Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
As I mentioned at the last meeting, I want to thank my colleague Mr. Garrison, whom I very much admire for his views on justice issues. I think they're very similar to mine.
I think my amendment, LIB-1, is preferable to NDP-1 in terms of way amendment LIB-1 is structured. They both try to achieve the same thing, which is that somebody who hasn't appealed to the court of appeal may also benefit from the commission looking into their file should the commission choose to do so. What my amendment basically makes clear is that someone who has not appealed to the court of appeal is treated in exactly the same way as if they had not appealed from the court of appeal to the Supreme Court. The commission would look at exactly the same factors to determine whether or not there was a reason that they should look at that case.
The streamlined way that I have done it in LIB-1 basically treats a non-appeal to the court of appeal the same way a non-appeal from the court of appeal to the Supreme Court is treated. I actually think it's a more flexible way and would give more people the option to be heard by the commission than they would in the way NDP-1 is structured.
While I agree completely with the premise of NDP-1 and with the idea that people who have not had the ability to appeal to the court of appeal, especially the poorest and most vulnerable defendants, should have the right to have the commission consider whether there are factors that should allow the commission to look into their case, I think the way that mine accomplishes it is better. Because there's a conflict of lines and we can't pass both, I'll be voting against NDP-1 and for LIB-1. I just wanted to explain that.
Thank you, Madam Chair.