Debates of June 11th, 2024

Bill C‑40—Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I respect that member's background in the law. I respect his role as prosecutor. I would remind him that, when he was a prosecuting Crown, his duty was not to secure convictions. His duty was to the court and to the advancement of the law. He rightfully points out that a wrongful conviction serves no one in this country, in this chamber or in the courts where he used to prosecute in British Columbia.

The point is that, with this legislation, we are not purporting to usurp the role of a trial court or an appellate court. The legislation, and I am sure he has read it, but I will remind him, talks about either giving the commission the power to return it to a trial court, in a first instance, or to, on a question of law, go to a court of appeal. That is an important mechanism. It would take that power out of my hands, or the hands of any other minister of justice, and it would put it in the hands of a review commission. It is the same model that is used in the United Kingdom. They have unearthed 542 wrongful convictions in a 20-year period. The number we have unearthed is 29.

The number of indigenous and Black persons festering wrongfully in our prisons is atrocious. I would hope that overrepresentation is a concern for that member and for all of his colleagues, and if it is, if we take him at his word, then he should get behind the bill.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when a bill is introduced in the House, we know that it goes through several months of study. There are first and second reading stages and then the work in committee, where the bill may be amended. That has been done for this bill.

I would like the minister to explain what changes have been made to the bill and how these changes improve or dilute the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can talk about one improvement that I already mentioned when another member asked me a question.

In some exceptional circumstances, it is necessary to provide a victim of a miscarriage of justice with an opportunity to apply for a review of their file even if the decision was not appealed. It is an exceptional measure. This was suggested by several stakeholders who appeared before the committee. After listening to their testimony, the committee presented the same type of amendments. This is a change that was made to this bill. I believe it will improve access to justice for victims of miscarriages of justice. That is the basic theme of this bill, and it is what we must promote in our justice system.

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

How odd, Mr. Speaker. The Conservatives always block all the good bills. They did it to dental care, pharmacare and housing. Bill after bill, the Conservatives block everything.

This bill is about miscarriages of justice, about innocent people who end up behind bars. They are denied their freedom for years and years. The Conservatives say that they do not care, that this does not matter to them. I think it is appalling that they blocked this bill in committee and are now blocking it in the House. I think it is appalling that the Conservatives exhibit no conscience in how they approach their work in the House.

I have a question for my colleague, the minister. Why are these Conservatives refusing to give people who are not guilty their freedom when those people are spending years and years behind bars even though they are innocent?

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had a better answer to give, but all I can really do is speculate.

Of the 29 people who have been found to be victims of wrongful conviction, none are women. In that group of 29 people, there are six racialized individuals. It is really incredible that this does not strike the Conservative Party as odd. The Conservatives do not seem to think there might be a problem. The figures show that Black and indigenous people are overrepresented in our prisons and courts. The fact that, over the last 20 years, only six racialized people have been found to be victims of wrongful conviction does not trouble the Conservatives. It does not impact them at all.

This shows that they have no interest in promoting a system where wrongful convictions can be identified and overturned. I find that so sad.

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

Mr. Speaker, we agree that the criminal justice review rules need to be revised. We just disagree that an alternative justice system should be created, as did the former minister of justice. A press release introducing the bill 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.”

The current Minister of Justice apparently also believed that until a short while ago. He said this at committee: “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.” We actually agree with that. Why did the minister change his mind? Why create an alternative justice system?

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

Mr. Speaker, I respect the member and his work on the justice committee. I do not respect the interpretation he has just put on the floor of the House. What the bill talks about is that rights of appeal must be exhausted. Appealing to a court of appeal per existing case law or appealing all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada would not be necessary.

What I explained in French, and I will explain again in English, is that we heard repeatedly at committee from interveners who talked about the fact that even pursuing an appeal can be an impediment to accessing justice for people who are impecunious, racialized, disadvantaged or vulnerable. In certain exceptional circumstances, the law should safeguard the possibility for even a person who has not exhausted an appeal to raise their hand to say that they believe they have been treated unfairly by the system and have been wrongfully convicted. In exceptional circumstances, those types of cases should be permitted to be heard by a review commission. Does it guarantee that a review commission would decide that it should go back to a trial court or to an appeal court on a question of law? It does not. The key point is that it would allow them an entry point. It would not determine the final outcome.

The notion the member is positing, which is that we are somehow subverting the entire justice system, is simply false on its face. We are replicating a system that has been well-used in the United Kingdom, where they are finding these cases. We are not. We are not serving Canadian victims. That party tends to prize itself as always being on the side of Canadian victims, except when someone is a victim of a wrongful conviction, it would appear.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for this debate that we are having. This debate is important and essential. It is on a bill that essentially seeks to restore trust in the system and restore independence as well.

Through several studies conducted at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, we saw that this issue of rebuilding trust and loss of trust in the system, especially among indigenous women, is critical. We are seeing this, especially now, with the red dress alert. It strikes at the heart of this issue.

What will the minister's bill do to restore women's trust in the justice system?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question.

If we create a new commission, that commission will have the resources as well as the mandate to look for cases.

To do that, the commission could intervene directly with inmate communities in the prisons, such as the Prison for Women in Kingston. The representatives of the commission could visit them. They can distribute leaflets, discuss the situation with the inmates and explain what they should do if they believe they have been mistreated or are victims of a miscarriage of justice.

I note once again that of the 29 cases there have been over the past 20 years, not one involved a woman. That is statistically improbable. It is ridiculous that this situation is not being resolved.

If we are unable to enact this bill, the status quo will prevail, and this will not serve the women the member is talking about.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we do not see any form or sense of co-operation coming from opposition members in wanting to deal with legislation and ultimately see it coming to a vote.

My question to the minister is specifically in regard to trying to put a human face on the issue that we are talking about. David Milgaard and the Milgaard family are fairly well known in Manitoba and, I would even suggest, beyond Manitoba's border. I think it is one of the reasons why this legislation is important for all of us to reflect on.

I am wondering if the minister could provide some of his thoughts in regard to that particular file.

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

Mr. Speaker, David Milgaard's case is taught in every law school in this country. It was certainly taught to me in 1995 when I was at U of T's law school. It is taught because the injustice that befell that individual was such a tragedy, that he was wrongfully convicted and served for over 20 years in prison for a crime that he never committed. He carried that as an albatross but also as a force for change going forward after his removal from prison, as did his mother. This bill is actually named David and Joyce Milgaard's Law because the then-minister of justice, David Lametti, made a direct commitment to that family that he would get the bill done. What I am trying to do right now is to see that commitment through. It is important to David Milgaard. It is important to every law student and every lawyer out there. It is important to everyone who cares about the justice system.

Most importantly, it is important to the people, hopefully, who are listening right now from prisons around this country and understanding that if one is wrongfully convicted, there is a means for restoring justice for one in one's particular case, and this commission will help do that.

That is vindicating David Milgaard and what his life stood for, and that is vindicating the rights of Canadians everywhere in this country.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to know where to begin. He compares the new system to the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom requires, with regard to applicants for a wrongful conviction, for the commission to consider that there is a real possibility that a wrongful conviction occurred.

In the case that he has put forward now for Canada, the new rule will be that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. Minister Lametti urged the committee to consider the importance that this is not simply another avenue or another appeal.

What the minister has done is remove the requirement to appeal. What we will be doing is opening the floodgates for everyone who is convicted, at first instance, who feels they did not get a fair shake, to now go back into the system. This revictimizes victims.

We know that the government is failing when it comes to justice. The stats bear that out. I will not list them all, but virtually in every way that one measures, crime in this country has gotten worse. Flooding our justice system for re-hearing cases of those that have been convicted of serious crimes only serves to revictimize true victims.

If the minister knows of individuals who he feels have been wrongfully convicted, he is in a position to do that. As justice minister, there is currently a process for those who have been wrongfully convicted. This process, as put forward, is deeply flawed. I would ask him to reconcile the U.K. standard, that there is a real possibility of a miscarriage of justice or wrongful conviction, versus his new made-up standard, of which there is no international parallel, that a miscarriage may have occurred.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me start with the fact that it is puzzling that the words “systemic racism” never come out of that member's mouth or come out of any of his other colleagues' mouths. They do not come out when we are talking about mandatory minimum penalties. They certainly do not come out when we are talking about wrongful convictions.

For my second point, let us also talk about how we got to this bill. It was informed by the important input of Dean Juanita Westmoreland-Traoré, a Black woman, and Harry LaForme, an indigenous man who happens to be a judge. Those two people represent the two key demographics we are trying to address with this bill, which that member selectively ignores.

Thirdly, yes, our standard is “a miscarriage of justice may have occurred”. It is in the interest of justice in doing so. That standard evolved from the commission recommendations from LaForme and from Westmoreland-Traoré. Will we stand by that standard? That is absolutely right. We will stand by the standard.

He talked to me about the fact that I do not seem to know the law I am duty-bound to implement. Newsflash to the member for Fundy Royal, in fact, I do not go out and search for wrongful convictions. They come to my desk. The point he is missing is that, in the last 20 years, 29 cases have come to my desk or my predecessor's desk. In the same time period, 542 came in the U.K.

Does that mean that the U.K. has some woefully atrocious justice system? No, it means it has a mechanism for searching for the cases. I do not understand, ideologically or for partisan reasons, why on earth any member of Parliament would have a vested interest in not searching out injustice where they see it. That is what we are trying to do with this bill. If they do not want to do that, that is their choice, but they are not going to stand in our way of seeking justice for victims in this country.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is not about the substance of Bill C‑40, but about the time allocation motion.

There are times when the Liberals filibuster, for example at the Standing Committee on Official Languages. They have done that at several meetings now because they refuse to accept the majority decision at the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

In this case, they are tabling a time allocation motion for much the same reason. When the Liberals do it, it is good, but when another party does it, it is bad. I would like to know what my colleague thinks.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe that time allocation is useful if it is used when necessary. In this case, it is necessary.

We saw how the Conservatives behaved when the bill was being studied at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. They filibustered for more than 30 hours. In the House, they decided to propose report stage amendments that would completely gut the bill.

It is abundantly clear to all Canadians watching that the Conservatives' currently have zero interest, whether in committee or in the House, in reversing miscarriages of justice. They may well say that they are looking for another way of going about it. The fact is that the current method is not working.

We are not succeeding right now because we are not finding the cases. There are certainly more cases out there. This commission would give us the tools for doing so. That is why we are importantly promoting the establishment of a commission, because it can make change and have an impact on real people's lives, including the victims that the member for Fundy Royal likes to speak about. He conveniently omits victims of wrongful convictions, which is quite selective, from my perspective, and certainly irrational and intellectually hypocritical.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the utmost confidence in our independent institutions, especially when it comes to our justice system. I know oftentimes people in this chamber like to pretend they are judge and jury, but I know there are people without partisan stripes who are able to do that work, and that is why that confidence remains.

I also know that our justice system is not perfect and, though mistakes are rare, what we are noticing is that there are mistakes made and they should be corrected in an efficient manner. I have heard from constituents as well that wrongful convictions have a devastating impact on a wrongfully convicted person, but also on the victims who deserve truth and justice. We are going to have to go through report stage because members of the Conservative Party of Canada decided, at report stage, to amend the legislation so that nothing would exist in it, meaning once again they do not want to address the concerns that exist.

The minister spoke about systemic racism and discrimination that we know exists within our country. I would like to hear from the minister what measures have been put in place, so that when this commission and the steps are established, we do it in a way that we learn from the past and that the very people who we are trying to serve are served.

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

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the statistics, they have been mentioned in the discussion about mandatory minimum penalties. An indigenous adult in this country is six times more likely to be incarcerated than that percentage of the population. For an indigenous youth, it is eightfold. For a Black person in this country, it is threefold. Every single one of those demographics is overrepresented in our system.

What are we doing in this very bill? We would ensure we have a commission, first of all. That commission would be made up of between five and nine individuals and the legislation specifically says that those members would reflect the diversity of Canadian society and would take into account the overrepresentation of certain groups in the criminal justice system, including indigenous people and Black people. That is entrenched in the legislation as a specific mandate for this commission in terms of its composition and the types of cases it would seek out.

That is how to address systemic overrepresentation and racism. It would be wonderful if the party opposite, His Majesty's official opposition, could both utter those phrases and actually tackle the issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was happy to hear the Minister of Justice speak highly of the U.K. experience. A representative from the United Kingdom commission told us about the threshold language that it uses, that there is a real possibility a miscarriage of justice occurred, which is much higher than the wording that is being proposed in Bill C-40. The witness also told us about a large body of jurisprudence that supported that language. I read a lot of those cases and I agree that the United Kingdom got it right.

Why does the Minister of Justice not agree with that and adopt the United Kingdom's language, something that Conservatives could support?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would say that if the member supports the U.K. commission model, then he should get behind this bill. We are moving away from a model that arrives on my desk to a model that has a commission, which is the first point. The second point is that we are informed by the study that was done by former Justice LaForme and former dean of law, Juanita Westmoreland-Traoré. It is important in terms of putting a Canadian lens on the pernicious issue, and the very Canadian issue, of overrepresentation of Black and indigenous people in our justice system. That is a unique Canadian response to a unique Canadian problem. We have looked at the U.K. model, and we are perfecting the U.K. model through this very bill.

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

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion.

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we are comfortable passing it on division.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded vote.

[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 #811

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I declare the motion carried.

And the Clerk having announced the results of the vote: