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 .

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Minister, with all due respect, you didn't have time to answer my question earlier. I'll just ask it again. I'd like a quick answer, ideally yes or no, because we only have two and a half minutes.

Are you for or against a bilingualism requirement for the nine commissioners to be appointed to the miscarriage of justice review commission under Bill C‑40, that this committee has just passed?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

We are definitely in favour of Bill C‑40.

We were disappointed by the Conservatives' filibustering tactics during consideration of this bill, in terms of how cases or files are handled for persons who speak French. Of course, translation will still be part of this new commission's procedures. That will be helpful to complainants or people who want to request a review.

With respect to Bill S‑210, I would like to point out something that is not true—

Justice and Human Rights

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 19th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to 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).

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

Polish Heritage Month

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to speak to Motion No. 75. It is also a great pleasure to see you back in the chair and to see your smiling face again.

It is only right for us to adopt this motion. There is just one question we should be asking ourselves. Given how long the Polish people and Polish culture have been contributing strength and vitality to our societies, and given that they originated many of the institutions that exist in our society, why has this not been done before? It is never too late to do the right thing, so let us get to it. We will vote in favour of the motion to recognize the outstanding contributions the Polish nation has made to the Canadian and Quebec nations.

As members know, a lot of people in Poland speak French, which creates a special bond between Quebeckers and the Polish people. It draws us closer together. A total of 79,000 people in Quebec, 55,000 of whom were born there, claim Polish ancestry. That is a lot of people, and we share a history, because they have been here for a long time.

I know that sometimes my colleagues in the House get tired of hearing us talk about the history of Quebec and the important milestones, but we talk about it all the time because we know that, deep down, our colleagues really like hearing it. When we talk about the milestones associated with the Quiet Revolution, the Charter of the French Language, and so on, it should be noted that people of Polish descent were there with us. They have been living in Quebec since 1752.

At that time, in 1752, this land was still New France, not Canada. Dominique Debartzch, a fur trader, arrived in 1752. Charles Blaskowitz followed soon after in 1757. These people began contributing to our collective wealth in the New France era. That is amazing.

My colleague also mentioned one of the most remarkable individuals who founded the Polish Institute of Arts and Sciences in Canada, an important institution in Quebec, in 1943. I am talking about Wanda Stachiewicz. Before arriving in Quebec, she was a member of the resistance. I would also point out that she was a mother of three. I would like the members present, and anyone else who is tuning in, especially anyone who is a parent, to take a few seconds to imagine what that might be like. Even those who are not parents can still imagine what it must have been like to be a member of the resistance during the Second World War, while at the same time having three children to care for.

These people left their homeland to come here, not always by choice. We are pleased that they stayed, obviously, but it is important to understand the sacrifice, the burden, and to recognize this value. I do not think I am wrong to say today that the Polish people probably understand the value of independence better than any other people, because they have lost it several times, because it was threatened with violence, with occupation. It takes a lot of resilience to withstand that. I commend them for their strength, their courage and their tenacity. I tip my hat to them and thank them for participating in building a better society here and now.

The people of Poland are such a big part of Quebec culture that they are also part of our literature. I want to mention a famous novel by Arlette Cousture, Ces enfants d'ailleurs, which tells the story of a family who flee their homeland to come live here, near a wide river, in the colourful and inviting city of Montreal. Some of that colour is supplied by the Polish community. At the end of the day, it makes for a beautiful mosaic.

I am very happy to contribute to making May 3 “Polish Constitution Day” and the month of May every year “Polish Heritage Month”.

I willingly promise to participate in the celebrations, and I invite everyone to join in. Obviously, they will commemorate May 3, 1791, the date on which the Polish constitution was adopted, some 20 years after the disgraceful partition of the Polish territory by Russia and Germany. The Polish constitution was inspired by the French Revolution and the Enlightenment, which is based on the values of reason, freedom and the rule of law. I mentioned it earlier, but I want to reiterate that these people really know the meaning of independence.

Of course, at the same time, in Quebec, we were following a very different path. Far be it from me to compare Quebeckers' experience with that of the Polish people. What we experienced was not as intense, but we share a common pursuit of growing, thriving and becoming independent as a nation. I am sure that when that day comes, we will get there with the help of Quebec's Polish community, which will continue to enrich our history and our lives.

We are going to vote in favour of the motion, but there is one small concern. It is about the wording, which I think has a Canadian slant. It refers to the idea of multiculturalism, as if we are drowning in it. Quebec's vision is not in opposition to that, it is just different. Our vision is interculturalism. We know that the people of Poland have contributed plenty of richness to Quebec, and there are aspects that we need to integrate into our values. They are generous and hard-working. We are happy to live alongside them, and I am very grateful to them.

Our respective societies, as Canadians and Quebeckers, who share this Parliament for the time being, are more than happy to celebrate the Polish nation. The Bloc Québécois will be enthusiastically voting in favour of this motion and celebrating the richness of this culture. It is important to recognize other peoples.

Certain members may have been offended by my talk of Quebec's political independence this evening. It bothers some people, but others are used to it. Those of us hoping things might be different someday might have to talk to each other. Just today, in fact, a federal commission was struck pursuant to Bill C‑40, and there is no requirement for its judges to be bilingual. I do not think that should happen in a country with two official languages, French and English, yet it does. I saw it on my news feed, and I could not help but talk about the words of my colleague from Rivière‑du‑Nord, who represents the Bloc Québécois at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and who spoke out against that.

Anyway, we think celebrating people of Polish origin is absolutely fantastic. We are happy to live with them and grow with them because, now that we live together, we have shared lives, shared experiences. That is how we build a just and equitable society. I also want to comment on their recognition of the principle of independence, which we believe in, too, of course, and we hope for that same experience in a sovereign Quebec.

With the bit of time I have left, I am going to take a risk. I hope, if people can hear me, that they will excuse my accent. Dobry wieczor pozdrawiam i dziekuje.

I will translate what I just said to make sure it was understood. I just said, “Good evening, best regards and thank you”.

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

The purpose of amendment BQ‑1 is to correct a defect in Bill C‑40, which fortunately prescribes certain requirements for the commissioners who would be appointed to the commission but unfortunately omits the requirement to ensure that those commissioners are clearly able to speak and understand both official languages.

The Barreau du Québec raised this point in the brief it submitted to the committee. I think this is an important argument that must be taken into consideration. We propose that it be included in the bill.

I believe the amendment is self-explanatory.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have to admit that Ms. Besner's answer has convinced me. I wouldn't have raised my hand if I had heard her earlier.

I understand the argument that a real possibility may be interpreted as being less restrictive than reasonable grounds. However—and I say this respectfully—I don't agree with Mr. Housefather or Mr. Garrison on this point. I think the requirement of having reasonable grounds to believe that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred could result in more investigations than what amendment CPC‑1 proposes.

What Ms. Besner's telling us is really interesting. At the stage where you decide whether to conduct an investigation, you ask yourself whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a miscarriage may have occurred or whether it's in the interests of justice to conduct an investigation. Those are the two conditions that must be considered before looking into the case.

However, that doesn't mean you order a new trial. Proposed paragraph 696.6(2) provides that both conditions must be met for the commission to remedy the situation following an investigation. It's not “or in the interests of justice”, but rather “in the interests of justice”. Furthermore, the first condition is then that there must be reasonable grounds to conclude, not to believe, that there has been a miscarriage, which is also more restrictive. Consequently, it seems to me that the objective of our Conservative colleagues' amendment CPC‑1 is already met by proposed paragraph 696.6(2), which would help prevent abuses.

If we retain the present wording of Bill C‑40, we will hear more cases in which miscarriages of justice may have occurred, which I think is wise. Consequently, I'm going to vote against CPC‑1.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Believe it or not, Madam Chair, I'm not going to belabour the point on this because I've had the opportunity to speak to CPC-1 in the context of some of the other bills.

I think it's important. Some mention has been made of other systems, and I would quickly like to talk about our own system. The current system deals with scenarios where the Minister of Justice evaluates applications and can move forward with remedies if he or she feels that a miscarriage of justice likely occurred.

The United Kingdom has had a commission for some time now and, as I mentioned, experienced a flood of applications once the commission opened its doors. They have the threshold of a real possibility that a wrongful conviction or miscarriage of justice occurred.

In North Carolina, from where we heard testimony, factual innocence plays a part in the application and remedy. In this legislation, Bill C-40, factual innocence is not required. What is the threshold being proposed in Bill C-40? It's that a miscarriage of justice or wrongful conviction may have occurred. In my opinion, one, that threshold is too low, and two, it's a fact that it's lower than any other threshold in any jurisdiction we looked at, including our own.

CPC-1 would change the threshold in Bill C-40 at the investigative phase from “that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred” to “a real possibility that a miscarriage of justice has occurred”. We're replicating a peer country's wording, the United Kingdom's standard phrasing of “real possibility”.

Why do I suggest this? We want to have a system where a miscarriage of justice application would be exceptional. The process we have is strenuous. The accused can avail themselves of legal aid and all the charter rights to which they're afforded. I've mentioned before that I look at everything we do at this committee through the lens of the victims who have appeared before our committee. The victims and their families who have appeared at this committee have said that the judicial process itself revictimizes them. I remember one of them very clearly saying that we do not have a justice system in Canada; we have a legal system. That's how she felt coming out of the other end of the process.

In light of what we've recently heard from former minister Lametti about judicial vacancies, in light of what the chief justice of the Supreme Court has said about judicial vacancies, in light of the Jordan principle, in light of what all of us are hearing from our constituents about delays in the system and in light of the extreme stress that's put on victims and their families going through the process, the threshold whereby we say that someone is going to get another crack at the whole thing, they're going to get a new trial or they're going to go to the court of appeal has to be higher than a miscarriage of justice. That is why CPC-1 mirrors the U.K. standard that there's a real possibility that a miscarriage of justice occurred.

Thank you.

[Julie Besner]

I believe I mentioned at a previous meeting that Mr. Housefather had described the amendment very accurately. Consequently, I have nothing to correct on that score. What he describes is an exception to the general obligation for applicants to have exhausted their appeal rights. That will still be a requirement, but the amendment provides that exceptions may be contemplated if the commission takes into consideration the factors enumerated in subsection 696.4(4) of the bill. They are the relevant factors that, according to the case law, are to be considered on this specific issue.

I would add two more factors in response to the comments made and questions asked by other members of the committee.

As regards frivolous applications filed with the commission, the bill contains two provisions that include the concept of the interests of justice. This measure must be applied in order to enable the commission to refrain from using its resources to conduct an investigation or to refer cases for new appeals if it isn't really in the interests of justice to do so. Scotland has included this idea in its act and uses it for that purpose. It should be considered.

Similarly, one of the factors that the commission must take into consideration in reaching its final decision and that appear further on in the bill, on page 6, already exists in the present statute. It has been carried over to Bill C‑40: the application must not be intended to serve as a further appeal and the remedies set forth must be extraordinary remedies. That's already in the present act, and will remain so, to reflect the fact that the concept of miscarriage of justice review must be limited to cases in which new evidence calls into question the reliability of a verdict rendered by a court. It's a safety valve, an extraordinary remedy. The idea is not to question all the evidence considered or issues decided by the courts.

I hope that will assist you in your discussions.

[Julie Besner, Senior Counsel, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice]

Thank you.

If my understanding of the question is correct, the member wants to know whether it's possible to provide in Bill C‑40 for the commission to take into consideration the amount of time that has elapsed since the deadline prescribed by the court for filing an appeal has expired. That could definitely be taken into consideration, and if the committee wished to adopt such a provision, paragraph 696.4(4)(a) would be the best place to insert it.

I'm going to switch to English because that's the language I use to frame this in my mind.

It could say, “the amount of time that has passed since the time within which to file an appeal has expired.” A different formulation to get at that point might be possible.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you.

I entirely agree with Mr. Fortin, but I believe that what he's proposing is already in Bill C‑40. As I told Mr. Caputo, I agree with him too, but no one can file an application with the Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission the day after a superior court renders a decision.

I encourage you to consider the exception provided for in the new paragraph 696.4(4) proposed in clause 3 of the bill.

If you don't mind, Madam Chair, I'll read it out so everybody has it. Right now it says:

Despite paragraph (3)(b), the Commission may decide that the application is admissible even if the finding or verdict was not appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Then it would say:

...was not appealed to the court of appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada. In making the decision, the Commission must take into account

(a) the amount of time that has passed since the final judgment of the trial court..."

Basically, the day after would not.... Nobody's going to say that it just happened yesterday, so now they should take it. It should be that you should appeal.

Then it says:

(b) the reasons why the finding or verdict was not appealed...

(c) whether it would serve a useful purpose for an application to be made for an extension of the period within which a notice of appeal or a notice of application for leave to appeal...may be served and filed...

To me, it already says the intention is that you should have exhausted your appeals if you still could have done so. It would only be a matter of the appeal no longer being permissible. That's when they would even look at this. They would generally say to go back and appeal. I think it's taken care of.

The issue Mr. Moore raised is different. It's what the threshold should be overall. However, on the question of whether or not you should be allowed to hear a case that, let's say, happened 15 years ago and there are no appeal rights, I don't think it should matter whether you appeal to the court of appeal or the Supreme Court if you believe that whatever standard the law has has been met. That's my feeling.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 92 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the House on June 21, 2023, the committee is continuing its study of Bill C-40, an act to amend the Criminal Code, to make consequential amendments to other acts and to repeal a regulation on miscarriage of justice reviews.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. We have members on Zoom and others are in person.

I believe we have a new member with us.

Marilyn Gladu, welcome to our committee.

I believe all members are knowledgeable about the technology and how it works and about interpretation. Just as a reminder, all comments are to be addressed through the chair, please. We have members in the room. For those on Zoom, with the help of the clerk and the Table, we will watch for hands going up on the screen to ensure that we don't miss anyone.

I wish to inform you that all the sound tests were completed successfully.

With us in person today is Madam Anna Dekker.

Ms. Anna Dekker is Senior Counsel and Deputy Director of the Public Law and Legislative Services Sector.

We may be joined by someone else, but right now we will continue with our study.

We will resume consideration of Bill C-40 and resume debate on clause 3.

NDP-1 was withdrawn by unanimous consent on December 14, 2023.

I will ask Mr. Housefather if he wants to move LIB-1.

(On clause 3)

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a difficult moment for me, not because I had to find a new seat near the exit, not because it took me two tries to get to Ottawa because of the fog and not because I come from an Irish family of criers, but because it is really a moving moment for me.

I want to thank the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun for the friendship we have developed in the House. He has a great record of accomplishment, about which he spoke, but I want to point out something someone asked me on the plane last night, and that was how I could go to work in such a negative place. My response was that, unfortunately, all people see is question period, which is theatre, where people have other agendas they are pursuing, but they do not see the hard work that goes on behind the scenes, the co-operation and the friendships that are built. I really meant that, and the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun is a great example of this.

I made a quick list, because I had 15-minutes notice that I had this opportunity, on the number of things he and I worked on together and his willingness to take action to ensure we improved the justice system in Canada, in particular for indigenous people and the work he did on Bill C-5 to reduce mandatory minimums, which fall very hard on the most marginalized in our society.

He mentioned the conversion therapy ban. His work with the leader of the Conservatives and all parties meant we were able to pass that ban unanimously, something which I remain very proud of the House for doing.

He worked on Bill C-40, with which we are not quite finished, on the miscarriages of justice commission. Again, miscarriages of justice fall very hard on the most marginalized, particularly indigenous women. My pledge to him is that I will work as hard as I can to get that done, hopefully by the end of this month. We only have a couple of days, but I think we can get that done.

He also helped shepherd medical assistance in dying legislation through the House when I was initially the NDP critic. This was the most difficult issue in my 13 years here because of the very strong feelings on all sides of the issue. The minister always demonstrated his ability to listen, to be empathetic and to try to find solutions that would keep us all together on this very important issue about reducing suffering at the end of life, not just for the person but for the families of people who need that assistance at the end.

One last one is that I approached the minister about the publication ban on survivors of sexual assault and how many of them felt stifled by the publication ban. He asked what we could do to fix it. Eventually he agreed to add the ability to lift the publication ban in Bill S-12, and it came to the House. This was an example of how, when I approached him with an idea and a problem, he always looked for solutions and a way to bring us all together.

I know he will continue to contribute to Canada once he leaves the House, though I am not sure in exactly what way or if he is sure in exactly what way. He is one of the finest members of Parliament I have ever had the privilege to work with, and I thank him for his contributions here.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, today, I am stepping down. This is my last speech in the House. I would like to begin by thanking the voters in LaSalle—Émard—Verdun for entrusting me, three times, with the responsibility of representing them in the House.

I am also leaving my academic home, the Faculty of Law at McGill University. Leaving both institutions makes this a very emotional day for me.

Serving as a member, as parliamentary secretary and as Minister of Justice was the pinnacle of my professional career and I loved every minute of it.

That is what I want to talk about with friends today in this place. It is a series of moments that are indelibly etched in my brain and my heart, ranging from laughter to tears and everything in between, from Vancouver to St. John's, from Inuvik to Iqaluit to Nain and around the world in Europe, Asia and South America.

I would like to begin in my riding, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, with Les Bons Débarras bookstore, where I buy my vinyls, on Wellington street.

Then to St. John's where twice I have managed to get to Fred's Records and fill my bags with many good vinyls, which I would then spin in my office. Everybody knows that Justice 306, as Brian Tobin and Anne McLellan have told us, is the best office on the Hill.

At impromptu gatherings with my team, many of whom are here, such as when we passed the MMP's bill, we would spin some vinyl, have some fun and honour and thank each other for the work that we had done to make those moments special.

There are many humorous moments. I sat for two years as the benchmate to Rodger Cuzner, who is now in the other place, including two Christmas speeches. I will not attribute my sense of humour to Cuzner, because his is quite unique, but it was certainly a wonderful experience.

As a member, I learned rather quickly to remove my earpiece when the member for Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie had the floor.

I will not forget the first Press Gallery dinner sitting at a table with Rona Ambrose and hearing her speech, and those who were there would remember it well; or driving through Rome with our ambassador and watched the havoc being wreaked by the police escort that we had, I do not have hair but I would not have had after that anyway, and then later that evening going to V.I.P. Pizza, not the finest culinary experience in Rome, but still a good one; or throwing my suitcase in the back of a rented Ford F-150 when we were travelling in north.

There were serious moments too, such as the swearing in at Rideau Hall as a cabinet minister and the swearing in as an MP on three occasions. There was signing a proclamation at Rideau Hall proclaiming Charles the King of Canada, a one-time experience.

I listened to the stories of Italian Canadian families whose grandfathers or great-grandfathers were interned during World War II, realizing that I was the minister of justice and that a previous minister of justice had signed the decree to intern those people. There was working with my Italian Canadian colleagues in the House to get that apology done and attending the memorial unveiling in the riding of the former Speaker in North Bay with the indefatigable Joyce Pillarella.

I met David Milgaard in my office with James Lockyer and promised him that we would create an independent commission to review wrongful convictions. David Milgaard signed my album by the Tragically Hip, Fully Completely, which contains the song Wheat Kings that they wrote about him. Also, his sister Susan was present to announce the tabling of Bill C-40, and I will not be smiling fully until that bill receives royal assent.

This summer, at the G7 in Japan, I realized I was the senior justice minister around the table. I had my first conversation with Attorney General Merrick Garland of the United States. We had finished our agenda, and I had a chance to ask him whether the HBO series on the Unabomber was accurate. Attorney General Garland's voice lit up as he went on for 10 minutes about the accuracy and inaccuracy of the portrayal of the Unabomber case, but his view was generally favourable, and he said it was an important moment in his career.

When I was parliamentary secretary to the Minister of International Trade, I went to Namur, in Wallonia, to sell the Canada-Europe free trade agreement.

I was prepared to be the bad cop, as they say. It was fun. The minister was able to arrive a few weeks later to reach an agreement. In the same vein, I was the bad cop with Boeing at the Farnborough International Airshow in England. That was during the time when we had disputes with Boeing. There too, other ministers showed up afterward to make peace.

I had many wonderful moments on the hockey rink. This is Canada, after all, and I still try to lace up my skates, notwithstanding my advanced age. I had a wonderful moment in Gananoque, when a number of us in this House were celebrating the life and memory of our former colleague, the late Gord Brown. I will not forget that, because it was a wonderful non-partisan moment, and I was proud to be part of it.

I took part in a Métis-ITK hockey game, in which my defence partner was 45 years younger than me and one of the best players on the ice. She was fantastic. Another game was our first game in the Ottawa Senators arena against the Conservative Party, when the Liberals got their backsides kicked. There was a game on the ice rink on the Hill for the 150th anniversary celebration against a group of very young and impressive Mohawks from Kahnawake. The result was never in doubt. The only thing I would say that ties those last number of games together was the near complete incompetence of our goaltender, the current Minister of Immigration.

I exchanged puns on Jeopardy and Jeopardy metaphors with Chief Justice Ritu Khullar of Alberta, as well as a previous chief justice, Justice Mary Moreau of Alberta, in our speeches in Edmonton at Chief Justice Khullar's swearing in.

I have a number of memories of walking, such as with the member for Prince Albert and talking about trade, but talking more about our families. I walked with Alex Steinhouse in Yellowknife on a hike. It was absolutely stunning. I walked with Aluki Kotierk and Natan Obed in the hills above Nain. I walked to the Hill every morning from my Ottawa apartment.

I walked across the floor when I first became minister of justice to tell the member for St. Albert—Edmonton that I was going to support his private member's bill on supporting juries. I was proud of that moment, and I still am.

I am proud of some historic moments in this House. For example, we voted unanimously on a bill to outlaw conversion therapy. I will be forever grateful not only to the members of my caucus but also to the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, as well as the member for Calgary Nose Hill, the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka and Erin O'Toole for the work they did to make that unanimous vote a reality. We saved lives that day.

I remember when the then minister of public safety, the member for Eglinton—Lawrence, and I sat down with provincial and territorial ministers of justice and public safety ministers to get to a unanimous agreement on bail reform. Not only did we commit to agree on our federal legislation, which is now law, but the provinces also committed to work at their end to make the bail system work better.

There were moments with Black community leadership across Canada on the Black justice strategy. In particular, in Nova Scotia, there was a very real pride in the room from that community because of their leadership on creating the movement toward pre-sentencing reports.

There were many moments with indigenous leaders across Canada, many of whom I now count as close friends. A moment in Williams Lake, at the site of a former residential school, is not something I will ever forget. There, I went into a barn where a number of the children would go, back in the day, and carve their names in the wood.

On the positive side, there is the pride of the Tŝilhqot'in leadership in having established their indigenous title; they used the courts and succeeded. I would meet them annually here in Ottawa and in their offices in the B.C. interior, and I saw the pride.

In Iqaluit, as a guest of President Obed of ITK, I was in the room when Pope Francis heard the stories of sexual abuse directly from survivors or the children of survivors. I saw the reaction of the pope and also, in particular, the reaction of the archbishop who was translating. At a certain point, the pope put his hand on the translator's shoulder because of the difficulty he was having in relaying the words.

There were other momentous moments, such as the House rising for what we thought would be two weeks at the beginning of the pandemic, all the urgent committee work we did during the pandemic, and the occupation and the understanding of the gravity of the Emergencies Act.

These were balanced by lighter moments, such as trying to buy a white suit online so I could represent Canada at the swearing-in of the president of the Dominican Republic. I had to buy two suits and then keep the one that fit. I got on a plane to the Dominican Republic and sat down beside Moises Alou; we talked baseball the whole way down. Another time, I bicycled along the Lachine Canal; I saw the work that we had done as a government on rebuilding the walls of that canal and knew that they were going to be there for my children and my grandchildren. In another moment, I was stopped on Wellington by an older gentleman.

He said to me, “Mr. Lametti, I often see you at Verdun Beach.”

Verdun Beach, in the middle of Wellington Street, is my favourite restaurant with an oyster bar. I had just been outed.

I think of places like Aj's, Shooters, Riccia, Station W, and now Monk Café; of the conversations with my constituents, particularly on Saturday mornings, when I go buy my bread and sandwiches at Bossa; of the statue of Saint Anthony and the time I stood next to it, during the saint's feast day in Ville-Émard with the Italian community.

These are times of a life, and I will cherish them. I thank those people who were involved in making those moments a reality, many of whom are in this room and in the gallery.

I want to underscore that UNDRIP is the future. It will allow us to reset our relationship with indigenous peoples. It is a true road map, a co-developed road map, to reconciliation.

It is a singular moment. Indigenous leaders want to participate in nation building. I have heard this time and time again, that they want to be part of this project Canada and they want their children to have the same opportunities as other non-indigenous kids have had, as I have had.

I am the son of Italian immigrants, who came to this country with no formal education. Because they chose to come to this country, I got to have an outstanding education at Canadian universities and at international universities. Because they made this decision, I got to be a professor at an outstanding law faculty in Canada. I could run to be a member of Parliament and even aspire to be minister of justice.

Indigenous peoples want a share in that dream. UNDRIP is a way for us to make it happen together.

We are many nations in this country. That is a source of strength and understanding as we move forward in the future. This recognition allows us to work on what unites us and to develop and protect languages and culture. This is true for indigenous peoples, as well as for Quebec.

We need to work together. We all understand that protecting and nurturing the French language and culture in North America is very important. We need to work together to ensure they live on and flourish in the future.

That means we need to stop scapegoating the English community in Quebec. People in this community are very bilingual and committed to Quebec; in many cases, they have been there for 300 years.

I have to say that the Charter is not optional, and the preventive use of the Charter suggests that the Charter is optional.

At some point, with everything we have said, we need to understand that constitutional change will be necessary, and we need to prepare for that. We need to be able to disagree with respect, and recent weeks have underscored that. I tried to be only as partisan as I had to be and only as partisan as necessary; I tried not to get personal. I did not always succeed, but I did my best. I think we all need to do our best, especially on social media and in this world where we are moving toward artificial intelligence.

Artificial intelligence does not exempt us from being human. Our human intellect, our emotions and our empathy will become even more important as AI supplements the more routine forms of intelligence. We cannot let it replace those other human qualities. Our survival as a country and as a species depends on nothing less.

It remains to thank people. I want to thank the Prime Minister for naming me parliamentary secretary and minister of justice.

I thank my colleagues here in the House and, especially, my critics, the members for Fundy Royal, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, Rivière-du-Nord, and, for medical assistance in dying, the member for Montcalm.

My chiefs of staff, Rachel Doran and Alex Steinhouse, have been fantastic, and my political teams have been outstanding. None of what we achieved could have been done without them, and I thank them.

I thank my constituency teams for their dedication, hard work and service, oftentimes when I was not around much as a minister. In particular, I want to thank Nicole Picher, who has been with me for eight years.

I want to thank other elected officials in my riding at all political levels, and of all political parties, with whom I worked. I want to thank my political association, my volunteers and my donors, who helped me get elected.

My friends kept me grounded. Here in Ottawa, Mélanie Vadeboncoeur and the La Roma gang made sure I stayed humble. I thank my many friends in this place, such as the member for Eglinton—Lawrence, the current Minister of Immigration, the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, the member for Oakville, Catherine McKenna and everybody else who has come through this place and with whom I hope to stay friends.

I thank my friends at McGill and the McGill deans for their support. I thank my ex-wife, Geneviève Saumier, who began this journey with me and with whom I share three wonderful kids; she continues to give me good advice. I thank my children. Perhaps the years away have been hardest on them.

I want to tell André, Gabrielle and Dominique that I love them. I thank them for their patience and devotion to their father.

Last, I have two points: First, kindness is not overrated, especially in a world of AI. We could all stand to be kinder, and we would all be better for it.

Second, this place is not overrated. The Right Hon. Paul Martin has said that you can get more done in five minutes in this place than you can in five years anywhere else. Paul has been a mentor to me. I am a successor in his riding, and he is a friend.

I would like us to prove him right every day.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you very much, Mr. Maloney.

I don't have any speakers, so I'm going to call for the vote on the amendment.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

I am now going to call for the vote on the main motion.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

Thank you very much, Mr. Clerk.

That concludes the business for which we are here in front of you today.

I will remind you that on Thursday we will continue. My expectation, based on colleagues' representation here in public, is that we will finish Bill C-40 on Thursday.

Do I have a motion for adjournment today, Mr. Maloney?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My comments on the amendment are pretty much the same as what I was going to say.

I wasn't going to speak again either, Mr. Van Popta, until I heard some of the comments from that side of the table. Being a lawyer, I feel compelled to respond and set the record straight.

As I said at the outset, this motion is politically charged. If I wasn't right before, I am now, because the amendment makes it clear that it's political. It can be interpreted no other way.

I'm going to address a number of points that my colleagues across the way have made. I think it was Mr. Caputo—or maybe it was Mr. Van Popta—who said it was remarkable that a judge goes public to speak about judicial appointments. There's really nothing remarkable about it at all. I attended the opening of the court ceremony in Toronto for many, many years, and there was a standard line in the speech of the chief justice. Even prior to 2015, because that's when I was going, it was about how there were x number of vacancies in the province of Ontario and how the government of the day needed to make sure those were filled. This is nothing more than judges reminding politicians of all stripes about the importance of making judicial appointments and about making sure they're current. There's nothing new under the sun about that. There's really nothing remarkable at all about that.

Mr. Brock talked about supernumerary judges. Yes, they provide six months' notice when they're going to go supernumerary, but something the general public might not understand is that when a judge goes supernumerary, he or she continues to serve as a Superior Court judge in that province but sitting for fewer weeks. It's about 50% of the time. If you do the math, if a number of people go supernumerary and those people are replaced, you actually have more judicial capacity than you had before.

He quoted the number as going from 100 to 79 currently, but that doesn't factor in the ongoing retirement. It suggests that only 21 appointments have been made, and that couldn't be farther from the truth. Then he quoted the article written by this civil litigator in Toronto—I was a civil litigator in Toronto—and then he went on to talk about the blame being put on the lack of courtrooms. Lawyers who practise in the Superior Court know that the only component of the system that falls on the federal government is the appointment of the judges. As for the lack of courtrooms, when you walk into a Superior Court courtroom in the province of Ontario, the person you're looking at up on the bench was put there by the federal government and paid by the federal government. Everything else—from the light bulbs, the desks and the staff to the number of courtrooms—is the responsibility of the provincial government, which has nothing to do with the reference to judicial vacancies; I'm sorry.

In fact, we all agree on one thing, which is the importance of making sure that judicial vacancies are filled and making sure that access is available to all parties, whether we're talking about criminal, civil or family court. After we were elected in 2015, we introduced legislation that would actually increase the complement of superior court judges, not decrease it. That creates greater access to the courts.

As for the Jordan decision, which keeps getting thrown around, I would remind people that it was based on a set of facts that started in 2009 and ended in 2015. When we use words like “negligence” when talking about appointing judges, how can that do anything but create fear and confusion in the eyes of the public? Using the Jordan decision as an example of anything to do with this current government is factually incorrect. I'm sorry. That was based on a decision, on facts and on the court system under the previous government, if you want to be clear on it. If you want to use it, let's make sure people understand.

One thing we do agree on, as Mr. Brock pointed out, is that the current Minister of Justice has done a very good job of making appointments and making them quickly. That's not going to change. We've seen evidence of that today.

My last point is this, subject to anything else I might hear today. With respect to the delay of Bill C-40, having this discussion right now is already delaying Bill C‑40 further, because had we not been dealing with this motion, I suspect that by 12:30 today, we would have been adjourning the meeting because the bill would have been passed.

Let's get on with it. Thank you.