44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 14, 2024 10:00AM
- Jun/14/24 10:10:02 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, indeed, at second reading, we thought it was a pretty good bill. There were some drafting errors that we were pretty convinced we were going to be able to convince other committee members to amend. They disagreed with that, and what happened to the bill is that it came back worse than it went in, unfortunately, because, originally, an applicant for a judicial review of what they thought was a wrongful conviction would have to have exhausted all the appeal procedures that were available to them. The Liberals unfortunately took that out. We are saying that it is creating a competing criminal justice system, which is just not necessary. David Milgaard's problem was never that the appeal process was not there, but that the system was too cumbersome. Fix that and we would agree with it.
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of the residents of Kelowna—Lake Country.
Before I begin my speech today, I would like to mention that we will be rising soon, in this place, for the summer. I want to wish everyone a safe summer for travelling. I also want to thank all responders who might be out there, helping to save lives and keeping our communities safe.
I am rising today to speak to Bill C-40, the miscarriage of justice review commission act, David and Joyce Milgaard's law. This is an act to amend the Criminal Code, to make consequential amendments to other acts and to repeal a regulation, miscarriage of justice reviews, which will establish a commission dedicated to reviewing miscarriage of justice applications.
The current criminal conviction process is handled by the Criminal Conviction Review Group within the Department of Justice Canada, which then advises the justice minister on cases with grounds for review.
The justice minister was mandated, in 2019 and 2021, to work toward the establishment of an independent criminal case review commission to improve access to justice for people who have potentially been wrongfully convicted to have their applications reviewed. Of course, myself and the Conservatives are very sympathetic to people who have been wrongfully convicted, like David Milgaard, whom this bill has been named after. No one wants innocent people to be convicted and to be in jail. We also do not want guilty people on our streets.
It is important to have a wrongful conviction review procedure, which Canada has had for a very long time. The problem with the current system is that there is political intervention. It is cumbersome and bureaucratic. We were very optimistic that Bill C-40 could be the answer to addressing some of these issues. As is on the record, at second reading, Conservatives were in favour of this legislation, and it was sent to committee to look at potential amendments. There was one part in the legislation where we genuinely thought there was a drafting error, which can happen on occasion, and it was looked into at committee. I want to thank my Conservative colleagues who sit on the justice committee for their detailed work and their expertise on this.
The threshold for getting a review is very low. Right now, it is worded as if it has “likely occurred”, referring to a miscarriage of justice. This bill would change that to “may have occurred”. Conservatives on the committee thought that they could convince the other members of the committee to keep the higher threshold, which did not happen, so now, it has come back to the House at third reading.
One of the good parts of the bill is that it would take the political realm out of the process, which Conservatives like, to make it purely administrative. If that was all the legislation did, then we could very easily support it here in its present form. However, we believe that the lower threshold would open the door to all kinds of cases. We know that the court system is already very clogged and backlogged, but we were unable to convince members at committee to make the changes. The legislation that has come back to the House from committee is more problematic than what had been sent to committee. We think there are genuinely some clerical administrative errors with respect to the writing of the legislation. The original Bill C-40 application for review would use all available appeal avenues, such as a provincial court of appeal.
I do want to bring up a couple of quotes that I think are relevant to what we are talking about here today. David Lametti's speech, at second reading, on the miscarriage of justice review commission act, was on June 12, 2023, so it was almost exactly a year ago.
He stated, “It is important to note that the miscarriage of justice review process is not an alternative to the judicial 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.” We agree with this.
As well, in the press release entitled, “Minister of Justice introduces legislation (David and Joyce Milgaard’s Law) to establish an independent Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission”, it 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.”
We also agree with this. However, this is not what the legislation does. In addition, Minister Virani, at committee, in October of 2023—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
809 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/24 10:21:17 a.m.
- Watch
The minister, in October 2023, stated, “I think there are built-in factors to avoid them getting all the way through the floodgates. You still need to meet the threshold criteria. 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.”
However, since that date, in October 2023, the government has changed its approach. It has removed that requirement altogether. What it originally stated last year, with this legislation, was in fact not what we have before us today. In particular, the amendments made at committee are very far apart from the original comments that were made in the original tabling of the legislation.
As I mentioned, Conservatives did support this at second reading to go to committee. The Liberals made amendments at committee. They are really going around the appeal system, and this makes it very difficult for us to support the legislation.
One other thing I want to mention is that unlike the current process where the Minister of Justice decides whether a miscarriage of justice has likely occurred, this new commission would decide whether a miscarriage of justice may have occurred and whether it is in the interest of justice to direct a new trial or to refer the case to the Court of Appeal.
Wording does matter. That is why it is very important that in legislation, especially when we are talking about judicial legislation, every word is really thought about very carefully. Some of the issues that I have brought forth are really problematic. There really is quite a gap from the statements by the minister, the statements that were originally from the government. It is really quite a departure from what the original intention was.
We support the intention of the legislation. We support the original direction of this and the concept of it; however, once we get into the details, there are some problematic parts of this, which I have mentioned. I look forward to any questions.
343 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C‑40. This bill seeks to modernize the Canadian justice system by creating the miscarriage of justice review commission to address shortcomings in the processing of miscarriage of justice applications.
We are all aware of this issue; it has been rather well documented. The minister at the time, David Lametti, commissioned a study in 2021 to examine the issue because the processing times for the applications of people claiming to be the victim of a miscarriage of justice were completely unreasonable. In some cases, people who managed to complete the process had already spent many years behind bars, part of their lives, before being found innocent and released from prison.
The issue clearly needed to be addressed. The Liberal minister at the time, Mr. Lametti, commissioned a study and launched consultations, after which all the experts agreed that the minister needed to be stripped of one of his powers that might be characterized as absolute. Traditionally, under our laws, the minister alone had the fairly significant power to decide whether a person who claimed to be the victim of a miscarriage of justice could have a re-trial. That put a lot of power in the hands of one person, the person holding the position of Minister of Justice.
Although the minister worked with a team, it was still necessary to create a quasi-judicial commission made up of commissioners independent of the government apparatus in order to restore public trust. These commissioners will be able to take over from the minister to expedite the process of analyzing applications from people who believe they have been the victim of a miscarriage of justice. This should also serve to increase public trust in the fact that the people analyzing these applications are neutral.
There is one thing we find hard to understand. The Liberals have been in power since 2015. The Minister of Justice, Mr. Lametti, commissioned this study back in the day, and it had fairly unanimous support, yet he waited until 2023 to introduce his bill. Why is it that today, in June 2024, we are using an expedited legislative process to get this bill adopted? Two years ago, certain people could have benefited from a new miscarriage of justice review commission. We find it hard to comprehend why, all of a sudden, the Liberals are rushing to pass this bill even though it has been in the works since 2021 and has unanimous support.
When the bill was studied in committee, our justice critic, the member for Rivière-du-Nord, said that this commission was necessary and that he supported the bill. Naturally, the Bloc Québécois is going to vote in favour of Bill C‑40. We hope, once the bill is passed, that the government will promptly implement all necessary measures to allow the new commissioners to get on with their work.
Now, there is another question we are asking ourselves. Minister Lametti commissioned this study in 2021, but he also made a big decision in 2021, one that is hard to understand. I read another article today in the investigative section of La Presse. Former justice minister David Lametti is still being asked why, for example, he ordered a second trial in the Jacques Delisle case. Jacques Delisle is a former judge who was found guilty of murdering his wife. It is hard to understand why the minister did that. It is not just me, the member for Salaberry—Suroît, who is saying this.
As of March, Quebec's director of criminal and penal prosecutions still did not understand why the minister had ordered a new trial.
With the powers the justice minister held at the time, Mr. Lametti set in motion an entire legal process to retry Jacques Delisle, which obviously led to further investigations. The minister could only order a new trial if new and relevant information had been brought to his attention, if it could be demonstrated that evidence had not been presented at trial or if new evidence had come to light. To this day, Quebec's director of criminal and penal prosecutions is asking former justice minister and lawyer David Lametti to explain himself. Obviously, certain decisions were made as a result of the minister's decision. The Delisle trial has concluded, but not to the satisfaction of Quebec's director of criminal and penal prosecutions, which is understandable.
Bill C‑40, which we are debating, may rectify what has been a willingness to concentrate power in the hands of a single individual who holds the position of minister of justice. It is hard not to agree with that. We have every reason to question this. To the Bloc Québécois, it is important that the public and the citizens the minister represents have confidence in our system and that the victims also have confidence in the process and trust beyond a doubt that their case will be studied in a neutral, fair and equitable manner, based on the facts and any new evidence they might present.
During study of the bill in committee, there were debates, including one that surprised us in the Bloc Québécois. The member for Rivière-du-Nord, who is our justice critic and a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, introduced a single amendment. To us, that amendment made so much sense that we assumed its adoption was a mere formality.
The purpose of the amendment that the Bloc Québécois introduced in committee was to require judges, who play a quasi-judicial role in this miscarriage of justice review commission, to be bilingual or at least comfortable in both official languages. I would remind the House that Canada's two official languages are English and French. These two languages are governed by Canada's Official Languages Act. To ensure that the cases of francophones and anglophones are assessed fairly, the commissioners assigned to the case must be able to listen, ask questions and analyze evidence in both official languages.
To our great surprise, the amendment was defeated by a vote of six to five. A Liberal member who serves on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights opposed it. Did his party use him as a scapegoat? I have no idea. He is an Ontario MP. We were very disappointed by that because the amendment made a lot of sense. Canada has an Official Languages Act, and it seemed very obvious to us that this was the way to go.
That will not prevent us from voting in favour of Bill C‑40, but once again, we are dealing with a total lack of understanding about the importance of French and the importance of guaranteeing Quebeckers and Canadians access in both official languages to the people who will be assessing their case.
I hope that Bill C‑40 will be passed quickly and that the commissioners can get to work soon.
1192 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/24 10:40:15 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am not a lawyer. I have no experience with the legal side of things.
I understand that what the member is referring to is complex issue. It is true that some people use every possible legal procedure and all the courts they can to delay the judicial process in their case. Yes, these are questions I have asked myself, but it is difficult to comment on the issue at this stage, as we consider the bill. What I do know is that we need to be able to give a guarantee to our citizens, the people we represent. If someone really wants to claim they have been unfairly convicted, they must be given the chance to do so within a reasonable timeframe, while also complying with all the criteria required for them to be heard by the new commission.
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise to speak, on behalf of the residents of Port Moody—Coquitlam, Anmore and Belcarra, in support of Bill C-40, an act to amend the Criminal Code, and to advocate for it being enacted as quickly as possible. I think about the people who were wrongly convicted and who could not afford high-priced lawyers, more often than not women and other marginalized groups, who need reform to the justice system. This miscarriage of justice bill represents a critical step in our ongoing efforts to reform the system and to address the systemic inequities that have plagued it.
For the better part of a decade, New Democrats have called for the establishment of an independent commission to investigate wrongful convictions. In 2021, we supported expediting Bill C-5 in return for the Liberals' promise to create this commission, which Bill C-40 would finally deliver 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 delays and limitations in the current system.
I want to take a moment to recognize and thank my colleagues from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke and Winnipeg Centre for their wisdom and compassion in making the Canadian justice system fairer. They work tirelessly to improve the system and, with regard to Bill C-40 at committee stage, the NDP supported amendments that would ensure applicants could 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.
New Democrats also proposed amendments to empower the commission to make recommendations addressing systemic issues that lead to the miscarriage of justice. This proactive approach could 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.
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. This is a critical issue that strikes at the core of justice inequity in our society. I ask why people living in poverty have higher rates of wrongful convictions in Canada? It certainly highlights the disparities in our legal system and challenges our collective commitment to fairness and justice.
To understand this issue, we must first acknowledge that socio-economic status currently influences outcomes in the criminal justice process. From the moment suspects are identified, their financial status begins to shape their journey through the legal system. Unfortunately, for those without adequate funds, this journey often leads to a higher likelihood of wrongful conviction due to several intersecting factors: lack of adequate legal representation, systemic biases and the pressures of plea bargaining.
One of the most significant factors contributing to wrongful conviction is inadequate legal representation. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to counsel, but in practice, the quality of legal representation a defendant receives can vary drastically based on their ability to pay. Consequently, poorer defendants frequently find themselves under-represented in court, lacking thorough investigation, expert witnesses and comprehensive legal strategies.
Systemic biases play a crucial role in the higher rates of wrongful convictions among people with limited financial means. The justice system, which should be impartial, is not. It is not immune to the biases and prejudices that permeate society. Socio-economic status can influence the perceptions of judges, jurors and law enforcement officers. Poorer defendants often face these implicit biases, as their lack of resources and lower social standing can be subconsciously associated with criminal behaviour. We have heard it in this very House.
This bias can lead to harsher judgments, weaker defences and, ultimately, wrongful convictions. It is proven in convictions that the intersection of race and poverty affect outcomes. Indigenous peoples and racial minorities, who are disproportionately represented among poorer Canadians, face compounded biases that increase their vulnerability to wrongful convictions. Studies have shown that indigenous and Black Canadians are more likely to be wrongfully convicted than their white counterparts, highlighting a deeply rooted problem of racial and economic inequality in our justice system. I note that the Conservatives do not understand this.
Another critical aspect contributing to wrongful convictions is the pressure to accept plea bargains. Plea bargaining, intended to expedite the judicial process and reduce caseloads, often places an undue burden on poor defendants. Faced with the prospect of prolonged pretrial detention, high bail amounts they cannot afford and the uncertainty of a trial, many low-income defendants feel compelled to plead guilty to crimes they did not commit in exchange for a reduced sentence. This coercive aspect of plea bargaining leads to a troubling reality where innocence is sacrificed for expediency.
Let us add that probation requires admittance of guilt, so the wrongfully convicted are forced to make unjust choices. Furthermore, wrongful convictions have devastating consequences beyond the individual. They erode trust in the legal system, perpetuate cycles of poverty and fail to address the real perpetrators of crime. When an innocent person is convicted, the actual offender remains free, posing a continued threat to society. This failure to deliver true justice undermines public confidence and perpetuates the belief that the system is rigged against the marginalized.
The Conservatives are fine with this reality. They say to just appeal. With all of the barriers I just outlined above, it is obvious that appeal is neither equitable nor just. Expanding access to post-conviction review and innocence projects can provide a safety net for those who have been wrongfully convicted. Organizations such as Innocence Canada work tirelessly to investigate claims of innocence and exonerate the wrongfully accused. By supporting their efforts and facilitating the review of questionable convictions, we can rectify past injustices and prevent future ones. It should not have to be that way.
In conclusion, the higher rates of wrongful convictions among lower-income Canadians highlight profound inequities in Canada's legal system. From inadequate legal representation and systemic biases to the pressure of plea bargaining and resource imbalances, the odds are stacked against those with limited financial means. With respect to Bill C-40, miscarriage of justice, it is incumbent on all of us to have a justice system that functions well and does not put innocent people behind bars.
1102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
