Bill C-40

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

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, to make consequential amendments to other Acts and to repeal a regulation (miscarriage of justice reviews)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) establish an independent body to be called the Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission;
(b) replace the review process set out in Part XXI.1 with a process in which applications for reviews of findings and verdicts on the grounds of miscarriage of justice are made to the Commission instead of to the Minister of Justice;
(c) confer on the Commission powers of investigation to carry out its functions;
(d) provide that the Commission may direct a new trial or hearing or refer a matter to the court of appeal if it has reasonable grounds to conclude that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred and considers that it is in the interests of justice to do so;
(e) authorize the Commission to provide supports to applicants in need and to provide the public, including potential applicants, with information about its mandate and miscarriages of justice; and
(f) require the Commission to make and publish policies and to present and publish annual reports that include demographic and performance measurement data.
The enactment also makes consequential amendments to other Acts and repeals the Regulations Respecting Applications for Ministerial Review — Miscarriages of Justice .

(Bill C-26: On the Order: Government Orders)

April 19, 2024—Consideration at report stage of Bill C-26, An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security with amendments—Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs.

(Bill concurred in at report stage, read the third time and passed)

(Bill C-40: On the Order: Government Orders)

June 17, 2024—Third reading of 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)—Minister of Justice.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

(Bill S-6: On the Order: Government Orders)

May 3, 2023—Resuming consideration of the motion of Ms. Fortier (President of the Treasury Board), seconded by Ms. Khera (Minister of Seniors),—That Bill S-6, An Act respecting regulatory modernization, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

(Bill S‑9: On the Order: Government Orders:)

December 15, 2023 — Resuming consideration of the motion of Ms. Joly (Minister of Foreign Affairs), seconded by Mr. Beech (Minister of Citizens' Services), — That Bill S‑9, An Act to amend the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

(Bill read the second time, considered in committee of the whole, reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed)

(Bill S-16. On the Order: Government Orders)

June 6 2024—Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs of Bill S-16, An Act respecting the recognition of the Haida Nation and the Council of the Haida Nation—Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

The House resumed consideration of 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), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

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

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

It being 3:14 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at report stage of Bill C-40.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

The House resumed from June 14 consideration of 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), as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is absolutely devastating that this happened to a constituent of hers, but again it shows Conservatives do not understand what we are talking about in Bill C-40.

We are talking about, in Bill C-40, the fact that marginalized people in this country, more often indigenous people, indigenous women, and people of colour are being wrongfully convicted in this country, and then they do not have access to appeal because they do not have the funds for it. That is what this bill is about. I understand we need to also fix other injustices and justice in our society, but the Conservatives need to understand that this is about levelling the playing field for those who are under-represented by legal support in the criminal justice system.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak, on behalf of the residents of Port Moody—Coquitlam, Anmore and Belcarra, in support of Bill C-40, an act to amend the Criminal Code, and to advocate for it being enacted as quickly as possible. I think about the people who were wrongly convicted and who could not afford high-priced lawyers, more often than not women and other marginalized groups, who need reform to the justice system. This miscarriage of justice bill represents a critical step in our ongoing efforts to reform the system and to address the systemic inequities that have plagued it.

For the better part of a decade, New Democrats have called for the establishment of an independent commission to investigate wrongful convictions. In 2021, we supported expediting Bill C-5 in return for the Liberals' promise to create this commission, which Bill C-40 would finally deliver on. Justice delayed is justice denied, so we must act swiftly to ensure that those who are wrongfully convicted have a pathway to justice, free from delays and limitations in the current system.

I want to take a moment to recognize and thank my colleagues from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke and Winnipeg Centre for their wisdom and compassion in making the Canadian justice system fairer. They work tirelessly to improve the system and, with regard to Bill C-40 at committee stage, the NDP supported amendments that would ensure applicants could apply to the commission without having to receive a verdict from a court of appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada. This would remove a significant barrier for those who are wrongfully convicted but lacking the resources to continue lengthy legal battles.

New Democrats also proposed amendments to empower the commission to make recommendations addressing systemic issues that lead to the miscarriage of justice. This proactive approach could help prevent future injustices. Additionally, we ensured that Correctional Service Canada and the Parole Board of Canada would be informed of the importance of not obstructing applicants from accessing programs and services due to their review applications.

Indigenous women, in particular, have disproportionately suffered miscarriages of justice. They are often charged, prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned due to systemic failures within the criminal justice system and the broader societal failure to protect them from racism, sexism and violence. This is a critical issue that strikes at the core of justice inequity in our society. I ask why people living in poverty have higher rates of wrongful convictions in Canada? It certainly highlights the disparities in our legal system and challenges our collective commitment to fairness and justice.

To understand this issue, we must first acknowledge that socio-economic status currently influences outcomes in the criminal justice process. From the moment suspects are identified, their financial status begins to shape their journey through the legal system. Unfortunately, for those without adequate funds, this journey often leads to a higher likelihood of wrongful conviction due to several intersecting factors: lack of adequate legal representation, systemic biases and the pressures of plea bargaining.

One of the most significant factors contributing to wrongful conviction is inadequate legal representation. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to counsel, but in practice, the quality of legal representation a defendant receives can vary drastically based on their ability to pay. Consequently, poorer defendants frequently find themselves under-represented in court, lacking thorough investigation, expert witnesses and comprehensive legal strategies.

Systemic biases play a crucial role in the higher rates of wrongful convictions among people with limited financial means. The justice system, which should be impartial, is not. It is not immune to the biases and prejudices that permeate society. Socio-economic status can influence the perceptions of judges, jurors and law enforcement officers. Poorer defendants often face these implicit biases, as their lack of resources and lower social standing can be subconsciously associated with criminal behaviour. We have heard it in this very House.

This bias can lead to harsher judgments, weaker defences and, ultimately, wrongful convictions. It is proven in convictions that the intersection of race and poverty affect outcomes. Indigenous peoples and racial minorities, who are disproportionately represented among poorer Canadians, face compounded biases that increase their vulnerability to wrongful convictions. Studies have shown that indigenous and Black Canadians are more likely to be wrongfully convicted than their white counterparts, highlighting a deeply rooted problem of racial and economic inequality in our justice system. I note that the Conservatives do not understand this.

Another critical aspect contributing to wrongful convictions is the pressure to accept plea bargains. Plea bargaining, intended to expedite the judicial process and reduce caseloads, often places an undue burden on poor defendants. Faced with the prospect of prolonged pretrial detention, high bail amounts they cannot afford and the uncertainty of a trial, many low-income defendants feel compelled to plead guilty to crimes they did not commit in exchange for a reduced sentence. This coercive aspect of plea bargaining leads to a troubling reality where innocence is sacrificed for expediency.

Let us add that probation requires admittance of guilt, so the wrongfully convicted are forced to make unjust choices. Furthermore, wrongful convictions have devastating consequences beyond the individual. They erode trust in the legal system, perpetuate cycles of poverty and fail to address the real perpetrators of crime. When an innocent person is convicted, the actual offender remains free, posing a continued threat to society. This failure to deliver true justice undermines public confidence and perpetuates the belief that the system is rigged against the marginalized.

The Conservatives are fine with this reality. They say to just appeal. With all of the barriers I just outlined above, it is obvious that appeal is neither equitable nor just. Expanding access to post-conviction review and innocence projects can provide a safety net for those who have been wrongfully convicted. Organizations such as Innocence Canada work tirelessly to investigate claims of innocence and exonerate the wrongfully accused. By supporting their efforts and facilitating the review of questionable convictions, we can rectify past injustices and prevent future ones. It should not have to be that way.

In conclusion, the higher rates of wrongful convictions among lower-income Canadians highlight profound inequities in Canada's legal system. From inadequate legal representation and systemic biases to the pressure of plea bargaining and resource imbalances, the odds are stacked against those with limited financial means. With respect to Bill C-40, miscarriage of justice, it is incumbent on all of us to have a justice system that functions well and does not put innocent people behind bars.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

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.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of the residents of Kelowna—Lake Country.

Before I begin my speech today, I would like to mention that we will be rising soon, in this place, for the summer. I want to wish everyone a safe summer for travelling. I also want to thank all responders who might be out there, helping to save lives and keeping our communities safe.

I am rising today to speak to Bill C-40, the miscarriage of justice review commission act, David and Joyce Milgaard's law. This is an act to amend the Criminal Code, to make consequential amendments to other acts and to repeal a regulation, miscarriage of justice reviews, which will establish a commission dedicated to reviewing miscarriage of justice applications.

The current criminal conviction process is handled by the Criminal Conviction Review Group within the Department of Justice Canada, which then advises the justice minister on cases with grounds for review.

The justice minister was mandated, in 2019 and 2021, to work toward the establishment of an independent criminal case review commission to improve access to justice for people who have potentially been wrongfully convicted to have their applications reviewed. Of course, myself and the Conservatives are very sympathetic to people who have been wrongfully convicted, like David Milgaard, whom this bill has been named after. No one wants innocent people to be convicted and to be in jail. We also do not want guilty people on our streets.

It is important to have a wrongful conviction review procedure, which Canada has had for a very long time. The problem with the current system is that there is political intervention. It is cumbersome and bureaucratic. We were very optimistic that Bill C-40 could be the answer to addressing some of these issues. As is on the record, at second reading, Conservatives were in favour of this legislation, and it was sent to committee to look at potential amendments. There was one part in the legislation where we genuinely thought there was a drafting error, which can happen on occasion, and it was looked into at committee. I want to thank my Conservative colleagues who sit on the justice committee for their detailed work and their expertise on this.

The threshold for getting a review is very low. Right now, it is worded as if it has “likely occurred”, referring to a miscarriage of justice. This bill would change that to “may have occurred”. Conservatives on the committee thought that they could convince the other members of the committee to keep the higher threshold, which did not happen, so now, it has come back to the House at third reading.

One of the good parts of the bill is that it would take the political realm out of the process, which Conservatives like, to make it purely administrative. If that was all the legislation did, then we could very easily support it here in its present form. However, we believe that the lower threshold would open the door to all kinds of cases. We know that the court system is already very clogged and backlogged, but we were unable to convince members at committee to make the changes. The legislation that has come back to the House from committee is more problematic than what had been sent to committee. We think there are genuinely some clerical administrative errors with respect to the writing of the legislation. The original Bill C-40 application for review would use all available appeal avenues, such as a provincial court of appeal.

I do want to bring up a couple of quotes that I think are relevant to what we are talking about here today. David Lametti's speech, at second reading, on the miscarriage of justice review commission act, was on June 12, 2023, so it was almost exactly a year ago.

He stated, “It is important to note that the miscarriage of justice review process is not an alternative to the judicial 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.” We agree with this.

As well, in the press release entitled, “Minister of Justice introduces legislation (David and Joyce Milgaard’s Law) to establish an independent Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission”, it 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.”

We also agree with this. However, this is not what the legislation does. In addition, Minister Virani, at committee, in October of 2023—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-40, which we are continuing to debate today, is a very important piece of legislation. This bill would establish an independent commission dedicated to reviewing miscarriage of justice applications.

Specifically, Bill C-40 would amend the Criminal Code by reforming the existing miscarriage of justice review process in two ways.

First, it specifies accessibility criteria. It specifies the investigative process, in particular the legal threshold to conduct investigations, powers of investigation and provisions of investigation reports. The bill also specifies the decision-making process, specifically the legal threshold to refer cases back to the courts for a new trial, hearing or appeal. In addition, on that decision-making process, it would change the relevant decision-making factors.

The second area Bill C-40 addresses is additions to the Criminal Code to establish the commission: mandate, composition, appointment process and qualifications specifically, as well as the powers, duties and functions.

Bill C-40 is named after David and Joyce Milgaard. David Milgaard was convicted of a crime he did not commit and spent 23 years in prison before being released in 1992 and finally exonerated in 1997. Joyce Milgaard, David's mother, spent decades advocating for her son's release and compensation for the injustices he faced. Mr. Milgaard's experience revealed the flaws that can exist in our justice system. Joyce and David Milgaard were forceful advocates for the wrongfully convicted. They called for changes to Canada's wrongful conviction review process, including the establishment of an independent commission. We are all very proud to honour their work and their vision for a more just Canada.

I want to reflect on that last bit for a moment. Just imagine for a second being a parent who has one of their children convicted of a crime, or, first of all, just being accused and charged with a crime and the time they spend. I am reflecting on my own children, if I were in this position. I have a 20-year-old son, and I imagine if something occurred and he was put in a position like this. I just think to myself, from a parent's perspective, what would one do? A parent would go to all ends, especially if they knew their child was innocent, to protect them and to make sure they get the proper justice they deserve.

The inspiration of this bill and who the bill is named after is an example of that incredible deep passion that people bring, in particular, when trying to find justice for their children. We are very fortunate. I know there are many people who have been wrongfully convicted who did not have advocates like their parents fighting for their release. We need to use the example of what happened here, this particular dynamic with the child and their parents fighting for them, and in particular their mother, as a standard for the way we should be treating matters like this.

This is a very important bill. This bill would address the injustices that unfortunately can occur within a justice system that is intended to hold accountable those who have committed crimes.

I know, as a matter of fact, after listening to this debate in the House during the times when the bill has been up for debate, that everybody in the House supports this bill. This is a bill I have heard Conservatives speak in favour of. I have heard the NDP, the Bloc and certainly Liberals speak in favour of it. This is a bill that has unanimous consent. This is a bill that anybody who has children, who knows somebody wrongfully convicted or who fears that one day somebody else could be wrongfully convicted should support.

Knowing that we have unanimous consent for a bill like this, that we all believe that this is so important, that we all know that people who have been wrongfully convicted continue to sit in prison today, knowing all of this, and knowing that we all support it and that we all believe that justice is just as important for the wrongfully convicted as it is for the rightfully convicted, one would think that a bill like this could pass through the House very quickly, that it could get to the Senate and the Senate could do its thing with this and adopt this bill just as quickly. This should be a completely non-partisan issue. There should be no need for anybody in the House to try to slow down the process and the speed at which this bill moves through the House, especially when we hear and we know that everybody supports it.

Unfortunately, that is not what happened. Despite the fact that Conservatives said they support this, and they get up in their speeches and talk about how much they support this, they have intentionally slowed the passage of this bill through the House. The member for Langley—Aldergrove put forward 20 amendments to the bill, a bill that he supports, a bill that Conservatives will vote in favour of. Does one think these were meaningful amendments that he brought forward? They were not.

The first amendment that he brought forward was that we delete the short title. He then went on to bring forward amendments that would consecutively delete each clause of the bill, one by one. What he is doing is putting forward these amendments and, by the way, as soon as one puts forward an amendment to a bill, it resets the speaking order and everybody can speak again. He will effectively, unless the Conservatives change course and decide to apply the votes or do something at the last minute, make 20 votes out of this simple bill that everybody supports and just absolutely slow down the process.

I understand that there are issues we disagree on. I understand that the main tool of an opposition party, His Majesty's loyal opposition party, is to affect the amount of time it takes to do things in the House. I respect that. I understand that. It makes sense that, from time to time, Conservatives want to use those tools for issues that they passionately disagree with. I get it. On contentious issues, it makes sense.

However, on a bill like this, which everybody supports, which literally will allow justice to be served for those who have been wrongfully convicted, the Conservative Party played games with the bill and continues to play games with the bill now. We had to bring in a motion of closure to force the Conservatives to vote on this bill and to stop delaying it. That is where we are now. We are on the final few hours of this, because we had to force the Conservatives into this position. It is absolutely shameful that Conservatives would act in this manner with respect to a bill like this. This bill deserves the unanimous support that the House has already said it gives it. This bill deserves to be passed as quickly as possible. It is extremely unfortunate that Conservatives continue to play their games with such an important piece of legislation.

The House resumed from June 6 consideration of 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), as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, for a moment there, I thought, for once, we were going to get away without a preamble, but we had a lot of amble there, a lot of post-amble.

I can assure my hon. friend that the law that is coming this fall would protect every single Canadian who draws their income from a paycheque, and 0.13% of Canadians would pay a modest amount of additional tax on capital gains over a quarter of a million dollars garnered in a single year.

Tax fairness not only will be written into the law, but also will continue to be the thing we talk about in the House.

Tomorrow, we will complete the report stage study of Bill C-40, Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission Act, which is also known as David and Joyce Milgaard's law.

I would like to request that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment of the next sitting be 12 midnight, pursuant to order made Wednesday, February 28.

Our priorities next week will be to complete report stage and third reading of Bill C-69, the budget implementation act, and second reading of Bill C-65, the electoral participation act. We will also give priority to other important bills, namely third reading of the aforementioned Bill C-40 and report stage and third reading of Bill C-26, the critical cyber systems protection act.

Finally, there have been discussions amongst the parties and, if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That the motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons related to the appointment of Christine Ivory as Parliamentary Librarian, pursuant to Standing Order 111.1(2), be deemed adopted.

Bill C‑40—Time Allocation Motion

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.