SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 329 - Jun/11/24

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

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

Hon. Arif Virani

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

Hon. Bardish Chagger (Waterloo, Lib.)

Jun/11/24 4:53:44 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-20

Mr. Speaker, I receive a lot of phone calls from constituents within the riding of Waterloo. Constituents often ask about this chamber. Right now, we are debating and will be voting on having to use time allocation to, once again, advance legislation. This morning I had meetings set up, and we had to go to orders of the day because we have an official opposition that refuses to call the question. Even earlier today we voted on Bill C-20. The Conservatives had been filibustering that legislation, putting up automated speeches, most likely through ChatGPT, yet when it came time to call the question and to vote, the Conservatives did support the legislation because it was important legislation. Why are we having to debate time allocation? Why are we having to make sure that we get the legislation called to a question? Unfortunately, there are some members who will not get to speak to this legislation because the official opposition, under its leader, refuses to call the question. The member for Fundy Royal did ask a question today, and the only thing he has done really well was to make sure that the House advanced the issue of ensuring that there was no longer conversion therapy in Canada. It is something the member does not speak to, but he was the member who moved the motion to have unanimous consent because the Conservatives did not want to debate it. How do we ensure justice is served? Why are we using time allocation?

252 words

Hon. Arif Virani

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

Mr. Frank Caputo (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC)

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

Hon. Arif Virani

Jun/11/24 4:57:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I respect that member's background in the law. I respect his role as prosecutor. I would remind him that, when he was a prosecuting Crown, his duty was not to secure convictions. His duty was to the court and to the advancement of the law. He rightfully points out that a wrongful conviction serves no one in this country, in this chamber or in the courts where he used to prosecute in British Columbia. The point is that, with this legislation, we are not purporting to usurp the role of a trial court or an appellate court. The legislation, and I am sure he has read it, but I will remind him, talks about either giving the commission the power to return it to a trial court, in a first instance, or to, on a question of law, go to a court of appeal. That is an important mechanism. It would take that power out of my hands, or the hands of any other minister of justice, and it would put it in the hands of a review commission. It is the same model that is used in the United Kingdom. They have unearthed 542 wrongful convictions in a 20-year period. The number we have unearthed is 29. The number of indigenous and Black persons festering wrongfully in our prisons is atrocious. I would hope that overrepresentation is a concern for that member and for all of his colleagues, and if it is, if we take him at his word, then he should get behind the bill.

261 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Jun/11/24 4:58:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, when a bill is introduced in the House, we know that it goes through several months of study. There are first and second reading stages and then the work in committee, where the bill may be amended. That has been done for this bill. I would like the minister to explain what changes have been made to the bill and how these changes improve or dilute the bill.

70 words

Hon. Arif Virani

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

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

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

Hon. Arif Virani

Jun/11/24 5:01:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had a better answer to give, but all I can really do is speculate. Of the 29 people who have been found to be victims of wrongful conviction, none are women. In that group of 29 people, there are six racialized individuals. It is really incredible that this does not strike the Conservative Party as odd. The Conservatives do not seem to think there might be a problem. The figures show that Black and indigenous people are overrepresented in our prisons and courts. The fact that, over the last 20 years, only six racialized people have been found to be victims of wrongful conviction does not trouble the Conservatives. It does not impact them at all. This shows that they have no interest in promoting a system where wrongful convictions can be identified and overturned. I find that so sad.

145 words

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

Hon. Arif Virani

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

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

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

Hon. Arif Virani

Jun/11/24 5:05:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. If we create a new commission, that commission will have the resources as well as the mandate to look for cases. To do that, the commission could intervene directly with inmate communities in the prisons, such as the Prison for Women in Kingston. The representatives of the commission could visit them. They can distribute leaflets, discuss the situation with the inmates and explain what they should do if they believe they have been mistreated or are victims of a miscarriage of justice. I note once again that of the 29 cases there have been over the past 20 years, not one involved a woman. That is statistically improbable. It is ridiculous that this situation is not being resolved. If we are unable to enact this bill, the status quo will prevail, and this will not serve the women the member is talking about.

151 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/11/24 5:06:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we do not see any form or sense of co-operation coming from opposition members in wanting to deal with legislation and ultimately see it coming to a vote. My question to the minister is specifically in regard to trying to put a human face on the issue that we are talking about. David Milgaard and the Milgaard family are fairly well known in Manitoba and, I would even suggest, beyond Manitoba's border. I think it is one of the reasons why this legislation is important for all of us to reflect on. I am wondering if the minister could provide some of his thoughts in regard to that particular file.

118 words

Hon. Arif Virani

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

Hon. Rob Moore (Fundy Royal, CPC)

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

Hon. Arif Virani

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

Mr. Mario Beaulieu (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ)

Jun/11/24 5:12:28 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-40

Mr. Speaker, my question is not about the substance of Bill C‑40, but about the time allocation motion. There are times when the Liberals filibuster, for example at the Standing Committee on Official Languages. They have done that at several meetings now because they refuse to accept the majority decision at the Standing Committee on Official Languages. In this case, they are tabling a time allocation motion for much the same reason. When the Liberals do it, it is good, but when another party does it, it is bad. I would like to know what my colleague thinks.

100 words

Hon. Arif Virani

Jun/11/24 5:13:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I believe that time allocation is useful if it is used when necessary. In this case, it is necessary. We saw how the Conservatives behaved when the bill was being studied at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. They filibustered for more than 30 hours. In the House, they decided to propose report stage amendments that would completely gut the bill. It is abundantly clear to all Canadians watching that the Conservatives' currently have zero interest, whether in committee or in the House, in reversing miscarriages of justice. They may well say that they are looking for another way of going about it. The fact is that the current method is not working. We are not succeeding right now because we are not finding the cases. There are certainly more cases out there. This commission would give us the tools for doing so. That is why we are importantly promoting the establishment of a commission, because it can make change and have an impact on real people's lives, including the victims that the member for Fundy Royal likes to speak about. He conveniently omits victims of wrongful convictions, which is quite selective, from my perspective, and certainly irrational and intellectually hypocritical.

206 words