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.

[Peter Coleridge, National Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Mental Health Association]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, and fellow witnesses. These victims' stories are very tragic and heart-wrenching, and quite frankly, point to challenges in the system well beyond the amendments to the Criminal Code we're discussing today.

My name is Peter Coleridge. I am the national CEO of the Canadian Mental Health Association, also known as CMHA. With me today is Mark Ferdinand, our national director of public policy.

CMHA is the largest and oldest provider of mental health services in communities across Canada. We were founded in 1918, and we serve thousands of people every day in hundreds of communities across the country. We rely on the work of staff and thousands of volunteers to facilitate access to the resources people require to maintain and improve their mental health, reintegrate into the community, build resilience, and support recovery from mental illness.

In addition to being a front-line provider of community mental health services, we're also a champion for mental health for all Canadians. We actively promote positive mental health, ways in which people can focus on strengths, well-being, and functioning in the community, at home, at school, and at work. We provide advice on the development of good public policies that support positive mental health as well as improve access to the quality of mental health services and community supports, which is why we're here today. We share many of the concerns of some of our other mental health partners that spoke earlier: the Schizophrenia Society of Canada, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, and many others.

We also work hard to increase the understanding in our society about mental illness. Unfortunately, our society holds many misperceptions about mental illness. Depictions in the media and labels used in our society create an impression that high-profile violent crimes are committed by people with a mental disorder, and that these things are common, when such occurrences are infrequent. The majority of people who are violent do not suffer from mental illness. Mentally ill people are no more violent than any other group in our society; in fact, people with mental illness are more likely to be victims of violence. It's also important to understand that some people who become involved with the criminal justice system had not been diagnosed with a mental illness, but were diagnosed upon connecting with the criminal system because of a crime.

These people need treatment and care. Punishment does not lead to recovery for individuals who are found not criminally responsible. This might explain in part why the relapse rate for individuals who are NCR on account of mental disorder is three to four times lower than the general criminal offender population. By all accounts, mental illness is complex. I think that is clear from all the witnesses you've heard from. However, with the appropriate supports and access to care, people with mental illness, including those with severe mental illness, can be helped. Today there's more hope than ever before that we can effectively treat these illnesses and improve the chances of recovery.

Long-term research has shown that many people with severe mental illness are able to lead productive lives. As you know, Canada has made important strides in reducing discrimination and stigma associated with mental illness. CMHA looks forward to continuing this progress with all Canadians, the federal government, the Mental Health Commission of Canada, and our many other mental health partners across Canada. However, we are concerned that the proposed changes to the not criminally responsible provisions of the Criminal Code will negatively impact the lives of people found NCR, and unjustifiably increase the stigma toward people with mental illness that is pervasive in our society at the systemic, community, and individual levels.

For example, we're concerned the provisions aimed at creating a high-risk accused category, and restricting unescorted passes may have unintended consequences on the ability of mental health professionals to appropriately monitor and evaluate people who have been found NCR. We're also concerned that the creation of a high-risk accused category reinforces the stigma associated with mental illness, such as connecting mental illness with danger to the public and violence.

We know from studies that many people who would otherwise benefit from mental health services or care will not seek or fully participate in their care in order to avoid the labels that have the potential to diminish their self-esteem or social opportunities.

Finally, with regard to the public safety paramount provision, we are unaware of evidence to suggest that review boards are not already taking public safety into consideration when making dispositions. As such it's not clear that the proposed amendments will make any real difference to protecting the public. Such an amendment would appear only to fuel stigma by creating an impression that all individuals who are found NCR are likely to reoffend.

We understand that the federal government in proposing this bill is seeking better consistency and coherence in the application of the Criminal Code across Canada. To ensure the realization of this dual goal of consistency and coherence, we recommend that parliamentarians seek input on how the proposed provisions will impact victims, NCR accused, public safety, and health and mental health service providers across the country.

Measuring these impacts is even more important when we consider that mental health is an intersectoral issue involving several different sectors. These issues are very complex.

Given that we do not know today—and it was said earlier by many witnesses in their different perspectives—the possible impact of these changes on people or on our systems, we would strongly recommend that Bill C-54 include a provision that would create a flexible yet rigorous evaluation framework to better understand the implications of the proposed criminal law changes on a victim's ability to access meaningful and pertinent information regarding NCR accused, capacity issues in the forensic mental health system, actual impact on public safety, actual impact on treatment, reoffence rates and health outcomes of NCR accused.

A simple provision, as we've seen in other federal and provincial laws, would suffice to ensure regular review of the impacts of the law on people and to determine whether or not the expected outcomes are being achieved.

In closing, we believe it is appropriate that the government undertake periodic reviews of mental health disorder provisions of the Criminal Code. We equally believe that even if we were able to arrive at the perfect balance between individual rights and public interest through criminal law provisions, we would still fall woefully short of what is needed to address the part of the iceberg that we cannot or sometimes refuse to see.

Ultimately better cooperation and coordination between the levels of government are desperately needed to improve how we treat mentally ill offenders in the criminal justice system. We would welcome the opportunity to work on this pressing agenda. This agenda should include reducing stigma, improving recovery, continuity of care, reintegration into society, and improving public safety.

We know care has been taken in developing this bill, and that the individuals who worked on its development have carefully considered the legal and even constitutional aspects of the bill. However, more meaningful consultation and greater policy coherence are needed.

Specifically, we need to know that victims are involved appropriately in the review board system, that public safety is truly being enhanced, that the rights of the accused are not infringed, and that recovery and access to effective treatment is not unintentionally made more difficult or limited as a result of these amendments.

Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee today. We're happy to answer any questions the committee may have.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My first question is for Nathalie Des Rosiers.

First of all, if I may, I'd like to congratulate you on becoming the dean of the common law program of the faculty of law at the University of Ottawa. Welcome back here.

I'd like to put a question to you that will draw on your legal expertise.

If you were to present your students with an assignment that asked them to develop reforms to the NCR regime, but reforms that would have to be constitutionally compliant, and they came up with Bill C-54, would you regard that as being a regime that, in fact, is constitutionally compliant?

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for your testimony. It is very much appreciated. The matter is really complex.

Ms. Malo, as I listened to your testimony, I understood that you are very much in favour of this bill. You stated that, when a verdict of not criminally responsible is handed down, the protection of the public is the first concern. It is paramount.

On June 5, Dr. Isabelle Gaston testified before this committee. She stressed the fact that our Bill C-54 would provide better protection for victims and for society in general. She said: “…this bill gives me greater hope that one day, the scales that are the symbol of our justice system will once again attain a certain balance for the parties involved.” She also said: “I have the impression that people are playing Russian roulette with my life. I don't feel protected, really, at this time.”

We also heard the testimony of another grieving mother, which echoed Dr. Gaston's. Her name was Carol de Delley, the mother of Tim McLean, who was killed in his sleep on a Greyhound bus. The murderer, Vince Li, got a verdict of not criminally responsible. We all know how barbaric the act was.

Ms. Malo and Mr. Samson, I would like you both to answer. Do you believe that Bill C-54 will provide better protection for victims, and for society in general?

[Isabelle Malo, As an Individual]

Good afternoon. My name is Isabelle Malo. I am appearing today on behalf of the entire Malo family. My mother, Nicole Malo, and my brother, Sylvain Malo, are sitting behind me. We are in full support of Bill C-54. My family's story is a perfect example of why it is urgent to change the law. As I talk to you today, my heart is full of sadness.

On January 13, 2012, our peaceful community was shaken by a terrible tragedy. My stepfather, Ronald Malo was savagely murdered, stabbed 29 times by his neighbour, Rolland Belzil, who had been harassing him for 15 years.

My mother was also a target, but, luckily, she was spared because she did not answer the door that Rolland Belzil was trying to open. In Belzil's computer was a list of people to be killed and my mother's name was on it. After killing Ronald Malo, Rolland Belzil went to the town hall in Verchères, where he stabbed Luc Fortier, the town manager, in the head and neck. His assistant, Martin Massicotte, suffered wounds to the hands as he tried to help. They owe their lives to the fire chief.

This sordid story began in 1997 when the neighbour, Rolland Belzil, assaulted my mother by saying that he wanted her twice a week. My mother rebuffed him immediately, demanding that he leave her alone. He then looked her in the eyes and said: “you do not know what I am capable of, my dear; you have not heard the last of me.”

For 15 years, my mother and Ronald's life was pure hell, and I do not use the word lightly. They were constantly harassed, sworn at, provoked, honked at up to 150 times in a row. They received death threats for the three years before the murder.

In April 2010, Rolland Belzil told a case worker that he had a weapon and was going to kill his neighbour, Ronald Malo. In July 2010, Rolland Belzil was arrested for violating the conditions of a permanent order. Under that order, he was not supposed to come near my family. Nevertheless, he did approach us, with a can of gas, paper, beer and wine, staring right into our eyes all the time. Rolland Belzil was found guilty on four criminal charges out of five. He walked away with a discharge and a laughable $400 fine. We begged the judge not to release him again. The people at the CAVAC told us that he was like a big dog who barked a lot but did not bite and that the probability that he would do what he threatened to do was zero.

As you can see, our story has a number of missing elements. Primary prevention, in Dr. Isabelle Gaston's words, was a failure. Our family wholeheartedly supports Bill C-54. The bill will make public safety a priority and will create the definition of “high-risk”.

I would like to discuss two improvements with you. It is urgent for public safety to be the priority. Have you thought for just one moment about what would happen if this man were to be released? If we found our mother murdered, we could not survive it. Victims must have a more prominent place. Fortunately, Bill C-54 will make public safety a major concern in coming to decisions about people deemed not criminally responsible. When public safety is paramount, it will be a victory for our rights.

Currently, if Rolland Belzil is released, three lives will certainly be in danger. It is agonizing to think that we are at the mercy of that decision. Our trust in the justice system has vanished. That man represents a real danger for society. He must be kept under strict supervision, primarily to protect him from himself.

People are living in terror simply thinking about the day when Rolland Belzil will be released, without even mentioning our seven children, aged from 14 to 24, who have lost their grandfather. The word “justice” does not exist for them. They are terrorized. One night, a little while ago, my 22-year-old daughter came to me shaking, because she had dreamt that Rolland Belzil had escaped from the Institut Philippe-Pinel in Montreal and wanted to kill us all. My brother's 20-year-old son sleeps with a bat under his bed, and his 16-year-old daughter has never gone back to where the tragedy happened. These children have had a hugely traumatic experience. How will we go about reassuring them? The burden our family has to bear is a very heavy one.

I have a business in Verchères and not a day goes by without someone talking to me about it. I am often asked what is happening to him and whether he is out. My heart races each time. In December 2012, I had to go to hospital. My heart rate went up to 170 beats per minute when I heard that Guy Turcotte had been released. I thought I was going to die. The number of victims goes beyond the family; the entire community is affected.

People are afraid when sick people like those are released. Their illness is not an excuse. From now on, with Bill C-54, public safety will be paramount. We cannot wait for that change.

Bill C-54 provides for the creation of a “high-risk” designation intended for the most dangerous cases. They should be detained in hospital under guard. A high-risk offender must not be allowed to leave without an escort. He must be able to get a pass to leave, with or without an escort, only in rare circumstances and with public safety in mind.

We support the fact that a judge, not a board, will determine who is to be designated high-risk. We are very happy to learn that judges will have to base their decisions on the risk of grave physical and psychological harm, and on the offences committed. That is very important for us. We cannot wait for those changes to go into effect. We are convinced that there is no higher-risk situation than the one we are living in.

In Rolland Belzil's computer, the police found a list of several potential victims. When one murder and two attempted murders have been committed, the murderer becomes a serious case and must be under strict medical supervision. That is what Bill C-54 will make possible, and I ask you to pass it as quickly as possible.

Having a respite of up to three years between assessments, depending of the gravity of each case is, of course, a real relief for victims. You know as well as I do that a year goes by quickly. Rolland Belzil has mentioned that he has only killed one out of four and that he has to finish what he set out to do.

At no time have we been motivated by revenge. These proposed reforms will have no effect at all on the access to treatment for those deemed not criminally responsible. On the contrary, those needing special care will be able to have it tailored to their own specific needs.They will be better supervised. Providing more structured medical supervision for people suffering from a mental illness is not stigmatizing them. The concept of rehabilitating the offender remains in the act. So it is wrong to say that ill people will be losing their rights.

By lengthening the period of care, the risk of reoffending is reduced, but, above all, lives will be saved. We cannot sit on our hands and wait. We have to save our mother's life.

As victims, we have no place in all these interminable procedures. We will certainly not be the last to live through a similar event. In Verchères, with a population of 5,000, three people have confided in us and told us that they are living in a situation similar to our own and are terrorized.

We are supposed to have the right to security. At the moment, the only people with rights are those who have been charged and found not criminally responsible. Ronald wore his heart on his sleeve; he was always smiling, gentle and ready to help others. His murder was an enormous shock. The public is completely outraged by this heinous action that has gone unpunished.

We have lost a second father, a grandfather, a husband. But above all, we have lost an exceptional human being whom we loved more than anything in the world. We will never be able to forgive the action, but now we have to learn to live with it. Ronald's death must not be one among many. It must serve to advance the cause of victims. This bill is extremely important for our security and our quality of life.

Thank you all so much for giving me your valuable time and for letting me express to you my thirst for justice. We are behind you in supporting this urgent and vital bill.

[André Samson]

Good afternoon. My name is André Samson. I live in Victoriaville, in the province of Quebec. I am 51 years old and I am unable to work. I live on my disability pension.

On August 1, 2002, my brother Martin Samson and his spouse Marie-France Foucault were murdered in their home in Victoriaville. The person who murdered my brother and his spouse was found not criminally responsible.

The accused was arrested. He was in the Hôtel-Dieu d'Arthabaska hospital for a few hours, then he ran away. The Sûreté du Québec helicopter and the response team spared no efforts to track him down. After several days of searching, he was finally caught. He was selling things to make some money and leave the city. The day after his arrest, he was charged with two counts of murder. The trial lasted a year and a half. We were very surprised to hear that the murderer was found not criminally responsible, because he was a very intelligent person studying at a school for adults.

Since then, we have not received much help. My family and I support Bill C-54, which will provide more information to victims and help them feel safer. Access to information with help families feel safer, because part of the fear and insecurity experienced by families of murdered persons stems from a lack of information in this NCR system.

My family would very much have liked to know what was happening at the mental health review board hearings. We were never kept informed of the proceedings. We were never invited to the review board hearings. We were never given an opportunity to speak. We were cast aside. We were in a vacuum and we had no documents. For four or five years, we did not know where he was living. Had my girlfriend not been a court clerk, my family and I would not have known which hospital he was staying at. Had she not been my girlfriend, she would have never told me.

My family was not informed. We had no idea whether the attacker was taking his medication and whether he responded to treatment. We had no idea whether the attacker had any rights to leave the hospital or when he would be able to leave. We had no idea whether he was accompanied when he went out. We were never told when he was discharged from the hospital. I found out two weeks later. My girlfriend told me and I told my family.

My parents had to take steps to keep themselves safe because they were afraid that the attacker might go to their house and threaten them. We were not aware of the conditions of his release.

One day in January 2011, I was in the shopping centre and saw the attacker who had killed my brother and his wife. When I saw him, I was frustrated and afraid. I was under stress. I was at a loss.

Victims like us deserve to be part of the legal process. But we have been completely excluded. I often wonder whether we, as victims and as human beings, also have a right to security and to information. We have been denied our rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We should be respected as victims because the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that Canadians have the right to life and security.

My brother and his wife were deprived of that right and, to make matters worse, the members of my family and I had no right to security, as we were never informed about his release. Security goes hand in hand with the information provided to victims. How can we feel secure if we do not know when a murderer will be let out of prison and when he can roam the streets and come into our neighbourhood?

This bill gives the right to security back to victims. At the moment, the aggressors have better protection than the victims. This legislation will provide more supervision to those declared not criminally responsible. By remaining under supervision longer, and by having more access to medical resources, the aggressors will be able to stay in their rehabilitation programs longer.

Having information would have made us safer. This bill will let victims be informed and feel safe. It restores dignity to the families of those who have been murdered.

Thank you.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today, particularly Ms. Galt. Your testimony today was very captivating. These are things that legislators need to hear. We have all these laws we keep in place, but we don't always keep in mind the people who suffer because of some of these acts, so I appreciate your being here today.

Among other things, Bill C-54 would create a new scheme for the courts to designate certain not criminally responsible individuals as high-risk mentally disordered accused. This order would then be made on application by the crown in cases in which mentally disordered individuals were found to have committed a serious personal injury offence. When one of these designations is made by the court, provincial review boards would be required to order a custodial disposition, with the condition that the person not be granted unescorted passes in the community. The existing mandatory review period of 12 months could—and I believe in the legislation it says “may”—be extended by the review board up to 36 months for those designated as high-risk MDA.

First of all, Ms. Galt, I believe you mentioned to Mr. Wilks that you're in support of that. I'd also like Mr. Teixeira to answer that.

[Dr. Alexander Simpson, Chief of Forensic Psychiatry, Head, Division of Forensic Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, and my fellow witnesses, most especially Ms. Galt. Her account to us this afternoon reminds us of the nature, the severity, and the magnitude of the issues we're talking about.

I am Dr. Alexander Simpson. I'm a psychiatrist. I'm the chief of forensic psychiatry at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, and I'm head of the division of forensic psychiatry at the University of Toronto.

CAMH is Canada’s largest mental health and addictions academic health sciences centre. Our forensic program provides care to and supports individuals designated as NCR, or unfit to stand trial. We care for over 30% of Ontario’s NCR accused persons and accordingly have a keen interest in the amendments to the NCR legislation that will affect our patients and our ability to provide them the best possible mental health care.

I would like to address three specific aspects of Bill C-54.

The NCR regime has been in existence in its current form for 21 years. NCR is a rare disposition, though it has been more commonly applied in the last two decades. It is effective and successfully rehabilitates people with a mental illness that has caused them to offend. NCR accused persons present less risk to others than similar persons who are criminally responsible for their offending and are sent to prison.

The current controversies that have given rise to the reasons for this legislation are a small number of high-profile offences of a grievous nature, as we've heard. The victims are understandably deeply traumatized and find the thought of community reintegration of perpetrators horrifying.

This isn’t about the current risk, however; it is about the nature of the trauma that occurred over past incidents. This presents a real difficulty for Parliament and for those of us involved in the care of NCR accused persons: how to be sensitive to the needs of victims without punishing the illness. Thus, the factors driving this bill are real and difficult ones; however, in my view, two-thirds of the answers in this bill are the wrong ones.

First, with regard to victim safety and involvement, CAMH supports Bill C-54's commitment to victim safety. Victim safety is always at the forefront of the decisions made by review boards and by forensic mental health programs and treatment planning. This part of the bill makes explicit powers that already exist.

Victim involvement in the review board process is also very important, and we agree that victims should continue to be included in that process if they choose to be so. However, addressing victim needs must be broader than simply notification. New approaches, such as issues of restorative justice, may be of equal value.

Second, on the creation of the “high risk” designation, Bill C-54 proposes a “high risk accused” designation. CAMH has concerns about how this new designation can be determined and its severe restrictions on those considered to be high risk.

High risk is about the possibility that future violence may occur. Counterintuitive though it may seem, the brutality of the person's index offence is not an effective way of telling if somebody is going to be at high risk of future offending. Instead, it looks only at the past. Therefore, a high-risk regime built around a single severe act of violence alone is not evidence-based or scientifically based and may thus be seen as arbitrary in a non-punishment regime. If brutality is not to be used, one must ask, then, what the proposed “high risk” category adds.

First, there are clearly some NCR accused persons who are of high risk. Currently, they may spend many years in conditions of high security, without community contact. One only gains access to the community if one's risk has fallen to such a degree that community contact is a safe option, so the available security proposed in the “high risk” category already exists for a significant number of NCR accused persons. Second, implementing the “high risk” category decreases the expert oversight of the person's care and limits therapeutic opportunities. This will delay progress or increase risk and will not assist public safety.

For these reasons, it is both ill-designed and wrongly targeted, and CAMH recommends that the “high risk” designation be removed from the legislation.

Tightening of the criteria for all NCR accused is third. Of great concern to CAMH is the Bill C-54 recommendation to change section 672.54 of the Criminal Code. This will tighten the criteria for progress and release for all NCR individuals. Bill C-54 makes safety the paramount consideration when a disposition order is made. While similar wording already exists in case law, changing the wording in the Criminal Code clearly signals the desire to shift the emphasis of the entire NCR regime. The original intent of the NCR legislation was to balance public safety with the treatment of rehabilitation needs of the mentally ill offender. Shifting this balance will prevent the NCR individuals from receiving the best possible mental health care while cognizant of public safety.

The bill also amends the current NCR legislation requiring review boards to make disposition orders that are the “least onerous and least restrictive”, to make orders that instead are “necessary and appropriate in the circumstances”. Given the context of Bill C-54 and its primary focus on public safety, it is likely the necessary and appropriate dispositions will be more restrictive, and that more NCR individuals will be detained in forensic units for longer periods and in higher-security units than is actually necessary. Not only will this compromise rehabilitation and community reintegration for any NCR individuals, but the widespread application of this amendment will lead to increased pressure on forensic mental health programs which are already operating over capacity.

Clause 10 of Bill C-54 introduces a new statutory regime of significant threat. It no longer requires the word “real” in relation to potential harm or violence, therefore lowering the risk threshold necessary to maintain the jurisdiction of the NCR over individuals. Given the impact of these changes on the NCR regime as a whole, CAMH recommends that section 672.54 remain as it currently stands in the legislation.

We fear significant unintended consequences of this legislation. We fear that the shift to increasing security and restrictions over treatment of rehabilitation will make the NRC regime much less attractive as a regime to go down. We fear defence counsel will argue to potential NCR accused not to go down this pathway, and instead plead guilty and go to prison. We think this will place increasing pressure on provincial and federal correctional services by having more mentally ill persons in prison, who will be released from custody at higher risk of reoffending than those people under the NCR regime. Thus paradoxically we fear that public safety will actually be compromised by this bill.

I thank you for your attention and will be happy to take questions.

[Giuseppe Battista, Lawyer and President, Committee on Criminal Law, Barreau du Québec]

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for having us. I am here on behalf of the Barreau du Québec. I am joined by Lucie Joncas.

The Barreau du Québec is a professional body that represents almost 24,000 lawyers in Quebec. Its positions are taken by elected bodies, following the studies and recommendations of its advisory committees.

To fulfill its mission of protecting the public, the Barreau du Québec seeks to forge bonds of trust between lawyers, governments and the public. In the pursuit of that goal, the Barreau du Québec oversees professional legal practice, supports member practitioners, fosters a sense of belonging within the membership, and promotes the rule of law.

The Barreau du Québec feels that this bill amends the mental disorder regime in the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act to specify that the paramount consideration in the decision-making process is the safety of the public. It creates a 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 enhances the involvement of victims in the regime and makes procedural and technical amendments.

The Barreau du Québec feels that, when a court finds an individual not criminally responsible, but the individual poses a significant threat to the safety of the public, it is appropriate to take action to protect public safety.

However, we think that it is important to refer to the principles identified by the courts. In Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), the Supreme Court addressed the issue of public safety in situations involving individuals found not criminally responsible. The court stated the following:

Part XX.1 protects society. If society is to be protected on a long-term basis, it must address the cause of the offending behaviour—the mental illness. It cannot content itself with locking the ill offender up for a term of imprisonment and then releasing him or her into society, without having provided any opportunities for psychiatric or other treatment. Public safety will only be ensured by stabilizing the mental condition of dangerous NCR accused.

Part XX.1 also protects the NCR offender. The assessment-treatment model introduced by Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code is fairer to the NCR offender than the traditional common law model. The NCR offender is not criminally responsible, but ill. Providing opportunities to receive treatment, not imposing punishment, is the just and appropriate response.

The teachings of the Supreme Court indicate that providing treatment to mentally ill individuals is the most just and equitable approach to protecting the public. In addition, the court cites another ruling as follows:

[T]he treatment of one unable to judge right from wrong is intended to cure the defect. It is not penal in purpose or effect. Where custody is imposed on such a person, the purpose is prevention of antisocial acts, not retribution.

Section 672.54 of the Criminal Code is subject to a major amendment. The section currently states:

672.54 Where a court or Review Board makes a disposition under subsection 672.45(2) or section 672.47 or 672.83, it shall, taking 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, make one of the following dispositions that is the least onerous and least restrictive to the accused: ...

That is how public safety and the needs of the mentally ill person are taken into consideration. This is an important balance, a balance that we need to strike and strive for in a free and democratic society.

The proposed amendment creates the concept of high-risk individual. The wording of section 672.54, instead of talking about the “least onerous” disposition, places the “safety of the public” above any other criteria connected to the individual situation of the accused. In so doing, the amendments diminish the importance of the recognized objective of ensuring that the condition of the ill NCR person has improved as being the most just and equitable way to protect society.

In addition, the proposed amendments amend the current assessment and treatment system set out in Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code, to be more similar to a punishment system than a system that provides treatment to someone suffering from an illness. To use the Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin's words, we believe that “the regime established in Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code”, meaning the part currently in force, “appropriately balances the need to protect the public from those mentally ill persons who are dangerous and the liberty, autonomy and dignity interests of mentally ill persons”, and we are afraid that some aspects of Bill C-54 will open up debate on the constitutionality of the new wording set out in the bill.

Bill C-54 also sets out that a court martial may find the accused person to be a high-risk accused if:

(a) the court martial is satisfied that there is a substantial likelihood that the accused person will use violence that could endanger the life or safety of another person; or

(b) the court martial 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.

This second criterion is concerning, since it does not take into account the person's condition. In our view, the second criterion presents constitutional weaknesses. The brutality of the acts that constitute the offence refers to the violent nature of the offence for which the accused was found not criminally responsible, not to the accused's mental health or how dangerous the individual may be.

A basic principle of criminal law states that criminal responsibility requires an operating mind. We understand that victims of violent and brutal acts actually need active physical and emotional support from the government and society. Those issues need to be addressed.

The Barreau du Québec has always promoted victim support and assistance services at every level. Their participation, their presence and their voices are important, but a democratic society also has a responsibility to create a fair balance. Punitive measures must be avoided, because the emphasis has to be on healing to protect society.

My colleague Ms. Joncas and I are here to answer your questions, and we would be happy to do so.

Thank you.

[Stacy Galt, As an Individual]

I'm sorry but I really must apologize. I'm so nervous being here, but I'm so thankful to be here and to be heard. Thank you very much.

I've prepared something. I'm really being drawn to tell you the story. The actual story is very hard to put on paper. This is why I'm here to tell you why you should pass Bill C-54.

As most of you know, the Allan Schoenborn case happened in Merritt about four years ago. Allan Schoenborn followed my cousin to Merritt.

My cousin Darcie Clarke and her three children—10-year-old Kaitlynne, 8-year-old Max, and 5-year-old Cordon—went to Merritt happily. They had a good school to go to and a wonderful home. Darcie provided for them. She called me for a reference so she could actually start work and get her feet underneath her and get her life back and move on and move forward for her children, to make sure they had a healthy environment to grow up in.

She was there. About two months went by. As I said, she phoned me and asked me for a reference so she could get a job because they were doing great in school. We thought the worst was over. Allan was leaving her alone.

I can't remember if it was the Thursday or the Friday he showed up in town. My cousin Darcie was scared. She wouldn't let him in the house, but the kids wanted to see their father. So as a good parent would, she took them to the park and let them see their father. He kept saying he wanted to stay, he wanted to stay. My cousin Darcie was scared and she said, “No, you can't stay.”

The kids wanted to see their father, so being a good parent, she wasn't going to begrudge her children the right to see their father. This is what's sticking with her. She didn't want her kids to resent her, and she let them see their father. She never in her wildest dreams thought he would do this to his own children. These were his children. She thought he was going to kill her. He'd always focused on her.

Anyway, I remember my mom calling me and telling me that Allan was back in town and that my cousin Darcie left him alone with the children. She went to stay at her mother's house for the night so he could spend time with his kids.

I can't remember if he phoned or she phoned, but he kept telling her to come home. She kept saying, “No, this is your time with the kids. Enjoy yourself with the children. All we do is argue and fight, and we don't want to keep arguing and fighting in front of the children.” He wouldn't let her get off the phone. He kept begging her to come home. It was maybe about two hours, she said, and she wanted to say goodnight to the kids and he wouldn't let her. He said, “No, they're sleeping already. They're fine. Don't worry. They're sleeping.” She said, “Okay.”

She had to deal with this. This is what separated people do. She phoned in the morning, and there was no answer. She said, “Okay, phone again.” No answer. As soon as that happened, she just ran out the door, ran home, which was a long way. When she got there, it was every human being's nightmare.

What happened was while 10-year-old Kaitlynne, who was the spitting image of her mother—blonde hair, blue eyes, just beautiful—was sleeping, he took a machete and slashed her face open. I was there when the testimony was read. Allan even said that Kaitlynne started saying, “Daddy, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. What did I do?” He just kept hitting her with a machete.

Then, of course, with this going on, Max, who was eight years old, and Cordon, who was five years old, walked in to witness their father murdering their sister and they were not able to help. Of course, they were next. They had to watch each other brutally die at the hands of their own father.

Eight-year-old Max was next. Allan Schoenborn grabbed a pillow and suffocated him, because the machete was too bloody. It didn't work fast enough and Kaitlynne could scream. For Max, he put a pillow over his head and suffocated him, and five-year-old Cordon had to watch. Then it was Cordon's turn.

Max didn't die easily. He couldn't be suffocated quickly enough. It was too messy. So while five-year-old Cordon waited, he found a plastic bag to put over his head to suffocate him.

Darcie wouldn't go home. He wanted her there because he wanted to kill her, too. She has always known that. He thought that if he killed everybody, they'd all be together in heaven.

So what does he do? He leaves Kaitlynne in the bed, grabs Max and Cordon, props them on the couch to make it look like they're sleeping so that Darcie would have to get really close before she realized they were dead. He wrote “forever young”, which we thought was in blood but it was in soy sauce, above the kids' bodies. “Forever young” was Disney movies and stuff like that.

Darcie explained to me how she felt when she walked in. “Oh, my gosh, the kids are there, but wait a minute. They're not moving.” She got close. She saw their little faces. Then she ran into the bedroom to see Kaitlynne, her face slashed open by a machete.

Where did he get the machete? He brought it with him. She was up there for two months. He drove for hours. He had waited for days. He wanted to get her in the house. He premeditated it. He thought about it. It's unbelievably terrifying. If he gets out, I know she'll be dead. I'm helping Darcie. He's not going to let me go. He wanted to kill her children in front of her so she would suffer.

After the court hearing, we thought for sure that it would be seen as being premeditated. That was going to happen, we thought, but there was a past history in his family of mental illness, and he was deemed to be not criminally responsible.

My cousin Darcie can't live in Merritt any more. My heart goes out to her. I said, “Come live with me.” I wanted her to move in with me a long time ago. I wanted her to come and stay with me, but my mom was scared for my safety and told me I wasn't allowed. She went to Merritt to stay with her mother, and rightly so. But it was my turn to finally help her, to finally help my cousin. We grew up together. We were so close.

She came to live with me. Just looking at her, I see what she is going through, not wanting to come out of her room. She's just a wisp of a person. It was a lot of hard work on my part to get her to the point where she would eat, where she would come out of her room, where she would leave the house, and then she has to do the yearly review.

She comes home from going out. She got a pool pass. This is what kills me. He knows her so well. She got a pool pass. I was so proud of her, especially her wanting to be around children. How could she want to be around children so soon after hers have gone? She loves kids. She loves to be around children. I am feeling so proud of her, proud of her progress. She comes home with a newspaper article with Allan's face on it, saying that he is up early and wants to go to the pool, that he wants to go to Starbucks for coffee.

He's in my area. Colony Farm is right down the street. What if he were to get out on a pass? I could walk into him. My cousin could walk into him, could see him. I shouldn't have to live like that, and neither should she.

I thought I had called whoever I could call. I e-mailed whoever I could e-mail. The response was, “This is the way the law is laid out. There's nothing we can do. You'd have to change the law.” I said, “How do I do that? Help me. All I want is help.”

Barry Penner, who was our attorney general at the time, said, “Stacy, what do you really want? Think reasonably. You're dealing with somebody who's mentally ill and needs care. You're dealing with a victim who has to go through a yearly review and can never heal. What would you like to see happen here?”

My cousin and I talked. We knew that no matter what we did, even if we did change the law, it would never pertain to Allan. It would never pertain to me. It wasn't going to help us, but it would help someone else. It would help another family. It would help another mother or father not to have to go through the pain. We thought that was good enough. If we could help somebody else, it would be worth it.

I've fought long and hard. I've been on TV and radio shows talking about this. It's mind-boggling how my being here right now, speaking in front of you, has happened.

Obviously the good people at the right time and in the right place and in the right situation are the reasons I am here. I'm really thankful for that because I get to speak and have my say, and not only that, but maybe pave the way for someone else to find some peace.

My cousin Darcie cannot go to the yearly reviews. She can't stand up for herself. I'm the one who has to go. I'm the one who has to sit there and look into the eyes of the devil knowing what he did. I want him to get care and I need him to get care, but I also need my cousin to have time to heal.

If Allan is in there for the next 30 years, I'll have to go to a review board hearing 30 times. How am I supposed to heal? Every time my cousin seems to get a little better, a yearly review comes up. She has three birthdays to deal with, Christmas, Easter, Mother's Day, Father's Day. Not only that, the review is held the same month the murders occurred. The pain....

I'm sorry, I'm talking too much.

The worst part about it, though, is that Allan was controlling and he still has control. He can stay a review. He doesn't have to show up for a review. He can ask for a transfer. My cousin doesn't want him moved. She wants to know where he is so I can take care of things for her, be there to speak for her.

You may say that she doesn't have to speak, that it's common sense, and she doesn't have to write out this victim impact statement every year, that it's not necessary. But when you're a victim, it is necessary, it is very necessary.

I'm sorry.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I call this meeting to order.

Thank you, witnesses. We were voting, so we're a little late in starting. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, meeting number 77. The orders of the day are, pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, May 28, Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder).

We have three panels today.

My goal is to make sure that all the witnesses have an opportunity to get their 10 minutes to put their thoughts on the record, and then we'll go to as many questions as possible.

There are likely going to be more votes this afternoon, so we may have to interrupt this meeting. To get started, I'll call your organization and you can introduce yourself. That will save time in our having to do it twice.

As individuals we have Ms. Stacy Galt and Dave Teixeira.

You're sharing the first five minutes, and the floor is yours, Ms. Galt.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Chair. I'm going to share my time with Mr. Jacob.

I want to say to all three presenters how thoughtful your presentations were”. In particular, Dr. Triano-Antidormi, I was really moved by what you had to say. Thank you for coming and saying it.

My first question is for Ms. Latimer. It's a very simple question, and I have asked other witnesses the same one.

Having analyzed the bill in its current form, would the John Howard Society support Bill C-54?

[Dr. Lori Triano-Antidormi, Psychologist, As an Individual]

Thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today on Bill C-54.

I am a mother, a victim impacted by a crime committed by someone found NCR, and a practising psychologist.

l am the mother of Zachary Lawrence Antidormi. Zachary was murdered on March 27, 1997, at the age of two and a half. Zachary was playing with his best friend when our neighbour, Ms. Lucia Piovesan, came out of her house with a large kitchen knife tucked under her cape and stabbed my little Zachary 12 times. My beautiful Zachary died as a result of his injuries and, as you can imagine, my life was changed forever. I did not have my beautiful boy. I was rendered non-functional for almost a year, and people have now come to call me a bereaved mother and a victim.

Ms. Piovesan, who was 60 years old at the time of the act, suffered from a serious mental illness. She suffered from paranoid schizophrenia. Her delusions led her to believe that the spirit of her own dead son lived within my Zachary. She stabbed Zachary numerous times to release her son's spirit from Zachary. Ms. Piovesan was found not criminally responsible.

Ms. Piovesan had a history of erratic behaviour. Over the years, she had come in contact with hospitals, various doctors and psychiatrists, and the police, but she was never properly assessed or treated. We had called the police to our home more than a dozen times with the hope of having her apprehended and assessed. Ms. Piovesan's daughter also tried, without success, to have her mother apprehended, assessed, and put into treatment, but she, too, continually hit barriers.

Ms. Piovesan's daughter, as is true for much of the public, did not understand her mother's thinking or her mother's behaviour. She did not understand her mother's mental illness, and she did not appreciate the quality of her mother's delusional thinking. She tried to correct it and challenge it. In the end it was her mother's delusional thinking that formed the basis of her actions to murder my son to release the spirit of hers.

This year, on March 27, I was home from work owing to the fact that since Zachary's death, I have taken that day off, mainly for self-care. It was on March 27, 2013 that a verdict of not criminally responsible was reached in a tragic case in Ontario. It was determined that the individual who committed the crime suffers from a serious mental illness, and owing to the nature of his illness, he engaged in a behaviour that led to the death of another human being. The media coverage on this case and on Bill C-54 stirred feelings in me that surprised me, given their intensity. Given the intensity of these feelings, I felt compelled to explore them further.

Bill C-54 stirs in me feelings of upset in that the bill is very stigmatizing and punitive and does not reflect an accurate understanding of serious mental illness. The creation of a high-risk category based on brutality of the crime, for example, is not founded in any evidence. Brutality of the crime does not determine risk. Drawing attention to the brutality of the crime serves, instead, to perpetuate a myth that people with mental illness are violent. Further, lengthening the review from one year to three years for the high-risk accused is, in my opinion, punitive, not rehabilitative.

l do not understand how this bill will accomplish what it claims to be one of its main goals, namely, to enhance public safety. It is my understanding and experience that the review boards, which review cases annually and determine the level of security for those found NCR, work very hard to balance public safety with the rights of those with mental illness, and their efforts seem to be working.

My family was not protected. The lack of protection was not, however, due to flaws in current NCR legislation, but to a mental health system that is not working and has many gaps. Bill C-54 would not have protected my family, but an improved mental health system might have.

As already stated, the current NCR legislation appears to be working, with recidivism rates of NCR accused lower than those of persons found criminally responsible and managed by the corrections system. I find myself repeatedly asking, “Why target individuals after their crime is committed rather than directing more attention to preventing such crimes in the first place?”

When I read about the high-profile NCR case in the paper and learned that people had noticed the mental health of this individual deteriorating, and that he attended a walk-in clinic just a day before the killing with his main presenting complaint related to his thinking, I could not help but wonder what happened at that walk-in clinic.

Disordered thinking is a main characteristic of schizophrenia and this man was seeking assistance given his disordered thinking. Why was he not admitted for further assessment and treatment of his complaints and psychiatric status? Would it have taken too much time and effort? Were there no psychiatric beds available? Did the attending physician carry out a proper assessment? Did he have the knowledge to make an accurate diagnosis, or did he consider a referral? I can't help but ask, as I did some 16 years ago, did a faulty mental health system fail the families of the victim and the individual who committed the crime due to his mental illness? We must remember both families are victims.

Bill C-54 seeks—it claims—to protect the public and support victims. The mental health community supports the amendments related to victims' involvement. To this end, I can say that as a victim, I have been treated with respect and consideration. No one is arguing against the amendments pertaining to victims' involvement. Other components of the bill, however, are ill-informed and not evidence-based. As I have already indicated, they are stigmatizing and punitive and lead the public to believe that people with mental illness commit these acts because of ill intent created out of a sound mind. It is the mental illness that leads to the act.

Understanding Zachary's murder was not easy for me even as a psychologist. Understanding mental illness is complicated, and for victims such as myself, there is a strong need to hold someone accountable for the murder of their loved ones. The “lock 'em up and throw away the key” approach, however, has a vengeful nature and points the finger in the wrong direction. It does not reflect any attempt to understand the complexity of mental illness. Until the government directs its efforts at improving the mental health system versus creating a bill like Bill C-54 which will not protect Canadians, we are no better off.

Zachary was murdered over 16 years ago. Over these years, I strongly hoped our government would take leadership in helping people with mental illness so they would never get to the point of committing a crime. Instead, Canadians are presented with a bill that will not protect the public or help prevent a crime committed by someone with a mental illness.

As a victim, I ask this government to work with both the mental health community and victims to create a bill that will actually be effective in enhancing public safety rather than one that will only negatively impact people with mental illness.

Thank you.

[Catherine Latimer, Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada]

Thank you very much.

It's a great pleasure to be here today to talk to you about Bill C-54.

I'm speaking on behalf of the John Howard Society of Canada, which is a community-based charity committed to supporting effective, just, and humane responses to the causes and consequences of crime. The society has more than 60 front-line offices across the country, with programs and services that help to make communities safer.

You've already heard a number of witnesses who have parsed the content of Bill C-54 for you. I won't go into that in detail, except to say that the John Howard Society of Canada has no problems with the elements of the bill that are designed to assist victims, particularly in notification and providing no-contact orders. But as an evidence-based organization that is principally driven, we are unaware of any evidence suggesting that the existing review board procedures dealing with “not criminally responsible” are flawed. We would welcome seeing the basis for these proposed changes.

One of the key elements of a fair justice system is an ability to differentiate between the criminal and the medical dynamic in certain incidents. At the heart of fairness in the criminal law is that to be held responsible and liable to punishment, the perpetrator must not only do the act, but must also have criminal capacity, that is, to have understood the nature and consequences of the behaviour and to have appreciated that it was wrong. Factors such as mental illness, brain injury, and age can render a person incapable of having the necessary criminal intent, and therefore the person is not blameworthy or punishable for the act.

Many people, when they see a horrific act done by someone who is later found not to be criminally responsible, continue to refer to it as being a crime. It is a tragedy, but it doesn't hit the Criminal Code standard of being a crime because the perpetrator is not criminally responsible.

We are very concerned to make sure that those who have committed acts and are found NCR and no longer a danger to the public are not punished but are treated and reintegrated safely back into the community. The treatment and release regime in this area is delivered with much greater success than the treatment, release, and rehabilitation regime of the criminal justice system generally in terms of reduction in recidivism.

I had the benefit of reading the Canadian Bar Association's brief. We are very supportive of their charter jurisprudence dealing with the mentally ill accused and some of the issues that they raised. Our concerns are concentrated on two fronts. One is the adverse impact on the NCR regime. Our first concern is the high-risk designation under proposed paragraph 672.64(1)(b), which allows there to be a designation of high risk based on a single act. No matter how brutal, a single act is not an indicator of future risk. To impose additional restrictions on liberty based on this labelling is unfair and would likely violate section 7 of the charter and fail to meet a rational connection test under section 1.

Moreover, the high-risk designation and personal injury offence both could be based on psychological harm. To allow psychological harm as a trigger for a high-risk designation invites what the Supreme Court of Canada identified in Swain as “an irrational fear of the mentally ill” to influence the labelling and the treatment of the NCR.

The problem with the designation, and the regime that follows is it may be that people who can be quickly treated with psychotropic drugs and are able to be successfully and safely reintegrated into the community would have to wait an additional two years. Instead of the annual review, there would now be a three-year review. This would be an unfortunate and arbitrary detention of someone who does not need to be detained based on their mental health status.

Moreover, those designated as high risk who have permanent brain injuries and conditions that are not treatable, such as FASD and senile dementia, could be subject to indeterminate detention.

There are many community-based regimes which allow for people with certain brain injuries to function in a safe way in a community. It would avoid them taking up space in very expensive, highly limited forensic psychiatric institutions if there was some ability to look at their ability to be dealt with in the community in a safe way.

The regime really only has two categories: you're either in the regime or you're no longer designated high risk, and that presents another slight problem for us.

We also would prefer that the designation of high risk be done by the review board, rather than it being a judicial determination. The review boards are equipped with psychiatrists and the medical expertise to actually make a fair assessment as to whether or not someone constitutes a future risk. It would be beneficial to leave the expertise in the review board for that purpose.

The other concern of the John Howard Society is the adverse impact on the justice and correctional system and on scarce mental health resources. There is a legitimate concern that fewer mentally ill accused will raise an NCR defence. To get to the gate of a judge determining that you should be designated high risk, you would first have to be found to be NCR, which is usually a hearing which is kicked off by the accused or the accused's lawyer because they have identified certain psychiatric problems.

If they choose not to go with an NCR defence, it would be likely that they would be dealt with in the formal justice system, even though they may not have been capable of framing a criminal intent. The result would be that it would be unjust to punish them for an offence for which they lack the mens rea, but opted not to pursue an NCR defence because they did not want to be labelled with the high-risk designation and risk longer periods of confinement.

This could mean that more people with serious mental health conditions would end up in our corrections system, which is ill-equipped to address their needs. This is a high priority for many organizations, including the Correctional Service of Canada, to improve the capacity to deal with people who have serious mental illnesses and who are in the correctional system now. Adding to those numbers will make this challenge all the more difficult.

The other concern is with people who are designated as high risk and detained for longer periods in forensic psychiatric facilities. You're giving priority to people for scarce limited resources who may not pose the highest need or the most risk to the community, and most legitimately need that particular set of services.

In conclusion, the John Howard Society strongly supports the policy objective of limiting the harms caused by mental illness, both to the primary victims, those afflicted with the disease, and to others, including their family members.

Bill C-54, however, will not achieve that objective. It will impose labels inconsistent with therapeutic goals of treatment and public safety. It will remove therapeutic expertise by making the labelling and associated regime a judicial process or a judicial determination. It will require that limited psychiatric hospital space be allocated on the basis of the designation, and it will have the effect of compounding the serious challenges posed by those with mental health issues in the corrections system.

The real challenge for public safety is the number of inadequately treated prisoners with mental health issues who will be returning to communities. This is where as a society we need to marshal our efforts and our resources. The review board process for the NCR is working well and does not need, in our view, to be changed.

Thank you.

[Chris Summerville, Chief Executive Officer, Alliance Facilitator, Schizophrenia Society of Canada]

I would like to thank the committee for providing me with the opportunity to testify on Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act.

My name is Chris Summerville and I've been the CEO of the Schizophrenia Society of Canada for seven years, as well as the executive director of the Manitoba Schizophrenia Society for nearly 18 years.

I am here not only on behalf of the Schizophrenia Society of Canada and all of its provincial counterparts, but also on behalf of eight national mental health organizations and Canada's largest mental health hospital, CAMH. They see the necessity of working together to minimize the negative impact of Bill C-54.

As well, I am a family member who grew up in the presence of mental illness—a brother with schizophrenia, another brother and my own father who lived with bipolar disorder. All three came into conflict with the criminal justice system due to untreated mental illness. Two of the three eventually committed suicide. I know mental illness inside and out. I could tell you of many personal traumatic horror stories due to untreated mental illness—physical, emotional, and sexual abuse.

Now let me be crystal clear. There are negative impacts and unintended consequences of this bill. Mental health and mental illness are complex, as the government is aware with its establishment of the Mental Health Commission of Canada, of which I am honoured to be a board member.

Understanding mental illness requires a commitment that will lead to overcoming barriers to treatment and recovery. Bill C-54 does little to understand mental illness in order to protect Canadians, and therefore it will not protect Canadians. It's as simple as that.

First and foremost we wholeheartedly support changes that create greater involvement for victims in the process. Without a doubt we want all victims affected by crime to be part of the process. It is our goal and desire to have fewer victims of crimes committed by, and on, people living with a mental illness, and that is why we are here today.

That being said, there are missed opportunities in this bill for victims, such as enhanced trauma-informed psychological support and services. The government has an opportunity to make changes that will result in fewer crimes being committed by people living with a mental illness. I would remind you that only 3% of people with a mental illness come in conflict with the law, let alone commit a serious crime. This means ensuring that people living with a mental illness have access to the services they need. How many times do we hear about a person living with a mental illness trying to find help before they fall through the cracks or commit a crime? Too many.

Instead of focusing on preventing the crime in the first place, Bill C-54 focuses on punitive and stigmatizing measures that undermine the purpose of the not criminally responsible designation in the first place.

We should be here today discussing a bill that would enhance mental health services for all: early identification; early intervention; and early treatment options. Mental illnesses are treatable and recovery is possible. This includes schizophrenia and psychosis.

I can honestly say it is awkward for me to be pleading with the Government of Canada to work with the mental health community on a bill about people living with mental illness. None of the nine organizations were consulted before the announcement of this bill. This should be common sense, but now I am in front of all of you today trying to make sure changes are not made that will actually jeopardize the safety of Canadians, while further stigmatizing people living with a mental illness.

Our primary request today is not to rush such an important bill, but for you to work with the mental health community in collaboration with victims. If the government chooses not to, we revert to the following recommendations to minimize unintended consequences.

Number one, remove the creation of a high-risk category based on the brutality of the crime. This is simply not evidence-based and there is no correlation between high risk and the nature of the crime and the response to treatment. We want individuals reintegrated into the community at the right time, as medically decided by the patient's health care team, which includes forensic psychologists and psychiatrists. Creating categories and labels that have no evidence behind them will prevent the patient from getting the help that he or she requires.

Number two, expand the criteria around supervised passes from “medically necessary” to “for any purposes related to the accused's treatment plan and recovery”. This would allow for easier access to treatment-related visits.

Number three, eliminate retroactivity of the bill. Again, the purpose of the NCR designation is to provide treatment for the individuals so they may recover and successfully live life in the community with the appropriate supports and services. They are patients, not criminals.

If retroactivity continues to be the goal, then retroactivity may prevent a patient on conditional discharge and anyone moving toward discharge from reintegrating into society at the right time. Holding them longer than they need to stay when having responded successfully to treatment will not only hinder their care, it will mean the longer detainment is for punitive reasons and not to protect the public or better their mental health.

Number four, include the requirement for research to evaluate the impacts of the proposed changes. Too many people, such as Dr. Crocker, have expressed their concerns over the proposed changes. To encourage transparency and accountability, research should be conducted before the bill takes effect, and if the bill is passed, certainly research after the bill takes effect.

I want to conclude by asking you to give more credit to Canadians. They want an effective, recovery-oriented working mental health system. Most Canadians fully recognize that rushing this bill is in no one's best interest. They recognize that further shaping this bill by working in partnership with mental health organizations will not jeopardize their safety because certain high-profile NCR individuals are soon to be before the review board.

If these individuals are not fully ready to be reintegrated into society, the review board will not allow it. Please give greater credit to the review boards and the medical service providers—the professional experts. Evidence shows the work they do is producing successful results. Let's not interfere with this with a bill that will not render any positive results.

Thank you.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for coming today.

I want to start with Mr. Burstein and Ms. Dann. I used to act for the B.C. Review Board, and I know of your reputation. I really welcome you to the committee.

I agree with Ms. Dann that review boards are often given deference by the courts in determining risk; there's just no doubt about that in the case law.

I want to ask both the CLA and the CBA a very simple question. If there were no amendments to Bill C-54, would you support this bill?