Debates of June 11th, 2024

Opposition Motion—Foreign Interference in Democratic Institutions

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

[Chair read text of motion to House]

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

Vote #808

Business of Supply

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from June 10 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments, be read the third time and passed.

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C‑20.

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

Vote #809

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 25 minutes.

Government Business No. 25

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

moved that a ways and means motion to introduce an act to amend the Income Tax Act and the income tax regulations be concurred in.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

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, we absolutely would ask for a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Call in the members.

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

Vote #810

Ways and Means

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the motion carried.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Royal Canadian Mounted Police; the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, Mental Health and Addictions; and the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton, Democratic Institutions.

Bill C‑40—Time Allocation Motion

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, 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), not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration at report stage and five hours shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the bill; and

That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration at report stage and at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67(1), there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places or use the “raise hand” function so that the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in the question period.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Fundy Royal.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the bill, as amended from committee, is now a significant departure from what was presented by the minister's predecessor, former minister Lametti, on the miscarriage of justice bill. Originally, when the bill was presented by former minister Lametti, he noted:

It is important to note that the miscarriage of justice review process is not an alternative to the justice 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.

In a radical departure from what was originally proposed, at committee, the minister has had Liberal members appeal the bill so that there would no longer be a requirement to appeal a court decision before someone could avail themselves of the wrongful conviction path. The standard by which the new Liberal-appointed commission would look at a wrongful conviction is whether one may have occurred. That is the lowest threshold of all international comparisons, and it is a much lower threshold than Canada's current threshold, which is that a miscarriage of justice likely occurred.

Did the minister consult with his predecessor about the radical departure, which would create a two-tiered justice system and result in a revictimization of victims' families when they have to go back before the courts?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to address that with a measure of credulity, but I find it troubling that the member filibustered this very bill for 30 hours at committee and then proposed report stage amendments that would entirely gut the bill.

With respect to my discussions with the former minister, David Lametti, we talked about the importance of the bill. Here is why we talked about it. We talked about overrepresentation of Black and indigenous persons in our justice system. We talked about the fact that only 29 cases in over 20 years have ever seen the light of day in terms of wrongful conviction, whereas in the same time frame in the United Kingdom, 542 have seen the light of day. That does not mean that the U.K. is doing things worse; it means they are finding the cases.

What I find most troubling about the Conservative Party's position on the bill is that, somehow, keeping innocent people festering in prison has, incredibly, become a partisan matter.

The reason we are time-allocating the bill is that we need to move on correcting an injustice. We will be firm in our conviction in doing so.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that, in the House, we have seen Conservatives blocking every good piece of legislation and refusing to let things go through, such as dental care, pharmacare and affordable housing. Conservatives opposed all those pieces of legislation.

With respect to Bill C-40, miscarriage of justice, it would seem to me that it is incumbent on all of us to have a justice system that functions well and does not put innocent people behind bars. That does not seem to be the perspective of the Conservative Party. The Conservatives want to block this legislation. The Conservatives want innocent people to remain behind bars. It is a profound disservice to Parliament that the Conservatives have been blocking this legislation, and they have not really offered any explanation except for the fact that they oppose everything that would benefit people, all measures of justice.

I want to ask my colleague why Conservatives have opposed the bill, tried to block it at every step and filibustered it at committee when it would provide justice in this country and a mechanism to ensure that innocent people are not kept behind bars.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had an answer. The only thing I can do is speculate that somehow, for some reason, there is a partisan interest in ensuring that wrongfully convicted men and women continue to remain in prison in this country. That, to me, is a shocking proposition, and I desperately hope that I am incorrect in that regard.

I would also point out to the member for New Westminster—Burnaby that the member for Fundy Royal prides himself on championing victims' rights. He has raised this repeatedly at the justice committee. For his own edification, I would reiterate that a dedicated victim services coordinator to support victims, explain the review process and assist with the development of procedural policies is entrenched in the bill.

The only conclusion I can draw is that, if someone is a victim of a crime, then they are supported by the Conservative Party of Canada, but if one is a victim of a wrongful conviction, they are simply left to fester in prison. That kind of intellectual inconsistency is unbefitting of this chamber and should be a subject of reproach for His Majesty's official opposition.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am keen to ask the minister a question.

When it comes to miscarriages of justice, there is the issue of the time allotted for these cases to be dealt with, and, obviously, the issue of the number of judges available. The minister has a responsibility to appoint these judges. Will he respond to the demands of the Bloc Québécois to proceed more quickly and ensure that fewer people are left behind in our justice system?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's question, even though it is not related to the bill we are discussing at this time.

For the record, the previous government appointed 65 judges a year. I, on the other hand, appointed 113 judges in 10 months. That means I am doing my job twice as quickly as the previous government. I am going to keep doing it, because it helps our justice system and victims, especially victims of miscarriage of justice.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I receive a lot of phone calls from constituents within the riding of Waterloo. Constituents often ask about this chamber. Right now, we are debating and will be voting on having to use time allocation to, once again, advance legislation.

This morning I had meetings set up, and we had to go to orders of the day because we have an official opposition that refuses to call the question. Even earlier today we voted on Bill C-20. The Conservatives had been filibustering that legislation, putting up automated speeches, most likely through ChatGPT, yet when it came time to call the question and to vote, the Conservatives did support the legislation because it was important legislation.

Why are we having to debate time allocation? Why are we having to make sure that we get the legislation called to a question? Unfortunately, there are some members who will not get to speak to this legislation because the official opposition, under its leader, refuses to call the question.

The member for Fundy Royal did ask a question today, and the only thing he has done really well was to make sure that the House advanced the issue of ensuring that there was no longer conversion therapy in Canada. It is something the member does not speak to, but he was the member who moved the motion to have unanimous consent because the Conservatives did not want to debate it.

How do we ensure justice is served? Why are we using time allocation?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are using time allocation because the members of the official opposition have openly indicated that they have zero interest in proceeding with the bill. The Conservatives' most recent effort has been to propose report stage amendments that would completely gut the legislation. The Conservatives have no interest in supporting the bill because, I guess, wrongfully convicted men and women deserve to fester in Canadian prisons.

What I would underscore, in terms of the access to justice points that were made by the member for Waterloo, is that access to justice is replete throughout this document. This new commission would ensure that there is information provided to the public and potential applicants about miscarriages of justice. The commission would provide translation interpretation services. It would provide assistance to those who cannot afford a lawyer. The commission would even provide assistance in obtaining the necessities of life, such as food and housing.

Through those types of measures, we would reach out to people who might not have the resources to ensure that they can vindicate their own rights and remove themselves from the situation of being wrongfully convicted. The fact that this has become partisan is really unbecoming of this chamber.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. I am quite dismayed at the minister's response because he keeps on saying it is disappointing that this matter has become partisan. If there is one person who is making this issue partisan, he should look in the mirror and have a conversation with him in the morning when he is brushing his teeth.

As a prosecutor and as a defence lawyer, I came up against issues of wrongful conviction. In fact, there was a time, even as prosecutor after a guilty plea, that I dealt with this issue. To say that Conservatives do not care about justice and that this is a partisan issue could not be further from the truth.

Justice is increasingly important. Nobody wants a wrongful conviction. That does not mean that we rush out generational legislation that would fundamentally change everything we have come to know about our justice system and create a parallel system in which the rule of law as we know it, with three hundred to four hundred years of tradition, is thrown out, and here we are with time allocation on this very issue.

Nobody wants to see a wrongful conviction. If we do not want to see a wrongful conviction and we want to get this right, why are we moving time allocation on a bill that is so important?