SoVote

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

Mr. James Maloney

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

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ)

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

Mr. James Maloney

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

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

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

Filibustering

Mr. James Maloney

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

Filibustered

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

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

Mr. James Maloney

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

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ)

Jun/6/24 7:51:21 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-40

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

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

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

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas

Jun/6/24 8:01:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, once again, we see the profound hypocrisy at play here. Nothing goes deeper than Anglo-Saxon hypocrisy, and this MP just proved that to be true. For him, someone who is capable, competent and qualified must be someone who speaks one of the two official languages. It makes no sense for a government to appoint a Governor General who does not speak a word of French when that is one of the official languages. It is ridiculous for a government to appoint a unilingual anglophone Lieutenant Governor in the only bilingual province in Canada. It is ridiculous for a government to appoint judges who do not speak a word of French to the Supreme Court of Canada. A person would have to be high on something to believe that defending and promoting French is a priority for the Liberals. I understand that they are the ones who legalized marijuana, but they should not—

156 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/6/24 8:01:06 p.m.
Watch

We have to go to other questions. The hon. member for Edmonton Manning.

13 words

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning, CPC)

Jun/6/24 8:02:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, with the bill before us, the Liberals would lower the threshold for a review. Does the member agree that this would increase the risk to an overburdened and understaffed justice system that is under extreme strain right now and facing unacceptable delays, yes or no?

47 words

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas

Jun/6/24 8:02:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, when a member of the Conservative Party, the party that brags about standing up for francophones, asks me to respond with a yes or no, it is hard to take that seriously. I wish I could ask my colleague whether he is comfortable with the fact that his party, which claims to recognize both official languages, is not in favour of having bilingual judges on this commission. Again, I cannot take this seriously. As I said earlier, the Conservative Party appointed a unilingual anglophone auditor general. I have to say that he did learn French afterward. Who appointed unilingual anglophone justices to the Supreme Court? It was the Conservative Party. Who appointed a unilingual anglophone minister of foreign affairs who did not speak a word of French? A francophone who does not speak English would never be appointed minister of foreign affairs. That would just be too bad for the anglophones. In terms of credibility, we cannot trust the federal parties to promote and defend French.

168 words

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

Jun/6/24 8:03:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as usual, I was impressed by my colleague's speech. That is to be expected, since he is a Bloc Québécois MP, after all. I want to make one thing clear. We hear the same argument every time: If a unilingual francophone were to apply for the job, would we not want them to have the job because the incumbent should be proficient in both official languages? They make the same argument every time. However, what is the reality? Has there ever been a unilingual francophone Supreme Court judge? Has there ever been a unilingual francophone governor general? The answer is always no. It is not surprising. French is in the minority here, in this great land my friends call Canada. I would like to ask my colleague if he thinks they are serious when the only argument they raise against the idea of requiring someone in an important position to be proficient in both official languages is to say that it would prevent a unilingual francophone from getting that position.

177 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/6/24 8:04:46 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques has 40 seconds to respond.

18 words

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas

Jun/6/24 8:04:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it will take me more than 40 seconds to explain how discrimination against francophones has been going on for as long as Canada has existed. We were promised reconciliation and substantive equality. We were promised that institutional bilingualism would be the salvation of francophones. The Liberal Party, the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party are federalist parties that are stacked with and controlled by the anglophone majority. Sometimes they feel generous and toss Quebeckers and francophones a bone now and then. However, when the time comes for concrete action to establish substantive equality between the two official languages, then the bones stop coming and all attempts at appeasement end.

112 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 326