Arif Virani

[Business of Supply, May 23rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the process followed, it was the existing group that was involved—

[Business of Supply, May 23rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, it may be up to the minister to refer a case, but it is up to a new court to decide whether a person is guilty or not. It is not up to the minister to make the final decision. The decision—

[Business of Supply, May 23rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, under the current process, the minister relies on a recommendation from the criminal conviction review group. That is the system we have now.

[Business of Supply, May 23rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, what I can say is that it is not up to the minister to decide the guilt or innocence of someone who—

[Business of Supply, May 23rd, 2024]

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.

[Business of Supply, May 23rd, 2024]

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.

[Business of Supply, May 23rd, 2024]

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.

[Business of Supply, May 23rd, 2024]

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.

[Business of Supply, May 23rd, 2024]

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.

[Business of Supply, May 23rd, 2024]

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.