Justice Committee on June 12th, 2013

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

Mr. Chair, I actually don't think that any of the other witnesses, and I can go back over the committee Hansard—

[Mike McCormack]

Sure—

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

—used the term “stigma”. I think what they were referring to was a question of public safety and whether there was a risk that there would be people who would not go into the mental health stream, given the extended period of time here.

There's one last quick thing, Mr. Chair, if I have time.

Would you agree with the federal ombudsman on victims' rights, Sue O'Sullivan, that we need to focus—as well as on changes to the NCR system—on prevention? Really, for public safety, that's a key piece, because obviously Mr. Kachkar wasn't in the NCR system. He wasn't known to the system.

[Mike McCormack]

Well, again, I think that's something that came up as a constant theme. Prevention is something that we deal with. That's why, when there are conditions in the criminal system, there are conditions put on somebody who's being released into the community, conditions to not go near what the triggers are for their violent behaviour, whether that's alcohol, drugs, or children, whatever it is.

That's why it's important that this legislation speak to this, to where there are certain conditions not to go near the victims. That's our interest in law enforcement. We don't want to have people reoffend. We don't want to be dealing with offenders and we don't want to be dealing with victims. I think this legislation speaks to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

Thank you for those questions and those answers.

Our final questioner for today is from the Conservative Party.

Mr. Wilks.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being here today.

I want to continue this conversation and go down that road with regard to the NCR versus going through the normal process of the court system, because it actually came up with our last witnesses. I believe it was Mr. Walter who said that more people may opt to go the criminal route and go to jail. That's a confusing statement to me, because if someone is actually NCR, they need help. There's no one in this room who would argue with that. They need help.

But to say that they're going to get less time in the jail system is a complete fallacy, because the reality is that for first-degree murder it's an automatic 25 years and you can't get out.... It's as simple as that. To go further than that, under the dangerous offenders section, for anyone under sections 753 or 754 who is found with 10 years or more in a sentence, it's mandatory long-term supervision. It's mandatory.

So I guess here's my question to you, Mr. McCormack. In your years of service with the Toronto police force, from the perspective of those who are not criminally responsible as opposed to those who have gone through the normal jail system, have you seen that most who have been found NCR need to be there, as opposed to a defence lawyer urging their client to go through the criminal system “just because”?

[Mike McCormack]

Well, I think we just spoke to that issue. Again, I know that lawyers take an oath, and they have a responsibility to represent their clients. I think that, first of all, if there is a mental defect or a mental health issue, then it's that lawyer's responsibility to bring forward the appropriate defence. If they're not doing that, then they're not performing their fiduciary duties.

When you talk about going through the criminal system, there is a finite set of terms—as you've said, 25 years—and these are actual terms that people will have to serve. There is a totally subjective test in NCR—it might be this but it might not be this—and that's where we get into the uncertainty. Again, what does that look like? There is no certainty for the victims, and there is no certainty for the public.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you.

Mrs. Illingworth, a couple of things mentioned in the last testimony jumped out at me. One was that past behaviour should not be taken into account or does not mean that the person is going to be commencing violence.

It's my belief, as a retired police officer, from looking at criminal record after criminal record, that violence does become more evident through that person's career in some cases—not all, but some. Would you agree with that statement?

[Heidi Illingworth]

I don't know that I have enough knowledge to speak about that. I understand that it's a risk reduction sort of model. Of course, trying to prevent any further violence from happening is what the review boards are trying to do. I think the last witness said something like it doesn't predict the severity of future recidivism. But I don't think I'm the expert to answer that.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

One more thing that took me back was you mentioned $1,000 a day for beds in a psychiatric hospital and that those with minor or speculative risk could be released into society once they obtain that level of trust, shall we say, with those who are taking care of them.

I was really taken aback by this. Cost shouldn't mean anything here. Maybe you could comment on that. The fact of the matter is that if there is someone who has been found NCR they need to stay in that facility as long as is required to ensure that they get better. Cost should not be a factor.

[Heidi Illingworth]

I absolutely agree with that. Obviously it is in all of society's interest to ensure that people get medication and get stabilized and do not commit such acts again. There are many people who can return to the community but there are certain very violent individuals who will have to remain in a hospital setting for the rest of their lives and that's just a fact.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you, Mr. Wilks. Thank you for those answers.

Thank you, guests, for coming and being witnesses here today. You are the final set of witnesses on this bill that we are dealing with today. So I appreciate you taking the time and tolerating our voting habits. We appreciate the input.

What I thought I would do is recess for about 10 minutes so we could all get something and bring it back to the table because I don't want to be interrupted during the clause-by-clause piece.

In addition, you have a budget that has been put in front of you and I need a motion to approve the budget.

The budget has been moved. All those in favour?

(Motion agreed to)

With that we will suspend for 10 minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I call this meeting back to order.

I want to thank everyone for being here. First of all, let me thank the officials from the Department of Justice, who are here with us to answer any questions we have along the way.

As the committee knows, we passed a motion previously that during clause-by-clause consideration, at the relevant time, amendments that have been filed by the clerk by the time prescribed can be spoken to by the member who moved them. That's why we've invited Madam May to the table. She has provided amendments, and I will call on her to speak to her amendments at the time.

We normally spend only a few minutes each introducing our amendments, then we have debate, and then we vote on them.

Ms. May can move her motions forward, but she is not a voting member of the committee.

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

Mr. Chair, did you just say that I'm allowed to move my amendments?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

They're considered to have been moved.

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

Okay, so they're deemed moved, but I don't get to move them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

No, but I'm going to give you a minute or two to speak to them.

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

Thank you.

If someone asks a question on them, am I allowed to answer questions on them?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

If someone directs a question to you, I will allow that to happen.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

We're on clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-54. Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title, is postponed.

The chair then calls on clause 2. Shall clause 2 carry?

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

We have started. We're on the sheet, just so you know. We have started calling the clause-by-clause, and we will do the amendments as we come to the clause that is being amended.

(Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 7)

On clause 7 we have an amendment. It is in your package as NDP-1.

I will call on the NDP to discuss their amendment.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As we have already mentioned, we believe that victims should be given more prominence. Everyone here is in agreement. All the witnesses we have heard from, including those from the Bar, believe that more information should be provided to the victims.

Ms. Gaston, whom we heard from at length, explained to us clearly that it was important for victims to know where the accused was going to live after release. Ms. Gaston was not the only one to express that opinion, actually. All the victims, and all the other groups did too. That is why amendment NDP-1 proposes that victims be given information as to the accused's residence.

But first, Mr. Chair, I would like to know if we can make a subamendment to the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

You can, as long as it relates to this piece.