Bill C-375 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (presentence report)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to require that a presentence report contain information on any aspect of the offender’s mental condition that is relevant for sentencing purposes.

Justice

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, he still will not clearly answer the question, which is doubly concerning because Toronto has been overtaken by crime and chaos since he brought in the catch-and-release policies under Bill C-375, Bill C-5 and Bill C-83. Violent crime is up 40%. We just heard the tragic story on Monday of a liquor store robber crashing into a family, tragically killing grandparents and a precious child. The assailant was out on bail.

Will the Prime Minister repeal catch-and-release?

Reduction of Recidivism Framework Act

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member for bringing this private member's bill forward and congratulate him on a great intervention. Typically when an intervention comes from the heart and is based on lived or shared experience, it really impacts this House. It is really meaningful when we have this as part of our interventions in the House.

It is a pleasure to have this opportunity to add my voice to today’s debate on Bill C-228, which proposes to establish a federal framework to reduce recidivism. Again, I thank the hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac for putting forward this bill.

Specifically, the bill calls for the development and implementation of a federal framework that, in the interests of reducing recidivism, would ensure the needs of people who have been incarcerated are met and would support their rehabilitation.

Back in the 42nd Parliament, I had the opportunity to table Bill C-375, which was also focused on the reduction of recidivism, with a focus on mental health. Unfortunately, it died on the floor of the other House and I hope this bill does not see the same fate. I will be supporting this bill.

This bill is important because almost all offenders in Canadian federal correctional institutions will sooner or later be released safely back into the community. We need to ensure when people who have been incarcerated make that transition they are well prepared and well equipped to succeed and lead productive and law-abiding lives. That is why we have a continuity of care in our federal correctional system.

It starts with rehabilitation programming and treatment inside our institutions. These help prepare an offender for eventual release by promoting law-abiding lifestyles and good behaviour. However, if positive change is to last, it must continue in the community as well. That is why most people who have been incarcerated are also provided with support for a gradual, structured reintegration into the community under supervision and with conditions.

This approach helps improve public safety by providing appropriate rehabilitative and reintegration support to reduce the risk of reoffending. Indeed, it has been proven to lead to fewer repeat offenders, fewer victims and ultimately safer communities and a safer society.

A wide variety of programs, services and support are offered by Correctional Service Canada, Public Safety Canada and by partners in the community. While these initiatives are all different, they share the same goal to improve reintegration outcomes so people do not reoffend and return to our institutions after they are released.

It is important to note the transition from incarceration to freedom can often be difficult. The chance of success of people making this transition depends partly on their own efforts and partly on the supervision, opportunities, training and support they receive within the community. Community-based residential facilities are an important part of this process for gradual, supervised release.

The hon. member talked about the theme of three minutes, three hours, three days, three weeks, three months and three years, and this aligns with what our government is doing. These facilities provide a bridge between the institution and the community. Many offer programming for residents focused on important topics like life skills, substance abuse and employment. Some community-based residential facilities are owned and operated by non-governmental agencies.

Earlier this year, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, our government announced that we would provide up to $500,000 to five national voluntary organizations to develop pilot projects during this unprecedented time to address the reintegration of those under supervision at halfway houses.

The lessons learned from the pilot projects will help continue to deliver effective programs and services to people in correctional institutions who are eligible for supervised release in the community. They will also keep halfway house residents and surrounding communities safe during emergencies such as COVID-19. People and organizations in the community also deliver programs and act as counsellors, role models and support networks. Community-based maintenance programs are one example.

The main goal of these programs is to reduce the risk of people committing new crimes and reoffending. The programs help people who have been incarcerated to enhance their self-management during their transition to the community. Through these programs, people review core self-management skills and apply them to real-life situations, obstacles and high-risk situations. This allows them to gain, rehearse and maintain recidivism-reducing skills. In addition to these efforts, our government is strengthening culturally responsive services and rehabilitation strategies.

We are also putting in place reintegration initiatives and building partnerships with indigenous communities and organizations to provide addiction treatment, trauma counselling and life-skill support. All these help to promote timely, safe and successful reintegration and to address the problem of overrepresentation of indigenous people in correctional facilities.

One example is the relatively new indigenous community correction initiative, which is a major development on this front. It was created to support the healing and rehabilitation of indigenous offenders and was backed by $10 million of funding over five years in budget 2017. The initiative provides funding for community-driven projects and offers alternatives to incarceration and reintegration support for indigenous offenders. The project works with indigenous offenders before they are released from a correctional facility and provides continuing support once the offender is back in the community.

The projects are also meant to be culturally relevant. They incorporate local customs and traditions and are responsive to the unique circumstances of indigenous people in Canada.

For Black Canadians, who are also overrepresented in our penitentiaries when comparing their percentage with the general population, CSC is studying the in-custody experience of racialized inmates, including Black Canadians. It will focus on participation in correctional programs, education and employment, while studying how ethnocultural offenders are reintegrating into the community in terms of employment opportunities and successful completion of sentences.

CSC continues to also invest in partnerships with universities and we are committed to doing more to ensure that Black offenders are offered a comprehensive level of service aimed at supporting their reintegration. This includes addressing employment and mentorship needs, culturally relevant presentations, community outreach with service providers, community engagement and ethnocultural services and the purchase of culturally relevant materials.

We know that there is more work to be done and we are committed to doing it. Both the Office of the Correctional Investigator and the Office of the Auditor General of Canada have highlighted the importance of supporting offenders in their reintegration into the community and have called for improved measures. The government has made significant investments and launched important new initiatives to that end in recent years. We continue to take steps to support the safe reintegration of federal offenders into the community, as productive and law-abiding citizens.

That does not mean that we cannot or should not do more. The overrepresentation of Black and indigenous inmates is unacceptable and we must continue to make progress to address the issue. That was reaffirmed in the most recent Speech from the Throne. Among other things, it notes that our government will introduce legislation and make investments that take action to address the systemic inequalities in all phases of the criminal justice system, from diversion to sentencing, from rehabilitation to records.

The proposed federal framework in Bill C-228 is a reasonable and welcome suggestion that would complement existing efforts to reduce recidivism. I look forward to further debates on the bill. I, personally, will be supporting the bill.

Motions in amendment

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise at the report stage of Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act. This bill has been extensively debated and scrutinized since its introduction. I have been watching with great interest as it proceeded through the House and the committee.

At the outset, I would like to thank all hon. colleagues, witnesses and members who shared their thoughts and offered constructive suggestions throughout the process, both in the chamber and at committee. As a legislator, the debate gave me and the House as a whole much to think about, and resulted in a stronger and more comprehensive bill.

Bill C-83 proposes the elimination of segregation and the creation of innovative new structured intervention units, or SIUs, for offenders who must be separated from their fellow inmates for safety and security reasons. SIUs would allow offenders who pose particularly difficult challenges to be separated from the mainstream inmate population when and if required. However, they would continue to receive the programming, intervention and health care that are essential to their rehabilitation.

Segregation is an immoral and ineffective practice. It does not deliver the results we are looking for in our correctional system, for our prisoners or for our correctional officers. As a member, I considered incorporating similar principles in my private member's legislation, Bill C-375, which would similarly legislate the nexus between mental health and our judicial system. However, as we saw with measures previously proposed in Bill C-56, the transformation of our penitentiaries is a profound undertaking that would require measures far beyond those made possible through private members' legislation.

Bill C-83 had a series of amendments adopted during its time in committee. In fact, every party that put forward amendments had at least one amendment ultimately adopted. Specifically, I will use my time to home in on amendments that strengthen the capacity of Bill C-83 to improve the mental well-being of prisoners. I will specifically address five areas that piqued my interest.

First, when Bill C-83 passed at second reading, it had, in principle, legislation that would guarantee inmates held within SIUs four hours outside of their cells. One of the proposed amendments to the bill specified that those hours be between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. Those are normal waking hours for most people. This responds to the concerns raised in committee that time out of cells could be offered, say, in the middle of the night, when inmates would be unlikely to avail themselves of them.

The CMHA has connected lack of daylight to dips in mood and depression. There is also research that shows maintaining a regular sleep cycle, connected to the natural ebb and flow of the day, is important for maintaining mental health. This amendment would ensure that the four hours of time outside SIUs are not outside of the bounds of the natural day. It would prevent officials from providing these hours as an obligatory or dismissive exercise and ensure that they serve their intended purpose.

Second, human beings are built to seek out interaction with others, particularly in times of stress. Isolation can reduce cognition and even compromise the immune system. Extensive time in an unchanging environment can alter the way we process external stimuli. It can literally warp the way we experience the world around us. This is why Bill C-83 includes provisions that would guarantee inmates the opportunity for two hours of meaningful human contact each and every day.

Thanks to amendments put forward in the committee, this principle has been strengthened practically. By looking to ensure that this interaction is not hindered by physical barriers such as bars or security glass, the proposed amendment would ensure that those two hours are not just perfunctory but meaningful human contact.

Third, socializing with peers and participating in rehabilitative programming outside their cells would also go a long way toward improving the mental health and well-being of inmates in an SIU. It would put them on the right track to reintegrating into the mainstream inmate population. Beyond that, it would help their chances of successfully reintegrating into society as law-abiding members of society at the end of their sentences.

Fourth, the proposed reforms in Bill C-83 would also strengthen health care, including mental health services, in corrections in several ways. It would mandate the Correctional Service to support the autonomy and clinical independence of health care professionals working within a correctional facility. As well, it would allow for the use of patient advocates, as was recommended by the inquiry into the death of Ashley Smith.

Within SIUs, inmates would receive daily visits from health care professionals, who could recommend at any time that an inmate's conditions of confinement be altered or that they be transferred out of the SIU. These recommendations could stem from a professional mental health assessment. In turn, these recommendations could pre-empt mental health crises or imminent self-harm.

Fifth, an amendment adopted at committee would strengthen this aspect of the bill by requiring an additional review at a more senior level external to the institution if the warden does not accept medical recommendations.

It is difficult to overestimate the importance of these measures. Mental health is an extremely serious problem in our prisons. Some 70% of male offenders have a mental health issue. At 80%, the percentage is even higher for women offenders. The ministers of public safety and justice have been mandated to address gaps in services to people with mental illnesses in the criminal justice system. The proposed reforms in Bill C-83 support that commitment.

They also build on recent investments in this area. The last two budgets included nearly $80 million for mental health care in corrections, and more recently, in the fall economic statement the Minister of Finance announced substantial funding of $448 million for corrections. This funding will help support the transformational changes to the correctional system proposed in this bill, and it will allow for comprehensive improvements to mental health care in corrections within SIUs and across the board.

It also directly addresses calls for increased resources made at committee by Jason Godin, the national president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, and by Stanley Stapleton, the national president of the Union of Safety and Justice Employees.

In other words, should this bill pass into law, the appropriate resources will be in place to ensure it successfully fulfills its objectives. I know this was a concern raised at committee, and it was also raised during this debate. I am reassured there is already an effort on behalf of the government to allocate appropriate resources.

In conclusion, the number one objective of this bill is safety. Correctional staff and other inmates need to be protected from certain offenders who cannot be safely managed in the mainstream population. By ensuring inmates separated from the mainstream population get the interventions they need to increase their chances of successful rehabilitation, the bill would lead to greater safety inside correctional institutions, and greater safety in our communities when those inmates are eventually released.

We started this process with a very good bill. What we have before us today is an even stronger version of the legislation, bolstered by the productive contributions of witnesses at committee and the serious work of committee members.

In closing, I fully support Bill C-83 and I urge all hon. members to do the same thing.

Criminal Code

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak at third reading to Bill C-75. I had the opportunity recently to speak on another bill that also sought to amend the Criminal Code, Bill C-375. In that speech, I drew attention to the Liberals' alarming track record on criminal justice. I would like to continue with these thoughts today in the context of the bill before us.

Bill C-75 continues a disturbing pattern from the Liberal government. Where previous governments of all stripes sought to protect victims of crime, the Liberal government seems to favour the protection of criminals instead. From their first days in government, the Liberals have used the levers of power to shield and protect criminals while leaving victims and their families in the cold.

We have seen this time and time again, with the Liberals' $10.5-million payout to Omar Khadr and their subsequent snubbing of Tabitha Speer, their shocking response to Terri-Lynne McClintic's transfer from a secure prison to a healing lodge, their abysmal response to gang crimes through Bill C-71, along with countless other examples.

When Canadians dared to raise their concerns, the Prime Minister labelled them ambulance chasers. Perhaps the most tangible examples of the government's disordered protection of criminals have come in this bill. When Bill C-75 was introduced, it reduced the penalties for advocating genocide and participation in terrorist activities to possibly as little as a fine. It was only at the insistence of my Conservative colleagues at committee that these clauses were removed.

I am glad the Liberal members on that committee saw the folly of the original text, but it begs the question: how could the government have thought those clauses were in any way appropriate in the first place? Unfortunately, I believe that this is not a one-time occurrence, but as I said, a disturbing pattern regarding terrorists from the government.

As I already mentioned, take the case of Omar Khadr which resulted in a convicted terrorist becoming a millionaire at the expense of Canadian taxpayers, and this is just one example. Recall that long before the Liberals tried to use Bill C-75 to lower the penalties for engaging in terrorist activities, one of the first items on the Prime Minister's agenda was to pull our air force out of the fight against ISIS. This was a backward decision at the time and in retrospect, almost indefensible.

Just days ago, a mass grave holding the remains of more Yazidi victims of ISIS was discovered in Kar Azir town. This is the 71st mass grave found in the area. The men, women and children in these graves were slaughtered by members of ISIS, some of whom are from this country. These ISIS terrorists stoned women to death for the crime of being raped. They killed families for believing in their own God or being the wrong ethnicity. They burned men alive for refusing to join their evil cause or threw them off buildings for being gay.

As I previously pointed out in this place, the Minister of Foreign Affairs could not even bring herself to call these monsters terrorists--

[The Acting Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-375 under private members' business. The question is on the motion.

May I dispense?

The House resumed from October 31 consideration of the motion that Bill C-375, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (presentence report), be read the third time and passed.

[Sherry Romanado, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate of private member's Bill C-375, an act to amend the Criminal Code (pre-sentence report). I would like to acknowledge the contributions of the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for their hard work in studying the bill.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights recently completed its study of Bill C-375 and reported it back with one amendment that makes three changes to the proposed language of the bill. The bill, as amended by committee, has now been concurred in at report stage.

In my view, the committee's amendment clarifies the language in the bill and will ensure it better achieves its stated objectives.

Before I speak about the specific amendment, I would like to take a moment to speak about the bill itself. The bill seeks to amend the Criminal Code provisions relating to pre-sentence reports. Pre-sentence reports are ordered by the court and prepared by probation officers to help the court learn about the person to be sentenced and, in turn, to help the court discharge its responsibility to impose fit and appropriate sentences.

Currently, the Criminal Code specifies that a pre-sentence report should contain certain information about the offender, for example, age, maturity and character, unless the court orders otherwise. However, the Criminal Code is silent as to whether or not relevant mental health information should be included.

Bill C-375 proposes to amend section 721 of the Criminal Code to clarify that, wherever possible, a pre-sentence report should also include available mental health information about the offender.

During its review, the justice committee heard from several witnesses, each with an expertise in mental health and the criminal justice system and each bringing a different perspective to the table.

The Probation Officers Association of Ontario shared some very useful information with the committee about the collection and transmission of that information. The association noted that, if an offender has a mental health diagnosis, probation officers have to investigate and confirm the diagnosis through contact with mental health professionals where possible.

However, sometimes an offender's diagnosis is not confirmed or the offender does not disclose it to the probation officer. In such cases, information about mental health may come from collateral sources, such as family members, employers or professional counsellors. If necessary, probation officers include comments about observed or reported behaviours in the pre-sentence report.

Essentially, Bill C-375 would codify this standard practice to require the inclusion of mental health information in pre-sentence reports. All judges and criminal justice professionals would have access to that information and would take it into consideration at sentencing following criminal proceedings.

As I noted earlier, the justice committee amended the bill to reflect some of the expert testimony presented to it. The amendment resulted in three notable changes to the original language of the bill.

The first change to the language replaced the term “mental disorder” with “mental condition”. This responded to a concern that, as introduced, the wording in Bill C-375 was too narrow, as it would have required a specific diagnosis. The impact of this part of the amendment would be to broaden the wording of the bill, as introduced, to ensure that a pre-sentence report contained more general information about the mental condition of the offender that might be relevant for sentencing purposes, as well as any related behavioural challenges, and not solely a medical diagnosis.

The second change to the language will ensure that only the information about mental health with a direct relationship to the proceedings will be provided to protect the offender's privacy. This would address the concerns the committee heard about the presence in public records of information unrelated to the offence or sentence.

The third change to the language specified that information about “mental health services or support available to the offender” be included in a pre-sentence report. This broadens the language of the bill as introduced, which provided that the pre-sentence report should also include information about “mental health care programs”.

Broadening this language would ensure that the legislation would not unduly limit the treatment an offender could access. This amendment responded to three of the issues discussed by witnesses, and in my view, it is consistent with the purpose of the bill.

When the bill's sponsor, the member for Richmond Hill, appeared before the standing committee, he indicated that the purpose of Bill C-375 was to ensure that mental health information be considered during sentencing and that individuals with a history of mental illness be provided appropriate care and treatment in support of their rehabilitation.

I believe that the bill, with the amendment adopted at committee, strikes the appropriate balance between protecting the privacy interests of the accused and ensuring that the court has the appropriate information to make a fit sentence.

This bill would only signal that where mental health information was available to the probation officer, either from the accused directly or through collateral sources, that information would be relevant to sentencing and should be included in the pre-sentence report.

I believe the committee's amendment strengthens this bill and responds to the concerns raised before the committee. As such, I will be voting to adopt the bill, as amended, at third reading.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C-375. The bill would amend the Criminal Code to require all pre-sentence reports to include information on the mental health of the offender.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Richmond Hill for bringing the bill forward for debate and for his hard work on the mental health caucus.

In the 19th century, Russian novelist Dostoevsky once said, “The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons.” His meaning is clear. The administration of justice reflects the values of society.

The first MP to take a stand on this self-evident truth was also the first woman to sit in the House, Agnes Macphail. In 1935, after making a personal visit to Kingston Penitentiary, Agnes Macphail realized that the administrative system was not designed to reform prisoners, but simply to punish and separate inmates from society. Her most challenging proposal for reform was to end military and political appointments to penitentiary administration and to appoint instead superintendents with penology training and medical doctors with psychological training.

While her series of reforms brought meaningful change to our penitentiary system, there is still much work we need to do.

If mental health policies have been slow to develop in Canada, it is fair to say that this issue is especially present in our prison system. According to the Office of the Correctional Investigator, 16.9% of male inmates have mood disorders, half suffer from alcohol and drug abuse and 16% have borderline personality disorder. Our government is seized with addressing this inequity.

Bill C-375 identifies an important gap in our justice system. It is already common place in many jurisdictions for offenders to provide information about their mental health through a probation officer. The practical result of this bill would be to signal to a sentencing judge that this information would be a relevant consideration at the time of sentencing.

Mental illness affects nearly all Canadians at some point in their lives, either personally or through a family member, friend or colleague. An estimated 20% of Canadians will personally experience a mental health illness in their lifetime. The number of individuals with mental health issues who have become involved in the criminal justice system has increased over the past several decades.

What we have in place is simply not working.

The stated goals of the bill are consistent with the mandate given by the Prime Minister to the Minister of Justice, which asks her to address gaps in services to those with mental illness throughout the criminal justice system. I think that most Guelphites, as well as most Canadians, would agree that the issue of mental illness could be better managed in the criminal justice system.

A number of factors have been cited as contributing to the increasing numbers of individuals with mental illness in the criminal justice system. Some of these include a lack of sufficient community resources, including housing, income and mental health services. They all connect.

Individuals with mental illness are more likely to be arrested, detained, incarcerated and more likely to be disciplined rather than treated while incarcerated. Once they have been released from the criminal justice system, they are also more likely to be arrested and detained again. Further, there is a high rate of substance abuse among individuals with mental illness, resulting in more complex needs.

It is an area where we must continue to work together with our provincial and territorial counterparts, as well as community stakeholders, to ensure that meaningful progress is made.

I want to be clear that improving the mental health responses of the criminal justice system is not about letting offenders off easy. On the contrary, it is consistent with our government's stated commitment to a criminal justice system that keeps communities safe, respects victims and holds offenders to account.

In particular, addressing mental health is one of the critical ways that we can divert offenders from the so-called revolving door of incarceration to both improve chances of successful reintegration and also to make more efficient use of scarce resources. These outcomes, and not simply punitive measures, should drive our decision-making tonight. As a result, every step we take to improve outcomes for those with mental illness is a step worthy of careful consideration by parliamentarians.

The bill complements our government's progress in addressing mental illness issues. In budget 2017, as has previously been mentioned, the government committed $5 billion over the next five years to the provinces and territories to improve access to mental health services. In addition, to ensure that federally sentenced offenders with mental health needs receive proper care, budget 2017 also proposed to invest $57.8 million over five years starting in 2017-18, and $13.6 million every year thereafter to expand mental health care for all inmates in federal correctional facilities.

Last year, the hon member for Richmond Hill and I visited the Grand Valley Institution for Women in Kitchener, Ontario, not too far from my home. There we saw the complex needs of the inmates. We saw trauma, addictions and the effects of adverse childhood effects. We saw bright young women incarcerated who really wanted more access to educational resources so that they could have a better life once their term was finished.

We saw a lot of opportunities for improvement, but at the root we saw a lot of care that is needed in mental health and addictions. Our government has acknowledged the need for funding in this area and has set aside $20 million in budget 2018 for mental health care of women offenders.

If we are to address and reverse the stigma surrounding mental health, we cannot ignore parts of Canadian society such as prisons. Often enough, society tends to make an “other” of the people on its fringes: people in the criminal justice system, indigenous peoples and people struggling with mental health issues.

Particularly for those who come before the criminal justice system, assumptions about the person's past and motivations come quickly. The bill helps to prevent the kind of assumptions from taking the place of fact in Canadian courts.

Eighty years ago Agnes Macphail took up the struggle to reform Canada's prisons. Then as now, fairness and respect are the ultimate goals of our reforms.

Bill C-375 acknowledges and seeks to address the gap in Canada's legal system that is easily addressed in the legislation before us today.

Before I end, I would like to thank again the hon. member for Richmond Hill for bringing this to the floor for debate. We both come from business backgrounds and both sit on the industry committee together and why are we talking about mental health? It is simply the biggest issue that we are facing within our constituencies. I thank the member for bringing this forward. I encourage all our colleagues in the House to support this very important legislation.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I had my opening remarks prepared, but after listening to the previous speech, it is important to clarify a few things.

What the member for Richmond Hill is attempting to do is amend a very specific section of the Criminal Code. That is well within the rights of the federal level of government. It is very separate from victims services. As we all know, victims services fall under the provincial jurisdiction. The administration of justice in Canada falls to the provincial governments. We have a very limited jurisdiction in amending criminal law, so it is important to state that clear fact.

Furthermore, when people get to the pre-sentence stage, they are no longer suspects, they are now offenders; they have been found guilty. Given the huge amount of evidence that exists regarding mental health issues in Canada's prisons and given the previous member's own stated support for mental health supports, I do not see why we should not tackle this issue. This is not putting the rights of offenders over the rights of victims. Those are completely separate issues. A judge is the expert of the case and has heard all of the facts. This is about giving that person, who is in a decision-making stage, even more facts to make the correct and appropriate decision.

I was at the justice committee. I heard the testimony from numerous witnesses who work in the criminal justice system. They support this piece of legislation going through. It is important to hold up facts, to back up our deliberations with those facts, and not to go down some rabbit hole talking about support for offenders over the rights of victims.

On a personal note, I have a friend who recently was subjected to a crime and she accessed victims services in the province of British Columbia. I can say, with pride, that she found those services to work very well. She found the judge in her case and all of the support staff were there every single step of the way. Therefore, for the Conservatives to suggest that victims do not have rights in this country is factually incorrect, given the experiences of my personal friend. She found herself supported every step of the way by the justice system in British Columbia. I just wanted to read that into the record.

I want to thank the member for Richmond Hill because the other key difference here is that this is not a government bill. This is from a Liberal backbencher who has taken the right that we all have in this place to take an issue that is important to a member's local community, which his or her constituents or Canadians within the wider region have identified as an issue, and to bring it forward. The member has identified this as an important piece, so we need to respect that. This is not a government bill masquerading as a private member's piece of legislation.

The very specific section of the Criminal Code that Bill C-375 addresses is section 721. There are some differences in the wording of this legislation, from second reading to the stage it is in now. That is because the justice committee did its due diligence and it listened to the testimony. I agree with the member for Richmond Hill that the language was tightened up to take account of some of that testimony. We had three meetings at the justice committee on this particular bill. I was present for two of them, where I got to listen to most of the witness testimony.

I thank the hon. member for Victoria, who serves as our party's justice critic and has done an admirable job at that committee for us. We attempted to move an amendment at the committee stage. It was not agreed to, but through all of the deliberations that went on, the bill that is now before the House has taken into account a lot of the improvements that were mentioned.

Pre-sentence reports already do exist. In section 721 of the Criminal Code, in paragraph 721(3)(a), pre-sentence reports already require that, “[an] offender’s age, maturity, character, behaviour, attitude and willingness to make amends” be included in a pre-sentence report.

Therefore, it is key that we now include a new section 8.1, which reads, “any aspect of the offender’s mental condition that is relevant for sentencing purposes, as well as any mental health services or support available to the offender”. We do not want to house with the general population someone who has an obvious mental health issue. That would not serve the general population well, and it certainly would not serve that particular person well.

A lot of attention has been paid to mental health lately. At the justice committee last year we were engaged in a groundbreaking study on mental health support for jurors, because jurors are often dragooned into service from of their normal family lives. I was there when we were listening to jurors who partook in the Paul Bernardo trial. They had to watch all of the videos and hear all of the audio tapes. After the trial was done and they had delivered their verdict, they were simply given a handshake, a pat on the back, released back to their family lives and expected to go on normally. Therefore, I really hope that the Department of Justice listens to the recommendations in that report.

We are also making landmark strides in mental health with respect to first responders, our veterans, Canadians Forces personnel, and now in the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food we are tackling the issue with respect to farmers. I think the conversation is headed in the right direction, and I am glad to see that this particular private member's bill is continuing along in that vein.

We had testimony at committee from the Probation Officers Association of Ontario. These are people who are working every single day in the correctional system. We had the director from the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies there, as well as the executive director of the John Howard Society. We also had some testimony from the defence counsel of the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers. These are people who are intimately involved with the justice system, understand it very well and understand where the shortcomings are.

However, Dean Embry from the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers did have reservations about the bill. In his testimony, he was quite concerned about some of its privacy implications. His concerns were taken into account and that is why we see the language tightened up.

Providing information about an individual's mental health in a pre-sentence report allows the judge to make a more informed decision about an appropriate sentence. However, this measure is not intended to result in the disclosure of one's mental condition. Also, I think it is very important to note that it is not about perpetuating stigma or the false perception that those with mental health disorders are dangerous. It is simply designed to assist the individual to obtain care and receive an appropriate sentence.

It is also important, because privacy concerns were raised, that the the pre-sentence reports are distributed only to members with a vested interest in the case. They include the judge, counsel for the defence and the prosecution, the parole officer, the individual and, in some cases, the institution where the sentence will be served.

We know that people with mental illness are overrepresented in the criminal justice system, and there are statistics on that. There was a report in 2012 showing that 36% of federal offenders were identified at admission as requiring psychiatric or psychological follow-up. Additionally, 45% of male inmates and 69% of female inmates received institutional mental health care services.

To conclude, we should be giving a judge as much information as possible to make an appropriate sentence for someone who has already been found guilty. Giving a pre-sentencing report, I think, is in everyone's interest. We should be giving a judge the widest amount of discretion possible to take in all of the facts of the case to make an appropriate sentence.

I thank the member for Richmond Hill for bringing this proposed legislation forward. I congratulate him for the bill's making it to this stage, and I look forward to offering my support when the House votes on the matter.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is important that we understand the pattern of the current government's introduction of government bills or private members' bills, particularly justice bills. The fact is that the bills the government introduces tend to undermine the rights of victims and overly represent the rights of criminals.

I believe that the private member's bill before us today, Bill C-375 falls into that category. I am simply trying to demonstrate how Bill C-375 fits into the pattern that I was outlining earlier. It is not a well thought-out bill due to the changing nature of psychological research. The bill includes all mental health disorders. This is a mistake. It would provide prisoners with an incentive to claim they have a mental health condition, some of which are difficult to verify.

While I do have deep respect for the mental health workers in our justice system, their ability to meet their current responsibilities is already stretched. I believe that the requirements of Bill C-375 would further slow an already glacial process. I believe that would also result in an unequal application of the law, and weaker sentences for many offenders.

As I was saying earlier, my greatest concern about this bill is that it continues the Liberal pattern of prioritizing criminals over victims. For example, in my province of Saskatchewan, we were shocked to hear that Terri-Lynne McClintic, the woman who murdered eight-year-old Tori Stafford, was being housed in a healing lodge in the province instead of being held behind bars where she deserves to be.

Healing lodges are meant to help reintegrate offenders into the community, not to be housing for child killers. Tori Stafford's father begged the Prime Minister to send Ms. McClintic back to prison. The lead investigator denounced her transfer. The Nekaneet First Nation that runs the lodge is very concerned about that transfer. However, the Liberals refuse to act and send her back where she belongs.

The Liberal government ignores the rights of victims and coddles criminals. Canadians deserve better than a government that treats victims like criminals, and criminals like family. Therefore, I will be voting against this motion.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would point out that the comments I am making do build on a pattern we are seeing, which is certainly relevant to the bill before us here today, Bill C-375.

The bills the government has introduced have tended to weaken penalties, as in Bill C-375. The penalties were weakened to as little as a fine for many other serious crimes, such as forging a passport, impaired driving causing bodily harm, the use of the date rape drug, the abduction of children, and taking part in gang violence.

Even when the Liberals claim they are targeting criminals, they manage to miss the mark wildly. In Bill C-71, the Liberals claimed to be going after gang-related firearms crimes. That is another example, as is Bill C-375. Nowhere in Bill C-71 is the word “gang” mentioned. Instead the bill focuses on law-abiding firearms owners and does nothing to reduce gang violence. Recently, the Liberals have been talking about a hand gun ban. All that will do is hurt law-abiding Canadians. We all know that criminals break the law. Adding another law will not change that. Bill C-71 and the proposed hand gun ban are smokescreens to hide the government's disgracefully weak record on crime, and its disturbing—

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

Madam Speaker, I am trying to keep up here and I wondered what relevance this speech has had so far to private member's bill, Bill C-375. With all due respect to my friend, I see none.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and speak to Bill C-375, an act to amend the Criminal Code, to require that a pre-sentence report contain information on any mental disorder that an offender may have.

I understand and am sympathetic to those who suffer from mental health disorders. I proudly supported the private member's bill of my colleague from Niagara Falls, Bill C-233, which sought to address the challenges of Alzheimer's and other dementias on a national level. However, I am deeply concerned about this bill. This bill, when taken together with other legislation introduced and passed by the current Liberal government, continues a long and disturbing pattern of favouring the protection of criminals over the protection of the victims of crime.

Just last week, I stood in this place and compared the record of the last Conservative government on crime with the record of the current Liberal government. They stand in stark contrast. From day one of their mandate, the Liberals have demonstrated both an appalling indifference to victims and a disquieting compassion for criminals. We have seen this time and again. This is the government that willingly gave a $10.5 million payout to unrepentant convicted terrorist Omar Khadr, who killed American medic Sergeant Christopher Speer in a firefight in Afghanistan in 2002. Further, Tabitha Speer, Sergeant Speer's widow, was awarded a judgment of $134 million by a court in Utah against Omar Khadr. The Liberals could have, and I would suggest should have, waited to allow the courts to rule on an injunction for Mrs. Speer. Instead, they rushed payment to Khadr, making enforcement of the judgment unlikely.

What of our Canadian veterans who need help? To them, the Prime Minister had one thing to say, that they were asking for more than he was willing to give. However, for ISIS fighters, it seems the cash never stops flowing. The Prime Minister pledged to use taxpayers' hard-earned money to de-radicalize terrorists through such tried and tested means as reading Canadian poetry.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs, for her part, refuses to use the term “ISIS terrorists”, instead choosing to use the vapid term “foreign fighters”. When pressed on her plan for these so-called foreign fighters, she offered this gem of an insight:

With respect to the foreign fighters, I think we need to remember why they are where they are right now.

We all remember why they are where they are. We remember that they left Canada to engage in horrific war crimes against innocent men, women, and children halfway around the world, crimes like beheading innocents, throwing gay people off buildings, and stoning women to death for the crime of being raped. According to the Prime Minister, these hardened terrorists can be “an extraordinarily powerful voice” in Canada. One wonders what those voices are saying.

The Conservatives have fought this disturbing hippyesque Kumbaya session with criminals and terrorists every step of the way. When Bill C-75 was introduced, it weakened the penalties for many crimes, including terrorism-related charges, to possibly as little as a fine. The Liberals spent months defending this decision before finally backing down and supporting Conservative amendments that ensured that terrorists would face the consequences of their actions. It took months of pressure and hard work to make this one obvious change. However, even now the bill remains deeply flawed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-375, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (presentence report), be read the third time and passed.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is indeed an honour and privilege to be able to bring forward legislation that would alter the Criminal Code in accordance with the compassion and common sense priorities of my constituents in Richmond Hill.

In our community, I host regular talks over coffee and make time whenever I can to meet with constituents during office hours. Mental health has and continues to be a top priority in my riding of Richmond Hill. It is why I have worked to support organizations such as Home on the Hill, 360°kids and the Krasman Centre in my riding. It is also why, when I came to Ottawa, I told my constituents that I would focus my energy on advancing the progressive ideals I was elected to uphold and fight for, namely, the advancement of equality for all Canadians and, in particular, those who are marginalized and lack the support they need.

This began with my founding the Liberal mental health caucus, a group of like-minded Liberal members who heard from experts and those with lived experiences, in an effort to identify the gaps in mental health services and what resources could be best spent on in that regard. As part of this effort, my colleague, the member of Parliament for Guelph, and I went on a fact-finding mission to Kitchener, Ontario, where we toured the Grand Valley Institution for Women, operated by Correctional Services Canada. We learned that over 20% of the federal offenders have been identified as struggling with mental health problems, often with more than one disorder. Furthermore, the rate of mental illness among federal offenders has almost doubled in the last 20 years.

The correctional investigator's 2012 annual report found that 36% of offenders at federal penitentiaries were identified as requiring psychiatric or psychological follow-up. Forty per cent of male inmates and 69% of female inmates were treated for mental health issues while in prison. Most importantly, it became clear that the deinstitutionalization of mental health services and the closure of psychiatric hospitals, a victory for the compassionate and progressive treatment of individuals with mental health needs, had been replaced with a new form of institutionalization, where individuals with mental health needs find themselves falling through the cracks and being funnelled into a criminal system designed for incarceration and punishment, not treatment or support.

Since then, I have expanded the mental health caucus into the parliamentary mental health caucus, where we have heard testimony from witnesses on the topic of youth suicide. Most recently, we co-hosted many events around mental health at Parliament. However, it was in the early days during our exploratory visit to the penitentiary that inspired the creation of Bill C-375.

Bill C-375 is one small step forward in addressing the invisible cost society bears fiscally and socially for our historical inability to provide care, treatment and support for those suffering from mental health concerns. As initially put forward, Bill C-375 would amend paragraph 721(3)(a) of the Criminal Code, mandating that unless otherwise specified, when a pre-sentencing report is required by a court, in addition to such information as age, maturity, character, behaviour, attitude and willingness to make amends, information outlining any mental health disorder as well as any mental health care programs available for the accused be provided as part of their pre-sentencing report.

Today, there exists no mandate for courts to consider the mental health history of an individual in presentencing proceedings, yet they are mandated to take into account subjective factors such as attitude or character.

As Bill C-375 ensures that pertinent information would be taken into account during presentencing, an individual with a history of mental health issues would be afforded the appropriate care and treatment during the administration of justice and their rehabilitation. Nevertheless, the Probation Officer Association of Ontario has noted that, at least in this jurisdiction, this was already standard practice and that federal legislation would simply codify and expand that across all jurisdictions.

In the long term, the legislation presents an opportunity for us to take a real step forward, decrease recidivism, improve rehabilitation, and further erode the stigmatization of mental illness.

In the short term, there are immediate benefits to the quality of life in our prisons, as well as to the efficacy of the services in the administration of justice and the rehabilitation of vulnerable populations.

In any individual sentencing, our justice system is well served by being made fully aware of relevant mental health concerns. With mental health information included in a presentence report, the interplay of mental health and the condition of incarceration can be taken fully into account. Readily available mental health information is invaluable when considering a step as drastic as solitary confinement or choosing the facility that can best provide the appropriate mental health services.

By ensuring that mental health concerns are considered in these decisions, we can reduce the strain on penitentiary security officers while creating an environment that mitigates inflammatory factors and encourages conditions that reduce recidivism in the long term. This can be particularly useful in crafting cases of conditional sentencing as well as in creating conditions for effective reintegration following release.

During committee testimony, a representative of the John Howard Society of Canada brought up an interesting example of where this context would matter even outside of incarceration. The representative noted that there are mental health issues that can predispose an individual to committing breaches due to their inability to appropriately understand the causality surrounding their behaviour. For instance, this issue would be relevant context when considering a probation order or other forms of custodial penalties that the individual may or may not be able to discharge without committing further infractions.

It is also my understanding that ensuring relevant mental health information is available at every step of the process would also make cases less vulnerable to attack on appeal, saving time and money for our judicial system and providing a net benefit in terms of the overall cost and burden associated with mental health issues.

Following its stint at committee, Bill C-375 was returned to the House with some amendments. Principally, these changes would do the following: First, alter the terminology by replacing “mental health disorder” with “mental health condition”, therefore replacing the word “disorder” with the “word condition”. Second, they require that the mental health information be relevant for sentencing purposes, so relevancy was introduced in the bill. Finally, they replaced the term “mental health care program” with “mental health services or supports”; hence, replacing the words “care program” with “services or supports”.

I am pleased with these amendments, which I feel would strengthen the core of my legislation. One of the realities of putting forward a private member's bill is that one tries to craft legislation that will find sufficient consensus to be made into law. That can make the legislation cautious in its approach.

The other fear I expect all members have is that their legislation will return from committee weakened or watered down, which is why I am so pleased that these amendments are a positive step forward.

The first and third amendments I mentioned, which alter the language of the bill, actually widen its scope, covering a wider array of mental health conditions as well as services available for the offender.

During committee, there were examples given of situations where a mental health condition could be entirely separate from the judicial consideration at play and by including it, one would be party to an unnecessary and inconsiderable breach of the offender's privacy.

The second amendment ensures that there is a clear connection between the mental health condition disclosed and the judicial consideration at hand. I appreciate that this amendment actually tightens my proposed legislation to the causality between an offender's mental health condition and the judicial situation.

As I said when the bill came before the committee, the relationship between mental health care and our criminal justice system is dynamic and evolving. This complex situation must be addressed by more than a single private member's bill, and I certainly would not frame Bill C-375 as a be-all solution. However, it is a strong step forward that would have a real-world impact on the lives of one or more Canadians, while saving the valuable time of our judicial system and money.

I would like to take a quick moment to acknowledge of the work of Mr. Glenn Bradbury, who was instrumental in working with me in drafting the legislation. I would also like to thank those experts and colleagues who have advised me along the way. Indeed, it has been a long road.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

moved that Bill C-375, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (presentence report), be read the third time and passed.

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise today to address the House one last time before my private member's bill, Bill C-375, passes from here to the other place.

This moment has been a long time coming, and I would like to thank my colleagues on this side of the aisle and across who have spoken to my bill, providing support, additional context and, yes, some criticism, as well as my colleagues who studied Bill C-375 at committee and the witnesses who came to talk in support of it. I would especially like to thank my colleague, the MP for Guelph, for seconding the motion today.

The House resumed from September 18 consideration of the motion that Bill C-375, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (presentence report), as reported (with amendment) from the committee be concurred in.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-375, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (presentence report), as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Justice and Human Rights

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have two reports to table.

I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 18th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-375, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to pre-sentence reports. The committee has considered the bill and agreed to report it to the House with amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 19th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill S-210, an act to amend an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Basically, in Bill C-375, there is only one clause. On clause 1, we have three amendments that were received, two of which are similar, and one is being withdrawn, which is LIB-1.

There are two we know we are hearing. The first is LIB-2.

Mr. McKinnon, the floor is yours.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

I'm calling this meeting to order.

Committee members, we're just going to have a brief housekeeping issue before we move to the clause-by-clause on Bill C-375. As everybody knows, we had planned to table in the House on Thursday our report on jurors, and we were going to do our press conference at noon, but in deference to the fact that, unfortunately, there is a funeral some of us are going to—in particular Mr. Nicholson—we're going to delay the press conference and the tabling of the report, if everybody agrees, until we return on Tuesday, May 22. We'll deposit it at 10 o'clock in the House, and then we'll do our press conference. Mr. Rankin has a meeting, so he can only get there for 1:15 p.m. We'll do the press conference at 1:15 p.m. on Tuesday, May 22, if everybody is okay with that.

We will proceed with our regular meeting on Thursday, because we have witnesses coming from out of town. For that, we will indeed go ahead. The meeting will proceed as scheduled on Thursday, but not the press conference. Is everybody good with that?

[Catherine Latimer]

I believe so. As I pointed out, the ones who I think have really slipped through the cracks are the ones who are self-representing and are completely disoriented. It's awkward for everyone in the process. If there were a pre-sentence report that indicated even what was evident at the proceedings, which was that the person seemed to have some significant mental health issues, it would inform the sentencing process in a better way.

I also think that there should be, and it would be nice if it could be attached to Bill C-375, sort of a fitness test. You may not be fit, you may not have the cognition or the mental capacity, to actually serve a federal sentence or a sentence in a custodial facility. People with mental illness in a custodial facility are often bullied. They can't follow the instructions. They're often subject to administrative segregation and other disciplinary measures by the correctional system, and some end up being killed in the correctional system. A lot of it has to do with the disjuncture between their mental health and their capacity to serve the sentence.

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

Thank you. I would like to express my appreciation for your inviting the John Howard Society to share our concerns and perspective on Bill C-375.

As many of you know, the John Howard Societies are charities providing services in more than 60 communities across Canada, and we are all committed to effective, just, and humane responses to the causes and consequences of crime.

The John Howard Society has been long concerned about those with mental illnesses who are involved in the criminal justice system. Too often, people default into the criminal justice system because needed services in the community are unavailable and alternatives are not in place. The end result is that we end up punishing the mentally ill rather than treating them.

I share the perspective of Savannah that correctional services or correctional institutions are not well placed to deal with people with serious mental health issues. I therefore see some hope that Bill C-375, if properly implemented, could be an advantage in keeping people who do not need to be in the criminal justice system out of it.

What the bill does, as you know—and it's a nice short bill, the kind I like—is suggest that any mental disorder from which an offender suffers as well as any mental health care program available to him or her should be noted in a pre-sentence report. This amendment, I think, would really help sentencing judges become more aware and take note of the mental health issues and programs that might be available to assist.

If an individual is about to be sentenced, he or she will have been convicted, and so a finding that the accused was not criminally responsible because of a mental disorder will not have been made. NCR is a very low bar, and many people who face very serious mental health issues will find themselves being sentenced in the criminal justice system. The fact that they are at the sentencing stage and have been found to be criminally responsible—or not found not to be criminally responsible—does not relieve us of the likelihood that someone with significant mental issues is about to come into the criminal justice system.

The sentencing judge really has two important determinations to make. One is the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the perpetrator when assessing the quantum of penalty. The second issue they have to deal with is what sentencing option should be imposed in order to hold the person accountable in the proportionate amount.

I'm easy as to whether it comes in a pre-sentence report or, in the youth justice system, conferencing that would keep it out of a formal record and the information be available to the judge, but if that information were available, it could really help individuals who are suffering from mental health issues take a look at the extent to which they are morally blameworthy for the offence, if they have serious mental health issues. The more incapable the mental illness makes individuals of understanding the nature and consequences of their criminal behaviour or appreciating that it is wrong, the more the quantum of the penalty is appropriately mitigated.

In my experience, some people who find themselves in the formal correctional system are completely disoriented as to time and place. They are so badly riddled with senile dementia that they have no idea why they're in prison or what happened that led them to be there. It is quite conceivable that this affliction was present at the time they committed their offence and at the time of sentencing and that, whatever is currently available to sentencing judges now, this was not picked up.

We could have a flag of some sort that reinforces that if the person is not aware of the consequences of his or her behaviour, that should be taken into account in mitigating the sentence.

The other thing that would really help is trying to figure out the appropriate sentencing option for someone who is criminally responsible but suffering from a mental health problem.

In my experience, there are some mental health conditions that predispose people to commit breaches. If you gave them a probation order, they would breach the order, because if they're suffering from fetal alcohol spectrum disorder or other brain injuries, they cannot understand causality in the way that the criminal justice system requires them to understand causality to avoid breaches.

It is thus important, I think, when assessing whether there should be a custodial penalty or a community-based penalty as your sentencing option or what the nature of the sentencing options should be, to have a clear understanding of the mental health condition and as to whether the sentence being imposed is one the prisoner is capable of discharging without attracting further breaches and other problems with the criminal justice system.

I take Mr. Embry's point that the information needs to be relevant and that it's not fair to the individual being sentenced for incidental information about his mental health issues to be placed on the public record. I think, though, that if the provision of the requisite information were done in a way such that the individual is consenting and the information is relevant to the offence, it could be really beneficial in ensuring that the penalties being imposed and the sentences being rendered have a better chance of being just, effective, and humane, taking into account the moral turpitude of the individual and the type of sentencing option that the individual can carry out.

We believe that valid consent is needed for any treatment option imposed through a criminal sentence and also for soliciting that information. I take the point that there continues to be significant stigma against those with mental health issues and that in correctional services and other agencies, identifying mental health problems can be understood as an enhanced risk factor and operate to the detriment of the individual who reveals it. We think, however, that if there were ways to do it in a manner that helps the sentencing judge craft a sentence that is fair, just, and appropriate, there is a reason to proceed with Bill C-375.

In sum, the inclusion of mental health information in pre-sentence reports is an important step in dealing with the mental health crisis in our prisons. It will allow sentencing judges to be better informed about mental illness and be an important tool in the promotion of just, effective, and humane sentences. For that reason we would like to see Bill C-375 proceed.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much.

While I appreciate all of the comments, this is really about Bill C-375 and this committee cannot go beyond Bill C-375 and can only make amendments to what is before us. I'd appreciate it if witnesses would stick to the scope of the current bill because anything otherwise is not what we're actually here to talk about. You may get some questions, but they will be about Bill C-375.

[Savannah Gentile, Director, Advocacy and Legal Issues, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies]

Thank you.

I would like to begin by acknowledging that we have the honour and privilege today of meeting on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin nation.

Thank you for inviting our organization to speak today on Bill C-375. I'm the director of advocacy and legal issues with the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, and I regularly visit the prisons for women across Canada with our regional advocate teams.

CAEFS has extensive experience advancing the equality rights of women whose behaviour is or is thought to be criminalized, and a depth of knowledge concerning the interactions of such women with the legal system. CAEFS has a substantial interest in ensuring the criminal justice system operates fairly with respect to women, and that the perspective and experience of women, in particular indigenous women, are represented in its design and operation.

My remarks today are born out of my experience working closely with women at CAEFS and whom our 24 local EFrys serve. I'll do my best to do justice to the experiences of these women and to identify the issues they have raised with me.

The numbers of women in prison with mental disabilities continues to rise. Indeed, with the majority of the female prison population identified as experiencing mental health issues, it appears prisons are becoming the default option for mental health intervention. This pattern persists despite the common practice in many jurisdictions to include mental health information in pre-sentence reports. As such, it is CAEFS's position that formalizing this practice into law does not go far enough. It will not reverse or even make a dent in the current practice of incarcerating women with mental disabilities, and it will not lead to their compassionate care.

In fact, there is a risk of which there is growing evidence that women may be sentenced to prison terms because of the false perception that appropriate counselling services are available in prison. In CAEFS's experience, women sometimes receive federal sentences rather than provincial sentences because of the misconception that they will have more access to rehabilitative programming at the federal level.

This pattern is exacerbated by the gaps in mental health services in the community and the unwillingness on the part of some community-based services to accept criminalized women. We need to work on changing this.

The fact that prisons have become the accepted placements for women with mental disabilities is deeply problematic. CSC's response to women's mental health behaviour is overwhelmingly security driven and damaging. Incarcerated women who need quality mental health care end up receiving punishment in its place. It is CAEFS's position that this substitution is unacceptable in Canada.

When prison officials adopt counselling services like those seen in community-based programs, they often lack a gender, race, and class analysis of women's experiences and needs, and become part of the punitive regime. This is a mistake. A good example of this is the heavy reliance by CSC on cognitive behavioural therapy, a technique that is not meant to address past issues or provide supportive counselling.

For most women in prison, mental health problems and their occurrence, for that matter, are intractably linked to a lifetime of being subjected to poverty, systemic racism, and physical and/or sexual abuse. Within prison, women are frequently punished for responses to trauma, which are perceived by CSC as simply bad behaviour. In too many cases, CSC's approach to mental health can be deadly. For example, current CSC policy prescribes that prisoners at risk of self-injury or suicide be placed in a segregation cell on what they call mental health observation. It's segregation by another name.

CSC's position that segregation is a status and not a place, and that individuals on mental health observation are not in segregation, demonstrates its inability to recognize that confinement of this kind escalates women's distress and can lead—and has led—to further and more lethal forms of self-harm and suicide attempts. The jury at the Ashley Smith inquest made two concrete recommendations that had the potential to lead to significant changes in CSC's approach to self-injury back in 2009. Both were rejected by CSC.

In 2016, Terry Baker committed suicide while under mental health observation in a segregation cell at the Grand Valley Prison for women. Just days prior to her death, Ms. Baker had been bound to her bed for a prolonged period of time, which is another common practice used on women at risk of self-harming.

CSC has been on the same trajectory for decades, without any signs of real change, despite several reports, commissions, inquests, and recommendations to support change. This trajectory, which is security-driven, discriminatory, and harmful, is antithetical to the treatment of mental health issues. CSC's classification scheme confines indigenous women and women with mental health problems in maximum security and segregation because of their histories, not in spite of them.

Unemployment, lack of education, family instability, and homelessness prior to incarceration all lead to higher ratings on the custody rating scale, a tool that was developed over 25 years ago based on a sample of white male prisoners, which results in overly high classifications when used on women. This has been reported on for decades. Women's needs, especially those with mental disabilities, are translated to risks. Maximum security is a form of segregation that separates women with complex needs from the general population and therefore, from programming, meaningful work opportunities, family visits, and important mental health supports. In short, placement in maximum security greatly diminishes these women's chances of obtaining parole and successfully reintegrating into the general population and ultimately, into their communities.

The following are recommendations that, unlike the current bill, could amount to real and significant changes to the circumstances of women with mental disabilities.

First, we could support the UN special rapporteur on violence against women recommendation that preference be given “in every case, to alternatives to imprisonment for prisoners with disabling mental health by utilizing [section 29 of the CCRA] to transfer prisoners to mental health services, facilities, or psychiatric hospitals.” We've reported on this before. There are currently only two mental health beds designated for women.

In the meantime, while women with mental disabilities remain incarcerated, we should transfer the responsibility for the health care, including for mental health, of prisoners from public safety to the ministry of health, as has been done in British Columbia, Alberta, and Nova Scotia.

We should legislate an absolute ban on the use of solitary confinement; segregation, including maximum security in women's prisons; medical observation; mental observation; and all other related forms of isolation of incarcerated young women and women with mental health issues. This is something that has been supported by the special rapporteur on torture.

We should create a mechanism for the external judicial oversight of CSC and specifically, in relation to decisions regarding segregation placements, placement on mental health observation, and any other forms of isolation and the use of physical restraints, like Pinel restraints.

We should create a mechanism through which judges can revisit the sentences they impose if legalities, gross mismanagement, or unfairness in the administration of a sentence renders that sentence harsher than that imposed by the court. A reduction of the period of imprisonment may be granted to reflect that the punishment administered was more punitive than the one intended. That's a recommendation coming out of the 1996 Arbour report.

Overall, we hope that you recognize that the relatively low number of women in prison as compared to men is an opportunity to innovate, rather than to ignore. Women prisoners, as a group, are low risk, and the potential gains from progressive and substantive changes to the law for this group, and for their families and communities, could be immeasurable.

Thank you.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

In the way Bill C-375 is written, by adding proposed paragraph 721(3)(a.1), it not only lists a mental disorder from which the offender suffers, but as well mental health care programs that are available to them. Is that something that you do already?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses for coming today. I appreciate hearing your insights on this, especially given the level of expertise and direct access to the justice system you experience.

You said in your opening remarks that, “Bill C-375, if passed, should consider legislation that would assist in facilitating the sharing of information between Corrections and the health care systems.” Can you just expand a little bit on that?

[Christine Beintema, Vice-President, Probation Officers Association of Ontario]

Probation and parole officers recommend conditions in a pre-sentence report that best suit the needs of the offender, with consideration, of course, to victim safety and the safety of the general public.

One of the challenges faced by probation and parole officers is that community agencies often provide services on a voluntary basis. They are not equipped or prepared to provide services to offenders who are resistant or unwilling to attend for treatment. Although an offender may be directed to attend a particular service or agency, the agency is not compelled to provide services to an offender who is disinclined to seek treatment. In addition, offenders who are motivated to engage in mental health treatment or supports may lose motivation because of lengthy waiting lists at community agencies.

In many instances, offenders will advise that they have been diagnosed with various mental health issues but are unable to provide details or confirm that they've been formally diagnosed. During the process of gathering information, they can tell us many different things but not always be willing to give the information or be able to provide the correct information for us to follow up.

In such cases it's difficult to gather the appropriate information necessary to confirm and provide an accurate and thorough report. Bill C-375, if passed, should consider legislation that would assist in facilitating the sharing of information between Corrections and the health care systems. As gathering health care information can take a longer period of time, the court should also consider granting probation and parole officers additional time to investigate, for these reports, diagnoses that are reported but unconfirmed.

Currently, probation and parole officers experience difficulty when attempting to obtain information from medical professionals related to the mental health diagnosis or otherwise. Probation and parole officers must consider and are limited by the offender's right to privacy and must have the offender's consent to access health records. If this consent is received, obtaining health records can take an extended period of time, which affects the amount of time needed to adequately prepare a pre-sentence report for court.

If Bill C-375 passes, perhaps the new legislation would encourage changes to the health care system to require medical professionals—of course, where release of information is signed by the offender—to provide requested mental health information to probation and parole services in a timely manner, at no cost, and in a language that is suitable for the layperson.

That's one of the complications we run into: we're often sent a bill for information we're requesting, which we are not permitted to pay for. It often takes a long time. We understand they're busy, but we have timelines to follow. Oftentimes we'll have notes from a medical professional that are handwritten and be unable to read them but also to understand them, because we aren't medical professionals.

POAO members have suggested that if mental health concerns are being identified at court, as specified on a request for a preparation of a pre-sentence report, perhaps representatives at the court could facilitate offenders' signing of releases at that time, because at that point they're willing to provide permission for us to investigate and to reach out to their medical professionals. Sometimes, by the time they get to our office, they've said, “No, this is what we wanted. We wanted you to prepare a pre-sentence report, but now we're here and we're not really sure that's what we'd like to see happen”—which is their prerogative, but it would be nice if we could catch them at the court.

POAO members note that probation and parole officers are limited to providing information relative to the offender's willingness to co-operate and ability to make informed and appropriate decisions. We are restricted to being able to access only information and records to which the offender provides consent. That's something to keep in mind: even if the bill goes further and we are compelled to include that information, we can only include the information the offender is willing to provide.

POAO expresses the need for more comprehensive and organized information regarding the availability of mental health resources throughout the province and in individual areas. Ontario is a vast province, and resources vary in availability from region to region. The spirit of the bill, which is compassionate and noble, does not align with the reality of available services. Those involved in the justice system are often unable to access psychiatric services, as psychiatrists and mental health professionals are overburdened by the ever-increasing demands for services in the community.

One suggestion is to hire psychiatrists to work exclusively out of correctional institutions or probation and parole offices, which would allow clients direct access to services. At present, many offenders are compelled to seek services from their family doctors, who, while skilled, lack the knowledge and experience of a qualified psychiatrist.

[Chris Podolinsky, President, Probation Officers Association of Ontario]

I can start by thanking the committee for inviting the Probation Officers Association to speak on Bill C-375.

The Probation Officers Association was established in 1952. We're a voluntary, non-profit organization, representing professional interests of the probation officers and probation and parole officers across the province of Ontario. POAO is not a union, but an association of like-minded professionals, who believe in the work they do and the role they play in the criminal justice community in Ontario. POAO is an autonomous representative of probation officers and probation and parole officers in Ontario and is committed to the preservation of the fundamental role of the probation officer within community corrections.

Our association encourages members to improve their knowledge and skills by engaging in continuous education through seminars, workshops, and courses, with mental health being a topic of interest for the past several years.

As mentioned, my name is Chris Podolinsky. I'm the current President of the Probation Officers Association of Ontario. I am based out of Windsor. I work in the Ministry of Children and Youth Services, dealing with youth between the ages of 12 and 17. I've written many pre-sentence reports over the years, but they are governed under the YCJA Act. To my left is Christine Beintema, working in Chatham probation and parole. She's written many pre-sentence reports over the years.

We're here to speak on Bill C-375, which proposes an amendment to subsection 721(3) of the Criminal Code, that any mental disorder from which the offender suffers as well as any mental health care programs available to them are to be included in pre-sentence reports. Bill C-375 concerns the preparation of pre-sentence reports that are prepared by probation and parole officers. The bill proposes that pre-sentence reports are to include information about any mental health disorder from which the offender suffers as well as any mental health care programs available to them.

In recent years, mental health has been identified as a significant concern. It's estimated that 10% of the general population suffers from a mental health disorder and the rates of mental health disorders experienced by those within community corrections and institutions are significantly higher, 26% for males, and estimated over 50% for females in the corrections system.

POAO continues to advocate many forums for increased mental health services for our offenders. POAO is pleased that improvements have been made in recent years to destigmatize mental illness. However, it recognizes that there are still many steps that need to be taken.

The bill requires in federal legislation that pre-sentence reports provide, unless the court orders otherwise, information on any mental health illness that offenders may suffer and any mental health care programs available to the offenders. Our association agrees that the issue of mental health is of significant concern to the criminal justice system and should be taken into consideration when making sentencing decisions.

In Ontario, the role of a probation and parole officer already includes a requirement to provide information related to an offender’s mental health in court reports. Feedback from our members, the members of POAO, with respect to the bill, concern the process of gathering the required mental health information, physical and mental limitations of the clients, and the lack of available resources in the community.

The association wishes to highlight that probation and parole officers in Ontario currently conduct skill-based interviews with offenders for the purpose of gathering information to prepare comprehensive pre-sentence reports. Investigative information is provided by the offender and collateral sources including but not limited to family, employment, counselling resources, community agencies, and health information, including mental health for inclusion in the pre-sentence report.

Through this investigative process, probation and parole officers comment on general patterns of behaviour; psychiatric, psychological, physical, and cognitive limitations; and disorders that may impact the offender’s pattern of criminal behaviour. In the event that the offender has a mental health diagnosis, probation and parole officers will investigate and confirm through contact with mental health professionals where possible. In instances where there is no confirmed mental health diagnosis, but reports of related mental health concerns from the client or collateral sources, probation and parole officers will comment on observed or reported behaviours.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

We've had debate back and forth, so I'll now call for a vote on Mr. Cooper's motion.

(Motion negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

I'm sure the committee will engage privately in discussions.

I don't want to take away any longer from our witnesses who are now here before us, so I would very much like to welcome, from the Probation Officers Association of Ontario, Mr. Chris Podolinsky, who is the President; and Ms. Christine Beintema, who is the Vice-President.

Welcome. Thank you so much for being before us. I will turn the floor over to you to talk about the bill we have before us, which is Bill C-375.

[Dr. Patrick Smith, National Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Mental Health Association]

That's great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, members of the committee.

Thank you for inviting us here today. My name is Dr. Patrick Smith. I'm the National CEO of the Canadian Mental Health Association. Bill C-375 is a very important bill to us. I would definitely have been there in person if today weren't April 26, 2018. Today marks 100 years to the day when, in 1918, Dr. Clarence Hincks came together with other prominent Canadians in the historic Château Laurier, just around the corner from you, to form what is now the Canadian Mental Health Association. Today we are a Canada-wide organization with divisions in every province. We provide services to more than 1.3 million Canadians in over 330 communities across Canada.

We are celebrating this important milestone today in Toronto with some of Dr. Hincks' immediate family, in honour of his vision and commitment to two very clear goals: to end stigma and discrimination, and to provide more humane care for people with mental illness. In many ways—100 years later, to the day—this discussion on Bill C-375 is about addressing these same issues.

Today, I'd like to focus on some of the ways in which mental illness, including addiction, intersects with our criminal justice system, as well as on key areas that we believe will help to ensure that Canadians with mental health problems are supported in their treatment and in their recovery.

Specifically, I will be speaking in favour of passing Bill C-375, because we know that it will confer significant benefits onto many Canadians who are marginalized and living with mental illness and substance use problems. We're also confident that the bill will lessen the burden on our criminal justice system.

We talk about the current shortfalls.... As many of you are aware, in the 1970s, the deinstitutionalization of mental health services transferred mental health service delivery from psychiatric facilities to more local communities, resulting in the closure of psychiatric hospitals across Canada. This shift has been heralded as a positive step in respecting the rights, dignity, and self-determination of people with mental illness.

However, the psychiatric deinstitutionalization has been replaced by a new form of institutionalization: the Canadian prison system. Given that mental health supports at the community level are often underfunded and poorly integrated, many people with mental illness and in need of treatment fall through the cracks and end up in the criminal justice system. You now know, through the debates over the last few years, that Canada has invested a lower percentage of its total health care budget in mental health care than any G7 country. Basic primary mental health care provided by addiction counsellors, psychologists, social workers, and specialized peer support workers form the bedrock and the foundation of other G7 countries' response to the mental health needs of their populations. They're not covered in Canada's universal health care system. Thoughtful, targeted investments in treatments that are effective and save money have been replaced by the high burden of costs of untreated mental illness that we see in jails and prisons. These unnecessary costs are carried by every Canadian.

The Office of the Correctional Investigator estimates that at least one in four admissions to federal correctional institutions present with a mental illness, and many of these also have a concurrent substance use disorder. This number is highly disproportionate to the number of people with mental illness in the population at large.

Despite the high number of people with mental illness in Canadian correctional facilities, Canada's prisons are not equipped with enough staff, resources, and funding for mental health supports for people who are incarcerated. As a result, Canadians with mental illness who end up in the correctional facilities do not receive the treatment that they need to facilitate their recovery and rehabilitation. In fact, the absence of treatment for many inmates can result in violent confrontations with other inmates and staff, as well as additional charges and time spent in segregation, which typically exacerbate mental health problems.

Once out of prison, Canadians with mental illness are more likely to experience homelessness and to have difficulty reintegrating into the community. Many do not have the necessary wraparound supports, and subsequently end up cycling through the criminal justice system at high cost. They often face discrimination and stigma as a result of having been incarcerated, and have difficulty finding meaningful employment. That's unjust, especially because people with mental illness who enter the criminal justice system are far more likely to have committed minor criminal offences when compared to offenders who don't have a mental illness. The majority of arrests are for minor crimes, such as causing a disturbance, mischief, minor theft, and failure to appear in court, which may be directly or indirectly related to the mental illness or substance use itself.

As a community-based organization with a long history of supporting people with mental illness and addictions at the local level, CMHA knows from experience that providing the necessary supports and care for people can greatly change the course of their lives, the course of the lives of their families, and their communities.

An ideal health care system—and here I'm not even talking about the ideal, but even one that's based on smart investments in treatments that work—can actually save many people and can save money. People with mental illness would have easy and timely access to well-funded, integrated community-based services, including housing and employment supports and individual and family supports, in addition to accessing a range of professionals, including family physicians.

This continuum of services allows individuals to receive support in the community and to thrive in recovery. In Canada we don't have to take a leap of faith on this. When you're a pioneer, you often have to go out on a limb and see how it works. On this front, we're not pioneers; we're laggards.

We can learn from other G7 countries that have been in our situation and have made the smart investments in health responses to mental illness, and dramatically reduce the high cost of untreated mental illness. When community-based services are well coordinated, they can also positively impact people with mental illness who come into contact with the law. Although the research on court support and diversion programs is limited, these measures that divert people with mental illness, pre- or post-charge, have been shown to increase access to mental health services, improve mental health functioning, and reduce hospitalization and recidivism, again saving money. They also relieve some of the pressure on the criminal justice system.

Supporting people at the community level is also much less expensive than incarcerating them. In Canada it costs over $100,000 per year to house and support a male federal inmate and $180,000 a year for every female inmate. Offenders who are supervised in the community, on the other hand, cost considerably less, about one-eighth of those amounts. The funding that would be spent on the incarceration of people with mental illness would be better spent on proactive investment in treatment and social integration.

This brings me to Bill C-375. This bill proposes to amend the Criminal Code to introduce information about mental health issues and disorders in pre-sentence reports. The goal of the bill, as I understand it, is to make the criminal justice system aware of and more responsive to individuals with mental health issues and to ensure that they receive the appropriate treatment and supports that they need throughout their rehabilitation.

Although some jurisdictions already collect information on mental health in pre-service reports, this bill would create a national standard for all jurisdictions to consider mental health during sentencing. It is important that you don't have to win the postal code lottery to know that you live in a province that just so happens to provide and seek your mental health information. That's good for you, but what about the ones who don't? We really are applauding this bill to ensure there is a national standard.

This is important because research conducted by Public Safety Canada suggests that pre-sentencing reports make a difference in sentencing outcomes. They've been shown to increase the likelihood that offenders will receive a community sentence rather than a custodial sentence. We believe that with the right supports, community sentences can better facilitate recovery for people with mental illness.

In conclusion, we believe that the Government of Canada needs to continue showing leadership by addressing the current gaps experienced by people with mental illness and addictions in our criminal justice system. We strongly support the government's efforts to conduct a comprehensive review of the criminal justice system, and one of its stated goals, which is to determine how services can be improved for offenders who suffer from mental illness.

Bill C-375 presents an important opportunity to achieve this goal and ensure that people with mental illness and substance use problems are treated with care and compassion. It is also an opportunity to break the vicious cycle of institutionalization that unfairly impacts people with mental illness and substance use problems.

We also encourage the government to continue to make smart investments in early health responses to mental illness, which not only save lives but also lower the high cost of untreated mental illness in our communities. As such, we strongly urge the government to support Bill C-375.

Thank you again for inviting me here today. I'd be happy to answer any of your questions.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

At the outset, let me also echo the sentiments expressed by the chair to Mr. Ehsassi regarding the unfortunate situation that happened in Willowdale. All of our thoughts and prayers are with the ones who lost their lives and those in the process of recovery. We commend the great work of our first responders, and also of Mr. Ehsassi, who went to the riding to be there for the people.

On that note, good afternoon, members and colleagues. It is a privilege to be here before this committee today.

Let me start by saying that one in five Canadians will directly face a mental health issue at some point in their life. Four out of five will indirectly be impacted. The economic impact of mental health-related issues is estimated at $50 billion a year, and it continues to rise. While there are vulnerable populations across Canada, mental illness will affect all Canadians regardless of age, sex, or background. Accordingly, there is an overwhelming desire for real change across a broad range of stakeholders.

This bill reflects what I've heard on the ground in my constituency, testimony from various groups championing mental health, such as the CMHC, CMHA, and CMHI, and my own research and expertise as chair of the mental health caucus. I also considered the testimonies of front-line workers, research organizations, and most importantly our experience on our visit to the Ray of Hope youth facility and the Grand Valley Institution for Women last year.

As highlighted earlier, this also reflects the priority of my constituents in Richmond Hill, who have, since I took office, often shared their concerns regarding the dynamics between the criminal justice system and mental health.

In Canada, 10% of the population reports symptoms consistent with mental illness. Among our youth, 25% will experience a mental health issue as they navigate through their adulthood, particularly in the vulnerable transition period between ages 18 and 24. This vulnerable population is profoundly overrepresented in our prison system, and studies have shown that the majority of young inmates demonstrate a mental health issue.

According to the Mental Health Commission of Canada, only a fraction—20% of youth—have access to the mental health services they need. We must be very clear on that fact. Mental health services are as much needed as any necessary medical services. To be forced to go without them is to invite life-altering consequences.

The correctional investigator's 2012 annual report found that 36% of offenders at federal penitentiaries were identified as requiring psychiatric or psychological follow-up. Forty percent of male inmates and 69% of female inmates were treated for mental health issues while in prison.

Bill C-375 would amend paragraph 721(3)(a) of the Criminal Code, mandating that unless otherwise specified, when a pre-sentence report is required by a court, in addition to information such as age, maturity, character, behaviour, attitude, and willingness to make amends, information outlining any mental health disorder, as well as any mental health care program available to the accused, be provided as part of the pre-sentencing report.

As Bill C-375 passed through the House, a range of opinions were expressed on the bill as it currently stands. Arguments were made questioning the need for such a bill, and in contrast that the bill does not go far enough. I'm happy to have this opportunity to discuss those concerns, and I'm intrigued to see what amendments may be proposed.

Today, there exists no mandate for the court to consider the mental health history of an individual in pre-sentencing proceedings, yet the court is mandated to take into account such nebulous and subjective factors as attitude or character. As Bill C-375 ensures that pertinent information will be taken into account during pre-sentencing, an individual with a history of mental health issues will be afforded the appropriate care and treatment during the administration of justice and their rehabilitation.

In the long term, the legislation presents an opportunity for us to take a real step forward, decrease recidivism, improve rehabilitation, and further erode the stigmatization of mental illness. In the short term, there are immediate benefits to the quality of life in our prisons, as well as to the efficacy of the services in the administration of justice and the rehabilitation of vulnerable populations.

In any individual sentence, our justice system is well-served by being made fully aware of relevant mental health concerns. With mental health information included in a pre-sentence report, the interplay of mental health with the condition of incarceration can be taken fully into account. Readily available mental health information is invaluable when considering a step as drastic as solitary confinement or choosing the facility that can best provide the appropriate mental health services.

By ensuring that mental health concerns are considered in these decisions, we can reduce the strain on penitentiary security officers while creating an environment that mitigates inflammatory factors and encourages conditions that reduce recidivism in the long term. This can be particularly useful in crafting cases of conditional sentencing as well as in creating conditions for effective reintegration following release.

Ensuring that mental health information is available at every step of the process will also make cases less vulnerable to attack on appeal, saving time and money for our judicial system and providing a net benefit to the overall cost and burden associated with mental health issues. Many members of Parliament do not have a chance to see their private members' bills seen before the House, let alone passed to committee. I'm proud of the bill that you have before you today, but it's decidedly a product of compromise. A private member's bill is one of the most direct venues through which a member of Parliament can direct real change on behalf of their constituents, and this private member's bill is a tool to further the discussion on this topic.

While I wish the scope and the reach of this bill was more encompassing, I believe that this balancing act has produced a bill that will do tangible good in the lives of Canadians while attracting common sense support on all sides. Likewise, I'm excited to work with the committee to re-examine and potentially strengthen the bill through amendments, and I believe the legislation as it stands is a strong model that will facilitate a fruitful discussion.

To conclude, I would like to remind the committee that the nexus of mental health care in our criminal justice system is complex, dynamic, and evolving. A judge must be presented with the relevant information in any given case in order to take advantage of this. This complex situation should be addressed by more than a single private member's bill, and I certainly would not frame Bill C-375 as a be-all solution.

I thank you for the opportunity. I would like to also acknowledge the work of Mr. Glenn Bradbury, who was instrumental in getting the bill to this state.

Mr. Chair, colleagues, I'm ready to answer questions from the committee.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Good afternoon, everyone.

It's a pleasure to welcome everyone to this meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights as we commence our study of Bill C-375, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (presentence report).

It is also a pleasure to welcome Mr. Majid Jowhari, the sponsor of the bill.

Welcome, Mr. Jowhari.

Criminal Code

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-375, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (presentence report).

The House resumed from March 2 consideration of the motion that Bill C-375, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (presentence report), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise once again to discuss my private members' bill, Bill C-375. At the outset, I would like to thank all members who have substantially contributed to the substance of this private members' bill. I would like to thank the members today for once again covering the scope and intent of the bill.

For the next four minutes, I limit my remarks to responding to some of the concerns raised earlier as part of the first hour of debate. I listened intently to those members who spoke previously to the bill. While the debate has been spirited, I have been encouraged by its good faith and co-operative nature. In and of itself, this is an of acknowledgement by all parties that there is a need for real change at the intersection between our justice system and mental health. I hope that Bill C-375 can play a role in this change and inform future changes as governments of today and tomorrow navigate that dynamic relationship.

If I could, I would like to take some time to address the contradictions and inaccuracies raised by some of my colleagues across the aisle during the first hour of debate. They raised two concurrent concerns. First is that, in cases where mental health information is relevant, judges already choose to include mental health information in pre-sentence reports. Second is that the process of mandating that this information be provided where relevant would add a new burden to the justice system.

I think the contradiction here is very clear. If judges are already choosing to include this information in the pre-sentence report in all relevant cases, then we are simply codifying an existing practice. There can be no additional burden because this practice is already applied when relevant. As well, if this legislation would add a burden, then we must accept that mental health information is, in fact, not being requested in all relevant cases.

While we are on the topic of additional burdens, it is my understanding that a sentence imposed without reference to relevant, available medical evidence is vulnerable to attack on appeal. Whatever hypothetical burden would be added to the justice system by adding additional information to a pre-sentence report cannot possibly compare to the burden of time and cost that the judiciary is opened to by vulnerable verdicts.

In addition, more than one of my colleagues have suggested that providing mental health information in pre-sentence reports would result in unfairness and inconsistencies in the administration of justice, by which they must mean to say that judges will make considered decisions based on information they would otherwise not have had. This is an intended feature, not a bug. I trust our judiciary. I consider them credible decision-makers and I trust they will not become confused when provided with additional context. However, for our judges to make an informed consideration, they must have all the facts.

Mental health is an ongoing project, a frontier of medical and social science. Even those at the forefront of their field continue to make new discoveries and find new connections and contexts. As such, judges must be provided with all information, whenever possible, so as not to prejudge an offender before they have all the facts. In this constantly changing field, what may or may not be pertinent is in flux, and it is unreasonable to expect every judge to take full account of relevant mental health information in the absence of the facts and context contained in the pre-sentence report.

There have also been colleagues who have suggested this bill would not go far enough. I agree. In drafting legislation, particularly private members' bills, there may be a tendency to err on the side of caution. To narrow the scope, one must consider the end result. I am proud of the bill as it stands, but far be it from me to suggest we cannot broaden its scope or clarify its existing intent. I believe the House stands united in our belief that improvements can and must be made at the intersection of our sentencing process and the lived reality of Canadians who continue to struggle with mental health.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak to private member's Bill C-375, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to pre-sentence reports.

Let me say at the outset that our government will be supporting Bill C-375, and we commend the hon. member for Richmond Hill for his leadership and collaboration on the important issue of mental health in our criminal justice system.

I was listening very carefully to some of the concerns expressed by my Conservative colleague from the riding of Durham. It is important to address the thrust of it, which is that this private member's bill is somehow vague. In fact, in our interpretation of this private member's bill, it serves to clarify and cure a vagueness in the Criminal Code by making an express reference to mental health concerns in the context of the criminal sentencing process. What is important for my hon. colleague to appreciate is that in that context, when we are talking about finding someone not criminally responsible as a result of not having the mental capacity to appreciate the consequences of committing a criminal offence, it is a separate and distinct legal concept from the provisions under sections 718 and 721 of the Criminal Code, where after an accused individual pleads guilty and has accepted responsibility for committing those offences, a judge would take into consideration mental health issues as part of the overall sentencing exercise. I offer those comments in the spirit of constructive dialogue.

Let me say for my hon. colleague from Richmond Hill that in the first hour of second reading debate, the sponsor stated that his bill is intended to ensure that individuals with mental illnesses who find themselves in the criminal justice system are afforded the care, compassion, and appropriate treatment they need during the process of their rehabilitation. Specifically, the bill aims to make the criminal justice system more responsive to individuals with mental health issues by amending subsection 721(3) of the Criminal Code to specify that a pre-sentence report must contain information regarding any mental disorder from which the offender suffers.

A pre-sentence report is a written document prepared by a probation officer to help the court learn more about the person to be sentenced. Its purpose is to assist the court in making the appropriate sentencing decision. These reports are intended to be an accurate, independent, and balanced assessment of an offender and his or her prospects for the future.

Accordingly, these pre-sentence reports help to provide judges with a firm evidentiary basis on which to exercise their discretion at sentencing. When judges are given the necessary background and context about each unique set of circumstances, the result is a sentence that better protects the community, rehabilitates the offender, and ultimately reduces crime.

The Criminal Code currently outlines that certain information about the offender, including his or her age, maturity, character, behaviour, attitude, and willingness to make amends, should be contained in a pre-sentence report.

It should also include the criminal history of the offender under the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the history of previous sentences and findings of guilt. The history of alternative measures used to deal with the offender, and the offender's response to those measures, should similarly be contained in the report. Those measures may include judicial cautions or programs requiring community service or repairing harm done.

However, the Criminal Code does not presently expressly require that information about the mental condition of the offender, as it relates to the offence, be included in the pre-sentence report. In my view, this is highly relevant information for a judge who is attempting to craft an appropriate sentence. Indeed, as we learn more and more about the role of mental health issues in contributing to criminal behaviour, the importance of considering this information at sentencing is beyond question.

The impacts of mental illness are of course not limited to the criminal justice system. They are linked to much broader challenges being faced by our society as a whole. Today mental health issues cost Canadians millions of dollars each year. As the sponsor has previously said, it is estimated that the total cost of mental health challenges exceeds $50 billion annually in health care expenses and lost productivity. According to the Canadian Mental Health Association, in any given year, one in five people in Canada will personally experience a mental health problem or illness. These challenges are even more pronounced in the criminal justice system.

While statistics are not as fulsome as we may like, there is evidence to suggest that in our penitentiaries, mental health issues are two to three times more prevalent than in the general population. The rate of mental illness among federal offenders has more than doubled in the last 20 years. In fact, individuals with mental illness are more likely to be arrested, detained, and incarcerated and are consequently more likely to be disciplined rather than treated. This is an ongoing issue, as once they have been released from the criminal justice system, they are also more likely to be rearrested and to reoffend. In other words, an offender whose mental illness is unrecognized and untreated is at far greater risk of being caught in the revolving door of incarceration and repeat offending.

That is why we need to continue to develop measures like the one proposed in Bill C-375, to address mental health in a proactive way. In particular, the bill will help to ensure that our judges are well-equipped to assess the needs of those being sentenced and enable them to direct the offenders to proper rehabilitation. This, ultimately, will help to break the vicious cycle of criminality by addressing this issue at the outset.

The social and economic benefits of this smart and proactive approach to criminal justice can hardly be overstated. Under the prior government, we saw time and time again that a regressive approach to sentencing divides families and consumes financial resources that could be better used to improve the lives of Canadians and to keep all of them safe. Instead, by identifying and meeting the mental health needs of offenders in the short term, we can stop that revolving door of chronic reoffending and create a safer, more prosperous community for all. All of this begins by identifying the underlying problem, which is precisely what Bill C-375 works to ensure.

It appears to me that supporting this bill is consistent with a number of broader initiatives of our government that are aimed at supporting those mental health issues, and they go back to our prior budgets. In budget 2018, we build on the investments made in past years, proposing an additional $20.4 million over five years, beginning in 2018-19, and $5.6 million per year ongoing. The funding is aligned with the recently announced investment of $5 billion over 10 years to improve mental health services across the country.

Bill C-375 is also consistent with the mandate given by the Prime Minister to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General . In particular, she was directed to “address gaps in services to...those with mental illness throughout the criminal justice system.” In my view, the measures proposed in Bill C-375 are consistent with that mandate and will serve to advance our government's broader plan to address the challenges related to mental health in Canada.

Before concluding, I wish to draw attention to a few questions I have identified with this bill. I would like to think that these issues could be studied by the committee and possibly addressed through minor amendments.

First, I note that the bill focuses on the need for a diagnosis of an offender, and not on the symptoms or behaviours that manifest as a result of a mental health issue. In my view, it would be more useful to a sentencing judge to have broader information about the offender's mental health more generally, rather than the official diagnosis.

Second, I would note that the bill does not contain a link or a nexus between the mental health information that is sought and the purpose for which it will be used. For me, this raises some concerns that a sentencing court could be provided with mental health information that may not be directly relevant to the offence, and by extension the sentencing process. I trust that these are issues the committee will address through its study.

Finally, it seems to me that the language with respect to “mental health programs” could create some confusion as to what type of information should be provided to the court. In my view, it is unclear what is meant by the term “programs”, as mental health care is, indeed, a specific type of medical care and not specifically delivered through programming.

Once again, I expect that all these issues can be thoroughly addressed at committee.

I would once again like to thank the sponsor of this bill and commend him for his work and his commitment to mental health issues. I know that it comes from a place of great sincerity and authenticity. I look forward to supporting this private member's bill, along with all members of the House.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the House today to speak to Bill C-375, which would amend the Criminal Code in order to introduce information about mental health issues and disorders in pre-sentence reports.

The NDP is committed to building a criminal justice system that works for everyone. We want compassion and rehabilitation to be central to our policy. That is why my NDP colleagues and I will support this bill, which we believe is necessary to ensure fair and effective justice for all Canadians.

The NDP believes that this bill is a step in the right direction because it ensures that the judge will have all the information needed to hand down a fair and equitable ruling.

At present, nearly 36% of federal offenders need some form of psychiatric or psychological follow-up. I would remind the House, however, that paragraph 721(3)(a) of the Criminal Code requires only certain information to be included in a pre-sentence report, namely “the offender’s age, maturity, character, behaviour, attitude and willingness to make amends”, but nothing on possible mental health issues.

This is despite the fact that people with mental illness are currently overrepresented in our criminal justice system. It would therefore be a good idea to take them into account by including mental health information in pre-sentence reports so that judges can make fairer and more appropriate decisions. Adding information on offenders' mental health represents a real opportunity to modernize our justice system and adapt it to reflect the current reality.

Bill C-375 is far from perfect, however. My NDP colleagues and I all agree that this bill desperately lacks ambition and does not go far enough. If we really want to bring about change, we need meaningful action on the accessibility of mental health care. Tuesday's budget could have been an excellent opportunity to invest, but no.

The NDP believes that mental health care should be just as readily available and accessible as any other health care service in our communities. It is only logical and only fair that comparable resources be allocated to mental and physical illnesses.

We must continue to focus on compassionate care in order to help Canadians with mental illness rejoin society after incarceration and avoid over-criminalization wherever possible.

That is why I believe that it is high time for the Liberal government to invest in programs that will truly help people with mental illness before or during their time in the criminal justice system. According to the Mental Health Commission of Canada, over a million children and youth in Canada have a mental illness, yet less than 20% of them are able to get the treatment they need.

That is why, during the last election campaign, the NDP promised to create an innovation fund for youth mental health services, with a particular focus on first nations and rural and remote communities. This innovation fund would be a real way of proactively preventing crimes committed by people with mental illness.

I believe that we need to completely rethink the way we look at things. We need to take care of these people and ensure that they get the treatment they need instead of completely abandoning them as is currently far too often the case.

We must also remember that these people who have serious illnesses often do not have the skills or the ability to adapt to the prison environment. However, with the closure of care facilities for people with mental illness and developmental disabilities, the criminal justice system has become a refuge for people who do not have the resources to cope with life in society.

Solitary confinement and other such measures meant to enhance prison security are never appropriate solutions for people with mental illness. When they leave prison, they end up having untreated or aggravated mental health problems, which may contribute to recidivism.

While the Conservatives want to focus on harsher penalties that will only make matters worse, the NDP prefers to focus on real solutions. This is why the NDP believes in helping convicts who have a mental disorder get access to resources and support so that they can rehabilitate and reintegrate as productive members of society. We believe that we must do everything to reintegrate former inmates into society and to make sure they have the tools to do so.

I want to take a moment to highlight a number of organizations in my riding of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot that are working very hard to help people with mental illnesses and their families. These organizations include The Lighthouse; Les Ateliers de transition; the Auberge du coeur Le Baluchon; the Centre psychosocial Richelieu-Yamaska; the Centre de femmes L'autonomie en soiE; the Collectif de défense des droits de la Montérégie; the Maison alternative de développement humain, or MADH, as it is known; the Trait d'Union Montérégien; and, of course, our volunteer centres and our health and social services institutions.

Every day, these organizations work to help people in need and contribute to improving life for the entire Saint-Hyacinthe and Acton Vale community. Le Phare is one such organization. Its mission is to bring together and help the loved ones of a person with serious mental health problems and provide them with a wide range of support services in order to help them reintegrate into society more easily.

Saint-Hyacinthe and the surrounding region can also count on the work of the Centre psychosocial Richelieu-Yamaska, which has set out to help people with mental health problems in their quest for a better quality of life with a focus on significant and lasting integration into the community.

It is thanks to local organizations like those that we can change things. That is why I believe that we must help them at a federal level in order to allow them to continue their vital mission.

I want to acknowledge another community organization in my riding in particular, the Trait d'Union Montérégien, a not-for-profit community organization that provides a sponsorship service for the social reintegration of adults who have lived with, continue to live with, or are at risk of living with emotional distress.

Since 1991, more than 300 people were able to meet a friend through this organization. When one understands how much support a good friend can provide, one understands how essential an organization like Trait d'Union Montérégien is for people who do not benefit from such relationships in their usual social circle.

The work that these organizations do is invaluable and a source of hope for thousands of people across Canada who are struggling with mental illness. However, I believe that it is vital that the government take action at the national level because the work that these community organizations do locally is not enough to bring about real change. That is why the NDP committed to working with all community workers, mental health professionals, front line workers such as the RCMP, and the provincial and territorial justice systems to seek better support services for people with mental illnesses. I encourage the government to do the same.

I repeat that the NDP will support this bill. However, my colleagues and I believe that the government needs to do more to deal with the overrepresentation of people with mental illness in the criminal justice system.

In our eyes, amending our Criminal Code to include information about mental health issues and disorders in pre-sentence reports is a good start. In conclusion, however, this move falls well short of what is needed to make a real difference for the thousands of people suffering from mental health issues who need real support from the federal government. It is time for the government to find the courage to release funds for mental health care. That is the kind of ambitious initiative I was expecting from the 2018 federal budget, but sadly, we will have to keep waiting.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a good debate here on a Friday and I appreciate the time given to me by the House earlier with respect to my question of privilege.

I am rising now to speak on behalf of the Conservative Party with respect to Bill C-375 brought forward by the Liberal MP for Richmond Hill with respect to amending the Criminal Code. It is a short bill, because it is really trying to insert one element into the pre-sentence report. I will speak for a few moments about the bill's intention, from what I can find, and then some of the concerns we have with it essentially because it is vague and causes us some concern, which I will get into.

Specifically, the goal of the bill is to amend the pre-sentence report prepared under the auspices of the Criminal Code under subsection 721(3). It wants to insert a new ground for the pre-sentence report, which would be:

(a.1) any mental disorder from which the offender suffers as well as any mental health care programs available to them;

The MP for Richmond Hill with respect to introducing the bill has said that he wants it to include information on families with a history of mental illness to ensure that they are afforded care. We all agree with the afforded care aspect of this.

Mental health conditions and mental health conditions that may be involved in someone's criminal behaviour are serious but there also must be compassion. There is compassion with respect to treatment and making health care programs available and that sort of thing. Generally, our criminal justice system does that.

Various prisoner ombudsmen and people like that have highlighted that we do not have enough mental health resources within our criminal justice system, but the bill is not about that. The bill is about basically just highlighting mental health programming. I agree with that. That is reasonable. It is already being done now but perhaps it is not being done well enough. This legislation would insert that availability into the pre-sentence report. If the person is sentenced, that availability comes later but that is the part of this private member's legislation that we generally feel we are aligned with.

The trouble with the bill is that because it is vague, maybe intentionally so, it seems like mental health might be an aspect of every sentencing decision that a judge looks at in a criminal court context. This being only a one-line bill, it is hard for us to determine. There has not been much public discussion on this, so it is hard for us to determine if that is the case. That concerns me and I will get into why shortly.

Right now what is in the pre-sentence report under subsection 721(3) of the Criminal Code is age, character, maturity, history, including criminal history, and the remorse or willingness to make amends. These sorts of things are the typical aspects that go into the pre-sentence report that a judge will consider before rendering a sentence, after a finding of guilt.

The reference to mental health in a vague sense here, “any mental health disorder from which the offender suffers”, does not actually go to intent or mens rea or actus reus, the fundamentals of criminal law. Was there a guilty mind? Was there a guilty act?

Is the member for Richmond Hill suggesting that even property crimes or things like that should consider all mental health aspects? It is not clear enough. If someone was depressed that would not necessarily mean he or she did not understand, that he or she did not have the mens rea to commit a theft. What is worse is when we start getting into crimes against other people. How does this relate to mental health impacting a decision when violence, for example, is committed against another citizen. This is why we have some concerns with it being vague.

Is the bill's intention to make this a requirement for consideration in all aspects of mental health or is it meant to be part of the general discussion on not criminally responsible due to mental disorder? That is already firmly established and I will talk about that in a moment.

I always try to remind people when we talk about criminal justice issues that rehabilitation, treatment, and all of those things are very important, and they have a place in our criminal justice system. However, what often is the difference in the House of Commons is that the Liberals or the NDP put rehabilitation of the offender always first, and in some cases, it is the only consideration with respect to sentencing and incarceration, whereas I find the Conservatives look at all aspects of the principles of sentencing an offender.

Remember, this is after a finding of guilt, regardless of what the underlying Criminal Code provision is. I refer the member and anyone following this debate to section 718 of the Criminal Code, which is our principles of sentencing. This is something we learn in law school, because it is kind of the foundation of our criminal justice system. While some people, advocates and people on the left, talk almost exclusively about rehabilitation, what are the principles of sentencing? What are the foundations of our criminal justice system? I will read them out.

The first is denunciation of unlawful conduct. The second is deterrence. The third is the separation of the offender and protection of society. The fourth is the assistance in the rehabilitation of the offender, which is the rehabilitation aspect. The fifth is reparation for criminal conduct on society or in some cases the victim. Finally, the last principle of sentencing in our Criminal Code is the promotion of a sense of responsibility.

I think that final one is probably the most important, alongside protection of the public in cases where there is violence. Certainly in cases where there is no violence, rehabilitation should probably be a key priority, especially for young people, and our system has that already. However, when we talk about cases that involve violence, that is when we think protection of the public, denunciation of conduct, promotion of a sense of responsibility, deterrence, and all of those other factors should take priority. I think average Canadians agree with that.

What is not clear about the bill is how it relates to capacity decisions of an offender. In pre-sentencing, is any mental health condition just part of a “not criminally responsible” discussion, because there is already provision for that, or is it just meant to be a consideration for later treatment? In the bill there is treatment and the consideration of historical conditions, and we see a lot of talk in society today now about trauma being intergenerational. Is intergenerational trauma somehow a consideration at pre-sentencing, meaning somebody should not receive a sentence appropriate because of trauma committed in the past? When there is a very light, vague bill, it is not clear for us to understand.

We already have a not criminally responsible provision for mental disorder where somebody does not have the capacity to understand, the mens rea or the mental intention of their act. They committed the act, the actus reus, which is one part of a criminal act. The mens rea or the mental intention is the other. We already have not criminally responsible.

In the Winko decision in 1999, the Supreme Court said that within that construct, if there is not capacity, then security of the public, if the offender is violent, is still a key priority. We talk about this often, because there are cases like the Schoenborn case in Merritt, B.C., where the public loses faith in the criminal justice system because they see NCR cases not having the protection of the public and other aspects of criminal sentencing principles applied. We know of the Vincent Li case in Manitoba and others. These erode public confidence in our system.

Our concern from the Conservative Party is that the bill is so vague. If this is just about making sure that treatment options are discussed while the person is incarcerated or serving a conditional sentence or something, that is one thing. However, with the consideration of historical mental illness and this sort of vague notion, we do not want to see a situation where there is a violent crime committed and the history of intergenerational trauma or depression would somehow be an excuse for the mens rea. Mental health conditions often will mean that people do have the capacity. I talk about veterans and mental health all the time. It is an injury in some cases, but that person still has the capacity.

Therefore, the MP for Richmond Hill has to shed a little more light on this to address these reasonable concerns.

The House resumed from December 8, 2017, consideration of the motion that Bill C-375, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (presentence report), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech. As he highlighted, the purpose of Bill C-375 is to amend subsection 721(3) of the Criminal Code to require pre-sentencing reports to provide, unless the court orders otherwise, information on any mental illness that offenders may suffer from and any mental health care programs available to them.

Our government acknowledges that the criminal justice system must provide better answers to mental health problems. To that end, in budget 2017, the government committed $5 billion over five years to help the provincial and territorial governments make mental health care more accessible to Canadians. In her mandate letter, the Minister of Justice was asked to conduct a comprehensive review of the criminal justice system. This includes identifying the needs of offenders that suffer from mental illness and determining how these services can be improved. By acknowledging the needs of offenders suffering from mental illness, we can reduce recidivism rates and make our communities safer.

We will continue to look at measures to address the disproportionate representation of offenders with mental disorders in the criminal justice system. According to the Correctional Service of Canada, more than 70% of federal offenders and more than half of federally sentenced offenders have mental disorders.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the second reading debate on this private member's bill, Bill C-375, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding pre-sentence reports. This bill seeks to address the issue of mental health in the criminal justice system through a targeted amendment to the Criminal Code provision governing pre-sentence reports. Specifically, the bill would clarify that a pre-sentence report should, where possible, contain information about any mental disorder from which an offender suffers as well as any mental health care programs available to them.

I am in full agreement with the sponsor that the issue of mental health is of great concern to the criminal justice system. It has been identified as a key concern by many criminal justice stakeholders over the years. As part of our commitment to broadly review the criminal justice system in Canada, the Minister of Justice has indicated that addressing the needs of vulnerable offender populations in the criminal justice system is a key priority. Addressing the issue of mental health is also part of the Minister of Justice's mandate letter from the Prime Minister. Specifically, her mandate directs her to address gaps in services for those with mental illness throughout the criminal justice system.

The issue of mental health has arisen numerous times so far in the course of the minister's criminal justice review. It was raised by experts and other community stakeholders at the series of criminal justice round tables hosted by the Minister of Justice across Canada over the past two years. This thorough consultative process included a total of 20 round tables, with at least one in every province and territory. Mental health professionals, as well as representatives from traditionally marginalized communities, including indigenous and other racialized populations, featured prominently among the participants.

The round table held in Vancouver, in August 2016, was explicitly focused on mental health. At that event, our government heard, in no uncertain terms, that our criminal justice system must do a better job responding to mental illness. Experts in the field, as well as those with first-hand criminal justice experience, explained that addressing mental health is one of the critical ways our government can reduce crime, and in doing so, create safer and more prosperous communities throughout Canada.

Not only must we recognize mental health issues among those already involved in the criminal justice system, but by improving the mental health of our citizens before they engage in criminal behaviour, we can prevent longer-term struggles, which ultimately deprive our society of the full potential of those people. This idea was borne out in many of the stories and first-hand accounts we heard from Canadians throughout the round table process.

A typical story, one that is all too often true in our society, frequently begins with a young person from a marginalized community. That person experiences symptoms of mental distress, often beginning with depression or anxiety, but they go unnoticed because of a lack of institutional capacity or social support. The young person's mental state deteriorates, leading to lower performance at school, social withdrawal, and poor decision-making. The person's first involvement with the criminal justice system is often pursuant to a minor offence, such as a low-value theft or mischief. Nevertheless, he or she is convicted, and most likely, on a second offence, sentenced to a short period in custody. At this stage, the system fails to recognize the presence of worsening mental illness. Once inside the criminal justice system, the youth is exposed to an environment that aggravates rather than treats the mental health issues and the young person identifies with older, more serious offenders.

Upon returning to the community, the young person now suffers from a worsening, untreated mental illness and lacks the tools to effectively reintegrate. The unfortunate reality is that this person is now far more likely to reoffend and to live a life of continued criminal behaviour.

This story should not surprise any member of this House. While it is merely an example, our experience, including that gained through our own government's consultation process, has shown that this type of scenario continues to present itself in Canadian society.

It is because of stories like these that I commend the sponsor for his commitment to addressing mental health in the criminal justice system through Bill C-375. As I read the proposal, it would essentially codify the current practice of including mental health information in a pre-sentence report, where that information is readily available. In my view, this bill would not compel offenders to provide information about their mental health situation against their wishes, nor would it provide the court with the power to order the production of mental health records or empower it to order an assessment of the mental condition of the offender.

I understand that it is already common practice in many jurisdictions for offenders to provide information about their mental health through a probation officer where they feel it is beneficial to them. Therefore, in my view, the practical result of the bill would be to signal to a sentencing judge that this information is a relevant consideration at sentencing.

As I was reviewing the bill, I considered how such a proposal might fit within the broader goals and mandate of the Minister of Justice. The criminal justice system must protect all Canadians and keep our communities safe, but it must also protect the rights of all Canadians.

Our government is committed to ensuring the criminal law meets the highest standards of equity, fairness and respect for the rule of law. Healthy and safe communities are built upon a criminal justice system that treats the individuals with whom it interacts with respect, dignity, and in a manner that always upholds the rights and freedoms afforded to all by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Such a proposal could be seen as complementing our government's broader objectives of improving access to mental health care services for all Canadians.

For example, as members of the House will know, our government made a historic investment in mental health in budget 2017, with $11 billion of federal money being transferred to the provinces and territories over the next 10 years, almost half of which is to be dedicated to improving access to mental health and addiction services.

In addition, budget 2017 committed $118.2 million over five years to improve mental health supports for first nations and Inuit peoples. This money will be provided directly to communities so they can specifically tailor programs to meet their individual needs. This funding is in addition to the $69 million over three years announced in 2016 for immediate mental health needs and the more than $300 million provided annually to support culturally relevant mental wellness services for Canada's indigenous communities.

These significant and historic investments in front-line mental health services will benefit all Canadians, not just those who find themselves at odds with the criminal justice system. These upstream investments in mental health services could prevent a mentally ill person from coming into contact with the criminal justice system in the first place. Investing resources in our currently saturated mental health care system could decrease the likelihood that the criminal justice system would become the default method of dealing with these individuals.

I would like to briefly reflect on the communication I have had with members of my own community, constituents in my riding of Mississauga—Lakeshore, who have repeatedly written to me on the importance of mental health in Canada, particularly with respect to young people, indigenous communities, and also increasingly our seniors. In their correspondence to me, they underscore the importance for the government and all parliamentarians to take mental health seriously, to integrate mental health systematically into our policy decision-making processes, and to backstop the need to invest in mental health with adequate resources and investments.

I would like to thank the sponsor again for the steps he took in introducing the bill into the House of Commons. Through his own framework, his own lens of criminal justice and its intersection with mental health needs in Canada, he has moved the yardstick forward.

I am thankful for the opportunity to discuss this important proposal. I look forward to continued debate on this important private member's bill.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I want to recognize and express deep gratitude to remarkable leader, a former minister, my predecessor, the Hon. Rona Ambrose, who served the people of Sturgeon River—Parkland with distinction. It is an honour to follow in her footsteps as the representative of Sturgeon River—Parkland.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-375, an act to amend the Criminal Code in regard to pre-sentencing reports. I want to thank my hon. colleague, the member for Richmond Hill, for championing the issue of mental health in Canada. The bill would amend the Criminal Code to require a pre-sentencing report that contains information on any mental disorder a offender suffers from.

Canadians expect their justice system to keep them safe from high-risk individuals, and we need a policy that strikes a balance between the need to protect society from those who pose a danger and to treat with compassion those with mental illness and mental disorders. I will not be supporting the bill because I do not believe it would achieve this balance between compassion for victims and their families, and for the offenders who suffer from mental illness.

Currently, section 721 of the Criminal Code enables a probation officer to publish a pre-sentence report after the offender is found guilty. The purpose of the report is to assist the court in imposing a sentence or in determining whether an accused should be discharged. A pre-sentence report must contain the following information: the offender's age, maturity, character, and willingness to make amends. It also contains the history of previous dispositions under the Young Offenders Act and the history of alternative measures used to deal with the offender and the offender's response to those measures.

Bill C-375 proposes to add another requirement to this list: the consideration of any mental health disorder from which the offender suffers, as well as any mental health care programs available to him or her. In practice, this would create some unfairness and inconsistencies in the application of laws and justice. Not all mental health disorders are the same. In fact, even the same mental health disorders can have a great deal of variance in how they impact individuals. It is paramount that compassion for those suffering with mental health disorders be balanced with the need to protect public safety and provide justice for victims and their families.

These changes are also a concern because they could add considerable delays to our court system, which is already overburdened. Increased delays and complexity would not help those in the justice system who have mental health disorders, nor would they be good for victims and their families. I do not think any of my colleagues in this House would want trials to be unnecessarily delayed, or after the fact, and I believe this legislation could add delays to our system.

Our understanding of mental health continues to evolve with more research. It is an incredibly complex issue, as I mentioned. There is a danger when anyone attempts to address mental health too broadly. The requirement of the bill to add pre-sentencing reports for mental disorders is too broad. As I said, not all mental health disorders are the same, and not all of them are equally relevant to our justice system. Currently, judges are able to take into account relevant information to ensure that the mentally ill are not treated poorly, and can do so without this legislation and in a way that is not cumbersome to the system. In the case of Vince Li in Manitoba, I believe that the justice system dealt quite ably with it by showing compassion both to the offender and to the victims and their families. It shows that the system is largely working well, and I believe this legislation could further tip the balance too far in the favour of the accused and against the victims and their families.

Another danger with this proposed change would be that its broad definition could be applied to something very different from the sorts of illnesses considered relevant in past cases. For example, we are increasingly becoming aware that hard-drug addictions can be considered mental illnesses, but do we really want drug addicts using their addictions as an excuse for committing crimes? For the law to maintain the confidence of Canadians, it must be consistently applied. Sentencing exceptions for mental health disorders could create an incentive for the accused persons to claim they have a mental disorder.

Like all Canadians, we hope for the successful rehabilitation of those who have taken up a life of crime. Our first priority, however, must be the safety and security of Canadians and the communities where we work and live.

It is well known that an increasing number of people who have become involved in the criminal justice system have mental health disorders. These individuals pose unique challenges for police, courts, correctional facilities, and social workers.

In closing, any justice bill must balance the right of the public to be adequately protected when those who suffer from mental illness pose a danger to society with the right of those suffering from mental illnesses to be treated appropriately and with compassion.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand today and join in the second reading debate on private member's Bill C-375, an act to amend the Criminal Code.

Before I begin my speech I would like to thank my hon. friend from Richmond Hill, who in caucus and throughout this Parliament has been a tireless advocate for mental health.

This legislation would amend provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with pre-sentence reports to be more responsive to offenders with mental health issues. A pre-sentence report is ordered in some cases to help the court learn more about the person being sentenced.

Specifically, the bill would amend subsection 721(3) of the Criminal Code to provide that a pre-sentence report must, where available, and unless the court orders otherwise, contain information on any mental disorder from which an offender suffers, as well as any mental health care programs available to the offender.

Requiring information about the offender's mental health disorder would be in addition to the information that the Criminal Code currently requires to be included in a pre-sentence report. Under the current law, a pre-sentence report must, wherever possible, contain certain information about the offender, such as age, maturity, character, and willingness to make amends.

Bill C-375 would make it clear to the courts that where mental health information is readily available, it should be included in the pre-sentence report. For example, often offenders will provide information about their mental health situation to the probation officer who is preparing the report. The officer will often include this information in the report, which is in turn relied upon by the crown, defence counsel, and the sentencing judge.

The sponsor of the bill, the hon. member for Richmond Hill, has indicated that his intention in introducing the bill was to ensure that information outlining any mental health disorders as well as any mental health care programs available is before the courts to ensure that those offenders with histories of mental illness are afforded care and compassion, and that they will receive appropriate treatment throughout the process of their rehabilitation.

I agree with the sponsor that this is important information that can be extremely valuable to a sentencing judge. In fact, it is my understanding that criminal courts in Canada can, and do, consider the mental health information of an offender when it is before them. Any sentence that is imposed without reference to available medical evidence, including mental health information, is vulnerable to attack on appeal. I do not read this proposal, however, as compelling offenders to provide information about their mental health situation against their wishes.

I understand that including mental health information in pre-sentence reports is already common practice in many jurisdictions. The legal effect of Bill C-375 would serve to codify this practice and signal to sentencing judges that this information is relevant to their deliberations.

Inroads are being made in recent years to eliminate the stigma around mental illness. People are more willing to talk about their struggles and their lives with a mental illness. This increased openness has led us to learn more about the scope of mental illness in Canada.

The Mental Health Commission of Canada indicates that in any given year, one in five Canadians experience a mental health or addiction problem. Other statistics indicate that by the time Canadians reach 40 years of age, one in two experienced a mental illness. Additionally, we know that our young people are more likely to experience mental health issues than any other group.

It is well known that in the past decades, the number of individuals with mental health issues involved in the criminal justice system has increased. There is no singular reason for this increase, however, a number of causes have been cited as contributing factors. These include gaps in services for marginalized populations, including housing, income, and health services. In this regard I am extremely proud to be part of a government that is making great strides in these areas, for instance, the recently announced national housing strategy.

We also know that individuals with mental health illness are often likely to come to the attention of the police and be arrested and detained. Once detained, accessing appropriate mental health services can be a challenge.

The complexities of this issue cannot all be addressed through a private member's bill, nor can the Criminal Code solve such a profound and complex social problem.

However, I think it is fair to say that the sponsor's intent is to take one meaningful step in addressing the larger problem of the overrepresentation of the mentally ill in the criminal justice system. The bill proposes a narrow and targeted approach to ensure that in situations where a pre-sentence report is ordered, readily available mental health information is to be considered.

The stated goals of the bill are consistent with the mandate given by the Prime Minister to the Minister of Justice, which asks her to address gaps in services to those with mental illness throughout the criminal justice system. I think most Canadians would agree that the issue of mental illness could be better managed in the criminal justice system. It is an area where we must continue to work together with our provincial and territorial counterparts as well as community stakeholders to ensure that meaningful progress is made.

I want to be clear that improving the mental health responses of the criminal justice system is not about letting offenders off easy. On the contrary, it is consistent with our government's stated commitment to a criminal justice system that keeps communities safe, respects victims, and holds offenders to account. In particular, addressing mental health is one of the critical ways we can divert offenders from the so-called revolving door of incarceration, improve chances of successful reintegration, and make more efficient use of scarce resources. These outcomes, and not simply punitive measures, should drive our decision-making. As a result, every step we take to improve outcomes for those with mental illness is a step worthy of careful consideration by parliamentarians.

The proposals in the bill are also consistent with our government's other efforts to improve mental health care more generally across the country.

In budget 2017, the government committed $5 billion over the next 10 years to the provinces and territories to improve access to mental health services. In addition, to ensure that federally sentenced offenders with mental health needs receive proper care, budget 2017 proposed to invest $57.8 million over five years starting in 2017-18, and $13.6 million per year thereafter, to expand mental health care for all inmates in federal correctional facilities.

This funding is in addition to the $69 million over three years announced in 2016 for immediate mental health needs, and more than $300 million provided annually to support culturally relevant mental wellness services in indigenous communities. These significant and historic investments in front-line mental health services will benefit all Canadians, not just those who find themselves at odds with the criminal justice system.

I am encouraged by these financial commitments. It reflects the importance of investing in upstream services to ensure that people can receive help when they need it, before they come into contact with the criminal justice system.

I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate on this important private member's bill. Safe and healthy communities are built upon a criminal justice system that treats all Canadians with respect, dignity, and in a manner that always upholds the rights and freedoms afforded to all Canadians by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I would like to thank the sponsor of the bill, the hon. member for Richmond Hill, for providing us with an opportunity to debate this important issue facing the criminal justice system.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity today to speak to Bill C-375 sponsored by my colleague from Richmond Hill to amend the Criminal Code.

This bill has just one clause, and its objective is to provide more information on the profile of the accused in the pre-sentencing report used by the judge when determining the most appropriate sentence under the circumstances, or whether the accused should be absolved from serving a sentence.

At first reading, when the member for Richmond Hill introduced his bill, he stated the following:

The bill would mandate that, unless otherwise specified, when a pre-sentencing report is required by a court, in addition to such information as age, maturity, character, behaviour, attitude, and willingness to make amends, information outlining any mental health disorders as well as any mental health care programs available for the accused be provided as part of their pre-sentencing report. Such information is vital for the courts to have in order to ensure that those Canadians with histories of mental illness are afforded care and compassion, and that they will receive appropriate treatment throughout the process of their rehabilitation.

Bill C-375 states:

Subsection 721(3) of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after paragraph (a): (a.1) any mental disorder from which the offender suffers as well as any mental health care programs available to them;

Pre-sentence reports are given to members with a vested interest in the case: the presiding judge, both counsel for the defence and prosecution, the parole officer, the individual and in some cases the institution where the sentence will be served.

This report serves to help the judge determine the most appropriate sentence for the accused and to inform them of the available services that might be necessary in their rehabilitation.

The NDP is committed to building a criminal justice system that works. We want to ensure that compassion and rehabilitation are at the heart of our policies. Providing information about an individual’s mental health in a pre-sentencing report allows the judge to make a more informed and appropriate sentencing decision and falls directly in line with a justice system based on rehabilitation, as does including information about available mental health programs and services.

To be clear, the objective of this measure is not to disclose the mental health condition of the individual or to perpetuate the stigma or false perception that people with mental health disorders are dangerous.

The objective of the bill is to add information to pre-sentence reports with a view to helping individuals receive appropriate sentences and, with the proposed changes, receive the services they need.

People with mental illnesses are overrepresented in Canada's criminal justice system. Documenting the number of people with mental illnesses who are convicted of certain crimes will help us make the case for alternative programs and solutions. This information can also be used to develop resources and initiatives that prevent people with mental illness from entering the criminal justice system in the first place.

Although provisions providing for pre-sentence reports are set out in the Criminal Code, which is a federal legislation, the administration of the courts and law enforcement are the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories.

At present, the provinces and territories include different information in their pre-sentence reports.

Some provinces, like Nova Scotia, already advise that mental health considerations be disclosed, but this is not the case for all jurisdictions. This bill would create a national standard for all jurisdictions to consider mental health during sentencing.

Bill C-375 would also require the report to include information about any mental health care programs that might help with the individual's rehabilitation.

The following is an excerpt from a 2015 John Howard Society of Ontario report:

Since the closure of institutions serving individuals with mental illness and developmental disabilities, the criminal justice system has become a repository for individuals who lack adequate resources to cope with living in the community.

The correctional investigator's 2012 annual report found that 36% of federal offenders were identified at admission as requiring psychiatric or psychological follow-up.

What is more, 45% of male inmates and 69% of female inmates were treated for mental health issues while in prison.

Young adults aged 18 to 34 are overrepresented in correctional facilities since, according to Statistics Canada data from 2015-16, they represent only 28% of the Canadian adult population.

An Ontario study also showed that 80% of young inmates had a mental health issue.

In 2015-16, indigenous adults were also overrepresented in provincial and territorial corrections facilities since they accounted for 26% of admissions but represent only 3% of the Canadian adult population.

The overrepresentation of indigenous adults was more pronounced for women than men. Indigenous women represented 38% of women serving a sentence in a provincial or territorial institution, whereas for indigenous men, that figure was 26%.

In the federal correctional system, indigenous women accounted for 31% of women serving prison sentences, whereas for indigenous men, that figure was 23%.

The fact that people with mental health problems are being sent to prison and not being given the appropriate care is a real problem. Last April, the Toronto Star published the following quote from Justice David Paciocco of the Ontario Court of Appeal. He said:

From arrest to prosecution, conviction, sentencing, use of segregation, all stages of our criminal justice system are now consistently overrepresented by people who are suffering from psychosis, mania, mood disorders, depression, alcoholism and addiction, anxiety disorders, and personality disorders.

The judge continued:

Those suffering from mental health issues who are swallowed up by the criminal justice system do not fare well. The use of segregation or other standard isolation practices are the clearest examples of a system whose practices rooted in punishment and control can exacerbate the challenges facing people with mental health issues. Individuals leaving the system leave with unmanaged or worsened mental health issues, which can contribute to recidivism.

That is exactly what we want to avoid.

The New Democrat Party is committed to working with community workers, mental health professionals, front-line workers like the RCMP, and the provincial and territorial justice systems to demand better support services for people with mental illness. We also want to make sure communities have the resources and services they need to help people with mental illness before and during incarceration.

We need to continue focusing on compassionate care to help people with mental illness rejoin society after incarceration and avoid over-criminalization wherever possible.

If we can improve our ability to assess the needs of those being sentenced, our justice system will be able to direct them to the appropriate rehabilitation resources and so reduce the risk of recidivism—even eliminate recidivism entirely, in an ideal world. That is one of the reasons the New Democrat Party is calling for more detailed pre-sentence reports and will be supporting this bill.

Mental illness can have a tremendous impact on a person's life. Disclosure of mental illness definitely needs to factor into the determination of an appropriate sentence and rehabilitation plan.

Instead of spouting tough-on-crime rhetoric, the New Democratic Party has long been looking for ways to make our justice system work. Our goal is to help people convicted of crimes who have mental health problems get the resources and support they need to be rehabilitated and become fully functioning members of society.

We believe it is important to provide more support services and resources to people with mental illness who are involved in the criminal justice system.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-375, introduced by the hon. member for Richmond Hill, an act to amend the Criminal Code. More specifically, Bill C-375 seeks to amend section 721 of the Criminal Code. Section 721 deals with pre-sentence reports. What Bill C-375 would do is amend section 721 to require that probation officers consistently, in every pre-sentence report, always report on any mental health disorder of an offender, as well as report on programs and services related to mental health that are available to the offender.

There is no question that mental health is a serious issue in Canada's criminal justice system. We know that the percentage of individuals in prison who have mental health or addiction issues is very large. Indeed, according to the latest report from the correctional investigator of Canada, more than half of the female prison population has some mental health issue and 26% of the male population has a mental health issue. Therefore, when we are talking about the criminal justice system, prisons, and issues of mental health, we are talking about a very significant percentage of the prison population.

There is no doubt that a lot of attention has been placed on issues around mental health in prisons as a result of some recent highly publicized incidents involving prisoners with mental health issues and how they were treated. There is no question that there is plenty of work to do to ensure that the health and safety of prisoners with mental health issues are protected. To that end, Parliament has a responsibility and a duty to act to ensure that those issues are addressed and to deal with shortcomings of the federal prison system in dealing with persons with mental health issues.

With that said, Bill C-375 specifically deals with pre-sentence reports. By way of background, each and every year in Canada thousands of pre-sentence reports are prepared. Pre-sentence reports are not mandatory. They are prepared at the request of a judge who may need the report or who may look forward to the report to obtain additional information and background about the offender in order to craft an appropriate sentence for that offender.

Section 721 of the Criminal Code provides that certain information must always be included in pre-sentence reports. Additionally, subsection 721(2) of the Criminal Code provides that provinces may, by regulation, require that additional information be included in pre-sentence reports in their respective jurisdictions. Additionally, judges have the discretion to request that certain issues or certain matters be addressed in a pre-sentence report when the judge deems it appropriate, having regard for the unique circumstances of each individual offender. Taken together, the reality today is that when we are talking about the mental health issues that may concern an offender, and issues concerning programs and services related to mental health in respect of offenders, the fact is that today such information and those issues can be addressed, investigated, and put forward in a pre-sentence report.

Indeed, it is not uncommon, again depending upon the specific circumstances of each individual case and offender, for judges to make that request and to take those matters into consideration. While I appreciate that Bill C-375 is a well-intentioned bill and I know that the hon. member for Richmond Hill has been a strong and passionate advocate on issues concerning mental health, vulnerable persons, and Canadian society, I believe the bill is unnecessary.

Moreover, in addition to being unnecessary, I believe that Bill C-375 has the potential to create confusion and result in unfairness and inconsistencies in the administration of justice. To that end, there is a considerable variance in the behaviours and conditions falling under the umbrella of mental illness. The fact is that not all mental illnesses and disorders are the same. Even within some disorders, the degree of impact can vary considerably. In addition to that, there is a real potential for Bill C-375 to cause delay and further backlogs in our criminal justice system.

Further, Bill C-375 would significantly increase the amount of work a probation officer undertakes in preparing a pre-sentence report. That additional work may be necessary in many cases. Again, that is already done in those cases, because by the time a verdict is rendered and a judge gets to the sentencing part of a specific case, issues concerning the mental health of an offender almost certainly have been brought to the attention of the trial judge.

Rather than taking a one-size-fits-all approach that can create inconsistencies, lead to confusion, result in backlogs or slow down the administration of justice, I would submit that the best approach is to do what is taking place, which is to leave it to the discretion of trial judges.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

moved that Bill C-375, an act to amend the Criminal Code (presentence report), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise today to address this House for a second time to talk about my private member's bill, Bill C-375, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to pre-sentence reports. I would like to thank my hon. colleague and friend, the member for Mississauga—Erin Mills, for seconding this bill today.

I would like to reflect at the outset of my statement on the great honour and privilege I possess as a representative of my constituents in Richmond Hill. This is an honour that no member in this House takes lightly, and like my colleagues, I am aware of the great responsibility that comes with representing one's constituents in this House.

I came to Ottawa having made the commitment to my constituents in Richmond Hill that I would focus all my energies on advancing the progressive ideals I was elected to uphold and fight for, namely, the advancement of equality for all Canadians, in particular, those who feel voiceless and marginalized.

When it comes to the subject of mental health, we are all aware of the great sensitivity involved in addressing the challenges of this often marginalized group. It is perhaps for this very reason that we must do everything we can to ensure that no stone is left unturned in safeguarding the rights and dignity of those suffering from mental illness. This is a goal I have committed myself to working toward actively and with great care.

Through my work as founder and co-chair of the all-party mental health caucus, I, along with other participating members, heard from numerous stakeholders and experts involved in the field of mental health. I know I can speak for all members who participated when I convey how eye-opening the testimony was. What we heard painted a picture of the current mental health landscape as rife with gaps and areas for improvement. In particular, issues related to mental health and the criminal justice system came to the forefront as needing special attention.

To obtain a better understanding of the current issues surrounding the treatment of individuals with mental illness, caucus members visited Kitchener, Ontario, where we took a tour of the Grand Valley Institution for Women, operated by Correctional Service Canada. We heard from Ms. Sherry Payne, herself a formerly incarcerated woman, who informed us of the various challenges faced in the correctional system when it comes to mental illness.

Our experiences working with the mental health caucus led to our resolve that many operational and legislative changes are still needed to improve the delivery of services to mental health sufferers, in particular those in our criminal and correctional systems.

Section 2 of the Criminal Code defines “mental disorder” as “a disease of the mind”. Unlike diseases of the body, the symptoms that mental illness carries are very often hidden and difficult to diagnose. In too many instances, as well, mental illness is also misdiagnosed or ignored entirely. In Canada, 10% of the population reports symptoms consistent with mental Illness. This burden, sadly, is often greater among our youth, fully 25% of whom will experience a mental health issue as they navigate to adulthood.

In our federal penitentiaries, this proportion is even higher. Over 20% of federal offenders are identified as presenting with mental health problems, often with more than one disorder. Furthermore, rates of mental illness among federal offenders have almost doubled in the last 20 years.

Globally, the World Health Organization reports that by the year 2020, mental and behavioural disorders will account for roughly 15% of the global burden of the disease, which it projects is further likely to increase in proportion in subsequent decades.

Even with respect to our attitudes toward mental Illness, there is still work to be done. While half of Canadians reported in 2017 that they are more comfortable talking about mental health than in the five years before that, it is also reported that this has not led to an adequate and proportionate growth in community resources for those suffering from mental illness.

For individuals suffering from mental illness, theirs is often a daily struggle to integrate into families, peer groups, and society as a whole. These same families and peer groups bear an untold burden, both emotional and economical, that must be addressed.

It is estimated that the total cost of mental health problems to the Canadian economy exceeds $50 billion annually in health care expenses and lost productivity. This represents nearly $1,400 for every Canadian. Over the next 30 years, this cost will add up to more $2.5 trillion for Canadians. We all must therefore recognize mental illness as an issue that affects not only the present circumstances of Canadian families but their future as well.

I am happy to be able to say that our government announced in budget 2017 that it will invest $5 billion over 10 years to improve mental health services, with an addition of $118.2 million to address mental health programming among first nations and Inuit people.

Bill C-375 is also inspired by another idea. We believe that better is always possible. Bill C-375 would amend paragraph 721(3)(a) of the Criminal Code such that, unless specified, when a pre-sentencing report was required by a court, in addition to such information as age, maturity, character, behaviour, and attitude, information outlining any mental health disorder, as well as any mental health care programs available for the accused, would be provided as part of the pre-sentencing report.

I would like to take this opportunity to outline in detail why my colleagues in the House must support this essential bill to address mental health concerns in our criminal justice system.

Currently, courts are not mandated to consider the mental health history of individuals in pre-sentencing proceedings. This significantly increases the likelihood that such vital information will not be taken into account during pre-sentencing and that individuals with histories of mental health issues may not be afforded appropriate care, compassion, and treatment during the process of their rehabilitation.

What are the real-world consequences of this status quo? Pre-sentencing reports are a vital tool at a judge's disposal, and 87% of judges see pre-sentencing reports as important in giving much-needed analysis and advice on an offender's treatment needs. By and large, when a pre-sentencing report is present in a case, there is a significantly higher likelihood that an offender will receive a community sentence as opposed to a custodial sentence.

By stating plainly and unambiguously that mental health backgrounds and treatment options must be included in pre-sentencing reports along with other background information, probation officers who are tasked with preparing these reports would have to work from a clear standard whereby the investigation of an offender's mental health background would be deemed to be at least equal to other factors.

Underlying this framework is the ideal that individuals with histories of mental illness are best approached using the model of what Justice Richard Schneider terms “therapeutic jurisprudence”. This, in contrast to traditional punitive approaches, seeks as a primary goal to limit offender recidivism with the courts. Thus, the bill in many ways takes one further step toward the de-institutionalization of mental health and one further step away from when mental health sufferers were subjected to mandatory and undignified confinement.

Across Canada, individuals with mental illness find themselves involved in the criminal justice system under circumstances that are tragic and horrific, both for themselves and their victims.

Many of the experts and advocates I have spoken to on this subject agree that a host of policy approaches are required to address this. Bill C-375 is just one such approach to addressing mental health and the criminal justice system. As a modest and uncontroversial step in the right direction, I extend my hand to all members from each caucus to work together with me on this important initiative.

In closing, I am confident that with this small yet significant change to our Criminal Code, all members of this House will do their part in ensuring that those suffering from mental illness will be afforded the compassion and care they need and deserve.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-375, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (presentence report).

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to rise today to introduce my first private member's bill as the member of Parliament for Richmond Hill. This bill would amend paragraph 721(3)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The bill would mandate that, unless otherwise specified, when a pre-sentencing report is required by a court, in addition to such information as age, maturity, character, behaviour, attitude, and willingness to make amends, information outlining any mental health disorders as well as any mental health care programs available for the accused be provided as part of their pre-sentencing report. Such information is vital for the courts to have in order to ensure that those Canadians with histories of mental illness are afforded care and compassion, and that they will receive appropriate treatment throughout the process of their rehabilitation.

I urge all members of this House to support this bill.

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