Debates of May 27th, 2013

Second Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question. She has basically summarized my point of view on this.

Some provisions allow victims to be more involved in the release process for persons who are found not criminally responsible. However, this does not provide them with direct assistance in surviving and overcoming the terrible experiences they have had.

I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for a short while. From our discussions and from meeting with witnesses, we have seen how important it is to focus on prevention in order to protect against having new victims. It is one aspect of the job that the government often forgets about, so it takes advantage of very hot issues that have shocked people. However, it is not putting much more thought into it. Yet, this is the type of work that we need in the House, not just the knee-jerk reactions that we see too often from the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I start, I would like to let you know that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Crowfoot. I am looking forward to his speech.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on second reading debate of Bill C-54. As a retired police officer, I hold this very close to my heart. I have seen many cases where this has been traumatic on both sides, not only for the victims but also for those who have been found not criminally responsible.

The bill would reform not just the Criminal Code mental disorder regime but also the corresponding regime in the National Defence Act, to ensure these regimes develop harmoniously.

The bill is very complex, not only from a technical and legal perspective but also because of the sensitive issues it seeks to address.

At the heart of the bill is the complex matter of assessing the risk to public safety of people who have committed horrific crimes, who suffer from a mental disorder. Unlike convicted offenders, mentally disordered accused persons are not held criminally responsible for their actions due to the presence of mental illness at the time of the commission of the offence that prevented them from knowing what they were doing or what it was that they were doing wrong.

The concept is not only difficult for many Canadians to understand. It is also difficult for many Canadians to accept. It is particularly difficult when a very tragic or horrific incident has occurred. Not-criminally-responsible accused persons are not held accountable and sentenced like convicted offenders are. Instead, they may be detained under the criminal law power if they pose a significant threat to public safety.

Decisions about individuals found not criminally responsible are made by provincially constituted administrative tribunals known as review boards. The Criminal Code mental disorder regime guides the review boards in their ultimate goal of protecting the public from mentally disordered accused persons who continue to pose a danger.

I would like to focus my remarks on the public safety elements of Bill C-54.

First, the bill would clarify that public safety must be the paramount consideration in the decision-making factors that the courts and review boards apply when dealing with cases of mentally disordered accused persons.

The goal of ensuring public safety animates the entire legal regime that applies to mentally disordered accused persons who are referred to the review boards. One could say that is their raison d'être, as the review boards' main task is assessing the public safety risk posed by a particular unfit or not-criminally-responsible accused and making orders to address those risks.

In short, it is appropriate to highlight public safety as being the paramount factor in the review board decision-making process. If there are no real risks to public safety, the legislation is clear in requiring that an absolute discharge would be made.

Another key public safety element of Bill C-54 would be the new hearing process for the courts to determine whether a particular not-criminally-responsible accused were a high-risk accused and, where so, to impose stricter rules of detention more tailored to protecting the public.

Concerns have been expressed about the potential for day passes, or passes longer in nature from a hospital, being granted to a mentally disordered accused who, under the jurisdiction of the review boards, might pose a danger to society. In at least one recent case, allowing an unescorted absentee to leave a hospital led to the killing of an innocent victim. The bill aims to prevent such tragedies from occurring.

The proposed high-risk designation scheme would be tailored to respond to situations where the risk to the public safety posed by certain not-criminally-responsible accused is considered to be greater and, therefore, would require greater protection.

Designations could be made in one of two possible situations. First, when there is a substantial likelihood that the accused will commit further violence that could endanger the public, or second, where the offence that led to the not criminally responsible verdict was of such a brutal nature as to indicate a risk of grave harm to the public.

Procedurally, the high-risk designation scheme would be launched by way of an application by the prosecutor to the courts after a not criminally responsible verdict had been rendered for a serious personal injury offence. An application could only be made if the accused had not already been absolutely discharged. However, if the accused were still in the review board system, whether in custody or subject to a conditional discharge, the Crown could bring an application if it wished to obtain an order designating a particular accused as high risk. The court would consider all relevant evidence, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, any relevant pattern of repetitive behaviour, the accused's current mental condition, the past and expected course of treatment and the accused's willingness to follow treatment as well as expert medical opinions.

If the court made the high-risk accused finding, a disposition requiring detention of the accused in a hospital would have to be made. No conditions permitting absences from the hospital would be authorized unless a structured plan had been prepared to address any risk to the public and only with an authorized escort. Absences from the hospital would only be permitted for medical reasons and for any purpose necessary for the accused's treatment.

Bill C-54 also mentions that decision makers, the court and review boards shall consider whether it is desirable in the interest of the safety and security of any person, particularly a victim, to include a condition requiring the accused to abstain from communicating with the victim or attending a specified place. There is also authority for any other condition to be made to ensure the safety and security of victims. These are very reasonable proposals and I am pleased to see them in the bill.

I would like to commend the Minister of Justice for introducing this important piece of legislation. I would urge all members of the House to support the passage of Bill C-54 at second reading as this would enable further study of the bill at committee.

As I mentioned at the outset, this is a very complex area of the law and I am sure that the task of assessing risks with respect to this population is very complex as well. I am aware that the Department of Justice conducted research on the review boards systems in Canada. A research report on their data collection study was published in 2006 on the Department of Justice website. It contains a great deal of relevant statistical information such as the nature of the offence that brought the person into the review board system, the nature of their diagnosis, prior involvement in the criminal justice system, types of decisions made, total caseloads, et cetera. No doubt this data will assist the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights when it studies the bill.

Before closing, I would like to take a moment to clarify an important point. Although Bill C-54 addresses the difficult and sensitive issue of how to effectively manage the risk posed by accused persons who have been found by the courts to be not criminally responsible or unfit to stand trial on account of mental disorder, it should not be interpreted as a suggestion that all mentally ill people are dangerous. That is simply not the case.

The debate around the bill must not lead to negative stereotyping about mental illness. To put things into perspective, it is estimated that 20%, or one in five Canadians, will suffer from a mental illness at some point in their life.

This bill does not target the mentally ill at large. This bill provides clear guidance on how those very few mentally ill accused persons who find themselves before the review board system should be dealt with in order to ensure that the safety of the public is adequately considered when there is significant threat to their safety.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice earlier about the costs associated with the bill. I did not get a satisfactory answer and so I will ask the hon. member if he could enlighten us.

With Bill C-54, there would be costs downloaded to the provinces, and we have seen this with many other bills. The bills are drafted, and without any consultation, the provinces are left holding the expenses. The provinces have to provide the infrastructure and services, which are a cost to them.

Is the member aware of any consultations that have taken place with the provinces regarding the downloading of costs?

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

Mr. Speaker, certainly consultations have been done with the provinces. We have held consultations with the provinces as well as a number of individuals and organizations that specialize in law, victim services, justice services and mental health services. In fact, our government has invested over $376 million in mental health research. We have also established the Mental Health Commission.

We are committed to ensuring that not criminally responsible people are taken care of to the best of our ability and to the best of the ability of the provinces.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his great work on the justice committee.

Since the hon. member was in the RCMP for many years, I am wondering if he could share his experience as an RCMP officer on how strengthening the provisions of the bill would help in the field. We know that the officers end up dealing with these individuals day in and day out.

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

Mr. Speaker, certainly in my years as a police officer I saw many cases where not criminally responsible people were involved in crimes, and some of those crimes were horrific. However, those people did not know what they were doing.

We have to provide the best services we can to those people recognizing that some of them may need a lot of years of help to ensure that they can be integrated back into society. We have to ensure that those people get all the help they can from the best that is available.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we support the bill. We support the principle of providing support for victims. There is no doubt about that. However, we have also asked a number of questions and as yet have not had the kinds of answers that should be forthcoming in terms of this legislation.

We support the bill, but we have seen a number of cases where bills that we have supported in principle have been poorly drafted. In a number of cases, because of court actions, the government has had to redraft the work that was not necessarily effectively done in the first place. We would like to get it right from the start. However, we have concerns around the fact that the government is bringing closure and has not been able to answer a number of questions that have been asked by members of this House.

Particularly in light of some of the concerns coming from the provinces, we have seen significant cutbacks in crime prevention programs, which has meant that municipalities and provinces have had to fill the void where the federal government has simply not provided the funding that is necessary.

Can the member respond to the questions about the downloading to provinces? We want to make sure that this legislation is done effectively.

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

Mr. Speaker, this government has recognized over the years the importance of health care to all provinces. In fact, we have increased the transfer payments to the provinces to a total of $62 billion, which is nearly a 50% increase since 2006. A significant amount of that money has gone to mental health. We will continue to support the provinces in their efforts to ensure that mentally handicapped people and those not criminally responsible are brought the best opportunities available to make them better.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the ability to stand in the House this evening to discuss this bill that has been brought forward through the justice committee. I have the privilege of chairing the public safety and national security committee. One thing that I think all of us realize is the number of issues that arise around mental health issues. We have seen in it in the news and at committee. We understand this is one of the issues we have to deal with.

This issue is not just of concern to members of Parliament. It is increasingly of concern to many Canadians. The question that lies at the heart of this bill is how to ensure public safety is paramount when decisions are made about individuals who have been found not criminally responsible for their criminal offences on account of mental disorders. This bill would amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act's mental disorder regime to ensure that public safety is the paramount consideration and that victims no longer feel left out of the process. The changes to the National Defence Act essentially mirror those being proposed in the Criminal Code to ensure that public safety and victim-related improvements also apply when dealing with individuals who have been found not responsible for offences within the military justice system.

I am going to focus my comments this evening on the elements of the bill that relate to victims. On the day the bill was introduced, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice emphasized that this bill aims to enhance victims' safety and involvement in the decision-making process. It is important to make sure that our laws reflect those objectives explicitly and adequately.

The victims of individuals who are found not criminally responsible are concerned that inadequate consideration is given to their safety by the review boards when a decision is made regarding a mentally disordered person who has been accused of a criminal offence. Victims have also raised concern about the fact that they have no way of knowing when an accused who is found not criminally responsible has been released into or given access to their communities. They are, therefore, afraid that they may encounter the accused person unexpectedly and without being adequately prepared. We know of the damage that can be done when those types of incidents take place, where the ones who have been victimized all of a sudden bump into accused persons at the neighbourhood grocery shop or wherever it may be in their communities. Bill C-54 would address these issues.

I am very pleased to note that Bill C-54 includes specific measures to better protect victims. The bill expressly provides that when a court or review board decides on a course of action relating to a mentally disordered accused person, the victim's safety would be taken into consideration. That is the first thing, that they view this through the scope of the victim.

In addition, the proposed reforms would allow the court or review board to order that the person found not criminally responsible abstain from communicating with the victim. We know of occasions where victims become re-victimized when alleged offenders or the ones not guilty because of mental disorders then begin communicating with the very people they have victimized.

In addition to the reforms relating to victims' safety, Bill C-54 proposes amendments to improve notification to victims and enhance victims' involvement. The bill provides that at a victim's request, he or she will be informed when a mentally disordered accused person is being absolutely or conditionally discharged.

Victims may also request to be informed of the holding of any hearing in respect of the accused, including hearings concerning any possible finding that an accused is high risk or revocation of such a finding. This bill would increase awareness to society, but also certainly to the one victimized.

Since some victims do not wish to participate in the hearings and thus relive the trauma of the incident, they have been given the choice of not requesting notice. However, again, the victim decides. It is up to the victims to choose whether they want to appear or be made aware of any of these requests.

The notice will enable victims to exercise their right to file a victim impact statement if they desire, for consideration by the court or by the review board, outlining the harm done to them or the loss that they have suffered.

I am very pleased to see how the bill adds to the government's many initiatives to meet the needs of victims. Since the federal victim strategy was announced in 2007, our government has supported many different measures to meet the needs of victims of crime, including enhancing the victim assistance program across Canada and increasing the capacity of non-governmental organizations to deliver victim impact statements or to deliver victims' services.

The bill is full of public safety measures to make certain that the guiding principle of protection of society remains the guiding principle. In addition the specific measures, I am pleased the bill includes that.

The Prime Minister stated on February 8, “Canadians want a justice system that puts the safety of our communities and our families first”.

The legislative amendments proposed in the not criminally responsible reform bill will clarify that the safety of the public is the paramount consideration in the court and in the review board decision-making process in respect of individuals found to be not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder or also if they are found to be unfit to stand trial.

The proposed bill will also amend the Criminal Code to create a process by which a court may find that a not criminally responsible accused is a high-risk accused. The court can make this finding with regard to individuals who has been found not criminally responsible for a serious personal injury offence where there is a substantial likelihood that they will use violence that they will endanger the life or safety of another person.

There are several effects of this high-risk designation. A high-risk accused would have to remain in hospital and a review board would not be authorized to order a conditional or absolute release until a court had revoked the finding.

Moreover, the review period for an accused found to be high risk would be extended for up to three years, whereas the general rule that a mentally disordered accused under the jurisdiction of a review board would have his or her case reviewed on an annual basis.

As well, the individual would only be permitted escorted absences from the hospital for medical reasons or reasons related to his or her treatment and in accordance with a structured plan prepared to address risk related to the mentally disordered accused absent from the hospital.

While the bill proposes to make important changes to the mental disorder regime, I feel it is incumbent upon me to point out some things that the bill will not impact. We have already had constituents call us in regard to some of these.

For example, the proposed bill will not impact in any way the access to treatment to which a mentally disordered accused has access. The bill will also not impact the location of detention for mentally disordered accused. They individuals would continue to be detained in appropriate mental health facilities and not in prisons.

The criminal law governing persons found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder is not well known. Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code comprehensively sets out the law and procedure governing persons found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder and those found unfit to stand trial. This regime provides for both the supervision and treatment of mentally disordered accused, as well as the protection of public safety.

Another point I would like to make in closing is that although Bill C-54 asks us to consider how to strengthen the law to ensure it protects Canadians from actual threats to public safety, this is not meant to suggest that all people who suffer from a mental disorder commit criminal offences and are dangerous. Some mentally disordered persons will commit minor offences, but others commit major violent offences.

The bill would help to address these issues. It is timely. It was learned over the period of time that we needed to make changes. It is good to hear that the opposition is supportive of these measures as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to a question from one of my colleagues earlier, the member's colleague suggested that the provinces were consulted. I would be very curious to know, first of all, what sort of consultation took place. Furthermore, were the provinces that were supposedly consulted aware that they would be the ones to bear the brunt of the costs associated with this bill, and did they agree to that?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this type of legislation moves forward. We have been able to, first, address a situation and then our minister always works closely with his attorneys general in the many different provinces. There have been many different cross-country consultations.

A lot of the legislation comes from concerns that are brought to the government. It is not that the minister is sitting back thinking what we can bring forward on legislation. This is reactive to many different issues and to many different stories in the news. We see these are the issues about which provinces and people all across Canada are concerned.

Some provinces and territories expressed concern in the lead-up to this legislation that public safety was not the guiding principle and that more needed to be done around the area of mental health issues.

In our committee, we realize that our prisons are full of individuals who really need to have some type of help for mental disorders. Years ago, our provinces stepped back in some respect to institutionalization of some of these individuals. We find them in many of our prisons. We need to find ways that we can find the proper therapy for those who suffer from these kinds of illnesses, but we also need to make certain, as the provinces have expressed to us, that public safety remains the guiding principle.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to what the member had to say. He emphasizes and reinforces victims. I would like to share with him a concern that residents of Winnipeg North share, I believe, with all Canadians. It is the government is not doing enough in preventing crimes from taking place in the first place.

When we look at it from that perspective, the government neglect in that area allows for more victims of crimes to occur. This is really important to the constituents who I represent. They want to see a government that takes more of a proactive approach in dealing with things such as diverting youth out of gangs into a more creative, positive atmosphere. It seems to me that its focus is too narrow in its scope.

Could the member indicate to the House when, or if at all, the government has any clear intention to deal with issues specific to preventing crimes from taking place in the first place? What bold new initiatives can we anticipate in the next few months dealing with that issue?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. Right now, our committee is travelling across the country and looking at best practices. Last week it was in Prince Albert, in Calgary and other places as well. Among the many things it has found is that we need a community reaction, not only a knee-jerk reaction, as someone earlier said, but we need to work with all the different aspects of the community, such as mental health, health care, the education system, all of those. We are seeing more and more where our government is working on strategies and plans to bring people together to prevent. This has come out in our committee. All members understand that.

Let me say what our government has done. When we were first elected in 2006, we created a mental health commission. It was not there before. We invested over $376 million in mental health research because we realized that it was not just about health care; it was about the justice system, public safety and all those things. We have continued to work with the provinces in areas where we ask how we can network better and find the therapy and help that these people need to prevent recidivism. That word, recidivism, is a big word when we deal with mental health.

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking tonight in full support of our government's decision to introduce the not criminally responsible reform act, also known as Bill C-54.

Consistently since 2006, our government, under the strong leadership of the Prime Minister, has always championed tackling crime by holding violent criminals accountable for their actions, giving victims of crime a stronger voice and increasing the efficiency of the justice system. To date, the government has achieved over 30 significant accomplishments in furtherance of these objectives.

Many of these accomplishments are embodied in the Safe Streets and Communities Act. There are numerous measures in that act, but allow me to highlight just a few.

The ending house arrest for property and other serious crime amendments restricted the use of conditional sentences, including house arrest, to ensure that this tool would be used appropriately and provides clarity on the list of offences covered.

The Safe Streets and Communities Act also amended the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to address serious organized drug crime. The CDSA now provides mandatory minimum penalties for serious drug offences, including those carried out for organized crime purposes and those that involve targeting youth. The legislation supported the national anti-drug strategy's efforts to combat illicit drug production and distribution and helped disrupt criminal enterprises by targeting drug suppliers.

The protecting children from sexual predators component amended the Criminal Code to better protect children from sexual predators. It achieves that by ensuring that the penalties imposed by sexual offences against children are consistent and better reflect the heinous nature of these acts by creating two new offences that take aim at conduct that could facilitate the sexual abuse of a child.

These are just a few of the important measures that this act helped make Canadians safer and got tough on criminals.

While our government has been clear that we are getting tough on crime, we have also taken action to improve victims' rights in the justice system. While there are numerous examples of our government's approach, including the Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act and the Protecting Victims from Sex Offenders Act, I would like to focus on a few initiatives.

First, our government's federal victims strategy has been a great success at ensuring that victims' rights are respected. The objective of the federal victims strategy is to give victims a more effective voice in the criminal justice system. The Department of Justice works in close collaboration with other federal institutions, as well as victims, victims' advocates, provincial and territorial governments, service providers and others involved in the criminal justice system.

The Department of Justice develops policy and criminal law reform, funds various programs to meet the needs of victims of crime and shares information about issues of importance to victims of crime. Within the federal victims strategy, the victims fund is a grants and contributions program administered by the Department of Justice. Funds are available each year to fund provinces, territories and non-governmental organizations whose projects, activities and operations support the objectives of the federal victims strategy.

Since 2007, when the government introduced the federal victims strategy, more than $90 million has been committed to respond to the needs of victims of crime. Most recently, in economic action plan 2012, the government committed an additional $5 million over five years for new or enhanced child advocacy centres, bringing the total Government of Canada commitment to these centres at $10.25 million.

Child advocacy centres aim to minimize the trauma of being a child victim of crime. These centres are a collaborative team of professionals that work in a child-friendly setting to help a child, or youth victim or witness navigate the criminal justice system. The work of the staff can greatly reduce the emotional and mental harm to the child.

Furthermore, we instituted the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime as an independent resource for victims in Canada. The office was created in 2007 to ensure that the federal government meets its responsibilities to victims of crime.

Victims can also contact the office to learn more about their rights under federal law and the services available to them or to make a complaint about any federal agency or federal legislation dealing with victims of crime.

In addition to its direct work with victims, the office also works to ensure that policy makers and other criminal justice personnel are aware of victims' needs and concerns, and to identify the important issues and trends that may negatively impact victims. Where appropriate, the ombudsman may also make recommendations to the federal government.

Under the leadership of the Prime Minister, we are extremely proud of our record and we continue to improve it, which brings me to today's topic, Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act.

Before I begin describing the important measures in this bill, allow me to explain a few key concepts.

Under current Canadian criminal law, if the accused cannot understand the nature of the trial or its consequence and cannot communicate with his or her lawyer on account of a mental disorder, the court will find the accused unfit to stand trial. Similarly, if a person is found to have committed an offence but lacks the capacity to understand what he or she did, or to know that it was wrong, due to a mental disorder at the time, the court will make a special verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

In either case, whether the accused is unfit to stand trial or is not criminally responsible, the appropriate provincial or territorial review board may take one of three actions: it could place the accused in hospital detention within custody, grant a conditional discharge or grant an absolute discharge.

Bill C-54 would amend the Criminal Code by emphasizing three primary objectives. It would explicitly place public safety first, it would create a new high-risk designation and it would enhance victim involvement.

First, the current approach has public safety as one of four factors. This legislation would clarify that the highest priority of this government is to keep Canadian citizens safe. It would do this by explicitly making public safety the paramount consideration in the decision-making process relating to an accused found to be unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible.

We are also codifying what is meant by the term “significant threat to the safety of the public”. This test determines whether a review board should continue to supervise the accused. Some provinces have told us that they believe the review boards are interpreting this term too narrowly.

Our approach would codify it along the lines of its interpretation by the Supreme Court of Canada. It would clarify that the review board could continue to impose restrictions on not criminally responsible accused who risk committing further criminal acts even though they do not pose a threat of violence per se. For example, if the board were concerned about a not criminally responsible accused committing thefts or break-ins, it would be able to maintain jurisdiction over him or her and impose the necessary and appropriate conditions.

Second, the creation of a new high-risk designation is absolutely necessary. Such a designation would classify as high risk an accused who has been found not criminally responsible for a serious personal injury offence and who poses a substantial risk of committing further violent acts. It is important to note that this high-risk accused designation would only apply following a verdict of not criminally responsible, rather than applying to someone who was deemed unfit to stand trial, because that person would not yet have been tried for the offence.

The process would allow the prosecutor to apply to the court if the criteria were met. Once designated, a high-risk, not criminally responsible accused would be held in custody and not considered for release until the high risk status were revoked. High-risk accused may have their review period extended up to three years, if they consent or if the board is satisfied it would be highly unlikely that the individuals' condition would improve in that time period. The annual review would continue to be available for all other not criminally responsible accused persons.

Bill C-54 outlines that a high-risk, not criminally responsible accused person would not be allowed to go into the community unescorted. Escorted passes would only be allowed in narrow circumstances and would be subject to sufficient conditions to protect public safety.

Third, victims are concerned that their safety is not being specifically taken into consideration by review boards when they make a disposition. Victims are also concerned that they often have no way of knowing if and when a not criminally responsible accused will be given access to the community. They are afraid they might unexpectedly run into the person who injured them, without being adequately prepared.

The proposed legislation would enhance the safety of victims and provide an opportunity for their greater involvement in the Criminal Code mental disorder regime. The legislation would help ensure that victims were notified upon request when a not criminally responsible accused was discharged, allow non-communication orders between a not criminally responsible accused and the victim, and ensure that the safety of victims be considered when decisions were being made about a not criminally responsible accused person.

The proposed legislation would build on actions that have already been taken to further advance the interests of victims of crime.

While it is important to know what is in this bill and how it would further strengthen our justice system, it is also important to know what is not in the bill.

First, nowhere in this bill do we seek to impose penal consequences on people who are found to be not criminally responsible due to mental disorder. The goal of this bill is public safety and protecting Canadians from those who pose a danger. Our current public safety objective is the basis of our legislative regime on mental disorders, and this bill further would strengthen that objective.

Second, there are no changes that would impact the ability of the accused to access mental health treatment. Issues surrounding mental health are prevalent in the criminal justice system and pose special challenges to law enforcement officials. We remain committed to ensuring that these challenges are addressed through the criminal justice system.

Finally, it is important to note that this bill would not apply to all individuals who have a mental illness in the court system. These provisions would only apply to those individuals who are not fit to stand trial or not criminally responsible due to their mental disorder. Those individuals who have not been found unfit or not criminally responsible would be dealt with in the traditional criminal justice system.

Our government recognizes that mental health is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. Our intention is to strike a better balance between the need to protect society against those who pose a significant threat to the public and the need to appropriately treat the mentally disordered accused.

Our government continues to place a high priority on mental health initiatives. Our achievements include establishing the Mental Health Commission, investing over $376 million in mental health research and continuing to work with the provinces.

Mental health issues have been a focus of cooperative work among federal, provincial and territorial ministers of justice and public safety. At a meeting in November 2012, the ministers acknowledged that persons with mental health issues present significant challenges for the justice system and especially for correctional systems, and agreed that close collaboration is required between jurisdictions to better address the needs of the mentally ill.

We continue to take concrete steps on the issue of mental health in prison. Since 2006, we have invested nearly $90 million in mental health for prisoners.

I would like to summarize the bill, which has three main components.

First of all, the bill explicitly sets out that public safety is the paramount consideration in the decision-making process relating to accused persons found to be not criminally responsible.

Second, the bill creates a new designation to protect the public from high-risk NCR accused.

Third, the legislation will enhance the safety of victims by ensuring that they are specifically considered when decisions are being made about accused persons found NCR, ensuring they are notified when an NCR accused is discharged, and allowing non-communication orders between an NCR accused and the victim.

To conclude, our government has been clear that we put victims first. We have taken action to improve the justice system in this important regard. We have taken the action necessary to get tough on crime. Unfortunately, the opposition has opposed us at every turn.

I hope all members will see that Bill C-54 is a step forward in the right direction. It is demanded and expected by law-abiding Canadians, and our government is responding by supplying this necessary legislation. It would place the protection, well-being and safety of Canadians first, it would create a high-risk designation of not criminally responsible accused and it would empower victims of such crimes.

I am a strong supporter of Bill C-54, and I encourage my House colleagues and the whole of Parliament to demonstrate their support in achieving and maintaining these objectives for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, we are willing to support this bill in principle and examine it more thoroughly. However, it does raise some questions, and I wonder if the member could clarify one thing for me regarding this bill.

Passing bills and trying to play the father figure are all well and good. However, is it not the father figure's responsibility to pay for changes made to certain laws?

There are often direct and indirect costs associated with changes to legislation. In this case, some of the costs could be downloaded onto the provinces.

Did the government think of that? Does it know if the provinces will be left to pay some of the costs of these changes to the legislation? Is the government also considering footing the bill for these new changes?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this bill has been developed in consultation with the provinces across the country. They are fully aware of the financial and other consequences that would flow from this bill.

They are also, of course, supportive of our overarching objective of protecting the public. There are positive consequences to that, as well as the equity involved in protecting victims, something that needed to be addressed and is a continuing issue in this country.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, over the years, a number of adoptive parents of children with fetal alcohol syndrome have asked that when their children, as adults, get into trouble that they be incarcerated separately from the rest of the population.

We heard how there is a concern over the provinces having money, but right now, until some of these people commit a crime, there is no access to mental health treatment. In Ontario, we see that they blow $1 billion on moving a gas plant to get a couple of candidates elected.

My question to the minister is whether or not this bill would make provisions to ensure that the people who have suffered all their lives from fetal alcohol syndrome would get the treatment they need, as well as not be put in with the general criminal population.

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the bill is designed, of course, to protect the population from people who pose a risk. In this case, we do not see that as an issue.

The government has devoted significant amounts of money to the issue of mental health and is concerned, of course, about this issue in particular. I can give assurances to my colleague that the issue is being addressed.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister spoke of Bill C-54 itself, which New Democrats support, in principle, at second reading.

A number of questions have come from the NDP that remain unanswered. Unfortunately, although I followed the minister's speech with interest, he was not able to respond to any of those questions. This is somewhat worrisome, because we want to make sure that this bill supports victims and that the bill will do what it purports to do. We have asked these questions, and they still remain unanswered.

Since we have a minister from the cabinet, I have to ask a question with regard to this legislation and other legislation the government has brought forward. Twice the House has voted to bring in the public safety officer compensation fund. Cabinet has refused to bring in that support. These are victims—firefighters and police officers—who die in the line of duty. There is nothing available to support their families.

I would like to ask the minister why cabinet has now overruled two votes in the House on this and why this and other legislation does not bring in the public safety officer compensation fund.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before I go to the minister, I would like to remind all hon. members that their questions and comments ought to be related to the matter before the House rather than other matters. Having said that, I will allow the minister to respond, if he wishes.

The hon. Minister of Natural Resources.

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, you actually spoke for me in that regard. This is not the subject of today's debate, and I would refer the hon. member to my colleague, the Minister of Justice.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on the minister's presentation. He has covered the bill well, and I appreciate his presentation tonight.

He spoke about victims' rights and some of the victims' concerns that are, for the government, a foundational principle of this bill. I wonder if he could specifically address some of the victims' concerns that were raised during the research on this bill.

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Don Valley West for his question, which really goes to the heart of the one of the critical objectives of this bill.

Victims are concerned that their safety is not being specifically taken into consideration by review boards when they make dispositions. Victims are also concerned that they often have no way of knowing if and when a not criminally responsible accused is given access to the community. They can frequently be concerned, indeed afraid, that they will unexpectedly run into that individual without being adequately prepared or without the opportunity to avoid the encounter.

The proposed legislation would enhance the safety of victims and would provide an opportunity for greater involvement of victims in the Criminal Code's mental disorder regime. The legislation would help ensure that victims are notified, upon request, when an NCR accused is discharged. It would allow non-communication orders between an NCR accused and the victim. It would ensure that the safety of victims is considered when decisions are being made about NCR accused persons. The proposed legislation would build on actions that have already been taken to further advance the interests of victims of crime. These actions include the creation of the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime and the introduction of legislation to double the victim surcharge.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I had a chance on the weekend to talk to a service provider in my riding of Surrey North who provides services to people with mental illness and homeless people. One of the things that person mentioned was that there is a lack of resources for treatment and prevention, which is what works. Research after research has shown that if we pour one-tenth of the money into prevention and treatment, the dividend is paid back manyfold over time.

I know that Bill C-54 talks about punishment. However, can the minister tell us if any additional funding is going into prevention and treatment for the mentally ill in our society?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the first point is that this bill does not talk about punishment, and I regret that the member opposite missed the basic thrust of the bill.

Transfer payments to the provinces will total $62 billion this year, which is nearly a 50% increase since 2006, when we formed government. It is our intention to strike a better balance between the need to protect society from those who pose a significant risk to the public and the need to treat the mentally disordered accused appropriately.

Our government continues to place a high priority on mental health initiatives. Our achievements include establishing the Mental Health Commission, investing over $376 million in mental health research and continuing to work with the provinces. Mental health issues have been a focus of co-operative work among federal, provincial and territorial ministries of justice and public safety.

In a meeting in November 2012, the ministers acknowledged that persons with mental health issues present significant challenges for the justice system, and especially for corrections systems. They agreed that close collaboration is required between jurisdictions to better address the needs of the mentally ill.

We continue to take concrete steps on the issue of mental health in prisons. Since 2006, we have invested nearly $90 million in mental health for prisoners.