Debates of May 23rd, 2024

Department of Justice—Main Estimates, 2024-25

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Patrick Michel said that Minister Lametti's decision “not only discredits the administration of justice, it also discredits the review process for wrongful convictions”.

Is the minister proud of his predecessor?

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

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Lametti, whom I worked with as parliamentary secretary, did extraordinary work during his more than four years in the position. I can note that the context we are discussing now illustrates the need to completely change the process with Bill C‑40—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that the issue is not about processes, but the actions of his predecessor, Mr. Lametti, who tossed out the CCRG's report?

Is he aware of the fact that he went against what the CCRG was saying?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The member's time is up, unfortunately, but I will allow the minister 10 seconds to answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, the current process is one we have been using for a number of years. We want to change it with a commission independent of the government—

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it has been reported in the city of Victoria that the same man has been arrested three times in three days for auto theft. Where was he today? He was out on bail again, so it is catch and release three times, and the people of Victoria are wondering why the police are not doing their work.

My question for the minister is this: How many times is enough before a dangerous repeat offender like this auto thief should be restrained for the sake of public safety?

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

Mr. Speaker, what I would say to the member opposite is that as a person who is concerned with the safety of Canadians, obviously I share his concern.

When I outlined earlier the fact that, when dealing with bail, we need to look at flight risk, maintaining confidence in the administration of justice, and protection of the safety of the public, one would genuinely question whether the decisions being rendered by a justice of the peace or a local provincial court justice are accurate in that regard. There is recourse for reviewing a bail decision, and I would urge the residents of Victoria to pursue that recourse.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there was another story also coming out of the city of Victoria that a person charged with illicit drug trafficking three times was released on bail three times, and people are wondering what is going on with the police. Now the police, in their public notices, have taken to highlighting Bill C-75 of the Liberal government, which directs them to release people with the least restraint possible.

My question to the minister again is this: How many times is too many before a repeat violent offender like the drug trafficker I mentioned should be kept behind bars for the sake of public safety?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's contributions at the justice committee and to today's debate, but let me just outline a few things. The first is that I am not responsible, or the decision-maker, for individual bail decisions. Those are made by independent and impartial adjudicators around the country. Second, the decisions are meant to be guided by principles under the Criminal Code of Canada and by Supreme Court jurisprudence.

The member is referencing Bill C-75, and what it entrenched is the constitutional principle that already came from case law, such as the Antic decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. All we were doing was codifying a jurisprudential decision that had already been made. However, in terms of decisions that are being made about repeat offenders, that goes to the hallmark of the likelihood of reoffending. That is a consideration for bail under the Criminal Code of Canada. It needs to be applied in all instances.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Constable Shaelyn Yang of the Burnaby RCMP was murdered in October 2022, about 18 months ago. She was stabbed to death by a drug-crazed person when she was doing a wellness check at a homeless camp in Burnaby. This happened right at the time when the current Liberal government together with the NDP provincial government of British Columbia tried a pilot project of decriminalizing drugs. Now that is not working. Clearly it has been a disastrous failed experiment, and it is now being rolled back to some degree, but would the minister agree that it is a failed experiment that should be rolled back completely for the sake of public safety?

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

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the decriminalization situation in B.C., Canadians need to understand that a request was put in by the B.C. government and received by us. We adhered to that request. When the request was made to change or modify the program in the past three to four weeks, we also received that request and made the changes.

The concerns outlined by the member opposite and the concerns outlined by the British Columbia government are shared by us and our government. Any individual would share those pressing safety concerns. That is why we have modified the application, and for the member's edification I will say that we have also rejected an application on a similar basis that was launched by the City of Toronto.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about Constable Greg Pierzchala of the OPP, who was murdered by a man who was out on bail for similar crimes. There were bail restrictions of course, but the police who were in charge of those told the justice committee that they did not have the tools, the resources, the ability or the manpower to be able to supervise those bail conditions.

What can the minister tell us about helping police and giving them the resources so they can keep people safe?

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just outline the tremendous courage, bravery and service of people like Constable Pierzchala and Constable Yang. We are in debt, as always, to men and women in uniform who serve in this country. With respect to Constable Pierzchala, his murder started a very important conversation over a year ago about bail reform, which we responded to with pace, in conjunction with law enforcement and with provincial and territorial governments around the country. That produced Bill C-48, which we passed in a short amount of time, ensuring that we changed bail laws in this country.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the growing problem of auto theft in Canada.

Our government has remained steadfast in its commitment to effectively combat auto theft. We have taken deliberate, effective and swift action, including by organizing the national auto theft summit, where we brought together partners and stakeholders from across government, industry and law enforcement to agree upon strategies to better respond to this issue.

Through the budget implementation act, we would amend the Criminal Code to provide additional tools for law enforcement and prosecutors to address auto theft. I really hope this is something that all parties in this place can get behind. I am going to speak to each of these amendments in turn.

Canadians are concerned with the increasingly violent nature of auto theft and the involvement of organized crime groups. To effectively respond to these concerns, Bill C-69 would enact new offences targeting auto theft and its links to violence and organized crime, punishable by a maximum of 14 years.

These offences are important. They explicitly recognize the increased severity of blame that exists when someone not only steals a car, but also uses violence to achieve it. Carjackings are traumatic not only for the victims, but also for those who may witness such brazen acts of violence. With changes proposed, the government is unequivocally denouncing such conduct. Make no mistake; such conduct will be responded to in a manner that reflects its seriousness.

No less serious is the link between auto theft and organized crime. We have all seen the news that demonstrates the sophisticated criminal operations that have fuelled the increase in auto theft in Ontario and Quebec. Cars are stolen in communities and quickly brought to Montreal where they are put on ships for sale in other countries. Such activities cannot be accomplished without organized crime. Not only does the crime line the pockets of criminals, but it also provides them with the resources to engage in other illicit activities. All of this threatens the stability, safety and prosperity of our communities.

I am encouraged to see our government, together with other levels of government, proposing thoughtful and targeted responses to get at the heart of this illegal activity. Moreover, working together with our law enforcement partners, we have learned that organized crime entities are advancing modern technology for car theft. They are targeting vehicles equipped with keyless ignition systems, employing software to unlock and start those cars remotely.

This understanding prompted our government to propose changes that would create new offences for possession and distribution of devices used to commit auto theft punishable by a maximum of 10 years by indictment. This makes eminent sense as we want to get at the related activities that make auto theft easier to commit.

The government is also proposing changes to tackle the money, a critical side of organized crime. We know that targeting money-laundering operations is a crucial element in an effective response to the crime. It is essential to disrupt the availability of laundered funds that contribute to keeping criminal groups in operation.

Bill C-69 would reaffirm the offence of laundering the proceeds of crime for the benefit of a criminal organization, punishable by a maximum of 14 years. Again, that is an example of a targeted response in the fight against organized crime, whether the laundered funds came from auto theft or any other crime.

I was also pleased to see amendments proposed to respond to the reality that criminal organizations are involving youth in crime, including motor vehicle theft and carjacking. We need to make amendments to stop organized crime groups from involving youth. It is reprehensible, no matter the offence.

The new factor applies to advancing sentencing where there is evidence the offender is the ringleader, involving a person under the age of 18. It is critical that an offence implicitly recognize this. It is imperative that we take decisive action to prevent criminal organizations from exploiting vulnerable young people in such heinous activities.

In addition to establishing new offences to enhance efforts against auto theft, amendments proposed by the budget implementation act would also provide law enforcement with access to investigative tools for these offences, including wiretap authorizations and DNA warrants.

Our government is proposing changes to the Criminal Code that would actually combat auto theft. The Leader of the Opposition is trotting out rhetoric and failed policies and claiming it will solve the problem. We know his proposals will not work. He knows his proposals will not work, in fact, but he is going to try to sell us a bill of goods anyway. On this side of the House, we are focused on actual solutions.

Let us keep in mind the Criminal Code is only one tool, among many, used to fight auto theft. Bill C-69, the budget implementation act, also includes measures that would crack down on auto theft by amending the Radiocommunication Act to regulate the sale, possession, distribution and import of devices used to steal cars. This would enable law enforcement agencies to capture and remove devices believed to be used to steal cars from the Canadian marketplace.

Beyond legislative changes, our government is investing heavily in cracking down on auto theft, including $15 million to support motor vehicle investigations and stolen vehicle recovery. Of course, combatting organized crime is essential in those stolen vehicles being returned. It is also a pivotal part of the issue at hand. I was heartened to read that nearly 600 vehicles were recovered from the port of Montreal last month before they could be illegally shipped overseas.

Cracking down on auto theft means cracking down on international organized crime. That is why the government is investing $3.5 million in funding to Interpol's joint transnational vehicle crime project to enhance information sharing and investigative tactics to identify and retrieve those stolen vehicles around the world.

To the same end, the government is also investing $28 million to detect and search shipping containers for stolen vehicles, as well as enhance collaboration on intelligence sharing with partners around Canada and internationally to help identify those involved within the supply chain and arrest those who are perpetuating the crimes.

The government is also committed to extending $9.1 million to provincial, territorial and municipal police forces, through the contribution program to combat serious and organized crime, to increase their capacity to take custody of detained stolen vehicles from the Canada Border Services Agency.

Cracking down on guns and gangs is a key part of combatting auto theft, which is why the government is also investing $121 million in funding to the Province of Ontario to help prevent gun and gang violence, including organized crime and motor vehicle theft, through the initiative to take action against gun and gang violence.

Motor vehicle theft presents a multi-faceted challenge that requires a comprehensive solution. The proposed legislative amendments, along with significant investments, recognize this.

Too many families and too many victims, in my community especially, are being affected by the disturbing rise in auto theft and home invasion. It affects people at home. It affects people emotionally. It is a serious issue. We must do everything we can, working together, to stop this violence and protect our communities. It is not to heckle and not to persuade others to do otherwise. We need to work together and find the opportunity to fix this matter. I appreciate this opportunity to address it as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, what I appreciate from the member's comments is that he obviously delves into his experience as a past minister of finance in Ontario. He understands, as law enforcement has continuously explained to me, that gone are the days of a teenager off on a joyride, stealing a car from someone's home.

This is an organized effort that is very profitable for international crime ranks. That is what we are dealing with here. In order to address auto theft, we need to address the path of the money.

How are we doing that? There are six measures, and some of them were touched upon by my colleague. We are addressing challenges with prosecuting third party money launderers by amending the money-laundering offence. That is in the fall economic statement that, unfortunately, the members opposite have been obstructing.

Second, we are responding to the rapidly evolving nature of financial crime by adapting the production order for financial data so that it more effectively applies to accounts associated with digital assets. We know what that party thinks about digital assets, because at one point the Conservative leader opined that crypto was the way out of inflation. Thankfully, the Bank of Canada was not listening.

Third, we also know that modernizing provisions related to the search, seizure and restraint of proceeds of crime is critical, which is also in the fall economic statement.

Fourth, there is a provision in the current budget implementation bill that deals with issuing an order to require a financial institution to keep an account open to assist in the investigation of a suspected criminal offence.

Fifth, there is a provision that would allow for issuing a repeat production order to authorize law enforcement to obtain ongoing specified information on activity in an account or multiple accounts.

The members opposite love to listen to law enforcement. I would urge them to do this, at least on this one occasion, because law enforcement is asking for these tools that they are actively voting against.

The last piece is an offence that would explicitly criminalize operating a money service business that is not registered with FINTRAC. That is really critical because that is something that again helps us to track the money.

With the learned knowledge of my friend, in terms of his background in finance, he has applied a critical lens to what we are doing on auto theft. If members think that we can tackle this one at a time, by targeting adolescents who have been deployed by an organized crime ring, and solve the auto theft crisis, the members are sorely mistaken.

In order to do this, we need to operate on multiple fronts, including tracking the money. That is what these auto theft provisions would do. That is why we are behind them and are proceeding with them with pace. We just wish the Conservatives would get on board.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his leadership and his engagement on this critically important file, as well as working alongside other levels of government, collaborating with all who share the same concern to combat it. The minister is doing a fine job.

I also want to ask about the indigenous community and the issue of reconciliation, specifically around Bill S-13. Could the minister update us on that issue, in terms of how we are advancing the issue to support the first nations people?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for raising this, because I do not think we have talked enough about indigenous reconciliation in the context of this evening's interventions.

What Bill S-13 would do is simply and surgically amend the Interpretation Act, such that all federal legislation would be interpreted so as not to derogate from aboriginal and treaty rights that are protected under Section 35 of the Constitution.

Right now, we have a checkerboard, where every individual piece of legislation has to insert this interpretive provision. If we simply amend the Interpretation Act, it would oversee the interpretation of all federal legislation and obviate the need for doing so.

We have consulted on this. We have worked with indigenous leadership on this. We have a bill that has worked its way through the Senate. That bill is something that actually should command unanimous consent in this chamber. I hope we can expeditiously pass it to do right by aboriginal and treaty rights that are constitutionally protected and need to be interpreted in that manner.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, protecting our Constitution is critical, and I hope all in this House share that same concern.

Could the minister elaborate or give us a sense of what it was previously? Did the former Conservative government have the same engagement with the indigenous community in order to make things right, in order to collaborate and promote their engagement in our society and their prosperity?

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

Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is an absolute and resounding no. The investments made were at one third of the level of investments that we are making in indigenous communities and with rights holders around this country.

We have empowered national indigenous organizations. We have created permanent bilateral mechanisms. We launched the missing and murdered indigenous women's inquiry. We are responding to calls to action under the TRC and calls for justice under the MMIWG.

My office has created a special interlocutor to look at the unmarked graves and how to address that pressing issue. The work continues apace. The work will take time. It will take many generations to resolve.

However, we are on a path forward that is much more demonstrably palpable in terms of our willingness to collaborate, work in partnership with and, indeed, co-develop legislation with indigenous peoples. That is a hallmark of the way we need to work on the go-forward.

That is a hallmark of our government. We will continue on that path, despite sometimes facing considerable opposition by the official opposition.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is my last question: Can the minister reaffirm to the House how important it is to protect safety in our communities, how it is important to fight crime, and how it is important that other provincial jurisdictions also have a responsibility, especially in regard to bail?

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

Mr. Speaker, a priority for any government is keeping the community safe. Our commitment to this remains steadfast in terms of protecting women from intimate partner violence, protecting children from child sex predators, protecting all Canadians from gun violence, protecting people from hatred and ensuring that the sex offender registry is replaced. Our commitment remains steadfast to ensuring that Canadians are kept safe in their communities, and we will continue in that vein.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to use my time to ask questions, make comments and get feedback and answers from the minister.

To begin, I would like to commend the minister's attitude this evening. I do not know whether he has been sent to the committee of the whole as punishment for doing something wrong but, quite frankly, I think he is answering questions seriously and honestly. I think that should be recognized, especially after such a long day. I would also like to commend the work of the advisers accompanying him. I thank everyone for being here this evening.

The House has recognized Quebec as a nation. The Supreme Court of Canada has noted Quebec's distinct legal traditions and social values. Does the minister recognize that the Quebec nation and the Canadian nation have distinct social values and different legal traditions?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, first, I thank my colleague for his opening comments.

Second, Quebec obviously has a civil law system, which is different. That is very clear in our customs and conventions. That is why there are always three judges on the Supreme Court of Canada who are civil law experts. The court needs that when drafting decisions and ruling on cases from Quebec.

In my younger days, maybe 27 years ago, I myself spent a semester studying law at Université Laval so I could be more conscious of and informed about Quebec's civil law system.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I see the minister's younger days happened a lot more recently than mine.

Given that Quebec is a nation with distinct social values and a different legal tradition, I would like to know if the minister agrees that Quebec laws cannot be evaluated and interpreted through the lens of Canadian values and the Canadian legal tradition. Does the Minister of Justice recognize that to do so would be incongruous?