that.
The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that in past Parliaments, when, for example, Rachel Notley was the premier of the Province of Alberta, there were an awful lot of attacks on Rachel Notley. I think it is reasonable when we are talking about justice and about Albertans' access to justice, because Bill S-4 is ultimately about Albertans' and Canadians' access to justice, that I am able to talk about the particular circumstances that my constituents are encountering with regard to access to justice.
When several of my colleagues from the Conservative Party have talked about gun laws and a number of different things during their speeches, I did give them the benefit of the doubt so that they will return that favour when I have the opportunity to speak.
I hope that they will recognize that leeway for me as well, because what I want to talk about next is something that is deeply concerning to me in Alberta as well. It is how our current premier has talked about using the Alberta Human Rights Act to include vaccination status.
Again, I have this quote, and it is from a lawyer, so I certainly hope that my Conservative colleagues can see the link. Lorian Hardcastle, who is the associate professor in the faculty of law at the University of Calgary, said, “vaccination choice is not the same as codifying rights around gender, sexual orientation, race or religion.” I also have some very deep concerns that the access to justice for Albertans is being—
Ziad Aboultaif Conservative Edmonton Manning, AB
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am respectfully asking you to really point out to the member that this speech is about Bill S-4, and she must stick to the subject.
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order.
Sometimes I think that my Conservative colleagues live in an alternate reality. We have been sitting in the House and listening to them go on and on about absolutely everything except for this bill. Now we have the hon. member from across the way trying to bring forth a fulsome presentation from the NDP side, and we have these people clutching their pearls.
Could we please allow the hon. member to finish her speech without interruption? That is another thing that they were going on about, and talking about the threats of pulling out and making this thing go all the way to the end.
Let us just try to keep the hypocrisy in the House to a minimum.
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean is rising on a point of order.
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, this is helping us. It demonstrates that we truly have no business being here, in this Parliament, and that Quebec must really become its own country.
I genuinely want to follow up on my honourable colleague's speech and say that I would like it if everyone could stop interrupting, even if it does give us additional ammunition to ensure that we no longer have to sit here and can instead sit in the National Assembly of Quebec, in an independent country.
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
I thought the energy was a little low during the last few interventions.
It is good to get it out of everybody's systems.
The member for South Shore—St. Margarets is rising on the same point of order.
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Mr. Speaker, I would just point out that the hon. member for Hamilton Centre was complaining about interrupting as he interrupted.
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
Do we have it all out of our systems now?
We are speaking to Bill S-4. Let us try to keep to that.
The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, what an entertaining time we are having in the House this afternoon.
My colleague from the Bloc Québécois has given me a great opportunity to speak to another issue. I am very proud to be Albertan, of course, but very proud to be a Canadian as well. One of the concerns I have with judicial access for Albertans is around the current Premier of Alberta, Danielle Smith, and her desire to bring in a sovereignty act. A sovereignty act, she has said, means that she will not follow the laws of the land. Therefore, I do have some concerns with that lack of judicial access for Albertans.
I will conclude by saying I support what is in this bill. This bill is long overdue. It should have been brought forward much sooner. We should have been able to debate this in the House much sooner. I hope the government will move this along very fast. We have the support of all parties in the House. I hope the government will consider all those ways that the federal government must fight for our judicial system to have better access and to be accessible for all Canadians, including all Albertans.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, interestingly enough, many of the changes to the legislation we are talking about today originate in the different provinces. There has been a great deal of consultation with provinces around ensuring that we modernize our system. That is something really important to recognize.
It is about building confidence. It is about ensuring Canadians feel that we are keeping up with the times. With technology advancements come opportunities for us to ensure a better, more solid and confident justice system.
Could my colleague provide her thoughts on why it is so important that we continue to look at advances in society from a technological point of view, and how those advances can be beneficial to our judicial system?
Our system is something that I would suggest is looked at around the world as one of the best systems. Other countries come to take a look at Canada's system because of how good it has been.
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, I do not have a lot of insight into that, to be perfectly honest. When I look at our judicial system and look at those who need to interact with our judicial system and with all of the technologies we can use safely, effectively and appropriately, it makes a lot of sense for us to explore. It does make sense for us to try to find ways to, as members of other parties have said, prevent people from entering the judicial system.
If there are technologies we can use, and if there are modernizations we can make, then we have an obligation to do that. There are always downsides to technologies. There are always things we hear about, such as detriments that happen to society with technologies from time to time, but there are also great benefits. It is incumbent on us to take those and benefit from them.
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Mr. Speaker, I too wish to touch on the technology aspect of Bill S-4. With technology, obviously the Internet is a very important component of that. I know in northern Ontario and across many parts of the country, Internet access is unaffordable, is unattainable and is not reliable for many individuals.
The Liberal government has been in power for seven years, and it has made many bold promises on improving Internet access with very few results in my region and many other rural and remote regions across the country. I wonder if the member opposite has any comments on what the government should be doing to ensure Internet access is stronger across the country.
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, I represent an urban riding, but as only one of two New Democrats who represent the province of Alberta. I also feel that I often need to think about the needs of progressive voters across Alberta, so I look at these things such as access in remote and rural areas.
I agree with him that what the government has done is made us promises to make Internet available, and to make broadband available, and it has not delivered on that. It has not delivered on that across the country.
If Bill S-4 is a tool we are going to use to improve our justice system, but we have not yet put in place the infrastructure to allow that tool to be accessed equally by all Canadians, that is a massive problem. The government must do more to reduce costs and make things more accessible for all Canadians in all areas of our country.
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's speech, particularly when she mentioned the importance of reviewing how judges are appointed and avoiding any partisan lists.
Part of what I understand about this bill is that it is designed to avoid or reduce delays. There have been delays that have resulted in major cases being dismissed because of the Jordan decision. Again, it is nice to harness technology, but if there are not enough judges to hear cases, the issues stemming from the Jordan decision will continue.
I am wondering if my colleague has any suggestions for the government so that we do not see a repeat of issues that have occurred in the past as a result of the lack of judges.