Mr. Chair, obviously there is always a balance in these things. We keep them around the Criminal Code. Obviously, some people thought they made sense. I note that back in the eighties they were repealed in the United Kingdom, and I do not see why we cannot do it now.

I would say that challenge for cause can be expanded, and we can ask more questions, as happened in cases like the Williams case just before the Gladue case about whether there is a racial basis. Is someone able to dispassionately discharge his or her responsibilities as a juror, yes or no? The Americans spend endless amounts of time on jury selection. They have experts on jury selection. We do not do it nearly as much. We do not have nearly the data to use. However, I think we could use the challenge for cause a lot more effectively to get at whether there is any bias in a potential juror. An expanded use of challenge for cause would replace the peremptory challenges that exist in the Criminal Code.

Much of what we need to do is recognize the administration of justice is primarily a provincial issue. I would hope the Minister of Justice would take on what has happened here today, the Prime Minister's commitment, her speech, those of all members, and ask why we not go to the federal, provincial, and territorial justice ministers and make these changes a priority. We cannot do it alone.

However, what we can do alone, one of the few things we can do on our own, is simply repeal the section of the Criminal Code that allows the peremptory challenges to persist in our system. That is one thing we can do in this session of Parliament without any provincial or territorial involvement. I urge the government that it do just that.

Murray Rankin

Transcript

Government Orders

Discussions (0)