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

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for my colleague.

Why is it that, most of the time, the Conservatives' bills are punitive rather than preventive? If we really want to focus on victims, why do bills such as this one not come with financial support for victims, for example?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, victims are not looking for financial help. They are not necessarily looking for increased punishment. What they are looking for is that their rights are respected, that they are put first and foremost in these decisions and that the memories of their loved ones are not insulted, like we just saw in Manitoba.

We want to ensure that we find a balance. We also have to look at the overall aspect, so we are putting, as a paramount decision, through the review board process, the victims' rights and public safety first and foremost.

If we talk to those who are impacted, some have had to go on long-term disability because of their own mental health after they lose a loved one. Our government has introduced a number of reforms to EI to help with that fact.

More important, they are not looking for those types of supports as much as they are looking to ensure public safety is put first and that their loved ones' memories are honoured.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, first, I really appreciate my colleague's presentation. However, I was kind of shocked when I heard the member for Halifax ask a question earlier. Her question was about why this was needed.

In the member's presentation, he talked about Mr. Denny, who is from the home riding of the member for Halifax. He is a perfect example of exactly why this legislation is needed. How can that member stand and ask why this is needed when a constituent of hers killed again and the victim would have been protected, probably, by a law like this?

I would like to ask the member why there is a disconnect, if he wants to take a guess, in the reasoning of this issue by the member for Halifax.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone who was a friend of Raymond Taavel—

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I was.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

I understand that. I am just saying that we cannot return that life. If this had been in place, it is very unlikely that Andre Denny could have done that heinous crime, that horrific second degree murder of Mr. Taavel. He was doing a lot of good in the gay community in Halifax. His family and his friends were devastated. I think we all saw the media coverage of that.

It always concerns us when somebody who is dealing with a mental health issue becomes this violent. However, for those individuals, like Mr. Denny, we have to take the measures possible to confine them and protect the public so these types of crimes do not happen.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I hear the dialogue tonight and I hear Conservative members defending the memory of Raymond Taavel from Halifax. I know the member for Halifax has raised this issue in good faith in the House.

First, we cannot bring someone back. Second, in this debate the Conservatives continue to demonize and stigmatize people with mental health issues, not to protect the public but to pit one group of Canadians against another.

Where is the member's passion to defend the rights of gay and lesbian Canadians? Where was it during the debate on same sex marriage?

While I thank the member for his interest in these issues tonight, I would ask him to actually consider his long-term perspective and his party's long-term perspective on these issues and not to use the memory of Raymond Taavel to try to take and defend a position that Raymond Taavel would find—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We are out of time. The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake, a short response.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not find our debate here at all divisive. This is a commentary about wanting to improve the system. I appreciate the work that Raymond Taavel did on behalf of the gay community.

If the hon. member wants to talk about divisive comments, what about the leader of the Liberal Party earlier this week talking about the rights of one region of Canada versus the other? Let us pit east against west. This is what we are hearing coming from the Liberal end of this House.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to Bill C-54. The bill amends the mental disorder regime in the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act to specify that public safety comes first in the decision-making process. The bill creates a mechanism for ensuring that certain persons who have been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder can be designated as high-risk accused. It also promotes the greater involvement of victims in the regime.

I will come back to the reasons why we must discuss the bill today. Recently, a number of very high-profile cases involving very serious offences, where the accused was declared not criminally responsible, have brought the issue to the forefront. In Quebec, there was the case of Guy Turcotte, a man who killed his two young children. This story shocked people, not just because of the violence of the act, but also because of the verdict. Even though this man obviously committed the act, he was declared not criminally responsible.

First and foremost, we want to determine how we can better help the victims in such situations. As with a number of other cases, the Turcotte case planted doubt in the minds of many people as to the effectiveness of the current approach to criminal responsibility. It is especially important to restore public confidence in the administration of justice.

According to his psychiatrist, the anger of a certain segment of the population with respect to this situation is due to a lack of understanding of how the mental disorder review board works. I would therefore like to make a few comments about the nature of the current process. First, we must reassure viewers by pointing out that the mental disorder regime in the Criminal Code applies only to a very small percentage of accused persons. It is not as if it applies to every accused person.

If an accused cannot understand the nature or the consequences of the trial and cannot communicate with his lawyer on account of a mental disorder, the court can find the person unfit to stand trial. Obviously, if that person can stand trial later, the case will be heard by a court at that time.

There is another possibility, but that would apply during the trial. If a person is found to have committed the act that constitutes an offence, but lacked the capacity to appreciate the seriousness of what they did, the court can make a special verdict of not criminally responsible. Note that they are neither convicted, nor acquitted.

A person found either unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible for reasons of mental disorder is referred to a provincial or territorial review board, which reviews the person's situation and can make one of three possible decisions: if the person does not pose a significant threat to public safety, an absolute discharge; a conditional discharge; or, detention in custody in a hospital.

Bill C-54 would amend the Criminal Code to clarify certain provisions in the mental disorder regime and make public safety the paramount consideration in the court and the provincial review board decision-making process. The bill would amend the Criminal Code to create a process for the designation of not criminally responsible accused persons as high-risk where the person was accused of a serious personal injury offence and there is a substantial likelihood for further violence that would endanger the public. Those persons would not be granted a conditional or absolute discharge, which means they would be detained in custody in a hospital. The designation could only be revoked by the court following a recommendation of the review board.

A high-risk not criminally responsible accused person would not be allowed to go into the community unescorted, and escorted passes would only be allowed in narrow circumstances and subject to sufficient conditions to protect public safety. The review board may decide to extend the review period to up to three years for those designated high-risk, instead of annually.

The bill is also designed to enhance the safety of victims by allowing them to be more involved in the process. It is designed to ensure that victims are notified, upon request, when the accused is discharged. It also allows non-communication orders between the accused and the victim and ensures that the safety of victims is considered when decisions are made about an accused person.

The NDP agrees that public safety needs to be protected, as long as the rule of law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are upheld. We believe that these changes are desirable, but we need to ensure that they will allow us to deal effectively with accused individuals who are mentally ill.

According to an estimate from the justice department, Criminal Code offences in Canada cost more than $31 billion. Of that, nearly half is directly absorbed by the victims. We are talking about more than $14 billion a year. That is huge. That is the cost of medical care, hospitalization, lost wages, school absences and stolen or damaged property.

In addition to the direct victims, people close to the victims also suffer harm. It is estimated that the various costs reach $2.1 billion for third parties. Those costs are even higher if we take into consideration intangible costs such as lost productivity over a lifetime, mental health costs, psychological effects on other family members and so on. We are talking about nearly $70 billion.

Each year, crime costs Canadian taxpayers' approximately $100 billion, although we need to remember that those are just estimates. However, they give us an idea of the impact that crime can have on society as a whole.

I would like to talk more about Guy Turcotte because his is probably the best-known and highest-profile case, at least in Quebec. As I was saying, Mr. Turcotte was found not criminally responsible by the court that tried his case. The review board decided that he could leave the psychiatric facility under certain conditions. The team of psychiatrists working on his case agreed. He is no longer sick or a danger to society.

His former partner, Isabelle Gaston, is still fighting to change the system. I would like to share her words with the House, as someone else did earlier.

Even if I devote my time to changing the justice system, if ministers, deputy ministers, the Barreau and the Collège des médecins do not change their ways, then injustices like this one will continue.

The NDP supports the aim and the spirit of this bill. That is why we will vote at second reading to study it further in committee. Still, some things need to be clarified. Even though we agree for the time being, we are concerned that the proposed changes might be mere window dressing.

Allow me to explain. The most significant change contemplated in Bill C-54 is that review boards will have to make public safety the paramount consideration in their decision-making process. The fact is, they already consider public safety, so I do not see what real difference this bill will make.

There are other legitimate questions we should be asking. Were mental health experts and other stakeholders in the system consulted, or did the government work with them to ensure that this new approach is the best one? Will the government set aside additional funding for the provinces and territories to cover the cost of the review boards' new responsibilities? I do not believe so. Will additional measures be implemented to support victims? We have not heard anything about that either.

Nevertheless, the NDP and I are open to the proposed changes. We will support this bill at second reading so that the committee can study it further.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to get up this evening on behalf of a mom who lives in a small town not very far from where I live. Her family was victimized. Her son was murdered brutally. Two young fellows murdered her son, Rob Vicente. He was shot twice in the head. Then he was taken, rolled out of a vehicle and shot in the head again. Then he was buried in the yard of the home of one of the murderers' grandmother.

The mom does not sleep. The family is having a very difficult time with the murderers getting off on second-degree murder. Living in a small community, they are very worried that these young people will come back.

How do we tell that mom that her story is not as important, that all the things that happened to her are not quite what we want to hear? These young people showed no remorse and the mom has to live with losing her son. What do we tell the mom that would assure her that these young men will never ever get out of jail?

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning of my speech, there are some truly horrible cases like that, and this has caused the public to lose confidence in the justice system. That is one of the reasons why we want to support this bill, even though we think there are already safeguards in place against this type of crime.

Moreover, mothers like this one are victims and should receive assistance. Earlier I asked the Conservatives, twice, whether help would be provided to victims. Well, there is no such help.

If the government really wants to help this mother—and my heart goes out to her—something more than this type of bill is needed. This bill already covers most of the points made by my colleague.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question addresses just this point.

Given that the federal government's health transfers to the provinces have started free-falling, is the hon. member concerned that the provinces will not be able to meet victims' needs?

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously reduced funding will make it increasingly difficult to meet victims' needs.

A number of Conservatives said they consulted with the provinces. When I asked specifically what kind of consultations these were, I did not get an answer. I would really like to know—and I still have no answer on this—whether the government consulted with the provinces on the financial aspects of this issue.

Did the provinces, if they were indeed consulted, realize they had to bear all the financial burden, and if so, did they agree to this?

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the answer to my last question, but that was my point. It was not the resources; they did get help. She went to Edmonton and joined self-help groups, but what she wanted was to see first-degree murder apply to these young people. She wants to make sure they never get out. They are going to get out in 15 years. They will have a parole review.

She does not want to have them out and released. All the self-help groups in the world are not helping her get through this. What would help her get through it is to know that those two murderers will never get out again.

What do I tell her?