Debates of May 23rd, 2024

Department of Justice—Main Estimates, 2024-25

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

Madam Chair, I would reiterate for the member's edification that I do not make individual bail decisions in a country like ours and in a democracy like ours. Those are made by justices of the peace or judges around the country.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member had opportunities to ask questions. He should wait for the answer and not interrupt.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Madam Chair, I appreciate the opportunity this evening to speak on an issue of major concern to the residents of Canada: the threats of organized crime and money laundering and the measures that the Government of Canada is taking to respond to these serious problems.

Specifically, I am going to share with everyone how the government proposes to strengthen the robust framework that is in place in the Criminal Code to address these serious crimes. The government has been listening to the concerns of communities in Canada and is acting to ensure that law enforcement and prosecutors have the laws and tools they need to combat these serious crimes.

Organized criminal groups are increasingly sophisticated and mobile. Their activities extend beyond the illegal drug trade to include the trafficking of human beings, cross-border smuggling, counterfeit goods, natural resource crimes and money laundering.

As we have seen in recent years, organized crime has also expanded its focus to auto theft. Organized crime has devastating impacts on our health, safety and economic security. These impacts include the harms of substance use and the tragedy associated with overdose; the loss of financial security due to crimes such as auto theft and frauds; and the erosion of our communities' sense of safety and security.

However, I am pleased to speak today about some of the considerable tools that police and prosecutors have to assist them in the investigation and prosecution of organized crime offences and money laundering. The Criminal Code defines a criminal organization broadly. It refers to “a group, however organized...of three or more persons in or outside Canada” that “has as one of its main purposes or main activities” to commit or facilitate a serious offence that would “result in...a material benefit” for anyone in the group.

A serious offence is one that is punishable by at least five years' imprisonment or that is otherwise prescribed by regulation. As well, there are four specific criminal organization offences in the Criminal Code. These consist of participating in the activities of a criminal organization, recruiting members for a criminal organization, committing an indictable offence for a criminal organization and instructing the commission of an offence for a criminal organization. These offences are punishable by significant penalties, including up to life imprisonment for instructing the commission of an offence for a criminal organization.

The involvement of organized crime in an offence has further implications under the Criminal Code, both prior to a trial and following a conviction. These include the availability of enhanced tools to enable police to investigate offences involving organized crime. They also include the requirement for a person charged with an offence involving organized crime to justify why their release from custody pending trial is, in fact, warranted.

There are significant implications for an offender who is convicted of a criminal organization offence. They include that the courts must consider, as an aggravating factor for sentencing, that a crime was committed for the benefit of a criminal organization. All murders connected to an organized crime are automatically treated as first-degree murder, regardless of whether or not they were planned and deliberate. There are increased maximum and mandatory minimum penalties of imprisonment for certain offences committed in connection with organized crime, and the offender may face forfeiture of the proceeds of their crime unless they can demonstrate that the property was not obtained or derived from organized crime activity.

Although the Criminal Code has a comprehensive framework to address organized crime in all its forms, the government has in recent months considered how best to update our criminal law as organized crime shifts its strategies. That is why I am pleased to outline the measures included in Bill C-69, the budget implementation act.

To respond to the rise in motor vehicle theft, particularly where violence and organized crime are involved, the proposed amendments include the following: new offences targeting auto theft and its links to violence and organized crime, which would carry a maximum penalty of 14 years of imprisonment; new offences for possession and distribution of a device suitable for committing auto theft, which would carry a maximum penalty of 10 years of imprisonment; a new aggravating factor at sentencing if an offender involved a young person in committing a crime; and, lastly, a new offence for laundering proceeds of crime for the benefit of a criminal organization, which would carry a maximum penalty of 14 years of imprisonment.

However, this is not all the government has been doing to provide law enforcement and prosecutors with tools in the Criminal Code to respond to the serious crimes of money laundering and terrorist financing. In recent years, the Government of Canada has introduced legislative reforms to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, the Income Tax Act and the Criminal Code to better respond to money laundering and terrorist financing.

Having said all that, I have a question for the minister with respect to the notwithstanding clause.

We have often heard from the leader of the new Reform Party across the way about the notwithstanding clause. However, zero is the number of times that any federal government from any party has ever used the notwithstanding clause, as this would negate enshrined freedoms of Canadians. Furthermore, it has only rarely been used by provinces. However, two weeks ago, the Leader of the Opposition, the new Reform Party, said that he would trample on our charter and use the notwithstanding clause to knowingly violate Canadians' rights. This is very serious.

Can the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada talk to this chamber about the notwithstanding clause and why it should not be used to attack the rights and freedoms of Canadians as proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, the new Reform Party?

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

Madam Chair, I want to make two clarifications. The study on the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights generated a report from the committee on December 7 of last year. In addition, what the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo was asking was quite troubling, because the notion that a sitting attorney general would appear in live court during the middle of a criminal proceeding would, in my view, raise a very significant concern about undue influence and possibly efforts to influence the outcome of a proceeding. That would be entirely untoward and inappropriate.

With respect to the question presented by the member for Niagara, what is troubling about even floating the idea of invocation of the notwithstanding clause is that it presents a spectre where the charter and the rights and freedoms contained therein are an inconvenience that needs to be overcome. The fact that they would be cavalierly overcome by a man who is the leader of the official opposition, who would purportedly claim the role of prime minister one day, is very troubling. It would set a precedent, as it has never been done in the history of this country. It would also demonstrate a real disregard for the important interests that Canadians have in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms itself.

Why do I say that? It is because the charter protects fundamental things, such as the free expressive rights that we have been talking about in the context of the online safety bill, which are protected under section 2B; freedom of religion, which is so preciously at stake right now when we are dealing with so much troubling anti-Semitism; the ability to peacefully assemble, which is protected under section 2 of the charter; and our rights to equality and our rights to basic presumptions of innocence.

If the Leader of the Opposition would so cavalierly use the notwithstanding clause to trump basic presumptions about innocence, it raises a lot of questions for Canadians, including those who are watching right now: In what other ways would he use it? Section 7 protects a woman's right to have an abortion in this country. Section 15 protects such things as equality rights in terms of gay marriage. Would he use it in those regards? I do not know the answer to these questions. However, as Minister of Justice and as guardian of the Constitution and the rights and freedoms contained therein, I am very troubled.

Our position as a government, our position as a party, is clear. We created the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and we stand by it; that means every right and freedom contained therein. Canadians need to know what we stand for and what the official opposition stands for.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Madam Chair, one of the limits on access to justice is that many people do not know that there is a wrongful convictions review process in the first place. Often they do not have the resources to apply in the current process. Can the minister please discuss the proactive outreach measures in Bill C-40 to help ensure that those in need can in fact apply?

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-40 represents a staggering change in the way we envisage wrongful convictions in this country. It would provide a new mechanism, a review commission, which would have the tools and resources to go out and find the cases. In the same time period, in the U.K., within a 20-year time frame, about 500 cases were unearthed that dealt with wrongful convictions. In the same time period in Canada, 27 cases were found.

I know the member to be a strong advocate of the indigenous community in this country. Among those 27 cases in Canada, five involved Black or indigenous men. Given the severe overrepresentation of Black and indigenous people in our justice system, that is a completely disproportionate statistic that is statistically improbable. Does it mean that, in the U.K., they are wrongfully convicting more people than we are in Canada? No, I think it means that we are not finding the cases here in Canada.

The bill, unfortunately, was obstructed at the justice committee, but it has now finally left the justice committee. Through it, we have the ability to make a fundamental change in how we deal with wrongful convictions in this country, providing the resources and the outreach capability to find the cases and bring innocent men and women to justice in this country, something that is long overdue.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as members of Parliament, we were all elected by Canadians with the duty to improve their lives and make Canada a better and safer place. The issue of auto theft should not be partisan; at the end of the day, we are all here with a genuine wish to bring these crimes to an end. One way to do this is through collaboration. As we have seen, the federal government stood on Monday alongside police forces and municipalities.

Can the minister share with us his thoughts on the importance of cross-partisan collaboration, in order to put an end to auto theft crimes?

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

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely can. I will say that cross-party collaboration is happening, at least, between the federal and the provincial governments, with my counterparts in Ontario and Quebec, where I have a strong collaborative relationship with Attorney General Doug Downey. What we have said is that we need to be working together. That is why we are investing in law enforcement, which assists the province.

That is why we are making changes to the Criminal Code. What are those changes? We are introducing an aggravating factor where, if an adult organized criminal is using a child or an adolescent, we will ensure that they are subject to a tougher penalty. We are ensuring that if one does a carjacking, a violent car theft in broad daylight, one is subject to a tougher penalty of up to 14 years. If there are threats of violence or the involvement of organized criminality, that will trigger differential penalties.

In addition, the possession and distribution of the device that is used, the key fob theft devices, etc., will trigger additional penalties. These points are critical for tackling the pressing issue of auto theft. They have been welcomed by the law enforcement community and partisan people of every political stripe around this country at multiple levels. The only people who do not seem to be welcoming and embracing these changes are those in the official opposition, and it leads me to wonder why.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is something that I have been hearing a lot about, especially of late, in particular as it relates to some of the agendas, mostly political. With that, certain individuals seem to be fanning the flames of hate to further their own agendas.

Hate is on the rise in Canada. It is alarming and distressing to hear numerous accounts of hatred against people in our public forum, for example. This includes a rise in both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. Hatred has no place in this country, in Canada. All people must feel safe to express themselves, whether it be online or off-line.

Can the Minister of Justice please discuss how the online harms act would help keep us safe from hatred?

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

Mr. Speaker, it would do so by entrenching a definition of hatred that has already been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada; by ensuring that hatred is identified and one's exposure to it is reduced via putting a responsibility on platforms; by ensuring that one can complain to the Canadian Human Rights Commission if one believes that one is the target of online hate speech; and by ensuring that the penalties for hatred, including the anti-Semitism and Islamophobia that were just mentioned by the member, are addressed with more significant penalties on summary conviction and on indictable offences. We have a scourge of hatred in this country, and we have to address it. That is what the bill would do.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time three ways, with the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, followed by the member for Langley—Aldergrove.

The RCMP carried out a criminal investigation into whether the Prime Minister obstructed justice when he fired Jody Wilson-Raybould as his attorney general during the SNC-Lavalin scandal. At committee, the RCMP confirmed that this investigation was thwarted after the Prime Minister hid behind cabinet confidence, refusing to turn over documents that were requested by the RCMP.

Can the minister confirm whether the Prime Minister will finally end the obstruction and turn over the documents so that the RCMP can complete its investigation?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would indicate to the member opposite that the investigations into this matter, or any other matter by the RCMP, are handled independently in a democracy such as ours, by the RCMP themselves. It would be untoward for me to be commenting on the nature of that prosecution or its direction.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the RCMP investigation report states that the strongest theory toward obstruction of justice rests on whether the Prime Minister fired Jody Wilson-Raybould so that a new attorney general would make a different decision with respect to the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin.

Again, if the Prime Minister has nothing to hide, if he is in fact not guilty of obstructing justice, then why will he not waive cabinet confidence and turn over the documents to the RCMP?

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

Mr. Speaker, after assuming this role, I would indicate that the important division and distinction made with respect to prosecutions through the Director of Public Prosecutions Act and through the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has never been more apparent to me. I will give credit where credit is due. That is actually a creation of the Harper government, I believe, circa 2006-07. That is an important feature of our constitutional democracy. It needs to be safeguarded, and it is being safeguarded.

Decisions about prosecutions are made independently of me in this democracy, and that is a good thing. In fact, it is something that the Malaysian government has actually sought to study, in terms of the model that we use here in Canada. The Malaysian government has sent visitations to me, to learn about our model.

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

Mr. Speaker, correct me if I am wrong, but the questions that are posed tonight are supposed to be with respect to the estimates. Is that correct? If so, the last line of questioning has significantly deviated from that.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have three observations.

First, members have wide ambit during estimates in the questions posed to the minister. That has been respected this evening until I posed a question relating to the Prime Minister's potential criminality that irked the member for Kingston and the Islands.

Second, the order in council with respect to cabinet confidence indicated that the RCMP went to the Department of Justice first to ask that the order in council and its scope be extended.

Third, the matter of the SNC-Lavalin scandal, and what followed, arises from a decision of the director of public prosecutions that is housed within the minister's department.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

As mentioned, all hon. members have a wide ambit in terms of posing questions, and the questions are relevant to the Minister of Justice.

The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton has the floor for the next question.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the very evidence that the Prime Minister has withheld from the RCMP goes to the heart of whether the Prime Minister committed a crime, whether he obstructed justice and whether he fired Jody Wilson-Raybould so that a new attorney general would make a different decision with respect to the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. The Prime Minister can waive cabinet confidence tonight.

Again, if the Prime Minister has nothing to hide, then why has the cover-up continued?

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

Mr. Speaker, what I would respectfully point out to the member opposite is the fact that an investigation was launched by the RCMP. It was not directed by any member on this side of the House, or any member of the House, which is as it needs to be. The fact that the investigation has run its course demonstrates that there is no involvement by the Prime Minister, the Government of Canada or my office, as there needs not to be. That is fundamental to the way our democracy operates.

I would just reiterate that the distinction bears its hallmarks in legislation that was actually introduced by the member opposite's party.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, first, paragraph 23 of the RCMP investigation report states that it should be emphasized that the conclusions reached in the report do not translate to the absence of a criminal offence. In other words, the Prime Minister has not been cleared by the RCMP.

Second, paragraph 24 of the report says that if there is additional evidence, the RCMP will reopen the investigation. The reason the RCMP had to close the investigation is that the Prime Minister is hiding behind cabinet documents that go to the heart of whether he obstructed justice.

Is not the real reason the Prime Minister continues to hide behind cabinet confidence that he obstructed justice? He fired Jody Wilson-Raybould because she stood up to his corrupt demands that she interfere in the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. Is that not what happened?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The time has elapsed for the hon. member's question, but I will invite the minister to provide a very brief response.

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

Mr. Speaker, what I would reiterate is that the RCMP, when it makes a decision to open an investigation or conclude an investigation, which may or may not result in an act of prosecution, that is an independent decision.

That is important to support in our democracy, and we will always continue to do so.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Langley—Aldergrove .

Two months ago, a legal saga ended when former justice Jacques Delisle admitted his guilt in the 2009 murder of his wife.

Does the minister know what action his predecessor, the Hon. David Lametti, took in this case?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Delisle case in Quebec highlights the importance of changing our system regarding the way investigations are conducted following a bad conviction. That is why we must promote Bill C-40, in order to change our system and discover more cases that are at issue, such as that of Mr. Delisle.