Claude DeBellefeuille

[Democratic Institutions, June 14th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, there are two opposing narratives: One is the optimists' version and advocates moving on because there is nothing to see here, while the other is the version of the alarmists, who want to call 911. We do no know whether either of the two camps, or any of them at all, is telling the truth. We do no know whether one of them or both of them caved to the lure of the spotlight. That has done nothing but breed mistrust.

Now, thanks to them, when the Hogue commission tables its report, there is a chance that one of the two camps, the optimists or the alarmists, will cast doubt over the ruling.

Is it too much to ask that elected members be responsible and law-abiding and allow the judge to do her job?

[Democratic Institutions, June 14th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I want to talk about foreign interference.

One leader says it is nothing serious. Another leader says it is very serious. Both want us to take their word for it, so we are no further ahead.

On Monday, the Minister of Public Safety said he would not breach secrecy because RCMP Deputy Commissioner Mark Flynn warned him he would face criminal prosecution.

Does the government think that all elected officials who read the documents should face the same charges?

Does the government deem that we are further ahead today with elected representatives playing with legal limits?

[Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission Act (David and Joyce Milgaard's Law), June 14th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I think it is obvious.

We are governed by the Official Languages Act in Canada. However, when it comes to enforcing the act or being consistent when independent commissions or committees are set up, there is resistance. We do not understand this resistance, because it stands to reason that, here in Canada, in Quebec and in the other provinces, services must be provided in both official languages, French and English.

[Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission Act (David and Joyce Milgaard's Law), June 14th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, my colleague asked a good question.

I understand her, and I agree with what she said about people who are less well off and more vulnerable. They may not necessarily have the access or the money to actively engage in the judicial process, which requires hiring legal advisers and good lawyers. That is a real problem.

As I believe everyone knows, since I often mention it in the House, I am a social worker. I am very sensitive to the fact that some people are more vulnerable than others. At first glance, it seems that the justice system is easier to access when people can afford a good, expensive and competent lawyer with subject matter expertise. That concerns me a lot. Quebec has set up a legal aid service that provides the most vulnerable and financially disadvantaged people with access to legal aid and good lawyers to guide and support them through the legal process.

I believe that every province would benefit from examining this solution more closely, considering ways to adapt it more effectively and exploring whether all vulnerable people could be better supported during the legal process.

[Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission Act (David and Joyce Milgaard's Law), June 14th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I am not a lawyer. I have no experience with the legal side of things.

I understand that what the member is referring to is complex issue. It is true that some people use every possible legal procedure and all the courts they can to delay the judicial process in their case. Yes, these are questions I have asked myself, but it is difficult to comment on the issue at this stage, as we consider the bill. What I do know is that we need to be able to give a guarantee to our citizens, the people we represent. If someone really wants to claim they have been unfairly convicted, they must be given the chance to do so within a reasonable timeframe, while also complying with all the criteria required for them to be heard by the new commission.

[Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission Act (David and Joyce Milgaard's Law), June 14th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C‑40. This bill seeks to modernize the Canadian justice system by creating the miscarriage of justice review commission to address shortcomings in the processing of miscarriage of justice applications.

We are all aware of this issue; it has been rather well documented. The minister at the time, David Lametti, commissioned a study in 2021 to examine the issue because the processing times for the applications of people claiming to be the victim of a miscarriage of justice were completely unreasonable. In some cases, people who managed to complete the process had already spent many years behind bars, part of their lives, before being found innocent and released from prison.

The issue clearly needed to be addressed. The Liberal minister at the time, Mr. Lametti, commissioned a study and launched consultations, after which all the experts agreed that the minister needed to be stripped of one of his powers that might be characterized as absolute. Traditionally, under our laws, the minister alone had the fairly significant power to decide whether a person who claimed to be the victim of a miscarriage of justice could have a re-trial. That put a lot of power in the hands of one person, the person holding the position of Minister of Justice.

Although the minister worked with a team, it was still necessary to create a quasi-judicial commission made up of commissioners independent of the government apparatus in order to restore public trust. These commissioners will be able to take over from the minister to expedite the process of analyzing applications from people who believe they have been the victim of a miscarriage of justice. This should also serve to increase public trust in the fact that the people analyzing these applications are neutral.

There is one thing we find hard to understand. The Liberals have been in power since 2015. The Minister of Justice, Mr. Lametti, commissioned this study back in the day, and it had fairly unanimous support, yet he waited until 2023 to introduce his bill. Why is it that today, in June 2024, we are using an expedited legislative process to get this bill adopted? Two years ago, certain people could have benefited from a new miscarriage of justice review commission. We find it hard to comprehend why, all of a sudden, the Liberals are rushing to pass this bill even though it has been in the works since 2021 and has unanimous support.

When the bill was studied in committee, our justice critic, the member for Rivière-du-Nord, said that this commission was necessary and that he supported the bill. Naturally, the Bloc Québécois is going to vote in favour of Bill C‑40. We hope, once the bill is passed, that the government will promptly implement all necessary measures to allow the new commissioners to get on with their work.

Now, there is another question we are asking ourselves. Minister Lametti commissioned this study in 2021, but he also made a big decision in 2021, one that is hard to understand. I read another article today in the investigative section of La Presse. Former justice minister David Lametti is still being asked why, for example, he ordered a second trial in the Jacques Delisle case. Jacques Delisle is a former judge who was found guilty of murdering his wife. It is hard to understand why the minister did that. It is not just me, the member for Salaberry—Suroît, who is saying this.

As of March, Quebec's director of criminal and penal prosecutions still did not understand why the minister had ordered a new trial.

With the powers the justice minister held at the time, Mr. Lametti set in motion an entire legal process to retry Jacques Delisle, which obviously led to further investigations. The minister could only order a new trial if new and relevant information had been brought to his attention, if it could be demonstrated that evidence had not been presented at trial or if new evidence had come to light. To this day, Quebec's director of criminal and penal prosecutions is asking former justice minister and lawyer David Lametti to explain himself. Obviously, certain decisions were made as a result of the minister's decision. The Delisle trial has concluded, but not to the satisfaction of Quebec's director of criminal and penal prosecutions, which is understandable.

Bill C‑40, which we are debating, may rectify what has been a willingness to concentrate power in the hands of a single individual who holds the position of minister of justice. It is hard not to agree with that. We have every reason to question this. To the Bloc Québécois, it is important that the public and the citizens the minister represents have confidence in our system and that the victims also have confidence in the process and trust beyond a doubt that their case will be studied in a neutral, fair and equitable manner, based on the facts and any new evidence they might present.

During study of the bill in committee, there were debates, including one that surprised us in the Bloc Québécois. The member for Rivière-du-Nord, who is our justice critic and a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, introduced a single amendment. To us, that amendment made so much sense that we assumed its adoption was a mere formality.

The purpose of the amendment that the Bloc Québécois introduced in committee was to require judges, who play a quasi-judicial role in this miscarriage of justice review commission, to be bilingual or at least comfortable in both official languages. I would remind the House that Canada's two official languages are English and French. These two languages are governed by Canada's Official Languages Act. To ensure that the cases of francophones and anglophones are assessed fairly, the commissioners assigned to the case must be able to listen, ask questions and analyze evidence in both official languages.

To our great surprise, the amendment was defeated by a vote of six to five. A Liberal member who serves on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights opposed it. Did his party use him as a scapegoat? I have no idea. He is an Ontario MP. We were very disappointed by that because the amendment made a lot of sense. Canada has an Official Languages Act, and it seemed very obvious to us that this was the way to go.

That will not prevent us from voting in favour of Bill C‑40, but once again, we are dealing with a total lack of understanding about the importance of French and the importance of guaranteeing Quebeckers and Canadians access in both official languages to the people who will be assessing their case.

I hope that Bill C‑40 will be passed quickly and that the commissioners can get to work soon.

[Petitions, June 13th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, when I was speaking in French, I know that some colleagues on both sides of the House were not wearing their earpiece and therefore did not understand what I was saying. There are people in the gallery who came to listen to what I was saying and noticed that I did not have the respect of the House when I tabled a petition that means so much to them.

[Petitions, June 13th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, it is with emotion today that I table petition e-4915 signed by more than 1,000 people. This petition is the fruit of efforts by the family of Nancy Lefrançois and Loïc Chevalier, who were both victims of a terrible multi-vehicle collision.

The driver, who was the subject of a Canada-wide warrant, has never been brought to justice because he is no longer on Canadian soil. The petition calls on the government to review legal mechanisms so as to retain in Canada any individual, including foreign nationals, under investigation for a criminal offence causing death and that the government propose appropriate legislative amendments.

The petitioners understand that the solutions are not simple, but they remain convinced that it is important for justice to be served. In short, the petition calls on this government to propose tangible measures to prevent such individuals from escaping Canadian justice.

The petitioners hope that the government will take the time to reflect on the possible options, including real solutions to improve Canada's justice system in favour of the victims.

The family of Nancy and Loïc deserve a serious and detailed response from the government.

[40th Anniversary of Maison d'hébergement dépannage de Valleyfield, June 12th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to highlight the 40th anniversary of the Maison d'hébergement dépannage de Valleyfield, or MHDV. Forty years ago, a group of community builders decided to help people experiencing homelessness and in crisis.

I would be remiss if I did not highlight the invaluable contribution made by Émile Duhamel, one of the community builders behind MHDV. He has dedicated his life to improving the lives of others, especially those most marginalized in our society. His involvement over the past 40 years has been unwavering. Most importantly, he has helped create services beyond MHDV, such as the emergency shelter, the Vestibule de Marguerite, the La Maisonnée shelter for families, and Habitation Chez nous. He also contributed to important projects like Halte Chaleur.

The key to MHDV's success is that their skilled team firmly believes that every human being deserves respect, consideration and dignity. The solidarity they demonstrate is needed now more than ever.

I wish the Maison d'hébergement dépannage de Valleyfield many more years of success.

[Online Harms Act, June 7th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I hope we are going to discuss this and be able to amend the bill, because we do not understand why this aspect was not included.

I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the schoolchildren from École Edgar-Hébert, who are here with us today to observe our work in the House and see what a good job the Speaker is doing.