Justice Committee on March 23rd, 2010

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

You are asking your officials to tell me what the last criminology study you read was?

I hope you will be able to give me the answer.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Yes, we'll do that for sure.

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

In the bill that you proposed, there is a provision that allows the names of certain violent offenders to be made public. That debate already took place when we studied Ms. McLellan's bill. We concluded that, generally speaking, it would seriously harm the rehabilitation of those individuals whose names were published and, for that reason, among others, their names should not be made public.

But there is a category of young people who would welcome that kind of publicity, such as young street gang leaders, who would like nothing more than to get some publicity. In fact, not only would they like to see their name in the paper, but they would like it if their name could appear on the front page of the Journal de Montréal or some other tabloid.

Do you not think that this measure, whose usefulness is much debated, could achieve a goal other than the one you are honestly working towards?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

There are individuals committing crimes who want to see their pictures on the front page. I can tell them that if they are convicted under the Youth Criminal Justice Act and receive adult sentences under the present provisions, they will automatically have their names released to the public. I can tell you, though, that I do get letters from people who write about individuals who have been convicted under the Youth Criminal Justice Act of very serious crimes, things such as aggravated sexual assault, and they find it very disconcerting if that individual moves next door and they have not been informed that the individual who has committed these crimes has moved in next door to them. That actually hurts the administration of justice, and I think it hurts the overall process.

That being said, though, Monsieur Ménard, I know you'll get the chance to have a look at the legislation on a very deep, close basis, and you'll see that it's within the discretion of the court if it's necessary for the protection of the public. The courts will make that decision.

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

I am aware.

You decided to name your bill after Sébastien Lacasse. The young person who was found guilty of killing Sébastien Lacasse received an adult sentence. His name was made public. I could even say his name, but I will not do that here.

What does your bill have to offer the Lacasse family, besides the fact that it bears their son's name? It seems to me that, in the young person's case, he got exactly the treatment you wanted him to get, especially since the six other people involved were all over 18 years of age and received lesser sentences than the youth who was convicted.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

In answer to your question about how the Lacasse family feel about it, they are very touched and appreciative that their son's name is commemorated. Their son was a victim and they are victims.

Going back to an earlier question, we want our focus in Justice to be more on victims, and that is certainly consistent with that. So again, in answer to your question, they are very pleased about that. It doesn't bring your son back or make you any less of a victim. But interestingly enough, the parents of that young man continue to be spokespersons for standing up for victims. So it honours them as well as their unfortunate child who was murdered.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Monsieur Ménard, your time is up.

We'll move on to Monsieur Petit for five minutes.

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

Good afternoon, Mr. Minister.

Good afternoon, Mr. Sims.

I would like to start off with a brief comment. Very often, we look at the statistics that are provided to us to help us assess bills, such as the young offenders measure we want to bring in.

I will give you an example. In Quebec, there is a fellow by the name of Vincent Lacroix who defrauded 9,200 people. The statistics will show just a single crime; the 9,200 people will not be represented. In the case of Earl Jones, 150 people were defrauded, and only one person will be mentioned. In the case of young offenders, in Quebec—which I know especially well—all of the cases are not reported. I do not want to know the name; I want to know the crime that was committed to see if progress is being made in society, and so forth. That is important; nothing is reported, and Statistics Canada cannot report on the total number.

In Quebec, between 125 and 175 people disappear every year, and 41% of those are found, while 59% are not, such as Cédrika Provencher. We do not know whether she was killed or raped; we do not know anything. There is no possibility of finding information that can help us.

I am coming to my next question. I am very proud of the bill that we are introducing. Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, includes amendments for violent repeat offenders—in Quebec, it is for youth 16 and 17 years of age—who have committed irreparable harm, in other words, murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and serious violence.

You mentioned it a bit earlier, but how do you plan to allow the judge... This week, youth advocacy groups in Quebec said it was a good idea for the judge to know what had happened in the past. Do you plan to establish a link with the provinces to make it possible to obtain as much information as possible so that the judge can make a proper ruling, because, ultimately, it is the judge who decides?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I think you made a very good point, Mr. Petit.

You want judges to have before them all the information that is relevant to deal with the case. You are quite correct that there are provisions that will assist in that. I tell members of this committee to look at each of the different sections. These things make sense.

You talked about statistics. I mean, I hear it both ways. Somebody said to me that youth crime is going down and asked me why I was bringing in this legislation. Somebody then said to me that violent crime among youth is going up and asked me if that was why I brought in the legislation. I said that we're bringing in the legislation because it makes sense. We're responding in a couple of instances within the act to the recommendations, the very sensible recommendations, of Justice Nunn in the Nunn report. We're listening to what provincial attorneys general are telling us. We're listening to the public, the victims, law enforcement agencies, people who deal with this. We're listening to what they are saying.

I don't go out and say yes... I know that violent youth crime has been up. It's up 12% in the last ten years. Nobody wants it to be up. We all want it to go down, but that being said, we're not bringing in the legislation because of that; we're bringing it in because we're responding to the concerns of Canadians.

We are concerned when people tell us that there are gaps in the law, that the law is not keeping pace with what's taking place out there. Indeed, some of the laws that we brought in and passed... You dealt with it. There was identity theft. We're now capturing activity that wasn't captured at all. People say that kind of activity has gone down because there is no prosecution. I say that there wasn't any law dealing with some of these issues.

Again, ours is a very balanced, focused approach. We're trying to assist victims and law-abiding Canadians to have a fair and reasonable up-to-date justice system. That is all our mandate, and that's what we're striving to achieve.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

There's half a minute.

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

Mr. Minister, first, I would like to talk about something that I feel very strongly about. You are the minister who created an ombudsman for victims. That has to be recognized as a monumental achievement given how long you have been on the job. The position could have been created a long time ago, and you did it.

Do you plan to increase funding for the ombudsman? The position is very important to victims. Do you have any plans for this important role, which, in my opinion, is very significant and to your credit?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

There is long-term funding for this and for all victim-related issues. There's more money now going to the assistance of victims than there ever was before. There has been greater expansion to help those who become victims overseas, there has been better assistance to those individuals who find themselves victims in Canada, there's the creation of the office of the victims' ombudsman--these are all steps in the right direction.

Ultimately, we can't ever let victims be the forgotten person in the criminal justice system. We have to reach out to these individuals, and this is in a large part what we have done in all these areas. There's more money for victims in all aspects of this than there ever has been before. It's one of those things of which I'm very proud.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you, Minister. You gave us an hour of your time. That hour is up, so we will allow you and Mr. Sims to leave. Thank you to both of you.

In the meantime, members, the next item on our agenda is Mr. Comartin's motion, which I believe he wanted to introduce. The appropriate notice was given.

I would like to just remind members that we are not in camera yet, so debate on this will be public.

Mr. Comartin.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I just want to be sure, Mr. Chair, that it has been circulated and that people have it in front of them.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

The interpreters have just informed us that they did not receive a copy of the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you. We'll make sure that the interpreters have a copy of the motion.

All right, Mr. Comartin, you may present it.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I'm not going to go through the preamble to this. I think everybody sitting around this table is quite aware of the situation that I'm referring to in my motion. What I do want to say as a preliminary note, though, is that I believe there is a role for the committee to play here in trying to provide some knowledge to the general community of how a situation like this can arise.

I also want to be very clear that I have really quite strong--I won't say absolute, because they're human beings and they make mistakes--faith in the quality of our prosecutors and our police in this country.

I think I've said this publicly, but I'll repeat it today. My observations over my many years of practice and again as an elected official are that I have not seen any place in the world where there is a better system of criminal justice than we have in Canada. There are certainly several countries I think I could point to and say they're on the same level as we are, that is, we have peers, but I don't think we have any superiors at all.

So my motion is not in any way intended to embarrass or undermine the integrity or credibility of the criminal justice system and in particular the role that our prosecutors and police play in that system. But, Mr. Chair, we all know how much notoriety this has gotten,and we've even seen I think two opinion polls on it now where there is a consensus in the country running in the range of 80% to 85% that if you know people, if you are connected, you get favourable treatment, and we can't let that stand.

I have sent letters to both the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada and to the Attorney General of Ontario asking them to come forward and give in detail an explanation as to what happened in this case. I've had no written response, but in both cases there have been statements in the media indicating they have given as much information as they're prepared to give, and I find that totally inadequate. I think the average Canadian finds that totally inadequate, because it really isn't any new information at all.

What I'm asking in the motion is pretty straightforward. I'm asking that we have two days of hearings on the issue and we bring before us, I would assume on separate days, the Director of Public Prosecutions... I know there have been a number of points in the media that there is no role; that's not accurate. The Director of Public Prosecutions is responsible for all drug prosecutions in this country, whether they're conducted by lawyers they've hired from private firms, which is a large part of the prosecutions, or the prosecutors within the federal service, or the prosecutors at the provincial level who are agents for the federal government and responsible to the Director of Public Prosecutions. So I want to hear from him, that's Mr. Saunders, and also to hear from the prosecutor, either directly or somebody from the Attorney General of Ontario, who could give us details as to what happened here, as well as the representative of the Ontario Provincial Police, who conducted the investigation.

Out of that investigation, then, I would want a brief report going to the House of Commons, which obviously would be public and I hope would have the effect of satisfying the public that there was nothing untoward done here, that there was not favourable treatment given to the individual, that there were valid legal reasons why the determination was made as it was made.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

Before we move into debate on this, I have a ruling on the admissibility of this motion. I am going to rule it out of order. Mr. Comartin, you know that each parliamentary committee works within its individual mandate as provided by the Standing Orders of the House. The mandate of the justice committee is laid out in Standing Order 108(2), and that Standing Order states as follows:

The standing committees, except those set out in sections (3)(a), 3(f), 3(h) and (4) of this Standing Order, shall, in addition to the powers granted to them pursuant to section (1) of this Standing Order and pursuant to Standing Order 81, be empowered to study and report on all matters relating to the mandate, management and operation of the department or departments of government which are assigned to them from time to time by the House.

In general, the committees shall be severally empowered to review and report on: (a) the statute law relating to the department assigned to them; (b) the program and policy objectives of the department and its effectiveness in the implementation of same; (c) the immediate, medium, and long-term expenditure plans and the effectiveness of implementation of same by the department; (d) an analysis of the relative success of the department, as measured by the results obtained as compared with its stated objectives; and (e) other matters, relating to the mandate, management, organization or operation of the department, as the committee deems fit.

I also wanted to quote from O'Brien and Bosc. You'll find this on page 1054:

Generally, the rules governing the admissibility of motions in the House of Commons apply in the same manner to parliamentary committees. For example, a motion should not contain offensive or unparliamentary language. As in the House, the use of a preamble in a motion in committee is not recommended. A committee has the means to explain the motions it adopts in the body of the report it presents to the House, if such explanation is needed. Furthermore, motions moved in committee must not go beyond the committee's mandate or infringe upon the prerogative of the Crown relating to the appropriation of public revenues.

I note that this motion calls on the committee to conduct a study into the alleged actions of one individual in relation to one specific case. Standing Order 108(2) does not list, as part of the mandate, a study of a specific case involving a specific individual.

I also note that this committee has not been called upon to act as a second trier of fact or to be an appeal tribunal or a court of appeal.

I also note that the matter and the case Mr. Comartin refers to was disposed of by the court in Ontario, and the Ontario Attorney General has actually made a statement, which stands on its own. My suggestion is that the appropriate way of dealing with this particular case is for Mr. Comartin to refer all further inquiries to the Attorney General's office in Ontario.

Again, I note that while this committee is fully able to undertake studies into matters concerning the Criminal Code or policy matters within the Department of Justice, it does not examine or make attempts to determine facts in individual cases. If the motion were crafted in a way that was a much broader study of, say, prosecutorial discretion or, say, plea bargaining, it might be in order. In this case, I have to rule that the motion, as currently written, is inadmissible, because it exceeds the mandate of this committee.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

A point of order.

I'd like to challenge your ruling. Clearly, it involves the federal Director of Public Prosecutions and other matters under our terms of reference. I believe it's fairly non-debatable. This would be a motion to challenge your ruling.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

All right.

Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained? It's not debatable.

I will call the question.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Could we do it individually?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

You mean a recorded vote?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

All right, we'll have a recorded vote, then.

Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained? That is the question.

(Ruling of the chair overturned [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The challenge is supported by a vote of this committee.

Then we will continue debating the motion.

Mr. Murphy.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

On the motion, I, too, have concerns that this is a little too case-specific, and that in this case perhaps there are some discretionary aspects of prosecutorial behaviour that we ought not to delve too deeply into; however, Mr. Comartin's point is extremely well made. The system of justice has depended on public confidence from time immemorial, and public confidence has been eroded. People have questions about how this case, high-profile as it is, was handled.

I would like to support the motion on the basis that we would learn a lot about prosecutorial discretion if we had provincial prosecutors or, more pertinently in this case--because it may have dealt with issues of federal jurisdiction--the Director of Public Prosecutions and DOJ officials in to explain to us how prosecutorial discretion works, how it is that sometimes cases are thrown out, based on weak evidence, based on poor search and seizure techniques, and how all of this happens every day in courtrooms across this country.

So on that basis I support the motion. I don't support the motion to rehash what must have been a very trying time for one of our former colleagues. That's not the issue. The issue is about public confidence in our system and the role that discretion plays every day in our justice system vis-à-vis prosecutors, judges, and, for that matter, defence attorneys.

It's something this government hasn't felt a deep urge to get into in the four years I've been here: that element of discretion, that element of how these things are dealt with every day in the weighing of the likelihood of success with respect to a conviction or a defence. It happens every day, and it's time for this committee to hear that reality. So I'll be supporting the motion.