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.

Report Stage

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to rise. I would have asked a question, except I have some issues I can pose to the entire Conservative caucus as opposed to any one individual member.

I want to start off by addressing the comments of the previous speaker about reaching a balanced budget by 2015. That is going to be much easier for the Conservatives because last year, as we understand it, there were $10 billion allocated in the budget they did not spend. There were people who were expecting monies, heritage and other places that was not spent. In other words, the Conservatives broke promises to people, which does not come as a great surprise. Therefore, hallelujah, they are going to announce that we have this money to put toward the deficit, so it is more important to meet this one target than it is to follow through on their commitments to Canadians and Canadian organizations.

I sat on the finance committee for a period of time through the last omnibus bills and all of the what I would call nothing short of craziness happened at committee as a result of the fact that so many things had been piled on top of the other that actually belonged, in our opinion, in other committees. With Bill C-4, the Conservatives are doing it again.

Of the last bills that came before that committee, Bill C-38, was the biggest one with which I was involved. It changed the Navigable Waters Act, the Environmental Assessment Act and all kinds of things that a person outside this place would ask what it had to do with the budget. The fact was it did not. It was just a tactic on the part of the government to jam things together to get it through as fast as it could, to keep it from being at committees where it could receive the proper scrutiny by members and the witnesses who could bring the expertise before the committee to fortify the situation.

Before the prorogation, we were dealing with Bill C-54 about the not criminally responsible. Some of the witnesses who came from the health community said that nobody in the psychiatric community was asked about that bill. All of this is symptomatic of what is happening with the government in the sense of not wanting to hear from anyone, MPs or anyone else.

My view and the view of the New Democratic Party is that committees are there to make bills better. We are there to help the government. The government brings forward a bill and we have a critique of it and recommendations, which are called amendments, never see the light of day because they are voted down at committee or motions are passed at committee to limit the time we have. If we do not meet that time allocation, anything that has not been voted on is deemed to have failed. Therefore, we could have a list of 25 good quality amendments and Conservatives will not even listen to them.

That anti-democratic aspect limits the ability of the sincere efforts of the House to try to improve legislation in a way that is just baffling. How in the world can Conservatives justify shutting out information, even if it is not from us? Information from the public or from experts in any given field relative to the budget or relative to those things that have been piled into the budget, how can they shut that down without giving it any consideration?

It makes us wonder what is behind the agenda. This is not new. As I said, it happened with Bills C-38, C-45, C-60. Other speakers today talked about the fact that all of those bills had some blatant mistakes that successive bills had to correct.

I am troubled again by the fact the Canadian Federation of Municipalities warned the current government and the previous government about a deficit in infrastructure to the tune of somewhere between $175 billion and $200 billion that needed to be taken care of now. Look at the situation with the bridge in Montreal, and we understand how desperate it can get really quickly.

It looks like some interim work has been done to repair the bridge and get the traffic flowing, but stepping back from that, we have almost $200 billion elsewhere in our country that deserves support. I believe the Minister of Finance has said that there is $800 billion of dead capital that businesses are holding onto for a couple of reasons. There is some sensibility to what they are doing because in 2008 they had trouble getting money from the banks. We had the lowest interest rates practically in the history of our country, so why was the government not taking 10-year bonds and partnering with the business community to start addressing some of the infrastructure needs?

In my community of Hamilton, we are near desperate on sewage. I hear of figures somewhere close to $200 billion of a deficit on Hamilton sewage. Basements of houses on certain streets in Hamilton flood every time there is a serious rainfall. They cannot even get insurance anymore. It is very clear for us.

The previous speaker made reference to temporary foreign workers. The figures I have may not be precise but they are certainly close. Two or three years ago we had roughly 240,000 new immigrants to Canada. They have support here. They have a sponsor who is responsible for all of their costs for 10 years, so there is no liability to us for them. However, in that period there were 241,000 temporary workers.

The temporary worker program was initially put in as support for the farmers. There was lots of work Canadians did not want to do and farmers needed help, and that program was originally set up to bring them in. Then all of a sudden, certain aspects of the business community woke up to the fact that they could pay temporary foreign workers less money and they would not have obligations to them. By the way, because they are here on a temporary permit, if they do not do exactly what they want, they get to go home really quickly. People from other countries come here. They are very dependent on money to help their families back home. It is a very insecure situation and they are being abused by the government and employers in Canada. That is shameful. There is no other word for it.

From my perspective, to hear the Conservatives talk about some modest change, I would love to have seen that at the immigration committee, to talk about temporary foreign workers and to look at that program in-depth, to step back from it and make some suggestions to help with that, but that opportunity was not afforded to us.

Going a little further on this, Bill C-4, as previous omnibus bills, piled together amendments to over 70 laws. One of them is the Public Service labour relations employment board act. That is a new addition. Another one is the Mackenzie gas project impacts fund act.

Why do we need a new act for labour relations when we have had labour relations in the country between the public service workers and the government for many decades? Why do the Conservatives suddenly need to change that? If we do need to change it, why is it not done through the appropriate department and the appropriate committee rather than a budget bill? It sounds like somebody is up to something. If I were a worker, with the number of cuts there has been to the public service workers already, I would be a little nervous just about the title of that bill.

Contained in Bill C-4 are very vicious anti-worker and anti-veteran measures. I never thought I would stand in the House of Commons in our country and say our government has anti-veteran policies.

The Conservatives have made changes to health and safety protection for workers. My time is running out and I have not even started my speech, but this is part of the give and take in this place. The last speaker spoke about some things that drew my attention to it, but if I have to close, I am certainly proud to close on defending veterans.

There is a Veterans Review and Appeal Board. We have seen day in and day out in the media of late where the ombudsman has spoken out in defence of veterans saying that they are not getting the health care or the protection they deserve and there are numerous budget cuts to that department. That is shameful. One thing Parliament must stand for is the veterans of our country.

This is an anti-worker, anti-veteran bill and it is absolutely shameful.

Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The Chair is satisfied that the bill is in the same form as Bill C-54 was at the time of prorogation of the 1st session of the 41st Parliament.

Accordingly, pursuant to the order made Monday, October 21, 2013, the bill is deemed adopted at all stages and passed by the House.

(Bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed)

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder).

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the special order made previously by our outstanding House leader, I want to inform the House that this Bill C-14 is in the same form as Bill C-54, which was in the previous session at the time of prorogation.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Motion No. 2

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is Bill C-54 to which we are referring.

I can assure the member that these new provisions would only apply to a very small number of people who fall into the category of not criminally responsible accused.

The member rightly said that she was one of the very few members of Parliament who opposed the legislation. That points out exactly my point in answer to the earlier question about how absurd it would be to have the vast majority of members in the House pass legislation, then have prorogation happen, which is a very normal thing, which has happened over 100 times over the last 100 years as we heard from the government House leader a little while ago, to then have that legislation revisited so the few people who voted against it could take another kick at the can. To me that seems a really great waste of parliamentary resources.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it would be an absurd result for this Parliament to get into the habit of using prorogation as a way of revisiting the same legislation it had already passed.

It is supposed to do that debate one time, study it in detail, make amendments as was done with respect to Bill C-54 and then send it off through the rest of the process, which includes the Senate. If the bill the member is referring to should be reviewed, I assume it will be reviewed in the other chamber in the normal process.

However, to have bills going back and forth and having the government use prorogation to revisit a bill that has already been passed by the House, I think if he were on the other side of that issue, he would probably say that was an absurd result.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that proroguing is very commonplace. Every government has done it to come back and restart. There was a very short period of prorogation. Not supporting this Bill C-2 would cause months of starting all over again on these very important bills.

We heard the member speaking about Bill C-54. This is an extremely important bill, and it has to move through quite quickly to protect citizens. How important does the parliamentary secretary think it is for those members to support this bill?

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what would really be a waste of time would be starting the whole process of Bill C-54 over again. It went through all stages of debate in the House. It was debated at length here in the Chamber. It was debated for five days in the justice committee. We heard from over 30 witnesses. Then it received final third reading support here and went to the Senate and was working its way through the Senate justice committee. To start that over again would be absurd, in my view.

In addition, if the member heard my speech, she will know that a number of amendments were made to the bill, which of course, would then have to be reintroduced, and that would take even more time. We could have the absurd result of the bill looking different from what was passed in the House previously.

However, to the point of her question, the throne speech was 8,000 words long, I believe. If she was standing at the back of the Senate, as I was the other day, listening to every word, she would know that the government put forward a number of new legislative initiatives, especially in the area of criminal law reform. Those things needed to be done to reset the agenda of the government. I look forward to working with her to make sure that those new reforms go through the House and the Senate as quickly as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, honestly, I found that the hon. member's speech was basically a waste of time because we never should have needed to listen to him defend the work that was done on Bill C-54. The member never would have needed to make that speech if his government had not decided to go into hiding for five weeks to avoid the Senate scandals.

Honestly, if I were linked to people as unscrupulous as Patrick Brazeau, Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin, I would want to hide for five weeks, too. Despite all that, there was work to be done. As for the bill that the hon. member so strongly believes in, we would not be in this situation and the bill would not be on the verge of failing. I doubt that is what the hon. member wants.

Did the hon. member make these same remarks to the Prime Minister and the government House leader? Did he try to convince them not to prorogue the House and waste the effort that was put into the bill by the justice committee?

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of the motion to reinstate the not criminally responsible reform act.

As you know, former Bill C-54 was awaiting second reading debate in the Senate when it died on the order paper. I urge the members of the House to support this motion to reinstate the bill to permit the Senate to continue its study of this important piece of legislation.

It is my view that the reinstatement of the bill to second reading debate in the Senate would avoid duplication of the considerable amount of work already undertaken by the House and by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights with respect to the study of this bill.

Members of the House will undoubtedly remember that former Bill C-54 was considered and debated by the House for 15 hours between February 8 and June 18 of this year. All parties had a significant opportunity to present their views and be heard on this issue. It would seem to me to be an inefficient use of resources to repeat this process on the exact same issue.

In addition to the vigorous debate in the House, the bill was exhaustively studied by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights this past June. Over a period of five days, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights heard from more than 30 witnesses with a wide variety of backgrounds and professional experience.

The committee heard testimony from the former minister of justice and his officials. Victims' advocates, such as the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, also testified, as did representatives of the Mental Health Commission of Canada and representatives from other major mental health organizations.

Review board members from two jurisdictions were able to attend, as well as a psychiatrist from one of Canada's busiest forensic institutions. Several members of the legal profession and major non-governmental organizations also testified.

All of these witnesses presented valuable viewpoints on former Bill C-54. This greatly enriched the study of the not criminally responsible reform act. The justice committee was well served by their participation.

Furthermore, the committee also had the benefit of hearing directly from a number of victims who had become involved in the criminal justice system as a result of having lost a family member in an incident involving a mentally disordered accused.

It took great courage and strength for them to speak to the committee about their loss and express how the justice system can be improved. We are grateful for their participation and for the perspective that they brought to the study of this bill.

The committee heard all of these concerns and proceeded to return the bill to the House with two substantive amendments to improve it further. Reinstating the bill at second reading in the Senate would avoid unnecessary duplication of all the valuable work done by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights just this past spring.

In support of this position, I would like to take a few minutes to remind hon. members what exactly is included in the bill and why it is so important that the parliamentary review of these proposed reforms be able to continue as expeditiously as possible.

The not criminally responsible reform act seeks to amend both the mental disorder regime of the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act to enhance the protection of the public and improve the involvement of victims in the process.

The mental disorder regime in both statutes sets out the powers and procedures that govern an accused who has been found either unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible.

Individuals who fall under the mental disorder regime are supervised by provincial administrative tribunals that are referred to as review boards. These review boards are made up of legal and psychiatric experts whose task is to monitor the progress of accused persons and evaluate their potential risk to the public. They review each case on an annual basis, although in certain circumstances it could be every two years, until the individual no longer poses a significant threat to the safety of the public.

Issues of criminal responsibility for individuals who suffer from mental illness have been a vexing issue for policy-makers and lawmakers for centuries. These issues are complex and challenging from both a technical legal perspective and a societal perspective.

The not criminally responsible reform act is a targeted and reasonable response to the concern about high-risk, not criminally responsible accused who pose a higher risk to the public.

The not criminally responsible reform act has three main elements. First, it seeks to ensure that public safety is the paramount consideration when decisions are made about not criminally responsible and unfit accused. This element is intended to add clarity to an area of the mental disorder regime that has presented some confusion.

Although the Supreme Court of Canada has stated on more than one occasion that public safety is the paramount consideration in determining the proper disposition with respect to a not criminally responsible accused, there remained some concern that this interpretation was not being reflected in practice.

In fact, various witnesses who testified before the justice committee had varying views as to whether public safety was truly the paramount consideration or simply one of four listed factors to take into consideration. By clarifying that public safety is the paramount consideration in decisions regarding the mentally disordered accused person, the government is ensuring that public safety is the primary consideration of decision-makers.

Second, the bill proposes a new scheme to designate some not criminally responsible accused as high-risk accused. This scheme is intended to apply to only the small number of not criminally responsible accused who are found by a court to represent an elevated risk to society so that they would be subject to the extra protection provided through this designation.

The high-risk designation would ensure that a not criminally responsible accused would be held in custody in a hospital and could not be considered for any kind of release until the high-risk designation was revoked by the court. High-risk not criminally responsible accused would not be eligible to receive unescorted passes into the community and would only receive escorted passes in narrow circumstances, such as for medical reasons. This designation would operate to protect the public by ensuring that the not criminally responsible accused who posed the highest risk would not have unsupervised access to our communities and neighbourhoods.

Another outcome of the high-risk designation would be that the review board would be able to extend the time period between reviews. As I mentioned, the review board usually reviews each case on an annual basis, which can be extended up to two years in certain circumstances under the current law. This bill proposes to provide the review board with the discretion to increase the period of time between reviews to up to three years if the accused has been designated a high-risk not criminally responsible accused. The review boards would be able to extend the length of time in two circumstances: if the accused consents to the extension; and if the review board is satisfied, on the basis of relevant information, that the accused's condition is not likely to improve and that detention remains necessary for the period of the extension.

Finally, the bill also proposes significant changes to the victim-related provisions of the mental disorder regime to improve information-sharing and victim participation in the mental disorder regime.

The government is very committed to addressing the concerns of all victims of crime, not just those impacted through the mental disorder regime. In fact, over the summer, the minister travelled to many parts of Canada to engage in consultations with stakeholders on developing a federal victims' bill of rights that would provide victims with a more effective voice for victims in the criminal justice and corrections systems.

Our government is taking action to ensure that our streets and communities are safe. This includes enhancing the rights of victims so that they know that they have a voice in the criminal justice system. One of the key themes that emerged from these consultations was the desire for victims of crime to be kept informed and involved at every stage of the justice process. The victim-related reforms in the not criminally responsible reform act are a step in that direction. They address this concern by increasing the information that would be made available to victims and by ensuring that their safety was considered when decisions were made. For example, the bill would require courts and review boards to specifically consider the safety of the victim when determining whether a not criminally responsible accused remained a significant threat to the safety of the public.

Another improvement to the victim-related provisions in the mental disorder regime would be a requirement that review boards consider in every case whether to make a non-communication order between the victim and the mentally disordered accused. The review board would also have to consider whether to issue an order preventing an accused from going to a certain place. These elements would be in place to both increase the safety of the victims and to ensure their peace of mind.

Victims who have become involved in the mental disorder regime have also expressed concern that they have no way of knowing when a not criminally responsible accused is going to be released or discharged into the community. They expressed apprehension about encountering the accused in their neighbourhoods or communities with no warning.

In response to this concern, the bill proposes that for victims who want to be notified, the review board would be required to notify them when a not criminally responsible accused was being discharged into the community. This provision was amended by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights during its deliberations to increase the amount of information the victim would receive. Specifically, the amendment would provide that a victim could receive information regarding the intended place of residence of the accused upon discharge. This amendment was intended to ensure that interested victims were made aware if the accused was going to be located in their community upon release. The committee felt that this amendment would be a positive addition to the victim-related components of the not criminally responsible reform act, and I agree with them.

It is important to note that the victim-related reforms were supported by every witness who testified at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. All of the witnesses who commented on these elements were very supportive.

There are a few final things I would like to emphasize with respect to this legislation. The bill should not be interpreted as implying that people with mental illness are presumptively dangerous. That is not what the bill does. I can assure all hon. members that the proposed reforms are consistent with the government's efforts regarding mental illness and the criminal justice system. In addition to seeking to protect the public, it also seeks to ensure that the mentally disordered accused receive fair and appropriate treatment. I am confident that the not criminally responsible reform act would not have a negative impact on the broader issue of mental illness in the criminal justice system, nor is it intended to fuel stigma against the mentally ill.

Before I conclude my discussion on the substance of the bill, I would like to bring to the attention of the House one other amendment made to the bill by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. This other amendment provides for a parliamentary review of the mental disorder provisions five years following royal assent. The committee members unanimously agreed that it would be beneficial to review the amendments to ensure that they were having the intended effect. Given the highly technical nature of this area of criminal law, I think hon. members would agree with me that the amendment is a welcome one and would likely provide Parliament with valuable information as to the impact of the proposed reforms.

I would like to return now to the issue at hand, the motion currently before the House to reinstate Bill C-54 at the stage it was at in the Senate. I encourage all members to vote in favour of the motion to avoid significant duplication of effort, and most importantly, to ensure that this important legislation, whose main focus is aimed at protecting the public and addressing the concerns of victims, can quickly become law.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my opposition colleagues for the warm applause.

Let me start by making a few comments on the motion and what it means. Although many words have been spoken in previous days about government Motion No. 2, particularly by my colleague, the hon. government House leader, I think it is important for those people who may be watching for the first time that I try to explain what government Motion No. 2 is actually about.

Quite simply, government Motion No. 2 purports that all unfinished parliamentary business, which we left when we rose for the summer recess back in June, would return in the same state in which it was before we recessed. In other words, to use the vernacular, we simply want to pick up where we left off.

That in itself is not unusual. Many times before governments have, after prorogation, brought forward similar motions that allowed unfinished legislative initiatives, in other words government bills, to be brought back to Parliament in the same state that they were pre-prorogation. That is what we are doing with approximately seven bills that were still being debated when we rose for the summer and prior to prorogation.

However, we go far beyond that, because although it is normal for governments, previously, to bring back similar motions to try to start the debate on these important bills, we decided not only to just have government legislation brought back but all parliamentary work should be brought back in the same state that it was before we adjourned.

Why is that important? It is important because in committee work there are two, in particular, very important parliamentary studies being conducted by committees. These two studies, I should add, are supported wholeheartedly by members of the opposition.

We appointed a special legislative committee to study the issue of missing aboriginal women. Now, opposition members have been calling for such a study to be enacted for many months, in fact, I think over the course of the last two or three parliamentary sessions. We have agreed to that. We installed a special legislative committee that would allow for such a study to occur. However, if we do not pass Motion No. 2, that committee would be disbanded. That study would be halted.

We think it is incumbent upon us as a government to observe the hard work that parliamentarians did on all sides of the House on that committee, and bring the study to fruition. The only way we can do that is to pass Motion No. 2.

Failing that, what would happen is that there would have to be another legislative committee struck, membership presented and the committee would basically go back to square one on the analysis and study of that very important issue. Why do that? Why should we waste the valuable time that has already been spent on that very important issue? Motion No. 2 would take care of that.

The other study that is ongoing and quite frankly has just started is the study being conducted by the procedure and House affairs committee on members' expenses. I will speak about that in a little more detail in a few moments.

Let me now turn my attention to why the opposition apparently has a problem with Motion No. 2. What the official opposition has stated in its opposition to government Motion No. 2 is that it feels by lumping together government bills and committee studies somehow we are prejudicing the entire motion. They are saying we are somehow playing politics with the facts, because if the opposition wants to approve the continuation of committee studies, it is forced to vote in favour of the motion, which includes government bills.

Not only is that nonsensical, it really defies description to believe that we would even attempt to play politics with such important issues as the study on missing aboriginal women and children. I think any opposition it has to our attempt to pass government Motion No. 2 has now been allayed, because the Speaker's ruling of last Friday said we will now have two votes on the same motion.

The first vote will deal with government legislation. We will vote on whether or not to bring back all government bills in the same state they were in prior to prorogation. We are talking about bills such as the not criminally responsible reform act, the tackling contraband tobacco act, bills that had reached various stages of progression in this Parliament. Some had reached and gone through second reading. Some had reached report stage. Some had even passed third reading. Many of the government bills that we want to bring back had the full support of the entire Parliament. Yet the NDP, primarily, wants to see us refuse to bring these bills back, and in effect, reintroduce them and start the debate all over again.

I ask if there is any sensibly thinking Canadian who would look at this opposition and say that this is the way we should go. Rather than continuing on and getting these bills passed, which all parliamentarians support, would anyone say they want to start all over again, have the same debate again, waste Parliament's time and waste taxpayers' time? No. No one would agree to that, except, it appears, the opposition.

Because of the ruling of the chair, we are now going to be dealing with government bills in a separate vote. If members of the opposition vote in favour of our motion, that is not to say that they are voting in favour of each individual bill. It would merely be to say that they are voting in favour of bringing these bills back to Parliament in the same state that they were before we adjourned in June. To me, it seems like a common sense approach because most of the bills, as I said before, have been approved. Some of them have passed second reading debate. Some of them have passed third reading debate. Many have the approval of the entire Parliament. Why in the world would we want to discard all of that hard work and start over again? It does not make sense.

However, if the opposition was only concerned with the lumping of the committee studies and the government bills, now they should not have a problem with it, because we will have a second vote. That vote will be to bring back other parliamentarian work, specifically committee studies, and restore them to the same state they were in before. Clearly, it gives the opposition an opportunity to make their views known on government legislation and on committee work. If the opposition wants to vote against Motion No. 2 with respect to government bills, it can do so. If it wants to vote in favour of bringing back committee studies, it can do so. However, it will be government Motion No. 2 that we are voting on. Even though it is split into two votes, the motion, I predict, will carry, hopefully with the support of all parliamentarians.

Again, on the legislative initiatives, on the government bills, it does not mean that if the opposition members vote in favour of it, they are voting in favour of each of those seven bills. It just means that we return those bills to the order paper at the same point they were before we recessed for the summer. It is a common sense approach. It saves parliamentary time. It rewards the hard efforts of all the parliamentarians who debated these very important bills for several hours last spring. That seems to be a common sense approach.

Let me spend a few moments on one of the other committee studies. I want to point out what appears to me to be an apparent contradiction and the blatant hypocrisy of the NDP when it comes to the second study that I mentioned, which is the procedure and House affairs' study into MP expenses.

Only a couple of months ago, we had a special meeting. It was held in the summer, when most parliamentarians were not in Ottawa, and initiated by the NDP for the sole purpose of trying to initiate some rules, practices and procedures surrounding this ongoing study into MP expenses, trying to increase transparency so that all Canadians would feel assured that their taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely and appropriately. At the time, the NDP went to great lengths to talk to the media and try to convince the media that it was the only party that truly wanted a transparent approach to member of Parliament expenses. New Democrats talked for many days and many hours, trying to convince the media that the other parties in the House, the Liberals and the Conservatives, really did not want transparency, while the NDP, of course, did.

Since that time, interestingly enough, there are only two parties in the House that have voluntarily agreed to post their MP expenses online: the Liberal Party and our party. We are doing this voluntarily.

Our position, quite clearly, is that we would like to see a procedure and a system set up, hopefully approved through the Board of Internal Economy, that all parties could agree to. In other words, we would have a common approach to posting our expenses. However, in the interim, because that may take some time to develop, our party has agreed to have our MPs post hospitality and travel expenses voluntarily on a go-forward basis. The Liberals have also agreed to that. There is only party that has not agreed: the NDP.

On one hand, the NDP is trying to convince the media and Canadians that it is the only party in favour of transparency. On the other hand, it is the only party that does not want to post its expenses online. Let us think about that for moment. Think about the hypocrisy of the NDP. All of this time when its members were talking about their attempts and desire for transparency, it was nothing more than a political stunt.

There is a saying where I come from, and many Canadians share it. It is “put your money where your mouth is”. If NDP members truly believe in transparency, I challenge them to stand up today in questions and comments following my presentation and agree that their MPs should post their expenses online. It is a simple thing. One can do it voluntarily. Some members may be doing it individually, and I applaud them for doing that, but as a party they have refused to make their MPs accountable to Canadians. They have refused, as a party, to agree to posting MP expenses online. Let them stand up today and say that they will. I would be the first to applaud them and say they have taken a positive step. However, I cannot sit here, and I certainly cannot stand here during this presentation, and admit that they are in favour of transparency when they have not proven it.

Let us vote in favour of government Motion No. 2 this evening so that we can bring back all of the legislative initiatives of this government to the same state in which they were in order to allow further debate and allow those bills to go to a vote. Some may pass and some may be defeated, but at least we should bring them back without any undue delay.

Also, let us vote in favour of bringing other parliamentary business back in the same state it was, specifically committee studies. Let the committees continue their hard valuable work, the work that Canadians have been asking for.

Finally, let the NDP members today stand in their places and say they will join us in posting MP expenses online. If they do not, it only says one thing: that they are not interested in transparency. They are not interested in allowing Canadians to see their expenses but only in political stunts, and that is something we cannot abide.

MOTION THAT DEBATE BE NOT FURTHER ADJOURNED

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, the good news was that parliamentarians worked for more than a whole extra month's worth of debate time in the House in May and June. As a result, the House was able to get great things done, and it was not just the bills that we are seeking to have restored at the stage they were read: overall, in the first five months of this year, 37 pieces of legislation reached royal assent. In fact, that matches the most productive year of the Conservative government back in 2007, when we were in a minority, and we did that in just five months. That was done through the hard work of all parliamentarians, including sitting, on some occasions, as late as 2:00 a.m. to get work done here in May and June.

People did not take time off. People here worked very hard. They worked extra hard and put in extra time.

The question before us now is whether we shall throw away some of the product of that extra time, pretend it did not happen, and force everybody to go back to "go", or should we respect the hard work of parliamentarians, the debates that occurred, and the advancement of legislation, which in most cases all parties supported? Perhaps that was not so in some cases, but bills such as the not criminally responsible reform act and the tackling contraband tobacco act were apparently supported by the NDP.

We would encourage them to once again support their continued processing through the parliamentary process.

Business of the House and its Committees

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

moved:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, for the purposes of facilitating and organizing the business of the House and its committees in the autumn of 2013,

(a) during the thirty sitting days following the adoption of this Order, whenever a Minister of the Crown, when proposing a motion for first reading of a public bill, states that the said bill is in the same form as a bill introduced by a Minister of the Crown in the previous Session, or that it is in the same form as a bill which had originated in the Senate and stood in the name of a Minister of the Crown in this House in the previous Session, if the Speaker is satisfied that the said bill is in the same form as at prorogation, notwithstanding Standing Order 71, the said bill shall be deemed in the current Session to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation of the previous Session;

(b) in order to bring full transparency and accountability to House of Commons spending, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to: (i) conduct open and public hearings with a view to replace the Board of Internal Economy with an independent oversight body, (ii) invite the Auditor General, the Clerk and the Chief Financial Officer of the House of Commons to participate fully in these hearings, (iii) study the practices of provincial and territorial legislatures, as well as other jurisdictions and Westminster-style Parliaments in order to compare and contrast their administrative oversight, (iv) propose modifications to the Parliament of Canada Act, the Financial Administration Act, the Auditor General Act and any other acts as deemed necessary, (v) propose any necessary modifications to the administrative policies and practices of the House of Commons, (vi) examine the subject-matter of the motions, which had stood in the name of the Member for Papineau, placed on the Order Paper for the previous Session on June 10, 2013, and (vii) report its findings to the House no later than Monday, December 2, 2013, in order to have any proposed changes to expense disclosure and reporting in place for the beginning of the next fiscal year;

(c) when the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs meets pursuant to the order of reference set out in paragraph (b) of this Order, one Member who is not a member of a recognized party be allowed to participate in the hearings as a temporary, non-voting member of that Committee;

(d) the Clerk be authorized, if necessary, to convene a meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs within 24 hours of the adoption of this Order;

(e) the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to study the Standing Orders and procedures of the House and its committees, including the proceedings on the debate held on Friday, February 17, 2012, pursuant to Standing Order 51;

(f) the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights be the committee designated for the purposes of section 533.1 of the Criminal Code;

(g) the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics be the committee designated for the purposes of section 67 of the Conflict of Interest Act;

(h) the order of reference to the Standing Committee on Finance, adopted in the previous Session as Private Member’s Motion M-315, shall be renewed, provided that the Committee shall report its findings to the House no later than Wednesday, December 11, 2013;

(i) a special committee be appointed, with the mandate to conduct hearings on the critical matter of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls in Canada, and to propose solutions to address the root causes of violence against Indigenous women across the country, and that, with respect to the committee, (i) it consist of twelve members which shall include seven members from the government party, four members from the Official Opposition and one member from the Liberal Party, (ii) the Chair and the Vice-Chairs shall be the same Chair and Vice-Chairs elected by the previous Session’s Special Committee on Violence Against Indigenous Women, (iii) the routine motions respecting committee business adopted on March 26 and April 18, 2013, by the previous Session’s Special Committee on Violence Against Indigenous Women shall be deemed adopted, provided that it may, by motion, vary or rescind their provisions at a later date, (iv) it have all of the powers of a Standing Committee as provided in the Standing Orders, as well as the power to travel, accompanied by the necessary staff, inside and outside of Canada, subject to the usual authorization from the House, (v) the members serving on the said committee be appointed by the Whip of each party depositing with the Clerk of the House a list of his or her party’s members of the committee within ten sitting days of the adoption of this Order, (vi) the quorum be seven members for any proceedings, provided that at least a member of the opposition and of the government party be present, (vii) membership substitutions be permitted to be made from time to time, if required, in the manner provided for in Standing Order 114(2), and (viii) it report its recommendations to the House no later than February 14, 2014;

(j) with respect to any order of reference created as a consequence of this Order, any evidence adduced by a committee in the previous Session shall be deemed to have been laid upon the Table in the present Session and referred to the appropriate committee;

(k) the reference to “September 30” in Standing Order 28(2)(b) shall be deemed, for the calendar year 2013, to read “November 8”;

(l) the reference to “the tenth sitting day before the last normal sitting day in December” in Standing Order 83.1 shall be deemed, for the calendar year 2013, to read “Wednesday, December 11, 2013”; and

(m) on Thursday, October 31, 2013, the hours of sitting and order of business of the House shall be that of a Friday, provided that (i) the time for filing of any notice be no later than 6:00 p.m., (ii) when the House adjourns it shall stand adjourned until Monday, November 4, 2013, and (iii) any recorded division in respect of a debatable motion requested on, or deferred to, October 31, 2013, shall be deemed to be deferred or further deferred, as the case may be, to the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on November 4, 2013.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of government Motion No. 2, and I look forward to the continuation of what has proven to be a productive, hard-working, and orderly Parliament.

This year alone, from the end of January until the end of June, Parliament passed 37 new laws, matching our government's most productive year in office. This, of course, included a budget that will help fuel job creation, grow our economy, and increase Canada's long-term prosperity. Since the last election and the 2011 throne speech, we have witnessed 61 government bills become law. On top of that, an unprecedented 19 private members' bills received royal assent, heralding a renewed empowerment of individual members of Parliament to bring forward initiatives important to them and their constituents. It is a long way from the days when a Prime Minister derisively described backbenchers as “nobodies”, 50 yards off the Hill.

Yesterday's Speech from the Throne has outlined the government's objectives as being those that matter to Canadians. As a new parliamentary session begins, we remain squarely focused on jobs, the economy, and protecting families, while taking pride in the history and institutions that make Canada the best country in the world. Here in the House, these policy objectives will be given legislative expression in the form of bills that will be introduced over the coming weeks, months, and years. As we look forward to implementing the new initiatives outlined yesterday, we also want to ensure that important, unfinished work from the previous session, whether it be bills or committee business, is not forgotten.

Government Motion No. 2 would seek to facilitate and organize House and committee business for the autumn in view of our calendar and circumstances. Government Motion No. 2 proposes that June's unfinished work, in which all parties have an interest, carry on where we left off. I stand here today asking that all opposition parties join me in taking a balanced, principles-based approached to getting Parliament back to work. The bills and committee work I am today proposing be reinstated are those that have received support and praise from members opposite. It is also work that matters to Canadians.

We are not asking that only items proposed originally by the government be reinstated; we are proposing on behalf of all parties that everybody's proposals and initiatives be restored. It is a fair approach. It is a non-partisan approach. In respect of government legislation, paragraph (a) of the motion sets out a procedure for the reintroduction of government bills that advanced in the House in the previous session. In total, up to seven bills from the first session could fall into that category.

What sorts of bills are we talking about here? They are the type of legislation the New Democrats say they are keen to debate all over again. What are they? Let us consider some examples.

As pointed out in the Speech from the Throne, we are deeply committed to standing up for victims of crime and making our streets safer for Canadians. The former Bill C-54, Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, was designed to make sure that public safety comes first in the decision-making process regarding persons found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. It would provide additional security for victims and would enhance their involvement in the Criminal Code mental disorder regime.

During the previous session, the NDP and the Bloc agreed with the government and supported the bill. We hope that they will continue to support this important initiative.

In order to protect families and communities, we must also eradicate contraband tobacco from our streets to ensure that children are not exposed to the dangers of smoking through access to cheap packs of illegal cigarettes. That was the goal of the former Bill S-16, Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act, through the creation of mandatory prison sentences for repeat offenders in the trafficking of contraband tobacco. The bill will not only protect children against the dangers of tobacco, but it will also address the more general issue of contraband tobacco trafficking driven by organized crime groups.

A look at the debates at second reading in the Hansard shows that members of the NDP, the Liberal Party and the Bloc spoke in favour of sending the bill to committee. We are counting on their continued support of this initiative and we will adopt a non-partisan approach as Parliament resumes its work.

Former Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act, would implement our government's commitments under the Convention on Cluster Munitions, a significant achievement. Over time, the enactment of this convention will save the lives of many thousands of people around the world and will help put an end to the use of a weapon that has shattered the lives of too many innocent civilians.

In the previous session, support for this bill came from the Bloc and the hon. members for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Thunder Bay—Superior North, and Edmonton—St. Albert. We look forward to renewed support from them on this bill as part of our balanced, principle-based approach.

Our government believes in our national museums and we recognize the tremendous value they hold for all Canadians. As we approach Canada's 150th birthday, former Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act, offers an unprecedented opportunity to celebrate our history and those achievements that define who we are as Canadians. The Canadian museum of history would provide the public with the opportunity to appreciate how Canada's identity has been shaped over the course of our history. Canadians deserve a national museum that tells our stories and presents our country's treasures to the world.

This bill received support from the hon. members for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Thunder Bay—Superior North, and Edmonton—St. Albert. We look forward again to their continued support.

Our commitment to improving the lives of Canadians from coast to coast continues. In the case of aboriginals, former Bill S-6, the first nations elections act, would provide a robust election system that individual first nations can opt into. The act will help to create a framework that fosters healthier, more prosperous, and self-sufficient aboriginal communities through stronger and more stable and effective first nations governments.

The bill is the product of recommendations developed by the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs and the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and a lengthy national engagement campaign with first nations leaders across the country. As we see from Hansard, that bill passed second reading without the opposition even asking for a recorded vote.

The new parliamentary session will see our government stand up for Canadian families and consumers. This includes ensuring they do not fall victim to counterfeit goods. Counterfeit goods hurt our economy, undermine innovation, and undermine the integrity of Canadian brands, and they threaten the health and safety of Canadians on occasion. This is why I am asking that the NDP and Liberal MPs who stood in the House and spoke in favour of former Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act, going to committee will agree to allow that to happen again.

By allowing these bills that received varying degrees of support from across the aisle an opportunity to be reinstated, our intention is to finish where we left off on key pieces of legislation important to Canadians—not to enter into partisan gridlock, not to re-debate legislation that has already received support from parliamentarians, but to reinstate and pass bills so that we can move on to new initiatives and deliver results for Canadians.

As I made clear, government Motion No. 2 is about restoring everyone's business. That includes bills and motions that are important to everyone here and, more importantly, to Canadians.

Many of the Canadians I speak with want their elected politicians to work, make decisions, and get on with the important work we were sent to Ottawa to do. I can only imagine the reaction I would get if I told them we had to spend over a dozen days to have the exact same debates we had already had, to make the same decisions we had already taken, to have the same votes we had already voted on, in many of these cases on bills that we all supported.

It would be a remarkable waste. It would seem absurd to anyone in the real world, where efficiency and productivity count for something, but believe it or not, that is what the official opposition wants to do: play partisan games, hold debates that we have already had, and enter into the kind of unproductive and unsavoury political deadlock just witnessed south of the border.

A news article on Tuesday noted that “the NDP is fundamentally opposed” to the legislative component of our balanced approach to restoring the work of all members of Parliament, yet just a few short paragraphs later in the same article, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley is reported to have said he is “not opposed to bringing back some of the legislation”. Which is it? Are New Democrats fundamentally opposed, or are they actually in favour? Is this a matter of principle, or is it really just a matter of partisan gamesmanship? Is it just that some people like to stand and grab attention? I think the answer is obvious.

Our approach to restoring the work of all members also includes the important work that is being done in our committees. This means continuing our commitment to ensuring that taxpayers' dollars are spent efficiently and in a transparent manner.

That is why we are taking action to reinstate the mandate for the procedure and House affairs committee's study on members' expenses, including a special provision for independent members to participate at the meetings of the committee on this issue. We ask all members of the House to support this mandate so that we can increase accountability and transparency in MP disclosures.

Our balanced, principle-based approach to making Parliament work this session will also mean the reappointment of the special committee on missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. There is no question that the deaths and abductions of these women are a tragedy that has caused deep pain for many families. By reinstating this committee's work, we are ensuring that this tragedy receives the careful attention it deserves.

Other uncompleted committee mandates flowing from House orders include a private member's motion that would also be revived.

Finally, some scheduling adjustments are proposed. They include items to reconcile some deadlines to our calendar as well as the usual indulgence granted by the House to allow members from a recognized party to attend their party's national convention.

What I have just outlined to you, Mr. Speaker, is a fair and balanced proposal to get Parliament back in the swing of hard work. Government Motion No. 2 is balanced. It is based on a principle, a principle that we will be back where we were in June and that nobody is prejudiced by our prorogation. It is a non-partisan approach, one that would restore everyone's business regardless of their partisan affiliation and regardless of which side of the House they sit on.

Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act

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

Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I would like to say that we have had a lot to thank the staff for here on Parliament Hill, particularly for the last four and a half weeks but also the entire session and entire time since the last election. However, the last four and a half weeks, with our working late hours past midnight just about every night, a lot of people have been putting in a lot of work, security staff and the like.

I would particularly like to point out this time of year the service provided by our pages. When the House rises for the summer, they will have completed a remarkable year that they have served with us.

Being a parliamentary page is a special honour. It is an experience for which pages get to go back and tell stories of for months, years, indeed, for much of the rest of their lives because the experience of being a page is a very special one.

However, I know there is life after being a page. We have within our caucus two people who are former pages. My wife was a page in this place some years before I was elected a member of Parliament. It is interesting to observe the now chief of staff to the current leader of the Liberal Party was a page in the same year. Therefore, there is indeed life after this remarkable experience.

We want to thank all the pages for the tremendous work they do on behalf of all of us here in the House of Commons, quietly and efficiently serving all of our needs here, and we appreciate that a great deal.

However, those “thank yous” being in place, I would now like to propose the following motion for consideration of the House.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for this motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder), be read the third time and passed and passed on division.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before getting to the meat of this subject, I would like to mark a sad anniversary today. Earlier in the day, we had the 50th time allocation motion imposed on us, the 50th gag order. In this 41st parliament, Tuesday, June 18 is a sad anniversary.

I recall bills on which I would have liked to have the opportunity to make my contribution and to present a different perspective on the debate, one that came from the constituents in my riding. But I could not do that because, unfortunately, a time allocation motion was imposed and curtailed the debate.

I am sure that as many members on the Conservative side as on the opposition side have found themselves in that situation in various debates.

In terms of the present bill, I would first like to say that it has changed for the better as it moved through the various stages of the legislative process. That is why I am going to vote in favour of this bill. It is not perfect. We wanted to make amendments that were rejected, but we have still been promised that this bill would be reviewed in five years to see whether it is working, as we hope it will.

Public safety and the attention that victims of crime receive are issues that had to be dealt with. We succeeded in addressing issues relating to the real consequences of the proposed changes and were careful to listen to experts and victims.

Public safety has to be considered. I agree that it is essential to keep our communities safe. However, we need to make sure that we abide by the rule of law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We had to be sure that the way we manage the cases of accused persons with mental illnesses is effective in treating mental disorders. I would therefore like to congratulate the legislators who wrote this bill, but mostly those who amended it, on the job they have done.

Numerous witnesses were consulted during and after the committee’s study. We took the time to listen to victims, families and our communities. We were thus able to have the bill amended to reflect some of the testimony given in committee, and I have to say I am reasonably satisfied with the final result.

It is nonetheless important to recall that the rules in the Criminal Code regarding mental disorders apply to a very small proportion of accused persons. It is always worthwhile to listen to debate in the House and to be able to ask questions afterward, I would note in passing.

A person who is deemed unfit to stand trial or found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder must appear before a provincial or territorial review board, which decides on a plan of action. The person is therefore neither convicted nor acquitted. Once again, this is an extremely limited number of individuals. Some of them have not committed serious crimes.

Concerns had been voiced about the bill at first. We had to make sure that we did not exacerbate the public’s fears for no reason. We also had to be sure not to hinder the reintegration of individuals found to be not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. We undertook a proper examination of the Criminal Code provisions relating to mental disorders, an issue that is important to many Canadians. Some recent cases that received heavy media coverage have also cast doubt on the effectiveness of the current approach, and the bill fixes some of those flaws in terms of victims’ rights.

Bill C-54 also deals with victims’ participation in the process. The ideas put forward are taking us in the right direction. In the NDP, we wanted to know, before anything else, how we could assist victims in this process. One thing the bill provides is for victims to be informed when an accused is released and for the accused to be prohibited from communicating with their victim, and for the safety of victims to be considered when decisions are made about an accused person.

I have no problem with these proposals. However, I have to say that more will need to be done to assist victims. The Conservatives have often applied the same formulas in the past. They complicate the judicial system, but they do not offer assistance for victims.

This bill, at least, is a first step in the right direction.

What else can we do? Catherine Latimer, of the John Howard Society of Canada, asks that more programs and services be offered to the victims of sexual abuse. In her view, the government should invest more in crime prevention. Prevention is something that is often lacking in the Conservative ideology. I totally agree with her.

Every year in Canada, the total cost of crime is at or near $100 billion. This is a huge bill for our society. With regard to individuals declared not criminally responsible on account of mental disorders, it is important to work with key players, such as the Schizophrenia Society of Canada, in order to prevent crimes.

There are costs associated with any amendment. Once again, it is the provinces that will have to pay the bill. It must be said that under the Conservatives we have grown accustomed to seeing the bill passed on to other levels. They really like to pass legislation and then let others pay for it. They also like applying legislation according to their own ideology, without consulting the provinces. I am starting to wonder whether this is not a centralizing government after all. Perhaps the Conservatives are centralizers.

With regard to provincial prisons in Canada, the provincial and territorial governments are already forced to do what they can with the pointless reforms passed by the Conservatives.

I am not saying that any change to the Criminal Code is pointless. It is even necessary to have certain provisions, or at least consider them. In any case, I will be voting in favour of the bill. Nonetheless, certain changes made by the Conservatives have not improved safety in our communities. The only thing they have managed to do is to bog the system down even more.

Can the Conservatives tell us if they now have a financing scheme that will enable the provinces to implement the changes proposed in Bill C-54? I would really like to have an answer to this question.

It is necessary to make sure that the provinces and territories will never again receive a bill that they do not have the resources to pay. The government could thereby learn from its mistakes and at least accompany its reforms with compensation for the provinces. We can all agree that it is very easy to pass legislation when you do not have to pay to implement it. Basically, it is a simple matter of justice.

Over the past few months, the members of the NDP have spoken with experts on mental illness, victims, as well as the provinces to find it out what approach they think would be the best. We did not indulge in political games. We have concentrated on the most important thing, that is, on the study of the merits of this policy, a policy that, we must remember, must come with adequate funding by the federal government.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate the fact that public safety must be protected as a priority, with due regard to the rule of law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is also essential to consider the needs of the victims. The bill does respond to these concerns.

With regard to the elements that raise concerns and the amendments put forward by the NDP, including clarification of the term “brutal”, amendments that in any case were not accepted by the government, there is at least a guarantee that we will be able to study the bill again in five years’ time, when we will be able to see the benefits and the positive impact of the change.

The NDP is not unwilling to change. We have done our homework, and we have managed to improve the bill. I recognize how much work we put into studying this bill and this is why I will be voting in favour of it.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord.

I rise tonight to speak in favour of Bill C-54 at third reading. I must say that from the day the government first announced its intention to introduce this bill, I have supported the bill in principle. I believe the matters we are seized with in Bill C-54 are very important, even though the number of individuals affected is very small.

The unfortunate incidents which have brought us to this debate tonight are obviously extremely wrenching for all the victims and their families. Yet, at the same time, there is a real danger that the very small number of extreme incidents resulting from mental illness will cloud our collective judgment when it comes to addressing the broader issues of mental health in Canadian society.

I believe the bill we have before us today is a reasonably balanced bill. It is certainly not as good as it might have been, but it is better in some key ways than what was originally introduced.

To me, the most important improvement was the addition of an amendment proposed by the NDP to add a mandated five-year review of the legislation by Parliament. This is a very good way to make sure we have this right. We will look at it again in five years to see what the impacts have been.

However, the most important reason for supporting this bill is the significant progress it makes in enhancing victims rights, especially in the cases where the accused is found not criminally responsible for his or her actions.

I want to draw attention to four ways in which the rights of victims, and in particular their safety, are improved in Bill C-54.

The most important one is the entrenching in law of the right of victims, upon request, to be notified when the perpetrator is discharged. We have had one case when someone ran into someone in the community who they thought was still in custody. Obviously, that could be very shocking It would be upon request, but victims should certainly have that right.

Second is the provision to allow orders to be made that forbid communication between the perpetrator and the victim.

Third is the provision that adds a requirement for the review boards that makes these decisions about the release of perpetrators to consider the safety of victims when decisions are being made about the perpetrator.

The fourth major improvement, and again it was not in the original bill but was added via an NDP amendment, is the provision that is closely related to the first improvement. It would give victims the right to be notified of the address of the perpetrator if the perpetrator is released, thus making it less likely that they will have inadvertent contact with the perpetrator, which can obviously be very traumatic.

The second reason I have for supporting this bill is the fact that it now makes public safety the paramount consideration for provincial review boards in decisions relating to those found unfit to stand trial or found not criminally responsible for their actions.

The change here is that public safety becomes the most important consideration; it is not just one item on a list of considerations. Our criminal justice system always ought to function with public safety in mind, so these cases should be no different. We also need to remind ourselves that public safety, as the main priority, does not diminish our responsibility to consider these cases and to make sure they function within the bedrock of our legal system, which is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The third reason I have for supporting this bill is the fact that it creates a high-risk designation for those who are found not criminally responsible for the most violent incidents. I want to stress that we are talking about a very small number of cases where the perpetrator is found not criminally responsible. It starts with a small number of those decisions, and then there is a very small number among that group.

The definition that is provided in the bill is quite sound. It talks about applying a high-risk designation to those found not criminally responsible for serious personal injury offences where there is a substantial likelihood for further violence that would endanger the public, or where acts were so brutal as to indicate a risk of great harm to the public. We are not saying that all of those found not criminally responsible will end up falling into this high-risk category, but only those who provide a great risk to the public.

This is a designation that would be made by a court and that could only be removed by a court. The result of such a designation would be to deny granting unescorted absences from a secure health facility. It would place limits on the reasons for escorted absences. It would also provide the possibility, just the possibility, of lengthening the period for review of the status of the perpetrator from one year to a maximum of three years, again at the discretion of the court.

When we are talking about creating this high-risk designation, it is important to remember the context. When considering the case of someone found not criminally responsible, provincial review boards have three choices.

The board's first choice is an absolute discharge if the person does not pose a significant threat to public safety. This means release back into society with no restrictions or supervision. I emphasize that very few of those who are found not criminally responsible are granted an absolute discharge at their first hearing. This is due to the obvious necessity of taking time to allow therapy to work. In fact, at the annual reviews in B.C., only 18% of cases are granted an absolute discharge, while the rate in Ontario is even lower at only 5%. If we look over time, studies revealed that 35% of those found not criminally responsible spend more than 10 years in the system, so it is not true that those who are found not criminally responsible are released immediately as the system exists now. However, the change we would make here is to ensure that there would be additional consideration: a second set of eyes to look at those decisions when those high-risk designated perpetrators are considered for release.

The second choice available to the expert provincial review boards is a conditional discharge. Just as it sounds, this option allows a return to society under conditions which include things like specifying a place of residence, a treatment regime or reporting requirements. These are conditions very similar to those used in the parole system.

Finally, the third choice is to retain the perpetrator in custody in a secure health facility.

I know there are those who are very worried about the creation of this high-risk designation, but its importance here is the reassurance that it would offer to both victims and the public alike, as a person designated as high risk would not be eligible for conditional or absolute discharge until both the review board and the court are convinced that the perpetrator is no longer high risk.

There is no doubt that the current system has left the public and families of victims feeling exposed. This is true if we are talking about the case of the beheading of Tim McLean on a Greyhound bus in Manitoba in 2008, where the perpetrator was held in a facility where the grounds were not fenced, and was allowed out on his own onto those grounds very soon after the events; and where the perpetrator was allowed escorted absences that were perceived to be much too early and caused a very strong public outcry. Many people were not reassured by the explanation that the perpetrator was fine so long as he was taking his medications.

This reassurance is also needed if we are talking about a case like the three Schoenborn children who were killed by their father in B.C., again in 2008. His ex-wife was understandably concerned when the perpetrator was granted escorted absences in the same suburban Vancouver community where she lived.

From the moment the government introduced this legislation, I felt it would be in the public interest to adopt it in principle, and I believe we have had significant improvements at the committee level.

However, before concluding, I would like to take just a moment to address some of the concerns expressed by those opposed to the bill.

First, I would say there should be no confusion. This bill in no way would affect the availability or the use of the defence of not criminally responsible by anyone accused of an offence.

Second, I would say that I understand the concern that the focus on the most violent incidents involving mental illness may inadvertently contribute to the unfortunate stigma surrounding mental illness in our society. However, it is my hope that in fact this bill would accomplish the opposite by helping reduce the fears surrounding these extreme incidents.

Finally, I would say that I share the concern of all those who have pointed out the deficiencies in the way we deal with mental illness in our society, especially in terms of the lack of services and supports for those individuals and families struggling to deal with the impacts of mental illness on a daily basis.

In conclusion, I believe that in Bill C-54 we have before us a balanced bill, one that could have been further improved with the additional amendments that were offered by the NDP, but nevertheless a balanced bill. Most important, I believe that Bill C-54 would deal more justly with victims and their families in cases where the perpetrator is found not criminally responsible. We have a bill before us that would make it clear that public safety must be the paramount consideration in all these cases. Finally, we have a bill in front of us that would address those very few cases involving extreme violence and high risk of recurrence, and it would do so in a way that would ensure a thorough review of the case in order to guarantee public safety and to reassure the families of victims.

For these reasons, I will be supporting Bill C-54 at third reading.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it a bit rich that a member from that party is somehow suggesting we are not doing enough for victims. It would be funny, if it were not so tragic.

We do a lot for victims. We could talk about the victims ombudsman. We could talk about doubling the victim surcharge. These are just a couple of things off the top of my head. This party has put in significant reforms within the NCR regime to support the requests of victims, so that they are not revictimized by the system.

The Liberals are going to vote against this bill, which would enshrine significant rights for victims. I do not what the comment is about in saying “We're not supporting victims”, but they are going to vote against this legislation.

Yes, there has been a critic, and a good critic obviously, a former Supreme Court justice; however, I respectfully disagree. I think this bill is necessary, reasonable and prudent. Bill C-54 is a second check to make sure that we have things right. I do not see how it cannot be supported.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in debating Bill C-54, there are two issues that come to mind for me personally.

One issue is regarding the issue of victims. I, for one, in representing Winnipeg North, am very much concerned about victims. In fact, I believe the Conservative government is doing very little to prevent people from becoming victims in the first place. It has not been progressive in terms of coming up with ideas to deal with the causes of crime in the first place. It is something in which the government has fallen short.

Speaking specifically to the bill, could the member provide a brief comment regarding the Chief Justice of Canada, who has indicated that the bill is not necessary to deal with the mental disorders and NCRs? I would appreciate a comment on that.

The other issue is on why it is that again we have the bill being rushed through in this fashion. We have seen this disturbing behaviour from the Prime Minister's Office of wanting to prevent members from having proper debate on important issues that Canadians want us to address.

Could the member could provide comment as to—

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased tonight to be speaking to Bill C-54.

As a member of the justice committee, I had the opportunity to review the legislation in detail. I had the benefit of hearing witnesses who came to the committee to testify with respect to this piece of legislation. We heard from people who were strongly in favour of the legislation, people who had been victimized by those who ultimately became NCR accused. They had certain things that they thought this legislation would do to help them. They had some other comments.

We also heard from some people who had concerns with respect to the legislation. I would respectfully submit that when we deconstructed most of the concerns that people raised at the committee, they were a result of either not understanding the legislation or not having read the legislation, or perhaps a combination of both, because most of the criticisms really did not withstand an examination by members of the committee.

I want to talk a bit about what this legislation would do. I will start off by going through four of the key changes.

In my view, one of the key changes in Bill C-54 starts off with making the safety of the public the paramount consideration when determining whether or not somebody who has been found not criminally responsible is going to be released into the public.

As I have often done when I get up and talk about these particular pieces of criminal justice legislation and many of the things that we have brought forward, I say that many of the things that we put forward actually just make common sense. When we talk to the average Canadian on the street, for example, or when I talk to people in my riding of Brampton West and explain some of these things and tell them this is the change that we are going to make with respect to this particular bill, often their response is, “Really? You have to make that change? Boy, it would just make common sense for that would be the law. Why would you have to make that change?”

Therefore, when we say that safety of the public is paramount, it means that when a court or a review board is going to make a disposition with respect to an NCR accused, it would take safety of the public as the paramount consideration. Not only would that make sense, but we would also be codifying some of the Supreme Court jurisprudence in that area. In R. v Conway, it was made very clear by the Supreme Court that safety of the public should be the paramount consideration, so when we amend section 672.54 of the Criminal Code, we would make it clear that:

When a court or Review Board makes a disposition...it shall, taking into account the safety of the public, which is the paramount consideration, the mental condition of the accused, the reintegration of the accused into society and the other needs of the accused,

—and here is the next change—

make one of the following dispositions that is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances....

Again, that just would make sense. We would make a disposition that is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances.

The next major substantive change would be incorporating what we call a “high-risk” accused.

There are have been many who have come to this committee and said, “Well, this is going to stigmatize people. I mean, how dare you call somebody “high risk”? This is a person who has perhaps a significant mental disorder, and you're stigmatizing that person.”

I would say the exact opposite. In fact, we would not be stigmatizing people who have mental health issues, because what we are actually doing is saying that there are a select few who might be high risk, and we are destigmatizing everybody else, because people would then know they are not high risk.

I went back to this at committee over and over. When people were raising concerns about these issues, I would say, “Let us look at the section.”

Quite clearly, proposed section 672.64 would state, “On application made by the prosecutor before any disposition to discharge an accused absolutely, the court may, at the conclusion of a hearing, find the accused to be [a] high-risk...”

There are a number of processes taking place here.

The first is an application that may be brought by a crown attorney. It is not saying a crown attorney would bring this application for every person who is found to be NCR. It is quite the contrary. I know crown attorneys. My wife is a crown attorney. They are hard-working people. They are not looking for extra work. They would not try and dig up case files just because they want to make a person high risk. That would be reserved for cases where there is a significant concern.

Even if a crown prosecutor had that significant concern, it would not mean that person would be designated high risk because there is a two-fold test: first, the crown prosecutor has to bring the application; and, second, he or she has to convince a judge that the high-risk designation is necessary in the circumstances.

If I go back to the proposed section, it states:

...at the conclusion of a hearing, [the court may] find the accused to be a high-risk accused if the accused has been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for a serious personal injury offence...and...the court is satisfied that there is a substantial likelihood that the accused will use violence that could endanger the life or safety of another person;

When we really take the time to listen to that section, it is saying that for a person to be designated high risk a court has to be satisfied that there is a substantial likelihood that the accused would use violence that could endanger the life or safety of another person. That to me is absolute common sense. Why would we consider an absolute discharge where a person would be released into the community, if he or she may be a high risk and there is a substantial likelihood that he or she would use violence that could endanger the life or safety of another person? That is the part of the test that has been changed. I am quite sure it would be used judiciously by our judges and it would not be used by crown attorneys all the time.

The second way that someone could be found high risk is if the court is of the opinion that the acts that constitute the offence were of such a brutal nature as to indicate a grave risk of physical or psychological harm to another person. That is a proposed section that a number of people at committee have said is wrong and that, if it were a brutal offence, would mean that the person is high risk. That is not true. A number of witnesses made that statement at committee. I had to walk them through the proposed section. It does not just say “brutal”. We must look at the proposed section, which does not say that. It states:

[If] the court is of the opinion that the acts that constitute the offence were of such a brutal nature as to indicate a risk of grave physical or psychological harm to another person.

It is saying that there has to be some correlation. It is not just brutal; rather, it is brutal such that there is a risk of grave physical or psychological harm to another person. Therefore, if people want to suggest that we are saying brutal is high risk, they are not being truthful or they did not take the time to read the proposed section and understand what it says.

That is not enough. It does not just mean that there must be an indication of a grave risk of physical or psychological harm to another person because under subclause (2), “Factors to consider”, it goes on to state:

In deciding whether to find that the accused is a high-risk accused...

That could be under that first part of the test I talked about or the second part of the test. In either case, the courts would have to be satisfied that they have considered all relevant evidence included in the list. However, the phrase “all relevant evidence” does not mean that they are constrained by the factors in the list for a judge to consider. It is a non-exhaustive list.

Even if we accept the argument, “brutal”, we would then go down and look at what else has to be considered: the nature and the circumstances of the offence; any pattern of repetitive behaviour which the offence forms a part; the accused's current mental condition; and the opinions of experts who have examined the accused.

Even if someone tried to bring an application under the so-called “brutal nature” section, a court would have to look at all the evidence, which would include such things as the opinions of experts who have examined the accused.

The criticism that this might lead to a brutal crime, meaning the person is high risk, does not hold water. It is not a legitimate argument because a section in the statute says something very different.

Another issue that was raised at committee was that if a person was designated high risk, that person had to wait three years for his or her review and this was not a good thing. That is absolutely not true. It is not automatically three years. In certain circumstances, the review for a person who has been designated high risk can be moved to three years, but it is not automatic.

It is interesting, because the person who raised the matter of this being an automatic three years was Justice Richard Schneider, who came to the committee to provide us with his evidence on this and suggested that the three years was mandatory. I asked him if he could show me where it said that in the section. I understand there was constraints of time and we were talking, but he could not find it. However, when I look at the section, which is on page 8 of the statute around line 20, there are two ways in which this can be extended to three years.

First, it can be moved to 36 months after reviewing a disposition if the accused is represented by counsel and the accused and the attorney general consent to the extension. It has to be with the consent of the accused. Because we are dealing an accused, and in this case in particular an NCR accused, it has to be represented by counsel and with consent of the attorney general because we want to ensure we have real and legitimate consent to extend something to 36 months.

The other extension goes to the section again. I keep going back to this because we have to read the section before we decide to make the commentary. It says:

—at the conclusion of a hearing under subsection 672.47(4) or this section in respect of a highrisk accused, the Review Board may, after making a disposition, extend the time for holding a subsequent hearing under this section to a maximum of 36 months...

Here is the reason. If the review board is satisfied on the basis of any relevant information, including disposition information, in an assessment report made an offer under certain paragraphs, and this is key, “That the accused's condition is not likely to improve and that the detention remains necessary for the period of extension”. There is a burden of proof that has to be met in order to do that extension.

One of the things that was quite clear at committee, and this was virtually unanimous, was that review boards did good work. They work hard. They understand the law and we are putting that decision, the 36 months, back with the review board.

It is interesting because we did have a witness who came to the committee and who suggested that there was a problem with this 36 months review. When we look at the section, it is only if the accused's condition is not likely to improve and that detention remains necessary for the period of the extension.

Interestingly enough, when I had the opportunity to discuss that with Catherine Latimer from the John Howard Society, her response was, “Yes, I noticed that, but you will find that if you give very burdened organizations and review boards an option to extend the review periods, they always take it to the outer limit”.

Ms. Latimer was basically suggesting that review boards do not care what the test is. They do not care if the accused person's condition will or will not likely improve. The boards will do it at 36 months, because they do not want to work, because they have too much work. Ms. Latimer was one of the people who came to the committee and suggested that this bill should not pass. That was the argument. I vehemently disagree with that position.

I am going to talk briefly about the rights of victims, which is an important aspect of this legislation. I can say that I heard what I consider to be, in many circumstances, absolutely heartbreaking testimony from people who came to talk about family members who had been killed by an NCR accused person. They talked about their children being killed. We heard these things, and it was very difficult to listen to that kind of testimony.

I can tell you some of the things they were unhappy with that we wanted to fix. We cannot fix what happened. We all know that.

I cannot remember who told this story, but a person was walking in a mall and bumped into the NCR accused person who had committed the acts of violence against his or her family member. The person was in a panic. One of the revisions in this act would give the victim notice of the discharge of an NCR accused. The victim would receive notice when the NCR accused was going to receive an absolute discharge. That would be a huge step up.

The bill would make victim impact statements mandatory. If victims wanted to make statements, they would have to be considered before a disposition was made. Non-communication orders would also be mandatory. If victims did not want communication from an NCR accused, they would not have to have it. It is common sense.

I have a great example of the bipartisanship at the committee. An amendment was put forward by my colleagues in the NDP on letting victims know the intended place of residence of NCR accused people. That goes back to the story of someone bumping into the NCR accused in the mall. If victims know that they are being discharged and where they are being discharged to, the chance of having those unfortunate incidents would decrease.

Another point raised at committee was that with this legislation, NCR accused persons would be put in jail. That was put forward by Dr. J. Paul Fedoroff. I asked him where in the legislation it said that an NCR accused person would go to jail. He could not point it out. I then walked him through the section and talked about what would happen. When dealing with people deemed high risk, they would be put in treatment.

Going back to the terms of disposition, subsection 672.54(c) states that, “by order, direct that the accused be detained in custody”, and this is key, “in a hospital”. Somebody designated high risk would not go to jail. I do not know where that came from. It is not true. NCR accused persons would be put in a hospital for treatment.

When I pointed that out, the response was that before people were declared NCR, they would be put in jail, and that was the problem. The answer was that this is how the system currently exists. When people have committed serious crimes, are awaiting trial and do not get bail, they are put in jail. This legislation would not change that.

This is a piece of legislation that would be moderately used. It is a tool. I like to call it a double-check. When a review board was about to absolutely discharge an NCR accused person, there could be an application to the court to say that the person might be high risk and could reoffend and commit a violent act. The court could be asked to look at it to make sure that it was the right disposition. It would be a sensible, reasonable safety check. I hope that it has the support of all members of the House of Commons.

The House resumed from June 17 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 third time and passed.

Bill C-54—Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, seeing that the minister wants to address the substance of the bill, having been at committee when the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Sue O'Sullivan testified, I was surprised that among her many amendments that would have spoke to what victims wanted, so many of the measures were not included in Bill C-54. It was very clear from the victims rights groups that testified at committee. Most of them saw the very compelling need to ensure adequate mental health services, that we had more in place for prevention and that the not criminally responsible sections that were most important to victims were the ones about notification. These are not the ones who are most under assault by those who are expert in clinical psychology, forensic psychology, review boards and legal experts.

There was a way forward to respond to victims' needs and to also respect the system that, according to all the experts, was working well in the stream of not criminally responsible people who were then monitored closely. Why did the minister not pursue a compromise in which victims' rights and the rights of mentally ill people who found themselves in the NCR system were both respected?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to spend the whole 30 minutes talking about great Canadians like Brian Mulroney and other great Canadians, but 30 minutes would not be nearly enough to talk about the accomplishments of Conservative prime ministers in this country. It would not even come close to what we would need.

That said, I am pleased that we are moving forward on this Bill C-54 that concerns not criminally responsible individuals. I think, and everybody should agree, that having five hours of debate can be very helpful. This bill has been in the works for quite some time. It has been before committee and it was here for second reading.

Again, I hope nobody over there is offended that protection of the public will be the paramount consideration. It seems to me that protection of the public should have the support of everyone. I look forward to this debate.

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

moved:

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

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

Data Used by Government with Respect to Bill C-54

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond briefly to last night's further intervention by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands on the question of privilege respecting Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act. My intervention will be brief and I hope it will be the final of many interventions on this point.

On the report tabled on Thursday, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage pointed out last night that the hon. Minister of Justice had sought, and did in fact receive, unanimous consent to table that document. For example, page 433 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, at footnotes 111, 112 and 113, notes several examples when documents have, with unanimous consent, been tabled in only one official language.

Mr. Speaker, in the case currently before you, the Minister of Justice sought such unanimous consent to table the report for the very reason that it was produced in only one official language. Otherwise, he would not have had to seek such consent in the first place. The minister did so in the fullness of transparency, to provide members with the document as quickly as possible. Of course, once the translation is complete, the document will be tabled in the other official language as well.

On the tabling of a Microsoft Word track changes version of the document, it is my understanding that this was deliberately chosen as the means by which the House could most easily, readily and quickly determine what had changed between the two versions of the report. Rather than the member opposite trying to ascribe the most nefarious possible motivation to the minister tabling the track changes version, I would suggest that he, instead, consider the most plausible explanation: the minister was simply trying to be as transparent as possible. What he did was provide the House with an easy-to-reference version specifically highlighting the differences. For those not satisfied with that, he also provided the website address where a clean print of the updated version of the report could be located.

It is important to bear in mind that the original version of the report, which I will note was marked as final by the author in November 2012 and with consent to release, as tabled in a response to Order Paper Question No. 1169, was upward of 200 pages in length, thus making the need for track changes or the benefit of track changes rather obvious.

On the matter of the response to Order Paper Question No. 1169, I would refer to what was asked in the order paper question itself. In paragraph (a), the government was asked for certain information relied upon “in developing this legislation”. That is a very important part of the question. The material that was provided in answer to that was the earlier version of the report. I am left wondering how data received well after second reading debate started—that is, the revised report—could be responsive to a question related to the development of the bill, which was the question on the order paper.

Despite that, my colleague should be commended for noting in his response to that order paper question that a revised version of the report had been received. Therefore, not only was he responsive to the question, he was also transparent and open at the same time.

Finally, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands offered some comments on a systemic remedy, which he proposed. Despite his creativity, I disagree that there is a prima facie case of privilege to be found here. As such, I need not respond further to his suggestion on how to craft an order of reference to the procedure and House affairs committee.

Third Reading

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, that statement came from someone who suffered a terrible tragedy.

Quite frankly, it is very difficult for me to imagine what she went through, even though I have two young children. I think she is right in the sense that victims of a crime like this one feel extremely disadvantaged and helpless when the offence is committed by someone who is found not criminally responsible. They feel as though the justice system has let them down.

That is why it is never a bad idea to examine these elements of the justice system. In this case, Bill C-54 deals with the issue of individuals found not criminally responsible. If victims feel as though the system ignored their needs and their situation, we need to be able to comfort those victims through possible changes to the system, but again, from a perspective that does not violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, for instance, or use the issue for political gain.

These debates are extremely important and very sensitive, and this matter must be dealt with accordingly.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise before the House for the second time this evening, this time, to speak to Bill C-54.

Bill C-54 is important. It is the latest bill on the Conservative government's crime agenda. Based on the controversial example of Dr. Guy Turcotte in Quebec, the government thinks it is better to impose its ideological measures.

The profound, collective feeling of injustice triggered by the murder of his two children was a completely normal, healthy reaction. Indeed, he made us question the essence of justice and the future of our society and prompted us to ask other important questions of that sort. As parliamentarians, it is our duty to ask whether such a case, which fortunately, is very unusual, requires us to question where the justice system is going.

I would like to quote a senator who was talking about one of her bills dealing with this issue. I think this quotation is quite relevant:

Even though there may be the odd case that concerns us all, Canada has recognized mental health experts and a proven judicial system. Anger and pain should not dictate our courts. Nor should they dictate our laws. It is a mistake to go down this path because instead of building a peaceful society we would create an unstable, harder, less tolerant one. We would fall into a vicious cycle of repression and violence, precisely into which the [Prime Minister's] Conservatives—and Senator Boisvenu—seek to lead us....We are talking about sick people. Punishment will not cure them. Prison does not cure.

That was Senator Hervieux-Payette, and those were her words regarding her own Bill S-214. I am quite certain that she will not mind if I draw a parallel with the current situation.

Is the government outraged that I would dare claim that it is playing politics at the expense of victims? The government is constantly accusing the opposition of siding with pedophiles, murderers and other criminals of that ilk, so I would simply like to try a little experiment.

The government has made several public statements on this bill, as did Senator Boisvenu and the mother of the two murdered children, Isabelle Gaston, whose state of mind I cannot even begin to imagine. The following is an excerpt of the statements of Senator Boisvenu and the Minister of Canadian Heritage at the announcement of Guy Turcotte's release on parole:

We believe that Isabelle Gaston doesn't deserve to live in fear of her children's killer, and neither do other victims...

Such decision is clearly undermining Canadians’ confidence in our justice system.

That's why our Government will shortly introduce legislation to address Canadians’ concerns about high-risk accused persons found Not Criminally Responsible on account of mental disorder who may pose a threat to public safety if released.

Well, if the government is not engaging in petty politics, and if the bill does not apply in any way to Dr. Turcotte's case, why are the Conservatives promoting the bill by using an emotionally charged and high-profile case involving children?

It smacks of demagogy and is very dangerous when the government plays with Canadians’ feelings and keeps them in the dark. The Conservatives know full well that this legislation will give the government an opportunity to capitalize on Canadians’ empathy for Ms. Gaston, while at the same time never clearly pubically admitting that the legislation cannot, and will never, apply to Ms. Gaston even if Mr. Turcotte were to face a second trial. Moreover, when Ms. Gaston was questioned on a Quebec public affairs television program, she admitted to being unaware whether the legislation would even apply in her situation. To quote Ms. Gaston “As far as I am concerned, I do not know, it is perhaps too early to get a sense of whether it will have an impact on my situation—the process is ongoing.”

This proves that all Ms. Gaston really wants is for things to change, and for her children not to have died in vain, which is entirely admirable. However, I seriously doubt that a more rigid position and the criminalization of mental illness will resolve the problem.

I use the word criminalization because, in truth, government members do not really believe in rehabilitation—we realized this when Bill C-10 was adopted. After listening to Senator Boisvenu, the jury is out as to whether he even believes that people genuinely suffer from psychological distress or severe mental illness.

In fact, the senator even wants the government to review the definitions of a number of mental illnesses whereby individuals may be found not criminally responsible.

Why? Simply because Mr. Boisvenu does not think that the incidence of mental illness could have increased so significantly over the past 10 or 15 years.

Why did the number of people found not criminally responsible increase twenty times? I do not think that the incidence of mental illness has increased at such a rate over the past 10 or 15 years. We must find out why there has been such a drastic increase in the number of these cases.

My colleague, the member for Gatineau, our justice critic, explained this during her opening speech. She said:

It is true that the percentage has risen over the years. However, and this is what it does not say, before 1991, if I recall correctly, when the amendment was made to the Criminal Code, the term was changed from “not guilty by reason of insanity” to “not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder”. At that point, summary conviction offences were also added, and this resulted in a lot of cases that had not been covered previously. Obviously that had an impact on the statistics. According to the government's responses, we are talking about a tiny percentage of cases where the individuals were found to be not criminally responsible.

To what point are mentally ill offenders dangerous?

This question was at the heart of an extensive study the Canadian government's Department of Public Safety conducted at the end of the 1990s. It recorded and analyzed more than 60 studies on this subject to properly identify the problems.

These studies looked at more than 15,000 offenders who had been released from prison or specialized hospitals and who were followed in their communities for a period of four to five-and-a-half years, on average. What were the findings?

When compared to offenders who do not have major psychological or psychiatric disorders, mentally disordered offenders are less likely to recidivate violently.

Second, mentally disordered offenders are not always actively psychotic. They may be in remission or their symptoms are being managed by medication.

The study also evaluated the relative importance of different risk factors. Many mental health professionals place considerable emphasis on “clinical” variables. Examples are length of hospitalization and type of mental disorder (e.g., schizophrenia, manic-depression). The meta-analysis found that these variables demonstrate very weak associations with violent re-offending. Much more potent predictors of violent recidivism are the factors typically found to predict violence among non-disordered offenders. Examples of these risk factors are criminal history, unemployment and family problems.

When the Minister of Justice said in his opening speech on second reading that the objective of the proposed reforms was not to impose criminal penalties on individuals found by a court to be not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, that was only half true, in fact.

In reality, Bill C-54 will divide the clientele into two types of cases: those who meet the criteria in Bill C-54 and those who do not meet those criteria, even though they have all been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. This means that accused persons whose cases meet the criteria and who are found to be high-risk accused could be held in custody with no possibility of release by the review board as long as the court has not revoked the finding.

Why place people who are not criminally responsible outside the jurisdiction of the review boards that deal with mental disorders, quasi-judicial tribunals that are composed of psychiatrists, not judges? Only a court could find an accused to be “high-risk” and then revoke that finding, at present. Before revoking it, the court would seek the recommendation of the mental disorder review board, but the final decision would no longer be the board’s.

In Quebec, the mental disorder review board makes decisions concerning individuals who have been found unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

As long as the accused is not discharged unconditionally or found fit to stand trial, a review must be held each year. With Bill C-54, that time will be extended to three years, and this could cause a number of problems, according to the experts with the Canadian Forensic Mental Health Network. It would prompt defence counsel to stop pleading not criminally responsible and opt for custodial prison sentences in the traditional prison system. In addition, individuals found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder would not receive proper care, but they would still present a danger when they were released.

The study I referred to earlier also found that the similarities between risk factors for offenders with mental disorders and other offenders suggest that there is a point at which health care services and the criminal justice system could integrate their approaches in order to effectively manage offenders with mental disorders.

There are two specific areas where co-operation between the two systems is possible: risk assessment and rehabilitation of offenders. I am not citing that study to embarrass anyone, but simply to try to make the government members understand the consequences of deinstitutionalization, poverty and the criminalization of mental health problems. Prison does not cure people.

This bill, like so many others, was drafted without much thought to the consequences and without consultation, in order to make the public, and particularly the Conservative base, believe that this government is tough on crime. In reality, this bill would probably not apply to the case of Guy Turcotte.

Clause 12 of Bill C-54 adds a new section to the Criminal Code, section 672.64, which lists the conditions that must be met in order for a person to be considered high-risk:

672.64 (1) On application made by the prosecutor before any disposition to discharge an accused absolutely, the court may, at the conclusion of a hearing, find the accused to be a high-risk accused if the accused has been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for a serious personal injury offence, as defined in subsection 672.81(1.3), the accused was 18 years of age or more at the time of the commission of the offence and

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

(b) the court is of the opinion that the acts that constitute the offence were of such a brutal nature as to indicate a risk of grave physical or psychological harm to another person.

For Guy Turcotte to be declared an assumed high-risk accused, the judge has to be convinced, beyond a doubt, that he would likely seriously harm another person or could endanger the life of another person. Everyone agrees that the murders were both brutal and grotesque. I, too, have children. However, that is not what justice must decide. Rather, it should focus on whether or not there is a chance the accused will reoffend.

Given the decision made, the experts were obviously able to convince the judge that this was not the case. I am going to outline the five criteria that the judge must take into consideration—and he must take all of them into consideration—when determining whether the individual is a high-risk accused.

He must consider the nature and circumstances of the offence, any pattern of repetitive behaviour of which the offence forms a part, the accused’s current mental condition, the past and expected course of the accused’s treatment, including the accused’s willingness to follow treatment, and the opinions of experts who have examined the accused. If one must take into consideration all these criteria, the Turcotte case does not at all fit, given the experts' opinions, his mental condition and the treatments and therapies that he is following.

The nature of the offence is the only criterion that might lead a judge to consider him dangerous. However, given his mental condition at the time, and based on what the judge took into consideration, the risk of reoffending is very low. According to the Conservatives' bill, Guy Turcotte would not be a high-risk accused.

The one thing I agree on is that victims should be at the centre of the process. The problem is that the bill says very little on this aspect.

In closing, I want to reiterate that the government must realize the importance of providing real support to victims of crime, including by following up on more than one recommendation of the report by the ombudsman for victims of crime. It must also understand the whole psychosocial structure surrounding prevention, the study of risk factors, research, health care and rehabilitation.

It is difficult because each case is unique, but experts have tools to try to have everyone make progress. Some are probably beyond redemption, but just like with the concept of high-risk accused or mental disorder, it is certainly not up to politicians, or even the legal profession to establish the foundations. It is up to psychiatrists and doctors.

While referring to the former cardiologist's case, the Minister of Canadian Heritage said that such decision obviously undermines Canadians' confidence in our justice system. However, the minister was not able to say how this desire to put victims at the centre of the process would translate into concrete measures.

That is another contradiction in the Conservatives' logic, and it is the reason why we presented a number of amendments in committee. In fact, one of those amendments was accepted, and it is one of the few that the Conservative government has accepted in any committee.

The amendment would inform victims, at their request, of the address of a person already found to be not criminally responsible for a crime so that the victim can avoid the area for his or her own well-being. It is one of the examples that showed that we do care about the victims. We want to improve this bill so that it reflects this concern.

One of the reasons why we will be supporting this bill is that we were able to have the Conservatives accept a second amendment that would require the government—no matter which party is in power in five years, that is in 2018—to have a committee study and re-examine the situation.

There are still many concerns about this bill, and I have pointed out a few of them. I think it is worthwhile examining them. There are other concerns that I did not have the time to address in my speech. They were brought up by experts, or in committee, and had to do with the possibility that this bill may be unconstitutional.

The validity of such measures is obviously based on the victims' rights, but also the rights of those deemed to be not criminally responsible for the acts committed. These laws must also be protected. In that sense, a contradiction could easily lead to interpretation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The committee was informed of concerns by the media. That is why, five years after the bill becomes law, such a study would be pertinent.

In my speech, I made sure that I talked about the danger of politicizing cases like the Guy Turcotte case. I am certain that other members could cite similar cases that have occurred in their riding or region. These cases are very delicate and they affect us.

I already mentioned that I have children. Anyone who has young children will be emotional about a situation like that. It is the reason why such a delicate and sensitive situation must be handled by parliamentarians in the same manner, that is in a delicate and sensitive manner. These types of cases must not be used to promote a political agenda.

The reference made by the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Senator Boisvenu to what I just mentioned was the second speech made on the same bill. It was announced twice. The government must be very careful, because this kind of issue is very volatile. Again, the politicization of these cases has muddied the waters for the collective debate we should be holding on this issue. This makes it much more difficult to find our way.

In the future, for law and order bills on crime, I would like the government to be much more sensitive to the reactions it causes and the way they interfere with the debate when similar bills are introduced.

On this side of the House, we showed we were willing to work with the government. We will do so by voting for this bill, among other things. In addition, we demonstrated our co-operation by proposing and expediting the passage of Bill C-2, which allows for the group prosecution of biker gangs.

We will continue to work on this issue, but we need the government's co-operation in order to have a healthy and useful debate for Canadians.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree 100%.

If we could legislate away mental illness, I would do it tonight. I would probably get unanimous consent to do it, and we would do it.

However, it is not possible, and we do have to have a balanced approach on all topics, including mental health, crime and other health issues. If I could legislate away cancer, I would do that also by unanimous consent. I cannot do it. It does not happen. It will not work.

We have to have a balanced approach. Part of the balance in our view is, through Bill C-54, to make sure we have appropriate mental health help for those who have committed serious personal and brutal offences. In Bill C-54, we need to find a balance to help victims with the issues they are now going to face as victims of these mental health offences.

It is a balancing act. This is not the complete answer. I do understand that there are two sides to it. We have been investing in prevention as a government and we will continue to invest, but we also have to help those who have already committed those offences.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour this evening to speak to Bill C-54. It is also my honour to be the chair of the justice committee, which has recently dealt with the discussion on this piece of legislation.

I want to thank the committee for its work. We had extended hours. We invited a number of witnesses from all sides of the debate on this particular issue. The committee worked very well together and very hard at hearing everyone out. We had a number of interruptions with bells and a number of other votes that happened within, but we were able to get through the presentations in a very respectful way as a committee. We heard from all sides, whether they were victims, victims' family members, those representing the mental health side of the equation, such as associations, legal opinion and health care workers in the mental health area. It was a very good discussion.

I also want to thank our clerk, Jean-François Pagé, who did a fabulous job on very short notice, making arrangements for very balanced panels for us to see. Also, the analysts and the legislative clerks helped us.

I also want to thank the leader of the Green Party who joined us at committee with a number of amendments. It does not happen that often. It is some sort of a new process for committees to have independents sit at the table with us when we go through legislation and contribute to the discussion on amendments that they bring forward. I appreciate that.

I do appreciate the professionalism of the committee in dealing with a number of amendments. I believe there were 52 or 54 amendments in front of us. We did accept amendments. One came from the government side, one from the New Democratic side and one from a Liberal member. They were accepted and in fact there was some crossover between the two opposition parties.

Let me take just a few minutes to review exactly what Bill C-54 actually would do. There is lots of rhetoric about what the bill would do; we heard some of it this evening. I want to be as factual, as clear and as precise as possible on the changes to the NCR regime that now exists. These would be amendments to an existing not criminally responsible regime, which we think are needed to make our system better. It is not to change, to stigmatize, as we have heard from others tonight. It is actually to improve the justice system.

There is nothing wrong with improvements to the justice system. There is nothing wrong with improvements to any system. That is why we are here as legislators. We look at what is happening. We see what is actually happening on the ground after we make laws. Sometimes we do not get it completely right. Sometimes, over time, things change and we need to make changes. That is all we would be doing. We would be making some amendments to this to deal with a few high-risk accused situations.

Bill C-54 would create a new application process to obtain a finding from a court that an NCR accused is a high-risk accused. The high-risk accused finding would result in the disposition requiring detention of the accused in a hospital until the court revokes the findings.

Let us be clear about this. There is an NCR regime at present. A court can find someone not criminally responsible at present, or NCR. They do not go to jail. That is what NCR is about. They need help. They have a mental issue through no fault of their own. Based on the evidence that is provided, a court can make a judgment that this individual is not criminally responsible for the actions he or she has taken. Some of them can be very horrific, some at a different level, but it is still their mental capacity that has been the issue.

Do they go to jail? What the previous speaker said, that the system would send them back to sort of rot in jail longer, is not the case. In the present regime, someone who is designated NCR gets help. He or she gets hospitalized, basically.

At present, there is a review board to see how they have done. It is an annual review. The victims would have to come and listen to the progress the individual has made, and a review board would decide whether the individual needs to continue treatment. It is not punishment, it is treatment.

All we are doing is, first, saying that in some very specific situations, some NCR-designated individuals are of high risk, both to themselves and to the public. We are defining a different and added category in this piece of legislation. Would it apply to everyone who is designated NCR? Absolutely not. That is not what it is designed for. That is not how we expect it to be used. There was some discussion about a burden on the courts system. That would not be a result. There would be very few cases in Canada annually. In fact, I hope it would never be used, to be honest. It would be great if the high-risk designation in NCR were never required. However, it may be required and we need to have the legislation in place to provide that designation for a court to determine.

The application would have been made by the prosecutor before an absolute discharge could be ordered. That means that the government prosecution would have to decide whether someone really is high risk, so there is a burden of proof in terms of whether the individual is high risk before a prosecutor could bring it forward.

The high-risk accused finding would only be available in cases involving serious personal injury offences that resulted in a verdict of NCR. Therefore, they need to know that the person has been found NCR already. As well, it is what we call an “incident”, not a crime that leads to jail, because these people need hospitalization. The incident would have to be an offence that involved serious personal injury and the accused would be 18 years of age or more. Therefore, it would not be used for children or young offenders, it would be for adults. We need to ensure that everybody understands that.

To determine a finding of high-risk accused, the court would have to be satisfied that there is a substantial likelihood that the accused would use violence that could endanger the life or safety of the public. The safety of the public would become paramount in this high-risk category. I would suggest that also safety of oneself would also have some consideration. At committee, we did hear it stated that, based upon actual court cases in the past, public safety is a priority. All this legislation would do is codify that and put it in the legislation, not just by jurisprudence of what has happened in different court cases.

The court could also make the high-risk accused finding if it were of the opinion that the acts that constitute the offence were of such a brutal nature they would indicate a grave risk of harm to another person. Therefore, an individual is found NCR and based on the evidence the court has determined that the individual needs hospitalization and needs help with the mental illness that has caused this serious offence. It is not just any serious offence, but one of a brutal nature that would cause the court to look at whether the high-risk category should apply. The court would consider all relevant evidence, including the nature and the circumstances of the offence, any relevant pattern of repetitive behaviour, the accused's current mental condition, the past and expected course of treatment and the accused's willingness to follow treatment, as well as expert opinions.

We heard in the last speech about the committee not accepting the amendment on medical experts. Based upon the input we got on that amendment, we had a full discussion on that amendment. Experts from the ministry of justice were there. They indicated that by putting medical experts as an amendment it may limit who we could ask on this and that not everyone who may have expertise on determining some of these criteria would be a licensed medical individual. There could be others involved, from a social services point of view, from other areas, who would be able to help in determining some of these circumstances and the nature of the offence, the pattern or premise, who may not have a medical designation. That is why we wanted to leave it open, so that all expert opinions could be sought. They would still have to be experts. We would not just be asking anyone.

If the court makes the high-risk accused finding, a disposition requiring detention of the accused in a hospital must be made. I think that is an important thing to indicate.

We are not talking about removing the hospitalization aspects and sending people to jail because they are high risk. It is determining that they go to a hospital that would handle their NCR issue if the offence were brutal in nature and that there were a high risk it may reoccur or that they could hurt themselves. And so, it is still a hospitalization. This does not remove that aspect of NCR and send them to jail but give them help.

No conditions permitting absences from the hospital would be authorized unless a structured plan was prepared to address the risk to the public, and only with an authorized escort.

If we were to go down my street in Burlington, Tuck Drive, and told people that, at present, somebody who has committed a brutal offence and has been found NCR, within the year, without a structured plan, would be able to go on an unescorted release, I would say the people on my street would be shocked that is what the law is at present.

All this is saying is that for those who are found NCR and then high risk, there would be a structured plan to address the public aspects and authorized escorted release. That is not saying they would not get to go out in public. We would try to help them with their plan to be reintegrated, but not on their own at that particular time as a high-risk NCR individual. They would have to be escorted so we could review what they were doing.

I think that is common sense. I do not think the public would be upset that those escorted absences were only a decision-making process and could impose a non-communication, non-attendance condition in order to ensure their own safety.

It just makes sense to me that we would have that ability, that condition in this bill, and it is surprising that it does not exist at present.

I want to talk briefly about what the bill does not do. Bill C-54 does not seek to punish individuals who have been found by the courts to be not criminally responsible on account of their mental disorder. It is not jail time. We want to make sure that is there.

I can tell members the witnesses we heard from were all excellent witnesses. They all brought an expertise to the table, whether a victim or an individual representing the legal field or the mental health field. However, when questioned on the specifics of the wording of the bill, of the different clauses, it was interesting to see that this is what they thought could happen but it was not actually the wording of the bill.

Nothing in Bill C-54 would affect the access of mentally disordered accused persons to mental health treatment. There is no prohibition to their getting help. With this bill, accused persons would still be NCR. They would get a high-risk designation and they would still be hospitalized. The government would be there to help them overcome the mental illness that caused the serious and brutal actions to take place. The government wants them to get better and to be integrated back into society. We have a responsibility as a government to make sure that high-risk individuals get the treatment they need.

Bill C-54 does not seek to stigmatize the mentally ill. The bill does not suggest that mentally ill people commit crimes or are dangerous. The bill does not say that. People came to see me in my office. I agree that the messaging from all of us here is that the support in this bill does not suggest that we are stigmatizing mental illness.

We know people need help. We know that happens. As a government, we put together the mental health strategy, and the high-risk category does not apply to everyone who has a mental illness. It would apply to very few individuals. The new high-risk NCR accused finding does not create the presumption of dangerousness. Rather, it focuses on a relatively small group of NCR accused persons who qualify for the high-risk finding.

The other item that is important to understand is twofold. One, the review board still exists and the review board is still required to provide information on how individuals are progressing through their treatment. The review board change is simple. Right now it is every year that victims attend to hear how the perpetrators are doing. They are re-victimized over and over again. The bill would make it up to every three years. We are adding two years. The review board could make a decision of up to three years.

The only other major change, which was highlighted by a question from my colleague in the Conservatives, is that a judge would determine whether a person is high risk. I have faith in the court system, and if that happens, a judge would decide, based on the evidence, including the review board evidence, whether individuals have accomplished what they needed to do in that high-risk designation, at which point the NCR designation can be removed and people can be reintegrated into society.

Those are two of the changes. If a judge determines that someone is high risk and NCR, that judge has the ability, the authority and the responsibility to determine when those designations will be removed.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes listening and hearing are two different things.

No one has suggested that the government is setting out to stigmatize the mentally ill. What we are talking about are the unintended, negative consequences of a piece of legislation. Indeed, the government consulted all the crown attorneys across the country, but it did not consult the Canadian Bar Association or attorneys who actually have a specialty in mental illness and NCR. One cannot talk to just one group and not the others.

If this is a good a bill, as the member is trying to suggest, and would not have those negative, unintended consequences, why did the government not consult the professions that are actually in charge of people who are mentally ill? They all oppose the bill. They all say that the unintended consequence would be to stigmatize people and send them back into the corners, where they will not be diagnosed.

Bill C-54 would deal with people after the fact, after they have committed violent crimes. We are suggesting that the bill should look at getting people an early diagnoses, before they get there, so that we can pick them up and prevent those kinds of crimes from occurring. We should find ways of working closely with mental health communities, with all of the legal professions and with victims to create a good and balanced piece of legislation

The House resumed 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 third time and passed.

Bill C-54—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I must advise that an agreement has not been reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) concerning the proceedings at third reading of Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder).

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act.

Over the last two weeks, the justice committee has heard a great deal of compelling testimony from mental health experts, legal professionals, law enforcement and victims who courageously shared their heart-rending experiences of pain, of loss, of anger and frustration and of their efforts to grieve and overcome. One of those experiences was shared by the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. I want to thank him and all the witnesses who provided personal accounts that were often heart-rending, but all the more important for it.

On the whole, the testimony we heard confirmed our reasons for opposing this legislation. I want to note that my belief is grounded in statistical analysis and in expert opinion that Bill C-54 would prove counterproductive by complicating treatment for the mentally ill and, as a result, increasing the danger to the public.

The testimony at committee also demonstrated something else: that the government's approach to this bill has had the effect of pitting mental health and legal experts against victims of violence, and it does not have to be this way.

I offer as evidence some quotations from committee testimony, as follows:

It is not about putting them in prison, it is about getting them the help they need.

One witness said, “I believe strongly in increased supports to help those with mental illness in our communities”.

Another witness said:

I am in favour of rehabilitation and I understand the suffering caused by a mental illness.

It may surprise members that those words came to the justice committee from victims and victims advocates. They were saying this.

The following quotation that I will read are from the testimony of mental health and legal professionals who are opposed to the bill.

...the association supports an approach that fully addresses victims' needs...it also recognizes that there are major flaws in the support services and financial aid offered to victims...

Another witness said, “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”.

Those words came from people who supported victims, but opposed the legislation.

Common ground exists between victims and the mental health and legal communities, irrespective of their views on this bill. The victims who spoke were not simply out for revenge. They recognized the importance of effective treatment for the mentally ill, including accused found not criminally responsible, or NCR.

At the same time, those opposing this bill have demonstrated genuine compassion for victims. It is disappointing therefore that the government did not endeavour to find this common ground before it prepared the legislation.

To be clear, opponents of the bill do not oppose victims, as has been callously and hyperbolically suggested. Indeed, we and other experts support measures to increase the notification of victims and the provision for no contact orders between victims and NCR accused.

It would have been, and, indeed, it still is quite possible, given good faith and openness to the perspectives of all concerned, to draft a bill that first, simultaneously protects the safety of the public; second, respects the interest and wishes of victims; and third, facilitates both preventative and rehabilitative treatment for the mentally ill. Those three things could have existed simultaneously in the bill.

Not only would such a bill have received more widespread support, it would have been less suspectible to constitutional challenges and it would have been far more effective.

I regret, however, that this was not the government's approach. Stakeholder after stakeholder and expert after expert came before the justice committee and stated that the government had not sought their input. Shockingly, while preparing a bill that deals specifically with mentally ill individuals, the government apparently had a grand total of one preliminary meeting with a mental health group before the bill was tabled.

It never consulted, for instance, with Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, which is Canada's largest mental health and addiction treatment facility, or the Schizophrenia Society of Canada or the Canadian Psychiatric Association, among many others.

The Canadian Mental Health Association was granted one meeting, and that was after second reading.

On the legal side, the government ignored no less an authority than the Canadian Bar Association. It consulted with crown attorneys whose input is important, but not with attorneys who represent the mentally ill, whose input is equally important.

The government's choice not to consult with so many of the relevant experts is yet another manifestation of a trend to which we are now regrettably accustomed to in the House, particularly with respect to justice legislation. The government does not base its policies on facts. Indeed, one of the principal reasons the Liberals oppose this bill is that, despite flaws in Canada's overall approach to issues of mental health and justice, the evidence demonstrates that the not criminally responsible regime works well in its current form. Undoubtedly, there are shortcomings with respect to the notification and involvement of victims. There are shortcomings which the Liberal Party has sought to address through amendments. There are also major improvements needed in terms of preventative treatment so people with severe mental health problems can get an early diagnosis and be treated before they commit serious violence.

Moreover, as was recently argued in a feature in L'actualité magazine about Isabelle Gaston, whose children were killed by Guy Turcotte, we might also consider re-examining the way our courts approach expert testimony at trial.

However, the crux of the bill before us does not address most of these problems. Rather, Bill C-54 is focused on changing the way our system deals with mentally ill individuals after they have been found not criminally responsible, yet this is the aspect of Canada's approach to mental health and justice that already works very well. We know it works because several studies have been done on the subject, the most recent of which was finally tabled by the minister last Thursday in its corrected form.

Before continuing, I want to acknowledge and thank the minister for doing so, even if I still do not understand why he tabled the incorrect report in March, one week after being provided with a revised draft, or why the government continued to cite the incorrect figures for months.

While I am on the subject, I must also express my dismay at public statements made by the minister's office and by his parliamentary secretary, questioning the credibility and competence of the researchers they commissioned. In fact, the researchers behaved in exactly the manner top level scientists and academics should. Instead of saying, as the minister did on Thursday, that “mistakes were made”, as though mistakes can make themselves, the researchers did the right thing by immediately acknowledging their error and correcting it. The minister should also do the right thing and apologize to them for tarnishing their reputations.

As we now know, according to the corrected version of that research, only 6.1% of individuals found not criminally responsible in a serious violent offence had a prior NCR finding. The recidivism rate for NCR accused released by review boards was 7% for serious violence. I said that in the House when I made my very first speech. It came from reputable people, from forensic experts to people who worked in the criminal justice system to mental health authorities. In other words, it is demonstrably exceptionally rare for an NCR accused person to be found not criminally responsible of a second violent act upon release. Naturally, the rarity of the occurrence is of no comfort to those who have been victims. It is certainly worthwhile to seek to improve the system further.

However, if we are to make significant changes to a largely successful system, such as creating an entirely new category of NCR accused deemed “high risk” on the basis of medically suspect criteria, we must take great care to ensure the changes we make do not have unintended negative consequences. Regrettably, witnesses at committee warned of that potential, that this bill would have several troubling unintended consequences, complicating treatment for the mentally ill and therefore increasing the dangers to the public.

Here are some of the reasons. By keeping the NCR accused institutionalized for longer periods of time, this legislation would risk overburdening treatment facilities. As Dr. Sandy Simpson, co-chair of the Canadian Forensic Mental Health Network, testified:

Most forensic services nationally are at or near capacity. If you look at Ontario, most of us are running over capacity. Clearly, if one gets overcrowding within secure mental health facilities, your risk of violent behaviour, both patient to patient and patient to staff, rises, and those environments become more dangerous and less therapeutic.

Repeated questions about whether the government considered this potential effect of Bill C-54 have been met with evasive and even dismissive responses.

Second, the bill may result in more mentally ill offenders going to prisons instead of hospitals. Dr. Simpson warned that this could happen as a result of overcrowding, since patients are often detained in prison while waiting for a forensic bed to become available in an institution.

Moreover, as Paul Burstein of the Criminal Lawyers Association argued, the punitive restrictions placed on NCR accused deemed high risk could cause certain defendants, who would otherwise be found NCR, to plead not guilty instead. If these individuals were acquitted, they would be discharged without receiving treatment of any kind, and if they were convicted, they would likely receive either inadequate treatment or none at all. When they rejoined society after their sentence, they would be at least as dangerous as they were before.

At committee, some Conservative members were skeptical about whether this would actually be the case, claiming that defence attorneys have a fiduciary responsibility to advise their clients to plead NCR if such a finding is appropriate. However, if the consequence of such a finding is likely to be inappropriate in its result and its sentencing—for instance, overly punitive restrictions or a longer detention than necessary—it would be entirely correct for a defence attorney to advise against an NCR plea, especially given that many NCR accused are already detained for longer periods of time than if they had remained in the prison system.

Third, and perhaps most critical of all, the bill contributes to the stigmatization that makes many who suffer from mental illness reluctant to seek treatment in the first place.

The rarity of violent acts caused by mental illness in no way diminishes the pain of victims. I want to stress that. However, by using rare occurrences as justification for significant reform, and by designing those reforms so as to limit the role of medical expertise, the government overstates the problem of violence by the mentally ill and understates the potential effectiveness of treatment.

Yet fear of the mentally ill is often a self-fulfilling prophecy. We find mentally ill individuals are largely dangerous; that is the idea we are giving here. We discourage them from acknowledging their illness and they go back into hiding, to being underground, not wanting anybody to know they are ill. A person whose severe mental illness goes undetected is far more dangerous than an NCR accused who has been treated and released by a review board.

Consequently, it is incumbent upon the government to temper its rhetoric and base its policy on facts instead of headlines, thereby reducing stigma and encouraging early diagnosis and intervention.

My colleague, the justice critic from Mount Royal offered numerous amendments at committee in an attempt to address these concerns. Some of his amendments would have introduced or reintroduced principles established by the Supreme Court with respect to NCR accused, such as that NCR accused are not to be punished or left to languish in custody.

The Conservatives explain their opposition by saying that there is no need to codify prevailing jurisprudence, and yet by specifying that public safety is to be the paramount condition of review boards, Bill C-54 would do precisely that. Indeed, two review board chairs testified at committee, and they were already bound by jurisprudence to make public safety their primary concern.

My colleague also proffered amendments to deal with the problematic aspects of the bill, according to which the “brutal nature” of a past act committed by an NCR accused would be an important factor in determining whether the accused posed a future risk, which is a medically dubious causal link. I can assure members of that.

However, Conservative members rejected his efforts in this regard, even going so far as to reject his proposals to define the term “brutal” using existing case law. They preferred the ambiguity that the Canadian Bar Association testified might very well contravene the charter.

The government also refused to include the supports and resources available to the accused upon release as criteria for courts to consider when determining risk, despite expert opinions that such support can be a significant factor in lowering risk of recidivism. Perhaps most egregiously, the Conservatives rejected repeated attempts to ensure that the decision of courts and review boards would be based on medical expertise.

Thus we have before us a bill with little evidentiary basis. It is rife with the potential for unintended consequences. Due to the breadth and vagueness of some of its provisions and the possibility that it will subject NCR accused to unduly punitive restrictions, the bill is likely to raise a whole host of charter concerns. Moreover, because the bill does not even attempt to address primary prevention, it misses the nub of the nature of mental illness altogether. As one of the victims said at committee:

Primary prevention completely failed us.

The member for Kootenay—Columbia, a former RCMP officer, echoed this sentiment by pointing out that when police officers approach individuals who have mental illnesses to try to apprehend them, they are often powerless to ensure that these individuals receive sustained, appropriate treatment. In an effort to address the problem, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto recently instituted a program to screen inmates for potentially dangerous mental health issues as soon as they come in contact with the system.

With federal government support, this kind of program, rather than Bill C-54, would do much to protect the public. Indeed, to address this and other problems related to mental illness, health and justice, members of Parliament must work together and with mental health and legal professionals to develop an effective, evidence-based approach that would support Canadians with mental illnesses and their families and protect the public.

For that reason, I am very pleased that Senator Cowan has introduced a bill that would establish a Canadian commission on mental health and justice. This commission would collect data on the ways mental health and justice intersect, highlight areas that require improvement and facilitate co-operation and the sharing of best practices across jurisdictions. I am hopeful that his Bill S-219 will receive broad-based support so that future policies with respect to mental health and the law would be ground in comprehensive, reliable research and expertise.

In 2005, when he was minister of justice, the member for Mount Royal introduced the most recent reforms to the NCR system. Members of all parties supported both the content of that legislation and the collaborative process through which it was developed. At the time, the current Minister of Public Safety said, “I am pleased to add my support to this bill”.

The Conservative member for Yorkton—Melville said, “The entire debate of the bill in the House and in committee should serve as an example of how Parliament should work”.

I wish I could say the same about Bill C-54, but the legislation we are debating today is regrettably a step backward for the NCR regime, for public safety and for the cause of collaborative evidence-based policy. To keep Canadians truly safe, we must rely on the facts to determine which aspects of our mental health and justice systems are working well and which are in need of improvement. The facts clearly demonstrate that the new high-risk accused category is a solution in search of a problem. As such, Liberals have sought to remove that section from the bill. I support the efforts of my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands to also do that.

At the same time, there is much that can be done in the way of mental health and justice policy to support victims of violence by the mentally ill and to reduce the occurrence of such violence in the first place. These are goals that all Canadians support. It could have been possible, through an evidence-based consultative process, to develop effective legislation with similarly broad appeal.

I hope that in the future, mental health and legal experts will not be pitted against victims but will be consulted and included alongside them to better enact effective policies and keep Canadians safe.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me more time to speak to Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act .

This bill talks about mental disorders. As I was saying earlier, this is a very emotional topic. We are talking about both crime and mental illness.

In committee, when we were studying the bill, we heard testimony from a number of victims who came to talk about their situations. I think I can say on behalf of all members here, from the NDP and the other parties, that we were deeply moved by the experiences people shared with us. We also acknowledged the courage of the victims who came to talk about their experiences and educate us a bit by giving us more information on what happens when victims have to live with the consequences and the results of the justice system.

These people have often said that there are problems in terms of information. In one case, the victim told us that family members were quite surprised to run into the accused after he was released. Imagine their shock.

As I was saying earlier, whether we were talking to experts, the Canadian Bar Association, the Barreau du Québec, or mental illness experts, every witness agreed that the victims need to be informed. That is why we are supporting this bill.

As I said, we went even further. We proposed an amendment. To our pleasant and great surprise, the government accepted the amendment. This amendment would specifically ensure that the accused person's intended place of residence, his residence once he is released, is given to the victim at the victim's request. Almost every victim we asked questions to requested this. Even those we did not ask questions to shared this concern with us.

We are acknowledging that, for once, the government accepted an opposition amendment, one from the NDP in particular. We appreciate it and we believe that this advances the bill and makes it better.

However, the NDP and the other opposition parties proposed many amendments with regard to the language created in this bill.

There are two elements, as I mentioned earlier: the bill creates a high-risk designation; it also refers to brutal nature. We have been attempting to define the brutal nature of the high-risk accused. One of the many problems identified was indeed the definition of brutal nature.

Contrary to what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice said, the Supreme Court has not really defined this concept. There is no definition in the Criminal Code that applies in particular to this case.

When I asked the Minister of Justice that question, he was unable to provide a specific answer about the definition.

Some legal issues were raised by the experts. There were concerns about the lack of a definition. When a new concept is created, we do not really know how it will be used.

Unfortunately, as I explained earlier, experts were not consulted. There was no consultation of medical associations, mental health professionals, psychiatrists or psychologists. New terms were created without conducting a thorough analysis of what the impact would be. That is one of the problems we pointed out.

We asked that more well-known terms, such as those in the Criminal Code, be used.

Unfortunately, once again, the Conservative members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights rejected the proposed amendments. That is a problem.

Initially, we asked that the criterion of the brutal nature of the act committed be removed. One of the problems with the use of the term brutal nature is that a person will be judged based on the act committed rather than on what the accused could do in the future. The act will be judged, but the Conservatives are forgetting that this act was committed by a person with a mental illness, given that we are talking about cases where the accused are not criminally responsible. An act was committed and its brutal nature may not necessarily indicate what will happen in the future. In that respect, I believe that the government has gone in the wrong direction.

We would have liked the Conservatives to accept our amendment, which in fact made it more understandable. We would have liked them to give more thought to what the Supreme Court has said. We would have liked them to give more thought to the judgments that have been handed down. Unfortunately, all of that was rejected. One of the things that will have to be considered was in fact raised by the Canadian Bar Association, among others. There would certainly be constitutional challenges. Nobody has specifically said that it is contrary to the charter, but we need to ask ourselves some questions.

We can also question the removal of the requirement that the decision be the least onerous and least restrictive to the individual. We asked that this idea be put back, but the amendment was rejected. That is unfortunate, because what was already in place—the decisions of the Supreme Court and the lower courts—provided us with a better balance. Unfortunately, it was rejected, because that is the intention of the government; that is the intent of the bill. In fact, it has been openly criticized by legal experts. Unfortunately, that is the bill.

Although I am noting all the concerns about how the government is doing this and about the legal issue, one of the things we can like about the bill is the fact that it will ultimately be a judge who will be able to make a decision. The judge will have the decision-making power.

In this case, the government has left the judge a degree of latitude. We agree with that view, because it refers to possible reviews of the assessments of the individuals themselves by experts in the field, and when it comes to finding an individual to be high-risk or a high-risk accused, that decision is to be made by the court. It is therefore up to the court to decide whether the individual falls into that group. If so, the accused can be removed from that category, that label can be removed, at a later date.

We would have liked the government to allow the decision-making power for reviews to be transferred. But, once again, unfortunately, the government rejected one of our proposed amendments.

A lot of questions arise in relation to the way the courts are going to be interpreted. Are they going to use this new category of high-risk individuals?

I asked the Minister of Justice a question to find out whether this category would apply in the Guy Turcotte case, a case we have heard about everywhere in Canada and Quebec.

The question that I asked the minister was relatively clear. It dealt with the fact that the Conservatives have politicized this issue. They have made it a reason for funding, saying that this would resolve many problems.

In the case of Guy Turcotte, the question was posed, not only to the minister, but also to the Justice Department experts who were present. We were told that Bill C-54 would certainly not apply in the case of Guy Turcotte, because he would not necessarily be considered a high-risk accused.

When the victim, Ms. Gaston, came to give evidence, I asked her the question, too, and she was aware of the problem. Despite the promises by the Conservative government, she knew that it was very likely the bill would not apply in her case. There would certainly be a problem there.

As I said earlier, we deplore the fact that the Conservatives have politicized the issue. They have even helped stigmatize people with mental illness by using certain terms. The Minister of Justice had in hand certain figures on rates of recidivism among people found not criminally responsible and he overstated those statistics.

Figures already existed. Certain cases were discussed. Of course, the witnesses confirmed that people found not criminally responsible had a much lower rate of recidivism than criminals, in the case of serious crimes. The language used, not only by the Conservatives, but also by the minister, gave us the impression that it was a more serious problem. Once again I deplore the fact that the Conservative government has politicized this issue so much that it has alienated, swept aside and stigmatized people suffering from a mental illness. The government’s attitude toward this issue is really appalling.

Nonetheless, we managed to do one thing: adopt an amendment that we thought was really important. The opposition can be really proud of this. This amendment, when the bill becomes law, will require the government to review the act after five years.

According to the government and the experts who came to testify, experts, specifically mental health experts, were not consulted. Legal experts were not consulted either. We managed to get an amendment passed that forces the government to review the act and its effects in five years.

For example, will this go to court because some provisions violate the charter and are therefore unconstitutional? We will also have to see whether the bill has had the desired effects on public safety. We cannot forget that this is of utmost importance to us.

Some witnesses, including victims, told us that this was not in the best interests of public safety. This raised some questions. We would have liked to see the government consult people before, but we were happy that it finally agreed to our amendment to have the bill reviewed in five years. One thing is for sure: when we are in power, in five years, we will be able to review this bill and ensure that it is appropriate.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder), be read a third time and passed.

Data Used by Government with Respect to Bill C-54

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rose last Wednesday to raise a question of privilege in relation to a report central to the deliberations of the House on Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act. I have since had the benefit of reading the interventions of the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and the hon. Minister of Justice and I wish to respond this evening.

Briefly, for the benefit of members listening who are unfamiliar with the issue, the government commissioned a report on persons found not criminally responsible last year. This report was received last November.

When researchers discovered in March an error involving the transposition of data labels, they diligently worked to provide the department with a corrected version. However, after the corrections were provided to the government, the minister continued to cite from the old report in debates, an old report that the government, even after being apprised of the error, tabled in the House.

When first rising on this point, I thought it very important that the House be provided with the correct numbers in a timely manner. Indeed, the basis of my intervention was that as a scientist MP in particular, I am impeded in my work when evidence in the form of quantitative information is withheld or concealed. Moreover, I feel that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights was unable to properly study Bill C-54 with incorrect data before it.

I rise today to respond to the intervention on this matter from the Minister of Justice. At the outset, let me state that I appreciate his prompt attention to the matter, and I also appreciate that he decided to not repeat in the House the comments of the spokesperson for his office as reported in the press, comments that criticized both the researchers and their work and could have unfairly damaged their careers and reputations.

Mr. Speaker, it is my intent in my intervention today to argue two things.

One is that the government lacked a necessary sense of responsibility, urgency and rigour in correcting factual errors germane to the debate on Bill C-54, and that this neglect had significant consequences for the work of the House.

Second, I would like to propose, if you find that my privilege has been breached, that a commensurate and positive remedy would be one that formally led to a systematic way for ministers and members to correct any significant factual errors presented to the House. I believe that would improve the work of the House for the benefit of all members and for the good of Canada.

At the end of his intervention last week and in response to the request in my initial intervention, the Minister of Justice tabled a report in this place. I thank the Minister of Justice for that. However, and regrettably, that document gives rise to what is potentially a new point of order that I can only raise now, having seen the document for the first time on Friday.

As the Journals for last Thursday note at page 3406, the Minister of Justice

...laid upon the Table,—Document entitled “Description and Processing of Individuals Found not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder Accused of “Serious Violent Offences”” (English text only).

This note is followed by the annotation “Sessional Paper No. 8525-411-60”.

I wish to raise two issues here. First, as O'Brien and Bosc note on page 433:

All documents tabled in the House by a Minister or, as the case may be, by a Parliamentary Secretary, whether during a sitting or deposited with the Clerk, are required to be presented in both official languages.

The citation therein is to Standing Order 32(4):

Any document distributed in the House or laid before the House pursuant to sections (1) or (2) of this Standing Order shall be in both official languages”

I do not wish to belabour this point at length, but I note that the minister sought unanimous consent to table the document, something which he is not required to do by virtue of his being a minister. That said, he did not specify to the House that the document was only in one language. I believe the minister will agree that all documents tabled in this place ought to be tabled in both official languages of this country, and I must say I found it curious that he sought consent without informing the House of why it was needed. Had he specified he wanted to consent to table it unilingually, it is quite possible that some hon. members would not have agreed.

Second, and this is the bigger issue, the document tabled was not actually the final March report as we know it now to be. Instead, what was laid upon the table was a work product version replete with "track changes" intact. “Track changes” is a feature used to manage multiple versions of Microsoft Word documents. While I trust that some members will now appreciate having the opportunity to study a version of the report with correct data, it is regrettable that the minister did not table the clean and finalized copy, with which I am now aware his office was provided on the same day as this version.

Additionally, the minister did not table a copy in French. Surely the final report in both languages would best suit members studying the matter and perhaps re-evaluating their position vis-à-vis Bill C-54.

In his comments in this place, the Minister of Justice stated that the corrected report had been available online for some time, providing reference to the website for the national trajectory project.

I would first begin by noting that the version on this website is clean and not the one that the minister tabled in the House.

In addition, I visited the website over the weekend. The minister is correct in saying that the report is available, but it is only available in English. There is no French version.

Since there is no French version on that website, strictly speaking, I would have to object to the minister's assertion that "the amended version in fact has been available online for everyone to see". Indeed, as I verified with the researchers, no French copy of the corrected version existed anywhere in the public domain and, to my knowledge, it still does not.

The manner in which the minister tabled the revised research report last week is an illustration of the government's lack of rigour. It is his responsibility as minister to ensure that the members of the House have the information required to make informed legislative decisions. Rather than tabling the final report, the minister tabled a unilingual draft version. In failing to provide these updated statistics in a transparent way by tabling a draft report rather than a final report, and then only in response to my intervention, I believe that the minister has failed in his responsibilities to the House. Because the minister has shirked his responsibilities, he has violated my privileges as a member.

There is a critical contention that is not refuted by the Minister of Justice's comments on the matter of privilege. In his submission of last Thursday, he stated, "We gave notice that the report had been significantly amended". This notice was only given in an order paper response. The problem, as you can appreciate, Mr. Speaker, is that saying there is an amended report and actually providing the amended report are two separate things.

Beyond that, on May 27, the Minister of Justice said to the House "I referred to some of the statistics in the final report", knowing full well that he had, in fact, referred to statistics that were no longer in the corrected report because researchers had diligently reviewed their findings, discovered significant errors and transmitted them to him as soon as possible. Over two months after receiving the "significantly amended" report, the minister was referring to erroneous data in what he called a "final report" from November, 2012. This to me suggests an intent to mislead the House.

I understand that the Speaker does not generally delve into the minutiae of order paper responses; however, I must note with frustration that the government's response to a question asking for current statistics, as part of Question No. 1169 on the order paper, a response that simply pointed to the old report given in annex 1, would indeed mislead the House and provide members with the impression that the report in annex 1 was the significantly amended one, when it was in fact the old one.

In responding to questions posed in Question No. 1169 on the order paper, such as "Which people found NCR and released have been convicted of a subsequent offence?" and "What was the nature of the subsequent offence", the government had the option to use information it knew to be correct. Instead, it chose to respond with information it knew to be incorrect.

Mr. Speaker, I am told you have no role in adjudicating the sufficiency of answers to order paper questions. However, I believe you cannot deny that the government did not use that opportunity to take responsibility and correct important factual errors.

I will now focus on one aspect of the privilege question more precisely, the central issue of incorrect data cited in this House.

I rose in this place last Wednesday, June 12, after routine proceedings. This was my first opportunity since the June 11 Global News story about recent citations of incorrect statistics by a minister and a government member.

Yet that same afternoon, June 12, after the Global News report and after my question was raised, a witness before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights testifying about Bill C-54, Mike McCormack, president of the Toronto Police Association stated the following, as reported by the blues. I will quote his citation of the Minister of Justice.

The Hon. Rob Nicholson provided some interesting facts in the House of Commons debate on March 1, 2013, about persons found not criminally responsible, when he stated that:

A little over 27% of individuals found not criminally responsible have had a past finding of not criminally responsible; 38% of those found not criminally responsible and accused of a sex offence had at least one prior NCR finding; 27% of those accused of attempted murder had at least one NCR finding; and, 19% of those accused of murder or homicide had at least one prior finding of not criminally responsible.

This underscores the problem. Ministers' words carry significant weight by virtue of the resources they command and the respect given to their office. However, all of these statistics quoted by the aforementioned witness are incorrect. I know it, the minister knows it, and now, as of this report being tabled, all English-reading parliamentarians know it.

The problem, as I believe you will see, Mr. Speaker, is that the minister's act of informing Parliament did not correct the Hansard record of March 1. His assertion that the corrected report could have been found on a website is unconvincing, as that source did not inform certain witnesses or even government members, such as the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, who cited old numbers at committee during its study on this bill.

I should be clear that I do not fault the witnesses for their use of the facts as they were provided. I do not believe any of them had any intention to mislead Parliament. I do, however, take issue with the minister only tabling the correct numbers after the committee had reported the bill back to the House, and the use of old statistics by other government members.

In particular, regarding the citation of old statistics by the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Justice explained that, “...the Minister of Natural Resources was provided, as were many government members, with supporting documentation that in error included the statistics....”

He then added, with respect to the Minister of Natural Resources, “This was nothing more, quite frankly, than an honest mistake, not of his own doing, and I hope this addresses entirely the matter pertaining to the hon. minister.”

While I greatly appreciate the Minister of Justice acknowledging that a mistake had been made, I must disagree with the conclusion he draws as to the matter being closed.

Indeed, if the Minister of Justice's proposition, that all members should have gone online and consulted the corrected report, is followed through to its logical conclusion, this obligation would equally extend and apply to the Minister of Natural Resources and all government members. The Minister of Justice was quick to suggest that I should do “a simple Internet search”. Surely his fellow minister and other government members ought to have done the same Internet search. If even the Minister of Natural Resources and his office were misled, how could regular members of Parliament to be expected to discover the true facts?

Given that, as of Friday, June 14, the report from Dr. Crocker's research group had not yet been translated, and therefore had not been tabled in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, do we even know if all of the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights knew the correct facts when they adopted report 25 on Bill C-54 on June 12, 2013?

Returning to the elements of privilege as outlined in my initial submission, the minister failed to address another point. As I noted, the minister referred to the November report as “final” despite having received the corrected report. He again, in his intervention on my question of privilege, used the word “final” in relation to the November 2012 report.

I do believe this misleads the House. The November report is not final if there is a corrected March report. Similarly, the report tabled is not final if it is not the final version submitted, which it, the one submitted containing Microsoft Word's track changes, is not.

Moreover, while the Minister of Justice has indicated a mistake in what was provided to the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Natural Resources has yet to recognize his error before this body. I believe he ought to do so and, more importantly, tell the House whether knowing the actual facts has changed his mind about Bill C-54.

Speaker Milliken often ruled in the past, which I will cite from Monday, October 4, 2010, as follows, “it is also a long-standing practice in this House for the Chair to accept the word of hon. members and indeed their apologies”. I agree, but we have not yet heard from the Minister of Natural Resources personally, one way or the other.

In my initial submission, I stated that I would even consider abandoning this privilege claim if the government were to table the new report in the House and explain why it did not choose to do so when it was first made aware of the correction. While the government did provide a document, not the final report, it did not explain why it had yet to table it and, indeed, basically sought to say it had done everything it ought to have done. I disagree.

I would like to move now to discuss what I think would be an appropriate and commensurate remedy for any breach of privilege. It is not because I wish to presume to know your decision, Mr. Speaker, but it is because I believe this matter can result in a positive legacy for Canadians and I wish to explain how.

My colleague for Skeena—Bulkley Valley helpfully pointed out the following to the House in support of my question of privilege:

—the 22nd edition of Erskine May, which states the following on page 63: “[I]t is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity”.

Had the ministers, in fact, corrected in an obvious and accessible way the errors that were preserved on the record, witnesses would have not quoted them after my intervention as evidence in committee. Had the record been corrected, witnesses and parliamentarians would have had accurate information upon which to formulate their positions on this gravely important issue.

Moving forward, the question becomes whether this matter should go to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, an issue on which we should have guidance from you, Mr. Speaker. Regardless of how you rule on privilege merits, it is the obligation of members to correct themselves on important matters and the means by which this might be done. I believe all members would agree that it is important to, as much as we can, ensure that erroneous so-called facts are not repeated in the public square. I believe all members would agree that the repetition of untruths in the public square can seriously impede members in the exercise of their democratic function as legislators and I expect that the hon. members of the House would never stand by and allow that to happen. Therefore, I believe that if there were a clearly defined process for members to correct any errors they had unwillingly stated on record, they would eagerly seize that opportunity.

Like the Minister of Justice's statements on March 1, which I acknowledge were made before the new report was provided, the Minister of Natural Resources's comments after the correction also remain on the record.

So far, the approach of the House and Chair appears to be that members can, if they so choose, rise on a point of order or rise on a question of personal privilege to correct themselves. It seems there is no formal requirement to do so. The problem is that in the case of erroneous empirical facts, they may remain on the record, which is permanent, even after perhaps new research has corrected them. Permanent corrections are possible, however, through the process of seeking a corrigendum. Regrettably, there is little guidance on this point and, indeed, I only find a handful of references to corrigenda in speaker's rulings since 2001. As the parliamentary glossary explains, this is a term used in journals, Debates, committee meetings of proceedings and committee evidence to indicate that a substantive correction has been made to a previous issue.

Beyond clerical corrections to bills and the order paper, there are examples of where a speaker has ordered that a “corrigendum be issued to rectify the error”. I will concede that these have arisen, it seems, primarily in cases where the transcript does not reflect what a member said. However, I assert that there ought to be clarity on whether a member could rise to seek such a correction where new research, for example, has shown that the empirical facts have changed.

As such, it might be appropriate for the procedure and House affairs committee to consider whether or not another mechanism should exist for an ex post correction of Hansard by a member who intervened, limited to empirical findings perhaps, to ensure that those who rely on Hansard are not misled. In other words, I accept that the minister did not know of the corrected data when he first spoke. When he was informed later in the month, it would have been ideal for him to rise on a clarifying point of order or to seek a corrigendum. The premise that I am operating under, of course, is that if the minister had the corrected data, he would have indeed cited it at the time. This is not something he has yet said, and so I realize it is not an entirely safe assumption.

In closing, I believe that this matter is not best resolved by belabouring who exactly said what, or placing the Chair in the position of interpreting the intended meaning of words, something you recently reminded the House was beyond the Chair's purview. Thus, while other members may seek to extend this matter, I believe we are best served by ministers involved reporting the correct numbers to the House as a point of order or seeking to correct themselves through a corrigendum if such is indeed permissible.

The words of ministers of the Crown carry significant weight by virtue of the resources they command and the respect given to their office. That is why I believe they have a special obligation to correct themselves. Moreover, each member of this place surely has an obligation to inform himself or herself of the facts before speaking and to correct himself or herself if erroneous information is presented. If that were not our habit, the force and import of debate in this House would be diminished and the dignity and purpose of this House would be diminished.

From you, Mr. Speaker, I would thus seek some guidance whenever you choose to report back to the House as to what is required when a minister realizes that an error has been made. I would also ask you to consider whether it is possible for members to seek correction of their own interventions in Hansard when it is not merely an error of transcription but rather a correction to an empirical quantity, perhaps with a notation that an amendment has occurred, such as would be appropriate in the cases I cited in my interventions on this matter.

I believe that your guidance on such requirements may be a positive legacy of this matter of privilege.

I thank you and I thank all members for their attention to this matter.

Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder), at third reading.

The whole issue of mental health and crime is a very emotional subject. We saw this when we were examining it in committee. This subject really moved us.

I would especially like to thank my colleague from Gatineau, our justice critic, for all of her hard work on this bill.

Few of us are extremely familiar with the topic of mental health. We sometimes generalize. People have a certain idea of what this entails. However, we do not know everything we need to know.

One of the problems we noted in committee was the Conservative government's failure to consult with experts in the field with regard to this bill.

One example I have is from our committee on June 5. Chris Summerville, from the Schizophrenia Society of Canada, mentioned that nine associations were not consulted. We are talking about the Canadian Psychiatric Association, the Canadian Psychological Association, the Canadian Mental Health Association, the Mood Disorders Society of Canada, the Canadian Association of Social Workers, the Canadian Association of Suicide Prevention, the National Network for Mental Health, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, the Schizophrenia Society of Canada, and further, 19 members of the Canadian Alliance on Mental Illness and Mental Health, all of which are members and none of which were consulted either.

When I asked why, they did not understand. They are the first ones on the ground. They are the people who actually have the knowledge. It is very unfortunate that the government only decided to consult with them when we were working on and dealing with the bill, and then, when we had amendments, those amendments were not accepted by the government.

This is a very sensitive issue and victims have asked us not to make it a partisan issue. They have asked us not to play politics. Unfortunately, that is what the Conservatives are doing.

Jenni Byrne, the 2011 national campaign manager, sent an email dated May 29 that reads:

You probably remember the story of Vince Li—a man who, five years ago, beheaded and cannibalized a fellow passenger on a Greyhound bus. He was found to be not criminally responsible for his actions—and was even granted escorted leave in to the community by the Manitoba Criminal Code Review Board. This is an insult to his victim—and this is not what Canadians expect from their justice system.

She then asks for a donation to the Conservative Party.

This is the type of petty politics that we find very disappointing. It is absolutely deplorable to see the government use victims in order to raise money. In addition to what I was saying about the lack of consultation, the fact that the government keeps using cases like this is just as deplorable when it comes to stigmatization. The public does not necessarily understand mental illness. I encourage all Canadians to talk about it. In the House, I have talked about a friend of mine who committed suicide. It is important to talk about it. I think we need to talk about every aspect of mental illness.

Using high-profile cases to raise money is serious. It is not what responsible parliamentarians should do, but it is what the current government is doing. We are asking the Conservatives to show more respect.

Our approach to the bill is simple: this bill is important for victims. As the Conservatives have mentioned, this bill will provide a way to help us inform victims about what is going on with offenders. All the witnesses we heard from agree with this, including the Barreau du Québec, the Canadian Bar Association and mental health associations.

We support this bill and we did even more than that. What is surprising is that the Conservatives accepted one of our amendments to inform victims of the offender's place of residence. Once the offender is released from prison, the victim should be aware of everything that is going on. All of the victims we consulted asked for this. We therefore thank the government for accepting the NDP's amendment to ensure that these victims are better informed.

We are very sensitive to this situation, and we were touched by the victims who came to testify. I want to acknowledge these victims, who showed extraordinary courage. Talking about their problems and their experiences was very difficult for them. As I said, it is very emotional for members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to hear people share their stories, but that is what pushes us to keep going.

One of the problems is the lack of consultation from a legal standpoint. The government proposed changes, but it is reassuring to know that the court will have the last word. That is why we supported some of the amendments proposed by the government. However, we would have appreciated it if the government had considered more of our amendments.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member referred to Darcie Clarke who lives in my riding. She was the victim who lost her three children to her husband at the time, Allan Schoenborn. That was a very public case, and I understand this legislation would address some of the problems associated with the Schoenborn case; obviously not all but it would be a move in the right direction.

I know there are certain groups across the country that have expressed their concerns with this legislation. In fact, we had made some suggestions at the committee, but overall Bill C-54 would improve the circumstances for victims.

Once the “high risk” designation is assessed, I understand the judge has discretion for providing a term of up to three years before the review is deemed necessary. Could the member comment on that time frame, how that works and where it could be one year, which is what I understand it is now, and where three years may be appropriate?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate in support of Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act.

The bill would ensure the mental disorder regime under part XX.1 of the Criminal Code, which deals with persons found not criminally responsible, NCR, for their actions, would be mindful and responsive of the needs of victims. In my view, Bill C-54 would indeed reflect the voices of victims from across the country.

During the review of the bill, the Standing Committee for Justice and Human Rights received important submissions from several victims. In my remarks, I will be reviewing and reflecting on these submissions.

While the committee hearings demonstrated that victims had diverse perspectives about the NCR regime and even Bill C-54 itself, it was equally clear that the bill would address key concerns of victims and would include public safety, victim participation and the overall confidence and the administration of justice, while also respecting the rights of NCR accused.

On June 3, the justice committee heard from two victims who had lost loved ones due to tragic circumstances involving an NCR accused. These two brave women travelled to Ottawa to share their stories with the committee. They had experienced first hand the current way in which victims were dealt with following an NCR verdict and agreed that changes were necessary for the system.

One explained how members of the family had an encounter with the NRC accused who was involved in their case while out shopping in the community. She explained how this encounter had impacted her family and how the provisions of Bill C-54, with regard to the involvement and notification of victims, would go a long way in helping the victims.

Needless to say, she supported Bill C-54.

One of the core victim protections contained in the bill, the availability of no-contact orders, would help ensure that families like hers would have increased confidence in their safety as NCR accused were reintegrated into the community. No-contact orders, as proposed in clause 10 of the bill, can be imposed by either a court or a review board if it is desirable in the interests of security or safety of persons including victims.

These orders would prohibit an NCR accused from communicating directly, or indirectly, with victims or from going to specific places in the order, such as within the vicinity of the victim's residence. This is a targeted and important measure that should be supported.

The second victim who appeared at committee also expressed support for Bill C-54. She was very concerned that victims simply did not have enough information provided to them about the NCR accused, especially if the accused was released from secure custody.

In addition, she highlighted the importance of protecting the safety of the public through the NCR regime. She noted that while it was true that NCR accused were not criminals, in some cases, NCR accused did commit violent acts. There needs to be adequate safeguards in place to ensure that victims like her and her family, as well as the general public, are protected from such persons.

The availability of the “high-risk” designation in Bill C-54 would respond to this concern. Clause 12 of the bill proposes that where the court is satisfied there is a substantial likelihood that the accused will use violence that can endanger the life or safety of another person or where the court is of the opinion that the act constitutes the offence of such brutal nature as to indicate the risk of grave physical or psychological harm to another person, the court may designate an NCR accused as high risk.

The designation would increase the safeguards on that person to both ensure protection of the public safety and to ensure that the person would obtain the treatment that he or she would require to no longer present a threat to society. If treatment were successful and the risk was no longer present, Bill C-54 would require that designation be removed.

This provision is an appropriate response to address the concerns of these victims and will help ensure that the small number of NCR accused who pose such a high risk to the public safety will be subject to the appropriate and necessary restrictions on his or her liberty in order to protect the public.

I believe Bill C-54 maintains the crucial distinction between persons who are morally culpable for their conduct and found guilty and persons found NCR whose illness at the time of the offence rendered them incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of their actions or of knowing what they were doing was wrong.

The government also acknowledges that while providing mental health services generally falls within provincial and not federal jurisdiction, the government has taken concrete measures in this area. For example, it has increased transfer payments to these levels of government, through the Canada health and social transfer, and also has supported the creation of the Mental Health Commission of Canada to help combat the stigma of mental illness.

At its June 10 meeting, the justice committee had the opportunity to hear from more victims. One victim, speaking on behalf of her cousin, shared the heartbreaking story of her family's loss. No doubt, it was very difficult for her to make this presentation and one that was difficult for committee members to listen to.

But her insights were invaluable. She emphasized that the current process of annual review hearings of an NCR accused disposition has had the effect of re-victimizing her family. In particular, the annual review hearing process for assessing the disposition of an NCR accused, at least in serious cases such as her family's where the underlying act was the killing of three children, has made it more difficult to heal. Every time her cousin, the mother of those children, begins to make some progress a yearly review comes up. In her particular case, the month of review is also the anniversary of the tragedy. This particular example illustrates why Bill C-54's victim-related reforms to the NCR regime in the Criminal Code are necessary.

Clause 15 of Bill C-54 aims to address the concern raised by this victim by empowering review boards to extend the time for holding a hearing in respect of a high-risk NCR accused to up to 36 months if the review board is satisfied that the person's condition is not likely to improve and the detention remains necessary for that time period.

This longer review period may also be imposed with the consent of all parties, including the NCR accused. This measure respects the rights of the NCR accused as it would continue to be based on an individualized assessment of treatment, progress and circumstances. However, it would also allow, in appropriate cases, for review periods to better align with realistic medical expectations regarding a particular NCR accused and in so doing, reduces the burden on victims.

This proposal would also respond to the concerns of the final victim who appeared before justice committee on June 10. He described his frustrations with the NCR progress. Bill C-54 would increase the flexibility and discretion for review boards in determining the appropriate review period for high-risk accused. This should help put victims at greater ease that painful hearings would be held at sufficient intervals to ensure that they are meaningful and enough time has elapsed to ensure how a high-risk accused has responded to treatment received in forensic care.

Also on June 10 the committee was able to hear from a victim via teleconference. This victim explained how his brother and his brother's spouse were killed by a person who was later found to be NCR. The victim explained how after the incident he was not informed of key information about the process and the disposition of the NCR accused. This lack of information added to his feeling of powerlessness and victimization.

While every victim is different and not all want to be involved in subsequent proceedings, for this person it was very important to his healing that he be afforded the chance to learn about and participate in the process. He also expressed how not knowing when the NCR accused was released caused his family, and particularly his parents, to feel unsafe. As I mentioned earlier in my remarks, the no-contact provision proposed by Bill C-54 would help families such as these victims to feel safer.

More than that though, Bill C-54 would also enhance the quality of the information provided to victims and ensure that they would be able to properly observe and participate in proceedings following an NCR verdict. For example, Bill C-54 would make it mandatory for courts and review boards to inform victims of their right to make a victim impact statement before an initial disposition is made or if a high-risk NCR accused designation is referred to a court for review.

Bill C-54 would also require, at the victim's request, that victims receive a notice of discharge from the review board if the NCR accused receives an absolute or conditional discharge.

By strengthening the information and participation rights of victims, Bill C-54 would go a long way toward addressing the concerns that were raised at the justice and human rights committee.

Also on June 10, a further victim addressed justice committee and shared with members the devastation caused to her family by the death of her stepfather after he was killed by a person found NCR. She expressed unqualified support for Bill C-54. In her view, public safety has to be more clearly set out as a central value in the legislation that deals with NCR accused. She expressed concern and fear for her family and the families of others in the future, particularly if the NCR accused involved in her matter were allowed to be released on unescorted passes into the community. For this victim, public safety must be the paramount consideration in the mental disorder regime.

To respond to concerns of Canadians like the victims I just referred to, Bill C-54 would clarify that public safety is the paramount consideration in determining the appropriate disposition for an NCR accused.

In addition, Bill C-54 would help make the law more accessible and easier to apply. It would introduce the phrase “necessary and appropriate” to describe the permissible restrictions on an NCR accused that may be imposed in order to protect the public safety. This proposal would maintain the existing test provided by the Supreme Court of Canada, but would simplify its articulation and thereby more clearly signal to all Canadians, including victims, that in carrying out their work, review boards must give due consideration to public safety and security.

Also, Bill C-54 would explicitly specify that when review boards assess whether a given NCR accused is a significant threat to the safety of the public that they are to consider any risk posed by that person of serious physical or psychological harm to victims, witnesses and persons under the age of 18, as well as other members of the general public. This proposal speaks directly to the concern we have heard from several victims. Bill C-54 would thus increase confidence in the NCR regime and in the administration of justice more generally.

In addition to individual victims, on June 10, the committee also had the opportunity to hear from l’Association des Familles de Personnes Assassinées ou Disparues, which in English is the Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared. It is referred to as AFPAD. It is a victims organization that since 2004 has advocated for families who have survived horrible tragedies. AFPAD supports Bill C-54. It noted that while primary prevention is important in cases involving persons found NCR, secondary prevention must also be meaningfully addressed. Secondary prevention, in this context, means taking reasonable steps to ensure that a person who has been found NCR is not able to commit another serious crime. Bill C-54 would ensure that NCR accused receive the care they require so their illness no longer renders them a threat to society.

I have also addressed several aspects of the bill that would respond to AFPAD and to other concerned victims in this regard. Let me also point out that Bill C-54 maintains important judicial oversight. For example, the proposed high-risk designation can only be imposed by a court and can only be removed by a court acting on the recommendation of a review board. This is important because such judicial oversight would ensure that a high-risk designation is only used in appropriate circumstances, which makes it a proportional and reasonable measure. In addition, Bill C-54 would also empower judges who are experienced in assessing competing rights and interests to carefully balance the liberty of the high-risk NCR accused against the need for public safety. While the review board's recommendation would likely carry a lot of weight in hearings to change or remove a high-risk designation, Bill C-54's proposed scheme of allowing for additional judicial scrutiny of these designations would help preserve the public interest and confidence in the NCR regime overall. Victims and Canadians would demand no less of important decisions that can have severe impacts on public safety and the liberty of the NCR accused.

On June 12, the final day of the justice committee hearings on this bill, members had the opportunity to hear from more courageous victims who stepped forward to share their stories with us. One victim mentioned his experience with review board hearings. He noted that he has had no standing at all at these hearings and that the crown attorney has even been lectured to by the review board for raising the issue of victim safety. Bill C-54's proposed new guidance to review boards, which I referred to earlier in my remarks on the need to take victim safety into specific consideration, would arguably help change the culture of the review boards so they are more receptive to this evidence in future.

That individual also supported the high-risk designation in Bill C-54 overall, noting that each NCR case is unique and that the law must contain the necessary tools to allow review boards and courts to tailor their responses to meet the needs of diverse situations. By adding new tools like the high-risk designation into the mental disorder part of the Criminal Code, Bill C-54 would respond to these concerns.

On June 12, the committee also heard from another victim who raised the common concern that under existing law her participation rights were severely limited. The victim noted that, even though it is very painful reading and presenting victim impact statements, it is critical because it ensures that a victim's voice and perspective are not forgotten by review boards. Without these perspectives, review boards may not make the most appropriate decision in the circumstances, and public confidence in the whole NOR regime could suffer. I mentioned earlier that, if Bill C-54 is enacted, victims would have increased rights to give victim impact statements and to ensure that interests would be taken into account by review boards. This government is listening to victims.

In addition to hearing from victims, on June 12 the justice committee also heard from victims' advocates from such groups the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, which this government established in 2007 to ensure that victims of crime had a voice at the federal level. The Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime was also represented. Both of these groups supported Bill C-54. The ombudsman's office representative acknowledged that Bill C-54 reflected victims' concerns regarding their safety as well as a desire for increased notification and participation. Bill C-54 would provide review boards and courts with new tools to make public safety the paramount consideration.

While no individual bill can completely solve all the challenges faced by the courts, review boards, experts and victims, it could make the needed improvements to properly balance public safety and the liberties of the NCR accused. In my view, Bill C-54 would do just that.

At the justice committee, we had the privilege of hearing diverse perspectives from victims and their advocates. These individuals did not come to Parliament to seek the spotlight, and even appearing before the committee in such a public forum would have necessarily involved a degree of hardship. Rather, the witnesses appeared to share their stories to help us as lawmakers to produce a better NCR system for Canadians. I cannot overemphasize how the experiences of these persons plays a valuable role in forming our debates and decisions of this House. By carefully listening to victims, the government has crafted a bill that would be constitutionally sound and would not detract from the rights of the NCR accused, and yet also would manage to improve victim notification, involvement and protection in the context of the NCR regime. This is a worthwhile initiative that deserves the support of this House.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

moved that Bill C-54, as amended, be concurred in.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to Bill C-54 report stage amendments. In this regard I hope to be brief and I raise the matter, not to secure a ruling from you, Mr. Speaker, but rather for the completeness of the record and so you may take the matter under advisement in conjunction with the Clerk for further action as you both deem appropriate.

Briefly, Bill C-54 completed clause-by-clause review at committee Wednesday evening. I began contemplating report stage amendments immediately thereafter and made a request with the Legislative Counsel for the preparation of amendments with the belief that report stage would begin the House on Tuesday. On Friday, it became clear the debate would actually begin at report stage on Monday, today, and thus the amendments were needed by 2 p.m. Friday to comply with the exigencies of Standing Order 54. This was communicated by my office to the clerks preparing the amendments requested.

As I fully appreciate and understand, the amendments I sought were complex from a drafting point of view. Indeed, while I sought that one concept removed from the bill, this alone required the drafting of 32 separate motions to ensure that the statute would be intelligible if the House were to agree with this initiative. Unfortunately, it seems that the revised version of the bill, reflecting committee amendments, was not immediately available to counsel working on my amendments and as a result of the changed deadline, I was not provided with the amendments I requested before the Friday deadline had passed.

Indeed, I only received some of the amendments back this morning. I do not wish to fault anyone for this. Counsel could only work with the correct clause numbers after the bill had been reported since there were amendments. While I am making this point, I want to comment and commend all the hard-working individuals involved in the law clerk's office, in particular, Wendy Gordon, Marie Beauchemin, Anita Eapen and Doug Ward for their excellence and dedication. I know they are often underappreciated, particularly when asked to, as is often the case at report stage, draft amendments only to have them found inadmissible for procedural reasons.

As such, while there is a privilege issue to be advanced here because had my amendments been timely and ruled admissible, I could speak to them this morning, I simply wish to request that the Speaker and Clerk look into ensuring that the law clerk and parliamentary counsel have the staff and resources they require to complete the drafting task within the tight deadlines that I think only arise in exceptional circumstances such as this one.

While you look into this, Mr. Speaker, I would also ask that you investigate whether the e-notice system could be expanded to work with more browsers. While I acknowledge that I do not understand fully the technology terms, I gather that when the motions were received by my staff, they were unable to upload the amendments on my behalf remotely due to compatibility issues with e-notices and Firefox Chrome.

I realize these amendments, which for those curious would have removed the high risk designation and all references to it, may never yet see the notice paper. Indeed, they might have been ruled inadmissible upon introduction. That said, it is unfortunate that this situation occurred given the seriousness, yet complexity of my request and related deadlines involved.

I would therefore ask that you, Mr. Speaker, take the matter under advisement, while again expressing our support, and I believe all parliamentarians would join me in this for the hard work and dedication of the law clerk and parliamentary counsel's office.

Before I conclude, I am told that the only way these amendments could yet be considered, despite delay notice, which as I explained was unavoidable, is through unanimous consent. Therefore, and so that the hard work of the drafters involved is not completely forgotten, and the amendments proposed, I move: That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House in relation to the report stage of Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder), that the notice requirement in relation to the 32 motions submitted to the Table by the member for Mount Royal be waived and that those motions that the Speaker would normally find admissible and selected at report stage be included for consideration at this same stage.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Data Used by Government With Respect to Bill C-54

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in response to a question of privilege raised by the member for Kingston and the Islands, with regard to statistics related to Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act.

As hon. members know, the cases involving Alan Schoenborn in British Columbia, Vince Li in Manitoba, Richard Kachkar in Ontario, Guy Turcotte in Quebec, and Andre Denny in Nova Scotia were horrific tragedies for everyone involved. No words of mine nor anyone else's can ever ease the pain felt by the victims and their families.

As the Prime Minister rightly stated, we cannot change terrible things in the world, terrible things are going to happen, but we can create a system that is reasonable. That is exactly what Bill C-54 aims to do.

On November 22, 2012, the government announced its intention to move forward with legislation to address concerns about high-risk accused persons found not criminally responsible.

On February 8, 2013, the government tabled Bill C-54 in the House of Commons.

On February 12, the member for Mount Royal tabled Question No. 1169. Question No. 1169 sought information that the government relied upon in developing Bill C-54.

The government responded to Question No. 1169 by indicating several sources of information that it had relied upon in developing the legislation. The government's response included the final November 2012 report by Crocker et al to the Department of Justice.

As correctly noted by the member for Kingston and the Islands in his question of privilege, “This makes sense because the government can only rely on the evidence it had at the time.”

The member for Kingston and the Islands also noted that the government included an annotation in its response to Question No. 1169, indicating that the Department of Justice had received a significantly amended version of this report 38 days after the introduction of Bill C-54.

After the bill had been introduced, we gave notice that the report had been significantly amended.

In any case, the amended version of the report was provided 17 days after my speech on March 1 on second reading of Bill C-54, with respect to which the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands had taken exception.

A simple Internet search would show the hon. member that the amended version in fact has been available online for everyone to see on the National Trajectory Project at www.ntp-ptn.org.

I would also point out that nothing at any time between March and today, June 13, 2013, has stopped any member of the House to ask the government a follow-up order paper question or just ask us to table the amended version.

I would also like to respond to the assertion made by the member for Kingston and the Islands regarding the Minister of Natural Resources.

In delivering what I consider an excellent speech on Bill C-54, the Minister of Natural Resources was provided, as were many government members, with supporting documentation that in error included the statistics listed in the final report that was submitted to the Department of Justice in November 2012.

To suggest that by referring to this data was a deliberate attempt to mislead the House is preposterous. This was nothing more, quite frankly, than an honest mistake, not of his own doing, and I hope this addresses entirely the matter pertaining to the hon. minister.

In your May 7, 2012 ruling, Mr. Speaker, at page 7649 of the Debates, the chair established a three-part test for establishing contempt in relation to misleading the House. In these circumstances, the claim by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands fails in two respects. The incorrect statements were not known to be incorrect, and they were certainly not made with any intention whatsoever to mislead the House.

As for the response to Question No. 1169, it is well established that the chair does not intervene with respect to the quality of an answer.

In any event, I would submit that the government went above and beyond its obligations by indicating that a revised report was received after the fact despite the question asking about the drafting of Bill C-54.

For his part, this afternoon the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley cited examples of committee matters. It is another well-established principle here that the chair does not typically concern itself with committee proceedings, except upon a report from the committee itself.

In this case, this morning the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights reported Bill C-54 with amendments. No other report has come from the committee nor do I anticipate one will.

In drafting legislation, the government relies on a wide array of information. It is because of errors in statistics, such as what came to light in this situation, that the government cannot rely on any one source or any one study. It is a good example.

It is critical that the government collect a broad cross-section of information in drafting legislation, and that is exactly what we did with Bill C-54. In developing Bill C-54, the government relied on a number of sources, including relevant jurisprudence, doctrine, available research, and consultations with provinces and territories.

Indeed, at our last federal-provincial-territorial meeting in October 2012, ministers recognized the importance of public safety being the paramount consideration in the Criminal Code Review Board decisions.

Ministers also discussed proposals to make the process more responsive to the needs of victims, including further consideration for the appropriate term for reviewing decisions in serious personal injury offence cases.

I believe profoundly that the measures contained in our legislation are balanced, reasonable and carefully drafted. We want to ensure that those who are mentally ill and who pose a serious danger to the public and indeed those who pose a danger to themselves get the treatment that they need.

In conclusion, I believe that my submission provides a response to the matter in question and that there in fact is no prima facie case of privilege.

In addition, and in response to the request of the member for Kingston and the Islands, I am seeking unanimous consent to table the amended version of the Crocker report as received by the Department of Justice in March 2013.

Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today to Bill S-16, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in contraband tobacco) and the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code to create a new offence of trafficking of contraband tobacco.

I have been here for most of the day listening to the speeches on Bill S-16. As chair of the Standing on Justice and Human Rights, it is my understanding the bill will go to the justice committee for review and just as we reviewed Bill C-54, we accepted amendments from both the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party last night. Today I tabled the report in the House. It was well analyzed with a number of witnesses, From those witnesses, a number of amendments were proposed and in fact accepted. The amendments from the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party all passed.

Bill S-16 started in the Senate and we are debating it at second reading right now. There will be a vote, hopefully in the very near future, and Bill S-16 will move to committee where a number of the questions that have been asked today will be properly vetted with witnesses and bureaucrats who are responsible for implementing these changes so we understand what the effect will be on the Criminal Code.

The bill would provide mandatory minimum penalties of imprisonment of persons who are convicted for a second or subsequent time of this offence. It is important for everyone to understand that the mandatory minimum approach we have taken on a number of bills is important to give gravitas to the issue in front of us.

It is very important that we send a message to those who are in the business of contraband tobacco, whether they are traffickers, or selling it in small components to individuals, that it is illegal. It was indicated earlier that those who were in the business of not obeying the law often took into account what the penalties would be and used that as part of the cost of doing business. If there are no mandatory minimums, just fines, they price that risk in their product. They will decide what risk level they are willing to take.

It is important, not just in this case, but in many cases that the Government of Canada look at mandatory minimums, and we are doing it in this bill, so we let those who are willing to break the law and circumvent it know that there is a real penalty to be paid, a much more difficult penalty they cannot include in the cost of doing business.

I am fully in favour of mandatory minimums and in this case new mandatory minimums for this new level of offence. I believe it is fair. We are saying that it only will apply after people's second offence. Let us for argument sake, that individuals who make a mistake, are caught up or there is peer pressure, whatever the issue might be and they become involved with contraband tobacco. There is no mandatory minimum for that. However, if people make the mistake twice, they have consciously made that effort. They have built in the cost of making that mistake the first time and are now doing it another time.

It is time for the Government of Canada, through the Criminal Code, to say to them that they knew what they were doing. They broke the law and faced a penalty previously, but now they face a much more severe one with a mandatory minimum. I have no issue with that. My true belief is that the vast majority of the people of Burlington also believe in mandatory minimums.

There is another very important piece to the bill. As member of Parliament, every two or four years if we are in a minority position, we have a platform. Every party has a platform. We go to the people and talk about what we will accomplish if they give us the confidence to form government.

Fortunately for us, in 2011 the public gave the Conservative Party of Canada a majority in the House of Commons. Part of that decision making of the people of Burlington and the rest of Canada was our platform. What did the party stand for?

There are certainly other factors. There is the leader, the policy of the party, the platform during an election and the individual candidate. I would hope that some people in Burlington voted for me because they liked me, but I cannot prove that. It might be my wife and maybe my daughter, but I cannot prove that either.

People talked to me during the election about the platform and what we were proposing to do if we formed government. Part of that 2011 election platform was a commitment to reduce the problem of trafficking of contraband tobacco by establishing mandatory jail time for repeat offenders of trafficking in contraband tobacco.

It was clearly stated in our platform. In fact, part of my literature and part of the campaigning I did included a discussion on mandatory minimums. This was part of what we promoted.

That was two years ago. Some people think it has taken us a while to get here. I do not hear much about in my riding, but my colleagues in caucus were persistent that we needed to move on this, that it was a real issue for them in their ridings. It could be an issue in my riding of which I am not aware.

I am fortunate enough that I and my wife are non-smokers. My two daughters who are young adults are non-smokers. They will have a number of their peers over to our house. There could be as many as a couple of dozen and there are no smokers in that group. I do not have the exposure to that. However, I have been told that it is an important issue at the high schools in my area.

We have the ability to look at what we promised during the election and what we are able to deliver to the people of Burlington and to the rest of the people of Canada. We are moving on that. It took some time. I think we took the appropriate amount of time to look at options to tackle this problem.

This is not an easy problem to tackle. As we have just heard, there are a number of sources for contraband tobacco. It could be offshore or domestic. It could be from south of the border. The sources are difficult. The ability to track and find these sources is a difficult one for police and border services officers.

We promised mandatory minimums in our election platform. We have brought forward some legislation that will meet the commitment we made to the public. We have also said that we cannot just put mandatory minimums in without providing some resources to ensure we can implement them. That is why we have created a special task force, I believe it is up to 50 officers from the RCMP, to tackle this problem.

Having 50 officers will not end the problem overnight, but it is a great start for us to tackle this issue. It has put a focus on the problem that we have been having in our country and, in particular, in certain parts of Ontario to a greater extent than others. It has affected not only certain ridings based on production, but also the distribution. A number of small business owners have come to me and have sent me letters. I have had them in my office talking to me about what this is doing to their businesses.

I am not a proponent of smoking. My mother-in-law had lung cancer. She has had one lung removed. She was a smoker. She has been very fortunate as she is a survivor of cancer. Her lung cancer was over 12 years ago and she lost her brother to lung cancer through smoking. Therefore, smoking, from our family's perspective, is very much frowned upon. We have been lucky that, through the health system, she went on some experimental drugs and her cancer was cured, and we are very grateful for that. We are not big proponents, and that is why I am very much in support of this bill.

I started the conversation of there being mandatory minimum sentences. Let us be honest, some are more significant than others. For those caught in the trafficking aspects, it is up to six months. If it is an indictable offence, it is up to five years. It is significant and I do not deny it. However, it is a significant problem that these individuals have created. We talked about the cost to the health care system and so on, but to me personally it is not about the cost to the system, it is about protecting people's health when contraband tobacco products hit the market.

We know cigarettes are better regulated, produced and properly labelled by a licensed facility. We know they are a health issue. People are well warned on the packaging, which we have increased as a government. It is not any surprise to anyone at any age that these are health hazards. However, the health hazards of tobacco products that are not labelled, and we do not know where they came from and what is in them, are tenfold what the legitimate cigarette producers ensure on those warnings. We have not a clue what is in those other products. That is why we need these penalties to be significant and severe, and I believe this bill would do that.

We have heard from other members today. I do not want to repeat the number of cigarettes that are involved or the kilograms. That information has all been put forward.

The other thing I would like to talk about is why we are moving on this. There was discussion about time allocation on this bill. I believe it is a two-way street in the House, maybe even three-way if there is such a thing. We need to start to work together. We had an example yesterday where we looked at Bill C-54. We had amendments proposed by the opposition. The vast majority of them did not past, but we did accept one from each party. We have seen—

Amended Report on Bill C-54

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to respond to the point of privilege brought by my friend from Kingston and the Islands. He brought a point of privilege regarding data, and more importantly, data the government was using that was not correct in terms of constructing its argument for a bill. He took that as a point of privilege, an invocation that I think is quite serious.

Our research team prepared a report for the justice department entitled “Description and Processing of Individuals Found Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder Accused of 'Serious Violent Offences'”. This report was central to the discussions on Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, both in the House, where the report was tabled, and at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human rights, which studied the legislation.

The report was given to the Department of Justice in November 2012. On March 14, 2013, the department was notified that there was an error in this report. The government was provided with a corrected version on March 18 of that same year. We know this as a sure fact from a committee witness who said:

That error was discovered on March 14th and immediately communicated to the Minister's office, and a revised report was provided on March 18th with that data corrected

There was also a note attached to the report when it was tabled, saying that a significantly amended version of this report was provided to the Department of Justice on March 18, 2013, so that is not in dispute. Whether there was an incorrect report that was then corrected and given to the government has all been established as fact.

However, the Conservatives nonetheless continued to cite from the old report and even tabled the old report on March 27, thus providing misleading information to the House and all members of Parliament. The numbers between the two reports varied significantly and have had an impact on how we have been studying and debating legislation and making decisions on policy concerns.

A small example is that the original report said that 38.1% of sex offenders found not criminally responsible and accused of a sex offence had at least one prior NCR finding. That number was changed in the report to 9.5%. When MPs were debating, the information they had given to them by the government said that almost 40% were true in these cases. The actual number was less than 10%.

It also said that 27.7% of those accused of attempted murder had one NCR finding. That number was then changed to 4.6%, and the figure of 19% accused of murder or homicide with one prior NCR was changed to 5.2%. There was a dramatic one-fifth, one-quarter and one-tenth difference in the numbers. These are not small or trivial. They are significant.

According to O'Brien and Bosc, contempt of Parliament is “any action which...tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; obstructs or impedes any member or officer of the House in the discharge of their duties; or is an offence against the authority or dignity of the House”.

According to the same authors, “deliberately attempting to mislead the House or a committee” is a form of contempt.

The 22nd edition of Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice also states on page 63:

it is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity

This would not be the first time the Chair has found a prima facie case of contempt of the House related to misleading the House and committees.

In 2003, the former privacy commissioner, George Radwanski, was found in contempt of the House for providing deliberately misleading testimony during hearings of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates on the financial management and staffing of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, November 6.

In 2008, the RCMP deputy commissioner, Barbara George, was found in contempt of this House for providing misleading testimony during the Standing Committee on Public Accounts hearings into allegations of mishandling of the RCMP pension and insurance plans.

This, sadly, is not the first time we have discussed instances of the Conservative government misleading the House and Canadians. In this case, the Conservatives purposely used the old and incorrect numbers, because they made a better case for their version of the legislation. They used the numbers that pleased them instead of using the facts that were true. This was detrimental to members of all parties and to the members of the committee studying the bill based on incorrect data.

Correct numbers give us the ability to develop good policy, but the current government members, we have seen far too often, are not interested in science-based policy-making.

Misleading the House and Canadians is a very serious breach of the rules of governing both our democracy and this institution.

I therefore support the request from the member for Kingston and the Islands that the proper measures be taken.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, this time last week, I said that I hoped to have a substantial list of accomplishments to report to the House. Indeed, I do.

In just the last five days, thanks to a lot of members of Parliament who have been here sitting late at night, working until past midnight, we have accomplished a lot. Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1, the important job-creating bill, which was the cornerstone of our government's spring agenda, passed at third reading. Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, passed at third reading. Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, passed at third reading. Bill C-62, the Yale First Nation final agreement act, was reported back from committee and was passed at report stage and passed at third reading. Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act, was reported back from committee. Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, was reported back from committee this morning with amendments from all three parties. Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act, has been passed at committee, and I understand that the House should get a report soon. Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, passed at second reading. Bill S-17, the tax conventions implementation act, 2013, passed at second reading. Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act, passed at second reading. Bill S-6, the first nations elections act, has been debated at second reading. Bill C-61, the offshore health and safety act, has been debated at second reading. Bill S-16, the tackling contraband tobacco act, has been debated at second reading. Finally, Bill C-65, the respect for communities act, was also debated at second reading.

On the private members' business front, one bill passed at third reading and another at second reading. Of course, that reflects the unprecedented success of private members advancing their ideas and proposals through Parliament under this government, something that is a record under this Parliament. This includes 21 bills put forward by members of the Conservative caucus that have been passed by the House. Twelve of those have already received royal assent or are awaiting the next ceremony. Never before have we seen so many members of Parliament successfully advance so many causes of great importance to them. Never in Canadian history have individual MPs had so much input into changing Canada's laws through their own private members' bills in any session of Parliament as has happened under this government.

Hard-working members of Parliament are reporting the results of their spring labours in our committee rooms. Since last week, we have got substantive reports from the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Standing Committee on Health, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

We are now into the home stretch of the spring sitting. Since I would like to give priority to any bills which come back from committee, I expect that the business for the coming days may need to be juggled as we endeavour to do that.

I will continue to make constructive proposals to my colleagues for the orderly management of House business. For example, last night, I was able to bring forward a reasonable proposal for today's business, a proposal that had the backing of four of the five political parties that elected MPs. Unfortunately, one party objected, despite the very generous provision made for it with respect to the number of speakers it specifically told us it wanted to have. Nonetheless, I would like to thank those who did work constructively toward it.

I would point out that the night before, I made a similar offer, again, based on our efforts to accommodate the needs of all the parties.

Today we will complete second reading of Bill S-16, the tackling contraband tobacco act. Then we will start second reading of Bill C-57, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act.

Tomorrow morning we will start report stage of Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act. Following question period, we will return to the second reading debate on Bill S-6, the first nations elections act.

On Monday, before question period, we will start report stage and hopefully third reading of Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act. After question period Monday, we will return to Bill C-49, followed by Bill C-65, the respect for communities act.

On Tuesday, we will also continue any unfinished business from Friday and Monday. We could also start report stage, and ideally, third reading of Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act that day.

Wednesday, after tidying up what is left over from Tuesday, we will take up any additional bills that might be reported from committee. I understand that we could get reports from the hard-working finance and environment committees on Bill S-17 and Bill S-15 respectively.

Thereafter, the House could finish the four outstanding second-reading debates on the order paper: Bill C-57; Bill C-61; Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act; and Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act.

I am looking forward to several more productive days as we get things done for Canadians here in Ottawa.

Justice and Human Rights

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 25th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder).

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Absolutely.

It has been asked for the vote to be recorded. My trusty clerk will call the roll.

(Bill C-54 agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)

Shall I report the bill as amended to the House?

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

I move that Bill C-54 in clause 32, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 22 with the following, “and the accused person's intended place of residence shall, at the victim's request, be given to the”.

Do you want me to read it in French? No? Okay.

That's it.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This amendment mandates a comprehensive review of the NCR regime by a parliamentary committee within five years of Bill C-54 coming into force, and the committee would submit a report to Parliament within a year of the review. In other words, Mr. Chairman, Bill C-54 makes significant changes to the NCR regime and concerns have been raised by experts about the possibility that these changes may have unintended consequences—even some of those in favour of the legislation made reference to this. As such, it would be incumbent upon Parliament to consider the impact of this legislation in the medium and the long term so as to understand whether it had the desired result, or whether refinements are necessary.

I hope we can have a consensus around this table to have a review conducted and the reports prepared on this point to ensure that the legislation is operating as envisaged by the government and the proponents of this legislation.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This amendment would require the Attorney General to consult annually with the relevant federal and provincial ministers and agencies about the implementation of the NCR regime. The Attorney General would also be required to table an annual report on these consultations.

Mr. Chairman, one of my biggest concerns with Bill C-54 is that we might well run out of space in provincial treatment facilities. As witnesses testified, overcrowding not only impacts on treatment, but it also reduces public safety which, after all, is a paramount consideration underpinning this legislation. Moreover, overcrowding also raises serious charter concerns. Particularly also, as I've noted, NCR-accused have not been found guilty of any offence.

As such, to ensure that the NCR regime is being implemented effectively, consultation with the provinces are necessary and ought to be mandated in statute. We ought not to create burdens on the provinces without assistance, and thus this mechanism helps to ensure that capacity and resources to implement the system are in place and working.

I might add, Mr. Chair, and I close with this, that effectively, this amendment seeks to secure the very objective that the legislation itself seeks.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Assuming you all have a very good memory, I won't repeat what I said earlier about amendment PV-9, except to add these other points.

At the point at which a determination has been made by the review board that, based on all the available evidence, the high-risk accused no longer meets that definition and that the person is in fact no longer considered high-risk accused, the current Bill C-54 drafting would refer the formerly high-risk accused person back to a superior court of criminal jurisdiction.

There is an interesting legal point here, because there will be no criminal charges active at that point. There will not be any criminal court seized of the matter, whereas the review board has the expertise, has just reviewed the complex information, and has made a determination, as the act requires, based on all the available information involving expert assessments, that it is satisfied that there is not a substantial likelihood that the accused, whether the high-risk accused “will use violence that could endanger the life or safety of another person”.

At that point, it is both, as I mentioned earlier, an unnecessary expense and unnecessary cost of the court's time, unnecessarily repetitious. In fact it asks the court to be seized of something for which there are no current criminal charges. I therefore strongly recommend that we revert, as I propose in amendment PV-9, to the review board itself making the determination and not referring it further to a superior court of criminal jurisdiction.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you for that.

I'm going to rule on that amendment regarding its admissibility. Clause 12 of Bill C-54 provides for the possibility of an unlimited number of hearings for the determination of high-risk accused.

The goal of the proposed amendment, Liberal-11, is to limit the number of hearings to one, which is against the principle of the bill. Again, according to page 766, in the opinion of the chair, the amendment attempts to limit the number of hearings, and therefore is inadmissible. This ruling also applies to Liberal-23.

No one is challenging the chair on that. Let's move on.

We're done with clause 12 amendments.

Shall clause 12 carry?

(Clause 12 agreed to)

(Clause 13 agreed to)

(On clause 14)

On clause 14, we have a government amendment.

Mr. Goguen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Okay. Thank you.

I'm going to make a ruling on this PV amendment. Clause 12 of Bill C-54 does not provide any powers to a review board. The proposed amendment aims to provide specific powers to the review board that are not envisioned in the bill. We refer to page 766 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, edition two.

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment attempts to introduce a new concept that is beyond the scope of Bill C-54 and is therefore inadmissible. This ruling applies to amendments PV-6 and NDP-14. So that amendment is inadmissible. It's out of order.

There's nobody challenging the chair, so we're moving on.

Amendment PV-6, as just read, is therefore inadmissible as well. NDP-6 is also inadmissible due to PV-5 being inadmissible.

We're now on amendment Liberal-10. Liberal-10 also applies to Liberal-21.

Mr. Cotler, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is also, of course, within clause 12. We're now looking at proposed paragraph 672.64(3)(a).

As Bill C-54 is now written, the person who has been designated as a high-risk accused under this provision would be allowed to be discharged from the hospital and absent from the hospital for any purpose relating to treatment or for other medical reasons at the discretion of the person who is in charge of the hospital.

My amendment inserts “the Review Board”, which is in the position to know all of the relevant evidence about the high-risk accused, including conditions around the original determination of high risk, as well as whether this would be appropriate. I've also inserted the concept of that being “based on all available evidence”. Given the concerns about high-risk accused and their movements, which the Conservative government has expressed in putting this bill forward, it seems to me this is much too important a decision for it to be delegated to the person in charge of the hospital as opposed to being delegated to the most qualified agency, which is the review board.

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

We don't support the amendment. The availability of resources and support to mitigate the risk can be considered by the court without explicitly setting it out. The provision is currently open-ended. The evidentiary burden in the high-risk accused application process falls to the crown. The nature of the evidence suggests it would likely only be available to the defence; otherwise, the crown would have to prove a negative, for example, no resources.

As introduced, there is nothing in BillC-54 that would prevent the court from receiving evidence on the availability of resources and support to mitigate the risk of public safety. An amendment to that effect is not necessary.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

This amendment is fairly straightforward. Many witnesses have testified that "brutal nature" is a problematic concept that does not necessarily clarify the matter. We heard this again and again from expert witness testimony. This amendment leaves intact the consideration regarding cases where there is a substantial likelihood of violence endangering the life or safety of another person, which appear in paragraph (a).

My changes to paragraph (b) say that we also take into account cases where there is a serious risk of psychological, as opposed to physical, harm. By leaving in the reference to psychological harm, I believe this amendment captures the essential element of what was proposed in C-54, without the addition of the "brutal nature" factor, which many witnesses, particularly the experts, found to be highly problematic.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

—to this bill.

To your point, the motion that we had states:

the Chair may call upon the member

—not the party, but the member—

who filed the proposed amendment to offer brief remarks in support of it.

That's why I called on the member, on Madam May, to make brief remarks to her piece.

Now, to your second point, I am making a ruling on PV-1. I'm going to call them “PV” because that's the way they are now, and that's the way they will be for the rest of the evening. In future, they may change them to independents, I don't know; that's not my doing.

The goal of Bill C-54 in clause 9 aims to remove from the Criminal Code the concept of a disposition that is “the least onerous and least restrictive to the accused” person.

The goal of the proposed amendment PV-1 is to bring that concept back, which is against the principle of the bill.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766 that:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment attempts to revert to what was in the parent act, which is contrary to the principle of Bill C-54, and is therefore inadmissible. This ruling will apply to amendments NDP-2, Liberal-3, PV-12, NDP-11, PV-13, NDP-12, and Liberal-22.

Does anybody need that repeated?

Are you challenging the chair, Mr. Cotler?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think they've used the term “PV” here for Parti vert. So it's actually not in the name of a private member. It's actually here as Green Party amendment 1.

As you see, it is on clause 9, which is amending section 672.54. You can follow it on page 4, at lines 35 to 40.

I'm proposing this amendment based on testimony that was received by the committee from the Canadian Bar Association to reinstate the “least onerous and least restrictive” requirement that has been used in not criminally responsible cases in the past.

I just want to cite this from the Canadian Bar Association evidence, at page 5:

Currently, the Court or Review Board must discharge absolutely any accused found not criminally responsible, unless they pose a significant threat to the safety of the public.... In making this decision, the Court or Review Board must consider the need to protect the public from dangerous persons,

—we certainly want to do that—

the mental condition of the accused, the reintegration of the accused into society and other needs of the accused. Where an accused does pose a significant threat to the safety of the public, the Court or Review Board must select the “least onerous and least restrictive” form of disposition....

Now that Bill C-54 makes it very clear and codifies what's already the law under the Supreme Court of Canada—that the safety of the public is the paramount consideration—I'm putting forward this amendment to say that certainly the balancing is very strongly in favour of the paramount consideration being public safety. The least onerous and restrictive qualification is now balanced against that paramountcy of public safety and security.

That provision, as the Canadian Bar Association recommends, can be reintroduced into the legislation very simply—through the mechanism of my Green Party amendment 1.

Thank you.

Combating Counterfeit Products Act

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, here we are again, debating another bill that was put under time allocation, which is 44 or 45 times now.

The irony in this instance is that the government could have had an agreement with the opposition to speed the debate of this bill so that we would be using less time in the House than it took to bring in the time allocation motion, vote on it and then provide a full day of debate, because we in the NDP do want to see this bill go back to committee, where it can be approved. Therefore, we will be supporting it at second reading.

Again, we had time allocation brought in before the Minister of Industry, the person presenting the bill, had even spoken to it. We did not have one full speech in this House. There was a speech by the member for Simcoe—Grey, who spent half of her speech laughing at jokes being told to her by other caucus members. We did not have one full speech before time allocation was brought in.

I would say humbly that this is not democracy. This is not how Parliament is supposed to work. We are supposed to have the opportunity to have full debates in the House on the various issues that are brought forward.

Bill C-56, an act to amend the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, which is now otherwise titled the “combating counterfeit products act”, is an important issue. It is my honour to rise today to present the lead-off speech on Bill C-56 for the NDP and the official opposition.

Normally our industry critic, the member for LaSalle—Émard, would be leading off on second reading comments on this bill. Our critic had planned to give her remarks on Friday when this bill was supposed to come up for debate; however, because of time allocation and the government playing games, we are here Wednesday evening instead, again preventing certain members of Parliament from participating in this debate in the way that they would like to.

In their rush to introduce yet more record-breaking time allocation motions—as I said, we are at 46 now—the Conservatives rescheduled all the House business this week.

As the NDP's deputy industry critic, it is indeed my privilege to address this bill on behalf of the official opposition. This is a bill the NDP takes very seriously, as opposed to the Conservative government, it would appear, because this bill was presented originally in March. It did not come up for debate until the end of May. Recommendations for this bill were made in a committee report in 2007, again in 2009, and then there were more recommendations from the industry committee in an intellectual property study that was done earlier this year. It has taken the government a very long time to start bringing these forward for implementation.

We have yet to have a whole speech by the Minister of Industry on this bill. Even then, if it was not going to be the minister, we would have thought that maybe it would be the parliamentary secretary, the member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, but that was not the case.

When the government presents a bill, it is supposed to justify why it is bringing that bill forward. It has yet to do that and has already implemented time allocation.

Instead of a full presentation by the government, what we had was the parliamentary secretary for human resources and skills development getting up and presenting a very short speech on this bill. In her speech she spent a lot of the time laughing and did not seem to be taking the bill seriously. It was so bad that the Speaker had to interrupt and ask if she was able to continue.

I mention all this because it seems to speak to the Conservative government's contempt for Parliament and to its continual practice of introducing legislation that can never be properly implemented because its budget cuts make it impossible.

There are many clichés we would use, but the Conservatives keep putting forth pieces of legislation that are either empty shells or just cherry-picked from among the many recommendations that we need to implement to have solid pieces of legislation. They put forth rules and regulations that perhaps cannot be enforced, because those budget cuts mean that no one will be there to enforce them.

Recent examples include Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, which the Conservatives put forward without the funding in place to make many of its provisions actually meaningful. Another one, Bill C-54 would make changes to how we would deal with people deemed not criminally responsible, however, it would download the responsibility for mental health care onto the very provinces, which are having their health care budgets slashed again by the Conservative government.

Bill C-56 is another example of the Conservatives playing the shell game they so like to play. It is legislation that on one hand imposes some good rules and on the other hand, through the budget, cuts the jobs of those who are supposed to be enforcing these new rules. I will come back to that point later in my remarks.

Let me say upfront, again, that the NDP will support the bill at second reading so it can be sent back to committee and, we hope, fixed to maximum its impact. However, it would indeed be a first at our committee, if we actually saw recommendations and amendments that we brought forward voted on and passed by the Conservatives on the committee. That would be groundbreaking.

The bill dealing with counterfeiting and copyright infringement is important for both Canadian businesses and consumers, especially where counterfeit goods may put the health and safety of Canadians at risk. We will support the bill so it can go back to committee for further study and we want to ensure we maintain the necessary balance on copyright and trademarks.

For instance, the bill would give ex officio powers to our border officers, which the NDP has been calling for since 2007. However, it is very difficult to see how this will be implemented when, last year, the Conservatives slashed $143 million in funding to CBSA, which further reduced front-line officers and harmed our ability to monitor our borders.

CBSA expects to lose several hundred front-line officers by 2015. It is also important to note that in the past the government repeatedly has refused to take a balanced approach to copyright. The NDP believes that intellectual property requires an approach that strikes a balance between the interests of rights holders and the interest of users and consumers.

I will now take a few minutes to explain some of the details of the bill.

Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act, would amend both the Copyright Act and the Trademark Act. Its purpose is to strengthen enforcement of copyright and trademark rights and to curtail commercial activity involving infringing copies or counterfeit trademarks.

The proposed bill will add two new criminal offences under the Copyright Act for possession and exportation of infringing copies and creates offences for selling or offering counterfeit goods on a commercial scale. It creates a prohibition against importing or exporting infringing copies and counterfeit goods and introduces some balance to that prohibition by creating two exceptions: first, for personal use, items that are in one's possession or baggage; or second, items in transit. It also, as I said, grants new ex officio powers to border officials to detain infringing copies or counterfeit goods, a significant policy shift. Until now, border officials required a warrant before seizing infringing copies or goods at the border.

It also grants new ex officio powers to the Minister of Public Safety and border officials to share information on detained goods with the right holders so they can actually see what is being brought in and take measures themselves to combat that counterfeit and trademark infringement.

That is important, because the businesses do a great job of trying to protect their own products. Seeing what is coming into the country illegally and what products are counterfeited can give them ideas about how to combat that counterfeiting better for themselves.

The proposed bill widens the scope of what can be trademarked to the features found in the broad definition of sign, including colour, shapes, scents and tastes. Measuring the problem in counterfeit goods and copies in Canada and its corresponding impact on the economy is difficult.

The New Democrats, nevertheless, support dealing with counterfeiting, especially where health and safety concerns are at stake. As I have mentioned, it remains unclear to me and many others how the CBSA could implement these enforcement measures in the face of the cuts from budget 2012.

The United States and many industry groups have long called for border measures on counterfeiting. It remains important to continue to be vigilant to ensure that intellectual property laws balance the rights and interests of rights holders with those of consumers and users.

The government has long been aware of the difficulties in measuring the scale of counterfeiting for copies and goods in Canada, a challenge that was identified in a 1998 OECD report on “The Economic Impact of Counterfeiting”. One of the difficulties results from the clandestine nature of counterfeiting. Much of the data is estimated and based on actual seizures, which is anecdotal or comes from industry itself, in which case the collection methods may vary or be unavailable to assess.

In 2007, the industry committee report on counterfeiting recommended that the government establish a reporting system that would track investigations, charges and seizures for infringing copies and counterfeit goods as a means of collecting data.

A recent Industry Canada report published this year notes that, “It is difficult to obtain a precise estimate of the market for counterfeit or pirated products in Canada”. Why? Because, again, the government has delayed bringing this legislation forward. Even now that it has, the Conservatives have not put provisions into the bill to implement those measures I just spoke of so we can start collecting more robust data to more accurately determine the economic impacts of counterfeit and trademark infringement in Canada.

As I said, much of the information in Canada comes from statistics about actual seizures. Industry Canada notes that the retail value of counterfeit goods seized by the RCMP increased from $7.6 million in 2005 to $38 million in 2012.

In 2009, the OECD estimated that the international trade in counterfeit goods and infringing copies could be valued at up to $250 billion U.S. It is a mind-boggling number that there would be that many counterfeit and trademark infringed goods travelling around the world. Law-abiding companies are losing out on much of that revenue.

The same study also reiterated previous calls for better information. We know anecdotally that counterfeit products can pose risks to the health and safety of consumers, whether we are talking about counterfeit electrical components or unsanitary stuffing in goose-down jackets.

I mention unsanitary stuffing in goose-down jackets because when we were at committee, many different Canadian businesses and organizations presented before the committee. One such company was Canada Goose, which is certainly a Canadian success story. However, representatives of Canada Goose brought with them some counterfeit Canada Goose jackets they had collected. The things contained within those counterfeit jackets would make one's toes curl. There were things like feces in the lining, feathers that were not properly treated and sanitized before being stuffed in the jackets. Certainly they were not goose down or coyote fur. Many different animals were being used.

Unfortunately, it was very difficult, on the surface, to detect these jackets as being counterfeit. When we put a real Canada Goose jacket next to a counterfeit jacket, they looked identical. It was not until we took a microscope to it or started to pull the jacket apart that we started to see that one of the jackets was indeed counterfeit.

Other representatives that came before the committee were from Hockey Canada. They talked about the last Olympics we had in Canada and about professional sports jerseys. They found, through studies they conducted and at the Olympics, that sometimes in professional sporting events, up to 70% to 75% of the jerseys being worn at the games were counterfeit. Consumers are unwittingly buying illegal and counterfeit products when they try to support their sports teams. At the Olympics in Vancouver, many stops and arrests were made of individuals selling counterfeit Olympic paraphernalia and products.

It is a growing problem because there is a financial incentive there. There is money to be made in counterfeit goods. We certainly have a responsibility to try to stop as much of it at the border as we can. As for the stuff that gets across the border, we have to deal with it here and hold the appropriate people responsible.

In many cases, as I have said, it is very difficult for consumers to detect whether they are buying legitimate products. However, vigilance is also important and people who have any concerns about products they are buying should go to the manufacturers' websites and contact people in law enforcement if they think they have bought something illegal. There are many things people can do to prevent these crimes and, indeed, to ensure the products they are buying are legitimate.

Dealing with counterfeiting is important to both Canadian businesses and consumers. It is especially important where counterfeit goods put the health and safety of Canadians at risk. Yet again it remains unclear how the enforcement regime being proposed by Bill C-56 will be resourced. This bill would add significant new responsibilities to the duties of border officials during a time of significant budget reductions.

In budget 2012, the Conservatives imposed $143 million in cuts to CBSA, reducing front-line officers and further reducing our ability to monitor the borders. This is interesting. This year's CBSA report on plans and priorities alone indicates a loss of 549 full-time employees between now and 2015. At a time when there is more trade, goods and people crossing the border, we will be cutting front-line officers? It makes absolutely no sense.

Under Bill C-56, customs officers would be asked to make highly complicated assessments on whether goods entering or exiting the country infringed on any copyright or trademark rights. Such an assessment for infringing copyright would include, for example, consideration of whether any of the exceptions under the Copyright Act would apply, something with which the courts often struggle. The New Democrats want the CBSA to be adequately funded to implement this bill without compromising the other responsibilities of protecting Canadians and our borders from things like drugs, guns and other threats.

The United States has lobbied for stronger enforcement measures in Canada for counterfeit and pirated goods for many years. In the 2012 special 301 watch report, the office of the U.S. trade representative stated that the U.S. “continues to urge Canada to strengthen its border enforcement efforts, including by providing customs officials with ex officio authority to take action against the importation, exportation, and transshipment of pirated or counterfeit goods”.

In its June 2012 report on counterfeiting in the Canadian market, the Canadian Intellectual Property Council, a sub-group of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, identified counterfeiting as a barrier to competitiveness and specifically recommended that customs officials have ex officio powers, that Canadian law be amended to bring criminal and civil sanctions for counterfeiting and piracy and that enforcement officials be encouraged to seek strong remedies for infringements.

It bears saying that many of the requests the United States made are, indeed, in this bill. Providing ex officio powers to the CBSA in order to track, monitor and confiscate copyright and trademark infringed goods are terribly important to our long-term safety.

In its recently tabled report, “Intellectual Property Regime in Canada”, the committee recommended border measures that we supported, including providing appropriate ex officio powers to customs officials, civil and criminal remedies for trademark infringement and counterfeiting, allowing customs officials to share information with rights holders regarding suspected goods. All members of the committee agreed that consumers acting non-wilfully should not be subject to excessive fines.

The New Democrats on the committee, of which I am one, filed a dissenting opinion that called on the government to also consult with consumer groups, as well as industry groups, in an effort to combat counterfeiting and piracy, that border officials receive appropriate authority to do their work while respecting civil liberties and due process and that the CBSA be adequately funded to combat counterfeiting without compromising its other important responsibilities to protect Canadians and defend our borders.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chairman, this specifies that in deciding what conditions, if any, to impose on an NCR-accused, the factors to be considered by the court or review board must be based on medical evidence and expert testimony.

Mr. Chairman, Bill C-54, as proposed, establishes that public safety is a paramount consideration for decisions of review boards and courts with respect to NCR-accused. I want to make it clear that my proposed amendment does not change that. Rather, it clarifies that the determination of such public safety considerations must be, “on the basis of medical evidence and expert testimony”. I believe that without this, we might allow the impression to be had—and I don't think we'd want that impression to be had—that such determinations can be based on subjectivities of fear, or perhaps even reliance on stigma. Certainly, this cannot be Parliament's intention.

In a word, we must have expert testimony and medical evidence before us when such determinations are made, and this amendment seeks to clarify that this is indeed Parliament's intention with this provision.

[Julie Besner]

The proposed subsection in Bill C-54 deals with providing notice to the victim regarding a discharge, so it is closely related to that specific amendment in that subsection.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

We're on clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-54. Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title, is postponed.

The chair then calls on clause 2. Shall clause 2 carry?

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

I guess it's my law school background. I look at the bill and I know that the Supreme Court of Canada has already said that the paramount concern is public safety, and still that happened to Christine. So I'm just looking at ways we could improve the bill, based on your evidence, and that seems to me to be a hole.

I wonder if any of you or all of you want to comment on the testimony of Sue O'Sullivan as federal ombudsman for victims' rights. She spelled out a number of things. Frankly, until she listed them—and I look to my colleagues in the Conservative party as well—on reading the bill, I had thought those things were there. But I went back and looked, and she's right. There's nothing in the bill right now that says victims should be advised of the forensic facility location, that victims should be advised in advance of movements, that victims should be given advance information on release. You were here in the room when she testified.

Do you have any comment on whether you would support the amendments that Sue O'Sullivan suggested to improve Bill C-54?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Cotler.

First of all, thank you to all the witnesses for being here. Your evidence is very helpful.

Do any of you see anything in Bill C-54 as currently drafted to deal with the circumstance that Christine Russell described in which her victim impact statement was changed?

I don't see anything here in Bill C-54 that would change that process or protect victims from having that occur to their statements.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you. I tend to agree with you. That's been my experience as well, as a former law enforcement officer. Even though I never dealt with an NCR case, that doesn't hold water with what I know.

Ms. Illingworth, my last question is for you. We obviously need to ensure that victims are supported and not revictimized by the system. Do you think the changes we have proposed in Bill C-54 will reduce the revictimization for victims who go through this process? Does it strengthen victims' rights and the victims' ability to have a say and be protected by the legislation after a serious incident like this happens?

[Heidi Illingworth, Executive Director, Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime]

Thank you.

I represent the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime and I'm grateful for the opportunity to appear before you this afternoon.

The CRCVC is a national, non-profit, non-government advocacy group for persons impacted by serious crime. We provide resources and emotional support to victims across the country, as well as advocating for public safety and improved services and rights for crime victims.

We are pleased to support Bill C-54 today. Our clientele includes families and individuals impacted by persons who have been found not criminally responsible. We remain very concerned about serious acts of violence committed by this small population of offenders and their lasting impacts on victims.

We believe mental illness should be treated as a medical and health issue outside of the criminal justice system, so that patients are stabilized and no longer suffer from symptoms. But we are particularly concerned with medication compliance and the ongoing community supervision of forensic mental health patients.

We support the amendment that would make public safety the paramount consideration by review boards in their decision-making process. Although there have been Supreme Court rulings in this matter, we understand the current approach basically balances four factors, namely the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, the mental condition of the accused, the reintegration of the accused into society, and other needs of the accused.

We support the proposed reforms to codify the meaning of the phrase “significant threat to the safety of the public”, which is the test stated by the Criminal Code to determine whether the review board can maintain jurisdiction and continue to supervise a mentally disordered accused. Consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada’s interpretation, the phrase means a risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public resulting from conduct that is criminal in nature, but not necessarily violent. The codification aims to ensure more consistency in the application of this test.

We are very supportive of the measures that will enhance victim safety and provide victims with opportunities for greater involvement under the Criminal Code mental disorder regime, namely, ensuring that they are notified, upon request, when the accused is discharged; allowing non-communication orders between the accused and the victim; and ensuring that the safety of the victims be considered when decisions are being made about an accused person.

We understand that currently there is not always consistent interpretation and application of the law across the country. We particularly want to ensure that the information needs of victims are met. This means that they are informed about the accused if they wish, as well as having their personal safety concerns heard and understood by review boards.

Given our work with family members across the country who've been impacted by NCR rulings, we want to reiterate what we hear from the victims themselves, which is that they do not want what happened to them or to their loved one to happen to anyone else. Public safety is their primary concern.

In the most horrific cases, where serious personal injury or death has occurred, victims are often very upset by the fact that the accused person was free in the community prior to their offence and had not received proper help and treatment for their mental illness. They deteriorated. They were unable to recognize the early symptoms of their deterioration, and they caused serious harm or took a life. Victims are fearful that this cycle will repeat itself, especially when it comes to ensuring that the offender will remain on their medication for the rest of their life.

We support the proposed high-risk designation, which would be applied where the accused person has been found NCR and there is substantial likelihood for further violence that would endanger the public, or in cases in which the acts are of such brutal nature as to indicate a risk of grave harm.

We support the fact that they would not be granted a conditional or absolute discharge, and that the designation could be revoked only by the court, following a recommendation by the review board. We understand that this would apply only to those found NCR and not to persons found unfit to stand trial.

Lastly, we feel this amendment would only apply in a very small handful of very serious cases across the country every year, and that is our interest in supporting it as well.

We furthermore agree with the proposed amendment that the review board may decide to extend. We support this. It's not that they must extend the review period for up to three years, but they can choose to.

Again, we're pleased to be here. We're pleased that this high-risk designation would not affect access to treatment by the accused, as has already been discussed.

Thank you.

[Mike McCormack, President, Toronto Police Association]

Good afternoon, everybody.

My name is Mike McCormack. I'm the president of the Toronto Police Association, where I represent 8,000 members of the Toronto Police Service.

First of all, I'd like to thank the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for the opportunity to address the committee and to voice my association's and my membership's support for the proposed amendments to Bill C-54.

Before I start, I'd just like to put into context some of my comments regarding my support and my association's support for this bill. I'm just giving you a little bit about my background so you understand where I'm coming from.

I've been a police officer for almost 30 years. I've worked in the most difficult communities in downtown Toronto. A large percentage of the people living in these communities are living with mental disorders. I know first-hand the difficulties that the mentally ill deal with on a day-to-day basis and the challenges that police officers face when we are responding to persons who have mental illness issues.

I worked in 51 Division for most of my policing career. I've worked closely with the community, responding to crime issues, including drug trafficking, prostitution, gang activity, violent street crime offences. As I said, this area is home to a large transient population, families living below the poverty line, and individuals and their families dealing with problems created by substance abuse and treated and untreated mental illnesses. We have numerous halfway houses, hostels, shelters, and the police work closely with this community and with our partners in responding to the community's needs.

As a police officer, I have been directly involved in responding to the needs of the mentally ill. My experiences range from assisting mentally ill people in acquiring basic needs, such as food or shelter, to arresting or being in violent confrontations with people who are mentally ill simply because they had no access to medication and have committed violent criminal offences in a psychotic rage.

I share this information with you just to give you some context of my support and my association's support for the proposed amendments to Bill C-54. I'm going to reiterate some of the stuff that Christine spoke about involving one of our members, Sergeant Ryan Russell, and an offence committed against him by a person suffering from a major mental disorder. This is the case of Richard Kachkar, and as I said, Sergeant Ryan Russell.

As you heard, on January 12, 2011, Ryan died in the line of duty. He was standing in uniform beside his police vehicle, emergency lights flashing, when Richard Kachkar murdered him. Mr. Kachkar was arrested, charged, as you heard, with first-degree murder in Sergeant Ryan Russell's death. During a highly publicized trial, the jury found Mr. Kachkar neither had the mental capacity to appreciate the nature of the act, nor did he know that the act was wrong, and he was found not criminally responsible.

The evidence that we heard at the trial confirmed that Mr. Kachkar suffered from a major mental illness at the time of Sergeant Russell's death and that he suffered from depression, schizophrenia, and he may have suffered from a personality disorder.

In February 2013, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced the introduction of Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act. It appeared to us that the primary objective of this bill is to ensure that public safety is and should be a priority in the decision-making process with respect to accused persons who are found not criminally responsible. This would be a way to enhance victim safety and promote greater victim involvement in the Criminal Code mental disorder process.

First of all, I'd like to say the police association supports the reforms that Bill C-54 will make and agrees that public safety is and should be the overriding consideration when decisions are made about persons found not criminally responsible by the courts. The public has a right to feel safe in their communities and to be protected against dangerous and violent offenders like Mr. Kachkar.

Second, the association supports a new high-risk “not criminally responsible” designation introduced by Bill C-54, which proposes to allow the courts to designate the most violent not criminally responsible offenders as high risk. The NCR defence is rarely used. It appears only in two out of every 1,000 criminal cases and is less commonly linked to violent offenders, who account for an estimated 10% of all NCR cases. The high-risk NCR designation would only apply to the small number of accused who have been found not criminally responsible and who pose a higher threat to public safety.

The Hon. Rob Nicholson provided some interesting facts in the House of Commons debate on March 1, 2013, about persons found not criminally responsible, when he stated that:

A little over 27% of individuals found not criminally responsible have had a past finding of not criminally responsible; 38% of those found not criminally responsible and accused of a sex offence had at least one prior NCR finding; 27% of those accused of attempted murder had at least one NCR finding; and, 19% of those accused of murder or homicide had at least one prior finding of not criminally responsible.

Under the proposed amendments to Bill C-54, high-risk offenders would not be discharged unless a court agreed to lift their high-risk designation, which we agree with; would be ineligible for unescorted passes into the community; and their mandatory review period could be extended from one year up to three years.

Having seen first-hand the revictimization of our victims going through this process year after year, we support all these amendments. The association endorses the enhancement of victim safety and victim involvement in the mental disorder process. This bill gives victims of crime a greater role by requiring that the courts and review boards consider the safety of the victim when they make decisions with respect to persons found NCR, and require the review board to notify the victim, upon request, if the accused person is to be released into the community.

I recently attended the ORB hearing with Christine and her family. I sat there for hours wondering what weight the victim impact statement currently had in this process, and I couldn't find any.

On April 29, 2013, after hearing his case, the review board ordered Mr. Kachkar to be sent to Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences. This exposed serious systemic problems and serious flaws in the current review board system. The board was unanimous that Richard Kachkar suffered from serious mental illness and represented a significant threat to public safety. During the course of the hearing, a board psychiatrist asked Dr. Klassen, vice-president of medical affairs at Ontario Shores, why he was recommending putting Mr. Kachkar on anti-psychotic drugs at this time, 30 days after the NCR verdict, keeping in mind that this was not done in the previous two years that Mr. Kachkar was in custody, pending trial for Sergeant Russell's death.

In the absence of proper assessment, the review board gave the hospital—and this is key—the power to give Mr. Kachkar privileges in the community, escorted and accompanied by hospital staff. The hospital medical staff were going to be escorting this gentleman into the community if they felt they should do that—not security, not police.

The proposed legislation outlines that a high-risk NCR person would not be allowed to go into the community in this instance, and that they would not be able to go either unescorted or escorted, and only would be allowed in narrow circumstances, and subject—and this is key to us—to sufficient conditions to protect public safety.

What we found absolutely shocking was that these were conditions that Mr. Kachkar's counsel had not asked for, and they were granted without the understanding of the depth of his mental illness. He had not even been fully diagnosed. His mental health issues were major and he represented a significant threat to public safety, yet the ORB was going to allow him into the community.

Our concerns are that without discussion and without evidence, this is the way the board was behaving. He was going to be allowed back into the community in 30 days. In considering Bill C-54, we urge you to look at providing further statutory guidelines to the review board—the issues of public safety as well—guidelines that establish proper evidence-based balance between the need to protect the public and the requirement to treat people with mental illness who commit criminal offences.

The Toronto Police Association supports the initiatives reflected in Bill C-54. We are not insensitive to the difficulties of persons living with mental illnesses. We understand first-hand the devastating impact that mental illness has on the mentally ill, their families, their communities, and in this tragic case, Sergeant Ryan Russell, Christine, and her family, who became unwitting victims in this struggle with mental illness.

This bill does not target persons with mental disorders, those whose illnesses are non-threatening to others, nor does it seek to impose punitive consequences on persons found to be NCR due to mental illness. This bill speaks to the people who commit horrendous heinous crimes and who, like Mr. Kachkar, are found to be NCR.

We in the policing community are committed to protecting our communities. Our challenge is to find a way of reducing the potential for those found NCR to reoffend as well as to protect future victims.

As key stakeholders in the mental disorder regime, we want to ensure that people are taking their medications, that they do not have contact with victims, and that there is a support system in place to monitor mental health and reduce the likelihood of reoffending.

At least through the core process there should be an ability to impose conditions to assist in these protections—conditions that may include boundaries, living arrangements, participation in treatment plans, abstinence from illegal drugs and alcohol, and conditions to stay away from victims to prevent their revictimization.

[Justice Richard D. Schneider, Chair, Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Ontario Review Board, Review Boards Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for inviting me here to make submissions to the committee.

At the outset, I should indicate that I endorse fully and echo the submissions of my colleague Bernd Walter.

I'll speak very generally, in a broad fashion, about the three or four main areas of the bill.

With respect to the new enhanced notice provisions to victims, the review boards of Canada really take no position, but would note parenthetically that it seems to be antithetical to some of what's been in the media about victims' desire to be less engaged and not revictimized annually. This set of provisions, to our mind, drags the victims into the system and enmeshes them more fully. In Ontario we have a system where the victims can waive off future notices, and that is indeed where many of them, if not most, go. They do not wish to be further engaged or enmeshed in the system.

With respect to public safety as a paramount concern, as Bernd Walter has indicated, that has been the law for a decade or more. The review boards take no position with that.

With respect to the threshold of “least onerous and least restrictive” being replaced by “necessary and appropriate”, we note that it's a conjunctive test, which most of the academics find puzzling more than anything. When would something be necessary but not appropriate, or the opposite?

The real problem, to our mind, comes with the “high-risk accused” designation. It's with respect to this that there is grave potential for the amendments to actually, contrary to their purported aim, make the public much less safe rather than more safe.

One must remember that individuals who are prospective HRAs are individuals who have elected to avail themselves of the NCR defence. By putting into part XX.1 provisions that might, for a lack of a better way of putting it, appear frightening to the accused—for example, the prospect of being locked up in a hospital, where clinically contraindicated, for up to three years with no opportunity for review—you will inevitably find many accused not availing themselves of the NCR defence. The result of that, of course, is that they will take their chances, take their lumps, in the regular prosecutorial stream. That same individual who might otherwise have gone through part XX.1 in the review board system will one day be dropped out onto the street with no supervision, no gradual reintegration, no treatment.

That, Mr. Chairman, is a much more dangerous situation. The potential here is that the amendments will scare individuals who are presently being very well looked after, and whose reintegration into the community is a very carefully monitored, titrated process, out of that system and into one that would simply have them out onto the street, with no controls in place whatsoever. As Mr. Walter indicated, this is in no way a contest between those who are for public safety as opposed to those who are for accused rights. All professionals engaged in the system recognize that public safety is the paramount concern. That is our collective objective. Our submission is that the amendments proposed in Bill C-54 will, however, take us the wrong way down that road.

[Bernd Walter, Chair, British Columbia Review Board, Association of Canadian Review Board Chairs]

Thank you, Chair and honourable members of the committee, for the opportunity to come here today and speak to you.

Time is fleeting, so I'm going to speak very quickly. The synopsis of my remarks has been passed out. I want you to also hear from my colleague Justice Schneider, who is not only a respected jurist but also a psychologist. He has authored many of the leading texts in Canada in this field, so he is an expert indeed.

The review board chairs who do this work on a daily basis have no wish to be pitted against or to appear to be opposing the interests of victims. We're all on the same side here. But there are provisions in this bill that the justices and review board chairs do not support. As well, as there is a judicial role in the bill, I should say that at least five of the current justices or chairs of the review boards of Canada are in fact sitting justices.

The bill does seem to pit decision-makers and clinicians against victims. Bill C-54 diminishes opportunities for the current system of incremental, stable, and monitored reintegration into the community, which we all know is part of the system, and instead will encourage treatment avoidance, eventually followed by possibly untested and unsupervised release situations.

The bill does not, as currently framed, accord with treatment science, risk-prediction science, or fiscal prudence. It will see more mentally ill offenders in jail and untreated. It's based on no evidence.

I've been watching the committee's work with interest, on CPAC, and it seems to me that many of the speakers who you get in, many of the very compelling situations that you're confronted with, are actually dealing with how an offender gets into a system, with how he or she gets the NCRMD verdict, as opposed to any evidence of problems with the system once the offender is in. There is no evidence that there is premature release, or of recidivism, once the person is in the system under the very careful scrutiny of the review board, so we feel that the bill has the potential, at least, to make the community less safe.

I'm not going to quibble with the highlight on public safety. I could name at least five Supreme Court judgments since 1999 that make that absolutely clear, but I understand the codification argument.

The additional criteria of “necessary and appropriate in the circumstances” replacing the “least onerous and least restrictive” criterion really has no sensible meaning. It is vague and fraught with interpretation difficulties. I think it encourages detention and restriction disproportionate to the individual's actual assessed risk.

The definition of “significant threat” and the other criteria in the new provision have at least five different definitions of risk, from significant, to substantial, to risk simpliciter. I really think that is a real challenge to consistent interpretation. The definition of “significant threat”, which is of course the threshold determination that we have to make in every single case, converts probability, to possibility, to risk simpliciter. In other words, any risk whatsoever may serve to detain. I think that will impose detention in cases of minor or even speculative risk and will also encourage the utilization of costly thousand-dollar-a-day hospital beds beyond the point when they are actually required to manage an individual's actual presenting risk.

The “high-risk accused” designation must be applied for before absolute discharge. It applies in defined “serious personal injury” offences, which in my view would be indictable offences possibly requiring more jury trial, burdening our justice system. It also requires the “substantial likelihood” of future violence, endangering “life or safety”, and also considers the brutality of the index offence. Risk assessment literature will tell you that brutality or past behaviour is not a good predictor in terms of the severity of recidivism. It just doesn't capture the essence, we think, of what you're trying to achieve, or the kinds of outlier cases that are actually mobilizing this particular bill.

I won't speak to the 36-month provision. I do think the requirement to go back to court to stop the high-risk designation will mean that once a person comes back from the court with that designation revoked, it may actually mean he's entitled to an absolute discharge when he or she gets back to the board. I think that's problematic.

I should say that courts are not experts in risk prediction. Courts look back. They try to assess evidence to see if something happened, if an offence occurred beyond a reasonable doubt. The review boards, with psychiatrists and with community members already on them, are the experts in future risk prediction.

We have no quarrel with particularly the victim provisions, although I should say that those provisions have been around since 2005 in Ontario and B.C. Every victim is provided with notice initially, with an option to continue to receive notice of hearings or to waive that. Since 2005 not a single victim has asked to read a victim impact statement in B.C., even though they're constantly being provided with notice and a brochure of their rights.

Finally, we think there's no persuasive evidence that the current system is wanting.

We think it's charter challenge rich. It sacrifices proportionality. It drifts, unfortunately, from treatment to punishment, and the three-year term may actually decrease scrutiny of the most dangerous and most concerning individuals in the system. The bill is also, I should say, at odds with the Mental Health Commission's own study on recidivism by mentally disordered offenders.

I'd like Justice Schneider to have some time.

Amended Report on Bill C-54

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in relation to Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act. In particular, I rise to address certain data offered by the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Natural Resources in support of the bill that I believe violates my privileges as a member, and the privileges of all members of this place.

As O'Brien and Bosc note, on page 86 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, privileges may be infringed by “the provision of deliberately misleading information to the House by a Minister”.

The case at issue involves a report prepared for the justice department by a research team led by Dr. Anne Crocker of McGill University, entitled “Description and processing of individuals found Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder accused of serious violent offences”. This report has been central to the discussions of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on this legislation. It was important in the House, as well, during second reading debate. In fact, if we look at the blues from last Wednesday's justice committee meeting alone, we will find Dr. Crocker mentioned by name 10 times.

As one of the few scientists in the House today, I especially value and need correct numbers to properly do my work as an MP; otherwise my work would be impeded.

One thing people have learned over the last few centuries is the value of observation and measurement: the success of empiricism. That is how we have made advances in science and technology. It gives us the ability to have smart government policies, to understand the people and the country they have entrusted us to govern.

I found Dr. Crocker's report helpful in formulating my own thinking on Bill C-54.

As a news story by Laura Stone of Global News reported yesterday afternoon, and thus I am raising this question at the first opportunity, the Department of Justice was provided with the initial version of the report that I mentioned in November of last year. Some of the data in this report was incorrect as the result of a coding error. This is not something for which I would find fault with the government or researchers. Tabulation errors are bound to happen here and there, and in my work as a scientist I have made such mistakes and have had to fix them. In fact, that is how good scientists work. Mistakes are discovered, acknowledged and fixed, and our understanding advances.

What is shocking is that the government was provided with a corrected version of the report from this past March, and despite having the new report, continued to cite from the old report, misleading Parliament and Canadians. The government even went so far as to table the old report in this place after being informed of the corrected report, a report it has yet to table.

Moreover, the government now takes issue with the researchers whom it commissioned to prepare the report, saying their corrections raise questions about the quality of the work, calling it “unreliable”, even though science actually makes progress through a process involving a continual recognition of errors and their corrections. The researchers did the right thing here, and they know what the right numbers are.

While I could go on at length about the need for evidence-based policy-making and how we should not be legislating if we do not have facts to support our propositions, I will confine myself now to the privilege question before us.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, includes, at page 83, a list of items found by the United Kingdom Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege to be types of contempt. Specifically included on this list is “deliberately attempting to mislead the House or a committee (by way of statement, evidence, or petition)”. As well, and again I quote, “deliberately altering, suppressing, concealing or destroying a paper required to be produced for the House or a committee”.

Mr. Patrick Baillie of the Advisory Council of the Mental Health Commission of Canada testified before the justice committee this past Monday in response to a question from the member for Brossard—La Prairie, and said:

Regarding the recidivism statistic, there was an unfortunate error that occurred in the initial draft of the report that was provided to the Department of Justice in November of 2012. [...] That error was discovered on March 14th and immediately communicated to the Minister's office, and a revised report was provided on March 18th with that data corrected.

My colleague, the member for Mount Royal, followed this with a clarifying question, to which Mr. Baillie responded:

We became aware of the error on March 14 and communicated that to the minister's office that day. The amended report was then provided to the research division on March 18 with an acknowledgement seeking clarification of what was the nature of the coding error. So the office was aware of that in March.

As Mr. Baillie further testified, and with this I would agree:

I think that it is important on such a serious issue for the committee to have accurate and up-to-date information, and I hope that the report that was provided to the office in March can be made available to the members of this committee for their deliberations on this topic.

It should be clear that reliance on the old report prejudices members of all parties. Indeed, the news article in question quotes the Conservative MP for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley as saying, “If it was tabled in the House of Commons, I assumed it was accurate”.

The initial draft of the report was tabled as part of an order for return in response to question 1169 on the order paper standing in the name of my colleague from Mount Royal. That order for return included the report as an annex with a note stating, “A significantly amended version of this report was provided to the Department of Justice on March 18, 2013...”.

This statement is important because it confirms that the department was made aware of it on the 18th. It is also important because the order for return bears the minister's signature.

Where it gets interesting is that the old report itself was included in response to part of the order paper question asking about sources relied upon by the government in developing Bill C-54. This makes sense because the government can only rely on the evidence it had at the time. However, the question also asked the government separately for several particular pieces of information, including which people who were found NCR released had been convicted of a subsequent offence and what was the nature of the subsequent offence. The government's response was “see annex 1”, which was the old report.

If the government is asked a question and gives an answer, we will assume it is referring to the most up-to-date information that it has. Members would easily conclude that the correct information was included in response to the question and thus the corrected report. As we found out only this week, that was not the case.

While I take issue with the government's choice to table the old report when it had the new corrected report, as a matter of principle, I also take issue with it as a matter of privilege. Simply put, the government should seek to be forthright with Canadians, providing them and their elected representatives with accurate information in a timely fashion as a matter of course. The government has an obligation to do so as per the rules of the House.

On Monday, May 27, the Minister of Natural Resources stood in this place and said the following during debate on Bill C-54:

It is very important that when we talk about what the risk to the public is, we try to get as close as we can to the facts. The facts are: 27.3% of not criminally responsible accused have a past finding of NCR; 38.1% of NCR accused of a sexual offence had at least one prior....Those facts have to be brought into the analytical picture so we get a more objective understanding of what is in fact going on.

That was May 27. Yet, the minister cited from the old report.

To illustrate the problem with but one example in his intervention, the scary sounding statistic that 38.1% of NCR accused of a sexual offence had at least one prior NCR finding is in fact incorrect. In reality, the number is only 9.5%. The government knew of this fact two months before the statement of the minister.

It is not surprising that in the same debate the leader of the Green Party stated, “I was baffled by the statistics used earlier in the debate by the Minister of Natural Resources...”.

I think many watching that debate were also.

However, where it gets more baffling is the response from the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, wherein he stated:

the Minister of Natural Resources cited a few recidivism statistics, and whether it is 27.3% of NCR accused who have had past findings of NCR, or 4% or 7% as the member stated, what is important in this legislation is that prosecutors would have some additional tools....

What is important is that parliamentarians are provided with the facts. What is important is that this House is not misled.

I submit that the Minister of Natural Resources misled the House in his interventions on May 27, citing crucial statistics that the government previously acknowledged had been since revised. Moreover, I submit that the Minister of Justice misled the House on May 27, as well, when in response to a question from the leader of the Green Party about the Crocker report in particular, he stated:

Mr. Speaker, we have actually commissioned a couple of reports and I referred to some of the statistics in the final report that was given to us in November 2012.

By the Minister's own signature on the order for return on May 27, he acknowledged that an amended report was given to the justice department on March 18. Therefore, he misled the House, by stating on May 27 that the “final” report was “given to us in November 2012”.

Mr. Speaker, in your ruling on March 18 of this year, and found on page 14854 of the Debates, you reiterated that:

Our parliamentary practice sets a very high threshold for the Speaker to make a prima facie finding of privilege.

Citing a previous ruling from last year, you reiterated the three findings you must make regarding misleading statements. I will quote from your ruling, Mr. Speaker:

one, it must be proven that the statement was misleading; two, it must be established that the member making the statement knew at the time that the statement was incorrect; and three, [it must be proven] that in making the statement, the member intended to mislead the House.

Briefly going through each element, the Minister of Justice calling the November 2012 report final was misleading when there was a corrected March report. By his own pen, he acknowledged the March report's existence in May. The question he was asked was about the Crocker report in particular, and it was the minister who volunteered the qualifying adjective “final”. I therefore submit that this misled the House, as did the reliance on the old report on the same day in debate by the Minister of Natural Resources.

On that last point, Mr. Speaker, you quoted Speaker Milliken's ruling of April 21, 2005, found at page 5412 of Debates, wherein the former Speaker reminded the House of a key element to consider when finding a prima facie instance of privilege. Specifically, he said:

...whether the minister's responses in any way impeded members in the performance of their parliamentary duties and whether the remarks were intentionally misleading.

Mr. Speaker, members are impeded in their functions when they are denied evidence and facts used in crucial arguments for or against legislation. Various members have raised concerns over the statistics involved in this file. It is clear that the member who asked the question to the Minister of Justice that elicited the “final report” answer was upset that she could not further question the Minister of Natural Resources about his statistics from said report, and remarked in this place, “I wish I could have gotten a question to him”.

Those statements of May 27 were right before the bill went to committee, and as I understand it members will be beginning clause-by-clause examination this evening. They have thus been operating with incorrect data before them, an issue raised by witnesses this past Monday. Again, this is something that prejudices all members, regardless of party.

On this point, I refer you to an intervention from the Conservative member for Prince Albert on Bill C-54, when he said:

There has been a limited amount of data on the rates of reoffending by NCR accused persons.

and then:

These reforms will provide the data we consider necessary....

I think that member would be pleased to learn that there is such data and that the government is in possession of it, though whether or not he reaches the same conclusion upon its review is a different story.

As I draw to a close, I return to the issue of the report. I submit that the corrected version was required of this government in its answer to Question No. 1169 to the extent it cited such a report as a source of current, correct data.

Moreover, as the Debates of March 1, before the corrected report was brought to the government's attention, illustrate that the government undertook to provide members with data. In particular, the Minister of Justice cited statistics and said in response to a question, “There are statistics, and I would be glad to share the report with the hon. member”, later again repeating, “Those are statistics and findings that have been researched. I would be pleased, of course, to share this with the hon. member in more detail”.

I do not believe the House or committee sought more information from the minister of the government because we took the minister at his word to provide the data he and his department had. I believe the government undertook this obligation of its own accord and therefore created an impression in the minds of members that it would be forthright with the data. As we now know, it was not.

Mr. Speaker, while I realize such matters, if found by you to be prima facie breaches of privilege, are referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, there are other avenues here that may be more helpful. While I do believe you should find that the House and committee have been misled by the minister cited, I am more concerned about the remedy.

While I doubt the government would be willing to put Bill C-54 on hold until it had data it considered reliable and accurate with regard to persons found non-criminally responsible, I would accept this. Moreover, I would even consider abandoning this privilege claim if the government were to table the new report in the House and explain why it did not choose to do so when it was first made aware of the correction. While I realize other members affected by this situation may have a different approach and wish to see this at the Procedure and House Affairs committee, I simply need to have the correct numbers placed before the House.

In closing, all members of this place, regardless of party, benefit from having facts and data before them when legislating and, indeed, I would argue we all have a right to know. The government knew, but kept members in the dark and, by its own admission, made an effort to conceal.

This is something that ought to be sanctioned as, if left uncorrected, remains a standing affront to the privileges of all members of this place.

[Susan O'Sullivan, Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and esteemed committee members.

Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss Bill C-54, which seeks to enhance public safety and better meet the needs of victims in cases where an accused is determined to be not criminally responsible, or NCR.

To begin, I would like to take the opportunity to provide a brief overview of our office's mandate.

As you may know, the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime was created in 2007 to provide a voice for victims at the federal level. We do this through our mandate by receiving and reviewing complaints from victims; promoting and facilitating access to federal programs and services for victims of crime; providing information and referrals; promoting the basic principles of justice for victims of crime; raising awareness among criminal justice personnel and policy-makers about the needs and concerns of victims; and identifying systemic and emerging issues that negatively impact on victims of crime.

In other words, we help victims individually and collectively. We help the victims individually by speaking with victims every day, answering their questions, and addressing their complaints. We help victims collectively by reviewing important issues and making recommendations to the federal government on how to improve its laws, policies, or programs to better support victims of crime.

I am pleased to be here today to bring a victim's perspective to this bill. I thank you for your part in wanting to ensure that victims' voices are heard.

Our discussion today focuses on legislation specific to those found to be not criminally responsible for serious personal injury offences, those who, in light of their mental condition, should not be held to account for the crimes they have committed. It is important to keep in mind the distinction between a convicted offender and someone found to be NCR and to ensure that those with mental illnesses are treated appropriately.

I believe strongly in increased supports to help those with mental illness in our communities, and in the importance of support as prevention by helping to address these issues before they result in tragedy. However, I also want to offer you another point to consider throughout your study of this bill. Following any violent crime, regardless of whether the accused is found to be not criminally responsible or a convicted offender, the trauma a victim experiences is, in all cases, devastating. Regardless of the mental condition of an accused, victims' needs must be met and their treatment and rights should be equitable. We know that all victims will need to be treated with respect, to be informed on how the process works and their role within it, to have their needs and input considered, and to be protected from intimidation or harm.

My office has on several occasions spoken with victims and victim advocates, who have brought their concerns regarding this issue to our attention. Through these discussions, we have identified several significant gaps in legislation and policy that ultimately carry negative impacts, on both victims directly and more broadly on public safety.

Two years ago, in June 2011, I wrote to the Minister of Justice recommending certain reforms in the not criminally responsible cases in order to ensure that the needs of victims of crime were met. These recommendations related to two items: the importance of considering both victim and public safety in all release decisions, and the lack of rights, policies, and support in place for victims of NCR cases.

In terms of public safety, my office recommended that review boards give paramount consideration to public safety and ensure that an inquiry is made about the whereabouts of the victims of the offence before making any release recommendations. With respect to the consideration of the victims, we recommended the provision of funding for victims to attend review board hearings and the implementation of notifications for victims regarding the transfer, release, or other status changes of the accused, as is currently available in the federal corrections system.

I am encouraged to see that Bill C-54 addresses a number of our recommendations, and I strongly support these proposed changes. Specifically, I am pleased to see, and strongly support, the prioritization of public safety as the paramount consideration for court and review board decision-making and the increased information provided to victims.

In addition to these elements, Bill C-54 also makes additional changes by proposing a high-risk designation that could be applied to accused persons who meet certain criteria. This particular section of the bill pertains to the effective management and treatment of those determined to be not criminally responsible, which falls outside the scope of the expertise of my office, so I will limit my remarks to the elements of the bill that specifically relate to the victims—the other two issues.

Bill C-54 proposes to ensure that public safety is the paramount consideration in the decision-making process for not criminally responsible cases. I think that considering the safety of the public just makes sense to most Canadians. Public safety is without a doubt an issue of concern for all victims. Many, if not most, of the victims I talk to tell me that above all else they do not want what happened to them to happen to anyone else. This increased emphasis on public safety will provide assurance to the victims that their safety is being considered in decisions and may help to further reduce victimization.

Bill C-54 also proposes measures specific to victim safety; namely, that the court and review board consider whether it is desirable in the interests of the safety and security of any person, particularly a victim or witness, to impose a non-communication order or to require that the accused refrain from going to particular locations. While the option for non-communication orders already exists, mandating the requirement to consider this option puts a specific and important emphasis on the consideration of a victim's needs and safety.

Bill C-54 also proposes that victims who request it be notified of conditional or absolute discharges. This change helps to enhance victims' treatment in the system by increasing their access to information, which may further contribute to their sense of safety.

I support these measures entirely.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, regardless of the mental state of the accused, victims have certain basic needs: the need to be informed of the process, including their rights within it, and the need to have their safety considered. Providing victims with information about the accused's progress and release into the community can significantly increase their sense of safety and may increase their confidence that the accused is accessing supports to promote and maintain mental health. This information may also help victims to address general feelings of anxiety and isolation that come from finding themselves in an unknown and unfamiliar system, to prepare up-to-date relevant victim statements for review board hearings, and to plan for their safety.

Additionally, having this type of information may help victims on their healing journey. Experts state that:

In addition to the victim's need to feel safe, information about the offender's treatment plan and movement within the correctional system may promote the psychological healing of some victims, and may directly increase victim satisfaction with the justice process.

Though we must be careful to note that this relates to victims of an offender who is sentenced and who moves through the criminal justice process, it's not difficult to imagine how the same types of information could also assist victims in NCR cases.

Despite these benefits, victims in NCR cases have significantly fewer entitlements to information than do those offenders who move through the corrections and conditional release system. To address this gap, I recommend that Bill C-54 be further enhanced to ultimately provide victims in NCR cases with rights similar to those of victims in the criminal justice system.

Please note that all of the recommendations I am going to provide should apply only in cases where they do not pose a safety risk to the accused, the facility, or an individual, and only in cases where the victim requests the information.

Specifically I recommend that the following rights be added to the bill: that victims be advised of the location of the forensic facility where the accused is detained; that victims be given advance notice of any scheduled absence, either escorted or unescorted, from the hospital, and the general destination, city or town, to which the accused will be travelling; that victims be given advance notice of the destination of release or conditional discharge, or if the accused, on conditional discharge, will be travelling to the vicinity of the victims; that victims be informed of any conditions of release for the accused when they are conditionally discharged into the community—this may include such things as mandated medication or treatment, non-communication with children or others, the requirement to attend treatment sessions, general mobility restrictions, and more—and that victims be given advance notice of any scheduled transfer to another facility or change in the level of security of their ward, or move by the accused to another province or territory, for the purpose of treatment.

In addition to these measures, I would also recommend that upon request, victims be given a chance to view, but not retain, a photo of the accused at time of release; that victims be notified when there are additional or increased restrictions on liberties placed on the accused, such as when the accused is brought back into the facility or has been transferred from a minimum to a medium or maximum security unit; and that victims be notified when non-communication orders are put in place.

Finally, though it relates to the administration of justice and is therefore a provincial matter, I would also submit for consideration the need to ensure that these rights are implemented effectively and that there are clear roles and processes in place in each province or territory to ensure victims receive the notifications they are entitled to. Having requested and received information from the Department of Justice's Policy Centre for Victim Issues, our office became aware that not all provinces and territories necessarily have a system in place to ensure victim notification. Without these systems in place to ensure that victims are, in fact, being notified, a codified right to notification becomes notional.

In conclusion, I strongly support Bill C-54's proposal to ensure that public safety is a paramount consideration in the decision-making related to the release of an accused as well as the inclusion of further measures to enhance victims' rights. If the further measures recommended are included, I believe that Bill C-54 will help ensure more equitable rights for victims of crime in cases where an accused is found to be not criminally responsible. All victims of crime deserve to be informed, considered, and protected, regardless of the mental state of the person who harmed them.

Thank you for the opportunity to bring the victim perspective to the study of this bill and for your consideration of the recommendations I have provided today to further strengthen this proposed legislation.

Merci.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to meeting number 78 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on Wednesday, June 12. I apologize to our witnesses for the delay, but we were voting in the House.

Our meeting today is televised. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, May 28, 2013, Bill C-54, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act, we have two panels, and then we're going to do clause-by-clause.

Our first panel is here. We have three groups of witnesses, each with 10 minutes. Our first witness is Mr. Thomas Frederick Shreeve, who is appearing as an individual.

You have 10 minutes, sir.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

I'm asking if you support the part of Bill C-54 that allows a victim to request that the accused, if released, not be in a specific place, and also a non-communication order.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll ask one question due to limited time, and I'll go down the line.

Bill C-54 would provide the authority for a non-communication order between an NCR individual and the victim, and an order that the accused not attend a specific place upon the request of the victim.

Mr. Bedarf, you brought that up in one of your comments, so I'm assuming you support those two pieces in this legislation.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank our guests for being here this evening.

My first question is for the representatives of the Association des groupes d'intervention en défense des droits en santé mentale du Québec and the Canadian Mental Health Association. They can take turns answering it.

Were your two associations consulted about Bill C-54? If so, in what way?

[Michel Surprenant, President, Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared]

Good evening. My name is Michel Surprenant, and I am the president of the AFPAD, or the Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared.

I would like to thank the members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for having me here today for the study of Bill C-54.

I would like to share a few examples of not criminally responsible cases that have been of concern to member families of the association in recent years and that justify the AFPAD's support of this bill.

Allow me to start by telling you a little bit about the AFPAD, which I represent. It was founded by victims' families for victims' families. The main mission of the Association of the Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared is to support, advise and defend the interests of families affected by a homicide or disappearance under apparently criminal circumstances. The AFPAD has over 500 member families.

In recent years, a number of cases have attracted the attention of victims in Quebec. I would like to tell you about some of these cases.

I would like to start with the case of Pascal Morin. On February 10, 2012, a little over a year ago, in a murderous fit and affected by a mental illness, Pascal Morin in turn killed his mother, Ginette Roy-Morin, 70 years of age, and his two nieces, Laurence and Juliette Fillion. At the end of his trial, Pascal Morin was found not criminally responsible for his actions under section 16 of the Criminal Code.

No one is questioning the fact that he was sick. He is currently in hospital under the responsibility of the mental health commission. However, the idea of Pascal Morin's being released causes enormous fear on the part of the family and the community, which knows Pascal Morin well.

The idea of releasing such people makes the families of victims and the authorities fear the worst. I would like to quote Francis Fillion, the father of the victims, “Our other daughter, who is five years old, still wonders if her uncle will come and see her and kill her. All I want now is to take care of my family without the fear that he can visit her!”

Furthermore, the mayors of the Saint-Roman region have asked the government to intervene to prevent this type of case. On December 8, 2012, the council of mayors of the Granit RCM expressed that it was urgent to find solutions so that tragedies like this wouldn't happen in the future.

According to the AFPAD, in addition to strengthening medical resources for people with mental health issues, Bill C-54 is an essential solution.

As Dr. Gaston said during her testimony before the committee on June 5, 2013, a distinction needs to be made between primary and secondary prevention. Primary prevention means providing resources to treat individuals with mental health issues before their case become so severe that they are a danger to other members of society. The provincial government is responsible for taking care of this because it comes under the responsibility of health care authorities.

Furthermore, when a crime has been committed and it involves serious personal injury, the AFPAD believes it is reasonable and fair to take preventive measures so that an individual who committed a crime, but who was deemed not criminally responsible, cannot commit another one. To achieve that, the person needs to remain very closely monitored for a certain number of years.

Bill C-54 will ensure that the most serious cases cannot be quickly released from hospital. That doesn't mean putting them in prison, but rather giving them the care they need.

Bill C-54 is a reasonable and fair response that could have enabled Ronald Malo's family to feel respected as victims. Remember that Ronald Malo was murdered in cold blood by Rolland Belzil at the Verchères city hall. Rolland Belzil was found not criminally responsible after he was charged with attempted murder in 2012 of two City of Verchères employees in Montérégie. A third charge, for the murder of his 80-year-old neighbour, Ronald Malo, was brought later.

The justice system needs Bill C-54 to restore public confidence in institutions of the judicial system. When citizens lose confidence in the justice system, not only does it lead to distrust of judges, defence lawyers and Crown attorneys, but it also causes mistrust and fear within families and the community. These fears are not unjustified.

Rolland Belzil stabbed his neighbour, Ronald Malo, to death following a dispute over a fence that had gone on for 12 years. He then went to city hall, where he allegedly attacked Luc Fortier, the city manager, and Martin Massicotte, his assistant, at knifepoint. Allow me to quote the lawyer of the victims, who had the opportunity to be represented. These comments by Christine Dubreuil-Duchaine appeared in an article:

“At what point do we declare a person dangerous or not? How far can we go without there being any true consequences? As far as I'm concerned, this situation mirrors that of Guy Turcotte...,” said Ms. Dubreuil-Duchaine.

According to the lawyer, the Quebec justice system needs to ask the right questions, so that there are no more situations like Ronald Malo's. Should justice be harsher? Should we step in more quickly?

“Someone paid with their life for these questions to be asked,” lamented Ms. Dubreuil-Duchaine....

I would also like to tell you about the case of Alain Piché, an accountant who lived in Cap-de-la-Madeleine and who had no prior criminal record. However, on March 19, 2007, Alain Piché killed his parents. He cut off their heads with an axe and a blunt object before hiding their bodies in a freezer. In July 2008, the court rendered its verdict and found him not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. In June 2009, Piché was admitted to the Institut Philippe-Pinel.

The mental disorder review board had granted Piché unescorted absences. I repeat: they were unescorted absences. The only condition imposed on him was that he not communicate with members of his family. The attending medical team was even given the power to determine the terms, duration and frequency of his absences based on his clinical state and his behaviour.

This raised the indignation of the criminal and penal prosecuting attorney responsible for the case, Jean-François Bouvette. He had deplored the fact that it was up to the board to monitor Alain Piché's absences and to issue conditions to ensure the public's safety. This example clearly reveals the fear that this type of permission can lead to in the community. This example also shows the risks of giving the mental disorder review board too much leeway.

Thanks to Bill C-54, the most serious cases of personal injury can be better monitored. It will be up to judges to determine when a person will be at high risk and when that person is no longer at high risk. High-risk individuals will not be able to go out into the community. They will have to receive intensive medical care, surrounded by trained medical personnel. Some might say that it is stigmatizing toward individuals with mental illness. The AFPAD feels that it is a secondary prevention measure that will protect the lives and safety of community members, including families and individuals with a mental illness who have not committed any serious offences.

I will close by reminding you that these cases of being not criminally responsible, including the case of Guy Turcotte, who killed his two children, affected the population. A mother from Sherbrooke, Fanny Denoncourt, who was quite shocked by the outcome of the Guy Turcotte trial, took the initiative of organizing a march to denounce violence against children. The protest took place on March 2, 2013, in the streets of Sherbrooke, and other similar protests were held at the same time elsewhere in Quebec to demand tougher criminal legislation.

On behalf of victims, on behalf of future victims who will have to experience tragedies, on behalf of the population, we ask you to support Bill C-54 and pass it as quickly as possible; otherwise, the justice system will lose even more of its legitimacy.

Thank you.

[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?

[David M. Parry]

The reason the CBA thinks that this could be overly broad is that there is no specific definition given to the brutal nature of the offence. That is extremely problematic, because one of the fundamental principles of our Canadian criminal law is that the law has to be certain; otherwise, one of our fundamental concepts in criminal law, that the law has to be clear for you to be convicted of breaking it, just won't be present.

I think the danger with the high-risk designation is that because it is unclear, it could start to be applied to more and more offences. That is problematic, because we're then shifting the focus away from looking at the treatment of the accused—what the accused's mental condition actually is—towards the nature of the offence that was committed. That goes against the whole purpose behind Bill C-54, which is to shift attention to public safety.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Burstein.

I would like to ask Ms. Pate a question.

Victims have often told us that what matters to them is to have financial and psychological support.

In your view, how will Bill C-54 provide victims with financial and psychological support?

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to our witnesses for coming here to shed some light for us on these matters.

I would like to start with a short preamble. We are particularly interested in how we can help victims in this process. Over the next few weeks, we will try to determine which approach is best and we will talk to law experts, such as yourself, and mental health experts. We are also going to hear from victims we have previously talked to and representatives from the provinces.

That said, we must not play political games. We want to study all the arguments of each party on their own merits to find a solution that is as balanced as possible. Of course, this would be done by respecting the rule of law and the Canadian charters of rights and freedoms.

I have a question for Mr. Burstein and Ms. Dann.

You said that Bill C-54 was not heading in the right direction. Could you tell me what suggestions or recommendations you would make to ensure that it does head in the right direction?

[David M. Parry, Member, National Criminal Justice Section, Canadian Bar Association]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. It is a true honour to speak to you today and to be part of this very important conversation we're having this afternoon.

I feel that Bill C-54 presents many unique opportunities to change the law in this area, and I want to discuss the implications of this bill and some of the potential consequences it could have.

When Minister Nicholson was before this committee on Monday, he spoke about a need for a balance in what the Supreme Court has called the “twin goals” of the NCR regime. That is on the one hand public safety, and on the other hand, fair treatment of the NCR accused.

However, if balance is the issue, then the Canadian Bar Association respectfully submits that Bill C-54 gets that balance wrong. This imbalance here is significant, because getting it wrong ultimately puts long-term public safety in jeopardy.

No one denies the pressing need for adequate protection of the public. However, true protection of the public requires much more than detaining the NCR accused. Long-term public safety is best achieved through treatment and reintegration into society. Unfortunately, Bill C-54 does little to encourage this. The CBA supports some provisions of Bill C-54 but recommends against others.

I will now discuss the three major amendments proposed by the bill.

First, the CBA supports the proposed requirement that victims be notified, if they so choose, of the NCR accused's discharge, as well as the option for review boards to issue no-contact orders.These amendments fill a gap and have the laudable goal of addressing the needs of victims in the NCR regime. These build upon the introduction of victim impact statements in 2005, and the CBA fully supports them.

The second amendment I want to discuss is the removal of the “least onerous and least restrictive” requirement. The CBA recommends against this.

Under the current regime, review boards must make a disposition that is the least onerous and restrictive to the NCR accused, taking into consideration public safety, the mental condition of the accused, their reintegration into society, and their other needs. Public safety is already a fundamental consideration for review boards when deciding whether to release or detain an NCR accused. It's front and centre.

In the words of then Justice McLachlin in the Winko decision, “it ensures that the NCR accused’s liberty will be trammelled no more than is necessary to protect public safety”.

This requirement of being the least onerous and least restrictive is thus an important component of the balanced approach of the current regime. The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the “least onerous and restrictive” requirement is at the heart of the constitutional validity of the NCR regime. Several cases going back nearly 15 years have affirmed this standard as essential for compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The proposed amendment to remove this language would bring that constitutional validity into question. Introducing the new and untested language of “reasonable” and “necessary” in the circumstances serves to negate the goal of consistent application of the law by review boards across the country.

Likewise, the proposal to make public safety the primary consideration in the bill disturbs the crucial balance between public safety and fair treatment of the NCR accused by making one more important than the other. This is another component that the Supreme Court has repeatedly identified as central to the current regime.

The CBA therefore recommends that the committee not remove the “least onerous and the least restrictive” requirement.

The third and final amendment I wish to discuss is the proposed addition of a designation of high risk that would apply to some NCR accused. The CBA submits that this addition is not only self-defeating but counterproductive to the goal of enhancing public safety.

First, the proposed high risk regime suggests that just because the NCR accused has committed one serious offence, they will do so again. Existing evidence suggests the exact opposite. Furthermore, the Winko decision is clear that there can be no presumption of dangerousness. We moved away from the stereotype of the mad offender in the Swain decision nearly 20 years ago.

Second, the proposal risks being overbroad. That means the means to achieve its objectives are broader than necessary. This brings its constitutionality into question. The consequence of being designated high risk is that the NCR accused falls into a different custody regime.

It is unclear how this furthers the goal of enhancing public safety. The extra restrictions placed upon a high risk NCR accused could be characterized as punitive in nature. The objective ought not to be punishment because the accused has not been convicted of a crime.

However, if enacted, what does the CBA propose? We have three recommendations.

First, we recommend eliminating the proposed subsection enabling courts to designate an NCR accused as high risk if it 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.

Second, if this proposed subsection is not eliminated, then the CBA recommends that it should be redrafted to provide greater clarity, including a definition of “brutal nature” and a statement that the focus is on future conduct.

Finally, if the high risk regime is enacted, the CBA recommends adding a procedural mechanism to permit the NCR accused to apply directly to the court on an annual basis to remove the designation. This would encourage his or her progress and treatment.

I'd like now to offer some concluding remarks for the committee's consideration.

Our understanding of treatment and societal acceptance of mental illness have come a long way. We must always remember that the NCR accused is not a prisoner but a patient who needs effective treatment. That treatment is how we ensure public safety in the long term. Bill C-54 must recognize this essential point: an NCR verdict is not an opportunity to exact retribution on an immensely ill offender.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I look forward to the committee's questions.

[Terry Hancock, Staff Lawyer, Law Reform, Canadian Bar Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

The Canadian Bar Association is very pleased to appear before you this afternoon and discuss Bill C-54. The CBA is a national association representing 37,000 lawyers across Canada.

One of the Canadian Bar Association's objectives is to improve the law and the administration of justice. That is the approach we used in examining Bill C-54.

The submissions you have received were prepared by the National Criminal Justice Section of the Canadian Bar Association. The section includes defence lawyers, prosecutors and law professors from each province and territory in Canada.

With that I'm very pleased to introduce you to Mr. David Parry, a member of our national criminal justice section, who will provide you with the salient points of our submission.

Thank you.

[Erin Dann, Member, Criminal Lawyers' Association]

Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee.

I had the opportunity to listen to the last panel and the compelling testimony of both Ms. de Delley and Dr. Gaston. I was moved, as I expect all of you were, by that testimony. Their testimony and the testimony of other victims and family members who come before you highlight the very difficult task that this committee has before it.

As legislators, you are responsible for looking beyond the sometimes horrific nature of these offences and perhaps our natural inclination to want to see a perpetrator punished. By definition, people who are found NCR are not morally culpable for their crimes. As our Supreme Court has said and as our jurisprudence has decided, they did not appreciate what they were doing, or they did not understand it was morally wrong, and these individuals may have their liberty restricted only for reasons of public protection and for treatment, but not for punishment.

The Criminal Lawyers' Association applauds Parliament's desire to ensure that victims and all Canadians are adequately protected from the involuntary misconduct of seriously mentally disordered persons. For that reason, we support the provisions of Bill C-54 aimed at increasing victim engagement and notice to victims and the other related provisions.

Unfortunately, in our view, the remainder of the amendments contained in the bill do not further Parliament's laudable goal. We say that because they aim at the post-verdict treatment rather than the pre-offence circumstances of these seriously mentally disordered persons.

In the words of Justice Richard Schneider, who is the head of the Ontario Review Board and one of this country's leading thinkers on the issues of mental illness and criminal law, “Assuming there was a real problem with the current scheme, the proposed amendments completely miss the target.”

I think consideration of the case of Vince Li perhaps will demonstrate some of the shortcomings of the legislation. It also is instructive because it is clearly one of the most difficult and traumatic cases that we in the public have heard about. When Mr. Li killed Mr. McLean, he was not subject to any review board disposition. He had never had contact with any review board system at all. He was, however, actively psychotic, and his mental illness, schizophrenia, was untreated.

By all public accounts, he has done well in treatment. He has gained insight into his illness, understands that he will need to take medication for the rest of his life, and is open to a court order requiring him to do so. While initially confined to a locked wing of a hospital, in 2010 he was granted grounds privileges. Last year, he was given the privilege of escorted passes in the community and just last month was granted further privileges allowing supervised full-day trips into the community, on the recommendation of his treatment team.

At the hearing, the crown, the representative of the Attorney General of Manitoba, did not oppose the increase in privileges, and we can assume that he or she did that because they accepted the evidence that those privileges would not be a risk to the public. Under the current regime as it stands, Mr. Li will remain detained until releasing him would not present a risk to the public. There is no need for him to be designated a high risk.

The CLA urges the committee to consider the possible negative impacts that such a designation could have, particularly the second pathway to this designation, whereby the court can make the designation on the basis that the offences “were of such a brutal nature as to indicate a risk of grave...harm to another person”. Whatever the definition of “brutal” is—and the CLA submits in our written submissions that there may be a problem with the vagueness of that term—Mr. Li's case would seem likely to meet it.

The problems with this provision are multifold.

First, the CLA is aware of no evidence that the brutality of the index offence is connected to the rate of reoffending or recidivism.

Second, the brutality of the index offence will not change, no matter the progress the offender makes. As currently worded, the provision suggests that even where a court concludes that Mr. Li poses no risk of violence, pursuant to proposed paragraph 672.64(1)(a) of that provision, the designation could remain under proposed paragraph 672.64(1)(b) because of his past act.

Third, where this designation is made, the NCR accused is deprived of rehabilitative privileges, such as passes into the community, even where the exercise of such privileges would not present a risk to the public.

This has a potentially disrupting effect on the therapeutic nature of the psychiatrist-patient relationship, increasing frustration and providing less motivation for rehabilitation, paradoxically potentially increasing public risk.

What the high-risk designation would not do is ensure that someone like Mr. Li is identified, treated, and monitored before he deteriorates to a point where his illness produces a serious violent crime.

The CLA's position is that if this government is committed to preventing the criminal consequences of serious mental illness, it must devote more resources and support to the provincial authorities responsible for mental health. The government has established the Mental Health Commission of Canada, which we applaud and view as an excellent initiative. What we would ask is that you listen to their sage advice.

In their policy documents and strategy documents they say that the way to reduce the overrepresentation of people with mental illness in our criminal justice system is a robust mental health care system aimed at prevention. We need to increase the role of the civil mental health system in providing services, treatment, and supports to individuals in the criminal justice system before they commit these horrific acts.

We need to provide training to police about mental health problems and illnesses, how to respond to mental health crises, and information about the services available to them.

If the high-risk designation regime is enacted, the CLA recommends some specific changes to the legislation. They are in our written submission.

In concluding, I want to answer some of the concerns expressed by questions asked of the minister and the Department of Justice on Monday and earlier today.

In terms of recidivism, the Department of Justice commissioned a study by Professor Anne Crocker. It's referred to in our written submissions, and also in the written submissions of the Canadian Bar Association. It sets out some of the statistics on recidivism for NCR accused people.

I also want to suggest that it is crucial for this committee to consider the impact the legislation will have on the capacity of provincial institutions. On this point, I note that this committee back in 2002 reviewed the mental disorder provisions of the Criminal Code, held public hearings, and at that time, 10 years ago, found that the forensic mental health system was strained to the limit and that given the lack of adequate resources it would be irresponsible and unrealistic to recommend the implementation of provisions that would place greater burdens on institutions that are the legal and fiscal responsibility of another government.

The situation, I can tell this committee, has not improved in the last 10 years. The Chief Justice of Canada, Beverley McLachlin, is among the many who have observed that the lack of adequate forensic treatment facilities for mentally disordered offenders is a persistent problem, and a problem that results in individuals waiting extended and lengthy periods of time in custody in a jail facility before they are able to enter into the forensic mental health system.

Our written submission, particularly on pages 9 and 10, highlight many of the cases where this problem has been documented.

Thank you.

[Paul Burstein, Director, Criminal Lawyers' Association]

Mr. Chair, on behalf of the Criminal Lawyers' Association, I want to thank this committee for the opportunity to comment on this very important issue.

It's personally a privilege and a pleasure to once again appear before this committee. My name is Paul Burstein. I'm the immediate past president of the Criminal Lawyers' Association, an association with over 1,200 criminal lawyers. We are one of Canada's largest specialist legal organizations. Like me and my colleague Ms. Dann, most of our members have regular contact with mentally ill people who, after falling through the cracks in our system of mental health, end up embroiled in the criminal justice system.

Personally, I've been working with mentally disordered offenders for over 20 years, since part XX.1 of the Criminal Code was first enacted. That legislation came into force on February 4, 1992. I became a lawyer three days later and have been working under that regime ever since. I've represented many mentally disordered offenders before the Ontario Review Board and on appeals to the courts of appeal against those dispositions.

For almost 20 years I've been part of a small roster of lawyers that the Ontario Court of Appeal appoints to assist it in dealing with mentally disordered offenders who have filed their own appeals against ORB dispositions. I've appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada on a number of very important cases that have dealt with the subject matter of Bill C-54. I've taught courses dealing with mentally disordered offenders. Most important, like so many millions of Canadians, I'm a parent of a child who has long suffered from a major mental illness. I can well appreciate how families are also victims of mental illness in having to deal with the person afflicted with the mental illness and how they act out as a result of their illness.

My colleague Ms. Dann is a former clerk for the Supreme Court of Canada. She also works with a firm that does much work with mentally disordered offenders. She devotes much of her practice to that. On behalf of our association, Ms. Dann will make some brief comments on what our members believe this committee must consider before moving forward with Bill C-54. Then she and I will answer any questions the committee might have. We've left the clerk with some written submissions that further outline our submissions.

Ms. Dann.

[Dr. J. Paul Fedoroff]

Yes. Bill C-54 will do absolutely nothing to reduce the risk of first-time offenders, who are the main offenders. It will do nothing in terms of reducing the risk of returning people who are NCR back into the community. In fact, it may increase the risk, because the bill makes it impossible to test somebody by giving them unescorted passes on grounds before giving them more greater levels of privileges. It's going to delay treatment and make it more difficult to be sure that the person isn't just saying something that we might want to hear.

As I said before, to address the larger issue, what we need is better education of the public and victims to understand that these people are very different, that your mother is very different from a criminal who may have committed the same crime. People with mental illness, by all the principles of jurisprudence, need to be dealt with differently because they don't understand what they are doing at the time.

[Dr. Isabelle Gaston]

Why is he opposed to this reform if he thinks that it does not really change things?

Dr. Fedoroff says that it is unfair to those who have a family member with a mental disorder. What I can say is that even a member of your family could be murdered. Do you understand? There are two sides to every story. By constantly being in contact with people with a mental disorder, perhaps we end up finding them nice and forget that there are other people in society. We forget that our decisions can affect an entire community and many families.

My brother’s best friend is schizophrenic. It is surprising to see schizophrenics and people who suffered from depression and were very ill support these measures. In fact, millions of Canadians suffer from a mental illness, but most of them will never commit a crime. I think Bill C-54 is really a minor precaution in the sense that it will only affect a very small number of people. So I don’t see why we are creating a tempest in a teapot.

They are still people who committed horrible crimes, and I invite you to read the definition. I will not go into the details of what I went through as a mother and what my children went through. When I see the only report card my child had, I find it hard not to feel that it is unfair. I would feel blessed if I could go visit my son or daughter in a psychiatric institution.

There is a whole range of activities and services offered at the Institut Philippe-Pinel, such as macramé, psychological and criminal law services, a pool, mini-golf, and pool tables. Perhaps they feel it is unfair. However, if I could give them a choice, I don’t think Olivier and Anne-Sophie would find it unfair that they are required to be treated in an institution. We are not punishing people. Rather, we are asking them to get treatment and to be careful. That is the least we can do for those who have lost their lives or whose integrity has been damaged.

In addition, we are not talking about 40 years. It has already been four years since my children died. It would be a good idea to enforce this law. I don’t understand why anyone would be opposed to it. I think this legislation is one more step in protecting everyone.

[Dr. Isabelle Gaston]

I always say that on February 20, when my children were murdered, the person who existed that day died with them.

In what I do, I know now that being alive is a privilege. Whether this has an impact on me or not, I know that it will be a good thing for the other families who may follow me, because, unfortunately, there will be other crimes.

One important element in the bill would be the victim's statement. That seems to me to be an important point in Bill C-54. I was interrupted because all of this was very rules-bound. I wanted to show the photograph of my children, but my freedom of expression was curtailed. I think that this bill could lead to some changes.

There's also the fact of having to go back before a judge. Ideally, I would see the trial judge because currently, people wash their hands of things to some extent. They feel they are there only to assess the person who was found not criminally responsible. In my situation, I found it quite remarkable that the individual would have made progress in only one month, when he was assessed by the same psychiatrist. According to me, this would allow for a more critical perspective. I am aware of the fact that the board does very good work, but sometimes, because of regulations related to the right to information, it is difficult to assess the work these people do.

In Quebec, you see, these things are done behind closed doors. There are people at the Institut Philippe-Pinel in Montreal, there are some in Trois-Rivières and some in Quebec, but those who committed the most serious crimes are mostly sent to the Montreal Philippe-Pinel Institute and no one evaluates the work the people involved do in that regard.

To answer your question, I think that this bill offers a certain protection because of the fact that the accused would return before the same judge.

In my situation, we would have to see. I don't think it would apply.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Ms. de Delley and Madame Gaston, our thoughts are with you.

It is very difficult for us to hear all of that. That said, it is an honour to have you here. I thank you for having taken the time to come and testify. We congratulate you on your courage. Sharing your experience allows us to better understand what is going on. It is very meaningful for us to hear people like you tell us about their experience.

I would like to begin with Ms. Gaston.

Last Monday, when the Minister of Justice was here, I asked him whether in this specific case of Mr. Turcotte, Bill C-54 would apply, especially as concerns the definition of a high-risk individual. The minister and the officials representing the Department of Justice were unable to answer the question. It is possible that that definition would not apply in this case.

Does that change your perspective on the bill to some extent? I think that you raised — and we understand that — the issue of notification. That really wasn't discussed. This is more in connection with the fact that in the case of a high-risk individual such as Guy Turcotte, the bill would not apply.

[Dr. J. Paul Fedoroff, President, Canadian Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Canadian Psychiatric Association]

Thank you very much for this kind invitation to present to you on behalf of the Canadian Psychiatric Association, and to sit next to Dr. Gaston, to whom I extend my sincere condolences.

I believe I was chosen for this honour because I am president of the Canadian Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, which is the largest organization of psychiatrists who specialize in assessing, managing, and treating the population that Bill C-54 will directly impact. However, I may also have qualifications on the basis that I am a practising psychiatrist at the Royal in Ottawa.

This legislation is about victims. Looking around this room, I know that some of you will be affected by this legislation. I know this because one in five Canadians is affected by a significant mental health problem. That means that virtually everyone in this room has at least one family member with this problem. In the same way that not every person with mental illness is honoured to have a family member in the House of Commons, most people with mental health problems do not commit crimes. In fact, most violent crimes are committed by people with no mental illness. Bill C-54 will not affect the majority of violent crimes against Canadians because they are committed by criminals who intend to break the law. Even among the people with mental health problems, the small percentage of whom commit crimes, most will not be affected in any way by Bill C-54. The legislation itself acknowledges this fact and states it applies only to a small proportion of accused with mental health problems.

Who are these people with mental health problems which Bill C-54 applies to? They are people with mental illnesses so severe that a judge in a court of law has determined that at the time of the crime, because of their mental illness, they were unable to appreciate the nature or consequences of what they were doing, or to know that what they were doing was wrong.

The Criminal Code of Canada, as in all civilized countries, recognizes that it is an injustice to hold a person responsible for their actions if their mind was so impaired they did not know what they were doing. These people are declared NCR, not criminally responsible, in a court of law by a judge, not a psychiatrist, and are referred to as “NCR accused”. Any one of you at this table could have a relative who is declared an NCR accused. I say this with the greatest respect because becoming an NCR accused has nothing to do with your personal character or the integrity or respectability of your family. It has to do solely with having a mental illness that prevents you from knowing that what you are doing is against the law and wrong. This is who Bill C-54 affects.

I began by saying that Bill C-54 is about victims. I and everyone in this room agree victims deserve the utmost in respect and care. Now imagine that your relative with a mental health problem, which they did not ask for, commits a violent offence and is found NCR. Who are the victims? The person who was attacked is, for certain, but also the family members of both the victim and the accused, as well as the community. What will Bill C-54 do for victims? It will not increase victim notification. That already happens always. It will not delay the speed with which NCR accused are returned to the community. Most NCRs are followed for longer than three years. It will not change the frequency of board reviews. High-risk offenders typically are seen more frequently, and it would seem bad practice to decrease the hearing times.

Here is what Bill C-54 will do. It will increase the burden on the criminal justice system in the process of designating so-called “high risk”. It will make it harder to transition NCRs safely back to the community since passes, which begin as escorted and lead to unescorted, assist in assessing true risk. It will risk stigmatizing people with significant mental health problems.

For the sake of all victims, including potentially your own relatives, I hope you will reconsider the merits of this bill carefully.

I will finish with a brief anecdote. Suppose a woman suffers from a delusion that a very severe poison is actually healthy. She gives it to her husband and her husband becomes upset or mildly ill. Now, suppose that same woman with the same delusion gives the same poison to her entire family at a birthday party and kills her entire family and all her children. Suppose another person who is a criminal, who intends to kill people, intentionally poisons someone. Ask yourself, is it just, is it fair to treat all those individuals the same way?

Bill C-54 moves us towards treating a person with a delusion as though they were a criminal.

Thank you.

[Dr. Isabelle Gaston, As an Individual]

Good afternoon.

Thank you for having invited me to participate in this meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

I am sure my experience within the system will help you to recognize the importance of Bill C-54, a bill which I support.

I thank Prime Minister Harper for allowing the victims to be heard at long last.

I am an emergency room physician. I practise in a regional hospital centre and our hospital houses the third largest psychiatric department in Quebec. Consequently, many patients with psychiatric illnesses come to my emergency department for treatment.

One fact is more relevant for this committee. I was the mother of Olivier, 5 years old, and Anne-Sophie, 3 years old, who were murdered on February 20, 2009. I was present at all of the legal proceedings and on July 5, 2011, my former husband was found to be not criminally responsible for the death of my children. Afterwards, the work of a fastidious commission of inquiry into mental disorders led to the release on parole of the man who took the life not only of my children, but, by the same token, of two Canadian citizens.

Even though I am at the centre of a terrible tragedy, I hope that you will understand that my testimony is no more and no less biased than that of certain lawyers, psychiatrists or other witnesses who will appear before you. Indeed, some of them seem to forget that there are two sides to every coin. You were elected and you will have to vote on this bill. This topic is too important to be allowed to become a partisan issue, identified with a single party.

No law is entirely perfect and none will ever please everyone. However, I think that a good law is a law that tends to be as fair as possible for the majority of the citizens of a country. Bill C-54 gives priority to public safety.

While rereading the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I realized that defending the right to life and safety is far from easy in Canada. It sounds good on paper, but when someone is dead, I get the impression that we tend to forget them. In Canada, all human beings are considered to be equal in value and dignity. Everyone is supposed to have an equal right to protection before the law. Actually, that is not the reality. This bill will give everyone the protection they are entitled to, not only to us, the victims, but to everyone in society.

When people object that the bill will do nothing to further prevention, that the rate of recidivism is low and that it will stigmatize those with a mental illness, I think that they are straying from the topic. They are forgetting to draw a distinction between primary prevention and secondary prevention. They forget that a serious crime was committed. That cannot be just set aside. They forget that someone else was the victim of a crime and someone else will be a victim if there is a subsequent offence.

People have to stop accusing those who are in favour of the bill—people like myself, for instance—of lacking empathy for those dealing with mental illness. That is a false argument. I am not lacking in empathy, quite the opposite. I am in favour of rehabilitation and I understand the suffering caused by a mental illness. I treat patients who are psychotic, depressive or suicidal with the same energy as those who come in with a heart attack.

It would be fairer, in order to really understand my position, to know the hierarchy of my values. I find it unfortunate that a person suffering from a mental illness commits a crime, but I find it even more unfortunate that someone loses their life or well-being because of that crime. For me, the death of Olivier and Anne-Sophie demands that I require that the system protect my life, my well-being and that of others, because it is when you lose those you love that you realize that being alive and healthy is a privilege.

Certain psychiatrists claim that this act will undo years of progress and that it is very unfair. Unfair to whom? According to you, is it unfair to demand that we be cautious? I do not agree with those who claim that the defenders of this bill are trying to be punitive with people who are not criminally responsible. Injustice is sustained by everyone, myself, my children and all of society. If you believe that demanding that the person who took someone's life receive care and at least short-term supervision is punitive, we do not have the same vision of the work done by mental health workers.

I am quite willing to be sensitive and acknowledge that it is not always easy to be in a psychiatric institution, but it is much better than being six feet underground. The atrocious death of my children demands that the system not cut corners with my safety and that of other citizens. A non-criminally responsible person will be able to take up their life at the completion of their mental rehabilitation.

If Bill C-54 is passed, certain patients will be declared “high risk” if they have committed a very serious crime, if they have been guilty of serious physical mistreatment of others, or if there is a strong possibility that they may commit other acts of violence. This makes perfect sense to me.

It is time for things to change, because the current state of the system is not very reassuring. In December 2012, even if the commission of inquiry into mental disorders felt that the murderer of my children still presented a serious risk because of his mental state, he was nevertheless released without supervision.

I do not understand the rationale behind such a decision. I have the impression that people are playing Russian roulette with my life. I don't feel protected, really, at this time. People try to reassure me by telling me not to worry, but out of millions of Quebeckers, it was nevertheless my sister and my niece who came face to face with the man who killed my children, in a shopping centre near their home, last February 18. That morning, I had declined the invitation to go shopping with them because I was working that day at 4 o'clock. Why?

I think that all families that are in my position have the right to feel safe, especially in their immediate neighbourhood. On the contrary, we are not informed about anything and we do not have access to the information that would allow us to know what point in the process our aggressor has reached. I have no idea how my former spouse would have reacted to me that day, nor how I would have reacted to him. What I do know however, is that I am afraid. I know that the current system is not there for me. I also know that should there be such a meeting, I would be alone to defend myself before, during, and after that encounter.

It is wise to let a judge decide to release or not release an individual deemed to be “high-risk”. The members of the commission of inquiry into mental illness probably do good work, but as a physician, I know it can be difficult to be both physician and judge. In my opinion, the biggest precaution that should accompany this change in the legislation is that the professional corporations should remind their members of their code of professional conduct and of the ethical rules that govern medico-legal assessment. Professional corporations should also point out that there is a major difference between medical evaluators and practising physicians. Under no circumstances should any physician be authorized to wear both hats. This seriously undermines the confidence of victims.

It would be desirable to increase the length of hospitalization in a psychiatric facility to three years. Even if you cannot force an individual to undergo treatment, you would thereby certainly increase his chances of eventually participating in the rehabilitation activities available to him. At the very least, this would allow for a longer period of observation, so as to permit a better assessment of the person who has committed a serious crime.

In my situation, it took one year before the murderer of Olivier and Anne-Sophie decided to begin therapy. Unfortunately, that therapy was at an “embryonic” stage, according to his physician, when he was paroled in December 2012. At the hearing that preceded that parole, the patient admitted that he had made a great deal of progress, thanks to his stay in hospital, even though he had wanted to be released a year earlier. I would also like to remind you that the expert who testified a year before that parole suggested that the patient be released without any kind of condition. That example is a good illustration of the fact that aside from the patient, the health care team and the experts can also benefit from a longer assessment period.

In conclusion, 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. However, it remains essential in my opinion that a national or at least a provincial reform be brought about to guide the experts who testify before the court. No matter how often the expression “not criminally responsible” is redefined, or how rigorous the follow-up of those who are deemed not criminally responsible by the board responsible for that follow-up, those who interpret the legislation are the ones who can weaken our legal system and generate injustice, both for the accused and for the victims.

That is why it is urgent that rules and procedures be brought in as frames of reference for the experts who testify before the courts. The quality of the expert assessments presented to the judges and jury members must be monitored. Even if most of these expert assessments are of good quality, we must ensure that they respect all the rules of proper practice.

We must require at the very least that these assessments be rigorous, impartial and objective. The trust the general population, and victims, place in our justice system depends on it.

Thank you. I am available to reply to your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Ladies and gentlemen, I call to order meeting number 76 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Today we're televised.

Our orders of the day are pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, May 28, 2013, Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder).

We have three panels and a number of witnesses today. As I said before to members of the committee, each presenter has been offered 10 minutes. I will be a little flexible on that but still make sure they get their presentations in. Then we will have questions. Then we'll go on to the next panel.

We have lost a little time, so we may run this one a couple of minutes past, just to make sure we hear everyone.

I want committee to be aware, so that there are no surprises, that we passed a motion on Monday of last week that independents could come to the committee and move amendments during clause-by-clause consideration. Amendments need to be in prior to that. They've asked whether they can come.

The precedent is this, and this is my ruling on it. They are more than welcome to sit at the table with us. They can listen to the discussion and the presentations. If a member of the committee from one of the recognized parties wants to share some of their time with independents, they're more than welcome to do so. I'll recognize that. Otherwise I'll need unanimous consent of the committee to provide a speaking turn to those individuals. When it comes to clause-by-clause study, I will provide approximately two minutes to those independent individuals to present their amendments, if they have any. They will not be voting, but they can present their amendments at that time.

That is the ruling. They have been made aware of that through correspondence.

Let's begin. We have two individuals and one organization. Ms. Isabelle Gaston is here as an individual. From the Canadian Psychiatric Association we have Mr. Paul Fedoroff. As an individual, we have Carol de Delley. We'll follow the names on the orders of the day.

Madame Gaston, you're first to speak to us. The floor is yours.

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-478.

As my colleagues have already said, this bill amends the Criminal Code to provide that a person convicted of the abduction, sexual assault and murder of one victim is to be sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole until the person has served a sentence of between 25 and 40 years as determined by the presiding judge after considering the recommendation, if any, of the jury.

As my Liberal colleague, the member for Halifax West, stated during the last debate on the bill, we Liberals will be supporting this matter at second reading. We support the principle behind the legislation—that is, we agree that those who are convicted of abduction, sexual assault and murder of one victim should not easily receive parole.

Many community organizations, including the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, also support this bill.

While we are fortunate that such brutality is rare in Canada, we know all too well that this evil does exist. Just this time last year, the nation was gripped with headlines of Luka Magnotta, who is alleged to have killed, raped and dismembered his victim. He is presently awaiting trial on charges including murder and committing an indignity to a body.

Also at this time last year, a sentence was handed down in the case of Michael Rafferty of Woodstock, Ontario, who along with Terri-Lynne McClintic was arrested and charged in the abduction and murder of eight-year-old Victoria Stafford. Both are serving life sentences with no chance of parole for 25 years, Rafferty having been found guilty of first degree murder, sexual assault causing bodily harm and kidnapping.

These names and these cases, like those of Paul Bernardo, Russell Williams and Clifford Olson, clearly prove that this evil does exist in Canada and force us to evaluate the need to amend our Criminal Code accordingly.

Of course, the question might arise as to whether the existing regime is sufficient. All these individuals I have named have been punished, and many will not be out for parole for quite some time.

The answer is that this bill, as the mover noted, is not about punishment. Indeed, it does not increase penalties for any of the associated offences. What Bill C-478 does, however, is extend the period of parole ineligibility to relieve grieving families of the burden of having to relive their awful torment every two years once the offender becomes eligible to seek parole. Indeed, the bill is about ending the re-victimization of families.

It should be noted that the 40-year period that the bill speaks to is not a requirement. Judges are given necessary discretion on this particular point.

That is not to say that the bill is a flawless piece of legislation. These being private members' bills produced with the limited resources that we have as members of Parliament, there are going to be some flaws. Hopefully, at committee we will work hard to make sure that these are perfect bills when they come out of committee.

My colleagues from the NDP have raised concerns regarding its compliance with the charter and with the Rome statute. I am sure these will be questions put to the technical witnesses at the justice committee for which they will undoubtedly have well-researched answers. Surely amendments could then be moved if needed to clarify both our desire to comply with our domestic and international obligations and our desire to achieve our aim of a longer period of parole ineligibility for certain types of offenders.

It is not often that I am able to address the House on matters of criminal justice policy. I am delighted to do so today and I am delighted that the bill before us is not one of the usual mandatory minimum penalty bills that the Liberal Party opposes on policy grounds.

Much of the discussion in the House on justice policy of late has focused on the idea of victims' rights. I am proud to be part of a party that takes the rights of victims seriously and has matched this commitment in word and in action.

On November 1, 2005, the Government of Canada established the National Office for Victims at Public Safety Canada. This office is a single point of contact for victims who have concerns about offenders and questions about the federal correctional system and Canada's justice system.

The office provides victims with information and provides input on policy and legislative initiatives. It also attempts to educate members of the criminal justice system about victims' issues.

Further, although it has perhaps been overlooked in the current debate over Bill C-54, the Liberals proposed the initial amendments to the not criminally responsible regime that permitted a victim to read a victim impact statement at a review board hearing and required courts or review boards to advise a victim of his or her right to submit a victim impact statement at the initial disposition hearing for the accused.

Before closing, I must address one troublesome aspect of the bill as it is before us, not in substance but in form; namely, it is a piece of private member's business that has been endorsed by the Prime Minister and Minister of Justice as a worthwhile and necessary change to the law. Yet, it is something that would have been adopted much faster had it been introduced and advanced as government legislation. Indeed, why was this not part of the crime omnibus bill, Bill C-10? Or, more pertinently, why was this amendment not included in 2011 when Parliament debated Bill S-6, the serious time for the most serious crime act? Surely the government will agree these are serious crimes that deserve serious time.

My point is that the government has had ample opportunity to make this change to the law without having to use private members' hour to advance its agenda. It is a troubling trend because the use of private members' bills limits debate and circumvents charter review, something which is completed by the Department of Justice for only government bills and not private members' bills like Bill C-478.

Another troubling trend is that the Conservatives' justice agenda focuses on punishment without bearing in mind as well the need to adopt preventative measures designed to reduce the number of victims in the first place. Wow. For some types of offences, we should focus on root causes of crime, such as poverty, lack of education, and lack of access to affordable housing. For other types of crime, we should be looking at mental health initiatives for early screening and detection such that individuals may be diverted into the treatment programs they need.

Regrettably, changing sentencing and parole rules, however welcome some changes may be, does not prevent victimization. We must ensure a holistic approach is taken to justice, one that seeks to prevent crime, one that seeks to adequately punish the offender, and one that seeks to better reintegrate offenders into society once they have served their sentences.

In short, there is much more to be done, and Bill C-478 is not a magic bullet to solving the problem of crime in this country. However, as I stated at the outset, I believe the principle behind this bill has merit and thus I will be voting to send it to committee for further study and review.

[Julie Besner]

Bill C-54 states that the review board first looks at the risk aspect and, if it is of the opinion that the person no longer represents a serious danger—we are talking about serious and violent offences—to public safety, it refers the case back to court. That is what is set out in Bill C-54.

[Julie Besner]

So I'd rather focus on what's proposed in Bill C-54 with respect to the mental disorder regime. I think the specific question you had was, why possibly up to three years—

[Julie Besner]

Bill C-54 provides a coming-into-force date of three months after royal assent.

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

Okay.

I had some consultations on Bill C-54. I know the minister had mentioned that he had quite a bit of support expressed by his provincial and territorial counterparts. Specifically, he did mention some victims' groups. Do you have any specific groups that were consulted on some of the provisions in Bill C-54?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I certainly appreciate our testimony from the witnesses today. I've actually received some correspondence from some of my constituents. I was actually hoping to ask the minister, but obviously, I am very happy to have you here. Some of the questions that have been brought up in regard to some of this legislation....

Again, I want to thank the analysts, Mr. Chair, for putting together so many good questions for us, because there are a number of questions I'd like to ask. Part XX.1 of the code came into force in 1992. This was in response to the Supreme Court decision in R. v. Swain. It was amended in 2005 in response to the court’s decision in R. v. Demers and the parliamentary review undertaken by the Committee on Justice and Human Rights in 2002.

The minister gave a very good analysis in his testimony, and actually, I think I'm going to take that testimony and send it to one of my constituents.

In your opinion, what impact would Bill C-54 have on cases like we've seen, such as Vince Li, Allan Schoenborn, and Guy Turcotte?

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

Mr. Chair, as you know, in subcommittee we added some hours to accommodate more witnesses in the study of this bill. Also I believe we agreed we would do the clause-by-clause on June 12. I'd like to propose a motion that the amendments be presented within a certain timeframe, no later than 4 p.m. on June 10, which is of course a couple of days prior to June 12, when we're going to do the clause-by-clause.

Also in the context of this amendment I would like to permit a broader consultation and permit the participation of all members of Parliament, including those who are not represented on the committee, and of course those would be the independents, the Bloc, and Ms. May of the Green Party. It's about giving them some input, some inclusion into this whole process.

So if you permit me, Mr. Chair, I'll read the motion.

That, in relation to the Order of Reference of Tuesday, May 28, 2013, respecting Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder), (a) amendments shall be submitted to the clerk of the Committee no later than 4:00 p.m. on June 10, 2013, for the clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill, which is to be completed on June 12, 2013, and be distributed to the members in both official languages; (b) the Chair shall forthwith write to each Member of Parliament who is not a member of a caucus represented on the Committee to invite those Members to file with the clerk of the Committee any amendments to the Bill which they would propose that the Committee consider: (c) any proposed amendment filed with the clerk, pursuant to paragraph (b), shall be filed, in both official languages, no later than 4:00 p.m. on June 10, 2013, for the clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill and shall be presented together with any amendments which may have been filed by members of the Committee; and (d) during the clause-by-clause consideration, at the relevant time, (i) an amendment filed with clerk pursuant to paragraph (b), and presented to the Committee pursuant to paragraph (c), shall be deemed to have been moved, and (ii) the Chair may call upon the member who filed the proposed amendment to offer brief remarks in support of it.

The French version follows. I don't intend to repeat it.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

As I understand it, Bill C-54 provides no additional psychological or financial assistance.

The Canadian Alliance on Mental Illness and Mental Health said that Bill C-54 was going to continue to perpetuate the myth that people suffering from mental disorders are violent. As we know, it is prevention that protects victims more.

What do you think of that statement?

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here this afternoon, Mr. Minister.

Let me remind you that we supported this bill at second reading. But that was not to give you a blank cheque, it was to achieve a balanced approach. We recognize that this is a very difficult issue for victims, families and communities. Of course, as my colleague said, public safety must be the top priority, within the context of respect for the rule of law and for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So we will be studying this bill closely.

We have been clear that we are open to change. We must be sure of the way in which we manage cases in which the accused suffers from a mental illness. So there must be effective mental health care. We also want to know, very specifically, how we can help victims through this process.

In the coming weeks, we will be speaking to victims, to mental health experts, to representatives of the provinces, and so on. A number of witnesses will shed light on this for us and we will choose the best solution, the most balanced approach. We will not get involved in political games; we will examine the issue on its merits, case by case.

Mr. Minister, a number of victims have told us, not once, twice or ten times, but hundreds of times, that what they are looking for first and foremost is (a) psychological support and (b) financial support. Will Bill C-54 provide victims with psychological and financial support?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Along that same line, Mr. Minister, you are aware that shortly after Bill C-54 was tabled in the House, my colleague, Mr. Cotler, brought forward an order paper question asking you about the treatment capacity in institutions where not criminally responsible individuals would be held. The government's answer to virtually every single aspect of his question was that only the provinces would have access to this information.

But a couple of the questions he asked, I would suggest to you, Mr. Minister, you should be able to answer. First, what steps are your government taking to ensure adequate capacity? Also, what analysis has your government performed of any potential need for increased capacity? I don't see why that type of information would be solely within the domain of the provinces.

So my question for you, Mr. Minister, is this. What, if any, analysis has the government performed to determine whether Bill C-54 will result in a need for increased capacity in treatment facilities?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, several weeks ago there was an alliance of mental health groups who stated their opposition to this bill and complained that not one single mental health organization was consulted during the creation of Bill C-54.

My question, sir, is why not?

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Let’s cut to the chase. We know that victims are worried, particularly in the Guy Turcotte case. Psychologists tell us, in fact, that he is not ill and that he does not pose a danger to the public. Would Bill C-54 apply to him? Would Guy Turcotte be considered a high-risk accused?

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, thank you for coming here today to give us your presentation and answer our questions.

Mental health and crime are difficult matters. As we know, they involve families, victims and the community. Divisions can occur. As you mentioned, public safety must be the priority, but there must also be respect for the rule of law and for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

You mentioned the need to protect victims. That is important for us too. We continue to examine it today in the context of this bill. But we also get the impression—and this often happens with the Conservatives—that a political game is being played. If I am not mistaken, there has been a fundraising campaign in connection with Bill C-54. On our side, we feel no politics must be played with such an important issue. The Guy Turcotte case affected us deeply in Quebec. The public asked a lot of questions.

Under Bill C-54, in your opinion, would the Guy Turcotte case be considered high-risk? With this bill, you are creating a new category of accused. Would it apply to Guy Turcotte?

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

Thank you very much. I'm pleased to be with Julie Besner and Carole Morency, whom you have probably met or known over the years, who have testified and provided information to the committee.

I am very pleased to come before the committee today to discuss Bill C-54, the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act.

Before I discuss what is in the bill, I would like to mention what is not proposed by this legislation.

First, the proposed reforms do not seek to punish individuals who have been found by the courts to be not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

Second, nothing in the bill would impact mentally disordered accused's access to mental health treatment. Bill C-54 seeks to provide guidance to those who are involved in the decision-making process for accused persons who are found by a court to be either not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder or unfit to stand trial. These individuals are referred to as mentally disordered accused and are dealt with according to the powers and procedures set out in the Criminal Code mental disorder regime.

I would like to speak first to the difference between these two verdicts. When an accused person suffers from a mental disorder that prevents them from understanding the court proceedings and communicating with their lawyer, the trial cannot take place and the court enters a verdict of unfit to stand trial. On the other hand, if the accused person is tried and is found to have committed the act or omission that constitutes an offence, but lacked the capacity at the time of the offence to appreciate what they did or know that it was wrong, the court enters a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

A finding of NCR or unfit to stand trial are special verdicts, as those accused persons are neither acquitted nor convicted. Instead, orders referred to as dispositions are put in place to set out whether the accused will be detained in the custody of a hospital; discharged with conditions; or in the case of those found NCR, if they do not pose a significant threat to the safety of the public, discharged absolutely.

Bill C-54 proposes to amend the provision in the Criminal Code that sets out the considerations that the court and review board must take into account in making dispositions with respect to NCR or unfit accused persons.

One of the key proposals in Bill C-54 is the amendment that would clarify that public safety is the paramount consideration in the disposition-making provision. This is an amendment that has been strongly supported, you will be pleased to know, by my provincial and territorial attorneys general.

Codifying this principle would ensure that it is applied consistently across this country in all jurisdictions, and it would also be consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence, most recently in the case of Regina v. Conway, in 2010. In that same provision, Bill C-54 proposes to replace the term “least onerous and least restrictive to the accused”, with the requirement for the courts and review boards to make a disposition that is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances. This wording is easier to understand and is intended to be consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada's interpretation of this principle in Winko v. British Columbia. That is, in essence, that the accused's liberty shall be limited no more than is necessary in order to protect the public.

Bill C-54 amends the Criminal Code to enhance the safety of victims and provide them with opportunities for greater involvement in the hearing process. The bill provides that victims be notified when an accused is discharged if they so requested, and it allows for non-communication orders between an NCR accused and the victim. The bill also requires the courts and review boards to give specific consideration to the safety of the victim in determining whether or not an accused poses a significant threat to the safety of the public.

In addition to the amendments seeking to clarify the provisions of the Criminal Code, the bill proposes a new procedure for increasing public safety in cases where the public is at higher risk.

The bill proposes a new scheme that would permit the courts to designate certain NCR-accused as high risk. A high-risk NCR-accused scheme would apply to a small number of accused who have been found NCR and who pose a higher threat to public safety. A successful high-risk designation would follow certain steps.

First, an accused must be found NCR for a serious personal injury offence. This type of offence is currently defined in the mental disorder regime as an indictable offence involving the use or attempted use of violence or conduct intended to endanger the life or safety of another person, or a number of sexual offences. Second, the prosecutor must make an application to the court for a finding that the NCR-accused is a high-risk accused. Third, the court would hold a hearing to determine if the NCR-accused is high risk.

An NCR-accused may be found to be a high-risk NCR-accused in one of two situations. The first situation is that the court is satisfied that there is a “substantial likelihood” the accused will commit violence that could endanger the life or safety of another person. Substantially likely is a higher test or threshold than is currently required to maintain jurisdiction by a review board over an NCR-accused. This latter test is defined as “a significant threat to the safety of the public”.

The second situation where a high-risk designation may be made is if the court is of the opinion that the serious personal injury offence was of “such a brutal nature as to indicate a risk of grave...harm” to the public. Although the level of risk posed by an NCR-accused designated under this category would be different from the first situation, the nature of the actions that form the basis for the application, coupled with the serious potential harm should the accused reoffend, indicate a need for increased protection and restrictions.

An important limitation on a high-risk NCR scheme is that it would only apply to those found NCR. It would not apply to those found to be unfit to stand trial. There are two reasons for this. First, an unfit accused has not yet been tried for the offence, and therefore it has not been proven that they committed the act. Second, an individual who is not fit to stand trial would also not be fit to participate in a hearing to determine whether they should be designated as a high-risk accused.

A second limitation on the scope of the high-risk NCR-accused designation is that it would only apply to an accused who is over the age of 18 years at the time of the offence. The Youth Criminal Justice Act contains special provisions to deal with youth accused who suffer from mental disorders, including the imposition of an intensive rehabilitative custody and supervision order on young people with mental health issues who have committed serious violent offences.

The result of a high-risk designation is that the accused must be detained in a hospital. The review board would not have the discretion to order an absolute or a conditional discharge, nor could a high-risk accused be absent from the hospital except for medical purposes or for any purpose that is necessary for their treatment. Any absence would require an escort and a structured plan to address any risk to the public related to the leave.

A high-risk designation may also impact the time period between review hearings. Currently, mentally disordered accused persons have their cases reviewed on an annual basis, though this may be extended up to two years in certain circumstances, i.e. upon the consent of the accused and the Attorney General, or if the review board is satisfied that the condition of the accused is not likely to improve and the detention remains necessary for the period of the extension. A high-risk NCR-accused may have their review period extended by the review board up to three years.

Finally, a high-risk NCR-accused designation would not be permanent. It may be revoked by a superior court of criminal jurisdiction. The process would begin with a recommendation by the review board that the high-risk NCR-accused no longer presents a substantial likelihood of committing violence that could endanger the life or safety of another person.

Upon the recommendation of the review board, the court would hold a revocation hearing. After considering all of the evidence, the court would determine whether there is no longer a substantial likelihood that the accused would commit violence that could endanger the life or safety of another person. If the court is satisfied that the high-risk accused no longer poses an elevated risk, the court must revoke the high-risk finding. Upon revocation of the high-risk finding, the accused would be dealt with as a regular NCR-accused and continue to be supervised by the review board as appropriate.

I would like to underscore the importance of these amendments for all Canadians, especially victims who desire that public safety should come first in the mental disorder regime. Bill C-54 intends to strike a better balance between the need to protect society against those who pose a significant threat to the public and the need to treat mentally disordered accused persons appropriately.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

All those in favour?

(Motion agreed to)

We'll move on.

Thank you, Minister, for joining us. You have one hour, until 4:30, to talk to us about Bill C-54. We'll give you time for an opening statement and then we'll go question by question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to call this meeting to order. This is meeting number 75 of our Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Today we will be dealing with Bill C-54, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder).

Just before we begin with our very special guest, the Honourable Minister Nicholson, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, we are meeting because of the seventh report of our Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. So to be official, I would like somebody to move this because this is what we said we were going to do.

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.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to Bill C-54. The bill amends the mental disorder regime in the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act to specify that public safety comes first in the decision-making process. The bill creates a mechanism for ensuring that certain persons who have been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder can be designated as high-risk accused. It also promotes the greater involvement of victims in the regime.

I will come back to the reasons why we must discuss the bill today. Recently, a number of very high-profile cases involving very serious offences, where the accused was declared not criminally responsible, have brought the issue to the forefront. In Quebec, there was the case of Guy Turcotte, a man who killed his two young children. This story shocked people, not just because of the violence of the act, but also because of the verdict. Even though this man obviously committed the act, he was declared not criminally responsible.

First and foremost, we want to determine how we can better help the victims in such situations. As with a number of other cases, the Turcotte case planted doubt in the minds of many people as to the effectiveness of the current approach to criminal responsibility. It is especially important to restore public confidence in the administration of justice.

According to his psychiatrist, the anger of a certain segment of the population with respect to this situation is due to a lack of understanding of how the mental disorder review board works. I would therefore like to make a few comments about the nature of the current process. First, we must reassure viewers by pointing out that the mental disorder regime in the Criminal Code applies only to a very small percentage of accused persons. It is not as if it applies to every accused person.

If an accused cannot understand the nature or the consequences of the trial and cannot communicate with his lawyer on account of a mental disorder, the court can find the person unfit to stand trial. Obviously, if that person can stand trial later, the case will be heard by a court at that time.

There is another possibility, but that would apply during the trial. If a person is found to have committed the act that constitutes an offence, but lacked the capacity to appreciate the seriousness of what they did, the court can make a special verdict of not criminally responsible. Note that they are neither convicted, nor acquitted.

A person found either unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible for reasons of mental disorder is referred to a provincial or territorial review board, which reviews the person's situation and can make one of three possible decisions: if the person does not pose a significant threat to public safety, an absolute discharge; a conditional discharge; or, detention in custody in a hospital.

Bill C-54 would amend the Criminal Code to clarify certain provisions in the mental disorder regime and make public safety the paramount consideration in the court and the provincial review board decision-making process. The bill would amend the Criminal Code to create a process for the designation of not criminally responsible accused persons as high-risk where the person was accused of a serious personal injury offence and there is a substantial likelihood for further violence that would endanger the public. Those persons would not be granted a conditional or absolute discharge, which means they would be detained in custody in a hospital. The designation could only be revoked by the court following a recommendation of the review board.

A high-risk not criminally responsible accused person would not be allowed to go into the community unescorted, and escorted passes would only be allowed in narrow circumstances and subject to sufficient conditions to protect public safety. The review board may decide to extend the review period to up to three years for those designated high-risk, instead of annually.

The bill is also designed to enhance the safety of victims by allowing them to be more involved in the process. It is designed to ensure that victims are notified, upon request, when the accused is discharged. It also allows non-communication orders between the accused and the victim and ensures that the safety of victims is considered when decisions are made about an accused person.

The NDP agrees that public safety needs to be protected, as long as the rule of law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are upheld. We believe that these changes are desirable, but we need to ensure that they will allow us to deal effectively with accused individuals who are mentally ill.

According to an estimate from the justice department, Criminal Code offences in Canada cost more than $31 billion. Of that, nearly half is directly absorbed by the victims. We are talking about more than $14 billion a year. That is huge. That is the cost of medical care, hospitalization, lost wages, school absences and stolen or damaged property.

In addition to the direct victims, people close to the victims also suffer harm. It is estimated that the various costs reach $2.1 billion for third parties. Those costs are even higher if we take into consideration intangible costs such as lost productivity over a lifetime, mental health costs, psychological effects on other family members and so on. We are talking about nearly $70 billion.

Each year, crime costs Canadian taxpayers' approximately $100 billion, although we need to remember that those are just estimates. However, they give us an idea of the impact that crime can have on society as a whole.

I would like to talk more about Guy Turcotte because his is probably the best-known and highest-profile case, at least in Quebec. As I was saying, Mr. Turcotte was found not criminally responsible by the court that tried his case. The review board decided that he could leave the psychiatric facility under certain conditions. The team of psychiatrists working on his case agreed. He is no longer sick or a danger to society.

His former partner, Isabelle Gaston, is still fighting to change the system. I would like to share her words with the House, as someone else did earlier.

Even if I devote my time to changing the justice system, if ministers, deputy ministers, the Barreau and the Collège des médecins do not change their ways, then injustices like this one will continue.

The NDP supports the aim and the spirit of this bill. That is why we will vote at second reading to study it further in committee. Still, some things need to be clarified. Even though we agree for the time being, we are concerned that the proposed changes might be mere window dressing.

Allow me to explain. The most significant change contemplated in Bill C-54 is that review boards will have to make public safety the paramount consideration in their decision-making process. The fact is, they already consider public safety, so I do not see what real difference this bill will make.

There are other legitimate questions we should be asking. Were mental health experts and other stakeholders in the system consulted, or did the government work with them to ensure that this new approach is the best one? Will the government set aside additional funding for the provinces and territories to cover the cost of the review boards' new responsibilities? I do not believe so. Will additional measures be implemented to support victims? We have not heard anything about that either.

Nevertheless, the NDP and I are open to the proposed changes. We will support this bill at second reading so that the committee can study it further.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let us look at the evidence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The second possibility is a conditional discharge.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The text of the first Criminal Code stated:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In clause 9, it says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The House resumed from April 26 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.

Bill C-54—Time Allocation Motion

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if we want to know where NDP members stand on a bill like Bill C-54, we should read all the speeches they have already given, because they are almost identical, speech after speech, the same rehashed talking points. What is the substantive point of moving the debate forward if they do not actually debate, they just read the same handful of talking points over and over again?

It is time to get on. We have heard plenty of what NDP members believe about this. They are on the wrong side of the issue on the substance of it, but it is time to get on with it. Let us get on to talking about this particular bill. We will hear the same handful of talking points again in the next few hours, I am sure about that.

Let us get on with it. What does the minister have to say about what NDP members will say over the next few hours?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

moved:

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

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

Bill C-54--Notice of Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to advise the House that agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to second reading stage of Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder).

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3) I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage of the said bill.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, as you know, our government has moved forward this week to conduct business in the House of Commons in a productive, orderly and hard-working fashion, and we have tried to work in good faith.

We began the week debating a motion to add an additional 20 hours to the House schedule each week. Before I got through the first minute of my speech on that motion, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley interrupted with a dubious point of order to prevent the government from moving forward to work overtime. His was a bogus argument and the Speaker rightly saw the NDP delay effort as entirely devoid of merit and rejected it outright.

During its first speech opposing the motion to work hard, the NDP then moved an amendment to gut it. That amendment was defeated. The NDP then voted against the motion and against working overtime, but that motion still passed, thanks to the Conservatives in the House.

During the first NDP speech on Bill C-49 last night, in the efforts to work longer, the NDP moved an amendment to gut that bill and cause gridlock in the House. I am not kidding. These are all one step after another of successive measures to delay. During its next speech, before the first day of extended hours was completed, the NDP whip moved to shut down the House, to go home early. That motion was also defeated. This is the NDP's “do as I say, not as I do” attitude at its height.

Take the hon. member for Gatineau. At 4 p.m., she stood in the House and said, “I am more than happy to stay here until midnight tonight...”. That is a direct quote. It sounded good. In fact, I even naively took her at her word that she and her party were actually going to work with us, work hard and get things done. Unfortunately, her actions did not back up her words, because just a few short hours later, that very same member, the member for Gatineau, seconded a motion to shut down the House early.

I am not making this up. I am not kidding. She waited until the sun went down until she thought Canadians were not watching anymore and then she tried to prevent members from doing their work. This goes to show the value of the word of NDP members. In her case, she took less than seven hours to break her word. That is unfortunate. It is a kind of “do as I say, not as I do” attitude that breeds cynicism in politics and, unfortunately, it is all too common in the NDP.

We saw the same thing from the hon. member for Davenport, when he said, “We are happy to work until midnight...”, and two short hours later he voted to try to shut down the House early. It is the same for the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing and the hon. member for Drummond. They all professed an interest in working late and then had their party vote to shut down early. What is clear by their actions is that the NDP will try anything to avoid hard work.

It is apparent that the only way that Conservatives, who are willing to work in the House, will be able to get things done is through a focused agenda, having a productive, orderly and hard-working House of Commons. This afternoon, we will debate Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, at report stage and third reading. After private members' hour, we will go to Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act, at second reading.

Tomorrow before question period, we will start second reading of Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act, and after question period, we will start second reading of Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act.

Monday before question period, we will consider Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act. This bill would provide protection for aboriginal women and children by giving them the same rights that women who do not live on reserve have had for decades. After question period, we will debate Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, at second reading, a bill that makes a reasonable and needed reform to the Criminal Code. We are proposing to ensure that public safety should be the paramount consideration in the decision-making process involving high-risk accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. It is time to get that bill to a vote. We will also consider Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012—and yes, that is last year—at third reading.

On Tuesday, we will continue the debates on Bill C-48 and Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act.

On Wednesday, we will resume this morning's debate on Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act, at third reading.

On Thursday, we will continue this afternoon's debate on Bill C-51. Should the NDP adopt a new and co-operative, productive spirit and let all of these bills pass, we could consider other measures, such as Bill S-17, the tax conventions implementation act, 2013, Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act, Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, and Bill C-57, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act.

Optimism springs eternal within my heart. I hope to see that from the opposition.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London, who serves his community with tremendous distinction. He is an accomplished local community leader and business leader, and he really has a sense of what is important to people in his community. I think that is why the not criminally responsible reform act, Bill C-54, is important to him. This bill will that ensure public safety should be the paramount consideration in decision-making affecting high-risk offenders who are found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

This is an important value question in our justice system, including for those who are found not criminally responsible because of a mental disorder. Are we going to make community safety the first and foremost consideration in all decisions? That is what the bill proposes to do. This issue has affected absolutely every region of this country and has affected many people in a very deep and personal way. The very least we can do is let the bill come to a vote and send it to a committee where, as I said, witnesses can testify about it. With the extra hours we propose, that can happen.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up where I left off. Obviously my hon. friend did not hear this and has not read the motion. I will respond to his macho riposte at the end of his comments by pointing out that the motion would do three things: first, it would provide for us to sit until midnight; second, it would provide a manageable way in which to hold votes in a fashion that works for members of the House; and third, it would provide for concurrence debates to happen and motions to be voted on in a fashion that would not disrupt the work of all the committees of the House and force them to come back here for votes and shut down the work of committees.

Those are the three things the motion would do. In all other respects the Standing Orders remain in place, including the Standing Orders for how long the House sits. Had my friend actually read the motion, he would recognize that the only way in which that Standing Order could then be changed would be by unanimous consent of the House.

The member needs no commitment from me as to how long we will sit. Any member of the House can determine that question, if he or she wishes to adjourn other than the rules contemplate, but the rules are quite clear in what they do contemplate.

As I was saying, the reason for the motion is that Canadians expect their members of Parliament to work hard and get things done on their behalf.

Canadians expect their members of Parliament to work hard and get things done on their behalf.

We agree and that is exactly what has happened here in the House of Commons.

However, do not take my word for it; look at the facts. In this Parliament the government has introduced 76 pieces of legislation. Of those 76, 44 of them are law in one form or another. That makes for a total of 58% of the bills introduced into Parliament. Another 15 of these bills have been passed by either the House or the Senate, bringing the total to 77% of the bills that have been passed by one of the two Houses of Parliament. That is the record of a hard-working, orderly and productive Parliament.

More than just passing bills, the work we are doing here is delivering real results for Canadians. However, there is still yet more work to be done before we return to our constituencies for the summer.

During this time our government's top priority has been jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity. Through two years and three budgets, we have passed initiatives that have helped to create more than 900,000 net new jobs since the global economic recession. We have achieved this record while also ensuring that Canada's debt burden is the lowest in the G7. We are taking real action to make sure the budget will be balanced by 2015. We have also followed through on numerous longstanding commitments to keep our streets and communities safe, to improve democratic representation in the House of Commons, to provide marketing freedom for western Canadian grain farmers and to eliminate once and for all the wasteful and inefficient long gun registry.

Let me make clear what the motion would and would not do. There has been speculation recently, including from my friend opposite, about the government's objectives and motivations with respect to motion no. 17. As the joke goes: Mr. Freud, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. So it is with today's motion. There is only one intention motivating the government in proposing the motion: to work hard and deliver real results for Canadians.

The motion would extend the hours the House sits from Monday through Thursday. Instead of finishing the day around 6:30 or 7 p.m., the House would sit instead until midnight.

This would amount to an additional 20 hours each week. Extended sitting hours is something that happens most years in June. Our government just wants to roll up our sleeves and work a little harder, earlier this year. The motion would allow certain votes to be deferred automatically until the end of question period, to allow for all honourable members' schedules to be a little more orderly.

As I said, all other rules would remain. For example, concurrence motions could be moved, debated and voted upon. Today's motion would simply allow committees to continue doing their work instead of returning to the House for motions to return to government business and the like. This process we are putting forward would ensure those committees could do their good work and be productive, while at the same time the House could proceed with its business. Concurrence motions could ultimately be dealt with, debated and voted upon.

We are interested in working hard and being productive and doing so in an orderly fashion, and that is the extent of what the motion would do. I hope that the opposition parties would be willing to support this reasonable plan and let it come forward to a vote. I am sure members opposite would not be interested in going back to their constituents to say they voted against working a little overtime before the House rises for the summer, but the first indication from my friend opposite is that perhaps he is reluctant to do that. Members on this side of the House are willing to work extra hours to deliver real results for Canadians.

Some of those accomplishments we intend to pass are: reforming the temporary foreign workers program to put the interests of Canadians first; implementing tax credits for Canadians who donate to charity; enhancing the tax credit for parents who adopt; and extending the tax credit for Canadians who take care of loved ones in their home.

We also want to support veterans and their families by improving the determination of veterans' benefits.

Of course, these are some of the important measures from this year's budget and are included in Bill C-60, economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1. We are also working toward results for aboriginals by moving closer to equality for Canadians living on reserves through better standards for drinking water and finally giving women on reserves the same rights and protections other Canadian women have had for decades. Bill S-2, family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, and Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act would deliver on those very important objectives.

We will also work to keep our streets and communities safe by making real improvements to the witness protection program through Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act. I think that delivering these results for Canadians is worth working a few extra hours each week.

We will work to bring the Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, into law. Bill C-48 would provide certainty to the tax code. It has been over a decade since a bill like this has passed, so it is about time this bill passed. In fact, after question period today, I hope to start third reading of this bill, so perhaps we can get it passed today.

We will also work to bring Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act, into law. The bill would support economic growth by ensuring that all shippers, including farmers, are treated fairly. Over the next few weeks we will also work, hopefully with the co-operation of the opposition parties, to make progress on other important initiatives.

Bill C-54 will ensure that public safety is the paramount consideration in the decision-making process involving high-risk accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. This is an issue that unfortunately has affected every region of this country. The very least we can do is let the bill come to a vote and send it to committee where witnesses can testify about the importance of these changes.

Bill C-49 would create the Canadian museum of history, a museum for Canadians that would tell our stories and present our country's treasures to the world.

Bill S-14, the Fighting Foreign Corruption Act, will do just that by further deterring and preventing Canadian companies from bribing foreign public officials. These amendments will help ensure that Canadian companies continue to act in good faith in the pursuit of freer markets and expanded global trade.

Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act, would implement that 2009 treaty by amending the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act to add prohibitions on importing illegally acquired fish.

Tonight we will be voting on Bill S-9, the Nuclear Terrorism Act, which will allow Canada to honour its commitments under international agreements to tackle nuclear terrorism. Another important treaty—the Convention on Cluster Munitions—can be given effect if we adopt Bill S-10, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act.

We will seek to update and modernize Canada’s network of income tax treaties through Bill S-17, the Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013, by giving the force of law to recently signed agreements between Canada and Namibia, Serbia, Poland, Hong Kong, Luxembourg and Switzerland.

Among other economic bills is Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act. The bill would protect Canadians from becoming victims of trademark counterfeiting and goods made using inferior or dangerous materials that lead to injury or even death. Proceeds from the sale of counterfeit goods may be used to support organized crime groups. Clearly, this bill is another important one to enact.

Important agreements with the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador would be satisfied through Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, which would, among other things, create the Sable Island national park reserve, and Bill C-61, the offshore health and safety act, which would provide clear rules for occupational health and safety of offshore oil and gas installations.

Earlier I referred to the important work of committees. The Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations inspired Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act. We should see that committee's ideas through by passing this bill. Of course, a quick reading of today's order paper would show that there are yet still more bills before the House of Commons for consideration and passage. All of these measures are important and will improve the lives of Canadians. Each merits consideration and hard work on our part.

In my weekly business statement prior to the constituency week, I extended an offer to the House leaders opposite to work with me to schedule and pass some of the other pieces of legislation currently before the House. I hope that they will respond to my request and put forward at our next weekly meeting productive suggestions for getting things done. Passing today's motion would be a major step toward accomplishing that. As I said in my opening comments, Canadians expect each one of us to come to Ottawa to work hard, vote on bills and get things done.

In closing, I commend this motion to the House and encourage all hon. members to vote for this motion, add a few hours to our day, continue the work of our productive, orderly and hard-working Parliament, and deliver real results for Canadians.

An Act to Bring Fairness for the Victims of Violent Offenders

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity today to rise and speak in support of private member's Bill C-479, which was brought forward by my colleague, the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale.

I want to thank and commend my colleague for his strong commitment to placing the needs, rights and interests of victims ahead of criminals and for introducing this bill that would further strengthen victims' rights in this country. The bill includes measures that are in keeping with our government's strong commitment to support victims of crime and ensure that they have a strong voice in the justice system.

While we have made some very good progress over the past seven years to meet these commitments, we know that more work needs to be done. That is why the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada recently outlined the next phase of the Government of Canada's plan for safe streets and communities.

Through this plan, our government will take further action in the following areas:

We will tackle crime by holding offenders accountable for their actions. This includes bringing forward legislation to further toughen penalties for child sexual offences and to better understand the risks posed by known child sex offenders.

As well, we have introduced Bill C-54, not criminally responsible reform act, which would better protect the public from accused persons who have been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. Such legislation would ensure that public safety is the paramount consideration in these cases.

We also moved ahead with further measures to enhance the rights of victims by introducing legislation to implement a victims' bill of rights. This legislation would serve to further enhance the government's commitment to victims of crime by entrenching their rights into law at the federal level.

I want to again thank my colleague, because he mentioned this important piece. It is one thing to talk about victims' rights, but they need to be enshrined in federal law. My colleague's bill will move forward on this as will what our government is doing to support victims of crime.

Finally, we will increase the efficiency of our justice system by looking at measures to make our justice system more efficient through the “Economics of Policing” study.

Members may recall that the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale introduced a similar bill in 2011. He has been very committed to this cause and continues to be.

Since 2011, we have passed into law the Safe Streets and Communities Act, which included these important measures to enhance the participation of victims in the justice system and to increase offender accountability. As such, Bill C-479 proposes some important changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, also known as the CCRA.

I will now look at how Bill C-479 would amend the CCRA. First, private member's Bill C-479 proposes to extend mandatory review periods for parole. For example, if a violent offender is denied parole, the Parole Board of Canada would then be obligated to review the case within five years rather than the current two years. Again, we have heard today the impact that would have on victims. Rather than having to come back every two years and relive the horror and tragedy of what they or their families went through, the bill would extend that period to five years.

The bill also proposes to hold detention reviews every two years rather than annually. Again, this considers the rights and interests of victims and what they go through when they are unfortunately re-victimized every time they have to go through this. This would not only affect offenders who are not ready to be released into the community at their statutory release date, at two-thirds of the sentence, but would also put victims' interests into the equation.

The second set of changes to the CCRA proposed in Bill C-479 relates to the attendance of victims and members of their families at parole review hearings.

There is no magic formula for healing from the traumatic experience of violent crime. There is no single set of counselling, time or things that can happen after one is victimized. There is no magic formula that can fix the pain and tragedy victims have gone through. Each victim, each family member, is affected differently and will cope in a unique way. With this in mind, Bill C-479 proposes to give more weight to the needs of victims in the justice system.

Specifically, Bill C-479 proposes that if victims are denied the opportunity to observe the hearings in person, they could follow the hearings by teleconference or one-way closed-circuit feed, again another way that the government and the Parole Board could show victims that their voices matter. Currently, there can be distance and time and it can be very difficult for victims to attend hearings, yet they want to see it or be a part of it. This bill would give them the opportunity to follow hearings by teleconference or one-way closed-circuit feed.

The bill would provide useful tools. However, we need to strike a balance between theory and practice. Therefore, there are some minor amendments to make it easier to implement this and we expect amendments would be required for this part of the bill.

Currently, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act gives victims the right to certain basic information about offenders and criminals. At the same time, it gives the Parole Board of Canada and Correctional Service Canada discretion to provide additional information if the interests of the victims clearly outweigh the privacy concerns for the offenders.

Bill C-479 proposes to expand the rights of victims ahead of the rights of criminals in order for information to be shared about offenders. Specifically, it would make the release of certain information mandatory rather than discretionary. This information would include the date, if any, when an offender would be released on either unescorted or escorted temporary absences. As well, a victim would be informed of any of the conditions attached to an offender's unescorted temporary absence, parole or statutory release and the reasons for any unescorted temporary absences. In addition, a victim would be informed of the destination of an offender when released on unescorted temporary absence or parole or statutory release. Again, one would assume this has already taken place, but it has not, and those are some of the provisions that the bill would provide.

Obviously, it is important for victims to have all this information well in advance of an offender's temporary release. Bill C-479 proposes that the chairperson of the Parole Board of Canada discloses this information at least 14 days before an offender is released. The bill would further provide victims with information about offenders' correctional plans, including progress toward meeting their objectives and providing transcripts of parole hearings, if they are produced. Should the bill be referred to committee, we would again seek to move certain amendments to ensure that any necessary public safety safeguards would be in place for the sharing of this information.

Again, I would like to commend my colleague for his strong commitment to victims and for introducing this bill to further strengthen the rights of victims. The changes proposed in Bill C-479 bring greater fairness to the justice system for victims. This is in keeping with our government's commitments and I am proud to indicate that we will be supporting this important legislation.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue the debate on today’s opposition motion from the NDP. Pursuant to the rules of the House, time is allocated and there will be a vote after the two-day debate.

Tomorrow we will resume the third reading debate on Bill S-9, the Nuclear Terrorism Act. As I mentioned on Monday, I am optimistic that we will pass that important bill this week.

Should we have extra time on Friday, we will take up Bill C-48, the Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, at report stage and third reading.

When we come back from constituency week, I am keen to see the House make a number of accomplishments for Canadians. Allow me to make it clear to the House what the government's priorities are.

Our government will continue to focus on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. In doing that, we will be working on reforming the temporary foreign worker program to put the interests of Canadians first; implementing tax credits for Canadians who donate to charity and parents who adopt; extending tax credits for Canadians who take care of loved ones in their homes; supporting veterans and their families by improving the balance for determining veterans' benefits; moving closer to equality for Canadians living on reserves through better standards for drinking water, which my friend apparently objects to; giving women on reserves the rights and protections that other Canadian women have had for decades, something to which he also objects; and keeping our streets and communities safer by making real improvements to the witness protection program. We will of course do more.

Before we rise for the summer, we will tackle the bills currently listed on the order paper, as well as any new bills which might get introduced. After Victoria Day, we will give priority consideration to bills which have already been considered by House committees.

For instance, we will look at Bill C-48, which I just mentioned, Bill C-51, the Safer Witnesses Act, Bill C-52, the Fair Rail Freight Service Act, and Bill S-2, the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, which I understand could be reported back soon.

I look forward also to getting back from committee and passing Bill C-60, , the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1; Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act; and Bill C-21, the political loans accountability act.

We have, of course, recently passed Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act and Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act. Hopefully, tomorrow we will pass Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act.

Finally, we will also work toward second reading of several bills including: Bill C-12, the safeguarding Canadians' personal information act; Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act; Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act; Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act; Bill C-57, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act; Bill C-61, the offshore health and safety act; Bill S-6, the first nations elections act; Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act; Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act; Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act; Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act; Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, which establishes Sable Island National Park; and Bill S-17, the tax conventions implementation act, 2013.

I believe and I think most Canadians who send us here expect us to do work and they want to see us vote on these things and get things done. These are constructive measures to help all Canadians and they certainly expect us to do our job and actually get to votes on these matters.

I hope we will be able to make up enough time to take up all of these important bills when we come back, so Canadians can benefit from many parliamentary accomplishments by the members of Parliament they have sent here this spring.

Before taking my seat, let me formally designate, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), Tuesday, May 21, as the day appointed for the consideration in a committee of the whole of all votes under Natural Resources in the main estimates for the final year ending March 31, 2014. This would be the second of two such evenings following on tonight's proceedings.

Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let us start there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act. This bill is about people found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. Specifically, this bill would change the mental disorder regime relating to accused individuals found unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible.

As such, the 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 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.

This bill contains provisions to change how cases involving individuals who are not criminally responsible are dealt with.

Review boards have to consider public safety above all. Requirements to notify victims and their families when a not criminally responsible accused is discharged will be enhanced. Review boards will have the power to issue non-communications orders with victims. This bill enables the courts to designate an accused as high risk.

Review boards will have the option, not the obligation, to triple the length of time between reviews from 12 to 36 months. The bill will limit the number of community visits for high-risk accused and detail the release conditions.

Basically, there are three amendments: putting public safety first, creating a high-risk not criminally responsible accused designation, and enhancing victims' involvement.

With respect to putting public safety first, the legislative amendments in this bill would make public safety the paramount consideration in the courts and during the review boards' decision-making process relating to accused persons found to be not criminally responsible or unfit to stand trial.

This bill would amend the Criminal Code in order to create a scheme for finding that certain people who have been found not criminally responsible are high-risk accused. Under the scheme, the accused would be deemed to be high risk if he was found not criminally responsible of serious bodily harm and there is a strong possibility that he would commit other acts of violence that would endanger the public, or if the acts he committed were of such a brutal nature as to indicate a risk of grave harm to the public.

Those who would fall into this category would therefore be unable to get a conditional or absolute discharge, would not be authorized visit the community without an escort and would be extremely limited in their escorted absences. However, these people would have the right to treatment.

This would therefore be a way of explaining how an accused can have restrictions imposed on him when he poses a criminal threat to public safety even though it is not necessarily a violent threat.

The third component of the amendments in this bill deals with enhancing the involvement of victims. This part seeks to enhance the security of victims by offering them more opportunities to participate in the mental disorder regime in the Criminal Code. The victims would thereby have the possibility of being informed when the accused is discharged. The bill also provides for non-communication orders between the accused and the victim. Finally, the safety of victims would be taken into consideration in cases where decisions are to be made about the accused.

Although the provisions of the proposed bill would help to ensure that the law is interpreted and applied more consistently across the country, there is cause for concern about the impact this bill will have across the country. The provinces must not be forced to foot the bill for this policy.

As we saw in the main provisions of this bill, it is important to note that the bill addresses an issue that is very difficult for victims, families and communities.

We must ensure that protecting public safety is a priority while abiding by the rule of law and respecting the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

What matters most is knowing how we can help victims in this process. They are an integral part of all the questions raised by the bill and the changes included in it.

We will therefore support the bill so that we can examine it more thoroughly in committee. In order to shed some light on the bill, we will need to hear from mental health experts, some victims, as well as the provinces, in order to determine which approach would be best. This is not a question of playing political games, but rather properly studying the merits of the policy.

Considering the extensive media coverage that certain crimes receive, we must try to avoid fueling the public's fears and increasing the negative stigma attached to mental illness. This would be completely counterproductive because it would undermine the reintegration of these individuals and, at the same time, do absolutely nothing to enhance public safety. It would only make the situation worse.

As I said earlier, we must make public safety our top priority, while respecting the rule of law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That being said, in the context of this bill, it is critically important that we make sure that the cases of defendants with mental disorders are managed effectively and that their mental disorders are treated. This bill should be based on consultation and co-operation with mental health experts. Our justice system and our mental health system need to operate effectively. In that regard, we will have to rely a great deal on the advice of mental health experts, some of whom have already expressed their reservations about this bill.

Furthermore, the question of cost also needs to be considered. In Canada, the full cost that flows directly from criminal acts is already too much for the provinces to bear. We must not increase their financial burden without ensuring that they have the necessary resources, which is clearly not the case.

According to Chris Summerville, the chief executive officer of the Schizophrenia Society of Canada, in Ontario, only 0.001% of those charged with Criminal Code offences were deemed to be not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. Furthermore, between 2.5% and 7.5% of them reoffend, compared to 41% to 44% of federal offenders. It is obvious that, contrary to what the Conservatives would have Canadians believe, the seriousness of a crime is not a gauge of the likelihood that these people will reoffend, or even their ability to improve their mental health and live a normal, healthy life.

The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, which would handle such cases in Ontario, currently has an occupancy rate of roughly 104%, which leads us back to the issue of the burden and the cost to the provinces. We must ensure that the provinces have proper funding because they will be managing these cases. The federal government is responsible for properly funding this policy.

To summarize, we agree with the spirit of this bill, but we do not want the government to try to use this issue to score political points. On the contrary, this bill needs to be studied carefully because of what is at stake.

Understandably, this is a very difficult issue for victims, families and the community. Naturally, public safety comes first. We also have to comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. No matter what we have to say about mental health, we must be careful that we do not exacerbate or heighten the stigma of mental illness.

We know that we could meet with mental health experts, but we should also consult victims living in the provinces.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say first that I will be splitting my time in debate.

I will speak to Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder). I would say from the outset that we support investigating this topic and we will vote for this proposal to move the bill to committee for study.

Before moving along further, I would like to thank the MP for Gatineau for her work on this file, and on many other files. I know the public safety and justice committees are some of the busiest here in the House of Commons, and she does great work, along with my benchmate, on these topics.

From a broad perspective, this is a very difficult issue for victims, families and communities in general. It is probably one of the most difficult issues any community must face: what to do when a member of that community is accused of perpetrating a heinous act, but is found by professional evaluation not to be of right mind. What to do with these individuals is really what we are trying to come to grips with here.

The sad truth is that I do not think there is any way that we will ever make a perfect decision. What we really have to do is try to figure out how to manage this in the best way possible and ensure that we do not make things worse than they already are.

Of course, we have to think of the victims first. We have to think of public safety. We also have to think of the broader communities in these senses and ask what is the best thing we can do to ensure that the community itself comes out as well as it can when we are dealing with these types of sad issues.

There is one bright spot, if we can call it a bright spot on this awful topic, and it is that through our health and social scientists, our criminologists and psychologists and psychiatrists, we probably know more about this issue than we have ever known in the past. My mind drifts back to the asylums of the 19th century, when people who were of healthy mind and body were incarcerated along with those who were criminally insane. We have gone well past that, knowing more about the causes of these mental shortcomings in the perpetrators of these acts, and also what to do to help victims recover. Through the good research of our professionals in this area, we are probably better equipped to deal with this problem than we ever have been in the past. This wealth of information should be used to help us make the best possible decisions in this area.

We are supporting moving this bill to committee because we need to have a reasoned and rational discussion. We need to bring in many experts and try to stay away from some of the partisan witnesses that sometimes parties are guilty of bringing to the committees. We should probably resist that and try to bring in the best experts we can in this area in order to have a reasoned discussion about what we should do in these cases and to evaluate the proposals being made in this particular bill. Therefore, I urge the government to listen to a wide range of experts when this inevitably comes to committee and to take the time to get it right.

In addition to the psychologists, psychiatrists and criminologists, we should also take time to hear other witnesses. Often the people who are affected by these awful crimes are also from marginalized communities, so we should hear from these community leaders, including first nations. My mind is always drawn to the awful events of British Columbia, whether it is Clifford Robert Olson or perhaps Willie Pickton. Many members of the community were affected by these awful crimes perpetrated by people who were found to be mentally deficient, and mental deficiency was the reason these people were perpetrating or involved in these crimes. We should ensure we talk to the people in the communities who were most affected, because they are the ones who now have the experience of working through how to heal from these awful events.

When we go to committee, we also have to be mindful that our actions are bound by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms establishes clear boundaries within which our laws must fall, so we should take care that we do not put new laws into place that would clearly violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In addition to the criminologists, psychologists, psychiatrists and community members who come to committee, we should also make ensure there is the due diligence to make sure the laws we are bringing in do not violate any aspects of the charter. From the NDP perspective, public safety must come first on this issue, and we need to help the victims as much as possible. However, we have to make sure we are abiding by our primary law.

The issue at hand is to consider what to do when an accused is discharged. Increasing notification to victims and their families would seems like a reasonable thing to consider. If review boards would be able to issue non-communication orders with victims, keeping as much distance between the accused or somebody considered not criminally responsible and thus giving victims as much time as possible to recover, that is worth consideration. Even if there is no contact between the individuals, the peace of mind this might bring to victims is in itself well worth considering.

The bill would also create a new category of high-risk accused, and the review boards would have the option of tripling the length of time between reviews, from 12 months to 36 months. It is moving away from mandatory decisions imposed on judges and allowing the legal system to consider these cases in great detail.

I was reading some statistics by Mr. Chris Summerville, the alliance facilitator and chief executive officer of the Schizophrenia Society of Canada, who stated, “In Canada's most populated province, Ontario, only .001% of individuals charged with Criminal Code violations were adjudicated [not criminally responsible for their actions]”. This law will affect a very small number of people, so we have to make sure we are also taking that into consideration.

We should also take care that when we are considering these and other types of similar bills that we do not try to hype up this issue at all. As is well documented in Canada, crime rates have fallen dramatically. Both violent crimes and crimes against property have fallen over the past couple of decades. While it is important to get these laws right, we do not want this type of debate making the public think that crime is somehow spiralling out of control.

With regard to victims who are affected by current crimes, we really have to do as much as we can to help them through these things. However, as public opinion will show, Canadians are more concerned about the economy, for example, than spiralling crime rates. While it is good to get these things right through reasoned debate, it should not be used as an excuse to try to scare the public into thinking that crime is at a higher rate than it has been in previous decades, because it is not.

When this goes to committee, New Democrats want to discuss the idea that public safety must come first, but any laws that are changed must comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We are open to change to ensure the way in which cases involving mentally disordered accused persons are handled is effective in terms of treatment. I note in the bill that this in no way should affect treatment. However, we have to make sure there is treatment in order to ensure the entire community is considered when we put these kinds of motions forward.

The House resumed 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.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the matter we are discussing today in connection with Bill C-54 is very sensitive, in light of all the issues raised in the House.

We are clearly talking about crimes committed. We are also talking about the criminal responsibility of people ultimately deemed to be not criminally responsible.

We have already said that we will vote in favour of this bill at second reading, because we believe that it deserves to be reviewed in committee. However, I heard a few questions from government members, and I am concerned about how this issue is being dealt with.

Of course, it is a sensitive issue and it has to be handled with great tact. However, I really feel that the government is behaving as if it wants to make the issue much more political than it ought to be, especially if we truly want to examine it with cool heads. The government has addressed the issue twice at news conferences, announcing the bill to the media and the public.

I would like to hear what the hon. member has to say about the need for careful, reasoned and rational consideration of this issue.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise in the House to speak on behalf of my constituents in Pontiac. Public safety is a rather major issue.

One of the objectives of Bill C-54 is to protect victims. The bill seeks to increase the safety of victims by providing them with more opportunities to participate in the Criminal Code mental disorder regime, by ensuring that they are notified on request when the accused is discharged, allowing non-communication orders between the accused and the victim and ensuring that the safety of victims is considered when decisions are being made about an accused person.

In addition, the proposed legislation would help ensure consistency in the interpretation and application of the law across the country. However, it is important to note that these reforms would not change the current eligibility criteria in the Criminal Code with respect to exemption from criminal responsibility on account of mental disorder.

The proposed reforms would also define the concept of significant threat to the safety of the public, which is a current test for determining whether a review board can maintain its jurisdiction and continue to supervise a mentally disordered accused.

The bill would clarify the fact that restrictions could be imposed on an accused who presents a public safety risk of a criminal nature, though not necessarily of a violent nature.

Protecting the public and victims of crime and violence is obviously a good thing. Everyone probably already knows this, but crime has its most direct impact on victims in every respect: physically, emotionally, spiritually and financially.

From a financial perspective alone, many researchers have attempted to estimate the intangible costs borne by victims of crime, but none of the studies are official. Still, most agree that the intangible costs are often the most onerous ones for victims.

Of the total estimated costs, $14.3 billion was incurred as a direct result of crime for such items as medical attention, hospitalization, lost wages, missed school days and stolen or damaged property.

While crime has its most significant impact on victims, others around them suffer as well. In its 2008 report entitled “Costs of Crime in Canada”, the Department of Justice estimated that intangible costs were about $68.2 billion, which increased the total cost of crime to $99.6 billion. That is astounding.

However, even though this bill is important and may help victims, we have to keep things in perspective. We have to act according to facts, not fear. For example, in Ontario, Canada's most populous province, only 0.001% of individuals accused of a Criminal Code offence were deemed not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. The recidivism rate for these individuals is between 2.5% and 7.5%, while the recidivism rate for other federal offenders is between 41% and 44%.

Contrary to what the government would have Canadians believe, there is not necessarily a correlation between the seriousness of a crime and the likelihood that the offender will reoffend or his ability to improve his mental health and live a normal, happy life.

Some recent high-profile cases suggest that the current approach may not be effective. Like my NDP colleagues, I would like to know how we can help the victims in the process. To figure out the best approaches, we need to talk to mental health experts, victims and the provinces.

It is also important to avoid politicizing this issue. We have to study the merits of the policy, and that study must be properly financed by the federal government.

In such a study it seems to me that it would be important to ask some of the following questions, as did my hon. Liberal colleague from Mount Royal.

What studies, case law and theoretical sources did the government rely in drafting this bill? What statistics did the government collect on persons deemed not criminally responsible on account of mental disorders? For each of the past 10 years by province, territory and type of offence, how many people were deemed not criminally responsible? Which persons deemed not criminally responsible and discharged were found guilty of a subsequent offence? What was the nature of the subsequent offence? What persons deemed not criminally responsible and discharged were deemed not criminally responsible for a subsequent offence? What was the nature of that subsequent offence?

With good answers and data on these questions, we as legislatures would be far more informed to ensure that the legislation passed was well crafted and would do the job we needed it to do.

We in the official opposition, despite supporting the bill at second reading, still have a few unanswered questions, which we hope the government will attempt to answer in the months ahead.

We agree that public safety must come first, but we must also ensure proper compliance with the rule of law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We are open to change, but we must also ensure that the way in which we handle cases involving mentally disordered accused persons is effective in terms of the treatment of mental disorders. To that end, we must ensure that the provinces have adequate financial resources since they are the ones ultimately managing the situation.

With regard to the charter, we must always be careful that in our zeal to protect our fellow citizens we do not harm hard-won civil rights. It would be helpful to know whether Bill C-54 was reviewed by the Department of Justice to ensure its compliance with the charter and what measures the government took to prevent charter challenges concerning persons deemed not criminally responsible. If there was indeed a review, what were the review's findings?

I also wonder, on the role of victims, if consideration has been given to the fact that some people are unable to confront criminals who have victimized them. I mentioned the enormous cost burden to victims earlier because I also wonder why there are no provisions being made in the bill for more resources for the victims who have to live with the consequences of these criminal acts.

Also, what about financial support to the provinces? Is this new policy not being developed on the backs of the provinces? A spokesperson for the Department of Justice stated that the provinces would not receive any additional funding to address these new measures, yet we know there will be costs involved.

Despite these reservations, I agree that in order to protect our fellow citizens, there is a need for a mechanism by which certain individuals who are found not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder may be declared high risk. I also agree that there should be an increase in the involvement of victims in this process. These are the reasons why I support the bill at second reading.

Truly, the voice of the voiceless should never be silenced, which is why I am happy again to support the bill at second reading.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-54, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder).

The key new measure provided for in this bill is a new power to designate a high-risk category of accused under both the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act.

The category of accused that has drawn considerable attention and loud calls for stricter punishment is exactly this category, particularly for more heinous acts where somebody is deemed to be not criminally responsible. In such cases, the accused is neither convicted nor acquitted. These cases are to be differentiated from an accused found unfit to stand trial. Once deemed fit, those accused may be tried for the offence and incarcerated. In both cases, the accused is normally incarcerated in the forensic unit of a mental hospital.

Current law obligates a court or review board to discharge an accused found not criminally responsible unless he or she poses a significant risk to public safety. In rendering the decision, they must give consideration to a number of factors: the need to protect the public from dangerous persons; the mental condition of the accused; reintegration of the accused into society; and other needs of the accused.

The proposed new law makes the safety of the public the paramount consideration. In other words, it means sidebarring the mental condition of the accused or any efforts made to eventually reintegrate the accused into society, which will happen eventually.

What has attracted the most public controversy are cases where the accused has committed violent acts, is deemed not criminally responsible, is detained in an institution and is then released. Some are complaining that these are unjust punishments and that they merit harsher responses and retribution. Concerns have been raised about the potential of continued endangerment of the community.

The fact that an accused may be found not criminally responsible absolutely does not diminish recognition of the heinous character of any violent act. It does not in any way diminish the impact of that act on the victims, their families or their communities.

Yet in law, an accused must be accorded his or her full rights under the law and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To not do so means that the matter may be referred to the courts. This is particularly the case for NCR accused who are neither convicted nor acquitted of an offence. It is critical to the rule of law.

The challenge in addressing crimes arising from short-term or long-term mental disorders is determining the appropriate judicial and treatment response that addresses the mental state of the accused, the harm caused, the potential for reoffending, the deterrent effect, and the challenge of responding to crimes arising from short- or long-term mental disorders.

Bill C-54 proposes three key reforms for these accused.

The first is to put public safety first by making explicit that this is the paramount consideration for the court and the review boards. Again, that sets aside equal consideration of the mental state of the accused and the rehabilitation to enable them to return safely to community.

The second is to create a high-risk designation. It would empower the courts and the review boards to impose a high-risk designation for any accused found NCR of a serious personal injury offence and where there is a substantial likelihood of further violence that could endanger the public or where the acts were of such a brutal nature as to indicate significant threat of harm to the public. It is that second factor that a number of organizations, including the Canadian Bar Association, would like to have removed from the bill.

The third is to have “significant threat to the safety of the public” be defined in the code.

Such accused are to be denied any conditional or absolute discharges. The designations are only to be revoked by a court order, on the recommendation of a review board. Again, the Canadian Bar Association is objecting to that, saying that the more appropriate body to be deciding the mental state of the accused, vis-à-vis safety to the community, is a review board in consultation with psychiatrists, not a court.

Also there would be stricter controls on community visits. Again, a number of associations, including the Psychiatric Association of Canada, have said that this is exactly the kind of measure, if appropriately accompanied, that could help to gradually rehabilitate people and bring them back into the community.

It would also give the power to the review board to extend the review period from one to three years. In other words, there is the potential to not allow the release of the person, even if he or she is then found to be mentally competent to go back to his or her community.

Access to treatment under the law is not to be affected.

The provision in the law that most support is being found for is the provision for enhanced involvement of the victim in the proceedings. There would be notice, upon request, when the accused is discharged. It would provide for orders of non-communication between the accused and the victim, and any decisions related to the accused would give due consideration to the safety of any victims.

The current law already requires courts and review boards to consider the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, the mental condition of any accused, reintegration into society and other needs of the accused. These reforms may, in some small way, appease some members of the public. However, would they have any appreciable effect on reducing the number of violent crimes perpetrated by persons with long-term or temporary mental conditions? Statistics suggest otherwise.

Recidivism rates for NCR accused range from 2.5% to 7.5%. That is to be compared with a 41% to 45% rate of recidivism for other offenders. Therefore, the NCR accused are the most highly unlikely to reoffend. How then can we rationalize detaining them for more extended periods? Can any extension ever satisfy those distressed by the crime? Eventually they will be released, so is increased incarceration in a forensic unit, with potentially limited psychiatric care, the answer? As has been pointed out by other members, are the courts the appropriate authority to be making a decision on the rehabilitation of the mentally disordered person? Should that not remain with the review boards and psychiatric care?

Is a better, or at least additional, solution to ensure more resources for Canadian mental health detention facilities, as the experts have called for? It is important to examine the case law and to hear from legal and medical experts, and as others have suggested, to examine whether each provincial or territorial jurisdiction has the appropriate facilities to detain these accused for extended time periods and to provide the necessary psychiatric support.

It will be helpful for the government to release its opinion on the potential charter challenges the bill may pose so that those matters may be addressed before any reforms are enacted. It will be important to hear testimony on the cost implications of the bill compared to other alternatives, as incarceration is normally the highest-cost alternative. An obvious question is whether the provinces and territories have been consulted, as these costs will most certainly be downloaded to them for extended periods of detention, the provision of psychiatric services and the duty to notify and track victims and the accused.

What have other medical and legal experts said so far about the proposed law? All have expressed concern that they have not been consulted in the development and drafting of this law. The Canadian Psychiatric Association recommends against the high-risk designation, as no evidence exists that these policies pose undue public risk. They also point out that the recidivism rate is very low for the NCR accused. They state that it would impose a substantial drain on already scarce forensic resources while delivering little increased public safety. They say that it merely reinforces punishment and retribution while removing valuable therapeutic tools. They also say that the unintended consequences of the high-risk designation contradicts campaigns, including by this House, to open dialogue on mental health, removing the stigma and enabling early treatment. They recommend the removal of brutality of the offence as a criterion, as does the Canadian Bar Association. They say that they should permit escorted passes and should remove the power to extend the review period.

The Schizophrenia Society endorses exactly what the Psychiatric Association has said. The John Howard Society and the Elizabeth Fry Society raise serious concerns about these proposals, except for the notice provisions.

The Canadian Bar Association National Criminal Justice Section opposes the high-risk designation as unconstitutional, so we can anticipate court challenges. If enacted, they recommend that the “brutal nature” of the act category of consideration be removed and that there be added a right of the accused to apply to the court to remove the high-risk designation. They also support the notice requirements.

As legislators, it is of utmost importance that in making any new laws, particularly criminal laws, we take the time to consult and consider the opinions and advice of informed and experienced experts. It is for that reason I will be supporting this bill at second reading. It is so wise counsel can finally be publicly revealed and considered.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. We are looking for justice. We propose laws that should, in theory, be in the spirit of justice. Unfortunately, we sometimes miss the mark. However, in the tradition of the English criminal law system, we have judges and juries. Sometimes, these people say that the law does not reflect their vision of justice, in the sense that it seeks to revenge or too harshly punish a crime, when what they were looking for was justice.

This does not mean that we will support and protect criminals. We must find a balance. Does Bill C-54 provide that balance? We will support this bill, even though we are very uncomfortable with the philosophy behind it. However, we will search for justice. That is the duty of every single member who sits in this House.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today.

Bill C-54 aims to include a new policy in the legislation, and that policy, that ideological shift, forces us to take a step back and look at our country's history.

As soon as British rule was established, we enforced British laws. Criminal laws were set out in the aptly named Bloody Code. The number of crimes that resulted in a death sentence was unreasonable. Quite often, it was not just death by hanging. In Canada, it often involved torture.

The second important element of the British criminal code that we inherited is the jury. That is an important element, one that should not be ignored.

Individuals appearing before the jury were guilty. They had already been proven guilty. When the jury found out what kind of sentence was to be meted out, the jury members decided to declare the individuals innocent. The jury did not want to be complicit in enforcing an overly harsh and unreasonably cruel law. Luckily, the Bloody Code was amended and became the Criminal Code.

At the time, stealing cattle could lead to death by hanging. Household servants who stole something from the house could receive the death penalty. Those crimes were abolished because they were so unreasonable and the penalties were no longer being enforced. The jury refused to be complicit in imposing such harsh sentences.

This brings us back to the present situation. Juries can still refuse to enforce the Criminal Code in a more modern way. If jury members really believe in all good conscience that enforcing the Criminal Code is unacceptable, they can reject it.

The last time this was clearly applied in recent times was in the Morgentaler case. Dr. Morgentaler performed abortions, which was strictly prohibited by the Criminal Code. He was prosecuted in a trial by jury. The evidence that he was indeed performing abortions was clear, but the jury refused to enforce the Criminal Code. The jury said it would not be complicit with the politicians who had passed the legislation, which they considered to be flawed and poorly drafted, legislation that punished a crime that was only in the politicians' heads. The jury said no. That is the danger with Bill C-54 and its whole underlying philosophy—that we are going to be tough on crime, scare people and impose extremely harsh minimum sentences to punish crime.

Judges will say to themselves that the cases are theirs, that they will keep a certain distance and that they are not puppets who are incapable of any independent thought. We saw this with the Firearms Act. Someone had gone to a friend's house, taken the friend's revolver and was playing with that illegal weapon. He committed a crime. However, the judge ruled that there had to be criminal intent and that the law, as it was written, was unacceptable. He struck down the law.

A judge can strike down a law, and so can a jury.

When it comes to crimes committed by people with mental health issues, it is important to understand that, when faced with the absolute horror of the crime, members of a jury always tend to say that an individual of sound mind would never have done such a thing. A good example of this is the case of Dr. Turcotte, who murdered his two children.

All the lawyers and prosecutors who are under the obligation to present proof beyond a reasonable doubt have encountered this problem in these types of cases: the jury cannot accept that a man of sound mind would do such a horrific thing to his children.

Dr. Turcotte took full advantage of this human reaction. That was the basis for his defence. It was a jury that decided his fate. It is easy to say that the judge should have done more, but there is always the risk that the jury will be unable to accept that a person of sound mind could commit such atrocities.

This risk hangs over every trial involving serial killers. That is why prosecutors must be well prepared. They must prove that the crime was premeditated. Often, if the prosecutor can prove that the crime was premeditated, the jury sees that it was not a moment of temporary insanity. The person planned, organized and committed the crime. In the case of Dr. Turcotte, the jury did not find that such was the case.

With the notion of “beyond a reasonable doubt”, only a glimmer of doubt is needed for the person to be proven innocent. This poses another problem: the use of media coverage of the amendment to the Criminal Code for political purposes. We must not kid ourselves. There is a party in the House with a “tough on crime” agenda. That is fine. However, it is a bit ridiculous for the government to say that it is going to be tough on criminals and then turn around and make cuts to police budgets. This is not the first time that this government has contradicted itself.

People who commit crimes must be punished. Our Criminal Code does just that. However, some changes had to be made. Parole after one-sixth of a sentence and the two-for-one credit for time served before sentencing did not make sense.

It is fine to pass a law, but the reality is that we have to enforce it. Whenever we express the slightest doubt, we are accused of supporting pedophiles or cyberpedophiles and being anti-law.

Legislation and the law are two different things. So are legislation and justice. In the House, we are committed to justice. We are being asked to pass bills whose only objective is to let the minister say that the government will prevent such and such an incident from happening. I am sorry, but in the case of Dr. Turcotte, it would not have changed anything. Furthermore, leaving a rope in Dr. Turcotte's cell will not solve the problem.

By the way, I would like to point out that counselling a person to commit suicide is a Criminal Code offence. The Conservatives might want to inform some senators of that. It would be useful sometimes if people would read the law, not just defend it. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, especially for those in Parliament who claim to champion Criminal Code amendments.

This is obviously a sad case. I have very little time left, so to sum up: this law will not change anything because the jury still remains the judge of the facts.

The House resumed from March 1, 2013, 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.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, it was Harold Macmillan who once said, “Events, my dear friend, events”. That is the great variable.

As we know, we have had many events and we were delighted that we were able to get Bill S-7 approved by this House this past week, in response to events.

Today, we will continue with debate on the NDP's opposition day motion.

It being Victims Week, we will follow up on this week's passage of Bill S-7, the combatting terrorism act, with debate tomorrow on Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, at second reading.

Insofar as the government's agenda, there is actually a very significant cornerstone to that agenda; that is, of course, our economic action plan. Earlier this week, the House adopted a ways and means motion to allow for a bill implementing measures from economic action plan 2013. Our top priority is creating jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity, so if a bill following on the ways and means motion were to be introduced before Wednesday, we would give that bill priority consideration for debate Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday of next week.

In the interim, on Monday, we will return to the report stage debate on Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice and the support of Canada act. It is my hope that this debate will conclude on Monday so that we can have the third reading debate on that bill on Tuesday.

If we have the opportunity next week, we will continue the second reading debate of the not criminally responsible reform act. This is an important bill and I would hope that it will get to committee without delay.

The government will also give consideration to Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act at second reading; Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act at report stage and third reading; Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act at third reading; and finally, Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act.

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

Mr. Speaker, the opposition House leader expressed concern that the scheduling of several opposition days, on which the opposition gets to determine the subject matter of debate in the House of Commons, showed a complete absence of a plan and a complete absence of any ideas for policy innovation. Having heard the debate and the resolutions coming from the opposition for debate on those days, I am inclined to agree with him.

Sadly, they have shown that when the opposition has the agenda, there are no new ideas and there is nothing of value spoken. However, the Standing Orders do require us to have those opposition days scheduled as part of our procedure, and that is what we are doing.

I would like, however, to respond a little bit to his comments on the time allocation on the bill yesterday. Yesterday's bill was Bill S-2, a bill to give aboriginal women and their children on reserve the same matrimonial rights that other people have. It is a bill that has been in Parliament for five years, through a series of Parliaments, in fact, and it has not yet come to a vote. To paraphrase the President of the United States in the recent State of the Union address, the aboriginal women and children of Canada deserve the right to a vote. That is why we did what we had to do, after five years of obstruction from the opposition preventing the bill from coming forward.

The bill would provide the protection they have been denied for decades. It is truly shameful that, starting with the Leader of the Opposition, every single opposition member stood up against this bill at second reading. They voted against the principle of protecting aboriginal women and children and providing them with rights equal to those of all Canadian women off reserve. They voted against giving them protection from violence in the situation of a domestic family breakdown and giving them the same rights to matrimonial homes that other women have had for decades in this country.

It is another example of how the NDP approaches things. It claims that it is for women's rights and aboriginal rights, but when it comes time to actually take action, it does not. It is “do as I say, not as I do”.

This afternoon we will continue the New Democrats' opposition day. Tomorrow is the fourth allotted day, when the New Democrats will again propose our topic for debate. Monday shall be the fifth allotted day, which will see a Liberal motion debated. Tuesday shall be the sixth allotted day, with a further New Democratic motion being considered.

Next week is victims week in Canada, so on Wednesday, the House will continue the second reading debate on Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, which aims to put the protection of society and of victims front and centre.

On Thursday morning we will consider Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012, at report stage. After question period on Thursday, we will start report stage for Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act, which was reported back from the transport committee this morning.

Finally, next Friday, Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act, will be again considered at report stage.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Ladies and gentlemen, that is the end of today's meeting. I will just give you a reminder that the meeting on Wednesday is for the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. Please look at the calendar from here to the end, sometime in June. It's about nine weeks with a one-week break. Have some ideas of what you want to study.

We will be getting Bill C-54 eventually. I'm not sure exactly when that's happening, but I'll certainly do my best to find out beforehand. Come prepared to talk about what we'd like to do. I'd like to have it organized for the next couple of months. That would be great.

Is there anything else?

Could I have a motion to adjourn?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much. That is the bill for today.

I just want to comment before we break. On Wednesday we're dealing with another private member's bill. We have witnesses. On Bill S-209, we have the mover from the Senate, and he can only be here for half an hour. The mover or supporter from the House is coming for the first half hour. So try to be focused on that. Then we have a witness—and we only have one witness—for a maximum of an hour. Then there's only one clause. It's a long one, but there's only one, so I left a half an hour to deal with that.

Then we're on a two-week break from here, back to our ridings, which I know we will enjoy. Happy Easter to everybody who celebrates Easter.

This is what we will do when we get back. In the first week back we will deal with Bill C-444, which is the impersonating a police officer private member's bill. We'll have the mover, then we'll do witnesses, and then we'll try to do clause-by-clause, if we can, that week.

In the second week I'm hoping we will do the Criminal Code official languages three-year review of section 533.1, which deals with being able to have your court case in both official languages. It's a requirement of this committee to look at how it's gone for the last three years. It's a three-year review. We will be inviting, obviously, the minister's officials to come and talk to us about how it's going. If you have any witnesses for that, it would be great.

If you have any witnesses for next week's bill on impersonating police officers, please give it to the clerk as soon as possible, because it's going to be hard to chase you down when we're back in the ridings. It's much easier when you're here.

Then, for the last two weeks of the four-week section that we're in, I'm hoping we will see whether Bill C-54 gets referred to the committee from the House, and we'll deal with that legislation for at least those two weeks is my guess. We have a large witness list already started for Bill C-54, so we'll see what the committee decides in terms of length for that.

At this point, those are the next two weeks when we come back, and you know what's happening on Wednesday.

With that, thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm very happy to be here with you today, Minister, because I think sometimes we forget how much has been done in making sure that we have a system that stands behind both victims and law-abiding Canadians. I think it's good for us sometimes to stop and take a look at what's been done, but as you noted in your opening statement, Minister, there still is a lot of work that needs to be carried out.

Specific to that, in my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla, in the 1990s and 2000s there were some very high-profile cases that alarmed a lot of people in my riding. When the Prime Minister and you were in Burnaby announcing that there had been some legislation tabled regarding the not criminally responsible, certainly I received a lot of input from people in my riding, and very supportive feedback.

That being said, Minister, I think just as Mr. Wilks mentioned about the coming into force of the Citizen’s Arrest and Self-defence Act, sometimes it's good for us to review what things have been done and what things are going to be worked on.

On February 8, Minister, you introduced Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act. The introduction of this legislation is part of our government's plan for safe streets and communities, which is one of the four priorities the Prime Minister has identified.

How will this legislation ensure that not criminally responsible accused people who are found too dangerous to release are no longer a threat to their victims or to Canadian communities? Minister, I'd like your analysis on that, please, if you wouldn't mind.

Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder).

I will first provide a little background. The bill proposes three major amendments. The proposed amendments are intended to make public safety the priority, to create a finding that a person who is not criminally responsible is a high-risk accused, and to enhance the involvement of victims.

At present, it is often forgotten that section 672.54 of the Criminal Code provides that the court or review boards shall take into consideration “the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, the mental condition of the accused, the reintegration of the accused into society and the other needs of the accused”.

As some of my colleagues have already said, we will support the bill at second reading, so that it can be examined in greater depth in committee. That said, measures already exist for making public safety the priority. That is something we consider to be very important, and we support it. We want to hear what the experts have to tell us about that.

The legislative amendments to the mental disorder regime in the Criminal Code that are proposed in the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act would clearly make public safety the paramount concern in the courts and in the decision-making processes of review boards in relation to persons declared NCR—not criminally responsible—or unfit to stand trial.

I will explain that a little more. At present, at the trial of a person with a mental disorder, there are three possible verdicts: absolute discharge, if the person is not a significant threat to public safety; conditional discharge, and that is what we will be discussing here; and detention in custody in a hospital, which is not changing. So there are really two things. First, a person may be charged. However, if the person has a relatively severe disorder and is unable to stand trial immediately, they will not stand trial right away. The person will therefore have permission not to stand trial. They will be treated and will stand trial later. Here we are talking about someone who could be a threat to public safety. What is done then is that the person is offered treatment. The bill ensures that while receiving treatment, the person will not be dangerous to public safety.

My colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques told us about a problem: the fact that the timing of the Conservative government’s introduction of the bill seems a little suspicious. That is unfortunate, because it is a very good bill. We will allow the bill to proceed, but we are a little afraid that the Conservatives would like to score political points with this bill. They announced it on the day Quebec learned that Dr. Turcotte might be released. That trial received extensive media coverage. The Conservatives immediately came and told us they would be putting forward a bill to protect the public. So they came in on their big horses with their swords at the ready, to say they were protecting the public. That is something we hear a lot from the Conservative side: that they are the best when it comes to protecting the public. That said, this is actually what the bill does, by strengthening the protection of the public. But one does wonder why the Conservatives introduced it at this time. Why did they make the announcement at a point when the bill was still only at the draft stage or did not even exist yet?

My second concern about the bill is that the Conservatives are attempting to download costs to the provinces. In an interview with Global News, Carole Saindon, a spokesperson for the Department of Justice, said the provinces would have to foot the bill for this new policy. This seems to be increasingly the case with Conservative bills.

The federal government passes laws and downloads the costs of implementing them to the provincial governments. It did so, for example, when it increased the age of eligibility for OAS. It did so again with Bill C-10 on minimum sentences. This bill we have before us, which is a good bill, will also have to be paid for by the provinces. What is more, we do not know if the provinces and territories were consulted. We do not know what will happen if a province does not have the necessary funds to fully implement the bill.

There is an organization in Ontario that deals with mentally ill people who get in trouble with the law. It is currently working at 104% capacity. The bill is a step in the right direction, but we do not know if we will have the means to implement it.

My second point concerns the creation of the high-risk NCR accused designation. This bill would amend the Criminal Code by creating a process to designate accused persons as high-risk NCR. They could be designated NCR because of serious personal injury offences committed against other persons and because there is a substantial likelihood of further violence that would endanger the public. The designation might also apply in cases in which the acts were of such a brutal nature as to indicate a risk of grave harm to the public. High-risk NCR accused would be ineligible for a conditional or absolute discharge. The designation could only be revoked by the court following a recommendation of the review board. This designation would apply only to NCR accused, not to persons found unfit to stand trial.

Persons found unfit to stand trial are persons who are unable to undergo a trial but who were not unfit at the time of the crime.

The third amendment I discussed earlier concerns enhancing victims' involvement. I would like to emphasize this point. Victims often appear to be forgotten by the Conservative Party. This is what troubles me. The government always tables law and order legislation, but it often forgets the victims. I used to work in a prison. I was a teacher at a detention centre. Social reintegration is key to ensuring that things go well in society. I understand that there must be laws and punishment—no one is opposed to that—but we are lacking a reintegration aspect.

As a number of my colleagues have said, we had trouble obtaining data from the government on this subject. Some members had to place questions on the order paper to get answers. We wanted to get some of the case law and statistics gathered by the government on persons found not criminally responsible. We wanted to know how much time each person found not criminally responsible spent in treatment before being discharged. We wanted to know exactly how many people this legislation would affect.

I think it is appropriate to talk about enhancing victims' involvement. Victims are often disregarded in Conservative legislation. This bill would ensure that victims are notified, upon request, when the accused is discharged. The bill provides for non-communications orders between the accused and the victim. It will also ensure that the safety of victims is considered when decisions are made about an accused person. However, I find this last point somewhat vague. This information does not tell me how that would be done or how victims' safety would be guaranteed.

To sum up, I think this is a bill that will enhance an existing act. I hope the Conservative Party is not playing a game so that it can make a lot of political hay out of this issue.

This is not the point of the exercise. The objective is to come up with a better law that respects human rights.

I hope that we will have the bill before us in committee long enough to study it carefully, that witnesses from all sides of the House will appear and that we will go through the whole process in order to pass this bill.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to discuss Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder) at second reading.

I am very pleased to be the first member to speak for the official opposition after our justice critic, who is also the member for Gatineau. She gave an excellent speech. I would like to talk about the aspects that I think are the most important in relation to the position we will be taking as the official opposition. Before going any further, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce-Lachine.

Basically, Bill C-54 presents three major amendments. The first is that the safety of the public will be the paramount consideration in the decision-making process relating to the accused or those found not criminally responsible for an offence. Second, it creates a scheme for finding that certain persons who have been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder are high-risk accused. Finally, the bill enhances the involvement of victims. The victim will be informed when the person found not criminally responsible for a crime against the victim is released. There may also be a disposition that communications between the not criminally responsible accused and the victim be prohibited. The bill also provides that the victim’s safety must be considered in decisions made with regard to the release of the person found not criminally responsible for a crime.

When we talk about making public safety a priority, we should point out something that is often ignored: the issue of public safety is already taken into account in decisions made either by a judge or by review boards. This includes cases involving mental disorders. This can be found in Criminal Code section 672.54, which provides that the courts or the review boards must consider the need to protect the public from dangerous persons. The mental condition of the accused, the reintegration of the accused into society and the other needs of the accused are also discussed. Therefore, the Criminal Code already has provisions that oblige the court and the review boards to consider the issue of public safety in the decisions they are making.

With regard to findings that certain accused persons are not criminally responsible but that they are high risk, a different category is proposed. Anyone who has been accused and found not criminally responsible may currently receive one of three verdicts from the court.

The first is an absolute discharge. Here again, the Criminal Code clearly states that an absolute discharge is given if the person is not considered to be a threat to public safety. This newly created category does not affect the matter of absolute discharge. There is also the possibility of a conditional discharge that includes a number of conditions. If a person found not criminally responsible is considered high risk, he cannot be given a conditional discharge. The third possibility, which already existed for not criminally responsible people who might be a risk or a threat, is detention in custody in a hospital.

So, ultimately, this new category of not criminally responsible but high-risk accused affects only one of three possible verdicts. Even before, a high-risk person could not get an absolute discharge and could be kept in custody in a hospital. Now, that person will no longer have the possibility of getting a conditional discharge.

The third question is an issue to which we are sensitive, and that is to increase victim participation in the process. Of course, in many cases, the mental disorder review board—I am familiar with the one in Quebec—must really think about the impact on the victim. We are concerned about this issue because there have been a few cases in Quebec, including one in particular to which the hon. member for Gatineau referred, which is that of Dr. Turcotte.

Before discussing this case, I want to mention a concern that we have, not necessarily regarding the bill and its content but, rather, the Conservative government's approach to these issues and, more specifically, this legislation.

There is really a desire to play political games for populist motives. I am concerned about the government's approach to this bill. We have known for a number of months that the government wanted to propose a bill to deal with accused persons found not criminally responsible. We knew that because the government had already announced its intention, last fall if I am not mistaken.

When it was announced that the Quebec mental disorder review board would conditionally discharge Dr. Turcotte, who was being detained at Institut-Philippe-Pinel, it generated debates, particularly in Quebec. Immediately, on the same day, the government held a press conference to announce once again that it would soon introduce this bill, which was still not ready or drafted.

Therefore, I am very concerned about this government's desire to make political hay with very important issues that should be dealt with in a responsible and reasoned fashion, with a cool head and without using very sensitive situations that stir emotions.

I say this as a person, as a parent, as a father of a four-year-old boy and a one-year-old girl who finds the crime committed by Dr. Turcotte extremely disturbing and traumatic. In that regard, I am thinking about my own children.

However, we are here to represent society and our constituencies. Despite the horror of the actions that are sometimes taken and highly publicized, we must deal with these issues in a reasoned way and with a cool head.

We have another problem, which is the issue of political gains. If this bill is passed—and it probably will, given the Conservative majority—the government could go everywhere in Canada, and particularly in Quebec with, among others, a well-known senator who often speaks for the government on these issues. That senator would meet with victims of acts committed by people found not criminally responsible and tell them that he listened to them and solved their problem. That is not really the perspective we should have on this issue. I am asking the government to be very careful in the way it deals with this issue, whether here in the House or in committee.

We do want to work and help victims be more involved in the process. They must see that the system meets their expectations and needs. However, we want to achieve that result in a balanced fashion that also meets the imperatives of our system, which is a system of law and order, a system based on the rule of law.

The hon. member for Gatineau, who is the justice critic for the official opposition, also mentioned the government's usual approach, which is of great concern to us and which we witnessed, particularly with Bill C-10. That was the omnibus crime bill that imposed a number of measures without consultation with the provinces and territories. Moreover, the government did not provide any impact studies on the ramifications of this bill, including the need for statistics.

For example, in this specific case, what are the recidivism rates? What are the numbers for crime and recidivism by accused found not criminally responsible? We do not have answers. The question was put to the Minister of Justice, but we did not get an answer. These are important issues that will have to be dealt with, and we want answers from the government on this sensitive matter.

In conclusion, I also asked the Minister of Justice if the provinces had been consulted to see if they were prepared to bear the costs. Again, I did not get an answer. There was no prior consultation on the issue of minimum sentences in Bill C-10. This bill will generate additional costs, not only for the system, but also for the institutions that must treat these people.

Let us not forget that, in Ontario, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health is currently operating at 104% of its capacity. If Ontario is not able to provide adequate resources, this bill will unfortunately fail to address a significant part of the problem.

I look forward to questions from my colleagues.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, which would change how the Canadian justice system deals with accused found not criminally responsible, or NCR, on account of mental disorder.

It may seem like déjà vu for some that I am speaking again on this issue. As minister of justice and attorney general of Canada, I stood in this place to introduce the legislation that reformed this system, legislation, I might add, that passed with the support of all parties in 2005 and that has stood the test for the last eight years and more.

Throughout that debate, and the discussion thus far on Bill C-54, I have come to appreciate that members of the House have a clear compassion and concern for all innocent victims of violence and their loved ones, that we all seek to protect public safety, and that we agree on the need to support victims and victims families. Guaranteeing their well-being, as I said on the occasion of the introduction of my legislation regarding reforms to the mental disorder regime in 2005, is of primary importance in our justice system. It is precisely for that reason, as minister of justice, that I enacted measures allowing victims to provide impact statements at review board hearings for NCR accused. We should not think that the matters are being established or initiated for the first time now.

I was proud of the legislation that we introduced on NCR accused because it adopted an evidence-based approach and incorporated the guidance of the Supreme Court of Canada, the expertise of justice and health professionals and reports of standing committees of the House on this matter. Regrettably, the same cannot be said of the bill before us. In the matter of Bill C-54, the government's approach and rhetoric appear to be grounded more in fear and stigma than in the facts and evidence.

I will begin my remarks, therefore, with an overview of the available data about NCR accused. I will then share my specific concerns regarding this legislation while suggesting alternative measures that would likely prove more effective at preventing violence by people with mental disorders and hence better protect public safety, let alone having less victims. Finally, I will discuss how the bill fits a pattern of Conservative justice legislation that focuses excessively on the addition of punitive measures to the Criminal Code, on a punitive rather than preventive perspective.

Let me begin by reminding us all of the scope of the bill. NCR accused are neither found guilty nor innocent.

As the Supreme Court explains, this regime “supplements the traditional guilt-innocence dichotomy of the criminal law with a new alternative for NCR accused--an alternative of...assessment to determine whether the person poses a continuing threat to society coupled with an emphasis on providing opportunities to receive appropriate treatment.”

NCR accused account for less than 1% of accused persons annually. In evaluating the NCR regime and determining whether reform is needed, it is important to keep these facts in mind, yet on the day the bill was tabled, the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and currently the Associate Minister of National Defence appeared on CBC and said with respect to the recidivism rate of NCR accused, “I'm not aware that there are any particular statistics available on that. I'm not sure that this is what it's all about.”

This is a particularly puzzling statement, given that the Supreme Court, in the case from which I just cited, Winko v. British Columbia, found that “Research shows that NCR accused are no more likely than their convicted counterparts to commit any offence, let alone a violent offence, upon release”. While that particular case is from 1999, more recent statistics are available, but they are not favourable to the government's case.

That statement by the parliamentary secretary was in essence an admission that the government has eschewed empirical evidence in the drafting of the bill, which aims expressly to make it more difficult to release NCR accused in the name of public safety, yet if legislation is to protect the public against a particular threat, information regarding the extent of that threat is fundamental. Otherwise we are legislating based on myth, gut instinct and stereotyping, which the NCR regime sought specifically to guard against with respect to the mentally ill.

The data to which we do not have access—and I have submitted an order paper question in this regard that I hope will receive a full response in the near future—indicate that very few mentally ill people commit violent acts, even fewer are found not criminally responsible and only a minuscule percentage of those found to be NCR reoffend after treatment.

To begin with, according to researchers from McGill University and Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, 90% of people with mental illness are non-violent. Moreover, a report prepared for the Department of Justice shows that in 2004, the last year studied, only 0.18% of all criminal cases resulted in a finding that the accused was either NCR or unfit to stand trial for reasons of mental incapacity. Finally, a Canadian study from 2003 puts the recidivism rate for people who have been found NCR, treated and released at just 7.5%. By contrast, those who are not NCR and have served in federal prisons have a reconviction rate of over 40%.

I realize I am using many numbers here, but I do not want there to be any confusion. This bill is dealing with less than 10% of a population that is already less than 1% of all those criminally accused in Canada. One would think that for all the hype over this legislation that it would be targeting a large group of Canadians, not less than one-tenth of a percent.

There is no doubt that the rarity of the occurrence is of little importance to those who are victimized and the horror that they have experienced, and certain efforts to refine our NCR regime may well be worthwhile. In fact, Bill C-54 does contain some measures that are reasonable and worthy of support, such as keeping victims families better informed and prohibiting perpetrators from contacting victims after their release. However the government's overstatement of the problem and the heavy-handed response to it risks doing more harm than good.

This brings me to the second part of my remarks, in which I will discuss specific concerns about Bill C-54 and particular aspects of the bill that may have unintended negative consequences. To begin with, Bill C-54 would allow certain NCR accused to be designated high-risk, not by mental health experts, but by criminal courts. This designation would devolve subsequent decision-making authority regarding the accused from specialized review boards to criminal courts, once again despite the fact that general criminal courts lack the requisite expertise to make determinations about the risks posed by a person with mental illness.

The government is proposing this change without offering any evidence that review boards have failed to protect the public from a dangerous NCR accused. Indeed, under the current system, review boards do not release NCR accused who continue to pose a threat, something that appears to be ignored by the government in its deliberations thus far.

The high-risk designation, combined with tripling the time period between reviews from one year to three, may cause NCR inmates to remain in custody long after successful treatment. Such an outcome would be unacceptable, given that, as the Supreme Court has stressed, NCR accused have not been convicted of a crime. Indeed, as the court has stated, “the NCR accused is to be treated with the utmost dignity and afforded the utmost liberty compatible with his or her situation. The NCR accused is not to be punished, nor is the NCR accused to languish in custody...”.

Accordingly, Bill C-54 could lead to charter claims with respect to the section 7 right to life, liberty and security of person; the section 9 guarantee that everyone has the right to not be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned; and we could see section 15 challenges, as there is prohibition against discrimination on the basis of mental disability. Yet again, the government is seeking to enact legislation that will invite protracted, expensive and avoidable constitutional litigation. May I add parenthetically that, ever the optimist, I await the minister's report of charter inconsistency pursuant to section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act.

Beyond the litigation risk, detaining more NCR accused for longer periods of time gives rise to the very practical problem of where these individuals will reside while in treatment. For this reason, I have asked the government for details about the capacity of the mental health institutions in which NCR accused are placed, and about any plans to increase that capacity, as well as any analysis that has been performed on Bill C-54's potential consequences in this regard.

It is by no means clear that our system is at present capable of dealing with greater numbers of NCR accused who are institutionalized for longer periods of time, and we risk complicating their recovery by straining the resources of the institutions and the individuals who are treated. That potential strain and resulting decrease in the effectiveness of such institutions, combined with the possibility that NCR accused could be detained for years even after successful treatment, might mean that mentally ill accused will be less likely to plead NCR as a result of this bill.

We would therefore find ourselves with even more mentally ill people in our prison system.

I am sure that I do not have to remind members of the tragic consequences of housing people with mental disorders in prison rather than in medical facilities. There are consequences for the inmates, as was demonstrated by the heart-wrenching videos of Ashley Smith, and there are consequences for public safety, which the government says is the primary concern that underpins the bill.

When mentally ill people are returned untreated into society after servicing a prison sentence, they pose a far greater danger than NCR accused who have been treated by medical professionals and evaluated by experts. For this reason, I introduced an amendment to last year's omnibus crime bill that would have allowed offenders to receive mental health treatment prior to incarceration, as is already done in cases of drug addiction. Regrettably, the Conservatives rejected this amendment.

Yet the best way of minimizing the potential that someone with a mental illness will commit a violent act, and therefore the best way of protecting the public, which appears to be the objective, as stated by the government, of this legislation, is to ensure effective treatment for the mentally ill.

This brings me to the next section of my remarks, in which I will discuss ways of minimizing the risk of violence by the mentally ill without resorting to punitive, counterproductive and constitutionally suspect measures, which underpin this legislation.

Parliament must encourage and facilitate timely and effective treatment, not only for NCR accused but especially for people in the early stages of mental illness whose conditions can be treated effectively. Indeed, according to the Schizophrenia Society of Canada, the key is early identification, intervention and treatment. To that end, we could train people who work with youth to recognize the initial symptoms of psychosis, since many psychoses develop in adolescence. We could help expand the reach of first episode psychosis clinics, institutions specifically designed to help young patients and their families deal with mental illness in its early stages.

Sadly, however, too many people wait years before receiving treatment, sometimes because their symptoms go unrecognized, and often because they fear the stigma associated with mental disease. It is therefore vital for parliamentarians to set the example by combating that stigma through our words and deeds.

Earlier this month, the members for Toronto Centre and Oak Ridges—Markham encouraged Canadians to openly discuss mental illness, emphasizing that there is no shame in having a mental disease and that recovery is possible. This is the attitude that must underpin our approach to all matters of mental health, including evaluation and refinement of the NCR regime.

However, through its rhetoric and approach to Bill C-54, the government has cast NCR accused as irredeemably violent and has contributed to the impression that Canadians have much to fear from the mentally ill. By overstating the problem of violence by people with mental illness and by understating or ignoring the potential effectiveness of treatment, the government adds to the stigmatization that so many Canadians are working so hard to undo.

As the bill goes forward, I call upon members to engage in the legitimate debate about the particulars of our NCR regime without ceding to stigma and stereotype.

I will use the remainder of my time to take a step back and view the legislation before us as it fits into the overall Conservative justice agenda.

With Bill C-54, the government would continue a pattern of focusing almost exclusively on criminal punishment, behaving as though incarceration is the only tool at the justice minister's disposal and criminal law the only legal domain over which Parliament exercises authority.

Given the rhetoric about the necessity of such reforms, one could be forgiven for mistakenly assuming that Canada is overrun with dangerous criminals and violent psychopaths terrorizing our country unimpeded. The truth of the matter is that the government's rather myopic focus on criminal law and its overemphasis on punishment, as opposed to prevention and rehabilitation, not only undermines its own efforts to promote public safety but prejudices the many other aspects of the justice agenda that are being overlooked.

For example, legal aid is woefully underfunded in this country, and the government has yet to commit to a comprehensive and sustainable civil as well as criminal legal aid program. Moreover, when it comes to judicial appointments, diversity on the bench is seemingly not a priority. Indeed, the only statistics the federal government keeps with respect to such appointments is in regard to gender, ignoring the diversity imperative that the judiciary reflect the populace, with representatives from different ethnic and religious groups.

Canada has also missed the opportunity to use the 30th anniversary of the charter to share our significant and storied legal expertise with judiciaries in developing countries. The government marked this anniversary only by releasing factually questionable press releases that seemed to highlight the Bill of Rights, which, ironically, Bill C-54 may also infringe. Instead, the government should have celebrated what legal scholars around the world have lauded as a landmark document and should have committed to public legal education, domestic law reform and international law-building.

The government could also recommit to wrongful conviction review, increase funding for the war crimes and crimes against humanity program or introduce legislation, oft promised, to allow random roadside breath testing.

I realize it may seem as though I have strayed somewhat from the subject before us, but perhaps it bears pointing out to the government the reality that more Canadians will die at the hands of drunk drivers annually than will die at the hands of NCR accused. Where is the legislation for those victims? Where is the focus on what is a criminal justice issue, where the government has real preventive powers? Bill C-54 demonstrates clearly the government's failure to prioritize and to consider the evidence before it.

This is but one example. In the aftermath of the Idle No More movement, which may have temporarily quieted down but has by no means disappeared—nor should it—now would be the ideal time for the government to commit to an aboriginal justice strategy, ensuring that indigenous legal traditions have their proper place before our courts.

There are also changes needed in the areas of statutory interpretation, alternative dispute resolution, consolidation of statutes, restorative justice and treaty reform, among many others, yet the government persists with a justice agenda limited almost entirely to criminal law, using as justification the odd high-profile case as opposed to empirical data. The bill before us today fits this unfortunate pattern.

As I mentioned, I have submitted an order paper question asking for evidence that would demonstrate the need for a bill like this one. I am open to any possibility that the government will table statistics and analysis that does just that. However, for the moment, the available research indicates the opposite, suggesting that recidivism rates are low, that review boards are thorough, and indeed, that mental illnesses are treatable and ought to be treated as a means of preventing crime.

I have no trouble understanding the fear and frustration many Canadians feel when certain NCR accused are returned to society, and I appreciate the horror victims have felt in this regard and the trauma that has thereby been experienced. However, we will never protect the public by letting fear outweigh facts as a basis for legislation or by having a punitive approach overtake the need for prevention.

The House resumed 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.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-54, the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act.

The minister often introduces bills based on newspaper headlines, and I have often criticized this way of doing things.

We are all well aware of which incidents served as the basis for Bill C-54. For Quebeckers, it was the Turcotte case, and for western Canadians, it was the case of the individual with serious mental problems who decapitated passengers on a Greyhound bus.

All of these incidents can be described as gruesome. I am not saying that the media like to report on these sorts of events; however, these events do give the media graphic video images that are not always nice to see but that make it easy to stoke public opinion.

Before we begin examining Bill C-54, we must understand what this bill refers to. We are talking about people who will be found not criminally responsible because of mental problems. We cannot look at the provisions of Bill C-54 without looking at section 16 of the Criminal Code, which deals with mental disorders.

Section 16(1) of the Criminal Code reads as follows:

16. (1) No person is criminally responsible for an act committed or an omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong.

I would like to simplify this provision so that those listening to us will understand. This means that people who, because of a mental disorder, are unable to appreciate the quality of the act they have committed, whether it be murder or another type of assault, will not be found criminally responsible.

However, the Criminal Code presumes that every person is of sound mind, even though one sometimes has to wonder about that. Seriously though, the Criminal Code presumes that individuals are of sound mind.

Section 16(2) of the Criminal Code reads as follows:

(2) Every person is presumed not to suffer from a mental disorder so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility by virtue of subsection (1), until the contrary is proved on the balance of probabilities.

That is the problem in some cases. Dr. Turcotte’s case received a lot of media coverage in Quebec. People followed the trial with great interest because they wondered how such an intellectual man, a doctor, could have killed his children in the wake of a family break-up, of separation and divorce. When people do not follow the trial and do not understand the kind of evidence required, their imaginations get the better of them.

According to the Criminal Code, the burden of proof that an accused was suffering from a mental disorder so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility is on the party that raises the issue and must be proven on the balance of probabilities. The concept of mental disorder is very often the biggest part of the problem. It is not always very easy to prove.

I believe that background is important and that we should recall some previous decisions of the House. In 2002, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights tabled a report on the Criminal Code provisions on mental disorders.

After the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights tabled its report, the government decided to retain the current wording of the definition of the mental disorder defence under section 16 of the Criminal Code and the definition of “mental disorder” set out in section 2 of the Code.

Section 2 of the Criminal Code is still as important as it was then and provides that “mental disorder” is defined as “a disease of the mind”. It is up to the trial judge, not the jury, to rule on what constitutes a disease of the mind or a mental disorder.

Some people believe that juries determine that. They think that juries are not equipped to make that kind of legal finding, and they are right. That is why it is up to the trial judge to determine whether it has been proven on a balance of probabilities that the person had a mental disorder.

That definition has remained the same since the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its decision in R. v. Cooper in 1980.

A disease of the mind embraces any illness, disorder or abnormal condition that impairs the human mind and its functioning, excluding, however, self-induced states caused by alcohol or drugs as well as transitory mental states such as hysteria and concussion. In order to support a defence of insanity, the disease must, of course, be of such intensity as to render the accused incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the violent act or of knowing it was wrong.

So the test is quite rigorous. Mental disorder must be proven on a balance of probabilities. Those who have followed what is going on in criminal law or who have taken an interest in the matter and have followed trials in which such defences have been raised know that evidence cannot be provided by just anyone. It may be based on the facts so as to prove a certain type of behaviour, but the finding or establishment of scientific or psychiatric evidence is done by expert witnesses.

Incidentally, and here I am thinking out loud, it might be interesting to see how the assessments are designed. The trial judge assesses the independent status of the expert summoned by the defence or by the Crown and determines what kind of evidence was presented. That is part of the trial. Where the individual is found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder, it follows that he or she will be taken into the system to receive care.

I encourage people to read the February 2013 issue of the Barreau du Québec's Journal du Barreau. On page 8, they will find a column by the eminent lawyer Jean-Claude Hébert on criminal non-responsibility, mental disorder, prisoners and patients. When the public looks at these cases, they sometimes think they make no sense. The crime in itself is terrible; it gives us the shivers and makes us question human nature. Then we hear that the person was incapable of criminal intent to commit the murders in question because he or she suffered from a serious mental disorder. I do not mean a minor bout of hysteria because the person was in a bad mood. It takes much more than that. We heard some incredible things during all those trials which were often amplified by some of the media because that increases circulation or makes for good phone-in shows. When I hosted a radio phone-in show, I heard about cases that made people wonder what was going on with the justice system.

Our role as politicians and legislators is not to inflame the debate based on hearsay or statements we cannot really prove. Mr. Hébert touches on the extremely relevant point on whether we are talking about prisoners or patients. Here we are clearly talking about patients. These are people who have been acknowledged as suffering from a serious mental disorder. So if we think the verdict is wrong, Mr. Speaker, there is a solution. You know it as well as I since you are a distinguished jurist.

In the circumstances, if we are not satisfied, that means we can appeal the decision. And if the reported facts are accurate, I believe the Turcotte decision is under appeal. However, if the diagnosis and the judge's decision on the matter were well-established on a balance of probabilities, as provided for by subsection 16(2) of the Criminal Code, as I said earlier, the Court of Appeal will confirm the judge's decision. Otherwise, it will overturn it and rule that the person may not use that defence. It will tell the individual that he or she was aware, was not suffering from a serious mental disorder and, in the circumstances, may not be considered not criminally responsible.

However, we are not at that point. We are dealing with cases in which the individual actually has a serious mental illness and is taken into care by the state. Another system enters into play, therefore. That is what Bill C-54 is trying to do.

I have heard some more incredible things about this. First this was announced by the Conservative government more than three times: first, by the Minister of Justice himself, second, by Senator Boisvenu and, third, by the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, and then by the Prime Minister. We have heard all kinds of things.

After listening to the press conferences, I was eager to read the bill, since it seemed to solve all the problems for victims and all the problems of repeat offenders. I would also add, as an aside, that I am very eager to see the minister’s statistics.

Again, I really urge my colleagues to go and read the vaunted report I was talking about. It is the government’s response, so it is not just the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, it is the committee’s recommendations and the government’s response to those recommendations. That report shows the low percentage of people who are found not criminally responsible, with all due respect to the Boisvenus of the world who think there are tonnes of them. There are not tonnes.

It is true that the percentage has risen over the years. However, and this is what it does not say, before 1991, if I recall correctly, when the amendment was made to the Criminal Code, the term was changed from “not guilty by reason of insanity” to “not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder”. At that point, summary conviction offences were also added, and this resulted in a lot of cases that had not been covered previously.

Obviously that had an impact on the statistics. According to the government’s responses, we are talking about a tiny percentage of cases where the individuals were found to be not criminally responsible. Of that minute number of repeat offenders, the minister talked about 28% of them who may have already committed an offence. The entire issue is now whether they had committed serious crimes when they had a mental disorder.

You know, as do I, that statistics can be made to say just about anything. So we have to look at this kind of case and stop playing the game that some of the media play. These are not subjects that should be played with to inflame the population. On the contrary, what is really happening has to be explained. We are dealing with something that no one in this House is familiar with, unless perhaps a psychiatrist was elected in the 2011 election, but I doubt that. Unless you are a mental health professional, these are cases that are sometimes incomprehensible in terms of the evidence involved.

I was working in radio at the time, and I recall a crime in my region. A woman had killed her husband, and there was some question of the whole issue of battered wife syndrome. Some absolutely unbelievable discussions ensued. People were surprised that someone could be acquitted of murder because of battered wife syndrome. The person in question was able to leave her home and function. It was proven that very serious mental disorders could arise out of that syndrome. Today, not as many questions are being asked about that syndrome. Things like that need to be toned down.

And so after listening to the press conferences, I thought that the Conservatives were going to delve into the concept from A to Z. The actual statistics show that there may be some exceptional cases in the system, but we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater every time there is a big headline in the newspapers, so they can take it out and about in the ridings.

It is so popular to say that the Conservatives are listening to people, that the issue is complicated, that they have done something, that they will be getting tough on people with mental disorders to make sure that they stay inside at least until they find it is reasonable to let them out.

I look forward to seeing what is going to happen in committee. My colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques very subtly announced that we were going to pass this bill at second reading. It is the sort of issue that deserves this kind of treatment. We always want to try to get rid of the irritants in the legal system for the victims, who are shortchanged in the legal system. They really are and I agree 100%. I do not think the victims will be treated properly with the band-aid solutions that we are getting from this government.

During the press conference given by the Minister of Justice, which Mr. Kennedy attended, Mr. Kennedy said he appreciated the efforts, but that we must not forget that victims must be cared for and given help. This is not what we are seeing in Bill C-54. A clause was added where they can, if they ask, draft something in writing. One of the victims who was with the Prime Minister said that she was unable to write. She said that she was still too close to the whole thing to be able to talk about what happened and so on.

This is not what we are hearing at the Standing Committee on Justice. What we are hearing is that when they are in the system and the trial begins, they become witnesses just like all the other witnesses. They are often treated with even less respect than witnesses in civil and commercial cases. Deals are reached between the Crown and the defence. Then, all we see is someone who is wondering what is happening; the case is closed. Why? Because there has been a deal between the Crown and the defence. I would not call that putting the victims first.

This is what I have been trying to say right from the start. If the government really wants to change things and give the impression that it is taking care of the victims, it has to stop coming up with band-aid solutions. They look okay but they do not do very much.

It is difficult to be against motherhood and apple pie. So when we hear that special care will be taken when a high-risk person is involved, I would like to send out a note of caution to the people of Quebec and people in other regions who have gone through this kind of thing. They may have been witnesses, through the media, to certain events. Will the bill ensure that someone like Dr. Turcotte would be considered high risk? This is certainly not the case when I take a look at the definitions in Bill C-54. It does not seem to come under any of the criteria at all.

I am not clairvoyant, but we have to admit that past behaviour is often a predictor of future behaviour. I can just see the senator touring all around Quebec and parts of Canada and telling people that they listened and solved the problem. I say that is not the case. The title of the bill indicates that this is a reform. The minister may be right in saying that it is a major change because he has made this criterion the most important one of all. Except that was already the case in the courts. The courts repeatedly said that public safety was the most important criterion.

Do the Conservatives really believe that a court or a commission would not consider the risk to public safety before releasing a person who was found not criminally responsible for a horrible crime? Do they take the people who sit on commissions or on the benches for idiots? If the answer is yes—that is the impression we sometimes have—they should have made the entire exercise mandatory. What did they do instead? They made it optional. The Conservatives should stop saying that they are not satisfied with the courts and give them the authority to go out and see what is happening.

I will have a lot more to say about this in committee. This time, I hope the minister comes armed with statistics instead of empty talking points. I hope he brings the studies prepared by his department on the bill's constitutionality and compliance with the charter. I can see us keeping someone in prison who will file a writ of habeas corpus. I really do not want to hear that kind of debate.

For all these reasons, we will support the bill at second reading. However, we need to study the bill in detail because we do not want to have more victims. The Conservatives cannot say that punishing someone who is considered ill is a kind of victimization. In this case, all that can be done is to help them heal.

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

moved 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.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act. The government introduced the bill because we want to ensure that public safety and the needs of victims receive the appropriate emphasis in the Criminal Code mental disorder regime. The mental disorder regime is the part of the Criminal Code that deals with accused persons who are found unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

Before I describe what is in the bill, I would like to mention what is not proposed by the bill. First, the proposed reforms do not seek to impose penal consequences on people who have been found by the courts to be not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. The bill is grounded on the need to protect the public from accused persons who pose a danger to society. This public safety objective forms the basis of the existing federal legislative regime on mental disorders and provides the justification for the proposed reforms as well.

Second, nothing in the bill would impact a mentally disordered accused's access to mental health treatment. It is well known that an increasing number of people who have become involved in the criminal justice system have mental health issues. These individuals pose unique challenges for police, courts and correctional officials. The government is committed to addressing the challenges posed by mental illness in the criminal justice system, and we have already made significant investments to improve the way offenders with mental health needs are managed. However, that is not the focus of the bill.

The not criminally responsible reform act does not apply to all individuals in the criminal justice system who have a mental illness. Rather, the bill focuses strictly on those who come within the purview of the Criminal Code's mental disorder regime and the corresponding provisions of the National Defence Act that deal with mentally disordered accused who are tried by a court. The mental disorder regime in both statutes applies only to individuals who have been found unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. Individuals who have a mental illness but have not been found unfit or not criminally responsible are dealt with in the traditional criminal justice system.

To better understand exactly who is captured by the bill, it is important to understand the concepts of unfit to stand trial and not criminally responsible. Unfit to stand trial and not criminally responsible are two distinct concepts in criminal law. The question of whether an accused is fit to stand trial can arise at any stage of the proceedings before a verdict is rendered. If an accused has been charged with a criminal offence but is unable, due to a mental disorder, to understand the nature or possible consequences of the trial proceedings or to communicate with a lawyer, then the court will make an order declaring the accused to be unfit to stand trial. Usually treatment will be administered so that the person becomes fit and is able to be tried, but until a person becomes fit to stand trial, he or she is dealt with under the mental disorder regime.

The question of whether or not an accused is criminally responsible for the offence charged focuses on the mental state of the accused at the time of the alleged offence. An accused may be found not criminally responsible due to a mental disorder if at the time of the alleged offence the person lacked the capacity to either appreciate what he or she did or to know that it was wrong.

Not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder was formerly referred to as not guilty by reason of insanity. The finding of not criminally responsible is neither a conviction nor an acquittal; it is a special verdict. Since a person found not criminally responsible is not convicted, the person is not punished or sentenced. Instead, the person is referred to the provincially established tribunal known as the review board, which is tasked with making decisions about the monitoring and supervision of mentally disordered accused persons.

Following a finding of unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible, accused persons are subject to the mental disorder regime and are subject to the restrictions necessary to protect the public.

The Criminal Code sets out the review board's powers with respect to decision-making as well as various procedural and administrative provisions with respect to the holding of hearings, appeals, ordering of assessments, et cetera.

In determining which of the available orders should be made regarding a mentally disordered accused, the review board must take into account four factors: the need to protect the public; the mental condition of the accused; the reintegration of the accused into society; and the other needs of the accused.

Bill C-54, which is before the House, has three main components. First, it seeks to ensure that public safety is the paramount consideration when decisions are made about not criminally responsible and unfit accused. Second, it creates a new high-risk, not criminally responsible accused designation. Third, it enhances victim safety and victim involvement in the mental disorder regime.

With respect to the role of public safety in the review board decision-making process, Bill C-54 clarifies that public safety is the paramount consideration in the decision-making process. As I just mentioned, the current approach is to balance four factors, of which public safety is one. The approach in the not criminally responsible reform act is to ensure that public safety is at the forefront of decision-making. In addition to clarifying that public safety is the paramount consideration, our legislation would also codify the meaning of the term “significant threat to the safety of the public”. This is the test used to determine whether or not a review board should continue to supervise a not criminally responsible accused.

Some provinces have indicated that review boards are interpreting this test too narrowly. To ensure consistent application across the country, our bill would codify the meaning of “significant threat to the safety of the public” consistent with the way it was interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada. It would clarify that the review board can continue to impose restrictions on a not criminally responsible accused who risks committing further criminal acts, even though he or she does not pose a threat of violence per se. For example, if the board is concerned about a not criminally responsible accused committing thefts or break-ins, it would be able to maintain jurisdiction over him or her and impose the necessary and appropriate conditions.

I would like to turn to one of the key features of Bill C-54. The bill proposes a new scheme that would permit the courts to designate certain non-criminally responsible accused as high risk. This high-risk accused designation would ensure that a person so designated would be held in custody and could not be considered for release by the review board until the designation was revoked by the court. A person found by the court to be a high-risk accused would not be entitled to unescorted passes into the community.

The high-risk not criminally responsible accused scheme would apply to the small number of accused who have been found not criminally responsible and who pose a higher threat to public safety. The scheme would permit a prosecutor to apply to the court for a designation when certain criteria were met.

First, it is important to note that the high-risk not criminally responsible scheme would apply to those found not criminally responsible. It would not apply to those who are found unfit to stand trial. The reason for this distinction is that an unfit accused has not yet been tried for the offence. It has not been proven that the person committed the acts that form the basis of the offence charged.

Further, if a person were not fit to stand trial, the person would also not be fit to participate in a hearing to determine whether he or she should be designated as a high-risk accused. If the accused is eventually tried and found to be not criminally responsible, he or she could at that point be subject to a high-risk designation, if the criteria were met.

Second, the high-risk designation process could only be launched with respect to a criminally responsible accused who was over the age of 18 years at the time of the offence. This is because the provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act already provide public protection from youth who are found to be not criminally responsible by, for example, the imposition of an intensive rehabilitative custody supervision order on young people with mental health issues who have committed serious or violent offences.

Third, the accused must have been found not criminally responsible for a serious personal injury offence. The existing mental disorder regime in the Criminal Code defines a serious personal injury as an indictable offence involving the use or attempted use of violence, conduct endangering life and a number of sexual offences listed in the Criminal Code.

If these criteria were met, the Crown could apply to the court for a finding of not criminally responsible if the accused was high risk. If the Crown made the application, the court would hold a hearing to determine the level of risk posed by the accused.

The court would make the finding that a non-criminally responsible accused was high risk in two circumstances. The first circumstance would be if the court was satisfied that there was a substantial likelihood that the accused would commit violence that could endanger the life or safety of another person. This is a higher level of risk than is currently required to maintain jurisdiction over a not criminally responsible accused, which is a significant threat to the safety of the public. In order to justify the increased restrictions on the high-risk, not criminally responsible accused, the higher threshold of “substantial likelihood” is used in the legislation.

The second circumstance when a court could make the high-risk designation would be if the court were of the opinion that the acts in question were of such a brutal nature as to indicate a risk of grave harm to the public.

Although the level of risk posed by a high-risk, not criminally responsible accused designated under this category would be lower than in the first circumstance, the nature of the actions that resulted in a serious personal injury that formed the basis for the application would point to the need for increased protection and restrictions.

The result of a high-risk designation would be that the accused would have to be detained in a hospital. The review board would not have the discretion to order an absolute or conditional discharge. Also, the high-risk accused would not be permitted to be absent from the hospital except for medical reasons or for any reason that was necessary for treatment. The absence would require an escort and a structured plan that had been put in place to address any risk related to the leave.

Generally, mentally disordered accused persons have their cases reviewed on an annual basis, but they may be extended up to two years in certain circumstances. Our bill would provide review boards with the discretion to extend the period between reviews to up to three years if the mentally disordered accused was found to be a high-risk, not criminally responsible accused.

The high-risk designation could only be revoked by a superior court of criminal jurisdiction. If, at a review hearing for a high-risk accused the review board is of the opinion that there was no longer a substantial likelihood that the accused would commit violence that could endanger the life or safety of another person, it could recommend to the court that the high-risk designation be revoked. If and when the review board made this recommendation, the court would have to hold a revocation hearing. After considering all the evidence, the court would determine whether there is no longer a substantial likelihood that the accused would commit violence that could endanger the life or safety of another person. If so, the court could revoke the high-risk finding.

However, the revocation would not result in an automatic discharge of the accused. Instead, the accused would be dealt with as a regular not criminally responsible accused and would be supervised by the review board until the person no longer posed a significant threat to the safety of the public, at which time he or she could be discharged.

The third component of the not criminally responsible reform act are provisions that enhance victim safety and victim involvement in the mental disorder regime.

Victims have raised concerns that their safety was not specifically being taken into consideration by review boards when decisions were being made.Victims also expressed concern that they had no way of knowing if and when a not criminally responsible accused was going to be discharged into the community. Victims would like an opportunity to have concerns with respect to their safety taken into consideration, and where necessary and appropriate, addressed in the conditions of discharge. Bill C-54 addresses these issues.

First, the bill would explicitly require that the safety of the victim be considered by courts and review boards when they make decisions with respect to persons found unfit and not criminally responsible.

Second, the bill would require the review board to notify the victim, upon request, if the accused person is to be released into the community. The amendment to make victim notification available upon request is a necessary component of this new notice requirement, as some victims do not want to be kept apprised of the release of an accused and may find notification to be an unwelcome reminder of the offence.

A third element intended to enhance victim safety is the specific power provided to review boards to order non-communication orders between mentally disordered accused and the victim. There is also a provision to specifically enable the review board to prohibit the accused from going to a specific place. The Criminal Code already provides such safeguards in the bail context. We think it makes sense to also include these powers in the proposed mental disorder regime reforms so they would also be available to review boards.

Finally, the bill would remedy a procedural matter raised in the 2012 decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario. In the Kobzar case, the court struck down the provision that provides for an automatic suspension of an absolute discharge immediately following a crown notice of appeal. The proposed reforms would replace the automatic suspension of an absolute discharge with a discretionary suspension, if the judge is satisfied that the mental condition of the accused justifies the suspension and the appeal.

I have had the opportunity to discuss a number of these issues with my provincial and territorial counterparts. In fact, a number of them wrote to me about concerns they have, including the need to ensure that public safety is the paramount consideration in the decision-making process. I can confirm that my provincial and territorial counterparts support the idea of expressly making public safety paramount.

In closing, I think the bill effectively balances the right of the public to be adequately protected when mentally disordered accused persons pose a danger to society, with the rights of the unfit and not criminally responsible accused to be treated fairly and appropriately. I urge all members to support this important piece of legislation.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue debating third reading of Bill C-42, the enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police accountability act, a bill that would give the RCMP the tools it needs to strengthen accountability and enhance public trust. I am puzzled why the NDP is putting up member after member to delay and block bringing accountability to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The New Democrats should let the bill come to a final vote so that these much-needed reforms can be put in place. In fact, the RCMP commissioner, Robert Paulson, was in front of the committee yesterday, and he called for swift passage of the bill.

If the New Democrats heed the commissioner's advice and allow the debate to conclude, we will be able to start third reading of Bill S-7, the combatting terrorism act, and help keep Canadians safe that way.

Tomorrow, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-54, the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act. This bill proposes to put public safety as the first and paramount consideration in the process of dealing with accused persons found to be not criminally responsible. It accomplishes this change without affecting the treatment these individuals receive.

The debate on Bill C-54 will continue next Thursday and—if necessary—on Friday. Monday, we will consider Bill C-47, the Northern Jobs and Growth Act, at report stage and third reading. We will continue that debate on Wednesday.

Tuesday, March 5, shall be the sixth allotted day, which will go to the New Democrats.

Finally, I hope that the opposition will support our hard-working approach to business so that we could also consider second reading of Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012; the second reading of Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act; and report stage and third reading of Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act.

In addition, in response to what I will take to be an invitation from the oppostion House leader, I would like unanimous consent to propose the following motion. I hope the opposition will not block it.

I move that, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-7, an act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits, be deemed to have been read the second time and referred to a committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read the third time and passed.

Unanimous consent for this would show that they really do care about Senate reform.

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

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the implicit offer of assistance from the House Leader of the Official Opposition.

I look forward to discussions with him later on the possibility of moving forward both Senate reform and Bill C-12 on a unanimous consent basis straight to committee. I would be happy to do that with him.

This afternoon we will continue debating the Liberal opposition day motion. Tomorrow we will hopefully finish second reading of Bill C-48, the Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, a measure supported by all three parties. After that we will turn to third reading of Bill C-42, the Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act; third reading of Bill S-7, the Combating Terrorism Act; and second reading of Bill S-12, the Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act.

When we return from our constituency week on Monday, February 25, we will start second reading of Bill C-55, the Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act. This bill needs to be passed by mid-April before the Supreme Court ruling takes effect, which would render the important powers available to police ineffective.

After Bill C-55, we will consider Friday's unfinished business.

Tuesday, February 26, shall be the fifth allotted day, which will go to the Official Opposition, and it will therefore choose the subject of debate.

On Wednesday and Thursday, we will continue debating the bills I have already listed.

Additionally, Bill C-47, Northern Jobs and Growth Act, was reported back from committee yesterday, and I anticipate Bill S-9, Nuclear Terrorism Act, will be reported back soon. So we could also call these bills at report stage and third reading, if we have extra time next week.

Finally, on Friday, March 1, the House will start the second reading debate on Bill C-54, Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act. The Prime Minister announced this bill last week as part of our efforts to ensure we have a justice system that puts the rights of victims first.

Safer Witnesses Act

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to say honestly that I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-51 at second reading, not so much personally, as I was already up speaking this morning, to Bill C-42, as was the parliamentary secretary, but because, like many members, we have had challenges even getting to the House today.

As the NDP public safety critic, I have the honour of speaking in the House quite often. Unfortunately, too often, it is on bills motivated by the Conservatives' tough on crime attitude. The parliamentary secretary asked why we do not support all of their bills. I would like to take just a moment to talk about this tough on crime attitude, because this is an attitude that too often results in policies that are ripped from headlines.

At best, it is based on a faulty concept of deterrence and the idea that harsh sentences somehow deter crime. There is actually no imperial evidence to show that. The only way deterrence functions is when the investment is made at the front end of law enforcement. It is the certainty of being caught and the swiftness of prosecution that puts people off committing crimes.

Most criminals do not sit at home thumbing through the Criminal Code to see which offence to commit based on the length of the sentence. Obviously they are motivated by other social, economic and personal factors. If resources are put at the front end, we get better results. That is one reason this legislation looks a lot better to us than most of the bills that come forward from the Conservatives.

At worst, the tough on crime agenda appears to be based on little more than retribution, and retribution is not an effective approach to crime. Although it may make some people feel better for a short period of time, it results in policies that are expensive and that rarely show any positive results. In contrast, we in the NDP believe in evidence-based measures, which will help us build safer communities.

I am honestly pleased to stand in the House today to support Bill C-51 at second reading. We have seen a couple of hopeful signs from the Conservatives with this legislation, and also with Bill C-54, which deals with measures for those not criminally responsible. We have seen more consultation from the government on these two bills. We have seen more attention to evidence on these two bills than we have seen before. In this case, action is long overdue. We are glad that the government finally listened to stakeholders, as we have been asking it to do this since 2007.

In November 2012, the NDP member for Trinity—Spadina repeated our call for action to expand eligibility for those going into the witness protection program. This is particularly important in the struggle against street gangs. The previous narrow definitions excluded them from the witness protection program. We and government members have heard from many community representatives, and from many law enforcement agencies, that to get co-operation to help break street gangs, inclusion of possible witnesses in this program would be very important.

Since 2007, the NDP has also specifically called for better coordination of federal and provincial programs and better provision of services to those provincial programs, which is another positive measure we see in the bill.

We have always called for better overall funding for the program. I will come back to that question.

While we support what the bill attempts to do, which is improve the witness protection program, we are concerned that the Conservative government will refuse to commit any new funding. In fact, the minister said during the introduction of the bill that this would have to be funded from existing funds.

While there is no legislative flaw we can see at this point in the bill, which ensures that we will support it at second reading, we are concerned, because as I often like to say, the proof is in the funding. If we make these improvements, but law enforcement agencies do not have the funding they need to operate the program, we have not moved very far forward.

Whatever the improvements here, the demand that the RCMP and local police departments work within their existing budgets will likely hinder the implementation of the proposed amendments and the improvements in the bill.

The RCMP's own website states that there are instances when the cost of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies. When municipal departments, which are extensive across this country, try to make use of the program, they must reimburse the RCMP fully for the costs, which can be very high. This is an ongoing cost for them. Most of them have no provision in their budgets for making use of this program. It means, oftentimes, that front-line law enforcement officers have to make difficult choices, because they cannot get those who need protection into the program, because the funding is not available to support those individuals once they are in the program.

Again, the witness protection program is often crucial to getting the co-operation the front-line police need so that they can get convictions that will take key organized crime figures out of the community. If there were adequate funding, the same would be true for getting key witnesses to testify against street gang members to help break up those street gangs.

The federal witness protection program has long been criticized for its narrow eligibility criteria, for its poor coordination with provincial programs, and for the low number of witnesses actually admitted to the program. In 2012, 108 applications were considered for admission to the program, and, largely due to funding constraints, only 30 people were accepted.

What does that mean? It means 78 cases for which we might have been able to get a conviction and might have been able to make progress on organized crime, because that has been the focus of the program to this point. We did not get that because of inadequate resources.

There are some important improvements, as we acknowledge, in the bill. Bill C-51 proposes a better process to support provincial witness protection programs. This would be especially important for expediting getting new identity documents for those in provincial programs. Before, as the parliamentary secretary mentioned, this required transferring them to the federal program and transferring them back, with an enormous amount of bureaucratic time-wasting and cost. We are pleased to see that.

The expanded definition is important. In addition to including witnesses in street gang cases as possible entrants to the program, it would also expand the program to include agencies with national security responsibilities.

It would also extend the period for emergency protection. That is one of the key issues local law enforcement figures have raised. Sometimes people need to go into this program very quickly, and sometimes it takes a while before they can get into a more permanent situation. Extending that emergency protection is important.

Provinces such as Ontario and Alberta have been pushing for a national revamp of this program, including recognition of their existing programs. Again, the designation of programs and recognition of those programs is a positive feature of the bill.

For federal departments and agencies with a mandate related to national security, both those that function under national defence and those that function under public safety would now be able to refer witnesses to the program. I will say in a minute why that has been a gap of very great concern in the past.

Because there is no direct reference to eligibility for the program for witnesses in street gang cases, many stakeholders have been concerned that street gang witnesses may not fit these new criteria. We are assured by the government that they will. We look forward to talking about this question in committee to make sure that this critical area is indeed covered by these changes to the witness protection program.

At committee I will be asking those questions to make sure that the federal government is truly committed to the inclusion of street gang, youth gang and national security witnesses in this program. This will be an important step toward building safer communities in Canada.

We believe that the bill addresses the key problems. There are still a few things it does not do. Again, we would like to talk about those in committee.

Bill C-51 does not include provisions for an independent agency to operate the program, as was recommended in the Air India inquiry report.

There is kind of a conflict of interest when the RCMP manages the program and also manages the investigations. It is able to use the incentive, I guess one would say, of the witness protection program to get co-operation, and then, later, it makes the decision about who is actually eligible to be in the witness protection program. The Air India inquiry report suggested that there should be an independent agency to make those decisions that involve the RCMP as both the investigating authority and the decision-making authority on who gets protection from the program.

When we look at national security, the inability to protect witnesses was a major obstacle to prosecutions in the Air India bombing case. That is why, in the report, there was a lot of attention given to the witness protection program. One witness, Tara Singh Hayer, publisher of the B.C.-based Indo-Canadian Times, was assassinated in 1998. This made the affidavit he had given the RCMP in 1995 inadmissible as evidence in the case.

I would say that Mr. Hayer was not a likely candidate to go into the witness protection program because he was a very brave individual. However, two additional witnesses, seeing what had happened to him and not being eligible to go into the witness protection program, refused to provide evidence to the RCMP or the Air India inquiry because of what they had seen happen to another witness who had provided information, and the fact that he was assassinated.

Justice Major, in his report, acknowledged that he felt unable, because of the restrictions in the witness protection program, to provide the protection that would be necessary for prosecution in the case of Air India.

The RCMP has also called for intensive psychological examination of potential protectees, a national support centre for the program, and has also supported the call for an external advisory board in their case to serve as a watchdog on the decisions being made.

We recognize that these are all potentially outside the scope of this bill, but I still think it is worth having a discussion in committee about some of the other things that the RCMP has said are necessary for the efficient operation of the witness protection program.

New Democrats believe that strengthening the program will improve co-operation with local police and the RCMP in the fight against gang violence, and in doing so will help make our communities safer. It has a proven record of success in the fight against organized crime.

While the Conservatives have been slow to respond to this issue, and we on our part have been calling for these changes since 2007, we are pleased to see that the government has listened to the stakeholders in this case and brought in this new legislation to expand the program.

Bill C-51 does address key legislative concerns with regard to the witness protection program and therefore warrants our support. Despite our ongoing concerns about funding, the NDP recognizes that Bill C-51 still falls short on some key changes to the program, such as having a more transparent and accountable process for admissions into the program. Again, the Conservative government has ignored the important recommendations of the Air India inquiry with regard to this independent review of who is admissible into the program.

We do feel that Bill C-51 provides the basic legislative fix that we need. We will wait to see if the Conservatives are going to provide the resources to make it really count for local communities. As I often say and will say again, the proof is in the funding. Local police wish to make use of this program. They welcome these changes. They are waiting to get to work on some of the street and youth gang problems they have when this tool becomes available to them. However, it will not work if they do not have the funding at the local level.

At the public safety committee, we are doing a large study on the economics of policing. I think it has made all members of Parliament aware of the constant downloading of costs and responsibility onto police forces.

When we asked witnesses at committee what percentage of their calls for service were actually what people regard as crime, they responded that it was around 20%, saying that 80% of the time the police spend working on other issues. What that really means is that they are working on things like mental health, addictions, and all those other social problems of exclusion and marginalization. In our society we have made what I would call an unconscious decision that we will leave all those responsibilities to the police. One good sign of that, which we often see, is the difficulty of finding emergency social services, even in urban areas, after five o'clock. Who will one call after five o'clock when most people have their mental health and addiction crises? Those offices are closed.

The police become the agency called to deal with those problems. This is one of the huge, and probably the most important, cost drivers in policing. I know that the Minister of Public Safety suggested that police salaries were in fact a cost driver and that they took away resources from other things they needed. We on this side believe that the police who serve our communities as highly trained professionals need to be paid a fair, professional wage. We recognize that most of the time wages—and certainly in municipal and provincial departments—have been set through a process of free collective bargaining. Therefore, it not the police salaries that prevent resources being available for things like the witness protection program, but government budgets and all those other demands that we place on the police every day of the week.

As I said at the beginning, we know that the police are out in snowstorms doing all kinds of things that are not strictly fighting crime but providing emergency assistance to the public. I am looking forward to the work in committee not just on this bill but also on the study on the economics of policing to help find some ways to get the cost of policing under control by getting the focus back on building safer communities.

We in the NDP are committed to this concept. We need measures based on real evidence that will lead us toward solutions that make our communities safer. One way of doing this is through an improved witness protection program that helps keep our streets safe by giving police additional tools to fight street gangs.

The parliamentary secretary talked about an expedited process. I want to again reassure her, as I did in the questions asked at the beginning, that on this side we are committed to getting this bill to committee as soon as we can, and giving it a high priority in committee and bringing in the witnesses we need to talk to as quickly as possible. We will not prolong the process beyond what is needed, because we know that local police forces are in fact waiting for this tool to be made available to them in order to do some very important work in community safety.

At this point, I am happy to conclude my remarks by saying that this is one case where the New Democrats believe that the government has listened to stakeholders and has consulted. It might be a little late, but we are pleased to see that it brought in this legislation, and we will be looking at the next budget to make sure that the resources that police forces need, particularly the RCMP, are there to ensure that this new and improved witness protection program can actually be used by those on the front line.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct. Canadians, particularly victims, are increasingly concerned about the potential for high-risk individuals being released into the community. It is not surprising, given that, according to the Department of Justice, between 1994 and 2004, there was a 50% increase in the number of review board admissions for those found not criminally responsible and unfit to stand trial. This is one of the reasons we have introduced Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act. We are acting to ensure that public safety is given paramount consideration while giving a greater voice to victims. These are common sense reforms. I hope they have the support of all members of the House.

Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)