Evidence of meeting #18 for Justice and Human Rights in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was brunswick.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:50 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
The maximum sentence imposed on the others was four years. Some were given a suspended sentence.
12:50 p.m.
As an Individual
There were three. Three of those ten young people were minors.
12:50 p.m.
As an Individual
There were ten. Of the ten, three were minors, including the principal murderer.
12:50 p.m.
As an Individual
He will be released in seven years. To us, seven years, for the murder of our boy—
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
One moment, please. Our interpreter is going to have a very difficult time interpreting for us if we don't do proper questions and answers. I'm going to ask Monsieur Ménard to finish his question and then we're going to allow Monsieur and Madame Lacasse to answer fully.
Monsieur Ménard.
12:50 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
The minimum sentence of seven years is under section 745.1 of the Criminal Code. But the bill you are being asked to support proposes no amendment to that section of the Criminal Code. That is why I am saying that nothing would be changed.
But rest assured that I am as anxious as you to see youth crime go down. You know very well that I have taken drastic measures to combat the crimes of organized crime groups, such as the Hells Angels, and that those operations were successful. Rest assured that we are working towards the same goal and we also want to reduce these problems.
You are aware that the bill does not change the clause indicating that this individual is eligible for parole in seven years?
12:50 p.m.
As an Individual
We are well aware of that, but it does not prevent us from recognizing that the act can include some good points to address all that. Let us say that I have followed the matter closely enough to know that, of those young people, two others were minors. Even if they were all adults, I would still have the right to support a bill that deals with the offenders despite the fact that it does not change anything for those who killed Sébastien. It is true that it will not bring Sébastien back, but the sentences imposed currently are a slap on the wrist. I apologize for the term, but it is the reality.
In a situation like this, we do not feel supported; we get the impression that we are forgotten as victims in all this. It is important to us. I believe in rehabilitation, but I do not believe in it for some sentences or crimes.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you very much.
I share the chair's concern for you and also our inability to really understand the depths to which you have been as the result of this crime. I want to thank you for coming here to share that with us.
I'm particularly interested in those crimes you described that were committed after your son's death. In particular, did I understand you to say that at one point shots were fired toward your son Maxime from a vehicle? Is that correct?
12:50 p.m.
As an Individual
Yes. It was Rubens Alexandre, one of my boy's attackers, who did that. Naturally, there were no consequences because the kids did not want to file a complaint. They said that nothing would come of it.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I want to ask you a little more about that, because in the very chair that you are sitting in now, a few minutes ago we heard from no less a person than the Attorney General for New Brunswick on this kind of offence. I want to ask you, do you consider the offence of shots having been fired from a vehicle toward your son Maxime to be a violent offence?
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
As do I.
The Attorney General of New Brunswick told us earlier that he objected to including in the definition of “violent offence” an offence that wasn't intended to cause harm. If the person who shot a gun from a car in the direction of your son didn't intend to hit him, would you still consider it a violent offence?
12:55 p.m.
As an Individual
It was an act of violence because he wanted to get him. It is obvious. Automatically, when you take out a gun, you want to commit an act of violence.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Well, I regret to say that in the criminal courts intent isn't always easy to prove, and sometimes one might just be firing a gun in the air. But I agree with you: even if the person who shot that gun did not intend to hit your son, it would, in my view, still be a dangerous offence. It would still be a violent offence. It would still be an intimidating offence. And it would still be an offence deserving of jail.