Bill C-54 (Historical)

Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder)

This enactment amends the mental disorder regime in the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act to specify that the paramount consideration in the decision-making process is the safety of the public and to create a scheme for finding that certain persons who have been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder are high-risk accused. It also enhances the involvement of victims in the regime and makes procedural and technical amendments.

Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me more time to speak to Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act .

This bill talks about mental disorders. As I was saying earlier, this is a very emotional topic. We are talking about both crime and mental illness.

In committee, when we were studying the bill, we heard testimony from a number of victims who came to talk about their situations. I think I can say on behalf of all members here, from the NDP and the other parties, that we were deeply moved by the experiences people shared with us. We also acknowledged the courage of the victims who came to talk about their experiences and educate us a bit by giving us more information on what happens when victims have to live with the consequences and the results of the justice system.

These people have often said that there are problems in terms of information. In one case, the victim told us that family members were quite surprised to run into the accused after he was released. Imagine their shock.

As I was saying earlier, whether we were talking to experts, the Canadian Bar Association, the Barreau du Québec, or mental illness experts, every witness agreed that the victims need to be informed. That is why we are supporting this bill.

As I said, we went even further. We proposed an amendment. To our pleasant and great surprise, the government accepted the amendment. This amendment would specifically ensure that the accused person's intended place of residence, his residence once he is released, is given to the victim at the victim's request. Almost every victim we asked questions to requested this. Even those we did not ask questions to shared this concern with us.

We are acknowledging that, for once, the government accepted an opposition amendment, one from the NDP in particular. We appreciate it and we believe that this advances the bill and makes it better.

However, the NDP and the other opposition parties proposed many amendments with regard to the language created in this bill.

There are two elements, as I mentioned earlier: the bill creates a high-risk designation; it also refers to brutal nature. We have been attempting to define the brutal nature of the high-risk accused. One of the many problems identified was indeed the definition of brutal nature.

Contrary to what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice said, the Supreme Court has not really defined this concept. There is no definition in the Criminal Code that applies in particular to this case.

When I asked the Minister of Justice that question, he was unable to provide a specific answer about the definition.

Some legal issues were raised by the experts. There were concerns about the lack of a definition. When a new concept is created, we do not really know how it will be used.

Unfortunately, as I explained earlier, experts were not consulted. There was no consultation of medical associations, mental health professionals, psychiatrists or psychologists. New terms were created without conducting a thorough analysis of what the impact would be. That is one of the problems we pointed out.

We asked that more well-known terms, such as those in the Criminal Code, be used.

Unfortunately, once again, the Conservative members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights rejected the proposed amendments. That is a problem.

Initially, we asked that the criterion of the brutal nature of the act committed be removed. One of the problems with the use of the term brutal nature is that a person will be judged based on the act committed rather than on what the accused could do in the future. The act will be judged, but the Conservatives are forgetting that this act was committed by a person with a mental illness, given that we are talking about cases where the accused are not criminally responsible. An act was committed and its brutal nature may not necessarily indicate what will happen in the future. In that respect, I believe that the government has gone in the wrong direction.

We would have liked the Conservatives to accept our amendment, which in fact made it more understandable. We would have liked them to give more thought to what the Supreme Court has said. We would have liked them to give more thought to the judgments that have been handed down. Unfortunately, all of that was rejected. One of the things that will have to be considered was in fact raised by the Canadian Bar Association, among others. There would certainly be constitutional challenges. Nobody has specifically said that it is contrary to the charter, but we need to ask ourselves some questions.

We can also question the removal of the requirement that the decision be the least onerous and least restrictive to the individual. We asked that this idea be put back, but the amendment was rejected. That is unfortunate, because what was already in place—the decisions of the Supreme Court and the lower courts—provided us with a better balance. Unfortunately, it was rejected, because that is the intention of the government; that is the intent of the bill. In fact, it has been openly criticized by legal experts. Unfortunately, that is the bill.

Although I am noting all the concerns about how the government is doing this and about the legal issue, one of the things we can like about the bill is the fact that it will ultimately be a judge who will be able to make a decision. The judge will have the decision-making power.

In this case, the government has left the judge a degree of latitude. We agree with that view, because it refers to possible reviews of the assessments of the individuals themselves by experts in the field, and when it comes to finding an individual to be high-risk or a high-risk accused, that decision is to be made by the court. It is therefore up to the court to decide whether the individual falls into that group. If so, the accused can be removed from that category, that label can be removed, at a later date.

We would have liked the government to allow the decision-making power for reviews to be transferred, but once again, unfortunately, the government rejected one of our proposed amendments.

A lot of questions arise in relation to the way the courts are going to be interpreted. Are they going to use this new category of high-risk individuals?

I asked the Minister of Justice a question to find out whether this category would apply in the Guy Turcotte case, a case we have heard about everywhere in Canada and Quebec.

The question that I asked the minister was relatively clear. It dealt with the fact that the Conservatives have politicized this issue. They have made it a reason for funding, saying that this would resolve many problems.

In the case of Guy Turcotte, the question was posed, not only to the minister, but also to the Justice Department experts who were present. We were told that Bill C-54 would certainly not apply in the case of Guy Turcotte, because he would not necessarily be considered a high-risk accused.

When the victim, Ms. Gaston, came to give evidence, I asked her the question, too, and she was aware of the problem. Despite the promises by the Conservative government, she knew that it was very likely the bill would not apply in her case. There would certainly be a problem there.

As I said earlier, we deplore the fact that the Conservatives have politicized the issue. They have even helped stigmatize people with mental illness by using certain terms. The Minister of Justice had in hand certain figures on rates of recidivism among people found not criminally responsible and he overstated those statistics.

Figures already existed. Certain cases were discussed. Of course, the witnesses confirmed that people found not criminally responsible had a much lower rate of recidivism than criminals, in the case of serious crimes. The language used, not only by the Conservatives, but also by the minister, gave us the impression that it was a more serious problem. Once again I deplore the fact that the Conservative government has politicized this issue so much that it has alienated, swept aside and stigmatized people suffering from a mental illness. The government’s attitude toward this issue is really appalling.

Nonetheless, we managed to do one thing: adopt an amendment that we thought was really important. The opposition can be really proud of this. This amendment, when the bill becomes law, will require the government to review the act after five years.

According to the government and the experts who came to testify, experts, specifically mental health experts, were not consulted. Legal experts were not consulted either. We managed to get an amendment passed that forces the government to review the act and its effects in five years.

For example, will this go to court because some provisions violate the charter and are therefore unconstitutional? We will also have to see whether the bill has had the desired effects on public safety. We cannot forget that this is of utmost importance to us.

Some witnesses, including victims, told us that this was not in the best interests of public safety. This raised some questions. We would have liked to see the government consult people before, but we were happy that it finally agreed to our amendment to have the bill reviewed in five years. One thing is for sure: when we are in power, in five years, we will be able to review this bill and ensure that it is appropriate.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member participates on the committee, and I thank him for the efforts he puts forward. I have a speech in a few minutes that will highlight the work we did together as a committee.

I do not want to say I take exception exactly, but I disagree a bit the the wording that says we were stigmatizing those with mental health issues, and there was an issue with statistics; for repeat offenders, it was a question of whether it was 7% or 40%.

This bill focuses on a very narrow group of individuals who are potentially dangerous through no fault of their own, but due to mental issues that they are facing. It is a very small group. Whether 7% or 40%, does the member not agree that the victims of these individuals still require the protection that this bill would offer?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his work on the justice committee. As Chair, I can say that so far he has been very fair.

With respect to his question, I would like to read a letter from the Conservative Party to members. I will read it French. It states:

You probably remember the story of Vince Li--a man who, five years ago, beheaded and cannibalized a fellow passenger on a Greyhound bus.

He was found to be not criminally responsible for his actions--and was even granted escorted leave...

This is an insult to his victim--and this is not what Canadians expect from their justice system.

I was saying that this was used as a fundraiser and the letter goes on to ask for donations. The victims were used as a means to raise funds. My issue was with the fact that we were raising the partisan issue.

In terms of defending victims, New Democrats agree and that is why our amendment goes further than what the bill was suggesting. I agree that victims need to be informed and that is why we supported that part of the bill. That is also why we put forward an amendment, so victims would know where the residences of accused persons were, and the Conservatives have agreed with our position.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

First, Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that the Conservative Party would stoop that low and use that as a fundraiser. That should not surprise anybody.

First, it is the victims that we want to protect. I will read a few lines and I would like my colleague to say a few words about this.

We must make public safety our top priority, while respecting the rule of law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We support the changes, but it is critically important that we make sure that the cases of defendants with mental disorders are managed effectively and that their mental disorders are treated. For that, we must ensure that the provinces have enough money because they are the ones who manage the situation at the end of the day.

We are used to hearing and seeing the Conservatives pass legislation that the provinces are forced to deal with. It does not cost the Conservatives anything.

I would like my colleague to talk about what happens in the provincial prisons to convicted offenders who are battling mental illness.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nickel Belt for his question. He just raised a point that I unfortunately did not have time to cover in my speech.

With Bill C-10 we saw the Conservative government's tendency to introduce bills without consulting the provinces or considering whether they agreed or not. Bill C-10 has a direct impact on the provinces' administrative costs.

Unfortunately, in this bill, there is no mention of how the government is going to help the provinces. There is no mention of any funding that might be allocated. We are pretty sure there will be none. When we looked at the budget, there was no increase in funding to help the provinces deal with this problem.

Again, we are operating in a vacuum. The government is introducing bills without consulting the provinces or experts. What is more, the government is not allocating any resources for the provinces to cope with these problems.

I thank my colleague for the question because it allowed me to address a point that I did not have time to raise in my speech.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was able to participate in some of the justice committee meetings and I thank the Chair for allowing me to speak in those sessions. One of the things that struck me were the witnesses on behalf of victims. No one could be untouched by the devastating and harrowing personal stories of people who have been affected by crimes committed by people with mental health issues, but they really were not relevant to the empirical question of whether people within the not criminally responsible system are returning in what was referred to as some sort of revolving door.

By the way, I would like to single out my hon. colleague for having tried to put forward more amendments brought forward from victims' groups, particularly those of Sue O'Sullivan, the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. There was an attempt by this New Democratic Party member to put her testimony into amendments to give victims more notice and more information, but they were not accepted by the Conservative members on the committee. I would have supported these if I had been allowed to vote, by the way.

My question is this. When we look at the evidence of misleading statistics, there is a new report on the correction to data, which the member referred to in his speech, from key experts. They notified the Minister of Justice back in March, and it appears that we are still using the wrong numbers. For instance, the original report said that 38.1% of sex offenders found not criminally responsible and accused of sex offences had at least one prior NCR finding, but the accurate number is almost a quarter of that, 9.5%. How is it we are still talking about this issue and using the wrong numbers?

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

Mr. Speaker, as the member mentioned, we tried to bring forward amendments with respect to victims giving more information. One of the problems we had was that the Conservatives said that amendments were needed before we actually heard some of the witnesses. Those were the deadlines and procedures.

With respect to her question about why the government was still using the wrong numbers, I raised the fact that the Conservatives were using this as a partisan issue and making it worse than it was. It came to me that they were stigmatizing people with mental illness, and we heard this from witnesses. The Conservatives came out with numbers. They were talking 38%, 39% with the real numbers being 7% or 9%.

The worse thing is that this came from the Minister of Justice. He knew with the reports that those numbers were the wrong numbers. We are talking about people who are non-NCR. A minister should know all the facts. A minister should not use numbers to make it sound worse and do a bit of fundraising. That is not how we should work in Parliament.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, whether it is 7%, 9% or 30%, does the public not deserve protection from that 7%, 9% or 30%, whatever the percentage is? Do we just forget about these people? These are high-risk individuals. There will be very few designations under this new category. Do those 7% of victims not deserve this government's protection?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of not helping victims. The reason we put forward amendments was to help victims and the reason we supported that part of the bill was because we wanted to support victims.

Expert witnesses told us that the government did not have evidence-based numbers. The chair of the committee is saying that numbers do not matter, that there is no difference between 9% and 39%. We have to come up with facts. We have to make laws that are based on facts. Victims are important, so that is why we support it.

We went to committee with even better amendments to better protect victims and the government accepted them. What we are saying is when we make decisions and when we go out in public, we need to be truthful and we need to talk about facts, not just make up numbers as the Conservatives are doing.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act.

Over the last two weeks, the justice committee has heard a great deal of compelling testimony from mental health experts, legal professionals, law enforcement and victims who courageously shared their heart-rending experiences of pain, of loss, of anger and frustration and of their efforts to grieve and overcome. One of those experiences was shared by the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. I want to thank him and all the witnesses who provided personal accounts that were often heart-rending, but all the more important for it.

On the whole, the testimony we heard confirmed our reasons for opposing this legislation. I want to note that my belief is grounded in statistical analysis and in expert opinion that Bill C-54 would prove counterproductive by complicating treatment for the mentally ill and, as a result, increasing the danger to the public.

The testimony at committee also demonstrated something else: that the government's approach to this bill has had the effect of pitting mental health and legal experts against victims of violence, and it does not have to be this way.

I offer as evidence some quotations from committee testimony, as follows:

It is not about putting them in prison, it is about getting them the help they need.

One witness said, “I believe strongly in increased supports to help those with mental illness in our communities”.

Another witness said:

I am in favour of rehabilitation and I understand the suffering caused by a mental illness.

It may surprise members that those words came to the justice committee from victims and victims advocates. They were saying this.

The following quotation that I will read are from the testimony of mental health and legal professionals who are opposed to the bill.

...the association supports an approach that fully addresses victims' needs...it also recognizes that there are major flaws in the support services and financial aid offered to victims...

Another witness said, “we wholeheartedly support changes that create greater involvement for victims in the process. Without a doubt we want all victims affected by crime to be part of the process”.

Those words came from people who supported victims, but opposed the legislation.

Common ground exists between victims and the mental health and legal communities, irrespective of their views on this bill. The victims who spoke were not simply out for revenge. They recognized the importance of effective treatment for the mentally ill, including accused found not criminally responsible, or NCR.

At the same time, those opposing this bill have demonstrated genuine compassion for victims. It is disappointing therefore that the government did not endeavour to find this common ground before it prepared the legislation.

To be clear, opponents of the bill do not oppose victims, as has been callously and hyperbolically suggested. Indeed, we and other experts support measures to increase the notification of victims and the provision for no contact orders between victims and NCR accused.

It would have been, and, indeed, it still is quite possible, given good faith and openness to the perspectives of all concerned, to draft a bill that first, simultaneously protects the safety of the public; second, respects the interest and wishes of victims; and third, facilitates both preventative and rehabilitative treatment for the mentally ill. Those three things could have existed simultaneously in the bill.

Not only would such a bill have received more widespread support, it would have been less suspectible to constitutional challenges and it would have been far more effective.

I regret, however, that this was not the government's approach. Stakeholder after stakeholder and expert after expert came before the justice committee and stated that the government had not sought their input. Shockingly, while preparing a bill that deals specifically with mentally ill individuals, the government apparently had a grand total of one preliminary meeting with a mental health group before the bill was tabled.

It never consulted, for instance, with Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, which is Canada's largest mental health and addiction treatment facility, or the Schizophrenia Society of Canada or the Canadian Psychiatric Association, among many others.

The Canadian Mental Health Association was granted one meeting, and that was after second reading.

On the legal side, the government ignored no less an authority than the Canadian Bar Association. It consulted with crown attorneys whose input is important, but not with attorneys who represent the mentally ill, whose input is equally important.

The government's choice not to consult with so many of the relevant experts is yet another manifestation of a trend to which we are now regrettably accustomed to in the House, particularly with respect to justice legislation. The government does not base its policies on facts. Indeed, one of the principal reasons the Liberals oppose this bill is that, despite flaws in Canada's overall approach to issues of mental health and justice, the evidence demonstrates that the not criminally responsible regime works well in its current form. Undoubtedly, there are shortcomings with respect to the notification and involvement of victims. There are shortcomings which the Liberal Party has sought to address through amendments. There are also major improvements needed in terms of preventative treatment so people with severe mental health problems can get an early diagnosis and be treated before they commit serious violence.

Moreover, as was recently argued in a feature in L'actualité magazine about Isabelle Gaston, whose children were killed by Guy Turcotte, we might also consider re-examining the way our courts approach expert testimony at trial.

However, the crux of the bill before us does not address most of these problems. Rather, Bill C-54 is focused on changing the way our system deals with mentally ill individuals after they have been found not criminally responsible, yet this is the aspect of Canada's approach to mental health and justice that already works very well. We know it works because several studies have been done on the subject, the most recent of which was finally tabled by the minister last Thursday in its corrected form.

Before continuing, I want to acknowledge and thank the minister for doing so, even if I still do not understand why he tabled the incorrect report in March, one week after being provided with a revised draft, or why the government continued to cite the incorrect figures for months.

While I am on the subject, I must also express my dismay at public statements made by the minister's office and by his parliamentary secretary, questioning the credibility and competence of the researchers they commissioned. In fact, the researchers behaved in exactly the manner top level scientists and academics should. Instead of saying, as the minister did on Thursday, that “mistakes were made”, as though mistakes can make themselves, the researchers did the right thing by immediately acknowledging their error and correcting it. The minister should also do the right thing and apologize to them for tarnishing their reputations.

As we now know, according to the corrected version of that research, only 6.1% of individuals found not criminally responsible in a serious violent offence had a prior NCR finding. The recidivism rate for NCR accused released by review boards was 7% for serious violence. I said that in the House when I made my very first speech. It came from reputable people, from forensic experts to people who worked in the criminal justice system to mental health authorities. In other words, it is demonstrably exceptionally rare for an NCR accused person to be found not criminally responsible of a second violent act upon release. Naturally, the rarity of the occurrence is of no comfort to those who have been victims. It is certainly worthwhile to seek to improve the system further.

However, if we are to make significant changes to a largely successful system, such as creating an entirely new category of NCR accused deemed “high risk” on the basis of medically suspect criteria, we must take great care to ensure the changes we make do not have unintended negative consequences. Regrettably, witnesses at committee warned of that potential, that this bill would have several troubling unintended consequences, complicating treatment for the mentally ill and therefore increasing the dangers to the public.

Here are some of the reasons. By keeping the NCR accused institutionalized for longer periods of time, this legislation would risk overburdening treatment facilities. As Dr. Sandy Simpson, co-chair of the Canadian Forensic Mental Health Network, testified:

Most forensic services nationally are at or near capacity. If you look at Ontario, most of us are running over capacity. Clearly, if one gets overcrowding within secure mental health facilities, your risk of violent behaviour, both patient to patient and patient to staff, rises, and those environments become more dangerous and less therapeutic.

Repeated questions about whether the government considered this potential effect of Bill C-54 have been met with evasive and even dismissive responses.

Second, the bill may result in more mentally ill offenders going to prisons instead of hospitals. Dr. Simpson warned that this could happen as a result of overcrowding, since patients are often detained in prison while waiting for a forensic bed to become available in an institution.

Moreover, as Paul Burstein of the Criminal Lawyers Association argued, the punitive restrictions placed on NCR accused deemed high risk could cause certain defendants, who would otherwise be found NCR, to plead not guilty instead. If these individuals were acquitted, they would be discharged without receiving treatment of any kind, and if they were convicted, they would likely receive either inadequate treatment or none at all. When they rejoined society after their sentence, they would be at least as dangerous as they were before.

At committee, some Conservative members were skeptical about whether this would actually be the case, claiming that defence attorneys have a fiduciary responsibility to advise their clients to plead NCR if such a finding is appropriate. However, if the consequence of such a finding is likely to be inappropriate in its result and its sentencing—for instance, overly punitive restrictions or a longer detention than necessary—it would be entirely correct for a defence attorney to advise against an NCR plea, especially given that many NCR accused are already detained for longer periods of time than if they had remained in the prison system.

Third, and perhaps most critical of all, the bill contributes to the stigmatization that makes many who suffer from mental illness reluctant to seek treatment in the first place.

The rarity of violent acts caused by mental illness in no way diminishes the pain of victims. I want to stress that. However, by using rare occurrences as justification for significant reform, and by designing those reforms so as to limit the role of medical expertise, the government overstates the problem of violence by the mentally ill and understates the potential effectiveness of treatment.

Yet fear of the mentally ill is often a self-fulfilling prophecy. We find mentally ill individuals are largely dangerous; that is the idea we are giving here. We discourage them from acknowledging their illness and they go back into hiding, to being underground, not wanting anybody to know they are ill. A person whose severe mental illness goes undetected is far more dangerous than an NCR accused who has been treated and released by a review board.

Consequently, it is incumbent upon the government to temper its rhetoric and base its policy on facts instead of headlines, thereby reducing stigma and encouraging early diagnosis and intervention.

My colleague, the justice critic from Mount Royal offered numerous amendments at committee in an attempt to address these concerns. Some of his amendments would have introduced or reintroduced principles established by the Supreme Court with respect to NCR accused, such as that NCR accused are not to be punished or left to languish in custody.

The Conservatives explain their opposition by saying that there is no need to codify prevailing jurisprudence, and yet by specifying that public safety is to be the paramount condition of review boards, Bill C-54 would do precisely that. Indeed, two review board chairs testified at committee, and they were already bound by jurisprudence to make public safety their primary concern.

My colleague also proffered amendments to deal with the problematic aspects of the bill, according to which the “brutal nature” of a past act committed by an NCR accused would be an important factor in determining whether the accused posed a future risk, which is a medically dubious causal link. I can assure members of that.

However, Conservative members rejected his efforts in this regard, even going so far as to reject his proposals to define the term “brutal” using existing case law. They preferred the ambiguity that the Canadian Bar Association testified might very well contravene the charter.

The government also refused to include the supports and resources available to the accused upon release as criteria for courts to consider when determining risk, despite expert opinions that such support can be a significant factor in lowering risk of recidivism. Perhaps most egregiously, the Conservatives rejected repeated attempts to ensure that the decision of courts and review boards would be based on medical expertise.

Thus we have before us a bill with little evidentiary basis. It is rife with the potential for unintended consequences. Due to the breadth and vagueness of some of its provisions and the possibility that it will subject NCR accused to unduly punitive restrictions, the bill is likely to raise a whole host of charter concerns. Moreover, because the bill does not even attempt to address primary prevention, it misses the nub of the nature of mental illness altogether. As one of the victims said at committee:

Primary prevention completely failed us.

The member for Kootenay—Columbia, a former RCMP officer, echoed this sentiment by pointing out that when police officers approach individuals who have mental illnesses to try to apprehend them, they are often powerless to ensure that these individuals receive sustained, appropriate treatment. In an effort to address the problem, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto recently instituted a program to screen inmates for potentially dangerous mental health issues as soon as they come in contact with the system.

With federal government support, this kind of program, rather than Bill C-54, would do much to protect the public. Indeed, to address this and other problems related to mental illness, health and justice, members of Parliament must work together and with mental health and legal professionals to develop an effective, evidence-based approach that would support Canadians with mental illnesses and their families and protect the public.

For that reason, I am very pleased that Senator Cowan has introduced a bill that would establish a Canadian commission on mental health and justice. This commission would collect data on the ways mental health and justice intersect, highlight areas that require improvement and facilitate co-operation and the sharing of best practices across jurisdictions. I am hopeful that his Bill S-219 will receive broad-based support so that future policies with respect to mental health and the law would be ground in comprehensive, reliable research and expertise.

In 2005, when he was minister of justice, the member for Mount Royal introduced the most recent reforms to the NCR system. Members of all parties supported both the content of that legislation and the collaborative process through which it was developed. At the time, the current Minister of Public Safety said, “I am pleased to add my support to this bill”.

The Conservative member for Yorkton—Melville said, “The entire debate of the bill in the House and in committee should serve as an example of how Parliament should work”.

I wish I could say the same about Bill C-54, but the legislation we are debating today is regrettably a step backward for the NCR regime, for public safety and for the cause of collaborative evidence-based policy. To keep Canadians truly safe, we must rely on the facts to determine which aspects of our mental health and justice systems are working well and which are in need of improvement. The facts clearly demonstrate that the new high-risk accused category is a solution in search of a problem. As such, Liberals have sought to remove that section from the bill. I support the efforts of my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands to also do that.

At the same time, there is much that can be done in the way of mental health and justice policy to support victims of violence by the mentally ill and to reduce the occurrence of such violence in the first place. These are goals that all Canadians support. It could have been possible, through an evidence-based consultative process, to develop effective legislation with similarly broad appeal.

I hope that in the future, mental health and legal experts will not be pitted against victims but will be consulted and included alongside them to better enact effective policies and keep Canadians safe.

Bill C-54—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I must advise that an agreement has not been reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) concerning the proceedings at third reading of Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder).

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I am sure the House appreciates the notice by the hon. government House leader.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder), be read the third time and passed.

Third Reading

[James Moore, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech from my colleague for Vancouver Centre on this justice legislation.

As the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, this is a bill about which I have tremendous passion, and I am very pleased that this Parliament is moving forward with it. I have to say that I am very pleased that we have been able to move forward in a multi-partisan way to make this legislation work for Canadians.

This legislation, contrary to what the member for Vancouver Centre has said, has the unanimous support of every single provincial Attorney General in this country—Liberal, New Democrat and Conservative. From across this country, they have asked this government to put forward this legislation based on their recommendations. We are working with the provincial level of government, which has the obligation of enforcing the laws the Parliament of Canada puts in place.

I would say to the member that we have worked across the aisle. The NDP, the official opposition, is now supporting this bill. NDP members supported it at second reading. We entertained amendment at the committee stage. We have tightened up the legislation. It is going to go forward. It will be enacted, because it is what Canadians want us to do.

I understand the member's point that extreme cases make bad law. I agree with her in that regard. However, there are times, as well, when specific cases, high-profile cases, point out the failings of the status quo in the justice system. That is what has happened with the Allan Schoenborn case. That is what has happened with the Vincent Li case in Winnipeg. They have pointed out that victims have been left behind by the current justice system.

One specific policy the member mentioned, which I would like her to comment on, is the idea of the three-year review process, or up to three years, rather than a review every single year, and having the high-risk offender designation. Those two reforms are critical.

Contrary to what the member has alleged the government is doing, having a high-risk offender designation would not stigmatize those who are struggling with mental illness or who have engaged in behaviour as a consequence of mental illness. It would allow for genuine mental health professionals to be drawn into the system to provide their expertise, give their proper assessment and make it known that those who are high risk ought to be treated differently than those who are not high risk. It would be evidence-based, as she described.

The bill would de-stigmatize, not stigmatize, those with mental health issues who are trapped within our justice system. That is the goal of this legislation. That is why we have support from Liberal, Conservative and NDP governments from across the country. They are unanimously calling for this legislation to be adopted by this place.

The bill will pass. I hope the member for Vancouver Centre will understand that this is the intent of the bill. This would be the outcome of this bill, so she is wrong to suggest that our government is trying to stigmatize the mentally ill. This is about de-stigmatizing them and making sure that victims are treated appropriately by our justice system, which they currently are not as a consequence of our failed approach to dealing with mental health in the penal system.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes listening and hearing are two different things.

No one has suggested that the government is setting out to stigmatize the mentally ill. What we are talking about are the unintended, negative consequences of a piece of legislation. Indeed, the government consulted all the crown attorneys across the country, but it did not consult the Canadian Bar Association or attorneys who actually have a specialty in mental illness and NCR. One cannot talk to just one group and not the others.

If this is a good a bill, as the member is trying to suggest, and would not have those negative, unintended consequences, why did the government not consult the professions that are actually in charge of people who are mentally ill? They all oppose the bill. They all say that the unintended consequence would be to stigmatize people and send them back into the corners, where they will not be diagnosed.

Bill C-54 would deal with people after the fact, after they have committed violent crimes. We are suggesting that the bill should look at getting people an early diagnoses, before they get there, so that we can pick them up and prevent those kinds of crimes from occurring. We should find ways of working closely with mental health communities, with all of the legal professions and with victims to create a good and balanced piece of legislation