The West Block – Episode 38, Season 13 – National

THE WEST BLOCK
Episode 38, Season 13
Sunday, June 2, 2024

Host: Mercedes Stephenson

Guests:
Arif Virani, Justice Minister
David Frum, The Atlantic

Location:
Ottawa Studio

Mercedes Stephenson: Murders, gun crimes, and sexual assaults are all on the rise, so it’s no wonder Canadians say they feel less safe. Does the Liberal government have a plan?

I’m Mercedes Stephenson. The West Block starts now.

After a week of antisemitic attacks, we go one-on-one with Justice Minister Arif Virani to talk about crimes rates, bail, and repeat offenders.

It took just 10 hours for the jury to convict, but what does a Donald Trump guilty verdict mean for the long term? U.S. political commentator, David Frum, joins us with his thoughts.

Canada’s murder rate is the highest it’s been in three decades. Violent gun offences have risen, and criminal trials involving murder and sexual assault cases are being thrown out because they can’t be processed quickly enough.

What’s behind all of this and what can be done to correct it? Well, over the past few weeks on The West Block, we’ve been taking a critical look at this country’s justice system. What’s working and what isn’t?

Joining us now from the House of Commons lobby is Justice Minister Arif Virani. Minister, thanks so much for joining us today. Nice to see you.

Arif Virani, Justice Minister: Thank you for having me.

Mercedes Stephenson: Minister, there’s been an alarming spike in antisemitic attacks over the past week. There were two schools, children’s schools that bullets were fired at and into. At a Vancouver synagogue, somebody threw an incendiary device. This is obviously very frightening for the Jewish community. And the special envoy for antisemitism, Debra Lyons, put out a statement. And in that statement, she says three Jewish institutions in three major cities this week have been attacked, and more over the months since Hamas’ horrific massacre on October 7th. There is no excuse for silence or inaction. Every level of government must use the levers at their disposal to deal with this emergency, and that means enforcing the law, not allowing incidents of hate to go unanswered. I know you’ve also had protestors come to your own home regarding the war between Israel and Hamas. Do you feel that the law is being appropriately enforced to protect Canadians right now?

Arif Virani, Justice Minister: Well I want to first just reflect upon the week that we’re having right now in terms of these incidents of antisemitism. These are unacceptable and horrific acts, and people’s concerns about geo-political events, thousands of kilometres away cannot be taken out on Canadians here, and particularly Jewish Canadians. This is not emblematic of who we are as a country and this cannot be tolerated.

What I would say is that in terms of responses, I agree with Debbie Lyons. And Debbie Lyons and I have had many chats over the past several months about what we need to be doing to sort of bring down the tensions and bring down the division. And one of the things that we’ve talked about is that sometimes these real world incidents have precursors or precedents in terms of online radicalization. And that’s why she was very keen when I tabled that bill which is called Bill C-63, which deals with online safety and combatting online harms. And part of that deals with addressing some of the hatred we’re seeing, and it’s not just addressing where it where it exists online. Sometimes on social media platforms, but another part of that bill actually addresses beefing up provisions and remedies under both the Canada Human Rights Act and under the criminal code.

Mercedes Stephenson: Do you feel that the police are doing enough right now, though? I realize that bill is before Parliament but obviously, this is unfolding in real time.

Arif Virani, Justice Minister: I think the police are doing everything they can to the best of their abilities. I’ve certain engaged with a lot of the police forces around the country, particularly in my province of Ontario about the acute need to be sensitive to issues of hatred and escalating hatred. And we’re seeing rising incidents of antisemitism. We’re seeing incidents of Islamophobia. We’re seeing, unfortunately, targeted attacks also towards racialized groups, women, LGBTAQ2 communities. These are all of concern. The statistics that I’ve been presented, particularly in the GTA region of Toronto, have been staggering, a130 per cent increase over the last five years. That demonstrates the need to act, the desire to act. What we’re trying to do is act. We’re also providing sources and funding through our most recent budget that will be dedicated towards curbing hatred, and that’s about everything from educating Crowns and police officers about how to identify hate but also in terms of ensuring that there’s judicial training in place in terms of how to adjudicate on hate.

Mercedes Stephenson: Speaking of police, we’ve been undertaking sort of the series looking at Canada’s criminal justice system and how it’s working or when it’s not working. And one of the things that we keep hearing about is violent repeat offenders, whether it’s bail, or probation, or parole, or completing that sentence and then going on to re-offend.

We spoke last week with two senior police officers. We spoke with Danny Smyth who’s the head of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, and we also spoke with Deputy Commissioner of the RCMP Jodie Boudreau. This is what they had to say about what they’re seeing in terms of crime rates across Canada by repeat offenders.

Danny Smyth, President of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police: “I can tell you from my own experience in Winnipeg, we see about 20 per cent of those that we’re arresting for violent offences that are in fact on bail.”

Jodie Boudreau, Deputy Commissioner of the RCMP: “Between 2019 and 2022, in the RCMP jurisdiction, 53 per cent of those that committed a homicide were on some form of community release, whether parole, probation.”

Mercedes Stephenson: So minister, my question to you would be do you feel, and I realize you’ve made changes to the law but this still seems to be an ongoing problem, that there are appropriate laws in place to deal with repeat offenders, especially repeat violent offenders?

Arif Virani, Justice Minister: So what I’d say is a few things, is that I’m very concerned with the safety of all Canadians, and when there’s offenders on our streets and repeat offenders on our streets, that’s obviously a concern to me.

Second thing I would say is that we’ve definitely made changes to the bail system. So again, bail is what happens before you’re tried, and things like probation and parole are after you’ve had a conviction. And on the bail front, what we did is we passed a law with all party approval, a bill called C-48, that’s meant to make it more difficult to obtain bail, particularly for what we call serious violent repeat offenders, people that would use weapons in repeated offences. We also made it more difficult to obtain bail by imposing a reverse onus in the situation where people are using firearms. These are important changes.

The other thing I would emphasize for Canadians who are watching is that bail decisions are made by justices of the peace and provincial court judges around the country. They’re meant to be guided by basic principles. Two of the basic principles are is that person a flight risk? Do we think that they’re not going to come to court if they’re released? And secondly, are they a risk of re-offending? The fact that we’re seeing people who are let out on bail and then subsequently returning because they have in fact re-offended, means that we need to ensure that those principles are being properly applied by justices of the peace and by provincial court judges.

Mercedes Stephenson: We’ve seen an increase in the crime severity index. We’ve seen an increase in youth violence and of course, that increase in violent crime. There’s also been no indication that gun violence has decreased since you have brought in the firearms legislation. How much responsibility do you think your government bears for what is happening in terms of increasing crime rates right now?

Arif Virani, Justice Minister: I think there’s no doubt that certain violent crimes have been increasing in terms of that crime severity index and I would say what we’re trying to do is address the problem on multiple fronts. So we’re making investments in things like border security and gun trafficking. We’re making investments in things like guns and gangs task forces. I was with Dominic LeBlanc when we announced about $121 million that is helping in the fight against auto theft, for example. We’re also trying to target who’s actually being the criminality. In the context of auto theft, for example, it’s not just teenagers taking a care out of a driveway on a joy ride. There are orchestrated criminal organizations that are domestic and international that are actually masterminding all of this criminality that we are seeing. We’re going after those criminal organizations through things such as financial penalties and tracking the money through anti-money laundering provisions that are both in our fall economic statement and in our budget.

Mercedes Stephenson: Do you feel that the laws are adequate when it comes to things like statutory release and parole and probation? Because as you’ve mentioned, you’ve dealt with sort of the bail angle and we still need to see sort of how that folds out, whether or not it’s making a difference, it hasn’t been in place all that long to be able to evaluate it. But one of the concerns we keep hearing, too, is that people who are out on probation or parole, and that they don’t serve their full sentence in jail because you’re trying to rehabilitate them and get them back into the public. But when you’re talking about violent repeat offenders, do you think that the laws that are in place for that are adequate right now?

Arif Virani, Justice Minister: Well I’d say a couple of things. One is that the notion of one being eligible for probation or parole doesn’t mean that one automatically gets it. That’s still a decision that has to be made. Thankfully, in a country like ours and in a democracy like ours, it’s not made by politicians. It’s made by entities like the National Parole Board, people that work in corrections. That is a divorce. Intentionally, it’s divorce from any political interference because we don’t want the situation…

Mercedes Stephenson: But you do make the laws that would set the guideline for that.

Arif Virani, Justice Minister: We do set the statutory parameters. There’s no doubt about that. But what people need to understand is that we ensure that there is an arm’s length arrangement whereby the parole board makes determinations. As to whether we need to make surgical changes to the legislation that oversees the parole board, that’s a question I think would be best put to the minister of public safety. It’s something that we’re always looking to entertain, if it’s required in terms of keeping Canadians safer in society right now.

Mercedes Stephenson: One last question for you. The Bloc Quebecois has introduced a private members bill that would invoke the notwithstanding clause to prevent violent crimes from being thrown out of court when they exceed the Jordan Principle. They’re saying too many serious violent crimes, including sexual assault and murder, are being thrown out because the courts have been backlogged as a result of low staffing, not enough judicial appointments, which I know you’ve been working to fix. But I’m wondering if you would support that legislation to override the Jordan Principle in certain cases to ensure that the accused face a trial and are either vindicated or convicted?

Arif Virani, Justice Minister: Well I’ll tell you quite frankly, Mercedes, I’m quite troubled by the fact that within 10 days we’ve had the leader of the Opposition, Pierre Poilievre, moot the idea of cavalier use of the notwithstanding clause. It’s never been done by a federal government or any federal leader in Canada’s history. And then literally 10 days later, you’ve got an Opposition party actually tabling legislation that would invoke the notwithstanding clause. I think the Jordan decision represents and important dialogue between the courts and politicians about what you need to do to ensure the right to a trial within a reasonable amount of time is maintain within 18 months on a provincial court side, within 30 months for a superior court trial. What we need to do, therefore, is make sure we’re ensuring justice is not delayed and therefore denied, that the justice system is working more rapidly. I’m doing the best I can with respect to judicial appointments. That’s something that’s within my purview. I’ve appointed 113 in my first 10 months in office. By way of comparison for your viewers, the Harper government would appointment 65 annually. So I’m literally working twice as fast as the government precedent. That being said, the administration of justice is the responsibility in the main of the provinces. I don’t hire Crown attorneys. I don’t provide duty council. I don’t hire police officers who give evidence, and I don’t fund court rooms. What I am doing, however, is trying to ensure also through budget 2024, that there are more funds in place to avoid people being unrepresented in our criminal courts. That’s through legal aid. We’ve allotted $700 million for legal aid for the next five years. When people have representation, they move through the system faster, which helps reduce delays. So we’re doing our part at the federal level. We need the provinces to be doing their part as well.

Mercedes Stephenson: Thank you for your time, minister. Just to add that I know your government had to speed up appointments there before there was a long gap from your predecessor. But we appreciate you taking the time to talk to us today and to answer our questions about the justice system. Thank you.

Arif Virani, Justice Minister: Thank you very much, Mercedes.

Mercedes Stephenson: Up next, he is now a convicted felon who can’t vote in several states, but he can run for president in all of them. What’s next for Donald Trump?

Donald Trump, Former U.S. President: “But we’re going to make America again. We’re going to make it better than ever before.”

[Break]

Mercedes Stephenson: Former U.S. President Donald Trump isn’t letting anything get in the way of his plan to run for the White House again, including being found guilty on all 34 charges in his New York hush money trial. It hasn’t stopped him from campaigning.

Donald Trump, Former U.S. President: “I’m willing to do whatever I have to do to save our country and to save our Constitution. I don’t mind.”

Mercedes Stephenson: And it definitely hasn’t stopped his supporters. They flocked so quickly to donate to his campaign website after the verdict that the site complete with Trump’s mug shot temporarily crashed.

Trump will be sentenced four days before the Republican convention, when he’ll officially be knighted as the party’s nominee. But realistically, what will the first presidential campaign conducted by now a convicted felon look like?

Joining me now is David Frum, staff writer at The Atlantic. Thanks for joining us, David. Nice to see you.

David Frum, The Atlantic: Thank you.

Mercedes Stephenson: You wrote a piece called Right Verdict, Wrong Case, looking at Donald Trump’s conviction. What do you mean by that Right Verdict, Wrong Case?

David Frum, The Atlantic: Well let’s talk about the case. Donald Trump, as president, tried to overthrow an election first by fraud, with the fake elector’s scheme that’s the subject of litigation in the State of Georgia, then by violence, the January 6th coup attempt, which is the subject of litigation in federal court. After leaving the presidency, he stole a bunch of classified documents, and there’s a lot of suspicion that he used those documents improperly either just to boast and brag, possibly to raise money. So those are really important constitutional cases and none of them looks likely to be heard before the 2024 vote. Instead, what we’ve got is this case, which pertains to Donald Trump’s squalid, sleaze ball activities as a private citizen, as a candidate for president, back when he was a tabloid figure in New York. And not to say that these are completely unimportant cases, but they’re not the crimes against the Constitution that you would like to see justice done most urgently for. Yet, this is the justice the United States has, even if it’s not the justice the United States wanted. And there’s no question that he’s, you know, that he did these things and that’s what the jury found.

Mercedes Stephenson: Trump’s lawyers and Trump say that this case was skewed, that the judge was biased, that they weren’t allowed to introduce their witnesses, that the jury was full of Democrats. What do you make of his criticisms of this case?

David Frum, The Atlantic: Well I don’t know that there’s ever been a convicted criminal, who when interviewed afterward said oh yeah, the trial was fair. Everything was fine, and that’s what Donald Trump was saying was everybody in every prison cell says. And most of his complaints are pretty empty. The complaint, for example, that not being allowed to call witnesses. He wanted to call witnesses who would testify about the law. And the point to witnesses in a hearing is they testify about the facts. That the law is for the judge, the facts are for the jury. So you don’t bring somebody in and say this is an election expert who will tell you I did nothing wrong under federal election law. What you want to do is say what happened? And then the judge explains to the jury what the relevant law is. And so his witnesses were irrelevant. They were not the witnesses that you’re allowed to call in a proceeding. He got to pick the jury he wanted. The defence has a lot of vetoes. It’s true it’s New York and we’re a Liberal state, but people of Liberal outlook are tried in South and North Dakota all the time. People of Liberal views have to face judges in Texas. They don’t get to say well I’m a Liberal; I can’t get justice in Texas. If that’s where you committed the alleged offence, that’s where you get tried.

Mercedes Stephenson: What effect do you think that this has on his election campaign?

David Frum, The Atlantic: I hesitate to speculate about that because now we’re truly into the realm of the imponderable and this has taken up a lot of TV time. And one’s persons guess is as good as any other. I would say that most working politicians have always believed it’s bad to be seen paying off women that you had an affair with. That’s why they cover it up. Most working politicians are under the assumption it’s bad to be criminally indicted and worse to be criminally convicted. Now maybe they’re all wrong. Maybe this is an exception to the normal rule. And if so, everything that everyone in politics thinks they know about politics will say oh, I didn’t know it was fine to be indicted and fine to be convicted. Thank you for that information. But my guess is that the usual rule will hold and it’s bad to be indicted and bad to be convicted.

Mercedes Stephenson: Is there anything that could happen in the sentencing that would interfere with his ability to run for president? I know he’s appealing but the sentencing will still go forward regardless of that appeal.

David Frum, The Atlantic: As I understand it, the sentencing hearing is July the 11th, and that’s a few days before the beginning of the Republican convention in Milwaukee. Normally when a person—a convicted person is sentenced, they—if they are sentenced to prison, they proceed immediately from the court to the prison. Occasionally, they are released pending appeal. I kind of imagine that in the case of a former president of the United States, the judge is most likely going to let him post a bond and be free, pending the appeal of the case. But I don’t know. It’s not impossible he is in prison on July the 12th.

Mercedes Stephenson: It was very much a three-ring circus outside of the courtroom with Democrats and Republicans grandstanding for the cameras, being dragged away as they tried to make their points for their respective sides. You didn’t used to see that. You didn’t used to see politicians showing up at a criminal trial. They’d usually say it’s before the courts, not touching it. This case has been the opposite on both sides. What do you think the influence is on American politics on some of the polarization that we’ve seen and concerns about potential violence going into the 2024 election?

David Frum, The Atlantic: Mercifully, we’ve seen no violence during the course of these proceedings. Let us hope that the 12 people on the jury who had their duty to do are not subject to threats and intimidation. Let’s really hope that. And if they are subject to it, let’s hope they get the protection they require and deserve. Polarization, it’s important to remember that when you see these numbers at 46 per cent or whatever it is of Americans support Trump, that is not all Trump fanatical supporters. The fanatical supporters are much smaller group, maybe 15 per cent, maybe 20 per cent, maybe a little over 20 per cent. Not more. The rest of them are part of a larger coalition of people who say I don’t love Trump, but I dislike the other side even more so I will put up with Trump. And where this trial is powerful is the way it operates on the people who are with Trump because they think he’s better than Biden, even though they don’t much like him, and even more powerful with that group of people who normally would vote Republican but who are up for grabs in this election. And that’s about a fifth of the Republicans who showed up in these primaries and who kept on voting, for example, for Nikki Haley even after she dropped out.

Mercedes Stephenson: Do you think that the Biden camp has approached this as effectively as they could have? And one of the criticisms of the past is that the Democrats really handed a lot of oxygen to Trump. Do you think they’re being smart from their political perspective about how they’re approaching this guilty verdict?

David Frum, The Atlantic: I think they face two—the Biden people face a very particular problem, which is they have two groups of voters they need to talk to, and the voters are almost exactly opposite types of people. One group of voters are younger people, poorer people, people not really connected to the political system, and they are wondering what reason do I have to vote for Joe Biden when, you know, the food prices are up? Yeah, you can get a job if you want to but the rent is up. If you need money to borrow a mortgage to get a house, that’s up. They’re disaffiliated and they’re probably not terribly interested in the Trump trials and the threat to democracy.

On the other hand, Biden in 2020 did extremely well with Conservative leaning older white men, like myself, and who were people who would normally not vote for a Democrat but were open to the arguments about democracy and process and law. And so those two groups are his targets and they are as unlike each other as they can be. And what works for one group doesn’t work for the other. And what works for the one, again, doesn’t work for the other. So he has to find some way to talk at the same time to both in completely opposite ways. Politics is hard.

Mercedes Stephenson: Certainly a first in American history to have a convicted felon now running for the presidency. David Frum, thank you for joining us with your insight into Donald Trump today.

David Frum, The Atlantic: Thank you so much.

Mercedes Stephenson: Coming up, this week marks 80 years since Operation Overlord. Remembering D-Day after the break.

[Break]

Mercedes Stephenson: This week marks the 80th anniversary of D-Day, so we thought it would be fitting to end the show from right here at the National War Memorial in Ottawa.

On Thursday, a wreath will be laid at this memorial to commemorate Canada’s sacrifices on D-Day and in the Battle of Normandy, a key time that changed the course of the Second World War and history.

We leave you now with some images from France, and a very special interview, one of the few surviving veterans who we still have with us who fought on D-Day. It’s part of a special series being put together by Global National Anchor Dawna Friesen. She’ll have more this coming week from Juno Beach.

For The West Block, I’m Mercedes Stephenson. We’ll see you next week.

Mercedes Stephenson: It was the largest seaborne invasion ever attempted, and Canada’s contribution to D-Day was massive. This is film of some of the 1,400 Canadian troops landing on the beach code named Juno.

June 6th, 1944, it was one of the deadliest D-Day landings. One in 18 of these young soldiers wouldn’t return home alive.

Then 18-year-old Roland Armitage was one of the few who survived, arriving as part of the second wave.

Dr. Roland Armitage, D-Day Veteran: “This was the battle I was in: France, Germany, Holland, defence Britain. D-Day, it was an important job.”

Mercedes Stephenson: He was a range finder, getting messages from the frontlines to determine how best to hit a Nazi target: coded messages.

Dr. Roland Armitage, D-Day Veteran: “I had to remember the code because the Germans are listening. So you can’t just say things are normal.”

Mercedes Stephenson: One code?

Dr. Roland Armitage, D-Day Veteran: “You had to use the alphabet backwards. Instead of saying Dan, you said N-A-D.”

Mercedes Stephenson: Roland’s efforts helped change the course of history, but not before 359 Canadian soldiers died, all in one day: June 6th, 1944.

Dr. Roland Armitage, D-Day Veteran: “We lost a lot of people from the day we landed–every day almost—some of your best friends.”