Arif Virani

[Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission Act (David and Joyce Milgaard's Law), June 11th, 2024]

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.

[Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission Act (David and Joyce Milgaard's Law), June 11th, 2024]

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.

[Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission Act (David and Joyce Milgaard's Law), June 11th, 2024]

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.

[Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission Act (David and Joyce Milgaard's Law), June 11th, 2024]

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.

[Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission Act (David and Joyce Milgaard's Law), June 11th, 2024]

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 giving the commission the power either 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.

[Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission Act (David and Joyce Milgaard's Law), June 11th, 2024]

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.

[Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission Act (David and Joyce Milgaard's Law), June 11th, 2024]

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.

[Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission Act (David and Joyce Milgaard's Law), June 11th, 2024]

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.

[Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission Act (David and Joyce Milgaard's Law), June 11th, 2024]

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.

[Online Harms Act, June 7th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I genuinely thank the member opposite for her contributions to today's debate because it is really important.

I will point out four things and then ask her a question.

The first is that, with respect to my position on amendments, what I said, and I want to make sure it is crystal clear to Canadians watching, is that I am open to amendments that would strengthen the bill and that are made in good faith.

The second point is with respect to free-standing hate crime, which is a provision that exists in 47 out of 50 states in the United States. The nature of the penalty that would be applied in a given context of a hate crime would depend on the underlying offence. Uttering a threat that was motivated by hate would constitute less of a penalty than committing a murder that was motivated by hate. For the member's benefit, section 718.1 of the Criminal Code, which I do trust judges to interpret, specifically says that the penalty “must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.”

With respect to the peace bond, what I would say to the member's point, quite simply, is that I do believe it is necessary to take a tool that is well known to criminal law and apply it to the context of a synagogue that has already been targeted with vandalism and may be targeted again, where proof would need to be put before a judge and where the safeguard would exist for the attorney general of jurisdiction to give consent before such a peace bond is pursued.

The member talked about the fact that Criminal Code tools should be used in the context of ensuring that we can tackle this pernicious information. What I would say to her is that law enforcement has asked us for the same tool that Amanda Todd's mother has asked us for. The victimization of people, even after death, continues when the—