Arif Virani

[Democratic Reform, May 10th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, in all fairness, we will take no lessons from the other side about making changes to the electoral system. The legacy of the unfair elections act has been long, and we heard about it extensively in 2015. We acted promptly to deal with it.

With respect to the social media platforms and the position they are taking today, we find that disappointing. We know these social media platforms have the resources and the ability to take action, and to take action now. We know that Bill C-76 was given first reading well over a year ago and its long endurance within this Parliament is largely due to the blockage of that legislation by the Conservative Party at PROC.

[Parliamentary Internship Programme, May 9th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties and I believe you will find agreement for the following motion regarding the parliamentary internship programme, of which I am a proud former intern:

That the House:

a) recognize the fiftieth anniversary of the Parliamentary Internship Programme, founded in 1969 through a motion of this House, which operates on a non-partisan basis under the auspices of the Speaker, and is administered by the Canadian Political Science Association;

b) congratulate the ten current interns, alumni, and staff of the Parliamentary Internship Programme; and

c) reaffirm its support for this outstanding experience for young professionals to learn about and participate in Parliament.

[Justice, May 9th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the minister played no role in the decision to stay proceedings. He was not aware of the decision made by the director of public prosecutions in this case. The PPSC acts independently, but in this case, it is acting on behalf of the Attorney General of Ontario, which, under the Criminal Code, is responsible for overseeing the case.

Yesterday, the director of public prosecutions said there had been no contact or influence from outside the PPSC on either the initial decision or the decision to stay the charge.

[Justice, May 9th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite unfortunate that it has come to this. In the last four months we have had two occasions when the director of public prosecutions has felt it incumbent upon herself to issue public statements about non-interference. The first was in February, when she talked about comments that related to a different matter that was being elaborated on in this House. The second was yesterday.

The fact that she feels compelled to issue these kinds of statements, declaring in the loudest voice possible that no influence occurred, is actually a function of the type of question we are facing in this House. I think it is a sad state of affairs, because independence is important.

[Justice, May 9th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, what I can say in response to that question is that the investigation was handled by the RCMP.

The decision to prosecute was made by the director herself. The decision to stay the charges was made by the director herself. I want to highlight the comments of Mr. Norman's counsel once again. She said:

The decision to stay this prosecution was discretion exercised by prosecutors and the DPP, unimpacted by any political considerations, as it should be.

She further underscored that that is in fact how things are supposed to work. I agree with her assessment.

[Justice, May 9th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, let us hear what the actual director had to say:

No other factors were considered in this decision, nor was there any contact or influence from outside the PPSC, including political influence in either the initial decision to prosecute Mr. Norman or in the decision to stay the charge today.

The reason the Minister of Border Security was so appalled by this line of questioning is that members should not impugn the integrity of the people who are leading the judicial system or who are independent officials. Second, members should not impugn the integrity of people who do not have a chance to stand up in this House and defend themselves.

I will do it for them. The director of public prosecutions operated independently at all times.

[Justice, May 9th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I respect the member's service to this country, as we all respect Vice-Admiral Norman's.

However, what I can underscore and perhaps elaborate for her is how the legal process works. The legal process conducts itself in an independent manner. When requests for documents are made, we identify the documents. Decisions as to what is redacted and what is covered by cabinet confidences are made independent of political actors, as they should be.

Furthermore, we do not intervene in that judicial process, because we safeguard the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law. That is the way the system is supposed to work, and that is something I would hope all members of this House would appreciate and protect.

[Justice, May 9th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the question of political interference was raised a number of times by the director herself, yesterday. I just read her comments into the record.

What I can say about the investigation and the legal process is that the government fulfilled all its obligations. All the documents from the individuals identified by the defence were submitted to the court. All told, over 8,000 documents involving seven organizations were submitted. As far as the status of the file is concerned, the judge even thanked departmental officials for their co-operation.

[Justice, May 9th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I will emphasize three key points.

First, the decision to investigate was made by the RCMP. Second, the decision to lay a charge was made by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. Third, the decision to withdraw the charge was also taken by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada.

It is also important to note what the director of public prosecutions said in her own words:

“No other factors were considered in this decision, nor was there any contact or influence from outside the PPSC, including political—

[Justice, May 9th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, in different contexts, I have a lot respect for the member opposite for the advocacy he does for the men and women in uniform in the country. However, it is important to underscore that there are men and women in uniform, namely the RCMP, who took charge of the very investigation that the member is impugning. He is impugning the law enforcement officials and the independence of their work.

Who the member should also listen to is not just from our side of the House, but the defence counsel for Admiral Normal who said “The decision to stay this prosecution...was discretion exercised by prosecutors and the DPP, unimpacted by any political considerations, as it should be.”