SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 332 - Jun/14/24

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Jun/14/24 10:24:18 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we have heard from marginalized groups, particularly indigenous women, who are disproportionately impacted by our justice system and who are disproportionately present in our jails. They have been begging for there to be changes to the legislation, yet the Conservatives filibustered for months, trying to stop the actual changes that indigenous women have been asking for. How does the member justify that?

64 words

Mrs. Tracy Gray

Jun/14/24 10:24:55 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-283

Madam Speaker, I find it really interesting that particularly with my private member's bill, end the revolving door act, which would have gotten mental health assessments, and addiction treatment and recovery, in federal penitentiaries, the member, most of her NDP colleagues and the Liberals voted against it. It is really interesting when we hear questions like that. There was great legislation brought forth by Conservatives to help people get out of the revolving door we have in Canada and to help them get mental health assessments and addiction treatment, but the Liberals voted against that. It is really unfortunate that the legislation did not pass.

106 words

Mr. Tako Van Popta (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC)

Jun/14/24 10:25:52 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in her very thoughtful speech, my colleague from British Columbia mentioned some things that happened in committee, and the Conservatives supported the general framework of the legislation, but not some of the flip-flopping that happened on some very key issues. I wonder what my colleague thinks about how important it is for Canadians to have confidence in our criminal justice system and how the flip-flopping by the minister is going to undermine that, particularly with getting rid of the necessity to fully exhaust all available avenues of appeal.

92 words

Justice
Flip

Mrs. Tracy Gray

Jun/14/24 10:26:44 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for all the work he has done on this piece of legislation and for the work he does at committee. It is very similar to what we see the Liberals quite often do. They will have some legislation where the title sounds good, and they will have sort of a purpose and will make statements on that. However, once we actually see the end result of the legislation, it is very different from what the concept is or what the title is. That is exactly what we are seeing in this particular legislation. The concept of it makes sense. There are many parts of this, as I mentioned, that we can support, but once we get into the details, there are parts of the bill that are very different from what was originally stated by the minister and the minister's office. It is quite a departure from what the legislation appeared to have been originally focused on.

166 words

Title

Mr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC)

Jun/14/24 10:27:55 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague brought up a private member's bill that she put forward and that would have greatly assisted those suffering from addictions and mental health issues, which was voted down by the government and other parties. I wonder if the member could expand a bit on some of those policies that, if brought forward, would have actually helped Canadians.

62 words

Addictions

Mrs. Tracy Gray

Jun/14/24 10:28:22 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-283

Madam Speaker, there are a couple of parts. First of all, we know that the bail reform the government has done has just led to a revolving door in the bail system. We have citizens being traumatized in our communities by the revolving door of people breaking the law. On the other side, there are people being convicted whom we want to help, and of course within our jurisdiction, it would be in the federal penitentiaries. If we do not help them while they are in those penitentiaries, the recidivism and the revolving doors just continue. My legislation, the end the revolving door act, would have been one way to genuinely help people. We know that more than 70% of people convicted and sentenced to federal penitentiaries have addictions issues.

130 words

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Salaberry—Suroît, BQ)

Jun/14/24 10:29:24 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-40

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

Mr. Tako Van Popta (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC)

Jun/14/24 10:39:19 a.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I would like to thank the member for Salaberry—Suroît for a very thoughtful speech and for highlighting the importance of an independent review commission. I want to thank the member for raising the case of Jacques Delisle as an example of how things can go wrong when the system is too politicized. I also want to thank her for highlighting the importance that the public must have confidence in our criminal justice system. In the member's opinion, is that confidence undermined by the threshold for obtaining a review, getting in front of a judge again, being too low? Would it be undermined by eliminating the requirement that an applicant must have exhausted all the appeal avenues that are available under the current legislation, which would be done under the new bill?

138 words

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille

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

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Jun/14/24 10:41:25 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one issue often found when there are miscarriages of justice has to do with the process of plea bargaining with folks who cannot afford proper legal help. Something we know about the justice system is that it is riddled with systemic violence, and it is targeted more prominently against specific groups. I would say these are indigenous groups, where there is an overrepresentation of folks in the justice system, as well as Black communities. Would my colleague agree with me that, if we are going to rectify issues in the justice system, we need to deal with systemic racism.

101 words

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille

Jun/14/24 10:42:18 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague asked a good question. I understand her, and I agree with what she said about people who are less well off and more vulnerable. They may not necessarily have the access or the money to actively engage in the judicial process, which requires hiring legal advisers and good lawyers. That is a real problem. As I believe everyone knows, since I often mention it in the House, I am a social worker. I am very sensitive to the fact that some people are more vulnerable than others. At first glance, it seems that the justice system is easier to access when people can afford a good, expensive and competent lawyer with subject matter expertise. That concerns me a lot. Quebec has set up a legal aid service that provides the most vulnerable and financially disadvantaged people with access to legal aid and good lawyers to guide and support them through the legal process. I believe that every province would benefit from examining this solution more closely, considering ways to adapt it more effectively and exploring whether all vulnerable people could be better supported during the legal process.

191 words

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ)

Jun/14/24 10:43:49 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her speech, which was very clear, very interesting and very well structured. She has made a significant contribution to the study of this bill. I am wondering about something in her speech that caught my attention. She mentioned that the member for Rivière-du-Nord wanted to bring forward an amendment to ensure that the judges on the judicial review commission are bilingual, meaning that they are proficient in both French and English. The federalist parties here in the House are always saying that French is important to them, but when it comes time to appoint bilingual judges, the answer is no. I am trying to understand why that is.

122 words

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille

Jun/14/24 10:44:33 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think it is obvious. We are governed by the Official Languages Act in Canada. However, when it comes to enforcing the act or being consistent when independent commissions or committees are set up, there is resistance. We do not understand this resistance, because it stands to reason that, here in Canada, in Quebec and in the other provinces, services must be provided in both official languages, French and English.

72 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

Jun/14/24 10:45:10 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5 Bill C-40

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

Mrs. Anna Roberts (King—Vaughan, CPC)

Jun/14/24 10:53:26 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague made an eloquent speech. I agree that, if someone is innocent, they should have the opportunity to be able to defend themselves and have a free and unbiased trial. My former colleague, a 44-year-old mother of two, was shot and killed by someone who was let out on bail and was wanted. She had the right to live, but that opportunity was not given to her. I ask my hon. colleague, how can we protect the victims if we continue with the catch-and-release system in this society?

95 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo

Jun/14/24 10:54:11 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-40

Madam Speaker, it is absolutely devastating that this happened to a constituent of hers, but again it shows Conservatives do not understand what we are talking about in Bill C-40. We are talking about, in Bill C-40, the fact that marginalized people in this country, more often indigenous people, indigenous women, and people of colour are being wrongfully convicted in this country, and then they do not have access to appeal because they do not have the funds for it. That is what this bill is about. I understand we need to also fix other injustices and justice in our society, but the Conservatives need to understand that this is about levelling the playing field for those who are under-represented by legal support in the criminal justice system.

131 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

Jun/14/24 10:55:05 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am curious what the member thinks of the fact that this bill, which is unanimously supported by the House of Commons, has 20 amendments from the Conservatives, who appear to be supporting the bill anyway. The first of those amendments is to delete the short title, and the short title includes “David and Joyce Milgaard's Law”. It is such a controversial issue to the Conservatives that they feel as though they need to bring forward an amendment to delete it. I am wondering what the member has to say about that amendment.

98 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo

Jun/14/24 10:55:42 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I mentioned in my speech that the Liberal government had the opportunity to advance these types of criminal justice amendments much earlier, back in 2021, and it chose to wait an additional three years to do it, so I think what the Liberals need to focus on is passing laws that help people in Canada and worrying less about what things are called.

65 words

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ)

Jun/14/24 10:56:13 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague on her speech. I would like to ask her a question that I had the chance to ask my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît a bit earlier. As we know, the member for Rivière-du-Nord would like to ensure that the judges sitting on the review commission are bilingual. According to Canada's official bilingualism policy, both languages should have equal status. Can my colleague tell me how it is that every federalist party voted against that? When bilingualism is not enforced, we generally end up with English unilingualism. I have never seen unilingual French. Would she be okay with having a unilingual francophone review her case?

118 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo

Jun/14/24 10:57:03 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as the critic for disability inclusion, I often think about people who communicate through sign language. We know there are many people in this country who have different methods of communication. I understand that French and English are our official languages in Canada, but I would like to see a justice system that can accommodate any kind of communication that people need to represent themselves in the system.

70 words