Justice Committee on Oct. 22nd, 2009

[Pierre-Paul Pichette]

Yes, through the Service Inspection Branch of the Department of Public Safety and the Quebec Criminal Information Service, the service carried out an audit in 2005 or 2006. I am not sure exactly which year, please excuse me. For the service's directions for 2009 to 2011, which have just been adopted, an on-going evaluation process was suggested and is already underway.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

With what results?

[Pierre-Paul Pichette]

In 2005 and 2006—I cannot tell you about the future—the main issue went beyond the systems, Mr. Ménard. The issue was about individuals, an individual's ability to maintain relations with the public, to gather information, and to send it to the right place so that it can be interpreted. This is an area in which we have been working continuously with police organizations. We are trying to instill a culture of information in the organizations. We support organizations as much as we can.

As Mr. Morin explained, you must not lose sight of the fact that, in Quebec, high level services have very sophisticated intelligence structures that work well. The CISQ mainly supports level 1 and 2 organizations.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

You will be happy to learn that, this morning, a witness told us that the collaboration between the various police forces in Quebec is a model for the rest of Canada. Personally, I think it is a model for the rest of the world. I am very happy about that.

Right now, during investigations, when you follow someone for months—and I am not sure if you will be able to answer this—is it standard practice to keep records of the car the person uses, where the person stays, where they eat, what restaurant they go to?

That way, when they are convicted, we would be able to assess a person's lifestyle, and therefore, what assets they have that could be seized. We could ask people who claim to be the owners to prove that they are not. Is this done systematically or do you simply make the observations necessary for that specific investigation?

[Pierre-Paul Pichette]

When someone is being followed or is under any kind of surveillance, here is what we do. In order to manage the evidence, all information is both sent to our data bank and placed in our evidence tables. We have evidence tables. So the information is sent to two places, so that we are sure of having an overview when the time comes to lay charges, to put a stop to activities, or to seize assets.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

So, for example, if someone drives a car, a fancy SUV, or a 4x4. Do you not think that the fact that they regularly use the vehicle is evidence for the judge that, probably, the real owner is a front man?

[Insp Denis Morin]

It is certainly recorded in the files, but it is always up to the judge to decide. What often happens, is that when a suspect drives around in a car that belongs to his wife, or to one of his friends, we try to prove in court that the vehicle in fact belongs to the accused. We show, among other things, that he always uses it, that he is the one who takes it in for repair and pays for the maintenance. We do that, but it is not always easy in all cases.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

The vehicle could also be rented.

[Insp Denis Morin]

True.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Battista, we have to have a lot more discussions amongst ourselves as we try to improve the process. We are wondering if organizations should be designated as criminal. It is actually very complicated to do that in each case. There are all sorts of problems. But I do not have to tell you that.

Does declaring an organization to be criminal before one court and using it in other cases go against any principles that the Bar feels are particularly important or that it believes to be essential for the good of society in general?

[Giuseppe Battista]

That is a good question, Mr. Ménard. I will be frank with you. I may have a personal opinion on that subject, but I will not share it. It is something that probably must be discussed within our committee, made up of Crown prosecutors, lawyers like Mr. Brabant and others. Obviously, these committees of the Bar operate by consensus, and we share views. Certainly, it is an issue that can be discussed, but I would not venture to give you an opinion now.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

As you know, Mr. Battista, we are happy...

Time is up?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We're out of time. Yes, we're finished.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Okay. Fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We are having that very debate in committee right now, the whole issue of designating crime organizations. We haven't issued a report yet, but it's very close.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Chair, we would be happy to hear his personal opinion; it would certainly be valuable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

It might be risky for him in this venue.

We'll move on to Mr. Norlock.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Actually, it was Mr. Rathgeber.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Is it? All right.

Mr. Rathgeber.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I will be addressing you in English.

Mr. Brabant, in respect of your opposition to mandatory minimum sentences, I have to take issue with what you said. I hope I heard correctly through the interpreter that your opposition to mandatory minimum sentences results from the attendant reduction in judicial discretion. You favour unfettered judicial discretion. Did I understand that correctly?

[Giuseppe Battista]

“Unfettered judicial discretion” is a way of characterizing what I said. But I have always supported, and continue to support, judicial discretion. In other words, sentencing is a process whereby the court sanctions an individual, not some mummy but a person. Judges need to have all the latitude. When the Criminal Code says from zero to life, that's the latitude the judge should have. That is the latitude that judges should have for those types of offences. If the law says zero to ten, that's the latitude the judge should have. The judge may impose ten, and the judge may not impose any sentence at all.

In those cases where it would be appropriate not to jail a person, mandatory minimum sentences force a judge to send people to jail, and that is what we've always opposed.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

I understand that.

[Giuseppe Battista]

We've all opposed it.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Do you oppose maximum sentences that fetter the judge's discretion when handing down a sentence? If you believe in unfettered discretion, then there ought to be no range. That is my point, and that is where I believe your logic breaks down.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Point of order.