Arif Virani

[Justice, May 15th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to walk the member opposite through this process.

A demand is made for third party records; 144,000 are identified. Then we cull that group to see which ones are responsive; 8,000 are then deemed responsive. Then claims of cabinet confidence are made, not by members of the political staff but by civil servants in this country, and when those claims of privilege are made, the court then verifies if they are valid or invalid.

This happens every day in litigation around this country. There is nothing different in this case from any other. However, the most important thing that did not happen is that there was never a decision by a political person to interfere in this matter or any other matter.

[Justice, May 15th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of respect for Mr. Norman and for any man or woman who works for Canada, such as police officers or members of the RCMP.

There was no political interference in this file. That would be impossible because, in this instance, the DPP was working on behalf of the Attorney General of Ontario.

If hon. members have any questions they can ask Ms. Mulroney.

[Justice, May 15th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, there are three things I want to say.

First, the decision to conduct an investigation is made by the RCMP, which is independent. Second, the decision to lay charges and take someone to court is made by the director of public prosecutions, who is independent. Third, the decision to withdraw a charge is made by the the director of public prosecutions, who is independent.

Perhaps these words from the director will reassure members. She said, and I quote:

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 or the decision to stay the charge today.

[Justice, May 15th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak to everyone in this House, but especially to that lawyer opposite, who shares some of the same background as I do as Fox scholars in Britain, and what we learned when we were learning and training in Britain is to respect court processes.

The way it works on an O'Connor application for third party records is that the documents are identified, and then if there are claims of privilege, the issue goes to the court. Then the court goes into the claims of privilege, ascertains whether they are valid or not, and makes a decision. That is how one respects the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary.

That is exactly what we did in this case and what we do in every case.

[Justice, May 15th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I respect the member opposite for that question and also for raising that unanimous consent motion in this House. When it is endorsed by this House, it is endorsed by every member of this House. That is the first point.

The second point, and it needs to be restated, is that there are three important factors here. The people who decide to lay charges are the independent RCMP officers, whom we respect and I hope all members respect.

The second point is that the people who decide to lay charges are the independent director of public prosecutions, and the people who decide to withdraw charges are also the independent DPP.

[Climate Change, May 15th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, last December I packed my bags and headed to COP 24, the UN climate change summit. I was compelled to go after reading the IPCC report, in which scientists issued a clarion call that the time to act on climate change is now.

What I learned was shocking. I learned about the impact of rising water levels on Pacific island nations and about the impact of habitat destruction on indigenous peoples. What I remember is the UN leadership pleading with the nations of the world to take action. That is why it is puzzling when elected leaders in this country challenge the ability of the federal government to do exactly that.

Climate change is not just a national problem; it is an international one. National governments have both the ability and the responsibility to act. That is what the Saskatchewan court confirmed when it upheld our price on pollution, calling climate change “one of the greatest existential issues of our time.”

In the fight against climate change, I and our government will not relent. The global stakes are simply too high, and the children of Canada deserve no less.

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2019]

Madam Chair, we have to complement sound policy with sound resources. We are doing both. We are addressing this concern from a macro perspective by providing the resources necessary to address the important delays that were highlighted in the speech by my colleague.

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2019]

Madam Chair, that is an important point. We know that racialized people, particularly indigenous people in this country, are, in fact, overrepresented in our justice system, including being over-incarcerated.

The principle of restraint is that where there are no concerns about the accused coming to court or posing a risk to public safety, police officers and justices are motivated to release the detained accused at the earliest reasonable opportunity. Entrenching that in law would provide strong parameters to guide the exercise of discretion by the judge in giving bail.

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2019]

Madam Chair, the important aspect of Bill C-75 is that it would address delays by not clogging up the system with the administration of justice offences the member for Eglinton—Lawrence mentioned and by invoking the principle of restraint.

This would ensure that we do not overrepresent indigenous people in the criminal justice system and thereby cause increasing delays by clogging it further.

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2019]

Madam Chair, that directive actually informs the entire basis of our approach to reconciliation. It guides the Government of Canada's legal approaches, position and decisions taken in indigenous litigation involving aboriginal and treaty rights protected under section 35 of the Constitution. It creates a new method of approaching litigation.

It is an important directive, which actually enshrines the new approach we are trying to take, which is about working together with indigenous people to address reconciliation, including through litigation.