Justice Committee on June 8th, 2006

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

It is my contact with you, Mr. Petit, that gives rise to the severe pain you refer to.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

I'm trying to present this in such a way that you will understand that there comes a time when you have all the necessary authorizations. As a regular legal practitioner, I can tell you that I rarely had problems relating to sections 25.1 to 25.4.

In fact, when there are problems, it's because certain police officers disregard the law. And they disregard it in a number of specific cases. In the Matticks case in Quebec, we dealt with that kind of situation. We put the entire Quebec Provincial Police inside, and questioned their members for almost a month. Such cases are extremely rare and don't happen very often.

That's the reason why I'm asking you to try and convince me that sections 25.1 to 25.4... With all the arguments you have presented, you still have not managed to convince me. Yet I will have to make a decision. I find your arguments to be very solid, but I'm not living in the United States. That's the problem.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Thank you, Monsieur Petit. You've gone well past your five minutes. It was a great series of questions.

We can allow the witnesses a comment, if they feel it's necessary.

[Denis Barrette]

First of all, as regards torture, I've rarely seen people tortured in public the way parliamentarians are in front of the television cameras.

I just want to say that as crimes go, it is the most odious of all crimes internationally. If you consider the crimes that are prohibited under emergency measures ordered under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it is one of the ones that are absolutely forbidden. It is an obligation on the part of signatory States that cannot be breached under any circumstances, given the gravity of actions taken by a public official who inflicts suffering on another individual for the purposes of intimidating him, and so on.

What I'm trying to say, with respect to torture... I understand that you may not agree with my reading of torture or of the connection between torture and assault with bodily harm. At the same time, I find it interesting that you yourself have said that it is an interesting argument.

To what extent will a police officer who is given authorization to commit offences, such as assault, for example, not inflict torture without injury, without bodily harm? To what extent do we have any assurances that he could not go as far as to do the unthinkable. That is the danger with torture.

Of course, that is not what we hope will happen. And the fact is we have no cases to report in that area, nor do we hope to have any to report. However, as I often say when I come here, parliamentarians have a responsibility to consider all possible applications of the law, even when they don't have concrete examples in front of them. That is your responsibility.

As regards the Hell's Angels or other organized crime groups, I believe that so far, we have been able to infiltrate them in Quebec, even before section 25.1 came into force. The fact is that we were able to infiltrate the Hell's Angels, put them on trial and convict them in most cases.

However, as you were saying, this was a big job, particularly for the Quebec Provincial Police and police officers in Quebec. However, I should say that the whole matter of the tools available to them arises once again when we say that some people should be allowed not to obey the law, without judicial authorization, in order to arrest members of organized crime groups and prevent them from committing heinous crimes. That is where the danger lies, because there are always good reasons for letting things slip and engaging in abuse; that's when we get the kind of results that we don't want.

Once again, we have seen that happen, perhaps more often in Quebec than elsewhere. I talked about the 1970s. Unfortunately, these kinds of crimes are always committed for a good reason. Voltaire said that hell is paved with good intentions. That may well be the case as regards section 25.1.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Now we're really close to our time.

Mr. Bagnell, you had a question. You're on the list. If it's really short....

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

It's just back to torture. If “torture” were added--the international definition of it, I guess--to the list of things that were prohibited, like causing bodily harm, would that help?

[Denis Barrette]

I can answer that question.

In our opinion, the best solution would be to set aside any offence against the person or a person's physical integrity. Of course, if we specifically include torture in the exceptions, that is already a better solution. But there are also other offences--and we have named them--that relate to the integrity of the person. I would say that this a slight sign of progress.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Thank you.

Let us wrap up, then, if there is nothing else procedural or substantive.

I thank both groups for appearing. There was some comment earlier about representation from both groups, but I know the Canadian Bar Association has been a robust contributor to public policy debate here on the Hill for decades, and the Ligue as well, I know, makes a contribution to pubic policy debate, particularly on legal issues.

None of us here would want to do anything to discourage that. Their contributions are, in some respects, invaluable—in not being able to put a value on them, perhaps, but just “invaluable”—and we thank you for them in this particular area as well, which is I guess some post-charter unfinished business, twenty-some years later.

Thank you for appearing.

If there's no further business, we'll adjourn.