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.

Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. It is a very important question, because it touches on the substance of the issue.

Any decision or piece of legislation needs to be based on facts and science. We are wondering whether a consultation with stakeholders has been held.

For instance, have Canadian associations of psychiatrists and psychologists been consulted? These are crime experts. Have professors, scientists, criminologists and lawyers been consulted? The list is—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I must interrupt the hon. member because it is 11 a.m. and we must proceed with statements by members.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say first that I will be splitting my time in debate.

I will speak to Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder). I would say from the outset that we support investigating this topic and we will vote for this proposal to move the bill to committee for study.

Before moving along further, I would like to thank the MP for Gatineau for her work on this file, and on many other files. I know the public safety and justice committees are some of the busiest here in the House of Commons, and she does great work, along with my benchmate, on these topics.

From a broad perspective, this is a very difficult issue for victims, families and communities in general. It is probably one of the most difficult issues any community must face: what to do when a member of that community is accused of perpetrating a heinous act, but is found by professional evaluation not to be of right mind. What to do with these individuals is really what we are trying to come to grips with here.

The sad truth is that I do not think there is any way that we will ever make a perfect decision. What we really have to do is try to figure out how to manage this in the best way possible and ensure that we do not make things worse than they already are.

Of course, we have to think of the victims first. We have to think of public safety. We also have to think of the broader communities in these senses and ask what is the best thing we can do to ensure that the community itself comes out as well as it can when we are dealing with these types of sad issues.

There is one bright spot, if we can call it a bright spot on this awful topic, and it is that through our health and social scientists, our criminologists and psychologists and psychiatrists, we probably know more about this issue than we have ever known in the past. My mind drifts back to the asylums of the 19th century, when people who were of healthy mind and body were incarcerated along with those who were criminally insane. We have gone well past that, knowing more about the causes of these mental shortcomings in the perpetrators of these acts, and also what to do to help victims recover. Through the good research of our professionals in this area, we are probably better equipped to deal with this problem than we ever have been in the past. This wealth of information should be used to help us make the best possible decisions in this area.

We are supporting moving this bill to committee because we need to have a reasoned and rational discussion. We need to bring in many experts and try to stay away from some of the partisan witnesses that sometimes parties are guilty of bringing to the committees. We should probably resist that and try to bring in the best experts we can in this area in order to have a reasoned discussion about what we should do in these cases and to evaluate the proposals being made in this particular bill. Therefore, I urge the government to listen to a wide range of experts when this inevitably comes to committee and to take the time to get it right.

In addition to the psychologists, psychiatrists and criminologists, we should also take time to hear other witnesses. Often the people who are affected by these awful crimes are also from marginalized communities, so we should hear from these community leaders, including first nations. My mind is always drawn to the awful events of British Columbia, whether it is Clifford Robert Olson or perhaps Willie Pickton. Many members of the community were affected by these awful crimes perpetrated by people who were found to be mentally deficient, and mental deficiency was the reason these people were perpetrating or involved in these crimes. We should ensure we talk to the people in the communities who were most affected, because they are the ones who now have the experience of working through how to heal from these awful events.

When we go to committee, we also have to be mindful that our actions are bound by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms establishes clear boundaries within which our laws must fall, so we should take care that we do not put new laws into place that would clearly violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In addition to the criminologists, psychologists, psychiatrists and community members who come to committee, we should also make ensure there is the due diligence to make sure the laws we are bringing in do not violate any aspects of the charter. From the NDP perspective, public safety must come first on this issue, and we need to help the victims as much as possible. However, we have to make sure we are abiding by our primary law.

The issue at hand is to consider what to do when an accused is discharged. Increasing notification to victims and their families would seems like a reasonable thing to consider. If review boards would be able to issue non-communication orders with victims, keeping as much distance between the accused or somebody considered not criminally responsible and thus giving victims as much time as possible to recover, that is worth consideration. Even if there is no contact between the individuals, the peace of mind this might bring to victims is in itself well worth considering.

The bill would also create a new category of high-risk accused, and the review boards would have the option of tripling the length of time between reviews, from 12 months to 36 months. It is moving away from mandatory decisions imposed on judges and allowing the legal system to consider these cases in great detail.

I was reading some statistics by Mr. Chris Summerville, the alliance facilitator and chief executive officer of the Schizophrenia Society of Canada, who stated, “In Canada's most populated province, Ontario, only .001% of individuals charged with Criminal Code violations were adjudicated [not criminally responsible for their actions]”. This law will affect a very small number of people, so we have to make sure we are also taking that into consideration.

We should also take care that when we are considering these and other types of similar bills that we do not try to hype up this issue at all. As is well documented in Canada, crime rates have fallen dramatically. Both violent crimes and crimes against property have fallen over the past couple of decades. While it is important to get these laws right, we do not want this type of debate making the public think that crime is somehow spiralling out of control.

With regard to victims who are affected by current crimes, we really have to do as much as we can to help them through these things. However, as public opinion will show, Canadians are more concerned about the economy, for example, than spiralling crime rates. While it is good to get these things right through reasoned debate, it should not be used as an excuse to try to scare the public into thinking that crime is at a higher rate than it has been in previous decades, because it is not.

When this goes to committee, New Democrats want to discuss the idea that public safety must come first, but any laws that are changed must comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We are open to change to ensure the way in which cases involving mentally disordered accused persons are handled is effective in terms of treatment. I note in the bill that this in no way should affect treatment. However, we have to make sure there is treatment in order to ensure the entire community is considered when we put these kinds of motions forward.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in theory, this legislation should help us support victims. The real question is whether or not resources will be made available.

That is a particularly important element. The bill has to be more than just words. We want this bill, which contains positive elements, to be a useful tool and not just empty words.

Could the member provide some information and assurances on that?

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I thank my colleague for it and the other excellent questions he has asked in the House.

I think a full costing of the bill would be a perfect thing to consider on committee . However, it should not just say how much it would cost in total but who would bear the cost. There is some thought that the provincial governments would bear some of the cost of these changes. They should also be consulted and perhaps brought in to committee to discuss whether they are willing to go forward with this.

Again, in principle this is a good bill, but we need to get these details right.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important for us to recognize that many pieces of legislation we do pass in the House of Commons have cost ramifications on different levels of government. With this particular bill, we are dealing with two issues. One is on our institutions and the other on mental illness, both of which would have substantial costs for the provinces and their treasury boards.

There is the expectation that prior to bringing in legislation the government would have done some form of consultation with the stakeholders to get a better sense of those cost ramifications. My colleague from Mount Royal, in speaking earlier on this bill and bills of a similar nature, raised the fact that we need to get more information from the government on the preparatory work that is done in order to evaluate and make good decisions. Another colleague earlier made reference to the important issue of having the facts on the table.

Could the member provide comment in terms of how important it is that government, when it brings forward legislation, brings the statistics and facts so that politicians can make good decisions?

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, again, this is why we are supporting this bill going through at second reading.

It would be good if the government were more straightforward with costs, and we are finding deficiencies all over the place in that respect. In fact, I was on committee the other day asking about science budgets. I am finding that the information the government is providing does not actually reflect what is happening on that file.

It is a constant disappointment for us that we do not get costing upfront. Hopefully in this committee study the government will see fit to do this, or perhaps we could ask the Parliamentary Budget Officer to help out.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his speech. He raised some very interesting points.

Have the people in his riding spoken to him about this bill? What do they think? Do they think we should be supporting it?

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, crime in my riding, as in any community, is something that is talked about. I have had very good meetings with the RCMP in my riding—although I am not sure I am allowed to anymore—and we have talked about how to strengthen the community. However, what we are talking about here is an extraordinary circumstance. It is a very small segment of the population that this bill would impact.

We do talk about these horrific cases, but we have not had one in our community. The missing women inquiry did look at Burnaby to some extent because we had some traffic going from Vancouver to Coquitlam through my riding. However, luckily we have not had an issue other than that one to talk about.

Generally, we talk about it, and I am sure my community will support looking at this in a reasoned way.

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act. This bill is about people found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. Specifically, this bill would change the mental disorder regime relating to accused individuals found unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible.

As such, the bill 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. It creates 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.

This bill contains provisions to change how cases involving individuals who are not criminally responsible are dealt with.

Review boards have to consider public safety above all. Requirements to notify victims and their families when a not criminally responsible accused is discharged will be enhanced. Review boards will have the power to issue non-communications orders with victims. This bill enables the courts to designate an accused as high risk.

Review boards will have the option, not the obligation, to triple the length of time between reviews from 12 to 36 months. The bill will limit the number of community visits for high-risk accused and detail the release conditions.

Basically, there are three amendments: putting public safety first, creating a high-risk not criminally responsible accused designation, and enhancing victims' involvement.

With respect to putting public safety first, the legislative amendments in this bill would make public safety the paramount consideration in the courts and during the review boards' decision-making process relating to accused persons found to be not criminally responsible or unfit to stand trial.

This bill would amend the Criminal Code in order to create a scheme for finding that certain people who have been found not criminally responsible are high-risk accused. Under the scheme, the accused would be deemed to be high risk if he was found not criminally responsible of serious bodily harm and there is a strong possibility that he would commit other acts of violence that would endanger the public, or if the acts he committed were of such a brutal nature as to indicate a risk of grave harm to the public.

Those who would fall into this category would therefore be unable to get a conditional or absolute discharge, would not be authorized visit the community without an escort and would be extremely limited in their escorted absences. However, these people would have the right to treatment.

This would therefore be a way of explaining how an accused can have restrictions imposed on him when he poses a criminal threat to public safety even though it is not necessarily a violent threat.

The third component of the amendments in this bill deals with enhancing the involvement of victims. This part seeks to enhance the security of victims by offering them more opportunities to participate in the mental disorder regime in the Criminal Code. The victims would thereby have the possibility of being informed when the accused is discharged. The bill also provides for non-communication orders between the accused and the victim. Finally, the safety of victims would be taken into consideration in cases where decisions are to be made about the accused.

Although the provisions of the proposed bill would help to ensure that the law is interpreted and applied more consistently across the country, there is cause for concern about the impact this bill will have across the country. The provinces must not be forced to foot the bill for this policy.

As we saw in the main provisions of this bill, it is important to note that the bill addresses an issue that is very difficult for victims, families and communities.

We must ensure that protecting public safety is a priority while abiding by the rule of law and respecting the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

What matters most is knowing how we can help victims in this process. They are an integral part of all the questions raised by the bill and the changes included in it.

We will therefore support the bill so that we can examine it more thoroughly in committee. In order to shed some light on the bill, we will need to hear from mental health experts, some victims, as well as the provinces, in order to determine which approach would be best. This is not a question of playing political games, but rather properly studying the merits of the policy.

Considering the extensive media coverage that certain crimes receive, we must try to avoid fueling the public's fears and increasing the negative stigma attached to mental illness. This would be completely counterproductive because it would undermine the reintegration of these individuals and, at the same time, do absolutely nothing to enhance public safety. It would only make the situation worse.

As I said earlier, we must make public safety our top priority, while respecting the rule of law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That being said, in the context of this bill, it is critically important that we make sure that the cases of defendants with mental disorders are managed effectively and that their mental disorders are treated. This bill should be based on consultation and co-operation with mental health experts. Our justice system and our mental health system need to operate effectively. In that regard, we will have to rely a great deal on the advice of mental health experts, some of whom have already expressed their reservations about this bill.

Furthermore, the question of cost also needs to be considered. In Canada, the full cost that flows directly from criminal acts is already too much for the provinces to bear. We must not increase their financial burden without ensuring that they have the necessary resources, which is clearly not the case.

According to Chris Summerville, the chief executive officer of the Schizophrenia Society of Canada, in Ontario, only 0.001% of those charged with Criminal Code offences were deemed to be not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. Furthermore, between 2.5% and 7.5% of them reoffend, compared to 41% to 44% of federal offenders. It is obvious that, contrary to what the Conservatives would have Canadians believe, the seriousness of a crime is not a gauge of the likelihood that these people will reoffend, or even their ability to improve their mental health and live a normal, healthy life.

The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, which would handle such cases in Ontario, currently has an occupancy rate of roughly 104%, which leads us back to the issue of the burden and the cost to the provinces. We must ensure that the provinces have proper funding because they will be managing these cases. The federal government is responsible for properly funding this policy.

To summarize, we agree with the spirit of this bill, but we do not want the government to try to use this issue to score political points. On the contrary, this bill needs to be studied carefully because of what is at stake.

Understandably, this is a very difficult issue for victims, families and the community. Naturally, public safety comes first. We also have to comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. No matter what we have to say about mental health, we must be careful that we do not exacerbate or heighten the stigma of mental illness.

We know that we could meet with mental health experts, but we should also consult victims living in the provinces.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my distinguished colleague gave a wonderful speech, particularly in terms of advocating for victims. Unfortunately, all too often we forget those people who suffer tremendously.

We also forget that mental illness is a burden for those living with it. Mental illnesses are not something people want.

Could my distinguished colleague perhaps explain how this bill—with some amendments—will ensure that people who suffer from those illnesses receive real support in order to prevent irrational actions?

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

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

We must bear in mind a number of things. Mental illnesses are not only difficult for those suffering from them, but also for their families and friends.

It would probably be a good idea to consult with experts who can provide us with their insight. Perhaps we could even consult with the victims, as I said earlier.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, the more we dig into it, the more we find things about the bill that are not that easy to deal with.

Right now most people who are found not criminally responsible are not subject to a trial as a result of agreements that are made between the courts and the lawyers. With defendants now facing three years in confinement before being eligible for a hearing, they may just simply decide to go to trial and be put in jail if found guilty as there is a likelihood of that happening.

The recidivism rate for people with mental disorders who commit crimes who go to jail is some exponential figure that is higher than those who are treated outside of jail.

How do you think this will play out in the long term? Will this work in our favour with respect to costs and the ability to protect society with such a high rate of recidivism among those who actually go to jail?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before I go to the member for Montcalm, I would just remind all hon. members to direct their comments and questions to the Chair rather than to their colleagues.

The hon. member for Montcalm.