44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 11, 2024 10:00AM
- Jun/11/24 4:47:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the bill, as amended from committee, is now a significant departure from what was presented by the minister's predecessor, former minister Lametti, on the miscarriage of justice bill. Originally, when the bill was presented by former minister Lametti, he noted:
It is important to note that the miscarriage of justice review process is not an alternative to the justice system, nor is it another level of appeal. Rather, it provides a post-appeal mechanism to review and investigate new information or evidence that was not previously considered by the courts.
In a radical departure from what was originally proposed, at committee, the minister has had Liberal members appeal the bill so that there would no longer be a requirement to appeal a court decision before someone could avail themselves of the wrongful conviction path. The standard by which the new Liberal-appointed commission would look at a wrongful conviction is whether one may have occurred. That is the lowest threshold of all international comparisons, and it is a much lower threshold than Canada's current threshold, which is that a miscarriage of justice likely occurred.
Did the minister consult with his predecessor about the radical departure, which would create a two-tiered justice system and result in a revictimization of victims' families when they have to go back before the courts?
224 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the reality is that, in the House, we have seen Conservatives blocking every good piece of legislation and refusing to let things go through, such as dental care, pharmacare and affordable housing. Conservatives opposed all those pieces of legislation.
With respect to Bill C-40, miscarriage of justice, it would seem to me that it is incumbent on all of us to have a justice system that functions well and does not put innocent people behind bars. That does not seem to be the perspective of the Conservative Party. The Conservatives want to block this legislation. The Conservatives want innocent people to remain behind bars. It is a profound disservice to Parliament that the Conservatives have been blocking this legislation, and they have not really offered any explanation except for the fact that they oppose everything that would benefit people, all measures of justice.
I want to ask my colleague why Conservatives have opposed the bill, tried to block it at every step and filibustered it at committee when it would provide justice in this country and a mechanism to ensure that innocent people are not kept behind bars.
191 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/11/24 4:51:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I wish I had an answer. The only thing I can do is speculate that somehow, for some reason, there is a partisan interest in ensuring that wrongfully convicted men and women continue to remain in prison in this country. That, to me, is a shocking proposition, and I desperately hope that I am incorrect in that regard.
I would also point out to the member for New Westminster—Burnaby that the member for Fundy Royal prides himself on championing victims' rights. He has raised this repeatedly at the justice committee. For his own edification, I would reiterate that a dedicated victim services coordinator to support victims, explain the review process and assist with the development of procedural policies is entrenched in the bill.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, if someone is a victim of a crime, then they are supported by the Conservative Party of Canada, but if one is a victim of a wrongful conviction, they are simply left to fester in prison. That kind of intellectual inconsistency is unbefitting of this chamber and should be a subject of reproach for His Majesty's official opposition.
194 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/11/24 4:52:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am keen to ask the minister a question.
When it comes to miscarriages of justice, there is the issue of the time allotted for these cases to be dealt with, and, obviously, the issue of the number of judges available. The minister has a responsibility to appoint these judges. Will he respond to the demands of the Bloc Québécois to proceed more quickly and ensure that fewer people are left behind in our justice system?
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/11/24 4:53:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's question, even though it is not related to the bill we are discussing at this time.
For the record, the previous government appointed 65 judges a year. I, on the other hand, appointed 113 judges in 10 months. That means I am doing my job twice as quickly as the previous government. I am going to keep doing it, because it helps our justice system and victims, especially victims of miscarriage of justice.
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/11/24 4:55:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we are using time allocation because the members of the official opposition have openly indicated that they have zero interest in proceeding with the bill. The Conservatives' most recent effort has been to propose report stage amendments that would completely gut the legislation. The Conservatives have no interest in supporting the bill because, I guess, wrongfully convicted men and women deserve to fester in Canadian prisons.
What I would underscore, in terms of the access to justice points that were made by the member for Waterloo, is that access to justice is replete throughout this document. This new commission would ensure that there is information provided to the public and potential applicants about miscarriages of justice. The commission would provide translation interpretation services. It would provide assistance to those who cannot afford a lawyer. The commission would even provide assistance in obtaining the necessities of life, such as food and housing.
Through those types of measures, we would reach out to people who might not have the resources to ensure that they can vindicate their own rights and remove themselves from the situation of being wrongfully convicted. The fact that this has become partisan is really unbecoming of this chamber.
202 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/11/24 4:56:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. I am quite dismayed at the minister's response because he keeps on saying it is disappointing that this matter has become partisan. If there is one person who is making this issue partisan, he should look in the mirror and have a conversation with him in the morning when he is brushing his teeth.
As a prosecutor and as a defence lawyer, I came up against issues of wrongful conviction. In fact, there was a time, even as prosecutor after a guilty plea, that I dealt with this issue. To say that Conservatives do not care about justice and that this is a partisan issue could not be further from the truth.
Justice is increasingly important. Nobody wants a wrongful conviction. That does not mean that we rush out generational legislation that would fundamentally change everything we have come to know about our justice system and create a parallel system in which the rule of law as we know it, with three hundred to four hundred years of tradition, is thrown out, and here we are with time allocation on this very issue.
Nobody wants to see a wrongful conviction. If we do not want to see a wrongful conviction and we want to get this right, why are we moving time allocation on a bill that is so important?
241 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/11/24 4:59:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I can talk about one improvement that I already mentioned when another member asked me a question.
In some exceptional circumstances, it is necessary to provide a victim of a miscarriage of justice with an opportunity to apply for a review of their file even if the decision was not appealed. It is an exceptional measure. This was suggested by several stakeholders who appeared before the committee. After listening to their testimony, the committee presented the same type of amendments. This is a change that was made to this bill. I believe it will improve access to justice for victims of miscarriages of justice. That is the basic theme of this bill, and it is what we must promote in our justice system.
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/11/24 5:00:13 p.m.
- Watch
How odd, Mr. Speaker. The Conservatives always block all the good bills. They did it to dental care, pharmacare and housing. Bill after bill, the Conservatives block everything.
This bill is about miscarriages of justice, about innocent people who end up behind bars. They are denied their freedom for years and years. The Conservatives say that they do not care, that this does not matter to them. I think it is appalling that they blocked this bill in committee and are now blocking it in the House. I think it is appalling that the Conservatives exhibit no conscience in how they approach their work in the House.
I have a question for my colleague, the minister. Why are these Conservatives refusing to give people who are not guilty their freedom when those people are spending years and years behind bars even though they are innocent?
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/11/24 5:03:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I respect the member and his work on the justice committee. I do not respect the interpretation he has just put on the floor of the House. What the bill talks about is that rights of appeal must be exhausted. Appealing to a court of appeal per existing case law or appealing all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada would not be necessary.
What I explained in French, and I will explain again in English, is that we heard repeatedly at committee from interveners who talked about the fact that even pursuing an appeal can be an impediment to accessing justice for people who are impecunious, racialized, disadvantaged or vulnerable. In certain exceptional circumstances, the law should safeguard the possibility for even a person who has not exhausted an appeal to raise their hand to say that they believe they have been treated unfairly by the system and have been wrongfully convicted. In exceptional circumstances, those types of cases should be permitted to be heard by a review commission. Does it guarantee that a review commission would decide that it should go back to a trial court or to an appeal court on a question of law? It does not. The key point is that it would allow them an entry point. It would not determine the final outcome.
The notion the member is positing, which is that we are somehow subverting the entire justice system, is simply false on its face. We are replicating a system that has been well-used in the United Kingdom, where they are finding these cases. We are not. We are not serving Canadian victims. That party tends to prize itself as always being on the side of Canadian victims, except when someone is a victim of a wrongful conviction, it would appear.
303 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/11/24 5:04:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for this debate that we are having. This debate is important and essential. It is on a bill that essentially seeks to restore trust in the system and restore independence as well.
Through several studies conducted at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, we saw that this issue of rebuilding trust and loss of trust in the system, especially among indigenous women, is critical. We are seeing this, especially now, with the red dress alert. It strikes at the heart of this issue.
What will the minister's bill do to restore women's trust in the justice system?
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/11/24 5:07:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, David Milgaard's case is taught in every law school in this country. It was certainly taught to me in 1995 when I was at U of T's law school. It is taught because the injustice that befell that individual was such a tragedy, that he was wrongfully convicted and served for over 20 years in prison for a crime that he never committed. He carried that as an albatross but also as a force for change going forward after his removal from prison, as did his mother. This bill is actually named David and Joyce Milgaard's Law because the then-minister of justice, David Lametti, made a direct commitment to that family that he would get the bill done. What I am trying to do right now is to see that commitment through. It is important to David Milgaard. It is important to every law student and every lawyer out there. It is important to everyone who cares about the justice system.
Most importantly, it is important to the people, hopefully, who are listening right now from prisons around this country and understanding that if one is wrongfully convicted, there is a means for restoring justice for one in one's particular case, and this commission will help do that.
That is vindicating David Milgaard and what his life stood for, and that is vindicating the rights of Canadians everywhere in this country.
238 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/11/24 5:08:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is hard to know where to begin. He compares the new system to the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom requires, with regard to applicants for a wrongful conviction, for the commission to consider that there is a real possibility that a wrongful conviction occurred.
In the case that he has put forward now for Canada, the new rule will be that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. Minister Lametti urged the committee to consider the importance that this is not simply another avenue or another appeal.
What the minister has done is remove the requirement to appeal. What we will be doing is opening the floodgates for everyone who is convicted, at first instance, who feels they did not get a fair shake, to now go back into the system. This revictimizes victims.
We know that the government is failing when it comes to justice. The stats bear that out. I will not list them all, but virtually in every way that one measures, crime in this country has gotten worse. Flooding our justice system for re-hearing cases of those that have been convicted of serious crimes only serves to revictimize true victims.
If the minister knows of individuals who he feels have been wrongfully convicted, he is in a position to do that. As justice minister, there is currently a process for those who have been wrongfully convicted. This process, as put forward, is deeply flawed. I would ask him to reconcile the U.K. standard, that there is a real possibility of a miscarriage of justice or wrongful conviction, versus his new made-up standard, of which there is no international parallel, that a miscarriage may have occurred.
285 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/11/24 5:10:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, let me start with the fact that it is puzzling that the words “systemic racism” never come out of that member's mouth or come out of any of his other colleagues' mouths. They do not come out when we are talking about mandatory minimum penalties. They certainly do not come out when we are talking about wrongful convictions.
For my second point, let us also talk about how we got to this bill. It was informed by the important input of Dean Juanita Westmoreland-Traoré, a Black woman, and Harry LaForme, an indigenous man who happens to be a judge. Those two people represent the two key demographics we are trying to address with this bill, which that member selectively ignores.
Thirdly, yes, our standard is “a miscarriage of justice may have occurred”. It is in the interest of justice in doing so. That standard evolved from the commission recommendations from LaForme and from Westmoreland-Traoré. Will we stand by that standard? That is absolutely right. We will stand by the standard.
He talked to me about the fact that I do not seem to know the law I am duty-bound to implement. Newsflash to the member for Fundy Royal, in fact, I do not go out and search for wrongful convictions. They come to my desk. The point he is missing is that, in the last 20 years, 29 cases have come to my desk or my predecessor's desk. In the same time period, 542 came in the U.K.
Does that mean that the U.K. has some woefully atrocious justice system? No, it means it has a mechanism for searching for the cases. I do not understand, ideologically or for partisan reasons, why on earth any member of Parliament would have a vested interest in not searching out injustice where they see it. That is what we are trying to do with this bill. If they do not want to do that, that is their choice, but they are not going to stand in our way of seeking justice for victims in this country.
358 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/11/24 5:14:18 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have the utmost confidence in our independent institutions, especially when it comes to our justice system. I know oftentimes people in this chamber like to pretend they are judge and jury, but I know there are people without partisan stripes who are able to do that work, and that is why that confidence remains.
I also know that our justice system is not perfect and, though mistakes are rare, what we are noticing is that there are mistakes made and they should be corrected in an efficient manner. I have heard from constituents as well that wrongful convictions have a devastating impact on a wrongfully convicted person, but also on the victims who deserve truth and justice. We are going to have to go through report stage because members of the Conservative Party of Canada decided, at report stage, to amend the legislation so that nothing would exist in it, meaning once again they do not want to address the concerns that exist.
The minister spoke about systemic racism and discrimination that we know exists within our country. I would like to hear from the minister what measures have been put in place, so that when this commission and the steps are established, we do it in a way that we learn from the past and that the very people who we are trying to serve are served.
231 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/11/24 5:15:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in terms of the statistics, they have been mentioned in the discussion about mandatory minimum penalties. An indigenous adult in this country is six times more likely to be incarcerated than that percentage of the population. For an indigenous youth, it is eightfold. For a Black person in this country, it is threefold. Every single one of those demographics is overrepresented in our system.
What are we doing in this very bill? We would ensure we have a commission, first of all. That commission would be made up of between five and nine individuals and the legislation specifically says that those members would reflect the diversity of Canadian society and would take into account the overrepresentation of certain groups in the criminal justice system, including indigenous people and Black people. That is entrenched in the legislation as a specific mandate for this commission in terms of its composition and the types of cases it would seek out.
That is how to address systemic overrepresentation and racism. It would be wonderful if the party opposite, His Majesty's official opposition, could both utter those phrases and actually tackle the issue.
191 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/11/24 5:17:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would say that if the member supports the U.K. commission model, then he should get behind this bill. We are moving away from a model that arrives on my desk to a model that has a commission, which is the first point. The second point is that we are informed by the study that was done by former Justice LaForme and former dean of law, Juanita Westmoreland-Traoré. It is important in terms of putting a Canadian lens on the pernicious issue, and the very Canadian issue, of overrepresentation of Black and indigenous people in our justice system. That is a unique Canadian response to a unique Canadian problem. We have looked at the U.K. model, and we are perfecting the U.K. model through this very bill.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
