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

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

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

As I said earlier, in cases dealing with mental health issues, the recidivism rate is still very low. We must be careful not to jump to conclusions. Our actions must not create even more prejudices against those people. There is always room for a little respect in life. Those people are already suffering a great deal.

I would like to see an approach that would make it possible to invite and consult with experts and victims to ensure that no mistakes are made in rulings.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague who works very hard in her riding. I congratulate her. Her speech was very enlightening.

I would like to focus on the burden this will place on the provinces. If we are talking about making the process more complicated, the provinces are the ones that will end up footing a large part of the bill.

How can the provinces participate? We will support this bill for the time being so that it can go to committee, so that it can be debated and so that we can hear from witnesses.

Would the provinces be able to testify in committee so we can hear what they think about their potential new responsibilities?

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

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

If we want to put this burden on the provinces, we will have to first find out whether the provinces have the financial means to support it. The best way to do so would be to meet with each province and with the experts who can answer that question.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have wanted to speak to the bill for a little while now. It is really important to me and the folks at home in Halifax because of an incident that happened not too long ago in my community.

Last April, Halifax was shaken to its core with the news of a death in our community. I was at home listening to the radio that morning and heard that a man had been murdered on Gottingen Street in the early morning hours, just steps away from my community office.

I went to work that morning and saw the police tape, and do not know exactly I hoped for. What do we hope? Do we hope it is not someone we know? Does that make it better somehow? Do we hope there is not more bad news? I do not know what I was hoping for, but I was certainly hopeful that morning. Then I received a phone call from my friend Scott with the worst possible news, that the victim was our friend Raymond Taavel.

Raymond had left a bar across the street in the early morning hours and right across the street was a fight between two men. Raymond tried to intervene in that fight and one of the men beat Raymond to death.

Raymond Taavel was a community activist and he was an advocate. He worked on a range of issues to make our community better and stronger. He was very active in Fair Vote Canada. He really believed in democracy, but he also believed that our parliamentary democracy could be improved. He was very passionate about things like proportional representation, for example. He made sure people voted.

He grew up in Sault Ste. Marie and even in high school, he was a member of the model parliament. He was so passionate about our democracy. He was a queer rights activist. He wrote for Wayves, which is I think how I met Raymond. He would do a lot of articles for Wayves, which is our Nova Scotia queer issues magazine. He would cover all kinds of different things in that magazine and showed what was happening in our community related to the broader issues in the Rainbow community and vice versa, quite frankly.

He worked with Shambhala Sun magazine, a Buddhist magazine that is created in Halifax. He was at everything. Some people lead by being at the podium and having a megaphone in their hand. Other people lead by being there, by helping to pass out the flyers, by pointing to our friends and community members and telling them that they should go to a certain event, that it was important and that they needed to be there. He was incredibly special.

Raymond was a big pain in my backside, a lot. He wrote me emails. Even though he was a big fan of mine and supported me in the election, he wrote me emails when I did things he did not agree with and he took me to task on all kinds of stuff. He would tell me there was an action happening, or a rally or gathering that was important and that I should be there. He was there for us in our community.

Raymond intervened in a fight and he was murdered. The news came out and we did not know what had gone on, but then we found out that a man named Andre Noel Denny had been charged.

Andre Noel Denny is a very troubled man who has had a troubling past. He had been charged with many crimes such as aggravated sexual assault, property destruction and charges having to do with cruelty to animals and was found not criminally responsible.

The judge, at the time, ruled that the best thing for Mr. Denny was to have treatment at the East Coast Forensic Hospital, in Dartmouth. He went there and, eventually, was fit to stand trial, but then was found not criminally responsible for all those charges against him.

During his time at the East Coast Forensic Hospital, on April 16, he was given a leave, a pass, I think it was a two-hour pass, to leave the hospital. He did leave the hospital, was out in our community and did not come back that evening. That is the night that Raymond was murdered.

This issue is so real in our community right now. On the evening after Raymond's murder, our whole community came out to Gottingen Street. There was a beautiful rally, with everybody there, and beautiful speeches. I am so proud of my community because nobody came forward with their pitchforks. No one came forward with a rallying cry of “We've gotta get this guy” or “We've gotta hang him high”. My community came forward in a peaceful way, in a loving way, in a sad but thoughtful way, in a really thoughtful way. I do not know if I can describe how important that has been to us as a community to heal and to take this issue on. People are taking this issue on in an incredibly thoughtful way.

It is interesting. Some of the media actually got out of the gates. It was quite sensational. The community clamped down and said, “No. That's not acceptable. This isn't sensational. This is a tragedy.” It is extremely complicated because while we lost our friend Raymond that night, while Halifax lost an incredible community activist, Andre Noel Denny is a real person; he is a real person who is troubled. He has multiple mental illness diagnoses. He comes from a community that, let us be frank, failed him. My community of Halifax felt compassion. Maybe we felt compassion because of Raymond Taavel. Maybe we felt that compassion because that actually is what Raymond would have said about his murderer. Maybe we shone and were the best that we could be and the most compassionate that we could be because it was Raymond and because we knew how he would have reacted, even to his own murderer.

There has been a tremendous community response. It has been positive and, like I said, very thoughtful. It has really brought us together in a way that I could never have imagined such a tragedy could have brought us together.

As a result, anything to do with changing legislation around the issue of being not criminally responsible hits home for us in Halifax.

I have read the bill with great interest, with a keen eye to what it means for us, to what it could have meant for Raymond, what it might continue to mean for Mr. Denny. I think it is important to go through what the bill would actually do. I know folks at home will want to know what this means. I was contacted by Raymond's partner very recently who said, “Hey, what do you think, Megan? What does this bill do?”

Let us start there.

The bill would look at changing the way that cases that involve not criminally responsible accused are examined. This is a small number of people, which is important to note. I am very wary of making policy because of one or two cases. However, we do need to review these cases when they occur.

It says that review boards would have to consider public safety first and foremost and that when the accused is discharged there would be an increase in this obligation to notify victims and their families. It would also allow review boards to have the power to issue non-communications orders with victims. It interestingly creates a new category called “high-risk accused” that can be designated by the court. I think we need to explore that new category.

I am going to support the bill at second reading. I want to hear from people at committee. I do want to explore this entire bill, but in particular this new category of high-risk accused. I am not sure it will do what we need it to do, but it is a conversation worth having.

If people are designated high-risk accused, review boards would have the option, and I think it is important to say they would not have the obligation, but the option, to triple the length of time between reviews from 12 months to 36 months. It would limit the number of community visits for high-risk accused and detail the release conditions.

Section 672.54 of the Criminal Code says that courts or review boards have to take into consideration “the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, the mental condition of the accused, the reintegration of the accused into society and the other needs of the accused”.

The bill comes to us because of a number of high-profile incidents that serve as the basis for the bill. These kinds of incidents, whether it is Raymond Taavel's situation or other situations, are highlighted by intense media coverage and it makes it easy to stoke public opinion and get people inflamed about issues. It makes it easy to think that this is widespread, that everywhere we go, around each corner, there is going to be another not criminally responsible threat waiting and lurking, but the reality is that very few people who are charged with the Criminal Code violations are deemed not criminally responsible.

For example, in Ontario, the rate is only .001%. Reoffending rates for not criminally responsible individuals range from 2.5% to 7.5%. These numbers are far lower than those of federal offenders in the regular justice system at the rate of 41% to 44%, so that needs to be taken into consideration. That is the context that we actually have to examine the provisions of Bill C-54. We have to examine closely whether it is necessary to introduce this law and make these changes or if it would even be effective in increasing public safety.

As I said, I am going to support the bill. I am open to change, but we have to ensure that the way in which we handle cases involving mentally disordered accused persons is effective in terms of the treatment of mental disorders. If we do not look carefully at the implications of the bill, these changes could unnecessarily heighten the public's fears, they could increase the stigma around mental illness and ultimately undermine the reintegration of not criminally responsible individuals without actually increasing public safety, which is the policy goal here.

With high-risk accused it is very important for this category to be very clearly defined. Also, obviously, it needs to ensure the implementation of that category would comply with both the rule of law and with the charter. The first proposed amendment to the mental disorder regime concerns public safety. It would explicitly make public safety the paramount consideration in the court and the review board decision-making process relating to accused persons found to be not criminally responsible or unfit to stand trial.

I was talking about section 672.54 of the Criminal Code and it states that, “the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, the mental condition of the accused, the reintegration of the accused into society and the other needs of the accused” are all considerations that the review board has to look at.

If that is the backdrop then what would be the difference between this legislation and the current regime? Do the courts and review boards not already take public safety considerations into their decisions? Does the Criminal Code not already adequately address the scope of issues concerning not criminally responsible people within our justice system?

This is a difficult issue for victims, families and communities. I am probably living proof of that. We want to know how we can help victims through this process. Would this legislation actually have the desired impact of supporting victims, of protecting victims from re-victimization?

This legislation could enhance the safety of victims and provide them with opportunities for greater involvement in the Criminal Code mental disorder regime by ensuring that they are notified when the accused is discharged, allowing those non-communication orders between the accused and the victim, and ensuring that the safety of victims is considered when decisions are being made about an accused person. We do have to examine those implications because, like I said, this could have positive impacts on those victims, but the key word is “could”.

There are a lot of incredible people doing amazing work on mental disability law. I think of Archie Kaiser at Dalhousie law school in particular who was one of my professors. At committee we could ask him what it means, what the implications would be, and whether there are implications we have not thought of. We have to look at those implications and the logistics. We have to look at the legality of changes. We also have to keep in mind that those who are found not criminally responsible are neither acquitted nor convicted.

I do want to talk a bit about the financial impact of crime borne by victims. The total estimated cost of $14.3 billion was incurred as a direct result of crime for such items as medical attention, hospitalization, lost wages, missed school days or stolen and damaged property. This does not include the intangible costs borne by victims, which is estimated to be tens of billions of dollars. Bill C-54 ought to also address the financial needs of victims, and that is something that we do not see play out in our communities.

We want to make sure that the bill is based on substantive evidence and not just impulsive cosmetic changes.

We want to talk to mental health experts, victims and the provinces to find out what they believe is the best approach. It would be wise to talk to the Province of Nova Scotia because it is doing its own review of what happened in the Raymond Taavel case to see where those gaps are, not just in legislation but also in supports.

Sometimes it is not just about the law; sometimes it is not just about the Criminal Code. Sometimes it is about what is happening in our forensic hospitals; sometimes it is about support for victims, financial support and other kinds of support.

The key thing is that none of us in any party should play political games with this file. We really do need to focus on the policy merits of the bill.

Our justice critic has done some really good work already speaking to different experts around this issue. I was going to read some of the quotes from conversations that she has already had, but perhaps there will be more time to get that information out at committee when we call some of those people to testify.

People in Halifax are sad. It has been a sad year. We just marked the one year anniversary of Raymond Taavel's death recently by hanging pride flags in our windows across the city. We are sad, but we know that we can come together and work together as a community to figure out what the solutions are for our community. If any community can do it, it is Halifax. I am looking forward to hearing at committee whether or not this piece of legislation would be a part of that.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech from my hon. friend and neighbour from the riding of Halifax. I particularly appreciated her comments about the late Raymond Taavel. It was a tragedy that was felt throughout Nova Scotia and beyond, and I am glad she spoke about that. I know she spoke about it in a very heartfelt way.

I also know that, as a lawyer, she would have dealt with issues of criminal intent. As we learn at law school, in order for someone to be found guilty of a crime, he or she must have what is called mens rea. That is a Latin phrase which means that the person has to have the frame of mind or the criminal intent to commit a crime. I suppose in every criminal case that issue is normally dealt with.

I wonder if the member has had any cases that dealt with criminal responsibility and what her experience was in that regard. What does she think the Government of Canada can do to improve our mental health system so there are supports that can deal more effectively with these issues? At the same time, how do we protect the public?

I share the concerns about this legislation, and I also see that we have to figure out what can happen in the mental health system, et cetera, to make sure the public is protected.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Halifax West for his question. He is a member of the Halifax community. He was there, and he knows how important this is to the folks at home.

I cannot answer his first question about my experience because I am not a lawyer. Everybody forgets that. I have a law degree and I worked as a community legal worker at Dalhousie Legal Aid, but I did not practise criminal law, so I cannot share any experiences of mens rea.

However, it certainly is a big topic in the study of law, whether or not a person actually knows what they are doing and has that awareness. That is the key thing when a person is found to be not criminally responsible. If a person did not know what they were doing, how could they take responsibility?

If we look at the criminal law, what is the purpose of it? It is to deter, to punish and to send the message to communities that this is what is acceptable and not acceptable. However, if we have someone whose mental health is in a state where they are barely even cognizant of being a member of that community, and they do not understand what is right and wrong, or even what they are doing, how do we address that? That is a mental health issue. I think we could certainly put more resources into that system.

Raymond Taavel did not have to die. That is a failure of our community, on lots of levels. I am not saying it was the failure of the East Coast Forensic Hospital, but it is a failure of our community and our mental health system overall.

Raymond's death could have been prevented if we could have had the political will to look the issue in the eye.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her very heartfelt presentation. It is very difficult, when it is close to home, to stand back and take an objective view of legislation. At the same time, it is really important that we consider the very emotional aspects of this. Many of us have probably been touched by similar situations.

Before speaking to the bill, I took the time to talk to some of the organizations and entities that might be concerned about the legislation. I spoke with Elizabeth Fry Society and I spoke with a psychiatric association. Everyone I spoke to, and all the briefs I have looked at, said the same thing, that they are deeply frustrated that they were not consulted before the legislation was brought to the House. They also said they were hoping they would be brought forward as witnesses.

I wonder if the member for Halifax could speak to what kind of process she thinks is appropriate for the review of this legislation and who she thinks should be brought in. I presume she would support the idea that the government should be open to amendments as a result of the testimony of experts, and victims and their families, who come forward.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. She raises a very good point about what we do here, how we consult, and what we expect.

First of all, I expect that Bill C-54 will take time. We need to spend time with it. We do not want to have closure. We do not want to have time allocation. We do not want to shut down debate on this. This is really complicated stuff. We should give this bill the respect it deserves by bringing in witnesses who may have different points of view. That is okay.

If we bring in victims organizations, organizations like the Elizabeth Fry Society, as my colleague mentioned, or the John Howard Society that works with offenders, or people who are mental health experts, they are probably not all going to agree.

However, with open discussion where we put aside those differences, I think we could come up something together. I do not think it has to be an either or, a partisan thing, or the Conservatives' “with us or against us” stand.

I think we should have a thoughtful adult discussion at committee about this. I hope we consult broadly. I know the NDP will be suggesting witnesses at committee. Hopefully we get to hear from all the witnesses we put forward.

This will take time. I think that most importantly we need to give this bill the respect it deserves at committee.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to first of all thank my colleague for her comments, and frankly for her amazing tribute to Raymond Taavel. I also want to thank her for the amazing tribute to her community of Halifax, the resilience of her community, the love for her community, the strength of her community, all of which we do not celebrate enough in this House when we talk about issues within our own riding boundaries.

I want her to know that the tragic death of Raymond Taavel was felt not just in Halifax, but indeed right across the country. I remember reading the story in the Hamilton Spectator. It touched a nerve. It left all of us feeling the loss, but also feeling the need to take concrete action.

I have to admit we were perhaps a little helpless in knowing exactly what needed to be done. I think there is an opportunity before us now to take that action. However, I think my colleague from Halifax is absolutely right; we cannot take that action in haste.

This is not an easy problem. It is a complex one. As my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona has pointed out, we do need to hear from organizations like the Elizabeth Fry Society, and we need to hear from the John Howard Society. I would suggest that we also need to hear from our provincial partners.All too often in this House we march on as if the federal government were the only government that mattered. Consultation with our provincial partners, and in some instances municipal partners, seems to have become a bad thing somehow.

I think we would move forward in a much more positive way if we were to work collaboratively with other orders of government, and if we work together, in this case, with health experts.

I wonder whether my colleague could comment on whether she thinks the Nova Scotia government in particular might not have some very important things to say, as we continue collectively to want to pay tribute by doing the right thing now. They too shared the tragic loss of Raymond.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Hamilton Mountain for her question, but also for her tribute in this House.

I know this story did go across the country, and it touched many of us because it was an important story to be told.

The Nova Scotia government is doing a good job right now of taking this issue very seriously. It has acted swiftly, but not like these guys across the House who act swiftly and hit something over the head with a hammer. They have acted swiftly to figure this out.

There was a strong message sent by government to say, “We will look at what happened. We will take it seriously. We will come up recommendations. We will figure out how we do this differently, better, and how to prevent deaths in the future.”

I suspect this is my last time up, so with the little time I have left, I want to share with this House that Raymond Taavel received a Diamond Jubilee medal this year. He was nominated by many members of our community for the incredible work he did as an activist in our community.

I was very proud this fall to go to Sault Ste. Marie to visit Raymond's family and present the medal to them. They are 100% on board with this. They are proud of Raymond. They are sad because they have lost their brother, their son. However, they also understand that this is complicated, that it does take time, and we do have to be thoughtful when we are coming up with solutions. I have the greatest respect for Raymond's family. They have been really incredible throughout this whole process, and they are a model to look to.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me first thank my colleague from Halifax for her extremely poignant speech, not from the perspective of a technical aspect of a bill but the reality of what it is like to live in a community where a crime that we are talking about, and on which this legislation would have an impact, occurred, and what it means to the community beyond the immediate family of a loved one who lost his or her life. In a very clear way, she has articulated what many of us feel when it comes to mental health, because mental health is such a difficult issue.

In a broader societal context, mental health, for far too long, was something that was pushed into a corner. No one wanted to say out loud that perhaps a loved one, a sister, brother, aunt, uncle, grandparent or parent, may have been suffering from mental illness. It was always the great taboo, “Don't say anything. Say nothing.” There was a stigma attached to it and a great embarrassment for families. As we look at this legislation, we have come a great distance from the day when we did not talk about loved ones who suffered from mental health issues.

No one on this side is suggesting that these acts are not of a magnitude that would horrify us all. All of us would agree that is absolutely true. It is not about saying that if a person is not criminally responsible because of a mental disorder, it would lessen the act. They are horrific acts. For the families of victims who lost their lives, reliving the horrific incident seems to go on and on in some cases. We need to be conscious about how we craft the legislation as it is for only a few people. These acts, thank goodness, rarely occur. Because they occur so rarely, it is that much more difficult to find the balance of how to approach it in law.

I knew a young man many years ago who was schizophrenic. Folks always talk about schizophrenics hearing voices. One day I told him people talked about that. This young man lived in housing with other schizophrenics, where there was support from counsellors and case workers to make sure they took their medications. I knew the young man had suffered from delusions and one day I asked, “When you hear those voices, what do you hear?” Amazingly enough, and I have heard it from other folks because I have been involved with the schizophrenia association for a long time, he said, “It's like 1,000 people standing on the edge of my ear, all screaming at the same time”. He never heard an instruction to do anything, he just heard 1,000 people on the edge of his ear screaming. The only time he got relief was when he slept.

For me, it was a very poignant moment, trying to understand exactly what was happening to that young man. He was about 21 or 22 years old. He does not hear those voices any more. He took his life when he was 23 because those voices would never go away for the rest of his life, and he knew that. He suffered from chronic schizophrenia and he was going to be suffering his entire life. For him, violence was not part of his life, but suffering was.

When we think about this legislation, we should word it in a way that understands schizophrenia because quite often many of the folks who are charged are suffering from it, but we do not then, in turn, point a finger, as the schizophrenia association has said, at all schizophrenics and think that we should avoid them, that they should be put somewhere because they may be a danger to us. We know the reality is that a person would more likely get run over by a bus than be attacked by someone who is schizophrenic.

That is how things might happen to a person, which should never take away from the fact that we are looking at a heinous act and that someone's life is lost.

That is why members have heard from this side, and I hope the Conservatives have heard, that this is a really complicated issue. It is not simplistic. It is about opening a door not knowing what is on the other side and having to deal with it, because it is multi-faceted and multi-layered. The science of mental disorders is ongoing. As therapies and treatments progress and we come to a greater understanding of the diagnosis, we can help folks not get to the place where some of these crimes are perpetrated.

My colleague from Halifax talked about the case just over a year ago. My colleague from British Columbia talked about Pickton and some other cases of a magnitude and scope that is, to use a term I have never used here before, gut-wrenching. When we hear about those cases or read about them in the news, the first thing we feel is ill. It is almost a tangible physical reaction. An individual might be thousands of kilometres away, as many of us were during the incident that happened in the Prairies when the young man was attacked on the bus, or the incident in Halifax a year ago. We may be across the country and not have actual knowledge of the victims or their families, but when we hear about it, we feel our stomachs turn upside down. That is a normal reaction. That is a fair reaction to have initially. However, for us as policy makers, we have to find a way to step back from that first reaction and deal with it. Too often, if we rush in, we may end up with a simplistic response, and there are no simple answers in mental health.

I have had a sense of how mental health works, partly because of some personal experiences around family and from knowing folks who work in it. Members of my family have been psychiatric nurses for a long time. I have been engaged with folks who have mental illnesses for probably going on 40 years now, when I think about my own personal family situation. How do we deal with this very troubling issue that gets pushed aside from time to time, especially in the public health field, which grapples with having enough funding to help the folks who need help? Is there a preventive piece? I am not sure if psychiatrists know if we could have prevented one or two of these incidents from happening through early diagnosis and treatment, constant monitoring, counselling and having a caseworker. We do not know that. Psychiatrists are uncertain as to whether that would happen. Because of that, I would look to the government to say that since we did not do all of that work in advance, this needs to go to committee.

As my colleagues have said earlier, and I know the government heard this, we intend to support the bill to get to second reading, because we want a comprehensive piece that speaks about the victims. They and their families should be paramount in our minds. On this side, we have no less a sense of what happens to the victims than anyone else in this House. No one has a lock on understanding victims. We all get this. I think this is one of those times in the House when we all understand the severity of these situations and what it means to families. However, we want to see legislation coming out of this process that will enable us to do things better than we are doing them now and to do them right.

We should not simply say that we should incarcerate someone because that will be a deterrent. I hate to say it, but someone who is suffering from mental illness would not understand what a deterrent is. Therefore, a longer sentence would not deter anyone.I understand that in sentencing those who have the ability to understand the crimes they have committed, we have sentencing that could perhaps deter. Criminologists can have that debate. I am not a criminologist. I will leave it for those experts to decide. However, I think we can all agree that those who would be found not criminally responsible would never know that there was a deterrent. In fact, the reason they are not criminally responsible is that they do not actually know that they have committed a crime and would therefore hardly see the deterrent as something in the way of their committing a crime.

We need to sit down and take the time. If the bill needs to be extended in committee, I think this House would agree to extend the time to study it. The bill needs to be looked at in a holistic way, from many perspectives. Good amendments should be welcomed by the government. This is a piece of legislation we should get right. When it is enacted, we should all feel good that we have done the right thing and have helped victims, because that is part of what I think this legislation should do.

This legislation should enable victims to understand that we as individuals have a great outpouring of emotion toward them. We cannot understand their anguish and hurt, because we have not suffered as such ourselves. As my colleague for Halifax quite clearly articulated, a whole community can grieve in a profound way because of the victims. We can all feel that and have a sense of standing with them and helping them rebuild after what has happened to a family member. At the same time, we understand our obligation to the broader society when it comes to the law, which is never easy to do, and I do not pretend that it is.

I know that we and the other side from time to time go back and forth about who is tougher. This is not an issue of who is tougher but of whether we can get the legislation right because of the complexity of someone being declared not criminally responsible because of a mental disorder. It is such a difficult issue. We all need to understand and be supportive, otherwise, when it comes to the broader community, there will be those who will say that the legislation either goes too far one way or does not support victims on the other side. I am hearing from all my colleagues here that this is not what we want to have happen. What we want is legislation that tells victims that we understand how they feel.

At the same time, in a legal way, we have to get it right when it comes to persons being tried and not convicted, because the reality is that they would neither be convicted nor acquitted; they would be found not criminally responsible. For those of us who are not lawyers, what does that mean exactly? Does it mean that they are neither here nor there, because they are deemed to be not criminally responsible? That is why this needs to be looked at so clearly.

We have talked about what the numbers are. The Schizophrenia Society of Canada has told us that 0.001% of those who have been charged with Criminal Code violations are deemed not criminally responsible by way of mental disorder. By now writing a law for such a small number, are we casting the net too wide? This number has been put out there a couple of times.

When people are deemed to be not criminally responsible, and they then receive a great deal of treatment while still under some form of incarceration, the rate of recidivism is much lower than it is for the general population in the criminal system in this country. It is anywhere from 2.5% to 7.5%, whereas the rate for the criminals in the regular system is 41% to 44%, which points out that those who are treated with the appropriate treatment are less likely to reoffend.

This week, when the Canadian Police Association was in town, I had the great joy of talking to a number of officers from my region. One of them was talking to me about mental health and what happens when officers come in contact with folks who have mental health issues. They have not committed or perpetrated crimes like this. Quite often it is public disorderliness. They may be in the middle of the street holding up traffic. Usually they have had a psychotic episode and they are off their meds for a while and need to be taken to the hospital. The officer was saying that the police need professionals to deal with those folks, because the officers are not the appropriate people. There has to be a level of expertise from professionals to help with folks who are more of a danger to themselves than to anyone else. What he pointed out to me was that it is not necessarily the police department that should have a major involvement inside the mental health system. It should be mental health professionals.

That is where the link has to be. I do not think we see that in this legislation. When we talk about the justice system, policing, mental health professionals and the health system, where do they intersect to help prevent these crimes in the first place? We need to find a way to work on that system to determine how we then deal with those folks in an appropriate manner. I was grateful for that conversation, because in my mind, it really crystallized for me where it is we should head with this piece of legislation.

We need to look to all of those folks who are already telling us that they want to work with the committee. They want to come forward and help by offering good, sound advice. They do not want to tear the legislation apart and throw it away; they want to help improve it and make it a good piece of legislation that truly works. If at committee the government would look for those answers and advice from those folks, even if they may not always have the answers people are looking for, it may find that when we are finished writing this legislation, we will be able to say that we have done the right thing for the victims, who are first and foremost in our minds.

As my colleague from Halifax pointed out, a year later the victim, through his community and his family, is still reaching out saying that we need to find a sound solution to the problem, not rush to any sort of judgment that ends up with legislation that would not help but might hinder.

I am not saying the legislation in its present form would, but we certainly want to ensure it works for all parties involved and actually gets through the justice system in a way that would make it a better place for it to do the work it needs to do.

As I said at the very beginning, ultimately the victims have to be paramount in minds of members. I know they are in ours.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Bill C-54—Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder), not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the Bill; and

that, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration of the second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67(1), there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in the debate.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Gatineau.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I should be thanking anyone. No more than an hour ago, I was rising in response to the 34th time allocation motion. Now here we are with another time allocation motion for Bill C-54.

I will not repeat what I said about Bill C-48. However, in the words of Captain Haddock “ten thousand thundering typhoons” that is quite the gang of “bashi-bazouk” across the way.

As far as Bill C-48 is concerned, I understood from the minister that it was extremely technical aspects that have been backlogged for over 10 years. Anyone who has read Bill C-54 knows that it is highly contested by experts in the field. I am talking about the Canadian Psychiatric Association and the Canadian Forensic Mental Health Network. Many people are questioning Bill C-54.

It is highly likely that the bill will ultimately pass, but we are only at second reading stage. The government is toying with extremely complex concepts having to do with mental disorders and being not criminally responsible. I think that 11 people at most have spoken on the subject, and the government is moving a time allocation motion.

I would like the Minister of Justice to say a few words about this to explain why the government thinks it is necessary to move a time allocation motion at this stage, when there has been no evidence of dilatory practice. I think that everyone has the right to speak to—