Justice Committee on June 12th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you for that input.

We're on amendment Liberal-11.

Mr. Cotler.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Let me clarify here. We're not opposing Supreme Court judges' decisions. You're taking snippets out of judgments and suggesting that somehow that means we're opposing Supreme Court judges' decisions, which is not accurate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you for that. It's not a point of order.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I just want to respond.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

No, let's move on.

We're on amendment Liberal-11.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chair, I'll be brief.

Taking into account the principle of double jeopardy and the related notion of res judicata in the civil context, while an accused person may be designated high risk upon his or her first contact with the system and treated as such, it would not be appropriate for the crown to make repeated applications before the board in this regard, thereby prejudicing not only the rights of the NCR-accused, but abusing the process through repeated vexatious attempts at securing such a designation where it has been determined, upon first hearing of the matter, the designation was not warranted.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you for that.

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

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

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

We're done with clause 12 amendments.

Shall clause 12 carry?

(Clause 12 agreed to)

(Clause 13 agreed to)

(On clause 14)

On clause 14, we have a government amendment.

Mr. Goguen.

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

Basically, this is a housekeeping amendment, Mr. Chair. In essence, the numbers in section 672.54(a) were reversed and clause 14 should be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 17 on page 8 with the following: “under paragraph 672.54(a) be suspended”.

It was correct in the French version, but wrong in the English. This is housekeeping.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Any questions to that?

(Amendment agreed to)

Shall clause 14 carry as amended?

(Clause 14 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 15)

We're on to clause 15.

There are a number of amendments on clause 15 and they are all in order.

We'll start with PV-7 with Ms. May

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

PV-7, if you go to line 24 of clause 15, is a very simple change. It reverts to 12 months instead of 36 months in which the review board can extend the time for holding a hearing in respect of a high-risk accused, to a maximum of 12 months.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Monsieur Goguen on PV-7.

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

We are unable to support the amendment, Mr. Chair.

The default review period in the Criminal Code is 12 months. The clause this motion seeks to amend is intended to require the accused's consent for an extension of the 12-month review period. As an accused's consent is not required to maintain the review period at 12 months, the amendment is superfluous and should not be supported.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Anybody else on PV-7?

Mr. Albas.

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

I would point out that in earlier testimony today the witnesses confirmed that right now it does allow for 24 months, subject to the review board's decision on that.

Mr. Chair, this would actually be a step back. Rather than offering more flexibility to review boards, this would be actually taking it away.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Anything further to PV-7?

(Amendment negatived)

NDP-7.

Monsieur Mai.

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

As Mr. Albas mentioned, the goal of amendment NDP-7 is to change the period from 36 months to 24 months. In our opinion, that is a little more balanced than what is there at the moment.

We understand that it is a problem for those involved to appear at annual hearings and that is why we wanted to amend the current measure. But the 36-month period may seem a little much for some people. Some witnesses have even told us that the 36-month period would put more mentally ill people into the prison system because people might prefer to go to prison rather than going into the system reserved for people found not criminally responsible.

So we are trying to find a better balance. We want a review hearing every 24 months, rather than the proposed 36 months. That is what is presently in the Criminal Code under subsections 672.81(1.1) and 672.81(1.2), a 24-month period at most. We think that is more reasonable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Mr. Goguen on NDP-7.

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

We're not prepared to support this amendment. In essence, the same comments as were previously made apply.

The default period in the Criminal Code is actually 12 months. The proposed subsection this motion seeks to amend is intended to require the accused's consent for an extension of the 12-month review period. It's superfluous, as the current law already provides for the accused to consent to an extension of the review board to a maximum of 24 months. That is the state of the law as it stands.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you.

Is there anything further?

(Amendment negatived)

Next is amendment PV-8.

Madam May.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This goes to the question of who may revoke a high-risk accused designation.

For this amendment I drew on the testimony of the Community Legal Assistance Society. Their point, which is found in page 3 of their brief, is that the review board should also have the power to remove the high-risk assessment designation without referring the matter back to the court, and that the review board is better placed to perform the complicated risk assessments. Sending the accused back to court when an expert panel has already reviewed the evidence and determined that the individual is no longer a high-risk accused serves no useful purpose, especially given that a right of full appeal to the highest court in each province exists, should the prosecutor or the hospital disagree with the review board's determination.

This is an amendment to reduce repetition and delay that go beyond the bill's purpose of ensuring that the safety of the public is the paramount concern.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

We have a point of order, Madam May.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

I think you're talking about amendment PV-9. You're supposed to be talking to amendment PV-8.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Yes. We're on amendment PV-8, Madam.

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

I'm sorry, Mr. Seeback. I thought I was on PV-9 already.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

No; I'm sorry.