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.

Bill C-54—Time Allocation Motion

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. Minister of Justice.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her interest in this area and thank her for the question.

We introduced the bill, as members know, quite some time ago. I believe that the bill has been well received. Certainly my colleagues, victims groups and other individuals have had a look at this and were quite impressed by it.

Again, it has been some time since this whole area was updated. That being said, we have introduced the bill for second reading. The bill has been debated. The House leader, in his motion that we just heard, is going to allow another five hours. This is still at the second reading debate. Then—I think the hon. member would agree with me—we get this into committee and we hear from individuals who want to make comment on it. This is all for the good. We will get the bill into committee. We are not even at the third reading stage of the bill yet. So, again, there is quite a bit of discussion, quite a bit of analysis, but I think there has been a fair amount up to this point already.

As I say, I am generally pleased with all the comments we have received. The good thing is there is going to more debate, more analysis of this, and it is going to a committee. I look forward to hearing the witnesses who will be appearing at that time.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the debate is not about this particular bill. The debate should be about the behaviour of the Conservative/Reform government.

There is a genuine lack of respect for due process. The current government, more than any other government before it, continues to use time allocation as a way in which to limit debate on important issues that are here and need to be debated. It is not appropriate. It is not accountable.

This is from the same government in which the Prime Minister goes into hiding when his Prime Minister's Office is being held up to question.

It is not appropriate behaviour. We are calling upon the government to do the right thing: to show and demonstrate some respect for this institution; to show some respect in terms of public accountability and the types of things that are supposed to be taking place inside this chamber.

My question for the minister is this. When is the government, the Conservative/Reform party, going to give the respect that is necessary for this chamber to be able to proceed into the future with dignity?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, no party in the history of this country has had more respect for Parliament and its institutions than the Conservative Party. Do not take my word it. Ask any of the individuals here in the house. They will say the same thing, that we have a long record, a long history of that.

I have to say the government House leader—I am familiar with that role; I was the government House leader back in 2006—has great respect—

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Huge, even.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thanks very much for that.

Again, Mr. Speaker, he has great respect for the institution of Parliament. He allows debate on all of these things.

However, we have to continue to move forward. The Canadian public is expecting us to move forward. These are important pieces of legislation.

The Liberals say this is not about this bill. Of course it is about this bill. This is better protecting Canadians, standing up for victims in this country. That is what this party is all about. We have made that a priority. That is exactly what we are doing, and that is exactly what we are going to continue to do.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for bringing forward government legislation like this, government legislation we called for when we were in opposition, government legislation that would enhance victims' rights. I remember that as the official opposition, we talked about the protection of society being the guiding principle. It is here in this legislation. The high-risk offender designation is also included in this legislation.

Concerns have been expressed about the potential for day passes or even longer passes, in some cases. Mentally disordered accused could be granted out-of-hospital passes. These are people accused under the jurisdiction of review boards who may pose a danger to society. In at least one recent case, such an unescorted absence from the hospital led to the killing of an innocent victim.

Could the minister please explain to the House how the bill aims to prevent such tragic incidents from occurring in the future?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have that question. That question is about this legislation. That question is about what we are trying to do here.

One of the important changes we would make with this legislation would be to make it very clear that the protection of the public is paramount. That would be the very first consideration, the paramount consideration, when review boards were looking at this.

The member is alluding, as well, to the fact that we have a whole new designation, the high-risk offender designation. We are going to get out of the business, as it were, of escorted passes for individuals who get this designation. This designation is for a small group of highly dangerous individuals who have been designated so by the courts. They will be detained within the institution for their protection and for the public's protection unless the procedures outlined in the bill are followed.

I hear what the hon. member is saying. This is a definite improvement, and that is why I think the bill has been so well received.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the previous member's comments revealed exactly the reason we need to have an open debate on these bills. We see bill after bill brought forward by the government being overturned by the courts, generally speaking because of a charter challenge.

For as long as I am still in this place, we will still have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is absolutely critical, when the government comes forward with legislation, that it reviews the laws to make sure they adhere to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The reason to have open debate when we bring forward legislation is to make sure that we are balancing those interests. The last thing we want is to have laws that have the best of intentions but are not properly drafted and are thrown out when they finally come before the courts. That is all the more reason to have full debate in the House.

There has been occasion after occasion when we have found errors in a law, even though we have agreed with the intent of the law, generally speaking, and have tabled amendments. That is exactly why we have debate in the House of Commons.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I completely disagree with the hon. member that all of these bills are being overturned. That is not the case. We are in court defending all of these when the matter arises, and we have been very successful.

What we are proposing, not just with this bill but with all of our criminal justice legislative agenda, are very reasonable pieces of legislation that would do the great thing, which is better protect victims in this country. Sometimes it is to increase justice efficiency to better protect victims and to make sure that individuals who are found guilty are held accountable.

We have a great record in terms of bills being sustained, because all of them get proper analysis before they are introduced in court so that they comply with the charter and with John Diefenbaker's Canadian Bill of Rights. We want to make sure that all of them are compliant with those, and all of them are. I am very confident that they will sustain any future challenge.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what the minister is doing is exactly what we want to do—that is, discuss the content of the bill. However, the content of the bill is not the current order of business. The current order of business is the fact that the debate is being cut short.

This is the 34th time the government has done this. For the sake of democracy, the government must give us a chance to discuss this, just as it replies and addresses its comments to its members. It was not speaking to you, Mr. Speaker, but rather to its members. You must have noticed this.

We want to have a debate. The government needs to stop shutting down debate and let us speak. In any case, we plan to support this. The Schizophrenia Society of Canada has asked for more time in order to meet with the minister on this issue. People also want to discuss it, and that is what we want to do.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that we have carefully analyzed this particular piece of legislation, and we have discussed it with groups and individuals for quite some time now. I have met with a number, particularly with victims groups, on what it is they want to see and some of the challenges they have had.

Again, we have had debate here in the House of Commons. As I pointed out to the justice critic for the NDP, the bill has been debated. We are going to have more hours of debate this evening. Then it will go to the committee. They can call witnesses before the committee. This is even before we get back to third reading in the House. We have not even gotten to that. Again, there is plenty of time for debate.

What I will not agree with the NDP on is that we should continue to debate on and on. Again, with respect to our criminal justice legislation, many times the NDP members, to be fair, either completely oppose it and are upfront about that or say that it must be debated ad infinitum and on forever. I disagree with that approach.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to ask the minister if he believes that it is a majority government's prerogative to introduce time allocation motions whenever it wants. I find this to be completely undemocratic behaviour that shows utter contempt for this House, parliamentarians and Canadians.

My question is simple. I would like to hear the minister explain to Canadians why he is introducing this time allocation motion.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member asked what the prerogatives of a majority government are. I think the prerogative is the same for all governments that are elected, and that is to do and deliver to Canadians what Canadians were promised in the previous election. That is exactly what we have done. We have made it very clear in every election that with respect to our criminal justice legislation, better protection of the public would be a priority.

Every single election we have made that promise. We have been upfront with Canadians about that. The great thing about that is that our support has grown in every single election. More and more Canadians are joining us in every single election and are saying that we are on the right track when we stand up for victims in this country and when we make individuals accountable for the crimes they commit.

I am so grateful to the people of this country who have given us a majority government. I can promise them that we will deliver on exactly what we promised in the last election.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the victims of some convicted individuals who were found not criminally responsible are concerned that inadequate consideration is being given to their safety by review boards when decisions are made regarding mentally disordered accused people.

Victims have also raised concerns about the fact that they may have no way of knowing when an accused is released, maybe into their own communities. They are afraid that they might bump into them on the street or on some other unexpected occasion.

Could the minister please explain how this bill better responds to those kinds of concerns and the needs of the victims?