SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 316 - May/23/24

May/23/24 7:55:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, with respect to the settlements, I can indicate that we deemed them to be illegal at law, as we have pronounced in statements that have been given by our government and by the governments of Australia and New Zealand. We have also taken steps to issue sanctions against settlers from those regions who are taking extremist actions, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs—

66 words

The Deputy Chair

May/23/24 7:55:27 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

9 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor

May/23/24 7:55:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I want to know what work the minister is personally doing to make sure that there is an investigation and potential prosecution of people in Canada who are facilitating the purchasing of property, investments or businesses in illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory.

47 words

Hon. Arif Virani

May/23/24 7:55:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, the member opposite knows, as a former member of the justice committee, that decisions about investigations and potential prosecution for criminality, whether it is here or abroad, are undertaken, as they need to be in a democracy, by entities such as the free-standing and independent department of public prosecution, the director of public prosecutions, or the war crimes unit. Those are not handled or directed by me—

71 words

The Deputy Chair

May/23/24 7:56:07 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

9 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor

May/23/24 7:56:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I understand that very well. That does not preclude the minister from issuing broad statements about what the government expects. Again, I would like to hear an answer from the minister.

33 words

Expects

Hon. Arif Virani

May/23/24 7:56:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I can indicate that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has been very vocal with respect to the status at international law of the settlements and also taking action with respect to sanctioning extremist settlers. That happened last week.

40 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor

May/23/24 7:56:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, with respect, the minister is been quite evasive. I am not talking about the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I am not talking about Israeli settlements abroad. I am talking about Canadians who may have broken the law here in Canada regarding the purchase of properties in the occupied Palestinian territories being done here on Canadian soil. I would like a specific answer to that specific question. That is not under the purview of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. That is under the purview of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

95 words

Hon. Arif Virani

May/23/24 7:57:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, the purview of the Attorney General of Canada, with respect to the conduct of litigation, is not to wade into criminal prosecutions. There is a very strong line that has existed for over 20 years. That is why we have a Director of Public Prosecutions Act. That is why we have an arm's-length entity and an individual who is the director of public prosecutions so we do not have potential political direction being given about investigating crimes or laying charges in this country in any respect. If people have evidence of a potential crime being committed, they should contact law enforcement, not the Office of the Attorney General of Canada.

114 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor

May/23/24 7:57:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, will the minister personally instruct the war crimes division of Justice Canada to conduct enhanced human rights due diligence for all real estate transactions made in Canada or by Canadian citizens that involve illegal settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories?

42 words

Hon. Arif Virani

May/23/24 7:57:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I just want to reiterate for the member opposite, because it is really fundamental that he and every Canadian watching understand that the war crimes unit operates at arm's length from me. It does not take directions from me with respect to potential domestic law violations or international law violations. That is critical and really separates us as a nation-state that believes in democracy, having that important division—

73 words

The Deputy Chair

May/23/24 7:58:20 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member.

3 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor

May/23/24 7:58:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-229

Madam Chair, there is nothing precluding the minister from setting out certain expectations. I think that is very well and good to be established, and still keeping an organization within the Justice Department at arm's length. I want to move on. Today I subbed in at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which is currently looking at the issues of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. It is quite obvious that Jews across Canada are reporting a terrifying increase of hate directed toward them as an identifiable group. One of the recommendations that emerged at today's meeting was to ban symbols of hate. My colleague, the NDP member for New Westminster—Burnaby, has introduced Bill C-229, which would amend the Criminal Code to broaden the provisions related to hate propaganda by making it an offence to publicly display visual representations that promote or incite hatred or violence against an identifiable group. Can the minister comment on this particular initiative and whether the Government of Canada will support it?

172 words

Hon. Arif Virani

May/23/24 7:59:29 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-63

Madam Chair, I am pleased to see any efforts that deal with combatting hatred, which is unfortunately spiralling in terms of anti-Semitic incidents and Islamophobic incidents. There is a 130% rise in hate crimes in this country in the last five years. That informs the necessity for bills such as Bill C-63, the online harms bill, which will tackle things like hatred and its festering online, which has real-world consequences. It is very unfortunate that Canada ranks number one in the G7 for the number of deaths of Muslims in the last seven years, 11 in total, due to Islamophobic acts of hate. What I would say, with respect to this bill, is that we are looking at it closely. I would also reiterate for the member's edification that we amended the hate propaganda provisions to include Holocaust denialism and willful promotion of anti-Semitism within the fold of sections 318 and 319, the hate propaganda offences. That was done within the last two years, I believe.

171 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor

May/23/24 8:00:20 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-332

Madam Chair, members from all sides of the House have supported the creation of a new offence in the Criminal Code for coercive and controlling behaviour. Bill C-332 is scheduled to return to the House for report stage and third reading next week. Can the minister tell me when the government will act and implement the changes to the Criminal Code that are urgently needed to protect survivors, families and children who are at risk of coercive and controlling behaviour and escalating threats of harm and violence? Is the government committed to fast-tracking the implementation of the legislation, given the all-party support?

105 words

Hon. Arif Virani

May/23/24 8:00:57 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-332

Madam Chair, we are very aware of Bill C-332. I thank the member for the fact that this bill was generated from his party, and also for the fact that there was a lot of collaborative work that was done to make strategic amendments to improve the content of that bill. My understanding is that this bill is coming up for third reading, and we are very dedicated as a government and as a party to addressing issues of gender-based violence and intimate partner violence. Coercive control is part of that continuum. The fact that other nation-states with which we are allies have addressed this issue already prompts us to act at a faster pace to try and ensure that this bill becomes law as soon as possible, at least through its passage through the House of Commons and off to the Senate.

146 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor

May/23/24 8:01:38 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-381

Madam Chair, yesterday the House of Commons voted to defeat Bill C-381. There is obviously no evidence that mandatory minimums work as a deterrent. This was in the case of extortion in the Criminal Code. There is even evidence that they might hinder the work of a prosecutor to use plea bargaining to obtain evidence for the arrest of other members of a criminal organization. However, there are legitimate fears among the South Asian community regarding the increase in extortion from criminal organizations. How the minister is dealing with this particularly sensitive issue? How will he be directing his department's resources to address these growing fears?

108 words

Hon. Arif Virani

May/23/24 8:02:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-70

Madam Chair, extortion is a Criminal Code violation currently and there is already a mandatory minimum penalty that applies to repeat extortion with a firearm. The mandatory minimum is seven years. The maximum penalty for extortion is life imprisonment. With respect to not tolerating extortion, what we are doing is looking closely and trying to work with law enforcement officials to understand the nature of the problem, particularly in the South Asian community in B.C. and in Ontario, to target this in a more robust manner. I would also encourage the member to look at what we are doing with Bill C-70, the foreign interference legislation that we recently tabled in this House, which looks at organized criminality that is being orchestrated by criminal elements that are operating abroad but manifesting here.

134 words

Mr. James Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

May/23/24 8:03:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, it is a pleasure to rise again this evening to join this conversation that is so central to our democracy. There is something I want to talk about, that I touched on earlier, about federally appointed judges and our judiciary in Canada, which is one of the strongest in the world, in my opinion. We are very fortunate in Canada to have an independent and highly regarded judiciary that is respected around the world. Canada's exceptional superior court judges are appointed through a robust, independent process, a process that our government was proud to establish in 2016. This process emphasizes transparency, merit and the diversity of the Canadian population. It continues to ensure that Canadian superior court judges meet the highest standards of excellence and integrity. Our government considers judicial appointments a priority. We recognize that a strong and independent superior court judicial appointment process is crucial to public confidence in our justice system. That is why, in October of 2016, our government implemented significant reforms to the superior court judicial appointment process. These changes were designed to increase the openness and transparency of the process, promote diversity on the superior court bench and help bolster Canadians' confidence in the process by which their superior court judges are appointed. Today, I would like to highlight some of these crucial reforms. First, our government introduced changes to promote diversity on the superior court bench. Ensuring our superior court judiciary reflects the diversity of Canadians is fundamental to a fair and effective justice system. When Canadians see themselves reflected in those who sit on the bench, their overall confidence in the administration of justice increases. The application form for superior court appointments was reworked to allow applicants to share their experiences, tell their stories and self-identify by gender; as indigenous, 2SLGBTQI+, racialized, a member of a cultural or ethnic group; and as living with a disability if they chose to do so. Another one of our reforms was to reconstitute the judicial advisory committees, JACs, to be more reflective of the diversity of our local communities and to provide members with training on diversity, on conscious bias and assessment of merit. The JACs play an important role in the appointments process. They are responsible for considering applications, assessing each applicant as either highly recommended, recommended or unable to recommend for appointment, and reporting their assessments to the Minister of Justice. Another reform was with respect to the independence and effectiveness of the JACs. In addition to promoting diversity, the 2016 changes increased the independence and effectiveness of the JACs. We instituted an open selection process for the three JAC members who represent the general public, to give any member of the public the opportunity to express their interest in being involved, and to ensure that Canadians are properly represented in the appointment process. The next reform is with respect to transparency and rigour. Our 2016 reforms to the superior court appointment process included measures to increase transparency. Since 2016, the commissioner for federal judicial affairs, which administers the appointment process, has collected and published statistics and demographic information on those who apply for judicial appointments and those who are appointed. This publicly accessible information, published on the commissioner's website, helps Canadians gain a better understanding of the makeup of our superior court judiciary, the work of the JACs and the number of highly qualified jurists who are motivated to serve their communities as judges. In the 2022 reforms to the superior court appointment process, we made further changes to the process in response to comments we received from organizations such as the Canadian Judicial Council and the Canadian Bar Association. The application form was revised to ensure that the JACs received thorough, comprehensive and relevant information on candidates. The revised form also incorporated more respectful and inclusive language while continuing to give candidates the flexibility to highlight their experiences, including their interactions with their communities, and explain how their experiences have shaped them. I am proud that since the reform process was implemented, more than half of the new judges appointed are women and the appointments broadly provide representation that is more in line with the diversity of Canadian society. I would also emphasize that this government has, time and time again, demonstrated a meaningful commitment to access to justice by increasing the number of judges serving Canadians. Beginning in budget 2017, our government has funded 116 new judicial positions. Furthermore, most recently, in budget 2024, we have proposed that 17 judicial positions originally allocated to unified family courts in budget 2018 be repurposed to general trial courts. This would allow for a timely response to demonstrated current pressures on superior courts, including family matters. I fully appreciate the critical importance of filling vacancies, and I am committed and the minister is committed to continuing to do so as quickly as possible. Since November 2015, this government has made more than 730 judicial appointments. We are pleased that since his appointment in July 2023, this minister has announced over 100 appointments, as he mentioned earlier. There will always be more steps to take and more improvements to make to ensure access to justice for Canadians. It takes the decisions and actions of a myriad of stakeholders who continually show their dedication to this laudable goal. I am deeply committed to continuing to do what I can to ensure a just and accessible justice system, since that is one of the reasons that I personally chose to enter public life. I know I share that sentiment with our Minister of Justice. I am proud that the federal government is doing its part as is unequivocally demonstrated by the minister's appointment record and by the government's support for new judicial resources in federal budgets. To conclude, I will return to where I started. Our reformed superior court judicial appointments process has allowed us to continue to appoint outstanding jurists, members of a globally respected independent judiciary. Since implementing the major reforms to the appointments process, hundreds of outstanding jurists have been appointed to the superior courts across the country. They are respected in their communities and come from a broad range of backgrounds and practice areas. Every day, these exceptional judges are serving Canadians and fulfilling their unique and crucial role in our justice system. These judges were appointed through the reformed appointments process that serves Canadians well. It is a process that emphasizes transparency and merit, that reports on its progress and that works toward a bench that better reflects Canada's diversity. Madam Chair, I am going to use the balance of my time to put a few questions to the minister, if I may. The first question is on an issue that comes up time and time again. I mentioned earlier that I am proud of the fact that I practised in the courts of Ontario for a lengthy period of time. I am proud of the fact that we have one of the greatest judiciaries in the world. I have never been let down by our judiciary. By practising for so long and appearing in courtrooms in most cities in Ontario, I spent a lot of time asking questions. However, there is a question that I never once asked when I walked into a courtroom: Who appointed this judge? Do members know why? It is because it does not matter, because we have faith in our system and Canadians have faith in our system. Unfortunately, the Conservative opposition members, every opportunity they get, pose a question. They allude to the fact that our system is somehow tainted. They allude to the fact that our appointments process is inadequate. All that does is undermine the confidence Canadians have in our system when they have every reason to have total confidence in our system. Is the fact that I never asked that question a reflection of our government's approach? The allegation that this government has any political input into the appointment of judges, in my opinion and in my experience, is absolutely and utterly false and I would like to hear the minister's views on this.

1363 words

Hon. Arif Virani (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

May/23/24 8:12:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, let me be crystal clear to the parliamentary secretary, and I thank him for his work, that partisanship, donation history and political involvement have absolutely zero impact or role in the appointments process. When I am making a suggestion to pursue an appointment, there is no evidence that is put before me with respect to any donation history, political involvement or partisan activity. I am pleased that this is a laughing matter for some of the lawyers opposite, but what I can say to these individuals is that 80% of the individuals who have actually been appointed, out of the 730 that we have appointed since 2015, have zero donation history of any kind. That is really critical to enhancing Canadians' confidence in the administration of justice in this country. I would say that I share that opinion. I am actually delighted when I travel within this country, or even outside of this country, when people talk to me about the high quality of jurists that we have in Canada. We will continue to appoint jurists of the highest quality who have gone through that JAC process, who have come out as either recommended or highly recommended, because that preserves the integrity of the system and preserves Canadians' confidence in our judicial system. The fact that we are also, at the same time, reflecting the diversity of communities is an additional bonus. What I said earlier and will say again is that 50% of the appointments we have made are women. That is critical in terms of ensuring that all people see themselves reflected on the bench in Canada.

271 words