Bill C-40 (Historical)

Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission Act (David and Joyce Milgaard's Law)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, to make consequential amendments to other Acts and to repeal a regulation (miscarriage of justice reviews)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) establish an independent body to be called the Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission;
(b) replace the review process set out in Part XXI.1 with a process in which applications for reviews of findings and verdicts on the grounds of miscarriage of justice are made to the Commission instead of to the Minister of Justice;
(c) confer on the Commission powers of investigation to carry out its functions;
(d) provide that the Commission may direct a new trial or hearing or refer a matter to the court of appeal if it has reasonable grounds to conclude that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred and considers that it is in the interests of justice to do so;
(e) authorize the Commission to provide supports to applicants in need and to provide the public, including potential applicants, with information about its mandate and miscarriages of justice; and
(f) require the Commission to make and publish policies and to present and publish annual reports that include demographic and performance measurement data.
The enactment also makes consequential amendments to other Acts and repeals the Regulations Respecting Applications for Ministerial Review — Miscarriages of Justice .

Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission Act (David and Joyce Milgaard's Law)

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

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?

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

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.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

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.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

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.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

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?

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

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.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, my colleague made an excellent speech. I have a similar question to the Bloc member's, but from indigenous peoples' perspective.

As my colleague indicated, indigenous peoples are overrepresented in the justice system, and we know that language was used to try to eliminate indigenous peoples in Canada. With language revitalization and indigenous people still preferring to speak their languages, is it not just as important to ensure that indigenous languages can be used in this system? This would be so that people who are unable to access the system, both economically and language-wise, would be able to access the same system with indigenous languages.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Nunavut, my NDP colleague, for the incredible work she does in the House to advocate for her community. I agree with the point she is making about being able to be represented in one's own language. It is absolutely a necessity.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2 to 20.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would ask for a recorded vote.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Monday, June 17, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The House resumed from June 14 consideration of Bill C-40, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, to make consequential amendments to other Acts and to repeal a regulation (miscarriage of justice reviews), as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

It being 3:14 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at report stage of Bill C-40.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung: