Mr. Chair, I am happy to rise this evening on such a critically important issue. I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

It was back in the 19th century when a famous British judge said that justice must not only be done but must manifestly be seen to be done. I think a lot of Canadians see what has happened in the last while as something that certainly appears to have been a problem. The family of Colten Boushie has said that passionately. The legacy of colonialism, which is at the root of this issue, shows that it is not just an appearance issue but a reality issue.

In the very short time that I have this evening, I want to talk about one particular issue, and that is the ability to use what are called peremptory challenges in the jury system, to effectively prevent anyone from the indigenous community to be a juror or to prevent black people from being on juries. We have seen this in cities across the country. In rural areas, it is even worse for first nation representation on juries. That is why I was so happy today to hear the Prime Minister say that the government would fix the juror-selection process. As justice critic for the New Democratic Party, we will work hand in hand to try to make that happen quickly.

I was also pleased to listen to the passionate speech of my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. He talked about working hand in hand with the Prime Minister on the broader agenda, what the Prime Minister referred to as the framework for recognition and implementation of indigenous rights. That is a larger agenda, and it is long overdue. We heard the member pledge, as the NDP critic on indigenous issues, to work carefully and fully with him in an effort to achieve reconciliation.

Let me speak about the specific issue with which the Prime Minister started his remarks, and that is the issue of peremptory challenges. Canadians may not understand that it is open to both the crown and the defence to have what are called peremptory challenges to jurors for no reason at all, perhaps the colour of the person's skin, but they do not have to give a reason. They have a certain number of peremptory challenges that each side can bring to bear. In addition, they have the ability to challenge a proposed juror for cause, of which there is unlimited ability to do that.

I want to read what Mr. Justice Murray Sinclair, now Senator Sinclair, wrote in 1971 after the murder of Betty Osborne. He was asked to do a study on the justice system and aboriginal people in the province of Manitoba. The way he started his report was chilling. He said, “We believe that the jury system in Manitoba is a glaring example of systemic discrimination against Aboriginal people.” Then he went on to say, “If a significant portion of that public is not properly represented on juries, it would not be surprising to discover that a portion of the public never comes to view the justice system as anything other than a foreign and imposed system.” That says it all.

That is why, among the recommendations made so long ago, Justice Sinclair said that there was a need to get rid of the ability for peremptory challenges to occur, and that was one of his key recommendations.

More recently, Professor Kent Roach said exactly the same thing. He says that it is time to get rid of this discriminatory practice. He calls peremptory challenges an invitation to discrimination, and I could not agree more. However, he says something else. He says that he hopes the government will take seriously, that the time for additional studies is over.

We have studied these issues to death and it is time for us to look at indigenous systems of justice, perhaps the greater use of sentencing circles, as the former chief judge of the Yukon Territorial Court, Barry Stewart, pioneered. There are a number of reconciliation issues and restorative justice initiatives we can take, but there is one thing we can do in this session of Parliament right now, and that is get rid of the use of peremptory challenges in our jury system.

Murray Rankin

Transcript

Government Orders

Discussions (0)