Bill C-54 (Historical)

Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder)

This enactment amends the mental disorder regime in the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act to specify that the paramount consideration in the decision-making process is the safety of the public and to create a scheme for finding that certain persons who have been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder are high-risk accused. It also enhances the involvement of victims in the regime and makes procedural and technical amendments.

Second Reading

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.

As she knows, the government already provides a wide range of services. When we study this bill in committee, it may very well be that evidence is presented that will lead us to consider even more carefully if there are gaps, if there are things that can be improved and if we can provide better services. We know that the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime is still waiting and is taking a hard look at this important issue.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would certainly like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice for his speech in regard to this much-needed legislation. In fact, this is something that is of concern in my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla, and was particularly so during the last election, when I was door-knocking. There was a tragic case of three children being murdered by their father in the city of Merritt, and this is still a very difficult issue for my riding.

The parliamentary secretary has certainly done a lot of work in supporting victims' rights, particularly with the victim surcharge. We have doubled that. Many opposition members chose to vote against that important legislation, but what I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary is not so much about victims' rights at this time.

We want to empower victims so they have more information, but we also want to empower the judiciary to be able to put forward high-risk designations. That allows for a check in an area that many victims have raised as a gap in the system.

I would like to hear the parliamentary secretary's comments on empowering the courts and also on helping victims to be protected through this legislation.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, certainly the tragedy that occurred in his riding is an illustration of why this law has been brought forward, which is to make the protection of the public the paramount consideration when it comes to the release of mentally affected offenders.

Not all mentally-affected offenders will be given high-risk designations, but the court will always look at this question. In the event an offender is in fact a high-risk offender, much more security will be placed around that person, who will not be able to go on unescorted visits. Escorted visits will be for health reasons. Victims will always be informed upon their release, when and if that occurs, and there will be enough information so that victims can avoid encounters with the people whom they are absolutely terrified of.

This is all about one single thing: protecting the public while balancing the protection of the public with the rehabilitation of offenders and causing less of a disruption for the victims, who have basically been sentenced for the rest of their lives through circumstances beyond their control.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have seen many bills go through the House in which financial obligations are passed on to provinces, cities or first nations. I want to ask the parliamentary secretary if he can assure the House that financial discussions have taken place with the provinces so that they are not left holding the bag. Who is responsible for carrying out the responsibilities for this bill, and will any federal transfers will be made to the provinces?

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, this bill was brought forward at the request of the provinces and territories because they have concerns for the safety of the public.

As to the costs, transfers to the provinces are at an all-time high. I believe it was $64 billion last year. There is a cost to protecting the public, and certainly in this case the provinces and territories have sought to get additional protection. It is, of course, within their purview to want to protect their public, as do we.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

I stand in support of Bill C-54, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act in relation to mental disorder. The bill's short title is the “not criminally responsible reform act”.

To be more specific, New Democrats support the bill so that it can be further studied in committee. It merits further study.

Cutting to the chase, this bill amends the legislative framework applicable to mental disorder in the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act.

It amends the legislation to specify that the safety of the public is the paramount consideration in the decision-making process. I repeat, because this is key, that public safety must be paramount in the decision-making process.

The bill also creates a mechanism by which Canadians who are found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder may be declared high risk, and the bill increases the involvement of victims. I will have more to say about that in just a moment, but first I will provide an overview of the current Criminal Code mental disorder regime.

The current Criminal Code mental disorder regime applies to a small percentage of accused. Under Canadian criminal law, if an accused person cannot understand the nature of the trial or the consequences and cannot communicate with their lawyer on account of a mental disorder, the court will find that the person is unfit to stand trial. Then, once that person becomes fit to stand trial, they are tried for the offence with which they were initially charged.

At the same time, if a person is found to have committed an offence but, because of a mental disorder at the time, lacked the capacity to appreciate what they did or know that it was wrong, the court makes a special verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. They are either convicted or they are acquitted.

A person found either unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible is referred to a provincial or territorial review board, and the board decides on the course of action.

Under the current law, a review board can make one of three possible decisions.

First, if the person does not pose a significant threat to public safety, there can be an absolute discharge. That is only available to a person found not criminally responsible.

The second possibility is a conditional discharge.

A third option that is open to a review board is detention in custody or detention in a hospital.

This bill proposes to amend the mental disorder regime in three ways. The first is by putting public safety first. I cannot stress that enough: public safety must come first. The changes proposed in this bill would explicitly make public safety the paramount consideration in the court and in the review board decision-making process.

Second, the legislation would amend the Criminal Code to create a process for the designation of those found not criminally responsible as “high risk”. That is the designation, “high risk”. That would be in the case when the accused person has been found not criminally responsible for a serious personal injury offence where there is a high likelihood for further violence that would endanger the public, or else in cases where the acts were of such a brutal nature as to constitute a risk of grave harm to the public.

As for what happens when a not criminally responsible person is designated high risk, they would not be granted a conditional or absolute discharge. That would not happen. Further, the designation of high risk would only be revoked by the court following a recommendation of the review board.

This bill outlines that a high-risk, not criminally responsible person would not be allowed to go into the community unescorted. Again, it is all about public safety. The escorted passes would only be allowed in narrow circumstances and subject to conditions sufficient to protect public safety. Also, the review board could decide to extend the review period for those designated high risk to up to every three years instead of annually.

The third way this bill proposes to amend the mental disorder regime is by enhancing the safety of the victims and by providing them with opportunities for greater involvement of the Criminal Code mental disorder regime in three ways.

First is by ensuring that they are notified, upon request, when the accused is discharged. Second is by allowing non-communications orders between the accused and the victim. Third is by ensuring that the safety of victims is considered when decisions are made about an accused person.

Provisions in the proposed legislation would also help ensure the consistent interpretation and application of the law across the country.

Amending the legislative framework applicable to mental disorder in the Criminal Code and National Defence Act is a difficult issue for victims, families and communities. However, and I cannot repeat this enough, public safety must come first when complying with the rule of law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We support this bill so that it can be further studied in committee. In the coming weeks, at the committee stage, we will talk to mental health experts, victims and the provinces to find out what they believe is the best approach, but, and this is a big but, we do not want to play political games with this bill. We must focus on the policy's merits.

As for consultation and who pays the cost, which was a question asked of the Conservative speaker who spoke last, in a Global News interview, a spokesperson for the Department of Justice stated that the provinces would be responsible for assuming the costs of the new policy. That said, we must ensure that the provinces have the financial resources to pay for the new policy.

However, there are other unknowns. There are outstanding questions and information the federal Conservatives should be able to provide. Again, with this bill, public safety must be paramount, but we also need the information and data to make the best decisions we can make.

There are several outstanding questions. First, what statistics did the government collect on persons deemed not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder? We would be looking for those statistics by province, by territory and by type of offence.

Second, how many people were deemed not criminally responsible over the past ten years, and how many of those people were granted an unconditional discharge?

Third, which persons deemed not criminally responsible and discharged were found guilty of a subsequent offence? That is a good question. Fourth, what persons deemed not criminally responsible and discharged were deemed not criminally responsible for a subsequent offence? What was the nature of the subsequent offence?

Fifth, for each of the last ten years, what was the rate of repeat offences for all offenders under federal jurisdiction by province and by territory?

Finally, which treatment facilities across the country, public and private, accept people deemed not criminally responsible, and how much money is out there to actually look after these people once they are in institution, if they go to an institution?

Most Canadians are familiar with Sheldon Kennedy. He is a former National Hockey League player. He is also an abuse victim. His story is well known across the country. Here is what Kennedy had to say when he heard about this bill. He said:

What I really like is the focus on victims. I think that's key, and when we look at this type of crime we catch some child sex perpetrators but I think it's paramount we take care of the victims of these perpetrators.

Let me be clear. We want to know how we can help victims. Over the next few weeks, we will talk to mental health experts, victims and the provinces to learn what they believe is the best approach.

I cannot stress this enough: we do not want to play political games with this. We want to examine the merits of the bill, which must be adequately funded by the federal government. We need answers to those outstanding questions. What I listed were just several questions. There are many more. We need the answers to those questions to make the best decisions about moving forward.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague rightly pointed out that he has lots of questions. I have lots of questions as well. I spoke to the bill earlier, and I still have questions. One reason we are not able to get answers to these questions, in my opinion, is that we do not know who the government has consulted on this.

I want to ask my colleague if he knows of the organizations, individuals and experts in his community the government consulted. At the law school in Halifax, professor Archie Kaiser teaches disability law. We have Atlantic regional offices, for example, of the Canadian Mental Health Association and the schizophrenia association. As far as I know, none of these organizations have been consulted.

We want to make sure that public policy is based on the best evidence out there, not on just our gut reaction to a couple of high-profile cases. I wonder if my colleague has heard of any consultation on this legislation happening in his community.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer to the hon. member's question is that I do not know. I do not know who has been consulted. In my riding of St. John's South—Mount Pearl, there is a lot of talk, especially among police authorities, about mental health and the fact that the services are not there for people who suffer from mental health illness.

I mentioned in my speech a number of questions, but the list of questions is as long as my arm. We have many questions that are outstanding. Which treatment facilities, for example, accept people with the mental health illnesses we outlined? Of the facilities, which are private? How many people can each facility accept? How many people are currently in each facility? What analysis has the government done to determine that these legislative measures will require these facilities to increase their capacity? There are so many questions we just do not have answers to.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl for yet another speech in the House that has brought us a lot more sense of what is missing from this particular legislation. The member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl is one of the most eloquent members in the House of Commons. He is very hard working. He does a terrific job. He raised significant questions for which the government does not seem to have any answers.

We all support the principle of the legislation. We support the principle of helping victims, but the fact that the government is incapable of answering these key questions is very important.

The government has a history of, and unfortunately there is no other way of putting it, screwing up legislation. I think of the refugee legislation and the Veterans Charter. In each case, the government tried to rush through legislation that had not received due diligence.

I am wondering if the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl is concerned about the closure motion the government has brought forward. Is it repeating the same mistakes it has made in the past?

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about closure, and I am always concerned any time the government limits debate. To me, that interferes with our democracy. It interferes with the way this place is supposed to run.

The bottom line is that our party supports the bill going to committee, and in committee, we are going to bring in experts and have further study. With all of these outstanding questions, we are going to need answers. The government had better be prepared when we go to committee stage to answer some important questions.

We do not know if the homework has been done on the bill in terms of treatment facilities and raw numbers. If Canadians with mental health issues are charged and convicted of a crime, how often do they repeat crimes? How often are they put back in jail? We do not know whether they get the treatment they need or whether the treatment is out there. There are so many questions. We do not know if the homework is being done, because we do not have any answers yet. We will see at committee stage.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join my hon. colleagues in speaking about Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder). We have discussed it at length in the House today.

The bill addresses a particularly important and troubling issue for victims and other Canadians. Regrettably, almost every region or community in Canada has seen some tragic event of this kind. I will refrain from naming some high-profile cases in Quebec since everyone already knows what we are talking about.

However, it is important to take the time to debate this properly in the House. I find it deplorable that once again, the government has moved time allocation to limit debate on an important bill that has a direct bearing on the problems victims experience. The time allotted for debate at second reading has again been reduced. I hope that we do not have to face the same situation in committee as we have in other committees, where the government has put restrictions on the witnesses who come forward to tell us about their experience and their views on the bill. In several other committees, we have seen the government abuse its majority to silence opinions that are not necessarily in line with its proposals. I hope that will change this time. This is a crucial issue.

This bill was introduced in the wake of events that made headlines and, not surprisingly, shocked people. We have to take the time to study this bill thoroughly. It would amend certain Criminal Code provisions to make the safety of the public the paramount consideration in courts' and review boards' decision-making processes involving persons found not criminally responsible.

The bill would also create a new mechanism to designate NCR accused as high-risk and subject them to additional restrictions with respect to parole and conditions under which an offender can be released. It would also enhance victims' involvement in the release process for persons found not criminally responsible.

Bill C-54 puts forward major changes worthy of in-depth consideration in committee. That is why my colleagues and I will support it at second reading. We believe that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights must take a very close, non-partisan look at the bill's provisions.

We can all agree that partisanship and political games have no place in our debate on this issue. We need genuine consultation with mental health experts, the provinces and victims to ensure that this approach is really the best possible approach for Canada. We all know that protecting public safety is the highest priority, but that protection must go hand in hand with respect for the rule of law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The committee's study will enable us to ensure that the bill before us is truly in line with the basic principles our country was founded on. These principles must be evident in every law we pass and must be our foremost consideration for every bill introduced in the House, be it to protect victims or anything else.

We also have to make sure that we are doing everything in our power to support victims of crime. I have no doubt that all parties in the House consider that a priority.

We all have a duty to provide victims with the services they need and to ensure that we give them the best support possible during their hardship. We must also continue to provide that support well into the future, so that they can truly reintegrate into society and move beyond the tragic events they experienced. It is difficult to do, but as parliamentarians, it is our responsibility to put those measures forward. We know that victims are the hardest hit by crime, and we have a duty to help them.

There are already various victim compensation programs in place, and they are essential. However, when faced with a bill such as Bill C-54, we must ask ourselves whether or not the measures it contains will really be enough to protect victims of crime from potentially being revictimized.

We must also ask ourselves whether the bill will truly offer more support to victims of crime. I hope that the committee will at least be able to take a closer look at those elements, which are priorities for the NDP, and shed some light on them.

There are other elements that should also direct the committee's work, and I hope that they will be reflected in the work that will begin after the mere five hours of debate allocated for second reading in the House.

Some mental health experts are already concerned about the potentially harmful effects this bill may have on Canadians with mental health issues who do not break the law. These people obey our country's laws, but they still need additional support from the different levels of government.

Based on what I have heard in the various speeches about Bill C-54, it seems as though the government believes that there are quite a few individuals who would have been found not criminally responsible for crimes, and that these individuals are hiding on every street corner. However, such is not the case. We need to keep these statistics in perspective.

For example, in Ontario, the most populated province in the country, only 0.0001% of people accused of a Criminal Code offence were found to be not criminally responsible. That is a very low number. That does not mean that we do not still have work to do to provide better protection for victims in the future and to prevent more people from becoming victims of crime. However, when we adopt such measures, we must also consider what kind of effect they could have on other Canadians living with mental health issues.

Before I became an MP, I earned a bachelor's degree in psychology from Laval University. During my studies I learned about the stigma experienced by people living with mental illness. These issues are still poorly understood by the vast majority of Canadians.

For example, according to a fairly widespread stereotype, people living with schizophrenia are considered to be violent. That is often not at all the case. These people certainly have some problems, but it is rare for them to commit violent crimes.

There are already a number of community services available. A number of organizations are doing excellent work. Take, for example, Arc-en-ciel, which serves the people of Portneuf, in my riding. This organization is trying to challenge mental health stereotypes.

These are issues I would like to see studied in committee, which is why I support Bill C-54 at second reading. I look forward to seeing what the committee comes up with, so we can ensure that the Criminal Code is properly equipped to deal with people who are declared not criminally responsible.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for a very thoughtful speech on a very difficult subject.

When we are dealing with issues of justice in this country, dealing with crimes that involve some of the most serious emotions and serious impacts on people that we can imagine, it behooves us as parliamentarians to move very prudently and cautiously, because what we need is an incredible balance. We need a sensitive balance that recognizes the unbelievable pain victims experience when they suffer from a crime committed against them or their loved ones. We must also balance and temper that with a sense of justice for the person who has committed that crime, because the point of our criminal justice system is, at the very end, to do justice.

I ask my hon. colleague if there are any facts or statistics that were used by the government in crafting this law, or does she feel that, like so many other Conservative laws before it, this is a law that is more about politics and wedging than it is about coming to thoughtful, effective criminal law?

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question.

It is difficult to deal with such a serious and complex subject when confronted with political games. Unfortunately, that happens far too often in the House.

Unless I am mistaken, the time allocation motion that was debated a little earlier today was the 33rd one that has been imposed. Another time allocation motion was moved this afternoon, which makes this the 34th time the government has decided to close down debate.

My colleague from Gatineau pointed out to the Minister of Justice that the statistics he used to justify the bill before us were not the right ones.

Too often, we see the government making decisions that are perhaps based on the media and on what we see in the newspapers; reactions may be very strong and people may be on edge following incidents that are very difficult for communities and families to deal with.

I hope the committee will be able to fill in the gaps that we unfortunately see far too often when this government drafts bills.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of political games, my question to my colleague is about political games when it comes to victims.

As we all know, there is a bit of a scandal happening around expenses in the Senate. I heard one of our Conservative colleagues on the radio saying that this is not what Canadians really care about, but Canadians really care about keeping our streets safe and keeping pedophiles off the street.

Really? We are talking about Senate expenses, and our Conservative colleague is talking about keeping pedophiles off the street. This is not what people are actually talking about to me day to day in my riding. They are talking to me about things that are happening in their real lives.

In that vein, it is like creating a fear, creating a sense that all these bogeymen are out there to get us, and then creating public policy based on a couple of instances of tragedy, which need to be addressed but do not necessarily create the best basis for public policy for all.

I wonder where the attention to victims is. Why do we not actually have funding for victims organizations, have funding for victims to be able to get on with their lives? That would be true attention to victims, as far as I am concerned. I wonder if she agrees.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question. She has basically summarized my point of view on this.

Some provisions allow victims to be more involved in the release process for persons who are found not criminally responsible. However, this does not provide them with direct assistance in surviving and overcoming the terrible experiences they have had.

I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for a short while. From our discussions and from meeting with witnesses, we have seen how important it is to focus on prevention in order to protect against having new victims. It is one aspect of the job that the government often forgets about, so it takes advantage of very hot issues that have shocked people. However, it is not putting much more thought into it. Yet, this is the type of work that we need in the House, not just the knee-jerk reactions that we see too often from the government.