Justice Committee on Dec. 12th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you.

I'm going to ask Mr. Kurek to get back to clause 2, please, and not in relation to anything else in terms of ministers. I think we've settled that one last time.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

I appreciate that, Madam Chair, and welcome to Mr. Bittle. I am also not a regular member of this committee. As a duly elected member, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to participate in discussions that are so important to the people we both represent.

The illustration about my office placement has a very direct correlation here. It's by happenstance or fate, but the fact is that when I sit in my chair, I have the opportunity to see the different branches of government in action. I bring that up because it has a very direct correlation on the work that we do here.

For Mr. Bittle's benefit, I would simply share that the tension is constitutionally required in order for things to be undertaken in a way that gets things right. Specifically when it comes to the administration of justice for Canadians, we have this tension that exists.

Again, the reason I bring up my office placement is not because it's necessarily that special, although it is an honour to be given the opportunity to represent the good people of Battle River—Crowfoot. I would hope that Mr. Bittle wouldn't suggest that I have any less place in Parliament than he does. However, I do think that it bears significance in that we are—

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

There is no interpretation at present.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

The French is coming through the English channel.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

I think the problem is that there is no French word for “filibustering”.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Is there really a problem with interpretation?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

That's what they tell me.

The sound is very weak.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Is there anyone who can help you?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

I hear a gentle voice in my earpiece, Madam Chair. I think it will be okay now.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

You're welcome.

Mr. Kurek, you have the floor.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I won't get into the significance of a bilingual Parliament. I come from an area where I didn't have the opportunity to learn French as a young person, which I regret. I did take what they call “French 13” via textbook in grade 11, so I may be able to understand a few words. Regrettably, I not am fluent, but I have a great deal of respect for my French colleagues and francophone Canadians in their role in the fabric of our country.

I was just getting to the point about the that tension exists between the different branches of government. It is key on an issue such as this, when it comes to the miscarriage of..., misapplication of...and where there are wrongful convictions in Canada, because if that tension doesn't exist.... It goes back to the very premise of our judicial system, where we have the presumption of innocence and the ability to have a fair trial.

It is key in this discussion, because when that tension becomes misaligned, either when there's not enough tension and people who commit crimes, serious or otherwise.... It doesn't have to be the major crimes that often garner the headlines, but just when there's that lack of respect for the system in general or when it comes to wrongful convictions, which is the other side of that coin....

I'll get into a number of examples that I think are very important to get onto the record. We need to ensure that the tension that needs to exist is shepherded very carefully.

I hear from constituents often about how they are losing trust in our judicial system. In fact, there's a common sentiment I've referenced in the House, and I'll reference it again here. I hear from constituents often who say, “We don't have a justice system. We may have a legal system, but it's not a justice system.”

There are messages about being soft on crime, the revolving door of the justice system and that sort of thing, where people may commit serious crimes and get out without consequence or where a Crown prosecutor is so overwhelmed that they can only focus on a few of what are sometimes thousands of cases that sit on their desk. I know we have a former Crown here as a member of this committee who I'm sure could provide some insight into that. There are a couple, and I'm glad to hear that because, of course, I have a great deal of respect for those who fulfill that important role.

I think that's where the wrongful conviction conversation is just as important because if that tension does not exist, there will be erosion of trust at the very building blocks of a free and democratic society.

I fear some damage has been done. I think that we have to take seriously our job as legislators to make sure that we do everything we can to accomplish the tasks set out before us so that we have a justice system that can be trusted, that can be understood, that respects its role to ensure that we have a civil and just society, but also that we have the ability for consequences to be levied when they are needed.

This has garnered a massive amount of attention here in Canada and from our neighbours to the south, where there are examples of misapplication and people being convicted, sometimes of very serious crimes. In some cases those convictions span decades, or people lose their lives.

There is an interesting dynamic that has evolved with the onset of non-traditional forms of media. In some of the conversations we've had on a number of different issues before the House of Commons, we have talked about the democratization of information. It speaks with real relevance to this, specifically in clause 2, where it talks about subsection 696.71(1), and a few of the other aspects here where it talks about the processes when there is a miscarriage of justice. However, the democratization of information through non-traditional forms of media speaks to something that has—

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Chair, I rise on a point of order. Again, Mr. Kurek is not talking at all about this bill. This clause relates to subsection 679(7) of the Criminal Code, and we're nowhere in that ballpark.

I know Mr. Kurek doesn't want to see anything passed. He talks about wanting there to be justice for those who have been wrongfully convicted, but the filibuster continues. He is not relevant, and I think if he keeps going on, you should move on down the speakers list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

I tend to agree with you, Mr. Bittle.

I too have my office in the Justice Building as well, and I do look at the branches of government, but I don't think that I'm here to talk about that today. If you're done for now, maybe I can move on to another speaker because I have a list.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thanks, Madam Chair. With respect, it's been a little while since I talked about my office placement, and I'm actually in the Confederation Building. I'll leave that as it is because I can tell that the committee is just excited to hear more.

It's that democratization of information that I think speaks to, really, what has been an evolution of awareness on issues like this.

I found it very interesting here. It was a number of months ago. I had a staff member who had shared with me a podcast that they were listening to, and what is—

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Yes, Mr. Bittle. I was waiting for that, actually, because I know Mr. Kurek keeps deviating a little bit too much, here.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Kurek isn't even pretending to talk about the legislation or clause 2. I think that perhaps we should move on.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I think he's pretending. Come on.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

He's not doing a great job of it.

If he's not going to talk about clause 2, I think we should move on in the speaking order, Madam Chair.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

I find it interesting that Mr. Bittle seems to be intent on delaying the proceedings as I endeavour to get to the point that I think is so very relevant to the discussion, because I think what has led to this point is that we have an ability for Canadians to engage on these subjects and in some cases to learn a tremendous amount of information.

I had just mentioned before the interruption that a staff member of mine had been listening to a podcast about wrongful convictions. A podcast led to an outpouring of support and a society-wide, or at least audience-wide, pursuit of justice for somebody who had been wrongfully convicted, and to have the real criminal face the penalties of the crime that had been committed.

I think that bears an important relevance to the conversation, because as lawmakers, we are responsive, whether that be through the electoral process or the correspondence in our daily work. It's that responsiveness that speaks to where we are. There has been a process for the misapplication and miscarriage of justice in this country before. One of the concerns that we shared was that we want to make sure it applies in the right way, and that it doesn't open up or overburden our already-burdened justice system.

Madam Chair, I think that where it fits so carefully and significantly into the process here is that we have the ability for Canadians to be engaged in these subjects in a way that probably has not existed. I would just note, when it comes to the—

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Chair, I rise on a point of order.

Mr. Kurek is just putting together a series of words that are completely irrelevant to this. He's not speaking in any way with respect to clause 2, and I again request, since Mr. Kurek is not relevant on the subject, that we move on with the speakers list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

I do understand that there's a lot of leeway. I came to this just a little over two years ago. There's a lot of leeway that we give members, but I think there's a time when that leeway just sort of takes its course and we do need to move on.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Chair, I rise on a point of order. So far at this committee, I've listened to Mr. Kurek speak about miscarriages of justice, which is exactly the topic of this legislation.

We're starting our study on Bill C-40.

The rules are that a member has a tremendous amount of latitude when speaking at committee. That is well established. There's no doubt about that.

Mr. Kurek is not using that latitude. In my view, he has been narrowly focused on the issue at hand, which is Bill C-40 and miscarriages of justice and wrongful convictions. He's not even using the latitude of which he could avail himself. I commend him for staying on topic—

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Would you like us to take a vote on that, Mr. Moore, and see what members on the committee think?