Justice Committee on Feb. 28th, 2011

[Jean-Guy Dagenais]

It may have been an argument over a girl, but it was still a serious crime. There is still...

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

So what can be changed in the act? We can't give him more than life.

[Jean-Guy Dagenais]

Prison is one thing, but I sometimes wonder whether the worst of the penalty is to be identified as an offender and having that information published. No one has an easy time with that. When you commit a serious crime, prison is one thing. But you know as well as I do that people often get out of prison very quickly. They do not all stay there for life.

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

Is that what happened to Mr. Labonté, who killed Sébastien Lacasse?

[Jean-Guy Dagenais]

I'm not saying that it is what happened to Mr. Labonté. That was a one-of-a-kind case. But you can look at other cases of young people committing serious crimes. Serious crimes...

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

But it is why the solicitor general decided to give this bill its title.

If I am not mistaken, it would be harder today to send Labonté, Sébastien's killer, to adult court under the proposed bill. Do you support the provisions of the bill that would make it harder to convict Sébastien Lacasse's murderer?

[Jean-Guy Dagenais]

I am not saying that it would be harder to get a conviction. That was a one-of-a-kind case. But how many young people commit serious crimes and are not imprisoned for life, but are released back into the community without their identity being revealed, and then reoffend? We should look at preventing them from reoffending.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll move to Mr. Hyer.

Welcome to our committee. This is a first for you. You have seven minutes.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Thank you very much.

I'm going to pass, but thank you very much for offering.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

You're very welcome.

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

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Mr. Dagenais. Thank you for coming. You told me that you had to brave the storm, so I'm very happy that you made it here safe and sound.

I would like to focus on some of the statements you made. You said that, in general, this could make the work of the police easier. Given the way in which the bill has been prepared, a serious offence is not any old crime, like shoplifting, that occurs every day. We are talking about serious offences. These usually involve property with a value greater than $5,000, offences that endanger the life of another person, public mischief, unauthorized possession of a firearm, and so on. Those are serious offences. They are what we want to come to grips with first.

I would like to know what you think about another point. In Quebec, just like in the other provinces—it is wrong for us to imagine that we are somehow different—when a young person has committed a number of offences, there are lot of extrajudicial measures. You know as well as I do that it is very hard to find out what kind of extrajudicial measures have been imposed on the person. A person can have been to court up to seven times and have received extrajudicial measures without anyone knowing, because everything is confidential, they are not transferred, and so on.

First, are you in favour of the justice system being informed about extrajudicial measures that have been imposed on young offenders so that the progression can be seen? Quite often, judges are not aware. Today, they are never aware, and that will not change unless records like that are kept.

You say that it will make police work easier. Do you think that it could help you to know which extrajudicial measures have been imposed on the young offender, say, in the last eight years?

[Jean-Guy Dagenais]

You are right, Mr. Petit.

Too often, we have been in court on cases where there were no records, because we were dealing with a minor. That is when they reoffend. Young people do not generally read up on the law, but when they are in front of a judge, they know that they will be released after their sentence. So you get one offence after another. They see themselves as having a kind of immunity.

Crown prosecutors have to meet the burden of proof, but the police have to do the investigation and come up with enough evidence to have charges brought. Often with minors, with no records, reoffending is easy.

As I mentioned in my notes, it is important to make young people who commit serious offences realize that, sooner or later, there will be consequences for them. The registry is a good starting point that will help the police investigate. It is not easy for us.

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

Take the case of a young person in front of a judge who knows that he has been in youth court regularly over the last 10 years and has had extrajudicial measures imposed. Do you think that knowing the record of those extrajudicial measures could help the judge come to a better decision? As a police officer, you have that information and you can go and see the crown prosecutor and explain the situation.

[Jean-Guy Dagenais]

We still have to meet the burden of proof. We work with the crown prosecutor. With those of the age of majority, we always provide what we call the “plumitif”, the record of criminal offences. We can tell the prosecutor that this is the fourth time that an individual has been arrested for the same offence; the individual is a re-offender. We would do the same thing for young people. We are talking about repeated offences. We are not talking about exceptional cases.

Police officers often notice that we are always arresting the same people in the same places in the same neighbourhoods. The same names come up time and time again. With the registry, we can tell the prosecutor that this is the fourth time that the person has been arrested for such and such an offence, and that he is a re-offender in such and such a place. A young person may re-offend out of town or outside the province. So it is important for police to tell the prosecutor that this is a specific repeat offence for the third, fourth, fifth or sixth time. That is why having records available is important, as I said, because we must meet the burden of proof.

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

Mr. Dagenais, you know that, at the moment, when someone wants to appear in adult court, the crown prosecutor has to make that request to the trial judge, if he feels that the case should be heard in adult court.

Under the new bill that we are proposing, that would be automatic for murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, aggravated sexual assault, and so on. The crown prosecutor would have to tell the judge why he does not want to send the case to adult court. Would you agree with me that, for those four very serious charges, it should be automatic, and the opposite would be possible; that is, that the crown prosecutor might decide that the young person should not go to adult court? What do you think about that proposal? After all, I would never want a young person to have to go through that process; it is traumatic and his life is at stake.

[Jean-Guy Dagenais]

As police officers, we agree. Given the information that the crown prosecutor has, he can decide that the young person must not go to adult court.

But, as I mentioned in my remarks, the role of the police is to protect society. Unfortunately, as you have very rightly pointed out, very serious offences must be considered. We are in agreement with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We have time for one more round of about two to three minutes per person.

Ms. Jennings, you have two minutes.

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

The Minister of Justice conducted a series of public but private consultations across Canada with a number of stakeholder groups; as far as I'm aware, we don't have a list of the groups that participated. Were either of your organizations part of these consultations on Bill C-4?

[Hirsch Greenberg]

Not to our knowledge.

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

How about your organization, Mr. Dagenais?

[Jean-Guy Dagenais]

Not about Bill C-4.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll move on to Mr. Lemay.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Let me catch the ball that Ms. Jennings threw. Mr. Dagenais, I am very surprised. There was a national round table. According to documents in our possession that we finally managed to get from the governing party as part of the in-depth review of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, Mr. Nicholson, the Minister of Justice, invited provincial and territorial ministers. The consultations began in Vancouver and continued from there. Participants came from the following groups: the judiciary, prosecutors, defence counsel, legal aid program representatives, police forces and the RCMP.

Are you telling us today that the largest police force in Quebec did not participate in this national round table on the Youth Criminal Justice Act? Is that correct?

[Jean-Guy Dagenais]

I am not speaking on behalf of the RCMP. I am speaking—