44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 6, 2024 10:00AM
- Jun/6/24 2:23:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will give full points to my friend from Regina—Qu'Appelle for trying to get me to do indirectly what he knows very well I cannot do directly.
I will remind my friend that our government is the first government to take this issue seriously. The previous Conservative government did absolutely nothing to secure our democratic institutions in spite of public warnings from CSIS for the last two years it was in government.
I worked last summer with my friend from Regina—Qu'Appelle to set up the Hogue commission. We look forward to Justice Hogue's recommendations and we would be happy to work with the member in terms of implementing them.
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to think that all parliamentarians take democracy seriously, that everyone who is fortunate enough to be elected to the House to serve their constituents and Canada takes democracy seriously.
That is why I am very pleased to have worked with my colleague from La Prairie on establishing the Hogue commission, for example. I really enjoyed working together last summer. I look forward to seeing the Hogue commission's report. I look forward to working with members to pass bills like Bill C-70, which will strengthen our ability to resist foreign interference.
We will continue to pursue this approach.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- 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 7:46:32 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 7:50:05 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
- 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 8:13:49 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
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
