Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I won't get into the significance of a bilingual Parliament. I come from an area where I didn't have the opportunity to learn French as a young person, which I regret. I did take what they call “French 13” via textbook in grade 11, so I may be able to understand a few words. Regrettably, I not am fluent, but I have a great deal of respect for my French colleagues and francophone Canadians in their role in the fabric of our country.
I was just getting to the point about the that tension exists between the different branches of government. It is key on an issue such as this, when it comes to the miscarriage of..., misapplication of...and where there are wrongful convictions in Canada, because if that tension doesn't exist.... It goes back to the very premise of our judicial system, where we have the presumption of innocence and the ability to have a fair trial.
It is key in this discussion, because when that tension becomes misaligned, either when there's not enough tension and people who commit crimes, serious or otherwise.... It doesn't have to be the major crimes that often garner the headlines, but just when there's that lack of respect for the system in general or when it comes to wrongful convictions, which is the other side of that coin....
I'll get into a number of examples that I think are very important to get onto the record. We need to ensure that the tension that needs to exist is shepherded very carefully.
I hear from constituents often about how they are losing trust in our judicial system. In fact, there's a common sentiment I've referenced in the House, and I'll reference it again here. I hear from constituents often who say, “We don't have a justice system. We may have a legal system, but it's not a justice system.”
There are messages about being soft on crime, the revolving door of the justice system and that sort of thing, where people may commit serious crimes and get out without consequence or where a Crown prosecutor is so overwhelmed that they can only focus on a few of what are sometimes thousands of cases that sit on their desk. I know we have a former Crown here as a member of this committee who I'm sure could provide some insight into that. There are a couple, and I'm glad to hear that because, of course, I have a great deal of respect for those who fulfill that important role.
I think that's where the wrongful conviction conversation is just as important because if that tension does not exist, there will be erosion of trust at the very building blocks of a free and democratic society.
I fear some damage has been done. I think that we have to take seriously our job as legislators to make sure that we do everything we can to accomplish the tasks set out before us so that we have a justice system that can be trusted, that can be understood, that respects its role to ensure that we have a civil and just society, but also that we have the ability for consequences to be levied when they are needed.
This has garnered a massive amount of attention here in Canada and from our neighbours to the south, where there are examples of misapplication and people being convicted, sometimes of very serious crimes. In some cases those convictions span decades, or people lose their lives.
There is an interesting dynamic that has evolved with the onset of non-traditional forms of media. In some of the conversations we've had on a number of different issues before the House of Commons, we have talked about the democratization of information. It speaks with real relevance to this, specifically in clause 2, where it talks about subsection 696.71(1), and a few of the other aspects here where it talks about the processes when there is a miscarriage of justice. However, the democratization of information through non-traditional forms of media speaks to something that has—