44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 6, 2024 10:00AM
- 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
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 8:01:06 p.m.
- Watch
We have to go to other questions.
The hon. member for Edmonton Manning.
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to speak in support of Bill C-40, an act to amend the Criminal Code. This miscarriage of justice bill represents a critical step in our ongoing efforts to reform the criminal justice system and to address the systemic inequities that have long plagued it, particularly for indigenous people, racialized communities and marginalized Canadians.
For the better part of a decade, the New Democrats have called for the establishment of an independent commission to investigate wrongful convictions. In late 2021, we supported expediting Bill C-5 in return for the Liberals' promise to create this commission, which Bill C-40 finally delivers on. Justice delayed is justice denied, so we must act swiftly to ensure that those who are wrongfully convicted have a pathway to justice free from the delays and limitations of the current system.
The current process, where the Minister of Justice reviews applications for miscarriages of justice, has proven inadequate. Each year, dozens of applications are filed, yet only a handful proceed to investigation. Bill C-40 would address this by shifting the review power to an independent miscarriage of justice review commission, which would have the authority to direct new trials or hearings, or refer matters to a court of appeal. This independent body would not be an alternative to the criminal justice system, but an essential adjunct that would create a fair and impartial review process.
The commission would consist of a chief commissioner and four to eight other commissioners appointed to reflect the diversity of Canadian society, considering gender equality and the overrepresentation of indigenous and Black persons in the criminal justice system. This diverse composition is crucial for building a commission that understands the unique challenges faced by marginalized communities.
Indigenous women in particular have disproportionately suffered miscarriages of justice. They are often charged, prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned due to systemic failures within the criminal justice system and the broader societal failure to protect them from racism, sexism and violence. According to the Senate report on the injustices experienced by indigenous women, expert witnesses have repeatedly highlighted these systemic issues. Bill C-40 is a necessary step toward addressing these deeply rooted injustices.
New Democrats worked tirelessly to improve Bill C-40 at the committee stage. We supported amendments that would ensure applicants can apply to the commission without having to receive a verdict from a court of appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada. This would remove a significant barrier for those who are wrongfully convicted but lacking the resources to continue lengthy legal battles. We also proposed amendments to empower the commission to make recommendations addressing systemic issues that lead to miscarriages of justice. This proactive approach can help prevent future injustices. Additionally, we ensured that Correctional Service Canada and the Parole Board of Canada would be informed of the importance of not obstructing applicants from accessing programs and services due to their review applications.
It is important to note that the last significant reform to Canada's conviction review process was in 2002. Since then, we have seen the establishment of similar independent commissions in the U.K. and New Zealand, demonstrating the efficacy of such bodies in addressing wrongful convictions. Canada must follow suit and ensure timely justice for those who are wrongly convicted.
Bill C-40 has received support from various stakeholders, including the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, the University of British Columbia's innocence project, and Innocence Canada. These organizations, along with experts like Dr. Kathryn Campbell from the University of Ottawa, have been instrumental in advocating for this crucial reform.
While we commend the Liberals for bringing this bill forward, it is long overdue. The delays in tabling and debating this bill are unjustifiable, particularly given the urgency of addressing wrongful convictions. Many individuals continue to serve lengthy sentences due to miscarriages of justice, and every day of delay is a day too long for them.
The Conservatives have obstructed this process at every turn with filibusters and threats of further delays. We urge all parties to put aside partisan differences and work together to ensure the swift passage of Bill C-40. Time is of the essence, and we must ensure that this bill receives royal assent before the summer parliamentary recess.
Bill C-40 offers a long overdue pathway for those wrongfully convicted to seek justice. It represents a significant step in addressing the historic and systematic injustices within our criminal justice system. New Democrats are in support of this bill and call on all members of the House to do the same. Let us move forward with a shared commitment to justice, equity and the rule of law.
783 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona so much. We work together on several files involving international injustices and human rights. We work together amazingly well.
Now, however, we may have a disagreement over Bill C‑40. As we have mentioned throughout this debate this evening, we were very disappointed with the way the NDP members voted on a Bloc Québécois amendment that simply called for the commissioners of this future commission to be proficient in English and French, the two official languages.
Since we have spent all evening talking about justice, equity and equality, does my colleague not believe that, unfortunately, there may be an injustice when some francophones apply to this commission to defend their rights and are faced with commissioners who do not speak their language?
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I apologize to my friend. I do not speak French very well, so it is hard for me to express myself on this issue. I will therefore speak in English. I am sorry.
The importance of the French language is vital. The riding of Edmonton Strathcona, which I am so happy to represent, has the French Quarter in it. In fact, 20% of our population identify as francophone in our communities.
When I spoke today of Bill C-40, one of the things I addressed is that there is a disproportionate impact on indigenous women. For me, it is important that every Canadian, whether they are francophone, indigenous or whatever region of the country they are from, is able to be represented adequately. I would need to ensure that there were services available in both official languages.
I would also want to make sure that all of those people who are on the commission adequately represent the population of Canada, particularly those who are marginalized and who are deeply impacted by our criminal justice system.
177 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 8:13:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, would the member for Edmonton Strathcona agree that we could pass legislation that would create an independent commission that is fair, open and efficient, but does not necessarily lower the threshold for review? The member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore said it does not lower the threshold at all. That then leaves me asking why we would change the wording.
How is the bill better with the language that we say lowers the threshold unnecessarily?
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 8:14:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think the member was not listening when I said what we have in Canada has not been updated since 2002. That means that, for 22 years, we have not looked at this judicial process.
It is not working. It is not working for marginalized people, particularly indigenous women in this country. It needs to be updated. It needs to be made more relevant so that justice is not denied to those people who are particularly marginalized.
The work that the committee has done makes this a better piece of legislation. It makes it stronger. I am upset that it has taken us so long to get to the point where we can pass this bill. I hope that we can get it through the House before the parliamentary break.
By all means, we do not need to put more barriers around justice for indigenous women in this country. We need to work to remove those barriers so there is justice for every Canadian equally.
167 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 8:15:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
10 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 8:16:00 p.m.
- Watch
Pursuant to order made on Wednesday, February 28, the motion is deemed adopted.
Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 8:18 p.m.)
39 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
