SoVote

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ)

Jun/6/24 7:14:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I did not speak right away because I was waiting for the light to go on. Likewise, it would be nice to see a light to go on in the brains of some members of the House, especially those making comparisons between squirrels and the CBC. Let us get back to the matter at hand. We know that the Canada Border Services Agency, the CBSA, has serious governance problems. The ArriveCAN file exposed that, as did the lack of oversight at the port of Montreal, which has become a nexus for vehicle theft. Many whistle-blowers have identified systemic internal problems. We put forward a proposal. Even though the Bloc Québécois is an opposition party, we are not here to oppose for the sake of opposing. We also want to propose solutions. As we have said before, we believe that the CBSA should be put under third party management until the governance problems are resolved. That is a reasonable proposal. It is a smart proposal. Most of all, it is an actual proposal, something that some other opposition parties very rarely come up with. Does my colleague agree with this proposal?

197 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

Jun/6/24 7:15:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, if that is an interim measure that would definitely help provide clarity, then it is something I think we could support. I was not on the committee when it heard some of the recommendations and amendments put forward by the other parties, so I do not know what the witnesses had to say about it, what some of the context around it would be or what that would look like. However, if it is a measure that is going to help provide more certainty and clarity in the short term and allow the commission to do a better job, then it is something we should consider doing and supporting.

111 words

Mr. Corey Tochor (Saskatoon—University, CPC)

Jun/6/24 7:16:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to ask my hon. colleague a question. I was going through some of the documents on the bill. For the most part, Conservatives know that there is a need to fix our porous border. There are way too many illegal firearms coming in, mostly from Michigan, but there are issues across the country. We support any measures that make our border that much more secure. It is very telling that the Liberals have allotted roughly $20 million a year for this. What is my hon. colleague's view on how small a percentage they have spent on border security versus the billions on going after old Uncle Joe's hunting rifles?

117 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

Jun/6/24 7:17:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the crime rates in the big urban cities in this country and the statistics of where the weapons used in the commission these crimes come from, they are overwhelmingly illegally obtained firearms, most often smuggled up from the United States. If we reallocated the resources and money the government is using to confiscate the legal firearms that were lawfully obtained by the most-vetted citizens in this country, there is so much more that could be done to address the issues and the gaps in the CBSA with respect to border patrol. In addition, we can look at all the other wasteful spending, with the green slush fund and the corruption that has happened with SDTC. These are classic examples of funds that could have been better used for other things, such as tightening up our borders.

143 words

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

Jun/6/24 7:18:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a couple of comments from the unhinged NDP talking about how we brought an amendment to delete the short title. I just read that, on June 16, 2018, the NDP member for Victoria seconded an amendment by the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert to delete the short title of Bill S-18. Does the member think that was back when the New Democrats used to be in opposition? That was in 2018, and now they are propping up the government for no reason.

89 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

Jun/6/24 7:18:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that is classic NDP. The New Democrats are doing absolutely anything and everything they possibly can to try to grasp one little of string of power that the Liberals are dangling for them to come running after. If they want to truly be an opposition party and if they want to have any clarity or certainty going into the next election and not be completely decimated, maybe they should grow some principles.

74 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/6/24 7:19:10 p.m.
Watch

It being 7:19 p.m., pursuant to order made on Tuesday, June 4, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House. The question is on Motion No. 1. If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

94 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Jun/6/24 7:19:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded division, please.

8 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/6/24 7:19:50 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Monday, June 10 at the expiry of the time for oral questions.

22 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/6/24 7:20:25 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-258

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-258, an act to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act regarding reporting on unpaid income tax.

55 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/6/24 7:20:35 p.m.
Watch

There are 20 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-40. Motions Nos. 1 to 20 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table. I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 20 to the House.

54 words

Mr. Tako Van Popta (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC)

Jun/6/24 7:24:32 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-40

moved: Motion No. 1 That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting the short title. Motion No. 2 That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 2. Motion No. 3 That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 3. Motion No. 4 That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 4. Motion No. 5 That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 5. Motion No. 6 That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 6. Motion No. 7 That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 7. Motion No. 8 That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 8. Motion No. 9 That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 9. Motion No. 10 That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 10. Motion No. 11 That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 11. Motion No. 12 That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 12. Motion No. 13 That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 13. Motion No. 14 That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 14. Motion No. 15 That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 15. Motion No. 16 That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 16. Motion No. 17 That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 17. Motion No. 18 That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 18. Motion No. 19 That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 19. Motion No. 20 That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 20. He said: Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to rise to speak about Bill C-40, the miscarriage of justice review commission act, at report stage. Public confidence in our criminal justice system is central to a functioning democracy, to a free and democratic society. We must have confidence that our courts get it right if not all the time then at least most of the time. We do not want innocent people in jail. We do not want guilty people on our streets. However, we do not always get it right, as in the David Milgaard case. Mr. Milgaard was wrongfully convicted of a murder that he did not commit and spent 23 years in jail, consistently maintaining his innocence. His case went through the whole process, from trial to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, and he was guilty at every stage. He stayed in jail for 23 years, but David and his mother Joyce never gave up faith. Finally, after two decades, there was a breakthrough made possible by advances in DNA forensic technology, which pointed to another man who had been known to the police all along. With all the appeals used up, there was still one more course of action, and that was an application to the minister of justice under the criminal conviction review rules. She read the Milgaard file and, with the new evidence available, ordered a new trial. By then, the Saskatchewan prosecution office realized that they had the wrong man and David Milgaard was allowed to go free. It was a serious miscarriage of justice, and it was appropriate that we named the bill after David and Joyce Milgaard. We could have named the bill after any other number of wrongfully convicted men: Donald Marshall Jr., Guy Paul Morin, Steven Truscott or Thomas Sophonow, just to name a few. Our courts do not always get it right and that is why we need a criminal conviction review process. The Milgaard case showed us the flaws in our system. Why should the last appeal be to an elected official? Would Milgaard have seen justice sooner if the process had not been political and if the Criminal Conviction Review Group was better resourced with finances and investigative powers? The answer, I think, is probably. These are the questions that Bill C-40 seeks to answer and the flaws that it seeks to correct. I spoke in favour of the bill at second reading, and the Conservative caucus voted to send it to committee. We saw some of what we thought were drafting errors, but we felt confident that with our reasoned arguments, we would convince the other committee members to make these few changes. We were wrong. We got some changes, all right, but not for the better. Coming out of committee, Bill C-40 is worse than it was when it went in, in my opinion. Let me explain. The main point of disagreement is about the threshold for opening a review. How hard should it be for a convicted person who maintains their innocence to get in front of the miscarriage of justice review commission to convince it to open up a case for a new trial? Currently, with the existing legislation, that person must convince the group working in the AG's office that “there is a reasonable basis to conclude that a miscarriage of justice likely occurred”. I underline “likely occurred”. Milgaard met that threshold easily with new forensic evidence. What was key was the “new matters of significance” language of the Criminal Conviction Review Group. Conservative MPs support maintaining the existing “likely occurred” language. We argued to maintain it, but the other committee members insisted on a lower “may have occurred” language, clearly a much lower hurdle to overcome. We fear that, with a lower threshold, we will have a flood of applications for review. We are supported in that concern. One of the witnesses in the Bill C-40 study at committee was John Curtis from the United Kingdom review commission. This review commission, which has been around for about 20 years, uses the language of “a real possibility” that there has been a miscarriage of justice. Clearly that is a much higher threshold than what is being proposed in the current form of Bill C-40. Mr. Curtis pointed us to a body of jurisprudence in the United Kingdom that has arisen out of its legislation. I have read many of those cases, because I take this very seriously, and I form the opinion that they got it right. The Milgaard case would have met the test, and so would all the other Canadian cases that I had read. Therefore, we propose sticking with the current wording of “likely occurred” or accepting the United Kingdom's wording of “real possibility” and benefiting from its 20 years of jurisprudence. Why would we change the words to a lower standard? I would suggest that Parliament is sending a clear message to criminal defence lawyers and to judges that we intend to make things easier for convicted criminals to get their cases opened again. If I were acting for a person who maintained their innocence and wanted to get a review, I would argue, “Well, clearly, Parliament intended something different”. Why reject the old language and adopt new language? Certainly, something new is intended. Certainly, it was the intent of Parliament to lower the standard of review and not accept the U.K. language either, because that possibility is open. This is typical Liberal overreach. Why not change the things that are actually broken in our system, take the politics out of the equation, fund the commission properly and give the commission broader legislative power? We agree with all those initiatives, just not lowering the threshold. That part is not broken. That has actually been functioning well. To suggest otherwise tells the public that we do not actually have confidence in our courts to get it right most of the time. However, there is another problem with Bill C-40 after committee. If the bill passes in its present form, a person convicted at trial does not even have to exhaust the regular appeal process before applying for a review before the commission. If one does not like the trial court's findings, one need not bother appealing but can go straight to the review commission, with its investigative powers. It is cheaper than getting one's lawyer to take it through the court of appeal. We say to stick with the current requirement that an applicant must first exhaust all the available tools in the regular court system through all the appeals that are available. Yes, we need a review commission, and the Milgaard case showed us that; however, a review after conviction must remain an extraordinary remedy. To say otherwise would further undermine the confidence that the public has in our court system. With these significant flaws, the unnecessary lowering of the review threshold and the ability to sidestep the regular appeal process, we cannot support Bill C-40 in its current form.

1470 words

Mr. James Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

Jun/6/24 7:32:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for his remarks tonight. I serve on the justice committee with him now, as I did at the time we reviewed the bill, and he has a great deal of compassion. He brings a level of fairness to the job that is admirable. However, the member started his speech by saying that Canadians need to have faith in the justice system; they also need to have faith in the parliamentary system. He said that the Conservatives supported the bill at second reading, but they filibustered the committee for days. It was not one day, but several days. Meanwhile, victims, including the lawyers and the families who are being affected by previous miscarriages of justice and who want the bill passed, were sitting, watching and waiting. Now, he did not do that of his own volition, and I know that. He was taking orders from somebody who sits right down there, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt on that. However, how can he stand here now and support amendments that strip the bill entirely of every provision in it and say that he supports the people whose names he used tonight?

203 words

Filibustered

Mr. Tako Van Popta

Jun/6/24 7:34:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague on the justice committee for that question. Indeed, we take this very seriously. David Milgaard was badly served by our criminal justice system, as were many others. However, it is very important that the public maintains confidence in our court system. It actually works very efficiently. Does there have to be a review process in the event that a person feels very strongly that they have been treated badly by the court system? There absolutely does, but it must remain an extraordinary remedy. It cannot just be something in the ordinary course of court business. That, I submit, would undermine the confidence that the public has in our court system.

119 words

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ)

Jun/6/24 7:34:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think we will disagree. Our parties are unlikely to vote the same way. However, I found one thing rather fascinating when the bill was being studied in committee. Do members realize that the commissioners who will sit on the new miscarriage of justice review commission will not be required to be able to speak and understand both French and English? Why is that? It is because, when the Bloc Québécois tabled an amendment calling for commissioners to be bilingual, an NDP-Conservative-Liberal coalition voted against it. This included the Liberal MP for Etobicoke—Lakeshore. When I see the Conservatives whipping themselves into a frenzy to defend French at the Standing Committee on Official Languages, it makes me wonder how the four Conservative MPs on the committee could vote against a perfectly reasonable amendment to uphold the two official languages of this wonderful country called Canada. I want to know why the Conservatives voted against it.

164 words

Mr. Tako Van Popta

Jun/6/24 7:36:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, indeed, that was debated. The Bloc Québécois member on the committee argued passionately in favour of every person on the commission being bilingual. Conservatives argued what is important is that bilingual services are available, that there be at least one person on the commission, or a number of people, who can speak French as effectively as English. We did not think it was absolutely necessary that everybody be bilingual. That would cut out a lot of people. If that were a requirement in Parliament, I would not be a member of Parliament.

98 words

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning, CPC)

Jun/6/24 7:36:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, at committee, Conservatives suggested common-sense amendments to restore crucial checks and balances to the process based on the U.K.'s long-standing Criminal Cases Review Commission, and the government voted against that. Why did the government vote against it and is this not lowering the threshold needed to make sure that the integrity of the process is in place?

63 words

Mr. Tako Van Popta

Jun/6/24 7:37:33 p.m.
Watch

Yes, Madam Speaker, the review threshold was at the centre of our debate. My hon. colleague from Edmonton Manning referenced evidence from the U.K. commission. Indeed, we thought that was very compelling evidence. I took it upon myself to read many of the cases, but not all of them as some were very lengthy. I was convinced that this is exactly what we wanted and I argued that at committee. None of the committee members suggested I was wrong on that, so I do not know why they are not agreeing with our amendment.

95 words

Mr. James Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

Jun/6/24 7:38:18 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-40

Madam Speaker. I am very pleased to speak tonight to Bill C-40 , the miscarriage of justice review commission act, David and Joyce Milgaard's law. This legislation would transform the process for identifying and remedying wrongful convictions in Canada. This change is overdue and would be a monumental improvement to justice in our country. As a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I participated in a study of Bill C-40. We heard from numerous witnesses, including the minister and his officials. We also heard from retired justice Harry LaForme and Professor Kent Roach, who were instrumental in the public consultation process that preceded the development of this legislation. We heard from James Lockyer, a founding member of Innocence Canada, which has been at the forefront of the issue of wrongful convictions for over 30 years. Mr. Lockyer was also involved in David Milgaard's infamous case, and he is the namesake of this legislation. After being released from prison, where he served 23 years for a murder he did not commit, David Milgaard dedicated his life to advocating for legal reforms to make the miscarriage of justice review process more fair, open and efficient. I hope to do right by David Milgaard, as well as his mother and fierce advocate, Joyce Milgaard, and their family and get this legislation passed promptly. I also want to take a moment to express my sincere thanks to the former minister of justice, the Hon. David Lametti. He demonstrated extraordinary dedication to the issue of wrongful convictions and was a fierce advocate for the creation of an independent commission in Canada. This bill is a testament to his hard work and careful consideration. Our justice system will be better for David's commitment to this cause, and I thank him. Unfortunately, this critical legislation has faced opposition at every turn from the Conservative members. At the committee, the Conservative members filibustered for over 30 hours. This delay meant that the valuable work of our committee ground to a halt. It was also a slap in the face to everyone in Canada who is suffering because of a potential miscarriage of justice. Rather than do good work and change our justice system for the better, Conservatives decided to stall and play games. At the start of this current parliamentary stage, Conservatives put on notice amendments to delete every single clause in the bill. This was a ridiculous attempt to slow down the work we do as parliamentarians, to the detriment of all of our constituents. It is also, once again, offensive to the people who are waiting desperately for access to justice. Playing games with people's freedom and their lives is beneath all of us. I am very disappointed to have seen the Conservatives' total disregard for this important work. I would now like to speak to the importance of this legislation and the amendments made at committee. The idea of establishing an independent miscarriage of justice review commission has been recommended in several commissions of inquiry reports in Canada, including in the case of Donald Marshall, Jr. in 1989; Guy Paul Morin in 1998; Thomas Sophonow in 2001; James Driskell in 2008; and David Milgaard in 2008. Similar independent commissions have been established elsewhere in the world. We are not the first to reach this important step. In 1997, a commission was created for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Scotland created its commission in 1997. The State of North Carolina established a commission in 2006, and New Zealand created theirs in 2020. At the justice and human rights committee, we had the benefit of hearing from lawyers who worked in the commissions in North Carolina, and in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It was very helpful to hear from them, given the years of experience their commissions have had in this area. It was particularly helpful to hear that the commission in England, Wales and Northern Ireland allows, in exceptional cases, applications from people who did not seek appeal. The witnesses mentioned at committee that the mental health and marginalization of an applicant are issues they consider in admitting applications in such cases. They also consider whether the nature of the miscarriage of justice is something that requires an investigation using the commission's special powers to access evidence. A witness also highlighted that one in three of the referrals for new appeals made by the commission in the U.K. is a case that was not appealed. Therefore, a significant proportion of the claims the commissions consider to be worth pursuing are of convictions that were never appealed. This information motivated the committee to amend the bill to provide greater flexibility for our commission. As amended, the commission would allow applications in respect of cases that were not appealed, but only in exceptional cases. I am pleased that the committee made this important improvement to the legislation. The vast majority, if not all, of the witnesses who appeared in the committee agreed with this important discretionary element, including The Canadian Bar Association, the Criminal Lawyers Association, the dean of law at the University of Sherbrooke, and the Innocence projects in Quebec, at the University of British Columbia and at the University of Ottawa. Several witnesses also raised the importance of preventing miscarriages of justice and the commission's role in addressing systemic issues. When he appeared before the committee, the minister explained that there were many proactive elements included elsewhere in the bill. Nonetheless, there was interest among committee members to include a specific power in the commission's mandate provision to address systemic causes of wrongful convictions. Bill C-40 has, therefore, been amended to allow the commission to make recommendations to address systemic issues that may lead to miscarriages of justice. These recommendations will be directed toward relevant public bodies, including the Law Commission of Canada; federal departments and agencies; federal, provincial and territorial working groups; and parliamentary committees. The member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke proposed that amendment, and I would like to thank him for that. He has supported this bill, as always, and has been a strong advocate for improving our justice system. This member also proposed the bill's final amendment. We heard at committee that people who profess their innocence may face challenges before, during and after they seek a review of their case as a potential miscarriage of justice. To reduce stigma and exclusion to programs, while they continue to serve their sentences, the bill now provides that the commission will be able to raise with Correctional Service Canada and the Parole Board of Canada the importance of not excluding applicants to their programs as a result of them having made an application for review on the grounds of miscarriage of justice. Bill C-40 is very important legislation that is widely supported by external stakeholders and by many members of the House. Many people have been waiting for decades to have an independent miscarriage of justice review commission and for the review process to be more transparent and efficient. I hope that we can pass this legislation at third reading as quickly as possible so that it can be referred to the other place and can continue to make progress through both Houses toward royal assent.

1220 words

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning, CPC)

Jun/6/24 7:45:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I know that my friend on the other side is an expert in the legal system. The government amended the bill to allow convicts to apply for conviction review, without having first exhausted all appeals. This will undoubtedly lead to individuals applying for a conviction review shortly after being sentenced. Does the hon. member not believe that this will not strengthen the justice system but, instead, will weaken it?

71 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 326