44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 6, 2024 10:00AM
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 7:46:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, flattery will get my colleague everywhere, but I do not profess to be an expert on anything, frankly. On this issue, he raised a very important point. There are many cases where people do not have the ability or the means to exercise their right of appeal, or there are many more cases where facts come up later, long after their ability to appeal has expired. It is only in exceptional cases where the commission will review those cases where they have not exhausted their appeal.
This is never going to serve as an alternative route to people who are appearing before the criminal courts.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 7:47:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the nine commissioners who will be appointed to this commission will not be required to understand French. The member who gave the speech cast the deciding vote. How does he feel about the fact that he is the person responsible for the violation of the rights of Franco-Canadians and Quebeckers?
53 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 7:47:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the premise of the member's question is that it is unfair, and it is wrong. This is not about trampling over rights. In fact, it is about expanding rights. The whole purpose of this commission is to make access to justice easier for the wrongfully convicted.
The member wants people to have access to this body in both official languages, full stop. She also wants the best people serving as commissioners on this body who can make sure that it happens. There are occasions where people from certain aspects of society do not speak both official languages but are very competent and very capable. We do not want to exclude those members because that would actually be detrimental to the people who appear before the commission.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 7:48:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am really confused. What happened in committee with this bill was the Conservatives filibustering and delaying, and then the bill finally gets over to the House here. The previous Conservative speaker, who spoke to this bill, spoke so glowingly of it, but that was just moments after he introduced 20 amendments to effectively, one by one, kill the bill clause by clause. I am just in awe as to what the Conservative strategy happens to be here. The member spoke a bit in his speech about what happened in committee.
Can the member try to make rhyme or reason of what is going on with the Conservative Party when it comes to this bill?
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 7:49:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the answer to the last part of the question is that I do not think anybody can. The Conservatives are playing politics with the bill, pure and simple. They supported it at second reading. They filibustered the bill for 40 hours at committee. They hauled out the name of David and Joyce Milgaard here tonight; it is shameful.
This commission would be set up to be independent and efficient, and take it out of the hands of politicians. If the Conservatives are opposing this bill, I suppose that is an endorsement of the Minister of Justice or the previous minister of justice. Something tells me that is not what the purpose is behind this.
The Conservatives stand in this House, time after time, talking about law and order, and keeping our streets safe, but we also have to stand up for people who have suffered and have been wrongfully convicted. The purpose of this bill is to make that system much better.
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 7:50:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, does my colleague agree that we could create an independent review commission that would not necessarily lower the threshold for review?
David Milgaard's problem was never that the threshold was too high, but that the system was too cumbersome.
42 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 7:50:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member is very thoughtful and I enjoy working with him, as I said earlier.
I do not believe this would lower the threshold. It would change the nature of the equation that the commission has to calculate when reviewing the circumstances in each case. It is up to the courts to determine innocence or guilt. It would be up to the commission to determine whether maybe there has been a miscarriage of justice. That is not lowering the threshold, with all due respect. In fact, it is making the system more open and fair, and more accessible.
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to a very important topic. I am referring to the creation of an independent commission to review miscarriages of justice under Bill C‑40. The bill is concrete and positive, a fact that deserves mention, considering it is not always a Liberal Party specialty. That is a rare occurrence indeed, as we know.
In 2021, the Minister of Justice commissioned a report on the current criminal conviction system. The findings of this report showed that awareness about the danger of wrongful convictions has increased in Canada and the world. None of the many people consulted for this report opposed the creation of a new independent body at arm's length from the government to replace the federal Minister of Justice in hearing applications for remedies for wrongful convictions.
This bill demonstrates a willingness to ensure that decisions about people who have been convicted are more independent and to strengthen public confidence in institutions. The reform proposed by Bill C‑40 is a very good initiative, and the Bloc Québécois believes that creating this commission will have several positive effects.
First of all, it will allow for greater independence between the legal and political branches. The bill takes the discretion away from the justice minister and gives it to the commission. This is a step in the right direction, although it comes a little late, given that the Liberal government waited until after the media had reported on shocking cases of prisoners waiting months, even years, to have a miscarriage of justice reviewed. In the United Kingdom, for example, this system of having an independent commission review miscarriages of justice was set up 25 years ago. We are 25 years behind. This is not exactly a reason to pat ourselves on the back and break out the champagne.
This independence was called into question by the recent revelations about former justice minister David Lametti, reinforcing the need for the power to order a new trial to be taken out of the hands of ministers and given to an independent body, specifically the new miscarriage of justice review commission.
Let me refresh my colleagues' memories. The former justice minister ordered a new trial in the case of Justice Delisle, contrary to the recommendations of the Criminal Conviction Review Group, which said that no miscarriage of justice had occurred. This finding was also corroborated by Quebec's director of criminal and penal prosecutions.
This decision also came as a surprise to Quebec's director of criminal and penal prosecutions, Patrick Michel, who suspects that the minister's use of power was arbitrary rather than discretionary. To add insult to injury, the sponsor of this bill is none other than the former minister of justice and former member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, which proves the importance of the bill's existence because of his actions.
The Bloc Québécois would like to mention that the passage of Bill C-40 will not do anything to change its desire to investigate this matter at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. This is about maintaining the public's confidence in our justice system. Favouritism has no place in our courts.
Since Bill C‑40 seeks to take away the minister's power to order a new trial and instead give that power to commissioners, we think that decisions like the one made by former minister Lametti will not happen again and that this will help increase the public's confidence in the justice system.
The bill will also guarantee everyone access to the commission and a referral to legal services so that everyone, particularly the most vulnerable, will have true access to justice. The history of our courts and the recent revelations regarding the former justice minister remind us that we need to improve the judicial review process. Once again, this is about the public's confidence in our courts and our justice system.
Let us remember that this bill is named after the late David Milgaard. The Milgaard case is important because it reminds us that our courts, like any institution, are sometimes fallible. We need mechanisms to ensure that, when mistakes are made, they can be corrected. Just as a reminder, Milgaard was a young man who was convicted and sentenced to 23 years in prison for the murder of Gail Miller, a crime he never committed.
Because Milgaard and his mother, Joyce, defended David's innocence so tirelessly, we now understand the need for a judicial review mechanism. It is thanks to their campaign and the efforts of people like Donald Marshall, Guy Paul Morin, Thomas Sophonow and James Driskell that we are now working to improve our justice system. Every one of their stories is one more reason motivating us to create this commission. We thank them for fighting for a better justice system.
Finally, even though the Bloc Québécois is voting in favour of the bill, we must point out the hypocrisy of the Liberals and the NDP when it comes to the French language. My colleague, the member for Rivière-du-Nord, moved an amendment during clause-by-clause review of the bill to require the commissioners who are appointed to be fluent in both official languages. That was too much to ask. For the Liberals, the Conservatives and the NDP, the official languages are good for speeches and campaign days, but within the Canadian government, the Canadian public service or our courts, they are optional.
The NDP boast about defending the idea of bilingual judges since 2008, but they rejected the idea of requiring the commissioners heading this independent commission to be bilingual, and they voted against their convictions. The Liberals boast about being the first government to recognize the decline in French, but they voted against the idea of bilingual judges. We saw the same thing happen with the appointment of the unilingual anglophone Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick, which is the only bilingual province in Canada. That is not to mention the appointment of the Governor General, who does not speak a word of French. To be fair, she knows how to say “bonjour”, and I think her French has improved. Now she knows how to say, “Comment ça va?”
Anyone who believes that the Liberals are making French a priority must be dreaming. Quebec's motto, however, is Je me souviens, which means “I remember”. On some level, it came as no surprise to see the Conservatives' contempt for French. After all, this was the party that once appointed a unilingual anglophone auditor general and unilingual anglophone Supreme Court judges. What comes next remains to be seen.
Although this great party claims to be a champion of French, once again, it does not walk the talk. That is what we call geography-dependent bilingualism. It adjusts to voter opinion like a weather vane adjusts to the wind. Moments like this reveal, or perhaps remind us, how incidental the French language is in Canada and how utopian it is to believe that the two official languages could ever truly be equal. If anyone is unfamiliar with the word “utopian”, I encourage them to look up the definition in the dictionary.
Although we are choosing to support this bill, I feel compelled to point out once again the hypocrisy of certain parties and members when it comes to defending and supporting the French language. It is interesting when the government repeats over and over, on the campaign trail, in the Speech from the Throne and in the House of Commons, that it is the first party to recognize the decline of French, but—surprise, surprise—it will not be the last to worsen that decline.
In closing, I hope this bill will be passed for all the reasons I outlined throughout my speech. It will foster greater public confidence in our justice system, greater independence in our justice system and, above all, greater access to justice. I also hope that, once the bill is passed, the government will make an effort to appoint commissioners who are proficient in both official languages. Why not do more to ensure that francophones have the same access to justice as anglophones? That is what substantive equality should be all about. It is not just a matter of obtaining services in French on a part-time basis. It is also about access to services in both official languages in Canada's justice system.
I can assure the House that we will take a closer look at this and make sure that this genuine concern is heard.
1468 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 8:00:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have one question for the member and I really hope he can give me a yes or no on this.
What happens if a commissioner comes forward who is overly qualified, has everything the commission wants, but only speaks French? Would the member then suggest that individual should be disqualified?
53 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
