Debates of May 23rd, 2024

Department of Justice—Main Estimates, 2024-25

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-5 dealt with a number of issues that relate to mandatory minimum penalties, including the overrepresentation of indigenous and Black people in our justice system.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, is there still a mandatory minimum penalty for robbery with a non-restricted firearm, yes or no?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier in today's discussion, there remains a mandatory minimum penalty for people who are involved in a robbery with a restricted firearm, of five—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am so glad the minister clarified that there is a mandatory minimum penalty for robbing somebody with a restricted or prohibited firearm. Does the minister think that this is what goes through somebody's head? “I am going to go commit a robbery of that 7-Eleven. Wait a minute. This is a restricted or prohibited firearm. Hold off. I am not doing it.” Does the minister think that is what goes through someone's head?

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

Mr. Speaker, what is important to reflect on with respect to the mandatory minimum penalty discussion are the words of Ben Perrin, the former chief legal adviser to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who said, “MMPs are ineffective at reducing crime, may actually increase recidivism, are highly vulnerable to being struck down by courts as unconstitutional, can increase delays in an overburdened system and perpetuate—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The hon. member.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if there are drive-by shootings with no mandatory minimum penalty, are you okay with that?

[An hon. member]

I have a point of order.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I understand that the point of order is going to be raised but I am going to presume that the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo is asking a question through the Chair.

We will have a very brief answer by the hon. minister.

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

Mr. Speaker, what I am very concerned about is the use of firearms in offences and that is why we have taken significant action on assault rifles—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle has five minutes.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there has been so much misinformation from the Minister of Justice, so I am going to try one last time to get some clarity around some key points.

The NDP-Liberal government made a conscious decision to not just make it easier but actually force judges to grant bail for dangerous and repeat offenders. That was in their bill, Bill C-75. Since those changes in the government's bill, has the overall crime rate in Canada gone up or down?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-75 dealt with a number of things. It dealt with trial delays. It dealt with responding to Jordan. It dealt with changing how to select a jury trial after the Gerald Stanley matter and the systemic racism that was disclosed. It also dealt with enhancing penalties for things like auto theft, which that member voted against.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will get to auto theft in a moment, but first I want to just clarify: Bill C-75 made specific changes to make bail easier for dangerous and repeat offenders. I am not talking about any other aspect of bill C-75. Since those specific changes in Bill C-75, has the overall crime rate gone up or down in Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that as a former Speaker, the member used to consult Speakers' decisions, but I also would appreciate that he knows about Supreme Court jurisprudence. What Bill C-75 did was codify a Supreme Court decision called “Antic”. The law was already in place. We took that law from the court cases and put it into the Criminal Code. That is what codification involves.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, no judge ordered the government to make it easier to restrict judges from looking at other options, including keeping dangerous and repeat offenders in jail longer. The direct result of Bill C-75 is that Canada now has a catch-and-release bail system. The minister does not have to take my word for it. He can listen to the Victoria Police Department, which said in a statement, “Bill C-75, which came into effect nationally in 2019, legislated a 'principle of restraint' that requires police to release an accused person at the earliest possible opportunity”.

Let us look at what that language says. It specifically states, “a peace officer, justice or judge shall give primary consideration to the release of the accused at the earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous conditions”.

Can the minister just answer a simple question? There are only two options: Since Bill C-75, either the crime rate went up or the crime rate went down. After nine years of the Liberal-NDP government, has the crime rate in Canada gone up or down?

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

Mr. Speaker, with the utmost respect, I want to elaborate on a couple of points. First, when a court, such as the Supreme Court of Canada, renders a decision, the administration of justice and justice actors like myself follow that guidance. That is how the rule of law operates in this country.

Second, with respect to statutes, there is a guiding statute, a supreme statute. It is called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I know that is sometimes inconvenient for the members opposite, because they want to just trample on it using the notwithstanding clause, but that charter, including in section 11(e), safeguards a right to reasonable bail not to be denied without just cause.

These points are perhaps inconvenient for the member asking the questions, and certainly for his leader, but they are not an inconvenience for me or for our government. We stand by them to implement those charter rights and safeguard the rights of all Canadians.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I understand why the minister is so desperate not to answer the question and is hiding behind things that he knows are just not true. It is because crime has gone up massively: Homicides are up 43% since the Liberal government took over, gang-related homicides are up 105%, and violent gun crimes are up 101%.

On the one hand, the minister talks about how bad mandatory minimums are; on the other, he brags that the government actually kept some mandatory minimums. It is completely incoherent. He is completely self-contradictory.

He talked about car thefts. Did the Government of Canada expand the use of conditional sentencing, in other words, house arrest, for criminals who steal cars, yes or no?

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

Mr. Speaker, the principle of restraint from the Antic decision does not dictate the outcome of a specific bail hearing. That is fundamental to understand. It does not require the release of a person. It does not change the basis upon which someone can be detained.

With respect to auto theft, for the member's edification, when something or someone is subject to a period of imprisonment of longer than two years, they are automatically immunized from the potential availability of a conditional sentence order. There is also a mandatory minimum penalty that applies for repeat auto theft offenders, and that also immunizes them from the potential conditional sentence order.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very long way of saying, yes, the Liberals have granted house arrest to dangerous car thieves; as a result, car thefts have gone up massively—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The hon. minister.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would indicate that, since the changes and investments that we put in place with respect to auto theft, more than 1,000 vehicles have been intercepted by the CBSA at the Montreal port. This shows that those investments are doing the work they need to do to keep Canadians safe.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House, particularly at this time and with this august group, and indeed in the presence of wonderful colleagues across the way.

The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle and I had the opportunity to speak on a panel yesterday. It was wonderful to see that he is continuing his ongoing masterclass in misinformation in the chamber. It is important for all of us as Canadians to reflect on the consequences when misinformation is spread, or perhaps when elected leaders choose to openly challenge the rights of others.

I want to talk a little today about a woman's right to choose. I want to start by asking all of us whether or not we truly believe in freedom, the freedom of a woman to make decisions for what happens to her body. On this side of the House, we have been very clear that this is a priority for us. It has always been something that we will defend. That is why it is of grave concern to many of my constituents in Vancouver Granville to hear so many members opposite willing to really question or begin to put doubt into the minds of Canadians as to whether or not their party would indeed defend a woman's right to choose.

In fact, we have heard members opposite making comments such as that women who have abortions end up needing redemption, needing forgiveness and needing God. One of the members opposite said this and said that she spoke for all MPs from the Conservative Party. That was a week ago, not 40, 50 or even 20 years ago. It was seven or eight days ago. If Canadians look at the chamber as the chamber that is supposed to uphold their freedoms, I do not understand how members opposite in the Conservative Party could truly be purveyors of freedom when all they want to do is take away the rights of women.

We have seen Conservative governments across this country try to curtail the rights of 2SLGBTQI+ individuals because they do not believe they fit with their socially conservative way of living. That is also a concern for any of us that purport to care about freedom. If we in the chamber truly care about freedom, then every member of the House, including members opposite, would be actively supporting the rights of others, even those who may be different from them.

That is why I think it is so important for us to continue the fight for freedom. However, our definition of freedom, on this side of the House, is not to obfuscate, misinform or mislead unintentionally, but really to do the things that would cause Canadians to feel as though their Parliament, their parliamentarians, have their back.

Let us talk about ways in which members opposite have chosen not to have the back of Canadians, particularly when it comes to the question of freedom. We have seen the Leader of the Opposition openly cavorting with ideologically motivated violent extremists from Diagolon. We have seen him visit camps where people have made claims that Canada is broken or that the Prime Minister must be hanged. They have been actively engaging with white supremacists, brought them into this place and had meals with them.

How is that freedom? Is that the type of freedom that Canadians want? I think it is not. I think Canadians would like to know that their parliamentarians, the leaders whom they elect, care deeply about protecting their rights. That is why it was so disturbing for me to hear the Leader of the Opposition talk so freely about using the notwithstanding clause, about how he would choose to override the rights of others under his laws, and about how he would decide what laws were constitutional.

I have seen governments of all stripes, and I wonder what Canadians would ask. I wonder what Progressive Conservative prime ministers of the past would ask or would be thinking if they were to hear their once-grand party becoming the party of misinformation, the party of taking away the rights of others.

It makes perfect sense. The Leader of the Opposition and many of his acolytes were trained under Stephen Harper, who sought to set up a snitch line. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition was a key player in that and defended it.

They sought to take away the right to vote of women who wore the niqab. They sought to take away the right to vote of many Canadians. In fact, today, the Minister of Immigration had to make a decision to overturn many of the misguided policies of the members opposite in curtailing the rights of lost Canadians.

When I talk about freedom, members opposite are only interested in taking away the freedoms of people they do not like and preserving their own freedoms, the freedom to run up large expense accounts on the public purse, to have expensive champagne on the public purse or to travel to conventions on the public purse, but not the freedom for a woman to choose what happens to her own body, for a young person questioning their sexuality to feel like they can be safe in their community or for all those women and others who have been marred by violence in the home to feel safe. They want to put guns back in the homes of Canadians and in the hands of Canadians who may not need guns. Why anybody in this country would need a semi-automatic weapon like an AR-15, I do not know, but that is what members opposite want to do.

It is really important for us to spend a bit of time on this concept of freedom every single day and ask ourselves what kind of freedom we want for Canadians. Frankly, I would want freedom from the types of imposing views that the members opposite have on the rights of those who they may not consider the types of Canadians they want in this country.

We have heard members opposite talk openly about taking away a woman's right to choose. We have seen them cavort with people who would like to take away the rights of people who look like me. We have seen them spend time with people who openly want to overthrow our democracy and undermine it at every turn, and they do it by spreading misinformation and hate and trying to sow discord among communities in this country. It is well past time that all members of this House take a position and say that it is no longer acceptable for us to say freedom for me, but not for thee. That is the position that the Conservative Party has chosen to take.

I will end with the following thought. If we truly believe in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, if we truly believe in our Constitution, if we truly believe in the notion of freedom for all Canadians, then are we not willing to stand up and say that these may not be rights that I need, but they are rights that others in this country might need? Is that not the type of country we want, where each and every one of us is prepared to stand up and defend the rights and freedoms of people we may consider different? On this side of the House, that is exactly what we seek to do. I am very fearful that members opposite will persist in trying to take away the rights of people who do not share their far-right, extremist views.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his contribution to this evening's discussion and reflect on a couple of things.

What I personally found most troubling, as somebody who sat on the Emergencies Act parliamentary committee after the declaration, is that we know about extreme far-right movements. We know about what happened at the Coutts, Alberta border crossing, and we know about the group that was found there and about the weapons cache. That group was Diagolon; weapons and ammunition were found there, and that resulted in charges being laid of conspiracy to commit murder against the RCMP.

That is the exact same group that the Leader of the Opposition was engaging with intentionally just a few weeks ago on the east coast of this country, and I think it really begs a lot of questions about whether someone stands for and with law enforcement or whether they stand with the people who have been charged with potentially doing harm to law enforcement.

The second point is that I have also heard assertions that we are misinterpreting what the member for Carleton said about the notwithstanding clause and in fact, if he used it, that it would only be in a restricted manner.

First of all, I do not necessarily believe that, given the voting and track record of the Leader of the Opposition in terms of restrictions on women's rights, including women's rights to choose and recent voting patterns about women's access to free contraception. Second, I would say that the proof in writing is already on the wall, as in other instances where Conservative or right-leaning leaders of provincial governments around this country have either invoked or threatened to invoke the notwithstanding clause in areas that do not relate to criminal justice law.

I think about the usage by Scott Moe with respect to the LGBTQ community or about the threatened usage by Danielle Smith against trans kids. I did not hear a peep from the Leader of the Opposition about the inappropriateness of such an invocation of the notwithstanding clause, which really leads me to question, and I hope Canadians watching right now at this late hour are questioning, how much further it would go if it was invoked for the first time ever by a federal leader, should the member for Carleton assume the mantle of leadership in this country, and how many other rights would be subjugated.

These are really pressing concerns, and they should not be partisan, because they are about fundamental things like our basic rights and freedoms in this country. The member for Vancouver Granville put it quite clearly when he talked about how we do not get to do a grocery-style selection of which rights we are going to defend and which freedoms we are not going to defend. It is an entire package. It is called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it is important to stand up for all of the rights therein, even at times when it might not be popular, because ultimately those rights protect vulnerable people and vulnerable minorities from a potential tyranny of the majority. That is not the kind of Canada I want to live in. That is not the kind of Canada most Canadians want to live in.

What Canadians identify with, independent of their political stripe and independent of their voting patterns, are certain hallmarks about what defines us as Canadians, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is one of those key defining documents. That is why I stand behind it. That is why I always will stand behind it. My colleagues stand with me in that regard. I wish the official opposition would as well.