Debates of May 23rd, 2024

Department of Justice—Main Estimates, 2024-25

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

Mr. Speaker, the Umar Zameer case exemplifies the importance of being judicious in our language and ensuring that we do not wade into decisions that govern criminal prosecutions and decisions that are being made by our courts and our justices of the peace. There has never been a more clear example to my mind. However, I would underscore that the presumption of innocence also includes a presumption and an entitlement to not be denied reasonable bail without just cause. That is protected under section 11(e) of the charter, and its salutary impact is demonstrably exemplified in the Umar Zameer case.

What I found very troubling is that a number of politicians of various stripes waded into that matter, decrying, in the first instance, the abject horror of the notion of someone like Mr. Zameer being granted bail. He was ultimately vindicated and found to have been not guilty. I think that demonstrates that the work the system does is necessary, and it is doing the work that it needs to do in an impartial and independent manner.

It goes back to some of the interventions we heard earlier from the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo when he talked about my attendance in court during open court processes. Attempts to influence actively, or even the perceptions of such influence, are untoward in this country. That is inappropriate behaviour that should never be countenanced, and comments on the appropriateness or not of a bail decision in a given matter are equally inappropriate and not suitable in a democracy such as ours, where we need to safeguard the lines between independent prosecutions and adjudication and political involvement.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that the bail supervision programs, which are cost-effective, are quite underfunded. Am I correct that those are funded through provincial and territorial governments?

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

Mr. Speaker, bail supervision and the monitoring bail in how changes land on the ground, who is getting bail and who is not, is absolutely funded by the provinces. We have been encouraging them to track this information better so that we can make any further changes that are required.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned what is cost-effective because it is about $120,000 a year per inmate to keep people in jail, and there are currently more legally innocent people awaiting trial, who are still legally presumed innocent until proven guilty, in the jails of our provinces and territories than there are people who have been proven guilty. Does the minister understand that to be the case?

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

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely understand that to be the case. It really undercuts this narrative that bail is somehow too facile to obtain in this country when 70% of the population of prisons around the country are actually on remand. That is exactly commensurate with other peer countries. I think that underscores the point that the issues that need to be addressed are widespread and include how we track bail and the decisions that are being made by justices of the peace.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have never practised criminal law, but members of my family have been prosecutors. The question that occurs to me often, and one of the things that seems outside the jurisdiction of the federal government, is whether it would not be salutary to find some way that, when someone violates bail conditions or their surety is not observing them, bail would actually be collected, As a general matter, people put money forward as bail money for someone to be released on bail, but when those conditions are violated, does the minister have any data as to how often the bail money is then collected from those who put it forward?

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important suggestion. I do not have that data, but I can assure the member that, at my next federal-provincial-territorial meeting, which is in Yellowknife in the fall, I will raise this very issue. We have raised issues about how we are changing the bail rules at the federal level, but how they are landing on the ground in terms of supervision of bail, and when bail is violated, whether monies are collected, is an important issue that I will raise at that meeting.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn to Bill C-63. I support Bill C-63, the online hate bill, but I do not think it adequately gets to some of the questions of algorithms.

I think we have a real problem with rage farming. Some of the examples I have raised tonight are specifically useful because they raise ire and quick reaction and can be used to change public opinion through the manufacturing of a degree of rage that might otherwise not exist if all the facts were thoroughly discussed.

Does the minister believe that Bill C-63 could get at something like rage farming without getting at the algorithms?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a few responses. First of all, Bill C-63 contemplates a responsibility to file a digital safety plan with the new commissioner to indicate how one is going to moderate risk for one's users, and lastly, to be vetted against that moderation and to be subject to penalties or orders by the digital safety commissioner.

It also contemplates the idea that the digital safety commissioner could green-light researchers at universities around the country to get access to some of the inner workings of the platforms. This has been hailed by people like Frances Haugen, the famous Facebook whistle-blower, as internationally leading legislation on promoting some of the transparency the member opposite is seeking, which I seek as well.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn to the question of the Victims Bill of Rights. When the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights was going through this place, I had the honour to be a member of Parliament at that time. I worked with then ombudsperson Sue O'Sullivan, who was trying to get some specific ways of enforcing the Victims Bill of Rights. It is one thing to write the Victims Bill of Rights, but Canada is pretty well known around the world as having rights for victims that cannot be enforced.

I wonder if the minister is open to looking at the way the State of California pursues protecting victims' rights to information, emotional support and so on through what in California is called Marsy's Law.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would be very open to looking at what is transpiring in California. Centring victims at the heart of our criminal justice strategy is important, and we have been attempting to do that with respect to victims of hatred, through the online hate bill; victims of child sex predation, through Bill C-63; victims of intimate partner violence, through our changes to the bail regime, not once but twice, through Bill C-48 and Bill C-75; and fundamentally, victims of gun violence in this country, through bills like Bill C-21, which would put a freeze on handgun sales and ensure tougher penalties with respect to things like gun trafficking. These are important provisions, but I am definitely willing to entertain suggestions about what California is doing and look at whether the model could be brought over.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that concern victims and their families is the sort of black box around plea bargaining. Victims' impact statements can happen at the point of an open court, but plea bargaining leaves victims and families out. I wonder if the minister has any thoughts on how Canada could get the balance right to ensure that victims and their families have more access to consideration in the plea bargaining process.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just reflect on the fact that when we were looking at Bill S-12, if I remember the number correctly, with the sex offender registry, we heard greatly from victims about the context of things like non-disclosure agreements and where their autonomy was vitiated, and we looked at how we could recalibrate that so they could have control over their information. That is important and guides me in the work I do. What I would also underscore is that in the victims fund, we injected an amount of $40 million in 2023-24 to support victim-focused measures.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I also recall that when we were debating that and other issues in this place relating to mandatory minimums, there was a fair degree of evidence and concern that as jurisdictions used mandatory minimums, that tended to decrease what a judge did at the moment of sentencing and increase the likelihood of plea bargaining, as defence lawyers realized they were not going to have much option because there was a mandatory minimum associated. I wonder if the minister has any thoughts on whether plea bargaining is more likely when there are mandatory minimum sentences over many offences.

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand the gist of the member's question, but what we have seen in tracking the data is that when there is a mandatory minimum in place, it actually results in longer processes because plea bargaining does not occur as frequently, because the nature of the minimum penalty is already entrenched in law. That has resulted in more judicial resources and more delays. In fact, Ben Perrin, who is the individual who has been involved with a great deal of mandatory minimum considerations, a former adviser to Stephen Harper, described them as “a grave policy failure and cheap politics” and said, “Poilievre's idea may actually backfire, leading to more—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I want to inform the hon. minister and all hon. members that when referring to members of Parliament, even if they are quoting, they are to refer to them by their riding names or by the position they hold and not by their names.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister will not be surprised that I want to turn to Bill C-69 and the sections relating to the Impact Assessment Act. I never did practise constitutional law, but I have been consulting with some constitutional law experts. The minister brought the bill forward, so he must think it will meet the standards of the Supreme Court of Canada that this is federal jurisdiction. I do not. I wonder if the minister is open to considering changes, even at this stage, to ensure that environmental assessment is returned to the four squares of federal jurisdiction, as was the case under Brian Mulroney's version of environmental assessment, which was repealed by Stephen Harper.

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

Mr. Speaker, what I would say with respect to the Impact Assessment Act is that we have looked at the Supreme Court decision from October 2023, and I am very confident that the proposed amendments would address the concerns identified by the court and establish a robust and constitutional impact process.

With respect to the mandatory minimum piece, I would quote David Daubney, a former Conservative MP, who said, “The proliferation of mandatory minimum sentencing will lead to fewer guilty pleas, significant processing delays, big increases in the number of accused persons awaiting trial in already overcrowded”—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The hon. minister has run out of time.

We will move on to the hon. member for Brantford—Brant.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to state at the outset I will be sharing my time with the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo and the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.

To the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, how much is your gun grab going to cost Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would not use that terminology. I would say that when we put a national freeze on handgun sales through a bill like Bill C-21, we are keeping victims safe.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister can reject the language all he wants. The fact is that the question is very relevant.

How much is the gun grab going to cost Canadians, for the second time, minister?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the better question would be on how much not addressing gun violence would cost Canadians in terms of their mental health and their physical health.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear Canadians are being denied the opportunity of hearing from Canada's chief legal officer, so I will supply the answer to Canadians, because clearly the minister does not want to provide clarity, transparency or accountability on the issue.

The answer is $40 million.

How many guns has your government collected so far?

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

Mr. Speaker, through bills like Bill C-21 and through funding allocations that the member voted against, what we are putting in place are tools for the CBSA and the RCMP to interdict guns and gun trafficking to get them out of the hands of criminals and people who would do harm in our country.