Honourable senators, I am honoured to rise today on unceded and unsurrendered Algonquin Anishinaabe territory. I am speaking today in support 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).

I want to thank my colleague Senator Arnot, a fellow human rights advocate, for bringing this forward. As Senator Arnot has stated, people wrongfully convicted are victims of the criminal justice system. I also want that thank all of my colleagues who contributed to this important debate.

Yesterday, Senator Pate highlighted the overrepresentation of Indigenous women who have been wrongfully convicted in Canada. Senator Pate also emphasized that adoption of the bill is a first step in a process to ensure a more equitable justice system.

Today, I wish to add to the debate by bringing to your attention three cases from my home province of Nova Scotia that also illustrate the need for more equitable access and a more equitable process. Two of the cases highlight the need for racial equity, and all three highlight the need for independent oversight to prevent systemic failures like these.

The first case is a clear case of racism in the justice system. In 2013, 19-year-old African Nova Scotian Randy Riley was arrested after a pizza delivery worker named Chad Smith was shot to death in 2010. Randy Riley was incarcerated for seven years and eight months. His initial charge rested on witness testimony which was recanted after the first trial and before the second trial after a “crisis of conscience” of the witness.

Coming from the historical African-Nova Scotian community of Cherry Brook, this young Black man and his case highlight the anti-Black racism at play with the charge and the significant time of his life spent incarcerated. The reality of anti-Black racism meant that this young African Nova Scotian did not get a fair trial.

Randy Riley was able to voice this in his own words. He read the following excerpt at his sentencing:

And I want the family of the victim to know that this miscarriage of justice I believe it’s not a burden I put on them, but on the court, because I don’t believe that I was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Not only that, I don’t believe that the verdict supports the evidence that was presented against me. It seems to me that — though I believe, and I think everyone in this court believes — that no one wanted this case to be about race, but inevitably, race is what it has become. And when things come about race, a lot of time they tend to be ignored. And the elephant in the room is race.

The second case I will bring to your attention is one many people know about. The case of Donald Marshall Jr., a Mi’kmaw man who spent 11 years in prison after being wrongfully convicted of the murder of Sandy Seale in Sydney, Nova Scotia. Mr. Marshall was only 17 when he was convicted of this murder and sentenced to life in prison despite the lack of physical evidence linking him to the murder.

In addition to that, there is evidence of police intimidation and false testimony given by police, and even his lawyers — his lawyers — doubted his plea and did not verify his accounts of the event. This case demonstrates the anti-Indigenous, colonial nature of bias on so many levels in the justice system. Even his defence lawyers who should be presenting evidence to defend him were not able to conceive of his innocence.

In Donald Marshall Jr.’s own words, “I am not the guilty one, the system is guilty.” This is a reminder, colleagues, that these individual cases are not isolated incidents but failures of the entire justice system. The inquiry into Marshall’s wrongful conviction also highlighted the fact that the race of the victim, a young African-Nova Scotian man, also contributed to this miscarriage of justice. Marshall’s case, though, was a catalyst for change in the creation of the Indigenous Blacks and Mi’kmaq Initiative at Dalhousie University, which seeks to address systemic under-representation of Black and Indigenous voices in law.

I believe the stories we have heard in various debates in this chamber can also be catalysts of change through Bill C-40. By modernizing the review process, this bill has the capacity to safeguard against some racial bias, like in the cases of Randy Riley and Donald Marshall Jr., to create more racial equity in the justice process.

The third case I would like to bring to your attention to is a man named Glen Assoun. Mr. Assoun spent 17 years in prison for the murder of his former girlfriend, Brenda Way. Mr. Assoun was an easy target for conviction because of his complex childhood history of neglect, a Grade 6 education level and a long history of alcohol addiction and violence. Mr. Assoun’s situation is a clear example of the wrongfully convicted Canadians who find themselves failed by the justice system because of their personal circumstances when they are caught at the intersection of poverty and addiction.

Honourable colleagues, I support Bill C-40 because I believe a justice system that upholds accountability and equity is possible. I support modernizing the miscarriage of justice review process and creating an independent review body to prevent biases that are built into our justice system. The cost of miscarriage of justice is the harmful impact on the lives of those wrongfully convicted, their families and their communities.

I urge you, colleagues, to support this bill to prevent the future miscarriages of justice, to enhance public trust and to support victims like Mr. Riley, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Assoun.

Thank you, asante.

I will.

Thank you for your question, Senator Batters.

Let me start by saying that I think a recommendation that specifically says “one Black and one Indigenous” can be perceived as a form of tokenism. My preference would be an expectation that when the commission is indeed established, there would be particular attention paid to not just one; my hope and expectation would be that there would be more than one person of African descent and more than one Indigenous person represented on that commission.

Again, I think language that says “at least one” would also be tokenistic, so I would avoid that language.

You’re right: There is the potential that none of the commissioners could be a representative of those communities. I believe we have a duty and responsibility to hold government to account, so questions would be continually raised around that when we see who, indeed, is appointed.

I would suggest having consultations in the process leading up to the appointment of the commissioners.

Would Senator Bernard take a question?

Yes.

Senator Bernard, my godmother in the Senate, thank you for your speech and for outlining the three powerful cases you described.

We heard some very good speeches around Bill C-40. We heard relevant, compelling testimony at the Legal Committee. I don’t think we heard sufficiently about what you raised today, which is systemic anti-Black racism — even what you raised in Question Period today.

We now have Canada’s Black Justice Strategy, which puts forward 114 recommendations to deal with exactly some of the issues you outlined around systemic anti-Black racism. This just came out in June.

Do you have any thoughts on what the federal government — any federal government — should be doing with a Black justice strategy like that which deals with systemic anti-Black racism?

Thank you for your question. It was an honour to be your godmother.

As a Nova Scotian, I do have to say that the idea for that national justice strategy began with a Nova Scotia justice strategy to bring racial justice into the justice system. The fact that we have the strategy is commendable. My expectation would be that we would act on this strategy. Having the strategy in place is only one step. Through that step, we create awareness, we have more analyses, and we have action, but we also need that fourth thing, which is accountability. The strategy should hold us all accountable, across the country.