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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question and for his fine work on the justice and human rights committee.

It is perhaps no surprise that I do not find the argument holds weight. Let us face it. These are practising lawyers, usually with a degree of specialization when they take these cases on. I cannot see that ethically they would have a client who was suffering from a mental disorder that would qualify them as being not criminally responsible and they would try to put them into the regular criminal system where they would get less treatment.

I believe that the law society members are highly ethical and that this is a tactic that, quite frankly, would not be used. If so, it would definitely be reprehensible.

We cannot forget that whether the period is one year or three years, during that period before which we would review the reintegration, treatment is ongoing. These people are not thrown into a cell and the key is thrown away. Treatment is ongoing. It is a balance of treatment and reintegration versus the protection of the public.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for his speech.

He talked about clause 12, which creates a new category of high-risk accused. This definition refers to offences of a brutal nature. The parliamentary secretary mentioned some victims' cases. When the Minister of Justice and also certain experts were asked about this, they said there was no definition of offence of a brutal nature. We therefore suggested we should rely on what was already in the Criminal Code.

I would like to know whether the parliamentary secretary can define “brutal nature” and tell us why he did not rely on what was already set out in the Criminal Code, as was requested by the Canadian Bar Association, the Barreau du Québec and several experts?

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

Mr. Speaker, the notion of brutality referred to by the member has been defined by the Supreme Court, and several cases have been interpreted based on that definition.

I would also like to point out that when a request is made to designate someone high risk, the decision-makers take more than just the brutal nature of the offence into consideration; they consider all relevant factors, including medical evidence and the circumstances surrounding the offence.

There is more than just a single, isolated factor at play, such as the fact that the individual committed a very brutal crime, as defined by the Supreme Court. All of the circumstances surrounding the individual and whether that individual can reintegrate into society without posing a risk to public safety must be taken into account.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary both for his speech and his work on committee.

Obviously this is an important piece of legislation. Questions have been brought up by members on both sides about the current process for NCR.

One thing I have found out through the process is that in the case of someone who has been designated not criminally responsible, the Criminal Code already allows the review to be extended up to 24 months by the Mental Health Review Board, in the case of a serious personal injury offence. By adding the extra 12 months of flexibility, it actually empowers the Mental Health Review Board.

There is a fine balance between making sure the safety of the public is paramount and that there is ample opportunity for treatment. Under this new high-risk designation, I would ask the parliamentary secretary if he feels there are sufficient provisions for both public safety and mental health treatment, to allow the NCR person to receive the treatment they need, while, again, balancing the aspect of safety.

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

Mr. Speaker, of course there is a balance when it comes to the treatment aspect.

When the period of time is determined for the review, whether it be one year, two years or three years, the main test is determining what length or period of time is going to be necessary for the treatment. If one year is sufficient, then that will suffice. However, to go beyond the two years, which is also provided for, and the three years in this case, there absolutely has to be evidence that the longer treatment will be needed.

When there is a need for longer treatment, there are provisions that these people cannot go into the community unescorted, and when they go into the community escorted, it will be for necessary and obligatory medical or mental health treatment so that they can be reintegrated.

Again, the key is not thrown away and these people locked up. They will not be able to go into the community unescorted because the paramount consideration is public safety. However, they will go, escorted, to necessary medical treatment.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before I recognize the hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie, I must inform him that I will have to interrupt him at about 2:00 p.m. The hon. member has about seven minutes remaining. Of course, more time will be available when the House resumes debate on this motion.

The hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are debating Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder), at third reading.

The whole issue of mental health and crime is a very emotional subject. We saw this when we were examining it in committee. This subject really moved us.

I would especially like to thank my colleague from Gatineau, our justice critic, for all of her hard work on this bill.

Few of us are extremely familiar with the topic of mental health. We sometimes generalize. People have a certain idea of what this entails. However, we do not know everything we need to know.

One of the problems we noted in committee was the Conservative government's failure to consult with experts in the field with regard to this bill.

One example I have is from our committee on June 5. Chris Summerville, from the Schizophrenia Society of Canada, mentioned that nine associations were not consulted. We are talking about the Canadian Psychiatric Association, the Canadian Psychological Association, the Canadian Mental Health Association, the Mood Disorders Society of Canada, the Canadian Association of Social Workers, the Canadian Association of Suicide Prevention, the National Network for Mental Health, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, the Schizophrenia Society of Canada, and further, 19 members of the Canadian Alliance on Mental Illness and Mental Health, all of which are members and none of which were consulted either.

When I asked why, they did not understand. They are the first ones on the ground. They are the people who actually have the knowledge. It is very unfortunate that the government only decided to consult with them when we were working on and dealing with the bill, and then, when we had amendments, those amendments were not accepted by the government.

This is a very sensitive issue and victims have asked us not to make it a partisan issue. They have asked us not to play politics. Unfortunately, that is what the Conservatives are doing.

Jenni Byrne, the 2011 national campaign manager, sent an email dated May 29 that reads:

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 in to the community by the Manitoba Criminal Code Review Board. This is an insult to his victim—and this is not what Canadians expect from their justice system.

She then asks for a donation to the Conservative Party.

This is the type of petty politics that we find very disappointing. It is absolutely deplorable to see the government use victims in order to raise money. In addition to what I was saying about the lack of consultation, the fact that the government keeps using cases like this is just as deplorable when it comes to stigmatization. The public does not necessarily understand mental illness. I encourage all Canadians to talk about it. In the House, I have talked about a friend of mine who committed suicide. It is important to talk about it. I think we need to talk about every aspect of mental illness.

Using high-profile cases to raise money is serious. It is not what responsible parliamentarians should do, but it is what the current government is doing. We are asking the Conservatives to show more respect.

Our approach to the bill is simple: this bill is important for victims. As the Conservatives have mentioned, this bill will provide a way to help us inform victims about what is going on with offenders. All the witnesses we heard from agree with this, including the Barreau du Québec, the Canadian Bar Association and mental health associations.

We support this bill and we did even more than that. What is surprising is that the Conservatives accepted one of our amendments to inform victims of the offender's place of residence. Once the offender is released from prison, the victim should be aware of everything that is going on. All of the victims we consulted asked for this. We therefore thank the government for accepting the NDP's amendment to ensure that these victims are better informed.

We are very sensitive to this situation, and we were touched by the victims who came to testify. I want to acknowledge these victims, who showed extraordinary courage. Talking about their problems and their experiences was very difficult for them. As I said, it is very emotional for members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to hear people share their stories, but that is what pushes us to keep going.

One of the problems is the lack of consultation from a legal standpoint. The government proposed changes, but it is reassuring to know that the court will have the last word. That is why we supported some of the amendments proposed by the government. However, we would have appreciated it if the government had considered more of our amendments.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie will have 14 minutes when the House resumes debate on this motion. Of course, he will have the usual 10 minutes for questions and comments.

We will now proceed to statements by members. The hon. member for Ahuntsic.

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 a third time and passed.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

When we last debated this issue, the hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie had 13 minutes remaining.

The hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie.

[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.