Bill C-10 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mental disorder) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code governing persons found unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. The amendments, among other things, include
(a) repealing unproclaimed provisions related to capping, dangerous mentally disordered accused and hospital orders;
(b) expanding the authority of Review Boards by enabling them to order an assessment of the accused, adjourn hearings and protect the identity of victims and witnesses;
(c) permitting the oral presentation of victim impact statements at disposition hearings and adjournments allowing the victim to prepare the statement;
(d) permitting Review Boards to extend the time for holding a review hearing to a maximum of 24 months in certain circumstances;
(e) permitting the court to hold an inquiry and order a judicial stay of proceedings for an accused found unfit to stand trial, if the accused is not likely to ever be fit to stand trial and does not pose a significant risk to the safety of the public and a stay is in the interests of the proper administration of justice;
(f) specifying that the transfer provisions require the consent of the appropriate Attorneys General in all cases and enabling transfers of an accused who is not in custody; and
(g) allowing peace officers arresting an accused who is in contravention of an assessment order or a disposition to release, detain, compel the appearance of or deliver the accused to a place specified in the order.
This enactment also makes consequential amendments to other Acts, including the National Defence Act.

Criminal Code

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-10 and to encourage all members of the House to support this reform.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights reviewed the mental disorder provisions of the Criminal Code in 2002. The work of the committee is reflected in Bill C-10.

The public may recall the old law that used the term “not guilty by reason of insanity”. The current and modern criminal law refers to persons found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder and those found unfit to stand trial. These terms better reflect the reality, however, the law is not well-known and is often misunderstood. There remains a perception that a person who commits an offence and is found not criminally responsible gets away with their crime. This is not the case. There are consequences and in some cases they may appear to be more severe than where an accused is convicted.

The law governing persons found unfit and not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder does provide consequences: usually treatment and supervision that can last indefinitely, and for some, detention in a secure psychiatric facility.

Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code provides a comprehensive regime to regulate effectively and equitably the supervision and treatment of a mentally disordered accused and the protection of public security.

I indicated that this area of the law is not well understood, even by some lawyers. For victims of criminal acts, criminal law and the criminal justice system are generally overpowering, complex and often daunting. Victims rarely need to know the law until they find themselves at the core of the justice system.

When an accused is found to be unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, victims of criminal acts are even more confused and are confronted with more obstacles in their pursuit of justice.

Victims of crime desire and deserve information about the justice system and about the case in which they are personally involved. Law reforms, as well as changes in policies and expansion of services, have given victims a greater role in criminal proceedings.

For example, amendments to the Criminal Code in 1988 introduced the notion of the victim impact statement as a mechanism for victims of crime to describe the harm or loss suffered because of the crime. Publication bans to protect the identity of sexual assault victims were also enacted in 1988.

Criminal Code amendments over the last 15 years have further enhanced the role of victims of crime while respecting the rights of accused persons.

In response to the 1998 report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, “Victims' Rights: A Voice, Not A Veto”, the government enacted a package of reforms in the Criminal Code in 1999 to, among other things, ensure the victims were made aware of the opportunity to submit a victim impact statement.

We also wanted to make sure that the safety of the victim was considered in the judicial interim release decisions, fix the amount and clarify the automatic imposition of a victim surcharge, and allow judges discretion to order a publication ban on the identity of any victim or witness where necessary for the proper administration of justice.

The 1999 amendments also apply to the victim of an offence committed by an accused who is suffering from mental disorder, and they provide for the preparation and presentation of a statement by the victim to the court or the review board at a hearing to make a decision, under section 672.541, in the case of an accused who is not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

The court or the review board shall take into consideration any statement filed “to the extent that the statement is relevant to its consideration of the criteria set out in section 672.54”. However, in each case, it is the victim who will decide whether he or she will prepare and file a statement.

The victim impact statement is provided for in subsection 672.5(14) which states:

A victim of the offence may prepare and file with the court or Review Board, a written statement describing the harm done to, or loss suffered by, the victim arising from the commission of the offence.

Where an accused person is found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, the review board decides how the accused is to be supervised.

Victims of crime have been overlooked in many cases and receive little information about what will happen next, how their safety concerns will be addressed or whether they will have any role or access to any information.

The standing committee in its review of Bill C-10 considered additional amendments to enhance the role of the victim. The committee heard several witnesses, some who advocated for a greater role for victims and others who were not supportive of the victim interests. The committee clearly rejected the submissions of those who sought to restrict the victim's role. The committee also considered the existing code provisions and other measures that should be addressed in policy rather than legislation to improve the response to victims.

The amendments included in Bill C-10 would enhance the role of victims of crime where the accused was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. However, the new provisions for victims fully respect the differences between the law the governs a person who is criminally responsible, convicted and sentenced and those who are not criminally responsible.

The accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder is not held accountable for his or her conduct, and the appropriate disposition in section 672.54 must take into account several factors, including the need to protect the public, the mental condition of the accused and the reintegration of the accused into society. The impact of the crime on the victim may be relevant only to some of the criteria. Where the court or review board is considering a conditional discharge, the victim statement may be relevant to the crafting of particular conditions, for example, that the accused not contact the victim or that the accused not go to certain places. There also may be benefits to the victim of submitting a victim impact statement, even where the accused's condition is unchanged.

Again, I should point out that the administration of justice and the delivery of services to victims come under the jurisdiction of the provinces. The services provided to victims in the administration of justice are also provincial responsibilities.

The provision of forms for the victim's statement, the assistance provided to the victim to help him or her fill out the forms, the gathering and presentation of the statements to the Crown or to the court are generally managed through the provincial victim services programs.

The standing committee in its 2002 review recommended that courts or review boards conducting a review hearing notify the victim where the victim had indicated interest in receiving such notification. Bill C-10 includes provisions to require a court conducting an initial disposition hearing or a review board conducting the initial disposition hearing where the court has not to inquire of the crown or the victim whether the victim has been advised of the opportunity to prepare a statement. As a result of an amendment passed by the committee, notice of the hearing and of the relevant criminal code provisions, including the victim impact statement provisions, will be provided to the victim. The manner and time for the notice will be established by the rules of the court or review board. Other non-legislative initiatives are required to inform victims of crime about the provision of the code which apply to them and about relevant dates of proceedings, the terms of a disposition and other essential information.

Let us not forget that the victim should, until the accused has been declared not criminally responsible, benefit from the implementation of all the provisions of the code that are aimed at facilitating victims' participation and at protecting their safety and private life. It is only once the accused has been declared not criminally responsible that the implementation of the code's new special provisions is necessary to ensure the victim's participation in the hearings of the review board.

Bull C-10 also includes the following provisions, which seek to strengthen the role of victims of criminal acts.

Victims would be permitted to orally present their victim impact statements at the review board hearing. The statement would be prepared in advance and the victim could read it aloud or in some cases present it in another manner.

Following the delivery of the verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, the court or review board chairperson must ask the Crown, victim or victim representative whether the victim has been made aware that he or she can submit a victim impact statement.

The first hearing may be adjourned to allow the victim to prepare a statement, if he or she so wishes. The review boards will have new powers allowing them to impose a publication ban on the identity of the victims and witnesses, when this serves the interests of justice.

As a result of a committee amendment, at the victim's request, notice of the hearing or other code provisions would be given to the victim. Rules of the court or review board would be set out how this notice should be provided.

Also, as a result of an amendment passed by the committee, review boards would be required to provide a specific notice to victims where, based on an assessment report of the accused that indicates an improvement in the conditions of the accused, they anticipate the accused would be given an absolute discharge or conditional disposition. The victim would then be advised of the opportunity to prepare and submit a victim impact statement.

To the extent possible, Bill C-10 includes provisions for victims similar to those of the Criminal Code that apply when an accused is found guilty and is sentenced.

The government places a high priority on addressing the concerns of victims of crime. This is shared by all members of the House, and was reflected in the improvements made by the standing committee to Bill C-10. The amendments to Bill C-10 are a contribution of the evolution in our justice system that recognizes the roles of victims of crime.

I would encourage hon. members to support Bill C-10. I believe that these amendments provide greater protection for mentally disordered accused persons and a greater role for victims of crime.

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved that Bill C-10, an act to amend the Criminal Code (mental disorder) and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the third time and passed.

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we will continue this afternoon under the business of supply.

The order of business for tomorrow and Monday will be second reading of Bill C-33, the income tax amendments; report stage of Bill C-10, the Criminal Code (mental disorder) bill; reference to committee before second reading of Bill C-37, the do-not-call bill; second reading of Bill C-31 respecting the international trade department; and second reading of Bill C-32 respecting the foreign affairs department.

Tuesday shall be an allotted day. Subject to further discussions, on Wednesday we would like to commence consideration of a bill respecting the first ministers' agreement on health care funding, after which we will resume the business already listed.

Committees of the House

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the third report of the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, in both official languages.

In accordance with its order of reference of Friday, October 22, 2004, your committee has considered Bill C-10, an act to amend the Criminal Code (mental disorder) and to make consequential amendments to other acts, and agreed on Wednesday, December 8, 2004, to report it with amendments.

I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

On December 9, 2004, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee adopted a motion recommending to the government that the RCMP maintain the nine detachments in Quebec that were discussed during our hearings and that it agree to maintain or restore the critical mass of officers per detachment.

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his cooperation.

Today we will conclude consideration of the business of supply for the present period.

Tomorrow we will start with Bill C-10, the civil law harmonization legislation. I believe that there is agreement to do this at all stages.

Then we will start on a list that will carry us into next week: report stage and second reading of Bill C-18, respecting Telefilm; reference to committee before second reading of Bill C-27, respecting food and drugs; second reading of Bill C-26, respecting border services; report stage and second reading of Bill C-15, respecting migratory birds; second reading of Bill C-29, respecting patent regulations; and of course, completion of business not finished this week.

My hon. colleague has also indicated cooperation on Bill C-20. I know that there are some ongoing discussions with respect to a quick completion of Bill C-20, the first nations fiscal bill. We would hopefully get to that before we adjourned.

On Monday evening there will be a take note debate on the problems in western Canada with pine beetles. Accordingly, I move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, a take note debate on pine beetles take place on December 13, 2004.

Question No. 18

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the total cost of the firearms program for each year since 1995 is:

• Includes indirect costs for the period of 1995-96 to 2001-02. Indirect costs are program costs incurred by other government departments that are not reimbursed by CAFC.

In response to (b), the cost for the licensing component of the program since 1995 is:

• Costs of licensing component by fiscal year not available for the period of 1995-96 to 2001-02.

In response to (c), the cost for the registration component of the program since 1995-96 is:

• Costs of Registration component by fiscal year not available for the period of 1995-96 to 2000-01.

Note: Past calculations for (b) and (c) were based on management estimates of activity and attribution of indirect costs to various program elements. CAFC is currently developing a detailed costing methodology to support a voted appropriation specifically for firearms registration activities that will be introduced in 2005-06. This methodology will be adopted for all future reporting.

In response to (d), it is expected to implement all components of the firearms program within the proposed $85 million annual funding level beginning in 2005-06.

In response to (e), Bill C-10A passed in May 2003. Proposed regulatory changes to implement the new legislation and to make the amendments to the regulations to support public safety and effective program administration were tabled in June 2003. Stakeholders and the public were consulted in the fall of 2003 and during the ministerial review of the program in early 2004. Parliamentary committees considered the proposals in the fall of 2003. Final changes to the regulations are to be made, including: import/export regulations; public agent regulations; firearms marking regulations; and changes to other regulations, e.g., licensing, gun shows.

It is anticipated that all components of the firearms program now planned or under development will be fully implemented by December 31, 2007.

In response to (f), as per the May 20, 2004 announcement by the government, funding for the Canada Firearms Centre will decline to $85 million in 2005-06 and beyond. This amount does not include indirect costs incurred by other federal departments. It does not include revenues from firearms licensing and other fees that are collected over the course of the fiscal year.

Question No. 17

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, in respect of the Canada Firearms Centre, CAFC, the contract for the development of the alternative service delivery solution, ASD, is made up of: (a) the development, solution realization phase, of the Canadian firearms information system, CFIS II, required to implement administrative and technical changes in Bill C-10A, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (firearms) and the Firearms Act including its Regulations; (b) the ongoing administrative operations, primarily at the central processing site; and (c) the anticipated solution enhancement requirements over the contract duration for the ongoing operations.

A contract was awarded to Team Centra, a partnership between CGI Group Inc. and BDP Business Data Services, now known as Resolve Corporation, for the solutions realization phase of the ASD. This contract is in the amount of $46,886,908, including GST, and a total of $9,665,665 has been paid to date to CGI.

Bill C-10A received royal assent in May 2003. Consultations in the fall of 2003 on the bill’s associated regulations resulted in changes from the original requirements. As of March 31, 2004 the regulations had not been made, which has resulted in deferring the implementation date of CFIS II. Reviews have been conducted on the initiative. Resulting options and a proposed course of action are under consideration.

A contract with EDS is currently ongoing until March 31, 2005 for the maintenance of the current Canadian firearms information system, CFIS I. This contract can be extended up to September 30, 2005. The contracts awarded to EDS, over a seven year period, relating to CFIS amount to $169,059,349, including GST, and payments of $165,926,243 including GST, have been issued to date, covering the seven year period from November 28, 1997 to September 15, 2004.

The delivery of IT services, systems and infrastructure for the firearms program are under active examination in the context of the government’s current review of expenditures.

Contraventions Act

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed listening to the debate on this important matter of Bill C-17, the decriminalization of marijuana. It was known in the previous Parliament as Bill C-10.

We already had a lot of debate on this subject in the previous Parliament. We on this side hoped that if legislation were to come forward again, we would see substantial changes to the bill that would make it possible for us to support the bill. However, the bill as it is presented is unworkable for a number of reasons, reasons that I think expose the Canadian public to risk in a number of areas. Unless the safeguards are put in place to make this a workable plan, it is simply not something that should proceed at this time.

The member for Wild Rose spoke just a few minutes ago, and I commend the member. I know he has a passion for the subject. Having served as a school principal for many years, he is concerned about young people. We applaud the concerns that he has expressed.

I, too, have seen the effects that drugs and marijuana have on young people in my own community. As a health professional, I am concerned about the effect on young people of liberalizing marijuana. I am concerned that some of the effects of the bill will encourage young people to get involved. I am concerned they will be targeted by older people to help them in distributing the product because the young persons would be given lower fines if caught.

I was pleased to hear the member for Pickering—Scarborough East who spoke a moment ago on the other side indicate his concern about some of the weaknesses in the bill, particularly as they relate to grow ops, the terrible problem they represent and the risks to firefighters and police who enter the homes. Also, organized crime reaps so much profit from marijuana grow ops in our communities. There is the spoilage of houses and the effect that has on the real estate market, and on very valuable realty.

Certainly, in British Columbia it is a huge issue. Officials estimate my home province has about 44% of the grow ops. We know it is also a big problem in the metro Toronto area. It is a huge problem in the Lower Mainland. I am sure the Speaker is quite aware of this.

I want to outline some of my concerns. I have four reasons why I am concerned about in the bill, and I will address each one of them. The first is the health consequences. The second is the hazard to society from impaired persons. The third is the increased effect it will have on criminal elements in our society and on the corruption of youth. The fourth is the effect on our borders.

First, on the health effects, smoking anything is not good for one. How much evidence do we need for this. The government has committed some $500 million supposedly over five years to help convince Canadians that smoking cigarettes is not a good idea. It is a lot of money that could be spent on other valuable projects and on other urgent health needs.

Along with a proposal from the minister that we would invest a further quarter of a billion dollars encouraging people not to smoke marijuana, we are at the same time looking at loosening the restrictions on marijuana. That is a lot of money, $250 million, that could be used on other things. It seems to me that the inconsistencies in these messages are something we ought to seriously investigate as members. I wonder if that does not tell us that we are headed in the wrong direction.

The other thing is the objective that has been set with this so-called $500 million targeted toward convincing people that smoking cigarettes is not good. We are not spending that money. I recently had people who were concerned about the effects of smoking cigarettes visit me in the office. Now the government, because of concerns about other sponsorship programs, has decided we had better scrutinize advertising very carefully. It has capped the advertising limits, including the advertising targeted toward young people to expose them to the risks of smoking cigarettes.

We have some terrible inconsistencies with this. On one hand we are loosening controls to make it available to people. On the other hand, we are spending money to convince them that they should not do it.

Smoking anything is not good for one. One's lungs take in the oxygen that is so important to keep us all healthy. I know all members in the House are interested in the effects of exercise and ensuring that we get aerobic conditions in the body that help us resist bacteria and viruses. Frankly, as a health care practitioner, exercise is an important ingredient in maintaining a healthy body. Part of that is due to getting the circulation going and getting oxygen around the tissues.

We will foul up our lungs, regardless of whether it is with tars and nicotine or with the stuff that is in marijuana, which is yet to be fully studied. We know there is THC in it which people are after for the buzz. It appears that the benzopyrene and the tars in marijuana are far more potent than what is in cigarette tobacco. If we are going to pollute our lungs with these compounds, some of which are known to be carcinogens, up to 20 times as toxic as what is in cigarette smoke, it certainly would indicate that we will see increased health consequences as people smoke more marijuana.

For those who want to make it available for medical reasons, I would suggest there are probably safer delivery systems. That may be through an oral route. However, smoking it is a non-starter from a health standpoint. Also, how effective THC is as a medication has yet to be studied.

As a health care practitioner, I am concerned about the rising health costs in Canada, which are sabotaging our ability to meet other needs in society. They are making it impossible for governments to administer to other needs of Canadians, such as education, infrastructure, roads, highways and all the other important things that governments have to deliver.

I have to go on the record as saying I think it is a bad idea. If we want to make marijuana available, let us not smoke it. Smoking anything is not good.

We could do what is done in other areas of insurance. For example, if one is a high risk person with many car accidents, the insurance company charges more for one to have the ability to drive. We should talk about that. If persons are going to do something that is of high risk to their personal health, which is going to put the liability on the public to look after them, then perhaps there should be some accountability and they should pay a higher health premium of some kind to access that product.

That is not party policy. I am talking as a health care practitioner who is concerned about an unmitigated risk. As members of Parliament, we are contemplating doing something without making adequate provisions to look after the consequences. Therefore, I am concerned about the health effects of smoking marijuana.

I am also concerned that we do not have any means of testing for impairment. We have many heavy equipment operators where I live. There are guys working on the side of the road with graders. They are working with heavy equipment. We have many elderly people in my riding. We could have grandma coming out of the driveway while the plough is coming along doing some road work. We want to know that the guy operating that equipment can notice her and not plough her off the road. Some of these dear seniors in our area have stiff necks and sometimes their vision is not so good. We want to ensure they are safe.

Therefore, we have no means for testing the ability of someone to operate heavy duty equipment. Yes, we are talking about a blood test. Perhaps there is a blood test that would be available. Imagine a police officer on the side of the road trying to administer a blood test to someone who might be impaired? I have seen people impaired on marijuana. They can be as plastered and as disabled as someone on alcohol or any other intoxicant. That is a concern.

I am also concerned about the effect on our borders and on organized crime. The effect of loosening up the marijuana restrictions are going to have untold consequences at our borders. We already have huge problems.

Our automakers visited us today. They are concerned about the delays their products at the border. That can make a difference as to whether an auto manufacturer wants to create parts on one side of the border or the other. We will be tying up our borders even more if we are as concerned as U.S. is about what products might cross them.

A lot of issues need to be addressed. We need to look at the fines that will be imposed. For young people to get a lesser fine is a clear signal that older people will to target young people. They will make sure they have a young one to pass the goods to, so he or she gets the lesser fine. That is a very risky way to go. It is a way to guarantee that older people will target younger ones to avoid the consequences of their own misbehaviour.

I hope that members will pay attention to the debate and that we will do the right thing on this bill.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we all knew the day would come when the bill would be reintroduced in the House, the bill which was introduced in the previous Parliament. I believe it was Bill C-10 at that time. We hoped that if it was reintroduced, it would have the changes that are so necessary to make it a worthy bill.

Obviously, after looking at this particular legislation, it has not been done. The government members did not listen to the suggestions that came from victims groups, police agencies, and other representations made to the committee last session. We are ending up with the same thing we had in the past.

This party is really not interested in seeing people getting criminal records. We are not interested in destroying kids' lives because of mistakes they make. At the same time, I am personally not interested in providing an opportunity that could lead down the slippery slope and cause a great deal of grief for a great number of people.

I base these comments on the experiences I had as a school principal for 15 years. The children in the particular junior high school were no different from any of the children I have worked with or seen across the country in all kinds of schools. They were good, ordinary kids, capable of making mistakes, and at the same time getting trapped into a very dangerous substance that could cause them a great deal of grief.

Over that period of 15 years I want to assure hon. members that we had to deal with a number of children at the teenage level who experimented with marijuana, who had to try it, and who got involved with it to a greater degree than they anticipated. It is sad to say that in a school with a very small population the results of the children engaging in this particular substance ended about 80% of the time in tragic ways.

This is a dangerous drug. We cannot take it lightly. We have heard the comments that it is no different from a can of beer and that it is just one of those things we do and then we forget it. That is not the case with a lot of young people. I am talking about people who ended up taking their lives through suicide.

It started with marijuana and the kicks it provided. I am talking about leading into better feeling drugs, whatever they might be. I have no idea what these things do to an individual, but I do know that it alters their mind and it alters their way of thinking. Any drug that does that, alcohol being a prime example, cannot be all that great if we overdo it.

In many cases people who have entered into this activity have ended up overdoing it and getting into situations that caused them, their families and their parents a great deal of grief. This is the plea we hear from victims all across the country and all across the school sector.

During the 15 years I was there, parents would say that we would have to do something to keep marijuana and other types of drugs out of our schools, that it was dangerous and could lead to bad things like automobile wrecks, and activities that we would never think of doing under normal conditions.

Over the last few years we have seen what overindulgence in drinking can cause. It causes a great deal of grief for a great number of people. If we are going to do it, it has to be done properly, but I am not sure how that particular thing is done. How do we properly do things that alter the mind and that cause us to do things that we would not ordinarily do?

The bill is not intended to make big criminals out of kids who make mistakes and I agree with that. However, at the same time, let us not go soft enough in the direction that it might lead kids to think that even the Government of Canada supports a certain amount of use of this type of drug.

That to me is the fearful step that can lead down a slippery slope ending up with the results that I have seen personally with friends of mine whose children either died at their own hands, in a tragic accident or just by doing a stupid thing. It is dangerous. We have to recognize that.

I see all kinds of flaws in the bill. For example, having 30 grams is considered safe and will not result in a criminal record.

I have checked with some people who have experimented with this particular drug. I certainly have not; I am no expert on it because I have never used it. I am no expert on it because I never went to the extent of finding out exactly what impact it does have. I have only seen the results from dealing with those who have been on it.

I have been told, and I believe it is true, that 30 grams would make a terrific high for a great number of young people, that up to 12 or 15 kids could enjoy 30 grams of marijuana. What are we saying here? Obviously if it can supply 12 to 15 young people with a sufficient amount of stuff to last for quite a while and cause a great reaction or whatever it is that it does, then if one individual has that much, how much damage will it do to that one person if that is for his or her own personal use?

That is what is being said in this bill, that up to 30 grams is okay. If that amount makes 50 to 60 cigarettes, joints, or whatever they are called, that sounds like an awful lot. I do not believe for a moment that we can take that lightly, yet this bill is willing to do that. We have to change that. That just cannot be the case. Thirty grams can be rolled into a lot of joints.

I have also been told that a 30 gram bag of marijuana has a street value of approximately $300. We have a fit today if a kid is carrying around a $10 pack of cigarettes. If a person under the age of 18 is carrying cigarettes that he or she spent 10 bucks for, that is against the law, and of course we are going to fine him or her. We want to do the same thing here except here we are going to say that up to 30 grams of marijuana is okay. Well I am afraid that is way overboard. That is carrying things way too far.

Imagine the amount of profit that the person could make if he or she a had a 30 gram bag of that to sell every day. If the person was caught, he or she would pay a $100 fine, no big deal. Maybe the next five days he or she would not get caught and would sell a bag for 300 bucks each day. That would be a pretty good profit.

What are we doing when we come up with this soft way of looking at these serious issues if not giving out the message that maybe some things are worth taking the chance? From my experience, going into marijuana at any degree would not be worth the chance.

The end result in too many cases has been too severe to allow legislation to fluff it up enough that it encourages some people to say, “Wow, I could do a little of this. I can take a chance. If I get caught, sure I will get a small fine, but nothing too serious will come out of it,” or “I could get up to 30 grams to throw a big wing-ding of a party and be the supplier”. It seems to me if someone is supplying 30 grams to some other people just to have a wing-ding of a party, then the person is breaking the law in that sense.

I do not know where we are going with this. I remember there used to be a time when, if a minor was in possession of booze, the first thing they wanted to know was where he or she got it. If an adult had provided booze to that minor, that adult would be in a lot of trouble. People went to jail in those times. Now it is not even mentioned. It is not even talked about. It is not a big deal.

We are relaxing things too much in too many areas of this type and it is not leading to good things. It is leading to some very bad things that are occurring in our society. We need to stop and think about it. If there ever was a piece of legislation that we needed to have a real good look at during committee, and I hope all parties will do that, this bill would be it. The bill is seriously flawed and it needs correcting. I hope the committee will come back with a document that makes this House open its eyes and say, “If we are going to protect our kids, particularly the young people who engage in these activities, then we have to get tougher on how we deal with it”.

When we are dealing with a product that happens to be so easy to obtain in a prison where there is zero tolerance, then zero tolerance has to mean zero tolerance. Let us make these bills mean what we say. Let us not soft pedal.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after seven years in this illustrious place, we develop habits, some good, some bad. It is my practice, perhaps a bad habit, to start all my remarks by saying that I am pleased to speak on Bill x , y or z . I cannot say that I am pleased today, because I am tired of addressing this topic in the House time and time again.

Let us recall the various stages. We have had thorough debates in the special committee struck to look into the issue. This special committee made recommendations, which we debated. Then came Bill C-38, followed by Bill C-10, in the previous Parliament, both of which went through first, second and third reading, with more discussions at each stage. work was done in committee. The legislation died in the previous Parliament, because of the lack of political will of the current Prime Minister, who did not dare to go before the voters after decriminalizing marijuana. He probably did not want to leave himself open to criticism from the Conservative Party.

Because of the Prime Minister's lack of political courage, here we are starting all over again the whole process of passing a bill we have supported on many occasions already.

We supported it because we base our position on three premises. First, a totally protectionist approach does not work. It costs a fortune. A perfect example of such protectionist approach is what is going on in the United States, where we can see billions of dollars being dished out with unconvincing results to say the least. Second, when all is said and done, marijuana remains harmful to health. This needs to be taken into consideration in taking a position. Third, there is a principle in criminal law whereby the punishment must not be disproportionate to the offence.

Based on these three premises, we support the bill before us, Bill C-17. It is important when we debate an issue such as this that we target what we are talking about. We must be clear that we are talking about decriminalization and not legalization. The public often mixes up these terms. Decriminalization still carries with it penalties. If Bill C-17 is passed, a person caught in possession of a small amount of marijuana will be penalized. It will still be illegal, but the penalty will not be criminal, in that the person will not have a criminal record.

In my opinion, a criminal record is tragic for 18 year olds. My colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, an eminent criminal defence lawyer who has defended young people caught with two or three joints in their pockets, made me realize this. A criminal record has major consequences on a young person's career and ability to travel to the United States, among other places. God knows, in order to get to many places, Canadians have to go through the United States. Having a criminal record would make it impossible to travel to many places in the world. A young person could end up with a criminal record for many years and be prevented from travelling or getting certain jobs. For possession of two or three joints, the consequences are excessive. The person ends up in a state far worse than the one they started in.

Some witnesses and members of the Conservative Party have said that decriminalization, which, I repeat, is different than legalization, sends the wrong message to young people.

According to them, if the members passed this bill, the use of marijuana would increase almost magically by leaps and bounds.

Yet studies in other countries, Australia for one, where certain states have decriminalized marijuana, have shown that this is not the case. What they do show is that decriminalization of small amounts does not lead to increased use by young people. Instead of putting money and resources into repressive tactics, the money can be used to set up preventive programs explaining that marijuana is not good for the health. That money from Ottawa should go to the provinces since education is their responsibility. Good prevention is better than bad repression, which often tends to have disastrous consequences.

Another reason for our support of the bill is that, in the past Parliament, one of our proposed amendments became part of the bill. A person found in possession of a crop of one to three plants would not be put into the criminal system, in other words would be considered almost a case of possession rather than of cultivation.

We wanted to avoid the situation of an occasional user like the guy with his one plant on the window sill being forced by fear of criminalization to get his supply from the black market, which as hon. members know is controlled by organized crime. That was what we were trying to avoid. I am very pleased that this suggestion got adopted. It was, moreover, supported pretty effectively by my NDP colleague who is going to speak next, their House leader. Thanks to her work and that of our Liberal colleagues, worthwhile efforts for once from them, this recommendation was adopted.

I will make a quick aside if I may, though I have so much to say. There was reference just now to prevention. Let us put police officers and the forces of law and order in a position to really make a difference. Now we can talk about organized crime.

Last week, I tabled a bill on the reversal of the burden of proof for any person convicted of being associated with a criminal organization. I am sure that hon. members read it with great interest. This initiative was extremely well received by police officers and by crime reporters, including Guy Ouellette, Michel Auger, who wrote about it this morning in Le Journal de Montréal , and Yves Boisvert, who mentioned it in La Presse . They praised the bill.

If the government really wants to fight organized crime, it will support, along with the NDP, the Conservative Party of Canada and, of course, the Bloc Québécois, the bill tabled last week.

As time is passing, I will simply point out two things. Today, we have the opportunity, by passing this bill, to do something that will benefit everyone. We will decriminalize the mere use of marijuana for personal purposes. It means more resources will available for prevention, instead of being used for punitive action, which is totally useless. It also means that police officers can stop spending so much effort going after small consumers or people who have a small amount of marijuana in their possession. Instead, they can focus on the real issues, on the areas where they can make a difference and where the public wants them to make a difference, namely in the fight against that societal, economic and political plague, organized crime.

Criminal Code

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-13, which has been introduced by the government. In this day and age, political discourse is often focused on the respect of human rights and freedoms, and I agree with that. We have taken part in some debates that illustrate this, the one on same sex marriage in particular.

It is also important to note that individual rights encompass individual security. In a society based on rule of law, such as ours, the right to personal security is essential. If this is to be more than merely theoretical, and to exist in reality, it is important to provide law enforcement bodies with the tools necessary to fight the crime that so often harms our communities.

The Bloc Québécois will be supporting Bill C-13. We feel that it will provide police officers with more effective investigative tools, which should permit them to resolve more crimes.

Members have examined this bill with care and will have realized that it makes some rather technical amendments to legislation already in place. When the bill is examined in committee, the Bloc Québécois will ensure that the changes proposed represent real improvements to the existing system of DNA testing. In addition, the Bloc Québécois will ensure that the RCMP has the funds to accommodate the expansion of the DNA bank this bill will bring about.

To make a small aside, it is all very fine to announce measures, measures we support, but there must be money attached to them. As hon. members are aware, the RCMP has decided—for financial reasons, or so we are told—to close detachments in numerous locations in Quebec. There has been much opposition to this, from mayors, municipal counsellors and reeves, backed up of course, as is only natural, by myself and my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois.

It does not, therefore, make any sense to talk of increasing the responsibilities, as well as the operating costs, of a police force, the RCMP, while making cuts here and there, including cutting police detachments scattered outside the urban centres.

And so I hope the government will reverse its decision to close these detachments. I believe my hon. colleague's riding of Joliette is affected by the RCMP detachment closures. I know that the mayor, municipal officials and prefect have made him aware of the situation. It is the same in Saint-Hyacinthe. I hope the RCMP will reverse its decision. If it wants to fight crime effectively, the force must be present throughout the area.

Having finished my aside, I return to Bill C-13, which takes up for the most part the provisions of Bill C-35 from the last legislature, the bill to which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice has referred.

Bill C-13 amends the provisions in the Criminal Code respecting the taking of bodily substances for forensic DNA analysis and the inclusion of DNA profiles in the national DNA data bank. It also makes related amendments to the DNA Identification Act and National Defence Act.

I have five minutes left. That is a very short time to address such a technical bill. That is why we are going to examine it very seriously in committee.

Bill C-13 makes other amendments, which ought at least to be listed in the parliamentary record of debates. It adds offences to the list of designated offences in the Criminal Code for which a judge is required to make an order for the collection of a DNA sample from the offender, unless the offender can convince the court otherwise.

It adds offences to the list of designated offences for which an order for the collection of a DNA sample can be made if the prosecutor so requests and the court agrees.

It provides for the making of DNA data bank orders against a person whohas committed a designated offence but who was found not criminallyresponsible by reason of mental disorder. This ties in somewhat with the subject matter of Bill C-10, which we are also working on.

It creates new provisions for the making of DNA data bank orders against a person who committed one murder and one sexual offence at different times before June 30, 2000, when the legislation on the DNA data bank came into force.

It provides for the review of defective DNA data bank orders and for the destruction of the bodily substances taken under them.

It allows the destruction ofthe bodily substances of offenders who are finally acquitted of a designated offence.

It compels offenders to appear at a certain time and place to provide a DNA sample.

It allows for a DNA data bank order to be made after sentencing.

Finally, it makes related amendments to the National Defence Act to ensure that the military justice system remains consistent with the civilian justice system.

So, this bill proposes many things. I must say that we are somewhat uncomfortable with the retroactive provisions included in this legislation and we hope they will dissipate with the review in committee. Obviously, any retroactive provision, particularly in the criminal justice area, raises serious issues relating to rights and freedoms and to the charters, whether it is the Quebec or Canadian one. In this regard, we are anxious to hear the witnesses and experts, who will tell us whether the bill does indeed respect the charters.

We also wonder why the bill adds participation in the activities of a criminal organization to the list of secondary designated offences, that is to the list of offences for which the taking of a DNA sampling is not mandatory, but optional. We wonder why such offences were not included in the list of primary designated offences. This is an issue on which we want to get an answer as quickly as possible.

All to say this is a very technical bill and it requires a thorough study of its provisions. At this stage, the Bloc Québécois supports its referral to a committee. We will work very seriously, as we always do, to ensure that, on the one hand, enforcement agencies have the necessary tools to fight effectively criminal activities in which the public is all too often the victim, and, on the other hand—and this is important in a society such as ours—to ensure that the rights and freedoms of the accused are respected. As I said earlier, the whole issue of retroactivity will also have to be thoroughly examined.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, picking up from where I left off last evening, the second change that would enhance safety is the inclusion of those individuals found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder within the DNA data bank scheme. We currently have in the House Bill C-10 which proposes important changes to the provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with the mentally disordered offender.

While Parliament rightly does not submit persons who have a mental disorder conviction to imprisonment because of their diminished responsibility, we must remember that these persons have been found beyond a reasonable doubt to have done the act that constitutes the physical element of the offence. It is clear they may be very dangerous and so they are made subject to the jurisdiction of a provincial review board.

By making it possible for a judge to order that their DNA profiles be included in the DNA data bank, we may be solving crimes that they have committed in the past. As well, if they should be released and commit a crime where they leave their DNA, we will solve that crime.

Members should remember, however, that having their DNA in the data bank could be a benefit to a mentally disordered offender who has been released into the community. In the event of a crime similar to the one for which they were tried being committed near where they reside, they are likely to be suspects. However, if their DNA does not match the DNA from the crime scene, the police will know they were not involved and leave them undisturbed.

Another important change is creating a process for compelling the offender to attend at a specified time and place to provide a DNA sample. The current legislation requires that a DNA sample be taken at the time the person is convicted or as soon thereafter as is feasible. This has proven unworkable on the ground in some jurisdictions. The police cannot always have a trained officer attending at every court and so the courts have been ordering offenders to present themselves at the police station at a specified time. Unfortunately, this procedure was not foreseen by the Criminal Code so there is no express provision for issuing a warrant to arrest the person if he or she does not show up. Some offenders who should be in the data bank have not shown up and the police need the tools to make the court order effective.

Bill C-13 would permit a judge to make an order for the taking of a DNA sample at a time other than the imposing of the sentence. It also provides a warrant for the arrest of the person if the person fails to appear for that DNA sampling. As a result of consultations with the provinces, the warrant will be for the purpose of taking a sample rather than for the more usual arrest and bringing the offender back to the court that made the order. This means that an offender convicted in Toronto who skips and then is subsequently arrested in Vancouver will not have to be flown back at great expense to have the finger pricked for that test. The Vancouver police will be able to do it under the DNA data bank order.

While it is not known how many offenders have failed to show up, I understand this is a major concern for the police. We should move swiftly to fix this problem.

The most important changes proposed by Bill C-13 are the changes in the list of designated offences covered by the DNA data bank scheme. The list of designated offences is the lynchpin of this legislation. A DNA warrant can only be granted for a designated offence and the crime scene index only contains DNA found at the scene of or on the victim of a designated offence.

It is very important that the members of the House consider sending the legislation immediately to the committee so that we can put in place those issues that I have been outlining here today. They are of great concern to the police, the provinces and those of us in the House.

Supply

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, in the member's question in question period he talked about the DNA in the supplementary, but I am prepared to deal with the question around the firearms registry.

The first question put forward by the hon. member concerns the licence renewal process that was approved by Parliament in 2003.

The second question deals with the costs of the program reported to Parliament in October 2004. The hon. member knows that firearm licences must be renewed every five years.

More than 50% of the 1.98 million firearms licences were issued within a 12 month period preceding the legislated deadline of December 31, 2000 that required firearm owners and users to be licensed under the Firearms Act.

Bill C-10A, originally tabled in the House as Bill C-15 in 2001, received royal assent in May 2003. It amended the Firearms Act to provide measures for the effective administration of the firearms program. Included in the legislation was a provision to allow a one-time extension of some possession-only licences, to solve the peak in workload, every five years for licence renewals, thus allowing for a more even yearly distribution of licence renewals.

Parliament passed this provision, and the evening out of the workload has been supported by stakeholders consulted on Bill C-10A in the fall of 2003. It also got the support of provincial firearm regulators, because this has created a stable operational environment while ensuring quality services and public security.

Workload levelling is a much used and effective business practice that allows a more even distribution of work over an extended period. This eliminates increased costs and staff for processing an unusual peak in workload. Workload levelling also allows the program to continue to meet application processing standards thus ensuring firearm owners receive their renewal before their existing licence expires.

The hon. member again has a question pertaining to the costs of the Canadian firearms program. Full program costing is reported in the Canada Firearms Centre's “Report On Plans and Priorities” and in its “Departmental Performance Report” which were tabled in Parliament in October 2004.

As reported in the 2003-04 Canada Firearms Centre's “Departmental Performance Report”, the full federal cost of the firearms program of $934.4 million includes: the cost of information technology; the licensing of all firearm owners; the registration of all firearms; the indirect costs to other government departments; and transfer payments to the provinces.

It is my pleasure to remind members of the House that the Canada Firearms Centre remains committed to providing Canadians with efficient and cost effective services. Workload levelling is but one of the many measures that has been taken to allow us to meet that commitment.

Criminal Code

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak on Bill C-10, as my distinguished colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois have done before me. The Bloc Quebecois supports referring the bill to committee before second reading.

Bill C-10 is the Act to amend the Criminal Code (mental disorder) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. It is the former Bill C-29, which had reached second reading in the last Parliament before dying on the Order Paper with the election call in June. On the issue of Bill C-29, I would like to acknowledge the work of our justice critic, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

We are of course in favour of the principle of this bill and of referring the bill to a committee before second reading, but we have to ensure that the proposed amendments will effectively protect the rights of people suffering from mental disorder, while protecting society. This is important also. Amending the Criminal Code is always a sensitive issue. We are dealing with subjects that are difficult for the victims or those close to the victims, who were affected by a crime. Those people have to be protected too. The amendments to the Criminal Code must be carefully measured.

The recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness were not all accepted by the government. We will have to pay special attention when the bill goes to committee. I have no doubt that my colleague, the justice critic for the Bloc Québécois, will be able to keep things in perspective and to do a good job as usual.

We had another example of democratic deficit—my colleague from Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière mentioned this earlier—when the unanimous report was not followed up in its entirety. It was followed up, but not entirely. I would answer that, even though it was almost entirely agreed upon, too often in the past we have seen the government ignore a unanimous report. I am thinking of what affects many people, about the unanimous report on employment insurance. This is deplorable.

However, now, there is an amendment that is quite important and interesting: committee reports will be voted on. Fortunately, we have a majority in the committee. Let this be a warning to the government.

The recommendations that were not followed up will then have to be examined once again in committee. In C-10, 5 of 19 are not there. We will be very vigilant in this regard.

At this time in my short speech, I would like to summarize the bill for the many people who are watching us and the House.

This enactment amends Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code governing persons found unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. The amendments, among other things, include

(a) repealing unproclaimed provisions related to capping, dangerous mentally disordered accused and hospital orders;

(b) expanding the authority of Review Boards by enabling them to order an assessment of the accused, adjourn hearings and protect the identity of victims and witnesses;

(c) permitting the oral presentation of victim impact statements at disposition hearings and adjournments allowing the victim to prepare the statement;

(d) permitting Review Boards to extend the time for holding a review hearing to a maximum of 24 months in certain circumstances;

(e) permitting the court to hold an inquiry and order a judicial stay of proceedings for an accused found unfit to stand trial, if the accused is not likely to ever be fit to stand trial and does not pose a significant risk to the safety of the public and a stay is in the interests of the proper administration of justice;

(f) specifying that the transfer provisions require the consent of the appropriate Attorneys General in all cases and enabling transfers of an accused who is not in custody; and

(g) allowing peace officers arresting an accused who is in contravention of an assessment order or a disposition to release, detain, compel the appearance of or deliver the accused to a place specified in the order.

This enactment also makes consequential amendments to other Acts, including the National Defence Act.

This bill applies to people with mental disorder, people who are declared not criminally responsible or unfit to stand to trial on account of mental disorder.

I studied law for a year and a half and I remember some of my courses. I switched majors and went into communication and became a journalist. This got me into courthouses nonetheless—as a journalist of course, not as a client. I had the opportunity to hear a number of cases including some that were very difficult because, as I was saying earlier, the victims or the accused did not even know they had been involved in a crime.

In criminal law, for an accused to be declared not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, it must be shown that the accused was suffering from a mental disorder at the time of the offence that rendered him or her incapable of either appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong.

We in the Bloc Québécois feel it is important that the bill protect the rights of people declared not criminally responsible or unfit to stand to trial on account of mental disorder. We also have to protect public safety. It bears repeating because it is very important. I am convinced, as I was saying earlier, that we will have the opportunity to be very vigilant about this in committee.

We have to avoid a repetition of such tragedies as those mentioned by the Canadian Association of Community Living in the brief it submitted on January 25, 2000, to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We talked for instance about some people with developmental disability who were held without cause at the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital, in British Columbia.

Let me quote one of the examples I found on the association's Web site. A 30 year old aboriginal man with a developmental disability was charged with mischief in 1997 and found not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder. He has been held at the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital since then and has appeared regularly in front of the BC Review Board. At his June, 2000 hearing it was confirmed that the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital was not an appropriate setting as the hospital is not geared to deal with individuals with developmental disabilities.

Recognizing that this individual had been kept in custody for a minor offence for more than three years in an institution that was not appropriate to meet his needs, the Review Board ordered a conditional discharge to the community. To date, appropriate community care and treatment has not been forthcoming and he continues to be held at the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital.

This case and many others “stress some of the shortcomings of Canada's criminal justice system to properly address the rights and needs of all citizens. Some people, especially people with intellectual disabilities, fall through the cracks of the system”. That is what the Canadian Association for Community Living said in its brief to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on January 25, 2002.

In conclusion, the report of the standing committee confirmed that the 1992 Criminal Code provisions regarding persons found unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible because of mental disorders needs improvement. You can count on the Bloc Québécois to do what is needed to ensure that the bill reflects the real wishes and needs of persons with mental disorders and the organizations that support them, and that it also safeguards public security.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is also my pleasure today to rise and speak in support of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Criminal Code, mental disorder. The bill, as has been pointed out, will make many improvements to the law that governs those persons who are found unfit to stand trial and persons found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

I will focus my remarks on the provisions of Bill C-10 that seek to repeal provisions of the Criminal Code that in fact were never proclaimed in force.

Hon. members may be curious about why it is even worth noting, since the repeal of unproclaimed provisions merely clarifies the status quo. It is true that the repeal of the unproclaimed provisions will not change the applicable law. However, it is important to highlight the fact that the current reforms, which once and for all will repeal old reforms, reflect the government's belief that these provisions are not needed and will not be needed in the future.

The repeal will bring certainty and clarity to those who may hold out hope for these old provisions, which indeed we now agree do not reflect the goals of protecting public safety and providing treatment for the mentally disordered accused.

Bill C-10 repeals three provisions of the 1991 amending act that were never proclaimed. These are: first, provisions related to capping; second, the dangerous mentally disordered accused provisions; and third, the hospital order provisions. I will be dealing with each of these individually.

Capping provisions were originally designed to ensure that the supervision of those found not criminally responsible would not be longer than the maximum sentence available through a criminal conviction. The maximum periods, or caps, would depend on the offence committed and would range from life to two years or less.

Capping provisions were included as part of the 1992 reforms. The initial postponement in proclamation was necessary to permit a review of all persons held under a lieutenant governor's warrant to determine whether the person should be subject to an increased cap. The delay was also intended to allow the provinces to make necessary amendments to their mental health legislation to ensure that those discharged at the so-called cap would be subject to mental health legislation where necessary.

However, provincial mental health law is not designed to supervise potentially dangerous persons, nor is it designed to protect public safety. As a result, amendments were not pursued by the provinces and territories.

The standing committee in its 2002 review called for the repeal of the capping provisions. The current law in part XX.1 of the Criminal Code, without capping, provides the appropriate balance between the accused's rights and the public's right to safety. Several accused persons have appealed their dispositions, arguing that if they had been convicted they would have served a short sentence. However, because these accused were found not criminally responsible they may have dispositions that restrict their liberty for longer periods than any court sentence for the same offence.

The Supreme Court of Canada has clearly established that sentences for convicted offenders should not be compared with dispositions imposed where an accused is found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. The accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder is not punished. Rather, they are assessed, treated and supervised until they can be absolutely discharged.

The absolute discharge may be appropriate soon after the verdict or years later depending on the mental condition of the accused and the risk to public safety. The nature of the offence may have no bearing on the disposition for a not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. Capping should therefore be repealed once and for all.

The dangerous mentally disordered accused provisions, secondly, were linked to the capping concept. They too should be repealed. These provisions would have enabled the prosecutor to apply to the court, after the finding of not criminally responsible but before the disposition is made, to make another finding that the accused is a dangerous mentally disordered accused.

The criteria and procedure were modelled on the dangerous offender provisions that apply to sane convicted offenders. If the accused was found to be a dangerous mentally disordered accused, the court could have then increased a 10 year cap to a maximum of life, but only for “serious personal injury offences”, including various sexual and violent offences. These provisions were very narrow in their proposed application and would have only permitted the longer cap for some of the most dangerous and serious offences.

The DMDA provisions and capping provisions are interdependent and are therefore being repealed together. The repeal of capping and the related DMDA provisions, coupled with the amendments to better protect the rights of permanently unfit accused, will continue to reflect the goals of our criminal law system, including protecting the public.

The hospital order provisions would have applied to convicted offenders, not those found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. These provisions are also proposed for repeal.

Hospital orders were intended to provide a mechanism for short term treatment of a convicted offender who, at the time of sentencing, was in an acute phase of a mental disorder and in urgent need of treatment to prevent further mental deterioration. An offender meeting this criterion would be sent to a psychiatric facility for a period of up to 60 days rather than jailed.

The provisions are being repealed because there is a general view among stakeholders that the current system can accomplish the intended purpose of hospital orders without a statutory provision. In addition, the code provisions are too narrow in their application to address the nature and range of mental disorder present in the convicted offender population. Proclamation of the hospital order provisions would not address the larger problem.

The repeal of these three provisions reflects the government's commitment to fair and effective laws that are clear and up to date. I think all members of the House would agree with that objective.

While it may seem odd to dwell on these aspects of Bill C-10 that may seem of little consequence because they seek to repeal provisions that were never really part of our operating law, I hope members will agree that clarity is necessary and that our parliamentary record should reflect how and why our policy and law have evolved.

I encourage all hon. members to support these provisions that have been put forward in Bill C-10.