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.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, now that we have been sitting for a week under our Conservative government's plans for a harder-working, productive and orderly House of Commons, I would remind all hon. members of what we have been able to achieve since just Victoria Day.

Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012, was passed at report stage and third reading. Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act, was passed at second reading. Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, was passed at report stage and we started third reading debate, which we will finish tonight. Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act was passed at report stage and, just moments ago, at third reading. Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, was passed at second reading. Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, No. 1, was reported back from committee yesterday.

Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, was passed at report stage and we started third reading debate. Bill S-6, the first nations elections act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, which was reported back to the House this morning by the hard-working and fast running member for Peace River, has completed committee. Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act, was debated at second reading.

We will build on this record of accomplishment over the coming week.

This afternoon, as I mentioned, we will finish the second reading debate on Bill C-51. After that, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-56, Combating Counterfeit Products Act.

Tomorrow morning, we will start report stage on Bill C-60, now that the hard-working Standing Committee on Finance has brought the bill back to us. After I conclude this statement, Mr. Speaker, I will have additional submissions for your consideration on yesterday's point of order.

After question period tomorrow, we will get a start on the second reading debate on Bill S-15, Expansion and Conservation of Canada’s National Parks Act. I am optimistic that we would not need much more time, at a future sitting, to finish that debate.

On Monday, before question period, we will debate Bill S-17, Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013, at second reading. In the afternoon, we will hopefully finish report stage consideration of Bill C-60, followed by Bill S-2 at third reading.

On Tuesday, we will return to Bill S-2 if necessary. After that, I hope we could use the time to pass a few of the other bills that I mentioned earlier, as well as the forthcoming bill on the Yale First Nation Final Agreement.

Wednesday, June 5 shall be the eighth allotted day of the supply cycle. That means we will discuss an NDP motion up until about 6:30 p.m. This will be followed by a debate on the main estimates. Then we will pass to two appropriations acts.

Next Thursday, I would like to return back to Bill C-60, our budget implementation legislation, so we can quickly pass that important bill for the Canadian economy.

Bill C-52—Time Allocation Motion

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are delighted to hear that the minister is unblocked, finally.

That said, I think this is the fourth time in four days that I have risen to criticize this process, something that now seems to be standard practice for this government. They bring in a gag order to end debate.

What the Minister is not saying is that in 2006, the Prime Minister prorogued the House because he was about to be clobbered by the opposition parties. Such actions tend to derail bills. There were elections after that in 2008 and 2011.

Today, all of a sudden, on this beautiful May 29, we are told there is great urgency—in fact, we hear this every day. This is the fourth bill of its kind, and they are not trivial bills either.

There was Bill C-48, which dealt with all kinds of tax amendments, Bill C-49, meant to change the name and mandate of a museum, and Bill C-54, the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act. These are not inconsequential bills.

Now we have Bill C-52 before us. I believe the cat was let out of the bag yesterday when a colleague of the minister rose to say that they were ultimately not interested in what people from the various ridings had to tell them. What interested them was what they, the Conservatives, had to say on those matters.

In their view, once we agree on a bill, we should be quiet, stay politely seated and not say another word because, in any case, they are not interested in what the people of Gatineau have to say, through their member, on the merits of the issue.

Only three hours were allotted for debate at third reading. That is appalling. It is a hijacking, not of a train, but of debate. It is shameful. For reasons unbeknownst to us, this is now part of this government's normal procedure.

I do not want to know whether the bill is good, since we are going to vote for it. I want to know why we are being compelled to do it this way. To date, the minister does not appear to want to give us an answer that is sensible and acceptable, at least for the people of Gatineau.

Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It being three o'clock, pursuant to an order made on Wednesday, May 22, 2013, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-54.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from May 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if any of my law faculty colleagues from long ago are watching right now, they will probably be sniggering because they will remember that tax law was not my favourite field. I would add that it was not the favourite field of many law students.

However, it is probably the subject that affects people's everyday lives the most. People always talk about the long arm of the government and how it finds all kinds of ways, each more imaginative than the next, to reach in and take what we earn with the sweat of our brow. Sometimes it does that under what is called the Income Tax Act. At other times it does so by means of hidden taxes, which are highly valued by the Conservatives, with charges levied on all kinds of things.

We pay our share every day and our money flows in many ways into the government's coffers. Many people will obviously wonder why I am rising to discuss Bill C-48. I am doing so because it has an impact on everyone's life. It has an impact on the lives of the people in my riding, Gatineau. That is as true for small businesses as it is for big businesses, but it is also true for individuals. They pay every day through the GST, and barely a month ago they did through their income tax returns, so this is not the easiest subject.

Earlier I flipped through the act and thought back on marvellous memories of my time at the law faculty and on the Income Tax Act, just from looking at a few sections of the act. I wondered why legislators were incapable of coming up with anything simpler.

I was listening to the member on the other side of the House who spoke before me. Several questions were put to her, all asking the same thing: why are we making technical amendments in 2013 that should have been in place since 2001? Let us get something straight. This is technical, but Bill C-48 is already in force by means of comfort letters.

People must understand that, from the moment the mean taxman decides that something must be done, it is done, even if it is not yet included in the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act or related legislation. From the moment a comfort letter is signed, the government takes that money from our pockets. This will therefore make little change to people's lives, but it will be much easier to access because it will finally be in the act. Comfort letters are all well and good, and they say what they say, but they are not always clear.

For individuals, our tax system is based on voluntary assessment. In other words, we rely on average Canadians to file their tax return by April 30. If they are lucky, and Revenue Canada does not ask them to produce various documents, they can use the short form. In fact, it is not over yet. Even for people with some training in taxation, it is not very straightforward.

As the Auditor General said, this is not like other bills, where we have seen three versions die on the order paper as a result of an election or prorogation forced by the Conservative government, whose agenda disappeared as if by magic. In this case, the work just was not done. The work was also not done by the Liberals, since the previous legislation dates back to 2001. Auditors general have been calling on the legislators of the House for ages to do something about this more quickly.

In this way, the public could immediately see the changes to the legislation.

In my opinion, the Conservative response to this matter does not stand up. The legislation has not had previous incarnations, nor has it taken a great deal of time, nor is it the opposition’s fault. That is absolutely not the case.

It has taken them this long to produce Bill C-48 and finally listen to what the Auditor General was telling them. What she was telling them was rather serious and blunt. She noted that there were more than 400 technical amendments, and there are barely 200 in Bill C-48.

In her fall 2009 report she said:

No income tax technical bill has been passed since 2001. Although the government has said [as quick as the devil] that an annual technical bill of routine housekeeping amendments to the Act is desirable, this has not happened. As a result, the Department of Finance Canada has a backlog of at least 400 technical amendments that have not been enacted, including 250 “comfort letters” dating back to 1998, recommending changes that have not been legislated.

If proposed technical changes are not tabled regularly, the volume of amendments becomes difficult for taxpayers, tax practitioners, and parliamentarians to absorb when they are grouped into a large package.

This is true, whether you are a New Democrat, a Liberal, the sole member of the Green Party or one of the few from the Bloc Québécois. This is true for everyone, including the Conservatives.

In the 1991 Report of the Auditor General, chapter 2, the Auditor General expressed some concerns that income tax comfort letters were not announced publicly. We are talking about chapter 2 of the Auditor General's report from 1991. In response, the Department of Finance Canada stated that:

…the government intends to release a package of income tax technical amendments on an annual basis, so that taxpayers will not be subject to more lengthy waiting periods as in the past before amendments are released to the public.

Comfort letters have since been regularly released to the public. However, in the past 18 years, very few technical bills have been introduced and passed. Only four of the bills relating to income tax have been passed.

A few sentences in my colleague's speech caught my attention. I found them surprising because it seemed to me that I had heard them yesterday as well. It is important to understand that all these bills are subject to a time allocation motion, be it Bill C-48 today, Bill C-54 last night or Bill C-49, which is to come and will not be spared either.

Introducing a time allocation motion for Bill C-48 seems particularly outrageous, especially when the members opposite do it ad nauseam, parroting the lines written and produced for them by the office on the third floor.

They are trying to tell us that this has been before the House for 200 days. Yet, Bill C-54 was also in the House for 200 days, as was Bill C-48, and Bill C-49 probably will be, as well.

With its majority, the government can advance its agenda as it pleases. Perhaps we are moving at a snail's pace because the government does not really know where it is going. It improvises a little and all of a sudden it realizes that the session may end and that it will leave a lot of things unfinished. That is why it is speeding everything up.

I hear people say we are repeating ourselves, but that is not the case. The message the people of Gatineau want me to send the Conservative government, particularly on Bill C-48, is that they are fed up with provisions so inaccessible and incomprehensible to the average person that everyone would like us to change those aspects.

When I got to page 13 of the Income Tax Act, I had covered only three sections, and I was already getting fed up.

Yet I was a lawyer for 30 years. I studied tax law. I was elected as a member in 2004. I have analyzed many budgets, and I have seen the Income Tax Act in all its forms, as a member of both the government and the official opposition. I was not born yesterday, but this can be hard to grasp even for someone like me.

Small businesses also point out a problem I regularly hear about in my riding of Gatineau. For a small business required to complete all the forms, the disproportionate amount of red tape is good only for the numbers expert industry.

When members of the middle class or less privileged individuals want to do the right thing and pay their taxes, but do not really know how the system works, they have to go see an expert to be sure they make no mistakes. Few people like to make mistakes when it comes to taxes. However, some people manage to divert a large portion of what they owe in taxes even though they make millions of dollars. Authorities often go after lower-income individuals and treat them like criminals even though some people are forced to make arrangements with the Canada Revenue Agency, Revenu Québec or other organizations simply because everyday life is hard for them.

We get these kinds of messages in our ridings. True, we will vote for the bill, but the Conservatives tell us to shut our traps the moment we agree with them. We are no longer entitled to speak. I do not have the right to tell the House what the people of my riding would like to get from their politicians, and I was elected by 62% of the electorate, not 39% like the Conservative government. There are lessons to be learned from each of our ridings. That is what democracy means. It means electing 308 members of different political philosophies. Gatineau may not have the same problem as certain ridings in Alberta, British Columbia or the Atlantic provinces. That is what makes it possible for us to improve the situation together.

Voting in favour of a bill is not necessarily the same thing as giving the government carte blanche or saying that overall the bill is amazing. Sometimes, the government would do well to listen to us and follow the interpretation, which it does not often do. This is unfortunate, but there is a reason why it sticks to the script, like a racehorse running straight for the finish line. The Conservatives’ problem is that they often hit a wall because they fail to listen to what people were saying along the way. That is regrettable, but the message they are sending to all of our constituents is that their opinion does not matter in the least.

Yet if there is one issue that affects all Canadians, regardless of where they live, surely it is taxation. My grandmother always said that in certain areas of life, things should be the same for everyone. I am sure that she would qualify that statement, since some people are good at avoiding certain things. She used to say that some things were unavoidable, like death and taxes. She was right up to a point, although she would surely be turning in her grave at all of the tax avoidance measures that abound today.

While I am very pleased to see that Bill C-48 attempts to address certain problems, I am not fooled either. The Minister of Justice argues that by amending and toughening up certain laws, the problems of all crime victims will be resolved. That is not true. If the government fails to put more police officers on the highways and to increase funding for psychological support services, then it will not accomplish anything. The same holds true for tax avoidance.

If there are not enough agents to properly investigate cases of tax avoidance, or better still, of tax evasion, we will hit another wall.

Again, this is a problem that the Conservatives have. They have an extremely narrow vision of how to get from point A to point B. They are incapable of appreciating that in order to get to point B and the desired outcome, they might have to make a small detour. But the Conservatives just do not do certain things, like admitting they were wrong or that they made a mistake. According to an old saying, a fault confessed is half redressed. They have a hard time with that and again, that is unfortunate.

Bill C-48 is a sound piece of legislation, but it does resolve everything. Had we not had to contend with this time allocation motion, we would have been able to hear a lot more from my colleagues, and maybe even from the Conservatives.

I listened to some of the speeches, and it was interesting to see what it is about this bill that makes some Conservatives react. Once they had dispensed with “we are the best, the nicest, the cleverest” or what have you, in the final 30 seconds, they tied it to what was happening in their riding. It was beneficial for all members of the House.

We can all learn from one another. I learn something from my colleagues who represent more rural regions. They in turn learn about what makes people in urban areas tick. Of course, there are different kinds of urban areas. There are large cities like Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver and cities like Gatineau, which is the fourth-largest municipality in Quebec. Gatineau’s problems are different because it is located right on the Ontario border. By talking to one another, it is possible to find real solutions.

When I served in Parliament from 2004 to 2006, I chaired the women’s caucus. Back then, my favourite expression was gender-based analysis, or GBA.

I would tell my male colleagues that GBA stood for gender-based analysis, not Game Boy Advance. When a bill was being drafted, we ensured that all of the facts were taken into account. We were not just concerned about women.

The best example I can give you is young people who drop out of school. If the facts show that young boys are the ones who drop out of school and a policy is needed to address that situation, then young boys will be the focus of that policy. That logic will dictate our actions.

We accomplish things by talking to one another, by discussing matters and especially by listening and by being willing to admit that sometimes ours is not the absolute truth. However, this government is absolutely incapable of understanding that someone other than the PMO may have some sound ideas or be right. Just imagine having to admit that the NDP had a sound idea. The government thinks the sky would fall and something terrible would happen if it admitted that. How utterly ridiculous and how out of touch with the public.

When I weigh everything, I tell myself that maybe this is what the Conservatives really want in the final analysis. All this really does is leave the public fed up. And what happens when people are fed up? The Conservatives are gambling on two possible outcomes: either that people will come out in force and vote them out of office, which I am hoping will be the case because people no longer want to have anything to do with them, or that people will stay home because they are sick and tired of the whole process. The Conservatives are gambling that the second scenario will play out.

I think people have to realize that while they may not be interested in politics, something like Bill C-48 affects their day-to-day lives, starting with taxation.

Just think about the tax people pay every day on all kinds of things. If they were to calculate how much tax they pay throughout the year, not just income tax, but tax on items purchased at the corner store, at the grocery store, at the drugstore or elsewhere, they would realize that the government is truly omnipresent and that perhaps they should pay attention to politics.

I will be voting in favour of the bill, but it is not an end in itself.

Second Reading

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to speak in support of Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder).

The NDP supports sending the bill to committee. As a number of people have said before me, there are some serious flaws in the bill that we want to address there. I have heard some welcoming comments from members across the aisle that they are looking forward to our amendments. I hope they really want to work with the opposition to make the legislation work. With that in mind, I am sure that the NDP representatives on the committee will put their hearts and souls into writing those amendments.

However, it will be the first time since I have been in the House.

I do not think there is anybody in this room who would disagree that public safety is paramount. No matter what part of the country one goes to, whether one has children or not, people really care about their communities and making sure they are safe.

I have strong feelings about the very poor job we are doing as a country and in the provinces addressing mental health issues. Recent reports show that depression is on the increase. The economic and health care costs related to that are huge.

For example, in my province of British Columbia, we saw many institutions that used to house people with mental disabilities and disorders shut down. Where did those people go? They ended up on the streets getting into all kinds of trouble, simply because they are ill and not able to manage on their own.

Bill C-54 is not talking about that larger group. We are talking about a very tiny group. It is a very small percentage of those with mental disorders who commit serious violent crimes. That is the crux of the legislation.

As many members are aware, based on a psychiatric report, even those who commit serious violent crimes can be released. We have examples of that. I have an example in my riding. A mother comes to see me quite regularly because she just cannot understand how that can happen.

We are talking about those who commit serious violent crimes. They would go before a review board, and now the victims would have a right to go to the review board and make impact statements. Not everybody can do that. Not every victim would be able to face the person who did them harm directly or indirectly. However, it is a very important part of the healing process and the social justice process for a person to be able to give an account of the impact a crime has had. I think that is a welcome piece of this legislation.

Of course, when the psychiatric review board made a decision, it would be reviewed by the courts before the accused was released. That is an additional element to ensure public safety and keep our communities safe.

It seems reasonable that before we release somebody, we would want to have that review so the medical and psychiatric professions have their input. A review board takes place at that time, impact statements are made and as a measure to ensure that everything is on track, the court will review that before the person is released. All of that sounds really good.

Then we get to the crux of the matter, which is who will pay for this? If this is more downloading of costs to the provinces, then I will have some serious concerns because we have had so much downloading of costs to them. There is so much they have had to pick up. We know where that ends up in each province. In British Columbia it has led to impacting the education and health care systems and many other programs. Therefore, we want to ensure we look at that.

As I mentioned earlier on, having been a teacher and counsellor in a high school, as well as a counsellor in the community, what hits me hard is that I absolutely believe in our judicial system, which is a rehabilitative system, but I also believe in prevention programs and taking proactive steps. It is high time the federal and provincial parties work together to find ways to address mental health issues as well as the costs associated with that.

Some people would say that we cannot afford to do that. However, the costs of incarceration are eightfold to the cost of quality education. It seems that in many cases we are not willing to spend $8,000 a year on educating a child, but we are willing to spend $60,000 to $100,000 a year to incarcerate people and keep them in prison. If incarceration were a judgment of how safe we are as a society, we just have to look to the south where the U.S. probably has a very high number of people in prisons. It does not make its streets and communities any safer. I would say it is less so.

We are pleased to support this and send it to committee where we will bring in amendments. We are pleased to see that for the very small percentage of people with mental disorders who commit violent crimes there will be an opportunity for victims to make statements. Also, through Bill C-10, there will be a review by the courts for those people to be released.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this profoundly important bill before the House. Bill C-54 is one that calls for all parliamentarians to reach deeply into their experience and their commitment to making good sound public policy in the country and it calls upon us to balance some of the most important values that we have, not only as parliamentarians but as Canadians.

The proposed legislation will amend the Criminal Code to create a process for the designation of “not criminally responsible” accused persons as high risk where the accused person has been found not criminally responsible of a serious personal injury offence and there is a substantial likelihood for further violence that would endanger the public or, alternately, in cases in which the acts were of such a brutal nature as to indicate a risk of grave harm to the public.Those designated as “high-risk” accused persons will not be granted a conditional or absolute discharge and the designation can only be revoked by the court, following a recommendation of the review board. It is important that this designation will apply only to those found not criminally responsible and not to persons found unfit to stand trial.

The proposed legislation outlines that a high-risk 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. Also, the review board may decide to extend the review period for up to three years for those designated high risk, instead of annually. The high-risk NCR designation would not affect access to treatment by the accused.

This bill would also speak to the very important role of victims in this important matter. These changes would ensure that victims were notified upon request when an accused who had been found guilty and received a not criminally responsible designation was discharged. It would allow non-communication orders to be issued between the accused and the victim. Finally, it would ensure that the safety of victims be considered when decisions were being made about an accused person.

Provisions in the proposed legislation would also help ensure consistent interpretation and application of the law across the country. These proposed reforms would not change the existing Criminal Code eligibility for the exemption from criminal responsibility on account of mental disorders.

This is a very difficult issue for victims, families and communities and for all of those involved in the criminal justice system, from the police to the prosecutors to the defence bar to the judiciary. Public safety must come first when complying with the rule of law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but it calls on very important balancing to be done. A number of recent cases that received significant media attention in Canada raised questions about the appropriateness and effectiveness of the current approach. In particular, we want to know how we can help victims better in the process and deal sensitively, fairly and effectively with not criminally responsible offenders.

In the coming weeks, we New Democrats want to talk with mental health experts, victims and members of the bar in provinces to find out what they believe is the best approach. It is important to note that we New Democrats do not want to play political games with this file. We must focus on the policies, merits and serious issues that are involved in this matter.

I want to talk about some things that jump out as inherently positive from the bill. First, Public safety as a paramount consideration is important to note. Second, increasing the involvement of victims in the process is something that will find favour on all sides of this House. Third, the ability of victims to be notified, to have non-communication orders issued and to have their own safety be considered in all matters respecting a not criminally responsible offender are all laudable goals.

It is positive to have review boards have the option and not the obligation to extend the time for review and it is something that will expand the efficiency of our system. However, it is important to note that there are important causes for concern and pause here.

This bill proposes that there be a limit to the number of community visits for high-risk accused persons. That introduces the concept of having mandatory minimum approaches to this area of the law that I think is so typical and characteristic of the Conservative approach to crime, which study, statistics and experience of jurisdictions around the world have shown to be such an utter failure. There is also a legitimate concern about charter compliance and, very importantly, unjustifiable stigmatization of those with mental illness.

I want to address something that I think the Minister of Natural Resources mentioned a couple of hours ago, and that is the fact that a very sizable proportion of offenders who get NCR designations had some experience with the law prior. In fact, a very sizable percentage of those people had been incarcerated before. It is very important for us to note what kind of assistance is available to people with mental health issues in the current federal justice and penal systems and what the Conservatives' record is on dealing with the people who have experience with our criminal system before they get NCR designations.

There was a committee prepared in December 2010 entitled, “Mental Health and Drug and Alcohol Addiction in the Federal Correctional System”. In that report, after exhaustive study across this country, visiting some 20 federal institutions and hearing from all kinds of witnesses, there were 71 recommendations made to the government to deal with mental health in our prison system. Those recommendations were for the very people whose mental health issues first emanate in our system and end up getting NCR designations in many cases. These were some of the things recommended.

Recommendation 1 stated:

That the federal government, in cooperation with the provinces and territories, make a commitment to and a serious investment in the mental health system, in order to ease the identification of and access to treatment for people suffering from mental health and addictions before they end up in the correctional system.

Recommendation 3 stated:

That the federal government work with provinces and territories in order to ensure that police officers, Crown prosecutors and other key players in the criminal justice system be trained to recognize the symptoms of mental health problems, mental illness and drug and alcohol abuse so that they can direct offenders to the appropriate treatment services.

Recommendation 4 stated:

That the federal government work with the provinces and territories on early identification of mental health and addiction issues affecting offenders in remand, and secure access to treatment services for them in order to address conditions that are so often precursors to escalating crime and incarceration.

Recommendation 5 stated:

That the federal government support the creation and funding of more drug treatment courts to divert offenders with addictions to treatment centres and mental health courts to divert those with mental health needs to appropriate services.

Recommendation 17 stated:

That Correctional Service Canada work towards a psychologist/patient ratio of no more than 1:35 at all federal institutions.

That was evidence received from the Canadian Psychological Association.

Recommendation 19 stated:

That Correctional Service Canada add psychiatric nurses and nurses at every federal institution.

Recommendation 21 stated:

That Correctional Service Canada place a renewed focus on individualized treatment for all offenders with diagnosed mental health conditions, including addiction issues.

Recommendation 28 stated:

That Correctional Service Canada cover the cost of all medication prescribed to treat mental illness of offenders on conditional release in the community through warrant expiry.

Those are just a handful of the 71 recommendations made three years ago to the government. Do members know how many recommendations the Conservatives have put into practice? Not one, not one of 71 recommendations. Yet the Conservatives stand in the House when there is a serious media story of someone who finally commits a serious act, someone who has been involved with the correctional system, and want to pass a law that deals with the aftermath.

Here is the difference between the New Democrats and the Conservatives. New Democrats want to work to prevent crime from happening in the first place. New Democrats care more about victims than the Conservatives do because we want to make sure that there are no victims in the first place. Instead of trying to deal with the aftermath, the shattered lives of victims after crimes have been committed, New Democrats will actually put money and resources into the system, unlike the Conservatives. Instead of chasing cheap headlines and cheap answers that do not work, we will put the resources in so that people suffering from mental health in this country get the treatment they deserve that will keep them out of the penal system, out of the courts and, most importantly, keep our communities safe. That is the sensible approach to mental health in this country. That is a sensible approach to deal with people in the criminal justice system. It is the only way we are going to make the public safe in this country. That is the New Democrat way.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real honour to speak to Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, at second reading.

As we know, the Government of Canada is committed to protecting victims of crime and to making our streets and communities safer for all Canadians. To this end, on February 8, our government introduced the not criminally responsible reform act. The act would ensure that public safety comes first in the decision-making process with respect to accused persons found not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder. It would enhance the safety of victims and would promote greater victim involvement in the Criminal Code mental disorder regime.

When this bill was first introduced last February, I am sure that many, if not all of us, received support from across this great country. We each received a lot of input through emails, phone calls and letters and when we were at community meetings. When this was first introduced in February, there was a lot of positive response. Canadians want this. Victims need this.

The Criminal Code mental disorder regime applies to a very small percentage of accused persons. Under Canadian criminal law, if an accused person cannot understand what the nature of the trial is or its consequences and cannot communicate with his or her lawyer because of a mental disorder, the court will find that the person is unfit to stand trial. Once an accused becomes fit to stand trial, he or she is then tried for the offence for which he or she was initially charged.

If a person is found to have committed an act that constitutes an offence but lacks the capacity to appreciate what he or she did or know that it was wrong due to a mental disorder at the time, the court makes a special verdict of not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder, also known as NCR. That person is neither convicted nor acquitted.

If a person is found to be either unfit to stand trial or NCR, the board then decides on a course of action. Under the current law, the review board can make one of three possible decisions. If the person does not pose a significant threat to public safety, there could be an absolute discharge, a conditional discharge or a detention in custody in a hospital.

Bill C-54 proposes to amend the mental disorder regime, which deals with accused persons who are found to be unfit to stand trial or are NCR.

The legislative amendments to the mental disorder regime in the Criminal Code proposed in the not criminally responsible reform act would explicitly make public safety the paramount consideration in the court and review board decision-making process related to accused persons found to be NCR or unfit to stand trial.

The legislation would amend the Criminal Code to create a process for the designation of NCR-accused persons as high risk in cases where the accused person has been found NCR of a serious personal injury offence and there is a substantial likelihood of further violence that would endanger the public, or in cases in which the acts were of such a brutal nature as to indicate a risk of grave harm to the public.

There has been a lot of comment made in the House over the last number of hours. Hopefully, that clarifies the bill. This is to be considered in the most dangerous and extreme cases. Those designated as high-risk NCR-accused persons would not be granted a conditional or absolute discharge, and the designation could only be revoked by the court following a recommendation by the review board. This designation would apply only to those found NCR and not to persons found unfit to stand trial.

The proposed legislation outlines that high-risk NCR accused persons will not be allowed to go into the community unescorted. The public supports that. Escorted passes will only be allowed in narrow circumstances and subject to significant conditions, to protect the public safety. Canadians support that. Also, the review board may decide to extend the review period for up to three years for those designated high risk, instead of annually. Canadians support that. The high-risk NCR designation will not affect access to treatment by the accused. Canadians support that.

In addition, the proposed reforms will codify the meaning of “significant threat” to the safety of the public, which is the current test used to determine whether a review board can maintain jurisdiction and continue to supervise a mentally disordered accused. It will clarify that the risk to the public safety must be criminal in nature, but not necessarily violent in form, for restrictions to be imposed upon the accused.

The legislation would enhance the safety of victims and provide them with opportunities for greater involvement in the Criminal Code mental disorder regime by ensuring that they would be notified, upon request, when the accused was discharged; allow non-communication orders between the accused and the victim; and ensure that the safety of victims be considered when decisions were made about an accused person.

This is what I have heard also from Canadians, which is the importance of the consideration of the families of the victims.

Often, we have heard that the consideration and the involvement of these families that are dealing with a loss in a traumatic situation in their lives need to be considered and way too often that has not happened.

Provisions of the proposed legislation will also help to ensure consistent interpretation and have application of the law across our great country. These proposed reforms will not change the existing Criminal Code eligibility criteria for the exception from criminally responsibility on account of mental disorder.

Since the introduction of the federal victims strategy in 2008, our government has responded to the needs of victims of crime in an effort to give them a more effective voice in the criminal justice system. Canadians are very happy with what has been accomplished.

Funding has been provided to projects and activities that enhance victim assistance programs across Canada, that promote access to justice and participation in the justice system and the development of law, policies and programs, that promote the implementation of principles, guidelines and laws designed to address the needs of victims of crime and articulate their role in the criminal justice system, that contribute to increased knowledge and awareness of the impact of victimization, the needs of victims of crime, available services, assistance in programs and legislation and also that promote, encourage and enhance governmental and non-governmental organizations' involvement in the identification of victims' needs and gaps in service and in the development and delivery of programs, services and assistance to victims, including capacity-building in the non-governmental organizations.

The legislation would enhance victims' rights. It would enhance the safety of victims by ensuring that they would be specifically considered when decisions were being made about accused persons found NCR. We will put the public safety first. The legislation would explicitly set out that public safety is the paramount consideration in the decision-making process. Also, the legislation would create a new designation to protect the public from high-risk NCR accused.

Canadians want this. Canadians need this. I encourage all members to support this.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the important aspects of this bill is that it takes into consideration the role of the victims.

To go through an ordeal as a victim is a huge challenge, but to then have this memory revisited by potentially having the person who was convicted in your small town or place of work and not know about it would be harrowing. That is why this bill takes the rights of the victims into consideration and involves them in the process by giving them advance notice and the ability to have conditions placed upon the release.

It is the right balance. The bill recognizes the role of the victims. I applaud the minister and the team for putting that in Bill C-54.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful to have the opportunity today to contribute to the second reading debate on Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act. The bill proposes to amend the mental disorder regime in the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act to strengthen their ability to better protect the safety of the public, as well as do a better job at responding to the needs of victims in the mental disorder regime.

It may be useful to provide a bit of background on the existing mental disorder regime before I outline the amendments proposed in Bill C-54 and why they are important reforms.

A fundamental principle of our criminal law, including the mental disorder regime, is that a person must be morally blameworthy to be criminally liable for a wrongful act or omission. They must have the mental capacity to know and appreciate what they are doing and the mental capacity to distinguish between what is right and wrong. Also, they must be able to communicate and give instructions to their lawyer and understand the nature and consequences of a criminal trial in order to be tried.

If, at the time the act was committed, a person suffered from a mental disorder that rendered that person incapable of knowing what they did or that it was wrong, the trial court can find the person committed the act in question but order a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. If at that time of trial the mentally disordered person does not have the capacity to understand the nature and the consequences of the criminal trial, they may be found unfit to stand trial.

After either of these findings, the person will be dealt with according to the mental disorder regime, which is designed to balance the twin goals of public protection and fair treatment of the accused, usually by provincially appointed review boards. The review boards are composed of at least five members with legal and psychiatric expertise.

As I noted, the bill contains elements that address both public safety and victims. In terms of the public safety reforms, the bill would amend the Criminal Code and clarify that public safety is paramount in consideration for the review board decision-making process. Although the Supreme Court of Canada has said that public safety is already the paramount consideration, most recently in its 2010 judgment of Regina v. Conway, the proposed amendment would ensure consistent application in cases across the country.

The reforms would also codify the Supreme Court of Canada's interpretation of “significant threat to the safety of the public”, which is the current test for determining whether review boards can continue to supervise the not criminally responsible accused. The Supreme Court interpreted this phrase in the Winko case in 1999.

The amendment would also clarify that the accused need not pose a threat of violence, but must pose a real risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public that is more than merely trivial or annoying and must be criminal in nature. This would ensure this test is applied consistently across all jurisdictions.

Bill C-54 also proposes to create a new high-risk mentally disordered accused designation scheme. This new scheme would only apply to the accused who were found not criminally responsible for a serious personal injury offence. The mental disorder regime would define a serious personal injury offence as an indictable offence involving the use or attempted use of violence, conduct endangering life or safety, or sexual offences. In these cases, the Crown would apply for the high-risk designation to be made by the court.

This designation could be made in two situations. The first would occur when the court was satisfied that there was a substantial likelihood that the not criminally responsible accused would commit violence that would endanger the life or safety of another person. The second situation would be if the court was of the opinion that the offence for which the not criminally responsible accused was found to be not criminally responsible was particularly brutal, so as to indicate a risk of grave harm to the public.

Accused persons who are found to be unfit are not included in this high-risk designated scheme because they have not yet been tried and determined by a court to have committed the act. The effect of such a judicial designation is to protect society from a high-risk individual and prevent the accused from being conditionally or absolutely discharged.

As well, a high-risk not criminally responsible accused would not be permitted unescorted passes in the community. This is particularly important. Escorted passes would only be permitted for medical reasons and only when a structured plan was in place to ensure the safety of the public.

It is important to clarify that the high-risk designation would not be permanent. Once a review board was satisfied that the high-risk, not criminally responsible accused no longer posed a substantial likelihood of committing violence that would endanger the life or safety of another person, it would make a recommendation to the superior court of criminal jurisdiction for review. The court would then hold another hearing to determine whether the designation should be removed. If it reached the same conclusion as the review board, the designation would be revoked. The accused would then become a regular not criminally responsible accused and would be dealt with under the regular procedures of the mental disorder regime. These are balanced proposals that seek to protect both the safety of the public and the rights of accused persons to fair and appropriate treatment.

I would like to return to the victim-related reforms. The mental disorder regime already offers many opportunities for victims to be involved in this process. They can attend hearings and present victim impact statements.

The proposed reforms would enhance victim involvement by providing that victims be notified, on request, when a discharge order has been made. This would ensure that victims have advance notice about the fact that they may run into the mentally disordered accused. This is especially concerning if the person is released into a small community.

The law would also be clarified explicitly to provide that the safety of victims be considered in the decision-making process. Further, Bill C-54 proposes to clarify that the review board shall consider whether it is desirable to issue a non-communication order between the not criminally responsible accused and the victim. The review board would also consider whether to order the not criminally responsible accused to not attend a specific place, such as the victim's home or place of work.

In closing, I would like to encourage all members to support this bill's passage at second reading. This is a bill that would provide balanced measures to protect public safety and enhance victim involvement in the mental disorder regime. These are reforms we should all support.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Vaudreuil-Soulanges. That was a very fine speech indeed.

I want to turn our attention to another piece of this. As much as we can say we want to address the problem and that the problem is the people who are held not criminally responsible, if the legislation that is passed is not compliant with the charter, it will make things worse, even with the aims that the Conservatives claim they want to address here.

If my hon. colleague is familiar with the position of the Canadian Bar Association, its members have looked at this and at the removal of the language of the “least onerous and least restrictive” requirement, which is essential in their mind to constitutional validity of the provisions that we now have. The Supreme Court of Canada has underscored this: that if we remove, as Bill C-54 would, the language of the “least onerous and least restrictive” requirement, we may well find that this legislation would be susceptible to a constitutional challenge and that it would fail to survive.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Samuel Clemens once said, “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect”. Tonight I find myself on the side of the majority of members in the House, as well as the majority of Canadians who are looking to us in the House to reform our treatment of NCR people.

I mention this because, by looking at real tragedies such as the Tim McLean murder or the Turcotte murders, the public is understandably outraged at what they perceive as a miscarriage of justice. The majority of Canadians usually do not agree with the verdicts given or with the way the cases are treated in general.

We in the NDP support Bill C-54 at second reading because we think we need to look seriously at how review boards handle reviews, as well as how victims' rights are considered during the reviews. However, I want to pause and reflect, because this bill needs to be studied in committee. We must not let the outrage outweigh sound policy decisions in deliberating on Bill C-54.

It is hard as a parliamentarian to separate emotion or personal ideas of justice from what is actually a sound and informed policy deliberation. I am encouraged to hear sound policy deliberations from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle tonight, and I hope we can come to a consensus to work together to put public safety first when complying with the rule of law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

As a human being and a father, I am absolutely disgusted and puzzled. For the life of me, I cannot understand how a man can murder his children. It is horrible. I feel very emotional about it. Who would not be shaken by reading the headlines about such crimes? I was saddened to hear about Guy Turcotte. Cases like that one that receive a lot of media attention suggest that the current approach may not be effective.

I am thinking of Isabelle Gaston and all victims. I would like to know how we can help victims get through this. We need to understand that Isabelle Gaston just wanted her two children, Anne-Sophie and Olivier, to still be alive. However, no court decision will bring her children back. After the trial, Ms. Gaston wanted the media to leave her alone so that she could get on with her life.

We need to ask ourselves some serious questions. How can we help victims? The member for Okanagan—Coquihalla talked about failing victims. I am putting myself in the shoes of victims who have lost children and, in my opinion, financial compensation from the government will never soothe a parent who has lost a child. As individuals, we are not capable of determining what victims need.

In the coming weeks, I hope that we will be talking to mental health experts, victims and provincial representatives to find out what they think the best approach is.

If we rush ahead with a poorly-thought-out policy, we will not be better off. If we make only cosmetic changes for the sake of the government to merely appear as if it is acting on this file, we will not be any further advanced.

The government has had six months to put this on the agenda. It has waited six months to put this on the agenda. Let us be honest: We need expert opinions. We need to consult with victims and with provinces. If the government were honest, it would admit that both crime and mental illness are wicked problems; if we plan to solve them, we will require complex, well-thought-out solutions, and even then we might not arrive at the right solution.

The definition of a wicked problem is a problem that is “difficult or even impossible to solve because of complex interdependencies and contradictory and incomplete requirements”.

Professor Nancy C. Roberts has said there are three main approaches when approaching a wicked problem. The first is an authoritative approach, whereby all the competing points are eliminated, the problem is simplified and power is vested into fewer hands. The consequence is that not all points may be taken into account to solve the problem.

The second is a competitive approach. It is an adversarial approach in which two sides come at each other. In that approach, knowledge-sharing might not happen and parties who care about their solution winning might not come to consensus to find the best approach.

The third approach is the collaborative approach. This approach engages all stakeholders to come to a consensus, to come to a common, agreed approach.

In the NDP, we believe in that third approach, that collaborative approach.

In the coming weeks we should meet with mental health experts, victims and provinces to find out what they believe is the best approach. However, and I should caution members, we do not want to play political games or use tragedies for political advantage with this file.

Let us take Samuel Clemens' words into account and focus together, working together on crafting what is the best policy.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is no bolt of lightening or anything like that to throw out the old and bring in the new. As I said, it is a matter of refining what is there. It is a matter of making the wording clearer so that review boards could have more guidance and clarity.

As I mentioned, section 672.54 of the Criminal Code says: disposition “that is least onerous and least restrictive to the accused”. It says nothing about victims. We are talking about replacing that with, “that is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances”. This is a broader statement that also brings into play the rights of the victim as well as the rights of the accused. It is a more balanced approach in our view.

My colleague raises legitimate questions. These are not simple issues. Therefore, Bill C-54 is an effort to make it clearer and make it easier for boards to come to the appropriate decision. I think once we get to committee there will be another opportunity to address more of these issues in a fuller manner.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, first, the member for Selkirk—Interlake mischaracterized my position a little when he alleged that I said the bill was unwarranted. I did not say anything of that nature. However, I am looking forward to seeing the evidence that is out there to say we need the bill, and I am looking forward to hearing that at committee.

The bill would make explicit the fact that the review board needs to take into consideration public safety, which is the paramount consideration. I want to know if the boards are not already making public safety the paramount consideration. I have read the Criminal Code, and I think it says so explicitly. However, even if it did not, one would assume that would be the paramount consideration. Therefore, how would Bill C-54 actually do anything different?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the second reading debate in support of Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act. I am going to focus my comments around how the bill reflects and builds upon the legal foundation provided by the Supreme Court of Canada on controlling the risks posed by the accused who are found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, or NCR.

The bill would provide enhanced guidance to the courts in applying several key legal tests that are present in the mental disorder regime of the Criminal Code. This is the part of the Criminal Code that deals with the mentally disordered accused, including those who are found NCR. The introduction of more straightforward terminology and clearer language proposed in Bill C-54 would better ensure that the courts accord the proper weight to the protection of the public. It is about keeping it as simple and clear as possible.

At the heart of the bill is the concern for protecting public safety, which is the first and foremost duty of any government, and everybody in the House agrees with that. Certainly my constituents have told me that, time after time. It has been recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada on numerous occasions, most recently in the 2010 case of R. v. Conway, as a paramount duty of review boards in the context of dealing with NCR accused.

In that case, the Supreme Court noted that, while an NCR patient's liberty must be a major occupation of these boards, it is still situated within the fence posts of public safety. That is the first priority, and if it does not fit within those fence posts, it is not going to happen. Bill C-54 proposes to clearly articulate those fence posts in an accessible and forthright manner.

The bill would ensure that the procedures put in place for reviewing the disposition of NCR accused are tailored responses that take into account the risk that any particular individual poses to society at large. It is not a cookie-cutter approach; it goes on a case-by-case basis. This is why Bill C-54 proposes to introduce the new designation of a high-risk NCR accused. It is not intended to apply to all persons found NCR; rather it is only directed at a subset of these persons after a court is first satisfied that there is a substantial likelihood that the accused would use violence that could endanger the life or safety of another person, or after a court comes to the opinion that the acts that constitute the offence are of such a brutal nature as to indicate a risk of grave physical or psychological harm to another person.

With reference to an earlier debate we had with the member for Toronto Centre and others in the Liberal Party, I would have to ask again a rhetorical question. What level of risk is acceptable to the public? The answer, I would say, is very little.

By introducing this designation, the bill responds to the paramount interest in protecting public safety cited by the Supreme Court in Conway. Specifically, the bill addresses the cases at the highest end of the risk spectrum when applied in the appropriate circumstances.

Bill C-54 also builds on the Supreme Court of Canada's 1996 decision in Winko v. British Columbia. In that case, the court interpreted the phrase in the existing section 672.54 of the Criminal Code regarding what is “a significant threat to the safety of the public”. This is the test used in the NCR regime by a court or review board in determining whether an accused should be discharged absolutely, or with conditions, or detained in a hospital.

In Winko, the court concluded that a “significant threat to the safety of the public” means a real risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public that is criminal in nature and serious in the sense of going beyond the merely trivial or annoying. Again, I would ask what level of risk is acceptable to the public. The answer that my constituents would give and I think most people would give is, very little.

Bill C-54 is consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada's approach. It would clarify the meaning of significant threat to the safety of the public by specifically defining it in the law as:

...the serious physical or psychological harm to members of the public — including any victim of or witness to the offence, or any person under the age of 18 years — resulting from conduct that is criminal in nature but not necessarily violent.

This clarification is specifically intended to adopt and confirm the interpretation of the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko. It ensures that a court considering the threat posed by an NCR accused is able to take into account all the appropriate circumstances, including criminal conduct that is not overtly violent but may nonetheless signal a real risk to the public.

This definition also addresses a key concern we have heard time and time again—namely, the need to ensure victims' interests are acknowledged in the criminal justice system. With this amendment, Bill C-54 would make it clear that when a court or review board considered what is a threat, it must consider not only the general public at large but also any victims, witnesses or any person under the age of 18.

This would help ensure that any particular threat or danger to the victim is not forgotten or overlooked. Safety to the public must include the safety of its most vulnerable members, and Bill C-54 recognizes and affirms this objective.

I welcome the proposed addition of this specific definition to the mental disorder regime. It would help to clarify this crucial point of law and provide assistance to the courts and review boards that have to make these very challenging decisions.

Bill C-54 aims to clarify another important issue, which is the meaning of the phrase in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code: disposition “that is the least onerous and least restrictive to the accused”. There is no mention of victims. That phrase refers to the duty of the review board to choose between the possible dispositions for an NCR accused, including absolute or conditional discharge and detention in a hospital subject to any appropriate conditions. However, it is also a phrase that is not easily understood or as clear as it could be. Therefore, Bill C-54 proposes to replace this phrase with the far more accessible and understandable wording: “that is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances”. In other words, it would give some balance between the rights of the victims and the rights of the NCR accused.

This change is consistent with the authorities I have referred to, who held that in deciding between dispositions, safety of the public must be the primary consideration. What is a necessary and appropriate disposition will depend on the threat posed by the particular NCR accused. The language of Bill C-54 would still require review boards to consider all the relevant circumstances in making such a determination.

I think many will appreciate that reviewing legal areas such as the appropriate disposition for NCR accused is not always easy for Parliament or the courts to discuss. Decisions of the courts, such as the Winko and Conway cases I have referred to, can signal to Parliament that an area of law would benefit from clarification from the legislature. Bill C-54 is an important and significant step in this direction as it pertains to the legal regime for determining appropriate dispositions for NCR accused. It is a bill that would clearly indicate that the protection of the public is the guiding principle that courts and review boards must address in arriving at dispositions under the regime.

This balanced bill deserves the approval of the House, because it should also be a guiding principle of this place that we find the correct balance between the rights of victims when dealing with criminal justice and the rights of the accused. In this case, our first priority should always be the rights of victims and the protection of the public. I urge members to vote for this bill.

From what I am hearing, I am certain the bill will pass second reading and move to committee, where it can receive fuller discussion and input from witnesses; and we can address some of the legitimate points that have been brought up tonight by members on both sides of the House.

I encourage all members of this House to join me in supporting Bill C-54. Let us get it to committee and do the right thing for victims while still doing the right thing for those who are caught up in the justice system through no fault of their own, through mental illness.