Bill C-40

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 .

The House proceeded to the 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.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

There are 20 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-40. Motions Nos. 1 to 20 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 20 to the House.

Motions in Amendment

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting the short title.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 2.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 3.

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 4.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 5.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 6.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 7.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 8.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 9.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 10.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 11.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 12.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 13.

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 14.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 15.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 16.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 17.

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 18.

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 19.

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 20.

Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to rise to speak about Bill C-40, the miscarriage of justice review commission act, at report stage.

Public confidence in our criminal justice system is central to a functioning democracy, to a free and democratic society. We must have confidence that our courts get it right if not all the time then at least most of the time. We do not want innocent people in jail. We do not want guilty people on our streets. However, we do not always get it right, as in the David Milgaard case.

Mr. Milgaard was wrongfully convicted of a murder that he did not commit and spent 23 years in jail, consistently maintaining his innocence. His case went through the whole process, from trial to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, and he was guilty at every stage.

He stayed in jail for 23 years, but David and his mother Joyce never gave up faith. Finally, after two decades, there was a breakthrough made possible by advances in DNA forensic technology, which pointed to another man who had been known to the police all along. With all the appeals used up, there was still one more course of action, and that was an application to the minister of justice under the criminal conviction review rules. She read the Milgaard file and, with the new evidence available, ordered a new trial.

By then, the Saskatchewan prosecution office realized that they had the wrong man and David Milgaard was allowed to go free. It was a serious miscarriage of justice, and it was appropriate that we named the bill after David and Joyce Milgaard. We could have named the bill after any other number of wrongfully convicted men: Donald Marshall Jr., Guy Paul Morin, Steven Truscott or Thomas Sophonow, just to name a few. Our courts do not always get it right and that is why we need a criminal conviction review process.

The Milgaard case showed us the flaws in our system. Why should the last appeal be to an elected official? Would Milgaard have seen justice sooner if the process had not been political and if the Criminal Conviction Review Group was better resourced with finances and investigative powers? The answer, I think, is probably.

These are the questions that Bill C-40 seeks to answer and the flaws that it seeks to correct. I spoke in favour of the bill at second reading, and the Conservative caucus voted to send it to committee. We saw some of what we thought were drafting errors, but we felt confident that with our reasoned arguments, we would convince the other committee members to make these few changes. We were wrong. We got some changes, all right, but not for the better. Coming out of committee, Bill C-40 is worse than it was when it went in, in my opinion.

Let me explain. The main point of disagreement is about the threshold for opening a review. How hard should it be for a convicted person who maintains their innocence to get in front of the miscarriage of justice review commission to convince it to open up a case for a new trial? Currently, with the existing legislation, that person must convince the group working in the AG's office that “there is a reasonable basis to conclude that a miscarriage of justice likely occurred”. I underline “likely occurred”. Milgaard met that threshold easily with new forensic evidence. What was key was the “new matters of significance” language of the Criminal Conviction Review Group.

Conservative MPs support maintaining the existing “likely occurred” language. We argued to maintain it, but the other committee members insisted on a lower “may have occurred” language, clearly a much lower hurdle to overcome. We fear that, with a lower threshold, we will have a flood of applications for review.

We are supported in that concern. One of the witnesses in the Bill C-40 study at committee was John Curtis from the United Kingdom review commission. This review commission, which has been around for about 20 years, uses the language of “a real possibility” that there has been a miscarriage of justice. Clearly that is a much higher threshold than what is being proposed in the current form of Bill C-40. Mr. Curtis pointed us to a body of jurisprudence in the United Kingdom that has arisen out of its legislation. I have read many of those cases, because I take this very seriously, and I form the opinion that they got it right.

The Milgaard case would have met the test, and so would all the other Canadian cases that I had read. Therefore, we propose sticking with the current wording of “likely occurred” or accepting the United Kingdom's wording of “real possibility” and benefiting from its 20 years of jurisprudence.

Why would we change the words to a lower standard? I would suggest that Parliament is sending a clear message to criminal defence lawyers and to judges that we intend to make things easier for convicted criminals to get their cases opened again. If I were acting for a person who maintained their innocence and wanted to get a review, I would argue, “Well, clearly, Parliament intended something different”. Why reject the old language and adopt new language? Certainly, something new is intended. Certainly, it was the intent of Parliament to lower the standard of review and not accept the U.K. language either, because that possibility is open.

This is typical Liberal overreach. Why not change the things that are actually broken in our system, take the politics out of the equation, fund the commission properly and give the commission broader legislative power? We agree with all those initiatives, just not lowering the threshold. That part is not broken. That has actually been functioning well. To suggest otherwise tells the public that we do not actually have confidence in our courts to get it right most of the time.

However, there is another problem with Bill C-40 after committee. If the bill passes in its present form, a person convicted at trial does not even have to exhaust the regular appeal process before applying for a review before the commission. If one does not like the trial court's findings, one need not bother appealing but can go straight to the review commission, with its investigative powers. It is cheaper than getting one's lawyer to take it through the court of appeal.

We say to stick with the current requirement that an applicant must first exhaust all the available tools in the regular court system through all the appeals that are available. Yes, we need a review commission, and the Milgaard case showed us that; however, a review after conviction must remain an extraordinary remedy. To say otherwise would further undermine the confidence that the public has in our court system.

With these significant flaws, the unnecessary lowering of the review threshold and the ability to sidestep the regular appeal process, we cannot support Bill C-40 in its current form.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for his remarks tonight. I serve on the justice committee with him now, as I did at the time we reviewed the bill, and he has a great deal of compassion. He brings a level of fairness to the job that is admirable.

However, the member started his speech by saying that Canadians need to have faith in the justice system; they also need to have faith in the parliamentary system. He said that the Conservatives supported the bill at second reading, but they filibustered the committee for days. It was not one day, but several days. Meanwhile, victims, including the lawyers and the families who are being affected by previous miscarriages of justice and who want the bill passed, were sitting, watching and waiting. Now, he did not do that of his own volition, and I know that. He was taking orders from somebody who sits right down there, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt on that. However, how can he stand here now and support amendments that strip the bill entirely of every provision in it and say that he supports the people whose names he used tonight?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague on the justice committee for that question.

Indeed, we take this very seriously. David Milgaard was badly served by our criminal justice system, as were many others. However, it is very important that the public maintains confidence in our court system. It actually works very efficiently. Does there have to be a review process in the event that a person feels very strongly that they have been treated badly by the court system? There absolutely does, but it must remain an extraordinary remedy. It cannot just be something in the ordinary course of court business. That, I submit, would undermine the confidence that the public has in our court system.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think we will disagree. Our parties are unlikely to vote the same way.

However, I found one thing rather fascinating when the bill was being studied in committee. Do members realize that the commissioners who will sit on the new miscarriage of justice review commission will not be required to be able to speak and understand both French and English? Why is that?

It is because, when the Bloc Québécois tabled an amendment calling for commissioners to be bilingual, an NDP-Conservative-Liberal coalition voted against it. This included the Liberal MP for Etobicoke—Lakeshore.

When I see the Conservatives whipping themselves into a frenzy to defend French at the Standing Committee on Official Languages, it makes me wonder how the four Conservative MPs on the committee could vote against a perfectly reasonable amendment to uphold the two official languages of this wonderful country called Canada.

I want to know why the Conservatives voted against it.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, indeed, that was debated. The Bloc Québécois member on the committee argued passionately in favour of every person on the commission being bilingual. Conservatives argued what is important is that bilingual services are available, that there be at least one person on the commission, or a number of people, who can speak French as effectively as English.

We did not think it was absolutely necessary that everybody be bilingual. That would cut out a lot of people. If that were a requirement in Parliament, I would not be a member of Parliament.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, at committee, Conservatives suggested common-sense amendments to restore crucial checks and balances to the process based on the U.K.'s long-standing Criminal Cases Review Commission, and the government voted against that.

Why did the government vote against it and is this not lowering the threshold needed to make sure that the integrity of the process is in place?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Yes, Madam Speaker, the review threshold was at the centre of our debate. My hon. colleague from Edmonton Manning referenced evidence from the U.K. commission. Indeed, we thought that was very compelling evidence. I took it upon myself to read many of the cases, but not all of them as some were very lengthy. I was convinced that this is exactly what we wanted and I argued that at committee.

None of the committee members suggested I was wrong on that, so I do not know why they are not agreeing with our amendment.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker. I am very pleased to speak tonight to Bill C-40 , the miscarriage of justice review commission act, David and Joyce Milgaard's law. This legislation would transform the process for identifying and remedying wrongful convictions in Canada. This change is overdue and would be a monumental improvement to justice in our country.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I participated in a study of Bill C-40. We heard from numerous witnesses, including the minister and his officials. We also heard from retired justice Harry LaForme and Professor Kent Roach, who were instrumental in the public consultation process that preceded the development of this legislation.

We heard from James Lockyer, a founding member of Innocence Canada, which has been at the forefront of the issue of wrongful convictions for over 30 years. Mr. Lockyer was also involved in David Milgaard's infamous case, and he is the namesake of this legislation. After being released from prison, where he served 23 years for a murder he did not commit, David Milgaard dedicated his life to advocating for legal reforms to make the miscarriage of justice review process more fair, open and efficient. I hope to do right by David Milgaard, as well as his mother and fierce advocate, Joyce Milgaard, and their family and get this legislation passed promptly.

I also want to take a moment to express my sincere thanks to the former minister of justice, the Hon. David Lametti. He demonstrated extraordinary dedication to the issue of wrongful convictions and was a fierce advocate for the creation of an independent commission in Canada. This bill is a testament to his hard work and careful consideration. Our justice system will be better for David's commitment to this cause, and I thank him.

Unfortunately, this critical legislation has faced opposition at every turn from the Conservative members. At the committee, the Conservative members filibustered for over 30 hours. This delay meant that the valuable work of our committee ground to a halt. It was also a slap in the face to everyone in Canada who is suffering because of a potential miscarriage of justice. Rather than do good work and change our justice system for the better, Conservatives decided to stall and play games.

At the start of this current parliamentary stage, Conservatives put on notice amendments to delete every single clause in the bill. This was a ridiculous attempt to slow down the work we do as parliamentarians, to the detriment of all of our constituents. It is also, once again, offensive to the people who are waiting desperately for access to justice. Playing games with people's freedom and their lives is beneath all of us. I am very disappointed to have seen the Conservatives' total disregard for this important work.

I would now like to speak to the importance of this legislation and the amendments made at committee. The idea of establishing an independent miscarriage of justice review commission has been recommended in several commissions of inquiry reports in Canada, including in the case of Donald Marshall, Jr. in 1989; Guy Paul Morin in 1998; Thomas Sophonow in 2001; James Driskell in 2008; and David Milgaard in 2008.

Similar independent commissions have been established elsewhere in the world. We are not the first to reach this important step. In 1997, a commission was created for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Scotland created its commission in 1997. The State of North Carolina established a commission in 2006, and New Zealand created theirs in 2020.

At the justice and human rights committee, we had the benefit of hearing from lawyers who worked in the commissions in North Carolina, and in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It was very helpful to hear from them, given the years of experience their commissions have had in this area. It was particularly helpful to hear that the commission in England, Wales and Northern Ireland allows, in exceptional cases, applications from people who did not seek appeal.

The witnesses mentioned at committee that the mental health and marginalization of an applicant are issues they consider in admitting applications in such cases. They also consider whether the nature of the miscarriage of justice is something that requires an investigation using the commission's special powers to access evidence. A witness also highlighted that one in three of the referrals for new appeals made by the commission in the U.K. is a case that was not appealed. Therefore, a significant proportion of the claims the commissions consider to be worth pursuing are of convictions that were never appealed. This information motivated the committee to amend the bill to provide greater flexibility for our commission.

As amended, the commission would allow applications in respect of cases that were not appealed, but only in exceptional cases. I am pleased that the committee made this important improvement to the legislation. The vast majority, if not all, of the witnesses who appeared in the committee agreed with this important discretionary element, including The Canadian Bar Association, the Criminal Lawyers Association, the dean of law at the University of Sherbrooke, and the Innocence projects in Quebec, at the University of British Columbia and at the University of Ottawa.

Several witnesses also raised the importance of preventing miscarriages of justice and the commission's role in addressing systemic issues. When he appeared before the committee, the minister explained that there were many proactive elements included elsewhere in the bill. Nonetheless, there was interest among committee members to include a specific power in the commission's mandate provision to address systemic causes of wrongful convictions.

Bill C-40 has, therefore, been amended to allow the commission to make recommendations to address systemic issues that may lead to miscarriages of justice. These recommendations will be directed toward relevant public bodies, including the Law Commission of Canada; federal departments and agencies; federal, provincial and territorial working groups; and parliamentary committees. The member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke proposed that amendment, and I would like to thank him for that. He has supported this bill, as always, and has been a strong advocate for improving our justice system. This member also proposed the bill's final amendment.

We heard at committee that people who profess their innocence may face challenges before, during and after they seek a review of their case as a potential miscarriage of justice. To reduce stigma and exclusion to programs, while they continue to serve their sentences, the bill now provides that the commission will be able to raise with Correctional Service Canada and the Parole Board of Canada the importance of not excluding applicants to their programs as a result of them having made an application for review on the grounds of miscarriage of justice.

Bill C-40 is very important legislation that is widely supported by external stakeholders and by many members of the House. Many people have been waiting for decades to have an independent miscarriage of justice review commission and for the review process to be more transparent and efficient. I hope that we can pass this legislation at third reading as quickly as possible so that it can be referred to the other place and can continue to make progress through both Houses toward royal assent.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I know that my friend on the other side is an expert in the legal system. The government amended the bill to allow convicts to apply for conviction review, without having first exhausted all appeals. This will undoubtedly lead to individuals applying for a conviction review shortly after being sentenced.

Does the hon. member not believe that this will not strengthen the justice system but, instead, will weaken it?

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, flattery will get my colleague everywhere, but I do not profess to be an expert on anything, frankly. On this issue, he raised a very important point. There are many cases where people do not have the ability or the means to exercise their right of appeal, or there are many more cases where facts come up later, long after their ability to appeal has expired. It is only in exceptional cases where the commission will review those cases where they have not exhausted their appeal.

This is never going to serve as an alternative route to people who are appearing before the criminal courts.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, the nine commissioners who will be appointed to this commission will not be required to understand French. The member who gave the speech cast the deciding vote. How does he feel about the fact that he is the person responsible for the violation of the rights of Franco-Canadians and Quebeckers?

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, the premise of the member's question is that it is unfair, and it is wrong. This is not about trampling over rights. In fact, it is about expanding rights. The whole purpose of this commission is to make access to justice easier for the wrongfully convicted.

The member wants people to have access to this body in both official languages, full stop. She also wants the best people serving as commissioners on this body who can make sure that it happens. There are occasions where people from certain aspects of society do not speak both official languages but are very competent and very capable. We do not want to exclude those members because that would actually be detrimental to the people who appear before the commission.

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

Madam Speaker, I am really confused. What happened in committee with this bill was the Conservatives filibustering and delaying, and then the bill finally gets over to the House here. The previous Conservative speaker, who spoke to this bill, spoke so glowingly of it, but that was just moments after he introduced 20 amendments to effectively, one by one, kill the bill clause by clause. I am just in awe as to what the Conservative strategy happens to be here. The member spoke a bit in his speech about what happened in committee.

Can the member try to make rhyme or reason of what is going on with the Conservative Party when it comes to this bill?

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, the answer to the last part of the question is that I do not think anybody can. The Conservatives are playing politics with the bill, pure and simple. They supported it at second reading. They filibustered the bill for 40 hours at committee. They hauled out the name of David and Joyce Milgaard here tonight; it is shameful.

This commission would be set up to be independent and efficient, and take it out of the hands of politicians. If the Conservatives are opposing this bill, I suppose that is an endorsement of the Minister of Justice or the previous minister of justice. Something tells me that is not what the purpose is behind this.

The Conservatives stand in this House, time after time, talking about law and order, and keeping our streets safe, but we also have to stand up for people who have suffered and have been wrongfully convicted. The purpose of this bill is to make that system much better.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, does my colleague agree that we could create an independent review commission that would not necessarily lower the threshold for review?

David Milgaard's problem was never that the threshold was too high, but that the system was too cumbersome.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member is very thoughtful and I enjoy working with him, as I said earlier.

I do not believe this would lower the threshold. It would change the nature of the equation that the commission has to calculate when reviewing the circumstances in each case. It is up to the courts to determine innocence or guilt. It would be up to the commission to determine whether maybe there has been a miscarriage of justice. That is not lowering the threshold, with all due respect. In fact, it is making the system more open and fair, and more accessible.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to a very important topic. I am referring to the creation of an independent commission to review miscarriages of justice under Bill C‑40. The bill is concrete and positive, a fact that deserves mention, considering it is not always a Liberal Party specialty. That is a rare occurrence indeed, as we know.

In 2021, the Minister of Justice commissioned a report on the current criminal conviction system. The findings of this report showed that awareness about the danger of wrongful convictions has increased in Canada and the world. None of the many people consulted for this report opposed the creation of a new independent body at arm's length from the government to replace the federal Minister of Justice in hearing applications for remedies for wrongful convictions.

This bill demonstrates a willingness to ensure that decisions about people who have been convicted are more independent and to strengthen public confidence in institutions. The reform proposed by Bill C‑40 is a very good initiative, and the Bloc Québécois believes that creating this commission will have several positive effects.

First of all, it will allow for greater independence between the legal and political branches. The bill takes the discretion away from the justice minister and gives it to the commission. This is a step in the right direction, although it comes a little late, given that the Liberal government waited until after the media had reported on shocking cases of prisoners waiting months, even years, to have a miscarriage of justice reviewed. In the United Kingdom, for example, this system of having an independent commission review miscarriages of justice was set up 25 years ago. We are 25 years behind. This is not exactly a reason to pat ourselves on the back and break out the champagne.

This independence was called into question by the recent revelations about former justice minister David Lametti, reinforcing the need for the power to order a new trial to be taken out of the hands of ministers and given to an independent body, specifically the new miscarriage of justice review commission.

Let me refresh my colleagues' memories. The former justice minister ordered a new trial in the case of Justice Delisle, contrary to the recommendations of the Criminal Conviction Review Group, which said that no miscarriage of justice had occurred. This finding was also corroborated by Quebec's director of criminal and penal prosecutions.

This decision also came as a surprise to Quebec's director of criminal and penal prosecutions, Patrick Michel, who suspects that the minister's use of power was arbitrary rather than discretionary. To add insult to injury, the sponsor of this bill is none other than the former minister of justice and former member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, which proves the importance of the bill's existence because of his actions.

The Bloc Québécois would like to mention that the passage of Bill C-40 will not do anything to change its desire to investigate this matter at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. This is about maintaining the public's confidence in our justice system. Favouritism has no place in our courts.

Since Bill C‑40 seeks to take away the minister's power to order a new trial and instead give that power to commissioners, we think that decisions like the one made by former minister Lametti will not happen again and that this will help increase the public's confidence in the justice system.

The bill will also guarantee everyone access to the commission and a referral to legal services so that everyone, particularly the most vulnerable, will have true access to justice. The history of our courts and the recent revelations regarding the former justice minister remind us that we need to improve the judicial review process. Once again, this is about the public's confidence in our courts and our justice system.

Let us remember that this bill is named after the late David Milgaard. The Milgaard case is important because it reminds us that our courts, like any institution, are sometimes fallible. We need mechanisms to ensure that, when mistakes are made, they can be corrected. Just as a reminder, Milgaard was a young man who was convicted and sentenced to 23 years in prison for the murder of Gail Miller, a crime he never committed.

Because Milgaard and his mother, Joyce, defended David's innocence so tirelessly, we now understand the need for a judicial review mechanism. It is thanks to their campaign and the efforts of people like Donald Marshall, Guy Paul Morin, Thomas Sophonow and James Driskell that we are now working to improve our justice system. Every one of their stories is one more reason motivating us to create this commission. We thank them for fighting for a better justice system.

Finally, even though the Bloc Québécois is voting in favour of the bill, we must point out the hypocrisy of the Liberals and the NDP when it comes to the French language. My colleague, the member for Rivière-du-Nord, moved an amendment during clause-by-clause review of the bill to require the commissioners who are appointed to be fluent in both official languages. That was too much to ask. For the Liberals, the Conservatives and the NDP, the official languages are good for speeches and campaign days, but within the Canadian government, the Canadian public service or our courts, they are optional.

The NDP boast about defending the idea of bilingual judges since 2008, but they rejected the idea of requiring the commissioners heading this independent commission to be bilingual, and they voted against their convictions. The Liberals boast about being the first government to recognize the decline in French, but they voted against the idea of bilingual judges. We saw the same thing happen with the appointment of the unilingual anglophone Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick, which is the only bilingual province in Canada. That is not to mention the appointment of the Governor General, who does not speak a word of French. To be fair, she knows how to say “bonjour”, and I think her French has improved. Now she knows how to say, “Comment ça va?”

Anyone who believes that the Liberals are making French a priority must be dreaming. Quebec's motto, however, is Je me souviens, which means “I remember”. On some level, it came as no surprise to see the Conservatives' contempt for French. After all, this was the party that once appointed a unilingual anglophone auditor general and unilingual anglophone Supreme Court judges. What comes next remains to be seen.

Although this great party claims to be a champion of French, once again, it does not walk the talk. That is what we call geography-dependent bilingualism. It adjusts to voter opinion like a weather vane adjusts to the wind. Moments like this reveal, or perhaps remind us, how incidental the French language is in Canada and how utopian it is to believe that the two official languages could ever truly be equal. If anyone is unfamiliar with the word “utopian”, I encourage them to look up the definition in the dictionary.

Although we are choosing to support this bill, I feel compelled to point out once again the hypocrisy of certain parties and members when it comes to defending and supporting the French language. It is interesting when the government repeats over and over, on the campaign trail, in the Speech from the Throne and in the House of Commons, that it is the first party to recognize the decline of French, but—surprise, surprise—it will not be the last to worsen that decline.

In closing, I hope this bill will be passed for all the reasons I outlined throughout my speech. It will foster greater public confidence in our justice system, greater independence in our justice system and, above all, greater access to justice. I also hope that, once the bill is passed, the government will make an effort to appoint commissioners who are proficient in both official languages. Why not do more to ensure that francophones have the same access to justice as anglophones? That is what substantive equality should be all about. It is not just a matter of obtaining services in French on a part-time basis. It is also about access to services in both official languages in Canada's justice system.

I can assure the House that we will take a closer look at this and make sure that this genuine concern is heard.

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

Madam Speaker, I have one question for the member and I really hope he can give me a yes or no on this.

What happens if a commissioner comes forward who is overly qualified, has everything the commission wants, but only speaks French? Would the member then suggest that individual should be disqualified?

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, once again, we see the profound hypocrisy at play here. Nothing goes deeper than Anglo-Saxon hypocrisy, and this MP just proved that to be true. For him, someone who is capable, competent and qualified must be someone who speaks one of the two official languages.

It makes no sense for a government to appoint a Governor General who does not speak a word of French when that is one of the official languages. It is ridiculous for a government to appoint a unilingual anglophone Lieutenant Governor in the only bilingual province in Canada. It is ridiculous for a government to appoint judges who do not speak a word of French to the Supreme Court of Canada. A person would have to be high on something to believe that defending and promoting French is a priority for the Liberals. I understand that they are the ones who legalized marijuana, but they should not—

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

We have to go to other questions.

The hon. member for Edmonton Manning.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with the bill before us, the Liberals would lower the threshold for a review. Does the member agree that this would increase the risk to an overburdened and understaffed justice system that is under extreme strain right now and facing unacceptable delays, yes or no?

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, when a member of the Conservative Party, the party that brags about standing up for francophones, asks me to respond with a yes or no, it is hard to take that seriously. I wish I could ask my colleague whether he is comfortable with the fact that his party, which claims to recognize both official languages, is not in favour of having bilingual judges on this commission.

Again, I cannot take this seriously. As I said earlier, the Conservative Party appointed a unilingual anglophone auditor general. I have to say that he did learn French afterward. Who appointed unilingual anglophone justices to the Supreme Court? It was the Conservative Party. Who appointed a unilingual anglophone minister of foreign affairs who did not speak a word of French? A francophone who does not speak English would never be appointed minister of foreign affairs. That would just be too bad for the anglophones.

In terms of credibility, we cannot trust the federal parties to promote and defend French.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, as usual, I was impressed by my colleague's speech. That is to be expected, since he is a Bloc Québécois MP, after all.

I want to make one thing clear. We hear the same argument every time: If a unilingual francophone were to apply for the job, would we not want them to have the job because the incumbent should be proficient in both official languages? They make the same argument every time. However, what is the reality? Has there ever been a unilingual francophone Supreme Court judge? Has there ever been a unilingual francophone governor general? The answer is always no. It is not surprising. French is in the minority here, in this great land my friends call Canada.

I would like to ask my colleague if he thinks they are serious when the only argument they raise against the idea of requiring someone in an important position to be proficient in both official languages is to say that it would prevent a unilingual francophone from getting that position.

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

The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques has 40 seconds to respond.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, it will take me more than 40 seconds to explain how discrimination against francophones has been going on for as long as Canada has existed. We were promised reconciliation and substantive equality. We were promised that institutional bilingualism would be the salvation of francophones.

The Liberal Party, the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party are federalist parties that are stacked with and controlled by the anglophone majority. Sometimes they feel generous and toss Quebeckers and francophones a bone now and then. However, when the time comes for concrete action to establish substantive equality between the two official languages, then the bones stop coming and all attempts at appeasement end.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to speak in support of Bill C-40, an act to amend the Criminal Code. This miscarriage of justice bill represents a critical step in our ongoing efforts to reform the criminal justice system and to address the systemic inequities that have long plagued it, particularly for indigenous people, racialized communities and marginalized Canadians.

For the better part of a decade, the New Democrats have called for the establishment of an independent commission to investigate wrongful convictions. In late 2021, we supported expediting Bill C-5 in return for the Liberals' promise to create this commission, which Bill C-40 finally delivers 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 the delays and limitations of the current system.

The current process, where the Minister of Justice reviews applications for miscarriages of justice, has proven inadequate. Each year, dozens of applications are filed, yet only a handful proceed to investigation. Bill C-40 would address this by shifting the review power to an independent miscarriage of justice review commission, which would have the authority to direct new trials or hearings, or refer matters to a court of appeal. This independent body would not be an alternative to the criminal justice system, but an essential adjunct that would create a fair and impartial review process.

The commission would consist of a chief commissioner and four to eight other commissioners appointed to reflect the diversity of Canadian society, considering gender equality and the overrepresentation of indigenous and Black persons in the criminal justice system. This diverse composition is crucial for building a commission that understands the unique challenges faced by marginalized communities.

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. According to the Senate report on the injustices experienced by indigenous women, expert witnesses have repeatedly highlighted these systemic issues. Bill C-40 is a necessary step toward addressing these deeply rooted injustices.

New Democrats worked tirelessly to improve Bill C-40 at the committee stage. We supported amendments that would ensure applicants can 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. We also proposed amendments to empower the commission to make recommendations addressing systemic issues that lead to miscarriages of justice. This proactive approach can 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.

It is important to note that the last significant reform to Canada's conviction review process was in 2002. Since then, we have seen the establishment of similar independent commissions in the U.K. and New Zealand, demonstrating the efficacy of such bodies in addressing wrongful convictions. Canada must follow suit and ensure timely justice for those who are wrongly convicted.

Bill C-40 has received support from various stakeholders, including the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, the University of British Columbia's innocence project, and Innocence Canada. These organizations, along with experts like Dr. Kathryn Campbell from the University of Ottawa, have been instrumental in advocating for this crucial reform.

While we commend the Liberals for bringing this bill forward, it is long overdue. The delays in tabling and debating this bill are unjustifiable, particularly given the urgency of addressing wrongful convictions. Many individuals continue to serve lengthy sentences due to miscarriages of justice, and every day of delay is a day too long for them.

The Conservatives have obstructed this process at every turn with filibusters and threats of further delays. We urge all parties to put aside partisan differences and work together to ensure the swift passage of Bill C-40. Time is of the essence, and we must ensure that this bill receives royal assent before the summer parliamentary recess.

Bill C-40 offers a long overdue pathway for those wrongfully convicted to seek justice. It represents a significant step in addressing the historic and systematic injustices within our criminal justice system. New Democrats are in support of this bill and call on all members of the House to do the same. Let us move forward with a shared commitment to justice, equity and the rule of law.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona so much. We work together on several files involving international injustices and human rights. We work together amazingly well.

Now, however, we may have a disagreement over Bill C‑40. As we have mentioned throughout this debate this evening, we were very disappointed with the way the NDP members voted on a Bloc Québécois amendment that simply called for the commissioners of this future commission to be proficient in English and French, the two official languages.

Since we have spent all evening talking about justice, equity and equality, does my colleague not believe that, unfortunately, there may be an injustice when some francophones apply to this commission to defend their rights and are faced with commissioners who do not speak their language?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I apologize to my friend. I do not speak French very well, so it is hard for me to express myself on this issue. I will therefore speak in English. I am sorry.

The importance of the French language is vital. The riding of Edmonton Strathcona, which I am so happy to represent, has the French Quarter in it. In fact, 20% of our population identify as francophone in our communities.

When I spoke today of Bill C-40, one of the things I addressed is that there is a disproportionate impact on indigenous women. For me, it is important that every Canadian, whether they are francophone, indigenous or whatever region of the country they are from, is able to be represented adequately. I would need to ensure that there were services available in both official languages.

I would also want to make sure that all of those people who are on the commission adequately represent the population of Canada, particularly those who are marginalized and who are deeply impacted by our criminal justice system.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, would the member for Edmonton Strathcona agree that we could pass legislation that would create an independent commission that is fair, open and efficient, but does not necessarily lower the threshold for review? The member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore said it does not lower the threshold at all. That then leaves me asking why we would change the wording.

How is the bill better with the language that we say lowers the threshold unnecessarily?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think the member was not listening when I said what we have in Canada has not been updated since 2002. That means that, for 22 years, we have not looked at this judicial process.

It is not working. It is not working for marginalized people, particularly indigenous women in this country. It needs to be updated. It needs to be made more relevant so that justice is not denied to those people who are particularly marginalized.

The work that the committee has done makes this a better piece of legislation. It makes it stronger. I am upset that it has taken us so long to get to the point where we can pass this bill. I hope that we can get it through the House before the parliamentary break.

By all means, we do not need to put more barriers around justice for indigenous women in this country. We need to work to remove those barriers so there is justice for every Canadian equally.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

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

Pursuant to order made on Wednesday, February 28, the motion is deemed adopted.

Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 8:18 p.m.)

The House resumed from June 6 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.

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

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C-40, which we are continuing to debate today, is a very important piece of legislation. This bill would establish an independent commission dedicated to reviewing miscarriage of justice applications.

Specifically, Bill C-40 would amend the Criminal Code by reforming the existing miscarriage of justice review process in two ways.

First, it specifies accessibility criteria. It specifies the investigative process, in particular the legal threshold to conduct investigations, powers of investigation and provisions of investigation reports. The bill also specifies the decision-making process, specifically the legal threshold to refer cases back to the courts for a new trial, hearing or appeal. In addition, on that decision-making process, it would change the relevant decision-making factors.

The second area Bill C-40 addresses is additions to the Criminal Code to establish the commission: mandate, composition, appointment process and qualifications specifically, as well as the powers, duties and functions.

Bill C-40 is named after David and Joyce Milgaard. David Milgaard was convicted of a crime he did not commit and spent 23 years in prison before being released in 1992 and finally exonerated in 1997. Joyce Milgaard, David's mother, spent decades advocating for her son's release and compensation for the injustices he faced. Mr. Milgaard's experience revealed the flaws that can exist in our justice system. Joyce and David Milgaard were forceful advocates for the wrongfully convicted. They called for changes to Canada's wrongful conviction review process, including the establishment of an independent commission. We are all very proud to honour their work and their vision for a more just Canada.

I want to reflect on that last bit for a moment. Just imagine for a second being a parent who has one of their children convicted of a crime, or, first of all, just being accused and charged with a crime and the time they spend. I am reflecting on my own children, if I were in this position. I have a 20-year-old son, and I imagine if something occurred and he was put in a position like this. I just think to myself, from a parent's perspective, what would one do? A parent would go to all ends, especially if they knew their child was innocent, to protect them and to make sure they get the proper justice they deserve.

The inspiration of this bill and who the bill is named after is an example of that incredible deep passion that people bring, in particular, when trying to find justice for their children. We are very fortunate. I know there are many people who have been wrongfully convicted who did not have advocates like their parents fighting for their release. We need to use the example of what happened here, this particular dynamic with the child and their parents fighting for them, and in particular their mother, as a standard for the way we should be treating matters like this.

This is a very important bill. This bill would address the injustices that unfortunately can occur within a justice system that is intended to hold accountable those who have committed crimes.

I know, as a matter of fact, after listening to this debate in the House during the times when the bill has been up for debate, that everybody in the House supports this bill. This is a bill I have heard Conservatives speak in favour of. I have heard the NDP, the Bloc and certainly Liberals speak in favour of it. This is a bill that has unanimous consent. This is a bill that anybody who has children, who knows somebody wrongfully convicted or who fears that one day somebody else could be wrongfully convicted should support.

Knowing that we have unanimous consent for a bill like this, that we all believe that this is so important, that we all know that people who have been wrongfully convicted continue to sit in prison today, knowing all of this, and knowing that we all support it and that we all believe that justice is just as important for the wrongfully convicted as it is for the rightfully convicted, one would think that a bill like this could pass through the House very quickly, that it could get to the Senate and the Senate could do its thing with this and adopt this bill just as quickly. This should be a completely non-partisan issue. There should be no need for anybody in the House to try to slow down the process and the speed at which this bill moves through the House, especially when we hear and we know that everybody supports it.

Unfortunately, that is not what happened. Despite the fact that Conservatives said they support this, and they get up in their speeches and talk about how much they support this, they have intentionally slowed the passage of this bill through the House. The member for Langley—Aldergrove put forward 20 amendments to the bill, a bill that he supports, a bill that Conservatives will vote in favour of. Does one think these were meaningful amendments that he brought forward? They were not.

The first amendment that he brought forward was that we delete the short title. He then went on to bring forward amendments that would consecutively delete each clause of the bill, one by one. What he is doing is putting forward these amendments and, by the way, as soon as one puts forward an amendment to a bill, it resets the speaking order and everybody can speak again. He will effectively, unless the Conservatives change course and decide to apply the votes or do something at the last minute, make 20 votes out of this simple bill that everybody supports and just absolutely slow down the process.

I understand that there are issues we disagree on. I understand that the main tool of an opposition party, His Majesty's loyal opposition party, is to affect the amount of time it takes to do things in the House. I respect that. I understand that. It makes sense that, from time to time, Conservatives want to use those tools for issues that they passionately disagree with. I get it. On contentious issues, it makes sense.

However, on a bill like this, which everybody supports, which literally will allow justice to be served for those who have been wrongfully convicted, the Conservative Party played games with the bill and continues to play games with the bill now. We had to bring in a motion of closure to force the Conservatives to vote on this bill and to stop delaying it. That is where we are now. We are on the final few hours of this, because we had to force the Conservatives into this position. It is absolutely shameful that Conservatives would act in this manner with respect to a bill like this. This bill deserves the unanimous support that the House has already said it gives it. This bill deserves to be passed as quickly as possible. It is extremely unfortunate that Conservatives continue to play their games with such an important piece of legislation.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

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.

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

Madam Speaker, does that warrant deleting the short title? Does that warrant putting a separate amendment on the floor just to delete the short title? It is the short title of the bill. It is not even the full title of the bill. It is literally the short version of what we refer to the bill as.

If the member is genuine and genuinely says there is a concern about the bill, then he should explain to Canadians why he wants to delete the short title of the bill.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, we live in a society where the justice system is based on rehabilitation. We also have a justice system and society that believes, as Voltaire did, that “It is better to risk saving a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one”.

However, we are dealing with heartbreaking cases of miscarriages of justice. One example is the case we have been talking about, that of Mr. Milgaard. There are also cases in Quebec. Take, for example, the Jolivet case, which was also highly publicized.

If this is one of our values, why did the government wait so long to react and to create something that will make it possible to correct miscarriages of justice within a much more reasonable time frame?

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

Madam Speaker, this bill attempts to correct that. I agree with the member in that Liberals believe, and I believe the Bloc and the NDP also believe, in the rehabilitative process. It is called Corrections Canada. It is not “lock them up and throw away the key” Canada. The Conservatives do not believe in corrections. They do not believe in rehabilitation. They believe in locking people up and throwing away the key.

With all due respect, I know this very well, coming from a riding that has six prisons in the area. Kingston is known as the prison capital of Canada. I have heard stories from when the Conservatives were in power, about the double bunking that was going on and the absolute catastrophe of what was happening in the prisons. The Conservatives are not interested in rehabilitation. They just want to lock people up and throw away the key.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I certainly agree with the speaker across that there is a fundamental difference in terms of how we treat people in this world and how we truly see them as people.

With that in mind, the NDP is concerned about the fact that robust financial supports need to be provided to the commission to ensure it gets running quickly, considering a lot of these cases are so urgent. Could the member speak to the need to ensure funding for the commission?

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

Madam Speaker, if we do not give the commission the tools that it needs to do its work, then we are basically setting it up for failure. What those supports are exactly and how much it needs, in terms of resources, is to be determined.

I would agree with the member that the supports and resources, financial resources in particular, to do the work the commission needs to do, to do the investigative work, and to ensure that people have access to the appeals process, need to be properly funded.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

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.

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

The hon. member knows that she cannot mention current members' names.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

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.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

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?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

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.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

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.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

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.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

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.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

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.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

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.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

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?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

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.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

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.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

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.

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

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.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

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.

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

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.

[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:

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

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

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #826

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

I declare Motion No. 1 defeated.

I therefore declare Motions Nos. 2 to 20 defeated.

The House resumed 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.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, for the Minister of Justice]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

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.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #827

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

I declare the motion carried.