Evidence of meeting #83 for Justice and Human Rights in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was commission.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Thank you very much.
I'm going to give three minutes to Mr. Van Popta and Ms. Dhillon, and then two minutes to Mr. Fortin and Mr. Garrison. That will end the panel.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
Thank you to all our witnesses for being here.
Justice LaForme, under the new regime, will it still be an extraordinary remedy for a convict to receive a remedy from this commission for a new trial, for example? I'm reading from the report, where you're quoting the David Milgaard inquiry:
The conviction review system in Canada is premised on the belief that wrongful convictions are rare and that any remedy granted by the federal Minister is extraordinary. Change is needed to reflect the...understanding of the inevitability of wrongful convictions....
These aren't your words, Justice LaForme, but you did quote them. What are your thoughts on that?
5:05 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, As an Individual
Yes.
The bill would still require the commission to take into account new matters of significance not previously considered by the courts. This would happen whether...there wasn't even a court of appeal decision. I don't think any of the commissions are going to second-guess the trial judge. What this is about is getting new evidence that the accused, when they've been convicted and often imprisoned, is powerless to get. That was one of the reasons we recommended—and the English commission has this—that they should have information even if the police, prosecutors or anyone else claims legal privilege over it.
This is about helping people find new evidence. One of the reasons that Mr. Lockyer and all of the innocence projects will support the commission is that they do not have public powers to compel the police and prosecutors and forensic experts to give them the evidence they want and need.
This is why it's very important—
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
Sir, I only have three minutes, so I'm going to jump in with another quick question.
Will it still be a requirement, in your opinion, that there should be new evidence brought forward that was not available at trial? That is my understanding of the current regime. I'm reading from the 2022 annual report, which says exactly that. What are your thoughts?
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
You have 30 seconds.
If there's not enough time and there's more evidence from any of the parties—I won't take this out of your time, Mr. Van Popta, don't worry—please forward to the committee anything else you would like to add or anything that may have come up today. We would love to have any supplementary information.
You have 30 seconds, Mr. Roach or Justice LaForme.
5:05 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, As an Individual
According to the bill and according to the existing language in the Criminal Code, there must be “new matters of significance”. In most cases, that will be evidence, but in some cases it may be a change in law. If sentencing was introduced and if there wasn't a proper Gladue report or other pre-sentencing report, it may include those factual matters.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
November 7th, 2023 / 5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good evening, and welcome to you all.
I'll start by addressing the representatives of the Barreau du Québec.
There's no doubt that wrongful convictions have really serious consequences for those who are wrongfully convicted, but these convictions also harm the victims of crime.
Can you share with the committee any cases you have seen, in your practice, where such convictions have had consequences for victims of crime?
5:10 p.m.
Representative of Barreau du Québec, Barreau du Québec
Having represented people who have been wrongfully convicted, I can say that the consequences they suffer are very significant. We're talking about psychological and financial consequences, for example. These are isolated people, cast aside, who are often shamed by society.
As far as the victims are concerned, I couldn't testify to any specific factors. However, I can tell you that, under the current system, victims' families are notified of the situation when a remedy is granted by the Minister of Justice. This is something the commission could do as well.
When there has been a miscarriage of justice, it must be corrected. I think it's important for everyone, including the victims and their families.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
5:10 p.m.
Lawyer, Secretariat of the Order and Legal Affairs, Barreau du Québec
I'd say it's also a question of trust in the justice system. If the person was convicted unfairly, the victims won't have gotten justice either.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC
In your opinion, how can we guarantee that this new commission will be transparent to the public?
5:10 p.m.
Lawyer, Secretariat of the Order and Legal Affairs, Barreau du Québec
I think we need to publicize the decisions that are made in some way, and where appropriate, the remedial measures that are ordered. Mr. Jacques will be able to elaborate as to whether or not the files are confidential.
Generally speaking, the bill also provides for a review mechanism. For our part, we propose to give the commission the power to make recommendations to improve the system and better manage systemic problems.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC
I have a few seconds left to ask one last question.
What lessons can be learned from countries that have established similar independent review commissions?
5:10 p.m.
Representative of Barreau du Québec, Barreau du Québec
I think Mr. Lockyer mentioned this earlier. Indeed, we saw that there were significant shortcomings in other countries' systems for reviewing miscarriages of justice. When independent commissions were set up, many eligible people did not make claims, or their claims were not dealt with in sufficient detail for miscarriages of justice to be recognized.
The United Kingdom is a striking example where we have seen an increase in the number of cases recognizing miscarriages of justice, whereas the situation was quite different previously.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I once again thank all the witnesses for being with us.
In the two minutes I have, I'd like to hear comments from representatives of the Barreau du Québec.
In the current situation and according to what the bill also provides, we must exhaust all possible remedies before invoking a miscarriage of justice. This means, among other things, appealing whenever possible. Often, however, victims of a miscarriage of justice do not have the financial resources to use these recourses. We know that an appeal hearing can be very expensive, especially when it comes to cases before the Supreme Court.
What do you have to say about this? Doesn't this requirement to exhaust remedies before invoking a miscarriage of justice deprive many citizens of their right to judicial review when there is a mistake?
5:10 p.m.
Lawyer, Secretariat of the Order and Legal Affairs, Barreau du Québec
I'll answer quickly first and then let Mr. St-Jacques complete my answer.
You've read our brief. As you can see, we don't have a position on this specifically. I would simply say that, from my point of view, we should avoid duplicating the types of hearings or appeals as much as possible. Indeed, you raised a very important point with regard to unrepresented parties and the complexity of certain procedures.
Mr. St-Jacques could add comments on this.
