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, 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise tonight to speak to Bill C-54. Canadians expect that their justice system will keep them safe from high-risk individuals and that is why our government has introduced Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act.

It is paramount that victims' rights and public safety are balanced off with the decisions taken for high-risk patients who are accused of being not criminally responsible for their actions. Our government's intention is to strike a better balance between the need to protect society against those who pose a significant threat to the public and the need to treat the mentally disordered accused appropriately. Our government has always put victims first and we always will.

The timing of this debate unfortunately is late. Just last week in Manitoba, the Manitoba Criminal Code Review Board made a decision that I was extremely disappointed in when it granted increased community access for Mr. Vince Li.

As most of us will remember, Vince Li was on a Greyhound bus in Manitoba just outside of Portage la Prairie on July 30, 2008, when all of a sudden he started stabbing a young carnival worker by the name of Tim McLean. As the bus stopped and horrified passengers fled, Mr. Li went on to cut up Mr. McLean's body and ate parts of it. Vince Li told a mental health advocate that he heard voices, including the voice of God, telling him that Mr. McLean was an alien who he needed to destroy.

Vince Li was not found criminally responsible and was sent to the Selkirk Mental Health Centre in my riding. It was incredibly disappointing to hear the decision reached, because that decision did not put the victim's rights first and it definitely did not put public safety first, and I will speak to that in more detail.

As everyone knows from tonight's speeches, the not criminally responsible reform act, which we introduced on February 8, would do three main things.

First, it would enhance victims' rights and that includes enhancing the safety of the victims by ensuring that they would be specifically considered when decisions were made about accused persons found not criminally responsible.

Carol de Delley, who is the mother of Tim McLean, said in the Winnipeg Free Press on Monday:

I don't feel particularly safe or comfortable with Vince Li having these outings...I had the assumption before all of this happened that we all have basic human rights. So how come Timothy's aren't being considered here and only Vince Li's are?

She is concerned that now he has free and open access on the grounds at the Selkirk Mental Health Centre as well as escorted leave into Selkirk, Winnipeg, Lockport and the surrounding beautiful beaches on the south basin of Lake Winnipeg, she feels she may come into contact with him because she does not know where he is going. This is why it is important that there needs to be a non-communications order between an NCR accused and the victim as well as notifying victims when a not criminally responsible individual like Mr. Li is discharged so they can make plans as to where they are going to be in the community that day and avoid the happenstance of running into the individual who has harmed a loved one.

It is important that we put victims' rights first because the decision was just made in Winnipeg by the Manitoba Criminal Code Review Board did not at all consider the victim's rights or the family of Tim McLean. Both Tim's sister and mother read victim impact statements at that trial and again their considerations were thrown by the wayside.

The second thing the bill would do is put public safety first. Bill C-54 explicitly sets out that the public's safety is the paramount consideration in the decision-making process relating to accused persons found not criminally responsible.

This weekend at home I heard from constituents across the riding, especially constituents in the city of Selkirk, about how concerned they were that Mr. Li had free and open access to the grounds of the Selkirk Mental Health Centre, beautiful grounds, unfenced, right across the street the new public library is going up, just down the street is Walmart, Canadian Tire and Home Hardware. There is all sorts of activities happening around the mental health centre. He has the ability to roam those grounds and, without being monitored, easily walk off the grounds. Therefore, the public is extremely concerned.

It is not at all comforting for people to run into Mr. Vince Li when he is being escorted in the community. Even when he has a health care worker and a security guard with him, it is still disconcerting to see Mr. Li walk past the front of their home or to bump into him in a shopping mall. Although he has escorted leave, whenever I run across a murderer who is under the control and oversight of a security officer, I do not feel any more safe knowing that security guard is there. It is more troubling to see that level of security required for an individual to be constrained while he or she is out in public.

The third thing proposed Bill C-54 will do is create a higher risk designation to protect the public from those accused who are deemed not criminally responsible. Upon being designated as a high-risk offender by a court, that person must be held in custody and cannot be considered for release by a review board until his or her designation is revoked by a court. There needs to be that higher judicial oversight that does not exist with the review board process. It allows for access to treatment for any accused person deemed not criminally responsible, so it would not affect that. It also needs to propose reforms.

Earlier I heard the concern from the member for Halifax that this was not warranted. The constituents in my community want to see this bill go through as quickly as possible. In the case of Mr. Li, it is already too late. However, our mental health centre is one of the main health centres in Manitoba. It is located in Selkirk. The public is concerned about who else might be found not criminally responsible and end up housed there.

I also heard member for Saanich—Gulf Islands say earlier that this was completely unwarranted, that there was no need for it. I do not think we need to look at all of the cases as to why we need it. However, I want to draw to everyone's attention the situation of Andre Denny.

Andre Denny was detained at a secure hospital in Halifax in 2012 after a court ruled that he was not criminally responsible for a charge of assault causing bodily harm. Under this act, he would be considered a high-risk offender. As a teenager he was diagnosed with schizophrenia. The records showed that after the court verdict, he was agitated, argumentative and paranoid in hospital. Therefore, he was a problem patient. The hospital adjusted his medication, his condition improved and he was granted supervised outings in early February 2012, just over a year ago. Several weeks later, while on a one-hour pass, he failed to return to the hospital. He is now charged with second degree murder in the beating death of activist Raymond Taavel who was killed after he tried to break up a fight between two men outside a bar.

I do not think we need to argue about the need or talk about the conditions of individuals. I know that medication does not always work for some people who struggle with mood and personality disorders. Sometimes medication can amplify the problem or create other violent tendencies. Because of that, we have to err on the side of public safety and consider the rights of the victims and their families so they do not have to endure the long, drawn-out hardship of having these people in their communities, knowing that their loved ones are never coming back because of the very violent acts committed by those individuals who have definitely been found by the courts to have some form of mental health issue. At the same time, a very horrific and heinous crime has been committed and they feel there needs to be some justification for that individual to undergo the proper treatment under close supervision, putting the rights of victims and public safety first.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak to Bill C-54 on behalf of my constituents from Surrey North. Last week, in the debate on Bill C-489, I spoke about the impact the proposed legislation could have on victim rights. Today I will speak about it again but in the context of Bill C-54, which is an act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act.

Bill C-54 would modify the legislative framework in the Criminal Code and National Defence Act that applies to trials that result in an alleged offender being deemed not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. The bill presents a timely and very important discussion on mental health issues, victim rights and public safety. It is clear, in the wake of several recent highly publicized cases, that we need to examine the current legal instruments to ensure that adequate protection is awarded to the public and that victims' needs, particularly in relation to psychological healing and safety, are being considered and given the utmost priority.

However, as with any discussion in the House, we must carefully weigh the balance between perspectives. Many mental health professionals have already voiced their concerns about the effect the bill will have on people with mental health issues. Those concerns are legitimate and deserve the chance to be explored in depth. This is a fragile issue for victims, families and communities, and we must be careful that we protect the interests of all Canadians in our deliberations. Bill C-54 proposes to amend the current legislative mental disorder regime by putting public safety first, creating a high-risk designation for certain offenders and enhancing victims' involvement in the justice process.

Obviously, as members of Parliament and legislative decision-makers, we need to place Canadian interests and security as paramount in all our evaluations and resolutions. From this perspective, the public-safety-first focus Bill C-54 proposes should be reflective of the majority of Canadian legislation, and we should welcome its relevance to the common good. However, this must be met with balance. The concerns of mental health professionals are that Bill C-54 might create mass panic, resulting in increased prejudice and decreased understanding of mental illness. We need to be cautious that we are not perpetuating an unwarranted stereotype that all people with mental illness have the potential for violence.

Furthermore, Bill C-54 proposes that some offenders deemed not criminally responsible may be categorized as high risk when the person has been involved in a serious injury offence and there is a considerable likelihood of further violence that would endanger the public. High-risk offenders should be subject to an increased amount of time between review board hearings. It would be 36 months instead of the 12 months it is currently. They would also have escorted community visits, and in some cases, community visits would be eliminated.

There is a concern that some defence attorneys may avoid seeking a mental illness defence because of the limits of this designation, limiting the treatment and resources available to their clients and potentially exposing their clients to harm in traditional detention facilities.

Bill C-54 also enhances victims' involvement in the Criminal Code mental disorder regime. They would be notified, upon request, when the accused is discharged. The bill would provide for non-communication orders between the accused and the victim and would ensure that the safety of the victim was paramount in the judicial decision-making process. This element of Bill C-54 could be particularly important for the healing process of victims and their families. It might be essential to the development of a safety response strategy.

Obviously, I have reservations about the proposals in the bill, but we must equally weigh the balance of arguments of any proposal that comes across the floor of the House. Specifically, in the discussion around Bill C-54, we need to be conscious of the fact that only a small number of cases are found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder under the Criminal Code.

Furthermore, the rate of reoffending for an accused found not criminally responsible due to mental disorder is only 2.5% to 7.5% compared to a reoffending rate of 41% to 44% for federal offenders in the regular justice system. That being said, our focus in this debate must be public safety as well as justice and support for victims. We need to explore Bill C-54 in detail to ensure that it offers effective solutions for victims and adequate protection for the public. At the same time, we need to be respectful of the challenges that face people with mental health issues. We must keep the focus on prevention, treatment and support resources.

I will be supporting Bill C-54 so that it can be studied extensively. I am looking forward to the opportunity to hear from mental health professionals, legal professionals, victims' rights groups and the families of victims to ensure that we are making informed decisions that will be valuable to Canadians and will have their best interests at the core.

I would encourage my Conservative colleagues to not only listen to the professionals but to make the appropriate amendments needed to make this bill even better than its current state. I know that the Conservatives hesitate to add amendments, as we have seen over the last year or two, when 99% of the amendments introduced by my NDP colleagues have been rejected by the sitting government. I would encourage them to listen to the front-line workers and the people providing these services.

The Correctional Investigator, Howard Sapers, pointed out today in the media that he has some concerns. I am hoping that the Conservatives will listen to the concerns of not only government workers but of the people on the front lines so that we can further enhance this bill.

It is important to note that, in its current form, Bill C-54 would rest all financial obligations with the provinces. The federal government should ensure that adequate financial support is provided so that provinces have the financial capacity to carry out these responsibilities.

Bill C-54 presents an opportunity for us to review how underfunded mental health services are in Canada. In fact, recently I spoke to social service providers in my riding who have expressed their frustration in not being able to provide adequate mental health resources to their clients due to funding challenges. We must ensure that adequate funding is provided for mental health services, as their work is invaluable to prevention, treatment and advocacy for accused offenders deemed not criminally responsible due to mental disorder.

In closing, I hope the government will seriously consider the amendments proposed by the opposition parties as well as the advice and stories of mental health professionals, legal professionals, victims' families and rights groups. As policy-makers, we must be open to institutional changes that are productive and effective. We cannot present grandiose ideas with little to back them up. We must ensure that potential legislation we debate is critically explored and presents effective remedies for its intended focus.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, just before I begin my remarks tonight, when we gather in this place here late at night, away from our families, sometimes it behooves us to take a moment to remember them. With that, I beg the indulgence of the House to wish my stepfather, Randy Field, a very happy 60th birthday. I am so sorry I am missing his birthday tonight.

What is very interesting about the bill is the stage that it is at in debate here in the House. We are debating, as a group of colleagues, whether or not it has merit to move to the committee stage of review. I have spoken in this House a few times now about the difference between the how and the why of an issue. I think we need to set the record straight on the why of looking at this legislation, first.

I had some notes prepared tonight. I think I want to start off by looking at my Twitter feed. I have someone named Dave Teixeira talking about the Darcie Clarke family and thanking government members, as well as my colleagues opposite, for at least giving this legislation a chance to go to committee, because the why of the bill is important.

I have heard colleagues opposite talk about rehabilitation rates and times and the rights of the offender. We do, as legislators, have an obligation to examine the rights of all individuals in this country. However, for this legislation, the why is looking at victims of crime who are victimized, who, day after day, wonder if they are going to be threatened again, living in a state of fear. These are real people with real questions as to how they are going to be protected by us who stand here in this place. I just do not accept the premise of some of my colleagues' arguments. I am quite shocked, frankly, to hear them say that somehow this is not an issue.

What I had hoped to hear tonight was acknowledgement that the why of this issue is fundamentally important and worthy of study. That is why I am very glad to hear my colleagues opposite in the NDP at least support moving this to the committee stage, because the why here is so vitally important that we look at as legislators.

I will speak very briefly to the technical aspects of the bill. There are three components that we on the government side see it addressing.

The first is to enhance victims' rights. The legislation would enhance the safety of victims by ensuring that they are specifically considered when decisions are being made about accused persons found NCR, not criminally responsible; ensuring that they are notified when an NCR accused is discharged; and allowing non-communication orders between an NCR accused and the victim.

The second component is to put public safety first. The legislation would explicitly set out that public safety is the paramount consideration in the decision-making process related to accused persons found to be NCR.

The last component is to create a high-risk designation. The legislation would create a new designation to protect the public from high-risk NCR accused. Upon being designated by a court as a high risk, an NCR accused must be held in custody and cannot be considered for release by a review board until his or her designation is revoked by a court.

Now, some of the questions that have come up tonight are very valid and they should be looked at, at committee stage. Specifically on the question of consultation, absolutely, we want to consult with affected stakeholder groups on any legislation. That is our job as legislators. That is what we do at committee stage.

However, I think it is worth noting the amount of discussion that this legislation has generated in federal, provincial and territorial discussions between public safety ministers and ministers of justice. We have heard from our provincial and territorial counterparts that this is something that is important.

Now, why is that important? Because for such a long time, we have not addressed the rights of victims such as Miss Darcie Clarke and her family. I think that for anyone who is sitting at home, watching this debate, we would be hard-pressed to find someone who would say that this is not worthy of at least moving to committee stage.

Some of the other points that I wanted to make were with regard to some of the content of the bill; for example, that the bill proposes to expand the notice requirement so that victims would be made aware when a mentally disordered accused person is to be discharged into the community.

This is something that is quite reasonable. I think if we took it to the Canadian public or to a constituent, most people would find it reasonable to notify a victim when someone is going into the community who has committed a crime against them or their family, often an atrocious crime. I would love to hear the results of the committee phase hearings on this, of course, but I think this is something most Canadians would say is fundamentally reasonable.

The approach of the bill also reflects the reality that not all victims want to participate in some of the hearings around the NCR designation, nor do all victims want to be kept abreast of when and if an NCR accused is to be discharged. This is understandable, because people who have been victimized probably do not want to be re-traumatized over and over again. An automatic notice provision, as would be alleviated in this bill, might cause them to be further traumatized by forcing them to relive the incident. The requirement that victims must request notification is therefore intended to protect those victims who do not wish to be notified.

I will go back to the second element of Bill C-54, related specifically to the safety of victims. Currently, the mental disorder regime requires the review boards to consider on an annual basis whether or not an NCR accused still represents a significant threat to public safety. However, at present there is no requirement that the review boards take into account the safety of the victim when they conduct their analysis. That is something that is perfectly reasonable to take into consideration.

Yes, we have to look at the balance between the individual and society, as some of my colleagues have mentioned. However, in this case, to take the safety of the victim into account is something that I find reasonable. I am pretty certain that, if I took it back to my constituents, they would find it reasonable as well.

What would Bill C-54 do to change this? It would clarify that a significant threat to the safety of the public includes the safety of the victim. This would ensure that when a review board is considering whether or not an NCR accused person continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public, it would be required to specifically consider the safety of the victim.

This element would provide some much-needed assurance for victims who are concerned that their interests are not being adequately considered by the review boards. In that, giving victims a little bit more assurance that their rights are at least being considered by our review boards is another thing that is perfectly reasonable and should also be used to support the passage of this bill into committee stage.

This bill also proposes that the review board consider whether or not it is in the victim's interest to make an order of non-communication between an NCR accused person and the victim, and to make an order that the accused person not attend a specified place. Although it is currently possible for review boards to make these orders, the proposals in Bill C-54 would require the review board to turn its mind to the issue in every case.

These are practical solutions that could be considered to address the safety and peace of mind of a victim. The goal of these orders would be to provide increased security to victims and much-needed peace of mind and to ensure that NCR accused would not be permitted to have any contact with them. They may, in fact, be ordered to stay away from certain places, such as the victims' place of employment or their children's school.

When we stand here in this place, we have to consider all sides of an issue. I know there are very many views of how we can address the “why” of this concern, but one should not just oppose it without even giving pause to think of people who have been victimized.

We can cite recidivism rates all we want. My question to my colleagues opposite is this. What percentage is acceptable? What percentage requires us to abdicate our duty to look at those who may be affected in a situation like this?

That is why I certainly support this bill's passage to committee stage. I know the justice committee would conduct further diligence and bring in witnesses to review this bill.

I ask, with great honesty, my colleagues in the Liberal Party to at least consider voting for this at second reading due to the “why”, and to really consider asking themselves when they go home at night what percentage is acceptable.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the second reading debate in support of Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act. This bill would ensure that the mental disorder regime found in the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act achieves its objective of protecting the Canadian public by addressing a small but, nonetheless, significant segment of the cases that come before our country's courts, those in which a person is found to be not criminally responsible, or NCR, for his or her actions, on account of mental disorder.

In my remarks today, I would like to explain why I think Bill C-54 is a targeted measure that would advance protection of the public while upholding the fundamental principle that a person found NCR for an offence must be treated differently than an offender who is convicted of a criminal offence.

Before I address the particular reforms contained in this bill, I believe it is critical to state up front what this bill is not about. In particular, this bill is absolutely not about seeking to punish persons found not criminally responsible. In Canada's system of criminal justice, we draw a distinction between, on the one hand, individuals who possess the requisite capacity and intent to know that their conduct was wrong and, on the other hand, those individuals who are so mentally ill that their illnesses prevent them from appreciating the basic tenets of moral culpability that allow them to safely function in our society.

The verdict of not criminally responsible is the means through which our justice system mutually recognizes the fact that harmful conduct was committed, which has real consequences for the victims and society more broadly, and the reality that the individual who committed that conduct suffers from a mental disorder. It is for this reason that Bill C-54 would maintain the distinction between those found not criminally responsible and those who are convicted. The mentally disordered regime in the Criminal Code and National Defence Act creates a separate process that aims to determine the risk that the person poses to society and decides how to best mitigate that risk in all of the surrounding circumstances.

However, Canadians agree that one key consideration that is common to persons found not criminally responsible and to those who are found guilty is the protection of the public. The Supreme Court of Canada has rightfully recognized in its 2010 decision in Regina v. Conway that public safety is paramount. As a result, sometimes there is simply no other choice than to restrict the liberty of an individual who is very ill in order to mitigate the risk that his or her unique illness poses to others, to ensure that the risks to the safety of our communities are meaningfully addressed irrespective of their source. Society expects no less of the government. That is what Bill C-54 aims to achieve: a tailored and fair procedure to confront the real and significant risks posed by a small number of ill persons who commit criminal conduct.

Bill C-54 would achieve its objective by establishing a new tool for crown prosecutors that mitigates the risk posed by a small subset of accused who are found to be not criminally responsible. That tool is the discretionary option for the Crown to apply to seek a determination that a particular individual is a “high-risk accused”. The high-risk designation made by the court is to be based on all of the relevant circumstances and evidence relating to that individual's particular illness, treatment and behaviour.

In assessing the merits of Bill C-54, it is important to situate this high-risk designation in its proper context. It is not a mandatory procedure and it would not be used in each and every case where a person is found not criminally responsible. This is because the risk posed by a person who is seriously ill depends on the unique facts of his or her case. This high-risk designation would only be available in cases involving serious personal injury offences, where a court is satisfied that there is a substantial likelihood that the accused would use violence that could endanger the life or safety of another person, or where the court is of the opinion that the acts that constitute the offence were of such a brutal nature as to indicate a risk of grave physical or psychological harm to another person.

I am confident that crown prosecutors will exercise their discretion to bring such an application in instances where the public interest in keeping our communities safe is present. A further feature of the process is that the threshold in the proposed test for the high-risk designation is higher than the threshold in the standard test under the current law for continuing to supervise a mentally disordered accused and the burden of meeting this threshold is on the Crown, not the accused.

Bill C-54 also recognizes that the risk to public safety of an individual can change over time. High-risk NCR accused would still be entitled to regular reviews to determine their progress. The starting point is for them to receive annual reviews, but this review period could be extended up to three years if the accused and the Crown consent. The period can also be increased at the discretion of the review board members if they are satisfied that the high-risk NCR accused person's condition is unlikely to improve in the following three years.

This is an incremental change from the current law that already allows for extending the review period from one year to two years. It is a sensible approach that properly recognizes that each and every illness is unique, including such grave conditions that so profoundly affect the behaviour of individuals. When seen through this perspective, it becomes abundantly clear that Bill C-54 is a just and reasonable approach.

I am sure we all recognize that all serious offences are tragedies for the victims as well as for our communities. Bill C-54 would preserve confidence in the administration of justice, protect the safety of the public and uphold fair treatment of ill persons who are found not criminally responsible. It is a targeted bill that I am proud to stand in support of.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Toronto Centre said that he is advising us not to support the bill, but we as Liberals will be voting against it on a basic premise, the premise being that Bill C-54, which is the non-criminally responsible reform act, would not achieve the desired result. Instead, it would cause more harm than good and further stigmatize the mentally ill at a time when the good work of the Mental Health Commission of Canada has begun to undo that misinformation with good evidence and is encouraging mentally ill people to seek the treatment and the early diagnosis that they need.

This is the most important thing that we want to stress here. This legislation would send mentally ill people back underground, because they will be terrified of being stigmatized in the way that they used to be in the past.

Liberals agree fully that the rights of the victims should be enhanced. We have no problem with that part of the bill. We agree that public safety is of the utmost importance and is a core part of the justice system. We have no problem with the issue of public safety, but our concern lies with the lack of balance in the bill.

The designation of high-risk offender for a person who is not criminally responsible would create a fear of the mentally ill. The point to remember is that only 0.2% of all criminal cases in the courts—any criminal case at all—is an NCR person, and only 10% of that 0.2% are violent offenders. We are talking about a very small number of people.

This is the kind of problem that we do not want to see, this knee-jerk reaction of creating legislation that would do more harm by trying to deal with a problem that has been dealt with already in a manner that has been shown to be successful with some tweaking.

We agree that the bill needs some enhancement. We would like to see an evidence-based approach that would incorporate the experience and the expertise of professionals in the field of mental health and justice. Our approach would enhance public safety by focusing on the prevention of violence by individuals with severe mental illness, and that means early diagnosis.

A lot of time should be spent in catching young offenders and diagnosing them before they offend. Many instances of NCR cases who commit violent crimes involve people who did not know they had a mental illness and suddenly had a crisis and became severely incapable of being criminally responsible. They became schizophrenic or they had an acute episode of manic depression or something that caused them to do that violent act.

Therefore, we would also like to see intervention and treatment as part of a good solid bill that would deal with this issue. Rather than adding to the stigmatization of the mentally ill by using a small number of high-profile cases to foster the impression that Canada is overrun with dangerous psychopaths, we would like to reduce the stigma. We would like to encourage Canadians suffering from severe mental illness to seek treatment. If we keep the stigma up, people with mental illness do not want to seek treatment.

That has been the whole problem over all the years, and it is why the Canadian Mental Health Commission has stepped in to deal with this issue. The government has repeated many times in the House that it wants to decrease stigmatization, but this legislation would do the exact opposite.

The mental health groups, all of whom claim that they have never been consulted by the government despite the minister saying that he had consulted them, feel very strongly about this issue.

I would like to quote the Mental Health Commission of Canada, which was created by the federal government. It says that in fact this bill

...paints an inaccurate picture of violence and mental illness. The more mental illness is stigmatized, the harder it is to get people to seek treatment and to stay in treatment. Yet treatment is the most effective preventive measure for the small number of people with mental illness who commit violent offenses.”

The Mental Health Commission of Canada, which the government has mentioned in many speeches, says that it did not necessarily approve of the bill.

Let us look at the evidence.

As I said earlier, non-criminally responsible offenders make up only 0.2% of all criminal cases, and only 10% of that 0.2%, which is 0.02%, are actually violent offenders, so we are talking about a very small group of people.

When appropriately treated, the recidivism rate of these offenders is actually 7%. However, if they are not appropriately treated in a mental institution, their recidivism rate becomes increasingly high, something like 63%.

I ask hon. members to think about it and compare 7% recidivism rate when properly treated and a 63% recidivism rate when put into the criminal justice system and imprisoned.

I want hon. members to look at what we can do, because the problem, and we have heard this said before by the Bar Association and by many people, is that if we force people who are mentally ill into this mandatory three year treatment in a hospital before they get any release leave, so lawyers tell their clients not to ask for an NCR designation. In other words, these people therefore will go to courts and they will be put into the criminal justice system, they will be put into prison and therefore we will see what damage is done and that recidivism rate will rise to 63%.

We are talking about a bill that can damage and can cause more harm than good, and I want to stress that.

The point is that the recidivism rate of all persons released from any kind of federal custody in terms of the criminal justice system and prisons is 46%. That means all people, not just people with violent crimes. The key is to recognize that NCR offenders, by being put into the appropriate criminal treatment facility as opposed to prison, will actually be able to achieve the kind of treatment they require, the ability then to go out and be rehabilitated.

I think this is the some of the problem that everyone wants to talk about, that in fact the public fear of people who have their NCR, who have been treated and are going through their actual community rehabilitation, are out on the street. This concerns people. It could be easily looked at, in spite of evidence, to ensure that every time this community rehabilitation occurs and the offenders are out in the community, that there is a custodian with them. They are actually with someone who is looking after them so they are not alone in the system. That would help to bring down the kind of public fear about which we are talking.

Let us look at the system currently. When offenders currently are NCR and they are put into the appropriate facility, which is a mental hospital, they have a yearly review. Every year they are reviewed and that is done by a review board. This has worked very well in the past. The review board has psychiatrists and other people who then decide whether the individuals have been cured and are ready for the next stage in rehabilitation, so the public safety is assured that they do not go out into the public until they are ready to go do so.

If people are concerned, we could tighten this. We could look at a judicial review instead of an ordinary review by psychiatrists only, as long as the judge who is reviewing someone is in fact learned in mental illness, how mental offenders are treated and the treatment facilities. We could live with that.

However, we do not want people to be sent to federal prison. When we demand that they have three years, a lot of people will not claim NCR and instead go into prison, and that could be a problem.

The other thing is that there are people currently in the system who may have been rehabilitated, are ready for community rehabilitation and to go back out into the system. This retroactivity in the bill would force them to stay for a further three years within the system. I do not know if this meets the charter challenge. I do not know if anyone looked at the constitutionality of that kind of mandatory incarceration of offenders for three years, regardless of whether they are ready to go out and regardless of whether people have said that they are ready to leave.

We would want to look at the bill. It does not have charter scrutiny. There are no prevention components in the bill. There is no early diagnosis of mental illness in the bill. There are no community institutional support systems in the bill. We heard this very clearly. Mr. Howard Sapers, a correctional investigator, had this to say:

My concern is that we may see an increased number of offenders going into penitentiaries who have known significant diagnosed mental illness including major psychosis, and the concerns around the capacity of the correctional service to deal with that [is a problem]

We would like to look at something else. In fact, my colleague, the hon. member for Mount Royal, had a bill when he was justice minister in our government, and it was excellent. The current Minister of Public Safety said that he thought it was a great bill. Therefore, why do we not look at that bill again? Why do we not bring it in, instead of something that would do more harm than good and stigmatize the mentally ill?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I had a chance on the weekend to talk to a service provider in my riding of Surrey North who provides services to people with mental illness and homeless people. One of the things that person mentioned was that there is a lack of resources for treatment and prevention, which is what works. Research after research has shown that if we pour one-tenth of the money into prevention and treatment, the dividend is paid back manyfold over time.

I know that Bill C-54 talks about punishment. However, can the minister tell us if any additional funding is going into prevention and treatment for the mentally ill in our society?

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister spoke of Bill C-54 itself, which New Democrats support, in principle, at second reading.

A number of questions have come from the NDP that remain unanswered. Unfortunately, although I followed the minister's speech with interest, he was not able to respond to any of those questions. This is somewhat worrisome, because we want to make sure that this bill supports victims and that the bill will do what it purports to do. We have asked these questions, and they still remain unanswered.

Since we have a minister from the cabinet, I have to ask a question with regard to this legislation and other legislation the government has brought forward. Twice the House has voted to bring in the public safety officer compensation fund. Cabinet has refused to bring in that support. These are victims—firefighters and police officers—who die in the line of duty. There is nothing available to support their families.

I would like to ask the minister why cabinet has now overruled two votes in the House on this and why this and other legislation does not bring in the public safety officer compensation fund.

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking tonight in full support of our government's decision to introduce the not criminally responsible reform act, also known as Bill C-54.

Consistently since 2006, our government, under the strong leadership of the Prime Minister, has always championed tackling crime by holding violent criminals accountable for their actions, giving victims of crime a stronger voice and increasing the efficiency of the justice system. To date, the government has achieved over 30 significant accomplishments in furtherance of these objectives.

Many of these accomplishments are embodied in the Safe Streets and Communities Act. There are numerous measures in that act, but allow me to highlight just a few.

The ending house arrest for property and other serious crime amendments restricted the use of conditional sentences, including house arrest, to ensure that this tool would be used appropriately and provides clarity on the list of offences covered.

The Safe Streets and Communities Act also amended the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to address serious organized drug crime. The CDSA now provides mandatory minimum penalties for serious drug offences, including those carried out for organized crime purposes and those that involve targeting youth. The legislation supported the national anti-drug strategy's efforts to combat illicit drug production and distribution and helped disrupt criminal enterprises by targeting drug suppliers.

The protecting children from sexual predators component amended the Criminal Code to better protect children from sexual predators. It achieves that by ensuring that the penalties imposed by sexual offences against children are consistent and better reflect the heinous nature of these acts by creating two new offences that take aim at conduct that could facilitate the sexual abuse of a child.

These are just a few of the important measures that this act helped make Canadians safer and got tough on criminals.

While our government has been clear that we are getting tough on crime, we have also taken action to improve victims' rights in the justice system. While there are numerous examples of our government's approach, including the Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act and the Protecting Victims from Sex Offenders Act, I would like to focus on a few initiatives.

First, our government's federal victims strategy has been a great success at ensuring that victims' rights are respected. The objective of the federal victims strategy is to give victims a more effective voice in the criminal justice system. The Department of Justice works in close collaboration with other federal institutions, as well as victims, victims' advocates, provincial and territorial governments, service providers and others involved in the criminal justice system.

The Department of Justice develops policy and criminal law reform, funds various programs to meet the needs of victims of crime and shares information about issues of importance to victims of crime. Within the federal victims strategy, the victims fund is a grants and contributions program administered by the Department of Justice. Funds are available each year to fund provinces, territories and non-governmental organizations whose projects, activities and operations support the objectives of the federal victims strategy.

Since 2007, when the government introduced the federal victims strategy, more than $90 million has been committed to respond to the needs of victims of crime. Most recently, in economic action plan 2012, the government committed an additional $5 million over five years for new or enhanced child advocacy centres, bringing the total Government of Canada commitment to these centres at $10.25 million.

Child advocacy centres aim to minimize the trauma of being a child victim of crime. These centres are a collaborative team of professionals that work in a child-friendly setting to help a child, or youth victim or witness navigate the criminal justice system. The work of the staff can greatly reduce the emotional and mental harm to the child.

Furthermore, we instituted the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime as an independent resource for victims in Canada. The office was created in 2007 to ensure that the federal government meets its responsibilities to victims of crime.

Victims can also contact the office to learn more about their rights under federal law and the services available to them or to make a complaint about any federal agency or federal legislation dealing with victims of crime.

In addition to its direct work with victims, the office also works to ensure that policy makers and other criminal justice personnel are aware of victims' needs and concerns, and to identify the important issues and trends that may negatively impact victims. Where appropriate, the ombudsman may also make recommendations to the federal government.

Under the leadership of the Prime Minister, we are extremely proud of our record and we continue to improve it, which brings me to today's topic, Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act.

Before I begin describing the important measures in this bill, allow me to explain a few key concepts.

Under current Canadian criminal law, if the accused cannot understand the nature of the trial or its consequence and cannot communicate with his or her lawyer on account of a mental disorder, the court will find the accused unfit to stand trial. Similarly, if a person is found to have committed an offence but lacks the capacity to understand what he or she did, or to know that it was wrong, due to a mental disorder at the time, the court will make a special verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

In either case, whether the accused is unfit to stand trial or is not criminally responsible, the appropriate provincial or territorial review board may take one of three actions: it could place the accused in hospital detention within custody, grant a conditional discharge or grant an absolute discharge.

Bill C-54 would amend the Criminal Code by emphasizing three primary objectives. It would explicitly place public safety first, it would create a new high-risk designation and it would enhance victim involvement.

First, the current approach has public safety as one of four factors. This legislation would clarify that the highest priority of this government is to keep Canadian citizens safe. It would do this by explicitly making public safety the paramount consideration in the decision-making process relating to an accused found to be unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible.

We are also codifying what is meant by the term “significant threat to the safety of the public”. This test determines whether a review board should continue to supervise the accused. Some provinces have told us that they believe the review boards are interpreting this term too narrowly.

Our approach would codify it along the lines of its interpretation by the Supreme Court of Canada. It would clarify that the review board could continue to impose restrictions on not criminally responsible accused who risk committing further criminal acts even though they do not pose a threat of violence per se. For example, if the board were concerned about a not criminally responsible accused committing thefts or break-ins, it would be able to maintain jurisdiction over him or her and impose the necessary and appropriate conditions.

Second, the creation of a new high-risk designation is absolutely necessary. Such a designation would classify as high risk an accused who has been found not criminally responsible for a serious personal injury offence and who poses a substantial risk of committing further violent acts. It is important to note that this high-risk accused designation would only apply following a verdict of not criminally responsible, rather than applying to someone who was deemed unfit to stand trial, because that person would not yet have been tried for the offence.

The process would allow the prosecutor to apply to the court if the criteria were met. Once designated, a high-risk, not criminally responsible accused would be held in custody and not considered for release until the high risk status were revoked. High-risk accused may have their review period extended up to three years, if they consent or if the board is satisfied it would be highly unlikely that the individuals' condition would improve in that time period. The annual review would continue to be available for all other not criminally responsible accused persons.

Bill C-54 outlines that a high-risk, not criminally responsible accused person would not be allowed to go into the community unescorted. Escorted passes would only be allowed in narrow circumstances and would be subject to sufficient conditions to protect public safety.

Third, victims are concerned that their safety is not being specifically taken into consideration by review boards when they make a disposition. Victims are also concerned that they often have no way of knowing if and when a not criminally responsible accused will be given access to the community. They are afraid they might unexpectedly run into the person who injured them, without being adequately prepared.

The proposed legislation would enhance the safety of victims and provide an opportunity for their greater involvement in the Criminal Code mental disorder regime. The legislation would help ensure that victims were notified upon request when a not criminally responsible accused was discharged, allow non-communication orders between a not criminally responsible accused and the victim, and ensure that the safety of victims be considered when decisions were being made about a not criminally responsible accused person.

The proposed legislation would build on actions that have already been taken to further advance the interests of victims of crime.

While it is important to know what is in this bill and how it would further strengthen our justice system, it is also important to know what is not in the bill.

First, nowhere in this bill do we seek to impose penal consequences on people who are found to be not criminally responsible due to mental disorder. The goal of this bill is public safety and protecting Canadians from those who pose a danger. Our current public safety objective is the basis of our legislative regime on mental disorders, and this bill further would strengthen that objective.

Second, there are no changes that would impact the ability of the accused to access mental health treatment. Issues surrounding mental health are prevalent in the criminal justice system and pose special challenges to law enforcement officials. We remain committed to ensuring that these challenges are addressed through the criminal justice system.

Finally, it is important to note that this bill would not apply to all individuals who have a mental illness in the court system. These provisions would only apply to those individuals who are not fit to stand trial or not criminally responsible due to their mental disorder. Those individuals who have not been found unfit or not criminally responsible would be dealt with in the traditional criminal justice system.

Our government recognizes that mental health is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. Our intention is to strike a better balance between the need to protect society against those who pose a significant threat to the public and the need to appropriately treat the mentally disordered accused.

Our government continues to place a high priority on mental health initiatives. Our achievements include establishing the Mental Health Commission, investing over $376 million in mental health research and continuing to work with the provinces.

Mental health issues have been a focus of cooperative work among federal, provincial and territorial ministers of justice and public safety. At a meeting in November 2012, the ministers acknowledged that persons with mental health issues present significant challenges for the justice system and especially for correctional systems, and agreed that close collaboration is required between jurisdictions to better address the needs of the mentally ill.

We continue to take concrete steps on the issue of mental health in prison. Since 2006, we have invested nearly $90 million in mental health for prisoners.

I would like to summarize the bill, which has three main components.

First of all, the bill explicitly sets out that public safety is the paramount consideration in the decision-making process relating to accused persons found to be not criminally responsible.

Second, the bill creates a new designation to protect the public from high-risk NCR accused.

Third, the legislation will enhance the safety of victims by ensuring that they are specifically considered when decisions are being made about accused persons found NCR, ensuring they are notified when an NCR accused is discharged, and allowing non-communication orders between an NCR accused and the victim.

To conclude, our government has been clear that we put victims first. We have taken action to improve the justice system in this important regard. We have taken the action necessary to get tough on crime. Unfortunately, the opposition has opposed us at every turn.

I hope all members will see that Bill C-54 is a step forward in the right direction. It is demanded and expected by law-abiding Canadians, and our government is responding by supplying this necessary legislation. It would place the protection, well-being and safety of Canadians first, it would create a high-risk designation of not criminally responsible accused and it would empower victims of such crimes.

I am a strong supporter of Bill C-54, and I encourage my House colleagues and the whole of Parliament to demonstrate their support in achieving and maintaining these objectives for Canadians.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the ability to stand in the House this evening to discuss this bill that has been brought forward through the justice committee. I have the privilege of chairing the public safety and national security committee. One thing that I think all of us realize is the number of issues that arise around mental health issues. We have seen in it in the news and at committee. We understand this is one of the issues we have to deal with.

This issue is not just of concern to members of Parliament. It is increasingly of concern to many Canadians. The question that lies at the heart of this bill is how to ensure public safety is paramount when decisions are made about individuals who have been found not criminally responsible for their criminal offences on account of mental disorders. This bill would amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act's mental disorder regime to ensure that public safety is the paramount consideration and that victims no longer feel left out of the process. The changes to the National Defence Act essentially mirror those being proposed in the Criminal Code to ensure that public safety and victim-related improvements also apply when dealing with individuals who have been found not responsible for offences within the military justice system.

I am going to focus my comments this evening on the elements of the bill that relate to victims. On the day the bill was introduced, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice emphasized that this bill aims to enhance victims' safety and involvement in the decision-making process. It is important to make sure that our laws reflect those objectives explicitly and adequately.

The victims of individuals who are found not criminally responsible are concerned that inadequate consideration is given to their safety by the review boards when a decision is made regarding a mentally disordered person who has been accused of a criminal offence. Victims have also raised concern about the fact that they have no way of knowing when an accused who is found not criminally responsible has been released into or given access to their communities. They are, therefore, afraid that they may encounter the accused person unexpectedly and without being adequately prepared. We know of the damage that can be done when those types of incidents take place, where the ones who have been victimized all of a sudden bump into accused persons at the neighbourhood grocery shop or wherever it may be in their communities. Bill C-54 would address these issues.

I am very pleased to note that Bill C-54 includes specific measures to better protect victims. The bill expressly provides that when a court or review board decides on a course of action relating to a mentally disordered accused person, the victim's safety would be taken into consideration. That is the first thing, that they view this through the scope of the victim.

In addition, the proposed reforms would allow the court or review board to order that the person found not criminally responsible abstain from communicating with the victim. We know of occasions where victims become re-victimized when alleged offenders or the ones not guilty because of mental disorders then begin communicating with the very people they have victimized.

In addition to the reforms relating to victims' safety, Bill C-54 proposes amendments to improve notification to victims and enhance victims' involvement. The bill provides that at a victim's request, he or she will be informed when a mentally disordered accused person is being absolutely or conditionally discharged.

Victims may also request to be informed of the holding of any hearing in respect of the accused, including hearings concerning any possible finding that an accused is high risk or revocation of such a finding. This bill would increase awareness to society, but also certainly to the one victimized.

Since some victims do not wish to participate in the hearings and thus relive the trauma of the incident, they have been given the choice of not requesting notice. However, again, the victim decides. It is up to the victims to choose whether they want to appear or be made aware of any of these requests.

The notice will enable victims to exercise their right to file a victim impact statement if they desire, for consideration by the court or by the review board, outlining the harm done to them or the loss that they have suffered.

I am very pleased to see how the bill adds to the government's many initiatives to meet the needs of victims. Since the federal victim strategy was announced in 2007, our government has supported many different measures to meet the needs of victims of crime, including enhancing the victim assistance program across Canada and increasing the capacity of non-governmental organizations to deliver victim impact statements or to deliver victims' services.

The bill is full of public safety measures to make certain that the guiding principle of protection of society remains the guiding principle. In addition the specific measures, I am pleased the bill includes that.

The Prime Minister stated on February 8, “Canadians want a justice system that puts the safety of our communities and our families first”.

The legislative amendments proposed in the not criminally responsible reform bill will clarify that the safety of the public is the paramount consideration in the court and in the review board decision-making process in respect of individuals found to be not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder or also if they are found to be unfit to stand trial.

The proposed bill will also amend the Criminal Code to create a process by which a court may find that a not criminally responsible accused is a high-risk accused. The court can make this finding with regard to individuals who has been found not criminally responsible for a serious personal injury offence where there is a substantial likelihood that they will use violence that they will endanger the life or safety of another person.

There are several effects of this high-risk designation. A high-risk accused would have to remain in hospital and a review board would not be authorized to order a conditional or absolute release until a court had revoked the finding.

Moreover, the review period for an accused found to be high risk would be extended for up to three years, whereas the general rule that a mentally disordered accused under the jurisdiction of a review board would have his or her case reviewed on an annual basis.

As well, the individual would only be permitted escorted absences from the hospital for medical reasons or reasons related to his or her treatment and in accordance with a structured plan prepared to address risk related to the mentally disordered accused absent from the hospital.

While the bill proposes to make important changes to the mental disorder regime, I feel it is incumbent upon me to point out some things that the bill will not impact. We have already had constituents call us in regard to some of these.

For example, the proposed bill will not impact in any way the access to treatment to which a mentally disordered accused has access. The bill will also not impact the location of detention for mentally disordered accused. They individuals would continue to be detained in appropriate mental health facilities and not in prisons.

The criminal law governing persons found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder is not well known. Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code comprehensively sets out the law and procedure governing persons found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder and those found unfit to stand trial. This regime provides for both the supervision and treatment of mentally disordered accused, as well as the protection of public safety.

Another point I would like to make in closing is that although Bill C-54 asks us to consider how to strengthen the law to ensure it protects Canadians from actual threats to public safety, this is not meant to suggest that all people who suffer from a mental disorder commit criminal offences and are dangerous. Some mentally disordered persons will commit minor offences, but others commit major violent offences.

The bill would help to address these issues. It is timely. It was learned over the period of time that we needed to make changes. It is good to hear that the opposition is supportive of these measures as well.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice earlier about the costs associated with the bill. I did not get a satisfactory answer and so I will ask the hon. member if he could enlighten us.

With Bill C-54, there would be costs downloaded to the provinces, and we have seen this with many other bills. The bills are drafted, and without any consultation, the provinces are left holding the expenses. The provinces have to provide the infrastructure and services, which are a cost to them.

Is the member aware of any consultations that have taken place with the provinces regarding the downloading of costs?

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before I start, I would like to let you know that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Crowfoot. I am looking forward to his speech.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on second reading debate of Bill C-54. As a retired police officer, I hold this very close to my heart. I have seen many cases where this has been traumatic on both sides, not only for the victims but also for those who have been found not criminally responsible.

The bill would reform not just the Criminal Code mental disorder regime but also the corresponding regime in the National Defence Act, to ensure these regimes develop harmoniously.

The bill is very complex, not only from a technical and legal perspective but also because of the sensitive issues it seeks to address.

At the heart of the bill is the complex matter of assessing the risk to public safety of people who have committed horrific crimes, who suffer from a mental disorder. Unlike convicted offenders, mentally disordered accused persons are not held criminally responsible for their actions due to the presence of mental illness at the time of the commission of the offence that prevented them from knowing what they were doing or what it was that they were doing wrong.

The concept is not only difficult for many Canadians to understand. It is also difficult for many Canadians to accept. It is particularly difficult when a very tragic or horrific incident has occurred. Not-criminally-responsible accused persons are not held accountable and sentenced like convicted offenders are. Instead, they may be detained under the criminal law power if they pose a significant threat to public safety.

Decisions about individuals found not criminally responsible are made by provincially constituted administrative tribunals known as review boards. The Criminal Code mental disorder regime guides the review boards in their ultimate goal of protecting the public from mentally disordered accused persons who continue to pose a danger.

I would like to focus my remarks on the public safety elements of Bill C-54.

First, the bill would clarify that public safety must be the paramount consideration in the decision-making factors that the courts and review boards apply when dealing with cases of mentally disordered accused persons.

The goal of ensuring public safety animates the entire legal regime that applies to mentally disordered accused persons who are referred to the review boards. One could say that is their raison d'être, as the review boards' main task is assessing the public safety risk posed by a particular unfit or not-criminally-responsible accused and making orders to address those risks.

In short, it is appropriate to highlight public safety as being the paramount factor in the review board decision-making process. If there are no real risks to public safety, the legislation is clear in requiring that an absolute discharge would be made.

Another key public safety element of Bill C-54 would be the new hearing process for the courts to determine whether a particular not-criminally-responsible accused were a high-risk accused and, where so, to impose stricter rules of detention more tailored to protecting the public.

Concerns have been expressed about the potential for day passes, or passes longer in nature from a hospital, being granted to a mentally disordered accused who, under the jurisdiction of the review boards, might pose a danger to society. In at least one recent case, allowing an unescorted absentee to leave a hospital led to the killing of an innocent victim. The bill aims to prevent such tragedies from occurring.

The proposed high-risk designation scheme would be tailored to respond to situations where the risk to the public safety posed by certain not-criminally-responsible accused is considered to be greater and, therefore, would require greater protection.

Designations could be made in one of two possible situations. First, when there is a substantial likelihood that the accused will commit further violence that could endanger the public, or second, where the offence that led to the not criminally responsible verdict was of such a brutal nature as to indicate a risk of grave harm to the public.

Procedurally, the high-risk designation scheme would be launched by way of an application by the prosecutor to the courts after a not criminally responsible verdict had been rendered for a serious personal injury offence. An application could only be made if the accused had not already been absolutely discharged. However, if the accused were still in the review board system, whether in custody or subject to a conditional discharge, the Crown could bring an application if it wished to obtain an order designating a particular accused as high risk. The court would consider all relevant evidence, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, any relevant pattern of repetitive behaviour, the accused's current mental condition, the past and expected course of treatment and the accused's willingness to follow treatment as well as expert medical opinions.

If the court made the high-risk accused finding, a disposition requiring detention of the accused in a hospital would have to be made. No conditions permitting absences from the hospital would be authorized unless a structured plan had been prepared to address any risk to the public and only with an authorized escort. Absences from the hospital would only be permitted for medical reasons and for any purpose necessary for the accused's treatment.

Bill C-54 also mentions that decision makers, the court and review boards shall consider whether it is desirable in the interest of the safety and security of any person, particularly a victim, to include a condition requiring the accused to abstain from communicating with the victim or attending a specified place. There is also authority for any other condition to be made to ensure the safety and security of victims. These are very reasonable proposals and I am pleased to see them in the bill.

I would like to commend the Minister of Justice for introducing this important piece of legislation. I would urge all members of the House to support the passage of Bill C-54 at second reading as this would enable further study of the bill at committee.

As I mentioned at the outset, this is a very complex area of the law and I am sure that the task of assessing risks with respect to this population is very complex as well. I am aware that the Department of Justice conducted research on the review boards systems in Canada. A research report on their data collection study was published in 2006 on the Department of Justice website. It contains a great deal of relevant statistical information such as the nature of the offence that brought the person into the review board system, the nature of their diagnosis, prior involvement in the criminal justice system, types of decisions made, total caseloads, et cetera. No doubt this data will assist the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights when it studies the bill.

Before closing, I would like to take a moment to clarify an important point. Although Bill C-54 addresses the difficult and sensitive issue of how to effectively manage the risk posed by accused persons who have been found by the courts to be not criminally responsible or unfit to stand trial on account of mental disorder, it should not be interpreted as a suggestion that all mentally ill people are dangerous. That is simply not the case.

The debate around the bill must not lead to negative stereotyping about mental illness. To put things into perspective, it is estimated that 20%, or one in five Canadians, will suffer from a mental illness at some point in their life.

This bill does not target the mentally ill at large. This bill provides clear guidance on how those very few mentally ill accused persons who find themselves before the review board system should be dealt with in order to ensure that the safety of the public is adequately considered when there is significant threat to their safety.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The second possibility is a conditional discharge.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act. This is a legal policy issue that has preoccupied many Canadians, not only today but over the years.

Recent high profile cases in many parts of Canada have caused Canadians to question whether our laws in this area are strong enough or clear enough to ensure that the public is adequately protected when a risk to public safety exists.

In my remarks, I plan to outline the key milestones of Parliaments consideration of this issue. It is important to canvass the legislative history of the Criminal Code mental disorder regime in order to put today's debate into context, essentially to have a clear understanding of how Bill C-54 seeks to build on and improve the existing law.

What used to be referred to as the “insanity defence” was included in Canada's first Criminal Code, which was enacted in 1892. Even before then the defence existed at common law. It stemmed from a decision rendered in 1843 from the British House of Lords. The common law principle was known as the M'Naghten Rules, which stated:

—every man is to be presumed to be sane, and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes, until the contrary be proved to their satisfaction; and that to establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.

The text of the first Criminal Code stated:

No person shall be convicted of an offence by reason of an act done or omitted by him when labouring under natural imbecility, or disease of the mind, to such an extent as to render him incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission, and of knowing that such act or omission was wrong.

This legislation continued to apply relatively unchanged and without much public debate for the first half of the 20th century.

In 1977, the Law Reform Commission of Canada produced a report to Parliament on mental disorder in the criminal process, which made 44 recommendations about procedures and dispositions for the mentally disordered offender. In order to consider and respond to the recommendations, the Department of Justice launched the mental disorder project in 1978. The review process led to the release of a discussion paper in 1983, exploring over 100 issues in the area of psychiatric remand, fitness to stand trial, the defence of insanity and criminal responsibility, just to name a few. A final report was produced in 1985, followed shortly thereafter by a draft bill that was introduced in the House of Commons by the then minister of justice John Crosbie.

The proposed amendments to the Criminal Code and the draft bill were the first formulation of what would eventually become the new Criminal Code mental disorder regime.

The proposed amendments sought to modernize and clarify the criminal law on mental disorder, strengthen due process and ensure the continued protection of the public. It proposed to change the law in a number of respects.

Under the law at the time, insane or unfit accused were held in strict custody under the pleasure of the lieutenant-governor of the province was known. There was not a requirement to hold a hearing and the lieutenant-governor's decisions, essentially the provincial cabinets, were not subject to appeal. Therefore, there were many gaps with respect to due process that needed to be remedied.

In 1986, the draft bill proposed to remove the role of lieutenant-governors in the process and to establish review boards in all jurisdictions, with uniform procedures to follow across the country. Another significant change in the draft bill was to replace the defence of insanity with the verdict of “not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder”. I will have more to say about that amendment in a moment.

Discussions and consultations with the provinces and territories on the draft bill and other intervening events resulted in the bill not being introduced until 1991 as Bill C-30. It proposed much of what was contained in the 1986 draft bill.

With respect to the previous defence of “not guilty by reason of insanity”, it is noteworthy to highlight the remarks of Kim Campbell, the then minister of justice, about that amendment. She said that a number of psychiatrists had indicated that persons found not guilty by reason of insanity deluded themselves into thinking that they had done nothing wrong and this presented an obstacle to therapy. She also explained that the previous wording was difficult for the public to understand how the accused could be found not guilty despite proof that he committed the offence. The “not guilty by reason of insanity” defence was therefore replaced with a verdict of “not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder”.

However, I think it fair to say that the public still has difficulty understanding a “not criminally responsible” verdict. I believe it is part of our job as parliamentarians to talk about the verdict and to help explain it to the public. Therefore, I would like to reiterate that the verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder is not an acquittal; nor is it a conviction; it is a special verdict that the court makes when it has been established that a person committed an act or made an omission that constitutes a criminal offence. What has also to be established as a legal issue for the court to determine is whether the person suffered from a mental disorder at the time of the commission of the act, or the omission, that rendered the person incapable of appreciating what he or she did or of knowing that it was wrong.

When the court enters a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, it does not release the accused. The accused is referred to a provincial or territorial review board that is responsible for making orders to govern how the accused will be dealt with.

Bill C-30 introduced three possible orders that could be put into place, depending on the level of risk posed by the person. Only if the person did not pose a significant threat to the public safety would the person be discharged without conditions. If the person posed a significant threat to the safety of the public, the person would be kept in custody in a hospital or discharged with conditions. The choice between custody or a conditional discharge is determined in accordance with the level of risk posed to the public safety.

Bill C-30 also introduced the factors that must be taken into consideration in deciding which order should be put in place. The section provides that the court or review board shall 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. This is a key provision of the Criminal Code mental disorder regime, as it guides the courts and review boards in their decision-making. It was introduced in 1991 by Bill C-30 to provide criteria and factors that did not previously exist in the legislation.

As I mentioned in the beginning of my remarks, I want to take some time to canvass the legislative history of the Criminal Code mental disorder regime in order to put Bill C-54 in context and to better understand how it seeks to build on and improve the existing law.

With respect to this key decision-making process, Bill C-54 proposes to clarify that among the existing listed factors that the courts and review boards must consider when they make decisions with respect to the mentally disordered accused, public safety is the paramount consideration.

In clause 9, it says:

When a court or Review Board makes a disposition... it shall, taking into account the safety of the public, which is the paramount consideration, the mental condition of the accused, the reintegration of the accused into society and the other needs of the accused, make...[the disposition] that is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances....

Bill C-54 would also clarify what is meant by the phrase “significant threat to the safety of the public”. In 1999, the case of Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), the Supreme Court of Canada interpreted that phrase to mean a risk of serious physical or psychological harm to members of the public resulting from conduct that is criminal in nature but not necessarily violent. Bill C-54 would codify the Supreme Court's interpretation.

The mental disorder regime that was introduced in 1992 included new rules and procedures with respect to appeals. I mentioned earlier that the previous law did not provide either party with a right of appeal of a lieutenant-governor's decision. Last year, the Court of Appeal for Ontario identified a problem with one of the appeal provisions in this part of the code. The Criminal Code currently states that when an absolute discharge is appealed, the absolute discharge is automatically suspended. In R. v. Kobzar, the Court of Appeal for Ontario found this automatic suspension to be in violation of sections 7 and 9 of the Charter, but suspended its order to allow Parliament to pass an amendment to correct the defect. The proposed reforms would eliminate the automatic suspension of the absolute discharge and instead would grant the Court of Appeal the discretionary power to suspend the absolute discharge if the mental condition of the accused justifies it.

I support the effort to clarify this area of the criminal law. The reform seeks to improve the existing legislative framework that guides decision-making when courts and review boards hear matters involving mentally disordered accused persons. Bill C-54 would help ensure more consistent interpretation and application of the law across the country. That is a valuable goal.

In my view, the proposed reforms are reasonable measures to take into consideration the protection of the public and to ensure confidence in our justice system. Mentally disordered accused will continue to receive treatment and have their cases overseen by the courts and review boards.

I encourage all members to support passage at second reading of Bill C-54. This would mean that it would be referred to committee for further study.