Evidence of meeting #78 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was clause.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Thomas Frederick Shreeve  As an Individual
Susan O'Sullivan  Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime
Bernd Walter  Chair, British Columbia Review Board, Association of Canadian Review Board Chairs
Justice Richard D. Schneider  Chair, Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Ontario Review Board, Review Boards Canada
Christine Russell  As an Individual
Mike McCormack  President, Toronto Police Association
Heidi Illingworth  Executive Director, Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime
Carole Morency  Acting Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Julie Besner  Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice

7:45 p.m.

NDP

Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC

Actually, we are going to support this amendment. As you mentioned, Mr. Chair, amendment NDP-9 is very similar to amendment LIB-13.

Some problems need to be pointed out, and some witnesses clearly did so.

I'll mention a few of them. One of the main problems we had with this bill was the lack of consultation. The fact that the Canadian Psychiatric Association, the Canadian Psychological Association, the Canadian Mental Health Association, the Mood Disorders Society of Canada, the Canadian Association of Social Workers, the Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention, the National Network for Mental Health, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, the Schizophrenia Society of Canada, the Canadian Alliance on Mental Illness and Mental Health—all those major organizations work directly with mental illness and were not consulted when we were talking about a bill that directly deals with mental illness.

That's why we had a lot of issues with this bill in terms of lack of consultation, and that's why we are happy to see that the government has learned from the fact that it needs to have better consultation. The fact that we'll have that put in place is something we support, and we are really happy that the government is also supportive of it.

7:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace

Thank you very much.

Do we have other comments on this?

Mr. Seeback, and then Mr. Albas.

7:50 p.m.

Conservative

Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON

I agree. I think it's good to be.... But one thing I want to take some issue with, and it was raised in some of the questions today, is this assertion that there could be unintended consequences such as NCR-accused not going down the NCR-accused road.

I think that's a very dangerous commentary to make at this committee, because you're suggesting that criminal defence lawyers are going to counsel NCR-accused, who they know are NCR-accused, to not plead to that because they might think there's a softer sentence by not doing it. I think those kinds of statements at this committee are very dangerous, and we should be very careful when we're effectively impugning members of the criminal defence bar, that they may engage in that kind of conduct.

7:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace

Mr. Albas.

June 12th, 2013 / 7:50 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I find it helpful that the NDP are going to be supporting this because I think there are some things we can all agree on, regardless of party stripe. However, I would like to take issue with the point of consultation. If Mr. Mai were to read, as presented by Mr. Cotler, other than the parliamentary process there is no talk about consultation outside of Parliament. By supporting this amendment, you are saying that parliamentarians should conduct those consultations, which was done through this process. So, Mr. Chair, I would say by their support of this particular amendment, they are supporting the consultation process we've had with Canadians through consulting with the Minister of Justice, different stakeholders, victims' groups. I would simply point out that by voting for this he's affirming this is a good process to go through.

I have to say, through you, Mr. Chair, I enjoy working with Mr. Mai.

I have just one other point, Mr. Chair. We also have had legislation come forward—for example, Bill S-209, that was on the prize fighting provisions—and again that particular...dates back to 1903. So I think it's helpful from time to time, and as Ms. May will probably attest even on my Bill C-311, governments should review their legislation to ensure it is timely, up to date, and giving the best service to Canadians.

Thank you.

7:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace

Thank you for that input.

Mr. Mai.

7:50 p.m.

NDP

Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC

The reason we're supporting Liberal-13 is, as the chair has said, if Liberal-13 passes, then NDP-9 is null. With respect to NDP-9, we want to have consultation with experts and victims' groups, and this is what was important for us.

When we talk about consultation, which we have now, after we've submitted amendments, we find there's an issue. We want to make sure there is a mechanism that allows us to look at all the problems or how this bill will be applied before it comes into force. In this case, once it comes into force, we can look at it. I think it's important to have a mechanism. That's why we are supporting Liberal-13.

7:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace

Thank you very much.

All those in favour of Liberal amendment 13?

(Amendment agreed to)

We now have a new clause 20.1, which is what we just passed, so NDP-9 is withdrawn.

On clause 21, PV-11 was defeated as a part of PV-2. NDP-10 was defeated as part of PV-2.

(Clause 21 agreed to )

Under clause 22, PV-12 was ruled inadmissible, so there's nothing happening there. NDP-11 was also ruled inadmissible.

(Clause 22 agreed to)

(Clause 23 agreed to)

On clause 24, we had Liberal-14 but it was defeated consequential to the defeat of Liberal-1. PV-13 was inadmissible. NDP-12 was inadmissible.

(Clause 24 agreed to)

Liberal-15 is removed because of the defeat of Liberal-5. Liberal-16 is removed because of the defeat of Liberal-6. PV-14 is defeated because of Liberal-6. NDP-13 is removed because of the defeat of NDP-5. Liberal-17 is removed because of the defeat of Liberal-7. PV-15 is defeated because of PV-4 being defeated. Liberal-18 is defeated because of the defeat of Liberal-8. Liberal-19 is defeated because of the defeat of Liberal-9. Liberal-20 was withdrawn by the Liberal Party. Liberal-21 was defeated because Liberal-10 was defeated. Liberal-22 was inadmissible due to the PV-1 ruling. Liberal-23 was inadmissible due to the Liberal-11 ruling. That will bring us to the actual clause 25.

Shall clause 25 carry?

(Clause 25 agreed to)

On clause 26, we had NDP-14, which is tied to NDP-1 being inadmissible. NDP-1 has not been dealt with yet. We're standing it down, so all of clause 26 is stood down.

(Clause 26 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 27 to 31 inclusive agreed to)

We now have a new clause 31.1 because the Liberal-25 passed. So NDP-15 has been withdrawn.

(Clause 32 allowed to stand)

(Clause 33 agreed to)

We're down to the short title already.

Let's go back to NDP-1 and then all the clauses that it affects. My clerk will help me with that.

I'm going to turn the floor over to you, Mr. Mai, because this is on your subamendment to the amendments.

7:55 p.m.

NDP

Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As all members of the committee will recall, we made a subamendment to our amendment NDP-1. It will have an effect on one other amendment, but, at the moment, let us stay with amendment NDP-1. We move that the text be amended by substituting:

“discharge, any conditions of release and accused's intended place of residence shall, at the victim's request, be given.”

What we added from NDP-1 was “any conditions of release”.

We feel that includes what we tried to bring forward, in terms of giving more information to the victims. If you look at what happened in the past in this Parliament.... It refers also to language that was used and things that were used in Bill C-10, clause 57,

about conditional release.

I just want you to recall some information. According to the language used in Bill C-10, when an accused is convicted in the criminal system, victims are informed about the conditions of release. When a person is deemed not criminally responsible, it is the opposite. That information is not provided to victims.

Although it passes the privacy test in Bill C-10, we believe that victims should be given the same rights whether the accused is convicted or declared not criminally responsible, as stipulated in the Criminal Code under the changes made as a result of Bill C-10.

Could we perhaps ask the witnesses we have with us here today?

Are you in favour of the amendment you have before you in terms of its vision and validity?

8 p.m.

Acting Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice

Carole Morency

Yes. I do have the NDP-1 subamendment before us.

Our initial reaction would probably be as follows. We understand that the reference to any conditions of release is intended to be generic and not get into the detailed approach. That's understood.

That does still raise some concerns that the committee should take into account. For example, this may still get into whether there are some privacy implications. If it's a review board issue, then it would be subject to privacy legislation at play in the provinces and territories.

There would also be concern that I think would be quite significant to take into account, which is what this additional burden would add to the workload of the review boards. Bear in mind that you heard from chairs of the boards, which were amongst the larger ones. There are smaller ones in the country with less resources to discharge whatever additional responsibilities you might be looking to support here.

Those would be some of the preliminary reactions we would have that the committee could take into account, if you're looking at this at this moment.

8 p.m.

NDP

Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC

If I can follow up, is it correct that right now, according to the Criminal Code, or Bill C-10, clause 57, that type of information is already required to be given to victims by review boards?

8 p.m.

Acting Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice

Carole Morency

I should have Bill C-10 burned in my memory, but I think you're referring to the provision that was added as an amendment to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, that federal correctional authorities were directed, as a result of some of those amendments, to provide additional types of information.

That's something within the federal domain. It's something that to some degree was happening, but perhaps not as consistently as what some victims were looking for.

The point that I made before was that the impact that this might have would probably be more greatly felt by review boards. It goes well beyond what we've been in a position to comment on.

8 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace

Do you want me to move on to the next speaker, Mr. Mai, and come back to you?

Yes, okay.

8:05 p.m.

Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice

Julie Besner

I can elaborate further if it assists the committee, as well.

8:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace

Sure.

8:05 p.m.

Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice

Julie Besner

Oftentimes the review boards will make their decisions public. Part of the dispositions is the conditions that they impose. There's the open court principle that applies. What the motion seeks to do, however, is create a requirement that they provide it directly to the victim. That may be what my colleague was describing as being a burden that might be difficult for them to achieve. But it doesn't mean that the information may not be available if the victim does request it as part of public decisions that are made.

8:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace

Thank you.

Monsieur Goguen, to the subamendment.

8:05 p.m.

Conservative

Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB

Thank you.

We're not prepared to support the subamendment, based on the comments made by the witnesses. There are obviously privacy concerns. Certainly, we've been criticized about jamming additional responsibilities down onto the provinces. I understand at the last federal-provincial-territorial meetings there was an agreement to minimize that. So we won't be supporting the amended NDP-1. However, the perfect should not be the enemy of the good, and certainly we'd be willing to revisit the initial motion to amend.

8:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace

Thank you for that.

Mr. Seeback.

8:05 p.m.

Conservative

Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON

I'd just point out something. We just accepted Mr. Cotler's amendment to add in a review. It's certainly something that we could look at in the review of this legislation. If there are any gaps in that area, we can look at it then.

8:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace

Okay, thank you.

Is there any further comment on the subamendment?

Mr. Cotler.

8:05 p.m.

Liberal

Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC

Mr. Chairman, as I said at the outset when we were considering this, I appreciate the spirit of this amendment, but I do have concerns regarding the privacy laws and the obligations of the government. While the first version of amendment NDP-1 would have released only the address of the NCR-accused, this revision now adds the conditions of release. It's problematic from a privacy point of view because some conditions may be of a more private nature and not pertinent to the victim's needs—for example, conditions respecting particular elements of a treatment plan.

While I feel the spirit is correct on this amendment, I think it might be proper for the Privacy Commissioner to be consulted, perhaps in relation to similar amendments, at either report stage or in the Senate. Therefore, in that regard and by way of conclusion, if we cannot agree on this tonight, it might be appropriate for the committee to include in its report to the House that it seeks to clarify this matter at report stage, lest the Speaker reject a similar amendment at report stage as being a matter that ought to have been considered at committee.

8:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace

Mr. Mai, for the last word on the subamendment.

8:05 p.m.

NDP

Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC

In consideration of all the wise advice from my colleagues on the committee and also from the witnesses, the intention—and Mr. Cotler mentioned it—was to give more information to the victims. But obviously, when we work on the fly because of lack of time to react to what a witness has said....

Considering some of the consequences or unintended consequences, we'll withdraw the subamendment.

(Subamendment withdrawn)

8:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace

Thank you very much.

The subamendment has been withdrawn, so you can speak now to your amendment NDP-1, which will affect clauses 7 and 26. Then I understand that if it passes, clause 32 will also have to be amended, and the government has a motion to that effect, I believe.

For amendment NDP-1, you have the floor, if you wish, Mr. Mai.