SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 329

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 11, 2024 10:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 329 - Jun/11/24
Mr. Tako Van Popta (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC)
  • Jun/11/24 5:02:30 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, we agree that the criminal justice review rules need to be revised. We just disagree that an alternative justice system should be created, as did the former minister of justice. A press release introducing the bill stated, “The proposed new commission would not be an alternative to the justice system. Applicants would first need to exhaust their rights of appeal before requesting a miscarriage of justice review by the commission.” The current Minister of Justice apparently also believed that until a short while ago. He said this at committee: “You need to have exhausted your appeals, at least to a court of appeal or, in some instances, all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.” We actually agree with that. Why did the minister change his mind? Why create an alternative justice system?
140 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 329 - Jun/11/24
Mr. Tako Van Popta
  • Jun/11/24 5:16:51 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-40 
Mr. Speaker, I was happy to hear the Minister of Justice speak highly of the U.K. experience. A representative from the United Kingdom commission told us about the threshold language that it uses, that there is a real possibility a miscarriage of justice occurred, which is much higher than the wording that is being proposed in Bill C-40. The witness also told us about a large body of jurisprudence that supported that language. I read a lot of those cases and I agree that the United Kingdom got it right. Why does the Minister of Justice not agree with that and adopt the United Kingdom's language, something that Conservatives could support?
114 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border