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.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is not present to move her motions at report stage. Therefore, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to Bill C-54 report stage amendments. In this regard I hope to be brief and I raise the matter, not to secure a ruling from you, Mr. Speaker, but rather for the completeness of the record and so you may take the matter under advisement in conjunction with the Clerk for further action as you both deem appropriate.

Briefly, Bill C-54 completed clause-by-clause review at committee Wednesday evening. I began contemplating report stage amendments immediately thereafter and made a request with the Legislative Counsel for the preparation of amendments with the belief that report stage would begin the House on Tuesday. On Friday, it became clear the debate would actually begin at report stage on Monday, today, and thus the amendments were needed by 2 p.m. Friday to comply with the exigencies of Standing Order 54. This was communicated by my office to the clerks preparing the amendments requested.

As I fully appreciate and understand, the amendments I sought were complex from a drafting point of view. Indeed, while I sought that one concept removed from the bill, this alone required the drafting of 32 separate motions to ensure that the statute would be intelligible if the House were to agree with this initiative. Unfortunately, it seems that the revised version of the bill, reflecting committee amendments, was not immediately available to counsel working on my amendments and as a result of the changed deadline, I was not provided with the amendments I requested before the Friday deadline had passed.

Indeed, I only received some of the amendments back this morning. I do not wish to fault anyone for this. Counsel could only work with the correct clause numbers after the bill had been reported since there were amendments. While I am making this point, I want to comment and commend all the hard-working individuals involved in the law clerk's office, in particular, Wendy Gordon, Marie Beauchemin, Anita Eapen and Doug Ward for their excellence and dedication. I know they are often underappreciated, particularly when asked to, as is often the case at report stage, draft amendments only to have them found inadmissible for procedural reasons.

As such, while there is a privilege issue to be advanced here because had my amendments been timely and ruled admissible, I could speak to them this morning, I simply wish to request that the Speaker and Clerk look into ensuring that the law clerk and parliamentary counsel have the staff and resources they require to complete the drafting task within the tight deadlines that I think only arise in exceptional circumstances such as this one.

While you look into this, Mr. Speaker, I would also ask that you investigate whether the e-notice system could be expanded to work with more browsers. While I acknowledge that I do not understand fully the technology terms, I gather that when the motions were received by my staff, they were unable to upload the amendments on my behalf remotely due to compatibility issues with e-notices and Firefox Chrome.

I realize these amendments, which for those curious would have removed the high risk designation and all references to it, may never yet see the notice paper. Indeed, they might have been ruled inadmissible upon introduction. That said, it is unfortunate that this situation occurred given the seriousness, yet complexity of my request and related deadlines involved.

I would therefore ask that you, Mr. Speaker, take the matter under advisement, while again expressing our support, and I believe all parliamentarians would join me in this for the hard work and dedication of the law clerk and parliamentary counsel's office.

Before I conclude, I am told that the only way these amendments could yet be considered, despite delay notice, which as I explained was unavoidable, is through unanimous consent. Therefore, and so that the hard work of the drafters involved is not completely forgotten, and the amendments proposed, I move: That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House in relation to the report stage of Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder), that the notice requirement in relation to the 32 motions submitted to the Table by the member for Mount Royal be waived and that those motions that the Speaker would normally find admissible and selected at report stage be included for consideration at this same stage.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member for Mount Royal for his intervention. On the first item, the request, I will certainly take that matter under advisement and get back to the House if necessary.

On the request for unanimous consent, does the hon. member for Mount Royal have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

moved that Bill C-54, as amended, be concurred in.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

(Motion agreed to)

When shall the bill be read a third time. By leave, now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

moved that the bill be read a third time and passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate in support of Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act.

The bill would ensure the mental disorder regime under part XX.1 of the Criminal Code, which deals with persons found not criminally responsible, NCR, for their actions, would be mindful and responsive of the needs of victims. In my view, Bill C-54 would indeed reflect the voices of victims from across the country.

During the review of the bill, the Standing Committee for Justice and Human Rights received important submissions from several victims. In my remarks, I will be reviewing and reflecting on these submissions.

While the committee hearings demonstrated that victims had diverse perspectives about the NCR regime and even Bill C-54 itself, it was equally clear that the bill would address key concerns of victims and would include public safety, victim participation and the overall confidence and the administration of justice, while also respecting the rights of NCR accused.

On June 3, the justice committee heard from two victims who had lost loved ones due to tragic circumstances involving an NCR accused. These two brave women travelled to Ottawa to share their stories with the committee. They had experienced first hand the current way in which victims were dealt with following an NCR verdict and agreed that changes were necessary for the system.

One explained how members of the family had an encounter with the NRC accused who was involved in their case while out shopping in the community. She explained how this encounter had impacted her family and how the provisions of Bill C-54, with regard to the involvement and notification of victims, would go a long way in helping the victims.

Needless to say, she supported Bill C-54.

One of the core victim protections contained in the bill, the availability of no-contact orders, would help ensure that families like hers would have increased confidence in their safety as NCR accused were reintegrated into the community. No-contact orders, as proposed in clause 10 of the bill, can be imposed by either a court or a review board if it is desirable in the interests of security or safety of persons including victims.

These orders would prohibit an NCR accused from communicating directly, or indirectly, with victims or from going to specific places in the order, such as within the vicinity of the victim's residence. This is a targeted and important measure that should be supported.

The second victim who appeared at committee also expressed support for Bill C-54. She was very concerned that victims simply did not have enough information provided to them about the NCR accused, especially if the accused was released from secure custody.

In addition, she highlighted the importance of protecting the safety of the public through the NCR regime. She noted that while it was true that NCR accused were not criminals, in some cases, NCR accused did commit violent acts. There needs to be adequate safeguards in place to ensure that victims like her and her family, as well as the general public, are protected from such persons.

The availability of the “high-risk” designation in Bill C-54 would respond to this concern. Clause 12 of the bill proposes that where the court is satisfied there is a substantial likelihood that the accused will use violence that can endanger the life or safety of another person or where the court is of the opinion that the act constitutes the offence of such brutal nature as to indicate the risk of grave physical or psychological harm to another person, the court may designate an NCR accused as high risk.

The designation would increase the safeguards on that person to both ensure protection of the public safety and to ensure that the person would obtain the treatment that he or she would require to no longer present a threat to society. If treatment were successful and the risk was no longer present, Bill C-54 would require that designation be removed.

This provision is an appropriate response to address the concerns of these victims and will help ensure that the small number of NCR accused who pose such a high risk to the public safety will be subject to the appropriate and necessary restrictions on his or her liberty in order to protect the public.

I believe Bill C-54 maintains the crucial distinction between persons who are morally culpable for their conduct and found guilty and persons found NCR whose illness at the time of the offence rendered them incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of their actions or of knowing what they were doing was wrong.

The government also acknowledges that while providing mental health services generally falls within provincial and not federal jurisdiction, the government has taken concrete measures in this area. For example, it has increased transfer payments to these levels of government, through the Canada health and social transfer, and also has supported the creation of the Mental Health Commission of Canada to help combat the stigma of mental illness.

At its June 10 meeting, the justice committee had the opportunity to hear from more victims. One victim, speaking on behalf of her cousin, shared the heartbreaking story of her family's loss. No doubt, it was very difficult for her to make this presentation and one that was difficult for committee members to listen to.

But her insights were invaluable. She emphasized that the current process of annual review hearings of an NCR accused disposition has had the effect of re-victimizing her family. In particular, the annual review hearing process for assessing the disposition of an NCR accused, at least in serious cases such as her family's where the underlying act was the killing of three children, has made it more difficult to heal. Every time her cousin, the mother of those children, begins to make some progress a yearly review comes up. In her particular case, the month of review is also the anniversary of the tragedy. This particular example illustrates why Bill C-54's victim-related reforms to the NCR regime in the Criminal Code are necessary.

Clause 15 of Bill C-54 aims to address the concern raised by this victim by empowering review boards to extend the time for holding a hearing in respect of a high-risk NCR accused to up to 36 months if the review board is satisfied that the person's condition is not likely to improve and the detention remains necessary for that time period.

This longer review period may also be imposed with the consent of all parties, including the NCR accused. This measure respects the rights of the NCR accused as it would continue to be based on an individualized assessment of treatment, progress and circumstances. However, it would also allow, in appropriate cases, for review periods to better align with realistic medical expectations regarding a particular NCR accused and in so doing, reduces the burden on victims.

This proposal would also respond to the concerns of the final victim who appeared before justice committee on June 10. He described his frustrations with the NCR progress. Bill C-54 would increase the flexibility and discretion for review boards in determining the appropriate review period for high-risk accused. This should help put victims at greater ease that painful hearings would be held at sufficient intervals to ensure that they are meaningful and enough time has elapsed to ensure how a high-risk accused has responded to treatment received in forensic care.

Also on June 10 the committee was able to hear from a victim via teleconference. This victim explained how his brother and his brother's spouse were killed by a person who was later found to be NCR. The victim explained how after the incident he was not informed of key information about the process and the disposition of the NCR accused. This lack of information added to his feeling of powerlessness and victimization.

While every victim is different and not all want to be involved in subsequent proceedings, for this person it was very important to his healing that he be afforded the chance to learn about and participate in the process. He also expressed how not knowing when the NCR accused was released caused his family, and particularly his parents, to feel unsafe. As I mentioned earlier in my remarks, the no-contact provision proposed by Bill C-54 would help families such as these victims to feel safer.

More than that though, Bill C-54 would also enhance the quality of the information provided to victims and ensure that they would be able to properly observe and participate in proceedings following an NCR verdict. For example, Bill C-54 would make it mandatory for courts and review boards to inform victims of their right to make a victim impact statement before an initial disposition is made or if a high-risk NCR accused designation is referred to a court for review.

Bill C-54 would also require, at the victim's request, that victims receive a notice of discharge from the review board if the NCR accused receives an absolute or conditional discharge.

By strengthening the information and participation rights of victims, Bill C-54 would go a long way toward addressing the concerns that were raised at the justice and human rights committee.

Also on June 10, a further victim addressed justice committee and shared with members the devastation caused to her family by the death of her stepfather after he was killed by a person found NCR. She expressed unqualified support for Bill C-54. In her view, public safety has to be more clearly set out as a central value in the legislation that deals with NCR accused. She expressed concern and fear for her family and the families of others in the future, particularly if the NCR accused involved in her matter were allowed to be released on unescorted passes into the community. For this victim, public safety must be the paramount consideration in the mental disorder regime.

To respond to concerns of Canadians like the victims I just referred to, Bill C-54 would clarify that public safety is the paramount consideration in determining the appropriate disposition for an NCR accused.

In addition, Bill C-54 would help make the law more accessible and easier to apply. It would introduce the phrase “necessary and appropriate” to describe the permissible restrictions on an NCR accused that may be imposed in order to protect the public safety. This proposal would maintain the existing test provided by the Supreme Court of Canada, but would simplify its articulation and thereby more clearly signal to all Canadians, including victims, that in carrying out their work, review boards must give due consideration to public safety and security.

Also, Bill C-54 would explicitly specify that when review boards assess whether a given NCR accused is a significant threat to the safety of the public that they are to consider any risk posed by that person of serious physical or psychological harm to victims, witnesses and persons under the age of 18, as well as other members of the general public. This proposal speaks directly to the concern we have heard from several victims. Bill C-54 would thus increase confidence in the NCR regime and in the administration of justice more generally.

In addition to individual victims, on June 10, the committee also had the opportunity to hear from l’Association des Familles de Personnes Assassinées ou Disparues, which in English is the Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared. It is referred to as AFPAD. It is a victims organization that since 2004 has advocated for families who have survived horrible tragedies. AFPAD supports Bill C-54. It noted that while primary prevention is important in cases involving persons found NCR, secondary prevention must also be meaningfully addressed. Secondary prevention, in this context, means taking reasonable steps to ensure that a person who has been found NCR is not able to commit another serious crime. Bill C-54 would ensure that NCR accused receive the care they require so their illness no longer renders them a threat to society.

I have also addressed several aspects of the bill that would respond to AFPAD and to other concerned victims in this regard. Let me also point out that Bill C-54 maintains important judicial oversight. For example, the proposed high-risk designation can only be imposed by a court and can only be removed by a court acting on the recommendation of a review board. This is important because such judicial oversight would ensure that a high-risk designation is only used in appropriate circumstances, which makes it a proportional and reasonable measure. In addition, Bill C-54 would also empower judges who are experienced in assessing competing rights and interests to carefully balance the liberty of the high-risk NCR accused against the need for public safety. While the review board's recommendation would likely carry a lot of weight in hearings to change or remove a high-risk designation, Bill C-54's proposed scheme of allowing for additional judicial scrutiny of these designations would help preserve the public interest and confidence in the NCR regime overall. Victims and Canadians would demand no less of important decisions that can have severe impacts on public safety and the liberty of the NCR accused.

On June 12, the final day of the justice committee hearings on this bill, members had the opportunity to hear from more courageous victims who stepped forward to share their stories with us. One victim mentioned his experience with review board hearings. He noted that he has had no standing at all at these hearings and that the crown attorney has even been lectured to by the review board for raising the issue of victim safety. Bill C-54's proposed new guidance to review boards, which I referred to earlier in my remarks on the need to take victim safety into specific consideration, would arguably help change the culture of the review boards so they are more receptive to this evidence in future.

That individual also supported the high-risk designation in Bill C-54 overall, noting that each NCR case is unique and that the law must contain the necessary tools to allow review boards and courts to tailor their responses to meet the needs of diverse situations. By adding new tools like the high-risk designation into the mental disorder part of the Criminal Code, Bill C-54 would respond to these concerns.

On June 12, the committee also heard from another victim who raised the common concern that under existing law her participation rights were severely limited. The victim noted that, even though it is very painful reading and presenting victim impact statements, it is critical because it ensures that a victim's voice and perspective are not forgotten by review boards. Without these perspectives, review boards may not make the most appropriate decision in the circumstances, and public confidence in the whole NOR regime could suffer. I mentioned earlier that, if Bill C-54 is enacted, victims would have increased rights to give victim impact statements and to ensure that interests would be taken into account by review boards. This government is listening to victims.

In addition to hearing from victims, on June 12 the justice committee also heard from victims' advocates from such groups the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, which this government established in 2007 to ensure that victims of crime had a voice at the federal level. The Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime was also represented. Both of these groups supported Bill C-54. The ombudsman's office representative acknowledged that Bill C-54 reflected victims' concerns regarding their safety as well as a desire for increased notification and participation. Bill C-54 would provide review boards and courts with new tools to make public safety the paramount consideration.

While no individual bill can completely solve all the challenges faced by the courts, review boards, experts and victims, it could make the needed improvements to properly balance public safety and the liberties of the NCR accused. In my view, Bill C-54 would do just that.

At the justice committee, we had the privilege of hearing diverse perspectives from victims and their advocates. These individuals did not come to Parliament to seek the spotlight, and even appearing before the committee in such a public forum would have necessarily involved a degree of hardship. Rather, the witnesses appeared to share their stories to help us as lawmakers to produce a better NCR system for Canadians. I cannot overemphasize how the experiences of these persons plays a valuable role in forming our debates and decisions of this House. By carefully listening to victims, the government has crafted a bill that would be constitutionally sound and would not detract from the rights of the NCR accused, and yet also would manage to improve victim notification, involvement and protection in the context of the NCR regime. This is a worthwhile initiative that deserves the support of this House.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member referred to Darcie Clarke who lives in my riding. She was the victim who lost her three children to her husband at the time, Allan Schoenborn. That was a very public case, and I understand this legislation would address some of the problems associated with the Schoenborn case; obviously not all but it would be a move in the right direction.

I know there are certain groups across the country that have expressed their concerns with this legislation. In fact, we had made some suggestions at the committee, but overall Bill C-54 would improve the circumstances for victims.

Once the “high risk” designation is assessed, I understand the judge has discretion for providing a term of up to three years before the review is deemed necessary. Could the member comment on that time frame, how that works and where it could be one year, which is what I understand it is now, and where three years may be appropriate?

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

Mr. Speaker, the designation of “high risk” could impose a period where there would be no review for up to three years. Under the current system it is reviewed annually. However, when the “high risk” designation is put into place, first the Crown bears the burden of proving that such a designation should be put in place, in other words that the person is an additional risk to society, and we know that the number of people who would probably fit into this category is very few and far between.

However, what is assessed is also how much time it would take for the person to be treated. Medical and psychological evidence are considered in determining the length of time it would take to treat the person. If it is longer than one year, it could be up to three years. Forensic treatment is put into place to treat the person and reassessed if he or she can be reintegrated into society. It would be discretionary and based on hard evidence of experts.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, not only for his leadership on the committee as parliamentary secretaryparliamentary secretary, but also for the collegiality he has shown in welcoming me to the committee.

We have studied the bill, and I can say that in the seven years I have spent as a member of Parliament, I have never heard more gut-wrenching testimony from witnesses than I have from the victims who appeared before the committee. The victims, virtually unanimously, want the changes.

The defence lawyers association, the bar association and so on have some concerns. One of their concerns is that because of the changes we are proposing, defence lawyers will be advising their clients to go through the criminal path, which could see terms of 25 years' imprisonment to life, for certain offences, in order to avoid the stigma of having a three-year review through the not criminally responsible path.

I do not think that argument holds weight. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could share his views as to whether that would seem to be a lucid or rational argument from the other side.

[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.

[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

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's very pertinent speech.

She raised some points that deserve further attention. The bill clearly has flaws, and it can be improved.

She mentioned a number of times that the existing resources for victims are insufficient. In its day, the Liberal government made massive cuts to social services.

Does she feel that there is a lot of catching up to do because of those Liberal Party cuts to social services? It is quite obvious that the Conservative government bought into the Liberal Party's ideas and has simply cut, cut, cut. Now we are left with good intentions but very few resources to implement them.

Does she feel that the Liberal Party made a serious mistake in the 1990s by cutting as much as it did?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that even with something as very serious and as heart-rending as this bill is trying to address, the hon. member from the New Democratic Party would try to score cheap political points on the backs of people's pain. That is unacceptable.

The bottom line is that the past system was working quite well, with a need for certain changes. In fact, if members were to read The Globe and Mail, they would read that the Rt. Hon. Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin said that she thought the system was working quite well with regard to this problem.

What we were talking about was looking at the needs that we could now address. The former minister of justice, my colleague from Mount Royal, brought forward a bill that everybody in the House supported because it was broadly based, it had consulted and it was not a partisan bill. It was a bill that sought to get the right things done in the House.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member particularly in the way she was able to tie her passion tonight with her first speech in the House for a while.

As a lawyer, I am disappointed by her remarks and by the Canadian Bar Association's position on this because there really are a number of people clouding the issue here. This is not about moral blameworthiness. These people are not criminally responsible for a reason.

The bill would specifically address the re-release or the review of these people who were deemed to be in this high risk class and would really rebalance the equilibrium. Our justice system is built on pillars, whether it is sentencing or throughout rehabilitation and deterrents, punishment in some cases, but in rehabilitation and public safety. The very courts that will accept an offender as not criminally responsible are certainly equipped to then reassess, and that is what this bill would do.

Why does the member not trust the same courts that will allow somebody to avoid some of the criminal sanctions due to mental illness and, at the same time, not recognize those same courts in the process for parole?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member speaks of his expertise as a lawyer. I am not a lawyer, but I will speak of my expertise as a physician.

This bill will harm people who are mentally ill. I have had many mentally ill patients. As an MP, I deal with people in my community who are mentally ill, and they are terrified that anybody would know they are because of the prejudices of various systems against people who are mentally ill.

If we can have early diagnosis before people commit violent crimes, when they become mentally ill and they have the NCR, we are suggesting that the bill is not putting that in place. There is a lot of work being done in Dalhousie and across the country on the effects of early diagnosis.

We are talking about of legislation can put into place good public policy. Legislation is not just a piece of paper.

The important thing to remember is that the recidivism rate is low. If we keep people in an institution for longer than they need, we run the huge risk of creating violence and problems within that system. We heard from Dr. Simpson on this issue.

Why do we not want to listen to the physicians and the mental health advocates who are speaking to this issue and only wanting to look at it through one small, narrow lens? I do not understand it at all.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour this evening to speak to Bill C-54. It is also my honour to be the chair of the justice committee, which has recently dealt with the discussion on this piece of legislation.

I want to thank the committee for its work. We had extended hours. We invited a number of witnesses from all sides of the debate on this particular issue. The committee worked very well together and very hard at hearing everyone out. We had a number of interruptions with bells and a number of other votes that happened within, but we were able to get through the presentations in a very respectful way as a committee. We heard from all sides, whether they were victims, victims' family members, those representing the mental health side of the equation, such as associations, legal opinion and health care workers in the mental health area. It was a very good discussion.

I also want to thank our clerk, Jean-François Pagé, who did a fabulous job on very short notice, making arrangements for very balanced panels for us to see. Also, the analysts and the legislative clerks helped us.

I also want to thank the leader of the Green Party who joined us at committee with a number of amendments. It does not happen that often. It is some sort of a new process for committees to have independents sit at the table with us when we go through legislation and contribute to the discussion on amendments that they bring forward. I appreciate that.

I do appreciate the professionalism of the committee in dealing with a number of amendments. I believe there were 52 or 54 amendments in front of us. We did accept amendments. One came from the government side, one from the New Democratic side and one from a Liberal member. They were accepted and in fact there was some crossover between the two opposition parties.

Let me take just a few minutes to review exactly what Bill C-54 actually would do. There is lots of rhetoric about what the bill would do; we heard some of it this evening. I want to be as factual, as clear and as precise as possible on the changes to the NCR regime that now exists. These would be amendments to an existing not criminally responsible regime, which we think are needed to make our system better. It is not to change, to stigmatize, as we have heard from others tonight. It is actually to improve the justice system.

There is nothing wrong with improvements to the justice system. There is nothing wrong with improvements to any system. That is why we are here as legislators. We look at what is happening. We see what is actually happening on the ground after we make laws. Sometimes we do not get it completely right. Sometimes, over time, things change and we need to make changes. That is all we would be doing. We would be making some amendments to this to deal with a few high-risk accused situations.

Bill C-54 would create a new application process to obtain a finding from a court that an NCR accused is a high-risk accused. The high-risk accused finding would result in the disposition requiring detention of the accused in a hospital until the court revokes the findings.

Let us be clear about this. There is an NCR regime at present. A court can find someone not criminally responsible at present, or NCR. They do not go to jail. That is what NCR is about. They need help. They have a mental issue through no fault of their own. Based on the evidence that is provided, a court can make a judgment that this individual is not criminally responsible for the actions he or she has taken. Some of them can be very horrific, some at a different level, but it is still their mental capacity that has been the issue.

Do they go to jail? What the previous speaker said, that the system would send them back to sort of rot in jail longer, is not the case. In the present regime, someone who is designated NCR gets help. He or she gets hospitalized, basically.

At present, there is a review board to see how they have done. It is an annual review. The victims would have to come and listen to the progress the individual has made, and a review board would decide whether the individual needs to continue treatment. It is not punishment, it is treatment.

All we are doing is, first, saying that in some very specific situations, some NCR-designated individuals are of high risk, both to themselves and to the public. We are defining a different and added category in this piece of legislation. Would it apply to everyone who is designated NCR? Absolutely not. That is not what it is designed for. That is not how we expect it to be used. There was some discussion about a burden on the courts system. That would not be a result. There would be very few cases in Canada annually. In fact, I hope it would never be used, to be honest. It would be great if the high-risk designation in NCR were never required. However, it may be required and we need to have the legislation in place to provide that designation for a court to determine.

The application would have been made by the prosecutor before an absolute discharge could be ordered. That means that the government prosecution would have to decide whether someone really is high risk, so there is a burden of proof in terms of whether the individual is high risk before a prosecutor could bring it forward.

The high-risk accused finding would only be available in cases involving serious personal injury offences that resulted in a verdict of NCR. Therefore, they need to know that the person has been found NCR already. As well, it is what we call an “incident”, not a crime that leads to jail, because these people need hospitalization. The incident would have to be an offence that involved serious personal injury and the accused would be 18 years of age or more. Therefore, it would not be used for children or young offenders, it would be for adults. We need to ensure that everybody understands that.

To determine a finding of high-risk accused, the court would have to be satisfied that there is a substantial likelihood that the accused would use violence that could endanger the life or safety of the public. The safety of the public would become paramount in this high-risk category. I would suggest that also safety of oneself would also have some consideration. At committee, we did hear it stated that, based upon actual court cases in the past, public safety is a priority. All this legislation would do is codify that and put it in the legislation, not just by jurisprudence of what has happened in different court cases.

The court could also make the high-risk accused finding if it were of the opinion that the acts that constitute the offence were of such a brutal nature they would indicate a grave risk of harm to another person. Therefore, an individual is found NCR and based on the evidence the court has determined that the individual needs hospitalization and needs help with the mental illness that has caused this serious offence. It is not just any serious offence, but one of a brutal nature that would cause the court to look at whether the high-risk category should apply. The court would consider all relevant evidence, including the nature and the circumstances of the offence, any relevant pattern of repetitive behaviour, the accused's current mental condition, the past and expected course of treatment and the accused's willingness to follow treatment, as well as expert opinions.

We heard in the last speech about the committee not accepting the amendment on medical experts. Based upon the input we got on that amendment, we had a full discussion on that amendment. Experts from the ministry of justice were there. They indicated that by putting medical experts as an amendment it may limit who we could ask on this and that not everyone who may have expertise on determining some of these criteria would be a licensed medical individual. There could be others involved, from a social services point of view, from other areas, who would be able to help in determining some of these circumstances and the nature of the offence, the pattern or premise, who may not have a medical designation. That is why we wanted to leave it open, so that all expert opinions could be sought. They would still have to be experts. We would not just be asking anyone.

If the court makes the high-risk accused finding, a disposition requiring detention of the accused in a hospital must be made. I think that is an important thing to indicate.

We are not talking about removing the hospitalization aspects and sending people to jail because they are high risk. It is determining that they go to a hospital that would handle their NCR issue if the offence were brutal in nature and that there were a high risk it may reoccur or that they could hurt themselves, so it is still a hospitalization. This does not remove that aspect of NCR and send them to jail but give them help.

No conditions permitting absences from the hospital would be authorized unless a structured plan was prepared to address the risk to the public, and only with an authorized escort.

If we were to go down my street in Burlington, Tuck Drive, and told people that, at present, somebody who has committed a brutal offence and has been found NCR, within the year, without a structured plan, would be able to go on an unescorted release, I would say the people on my street would be shocked that is what the law is at present.

All this is saying is that for those who are found NCR and then high risk, there would be a structured plan to address the public aspects and authorized escorted release. That is not saying they would not get to go out in public. We would try to help them with their plan to be reintegrated, but not on their own at that particular time as a high-risk NCR individual. They would have to be escorted so we could review what they were doing.

I think that is common sense. I do not think the public would be upset that those escorted absences were only a decision-making process and could impose a non-communication, non-attendance condition in order to ensure their own safety.

It just makes sense to me that we would have that ability, that condition in this bill, and it is surprising that it does not exist at present.

I want to talk briefly about what the bill does not do. Bill C-54 does not seek to punish individuals who have been found by the courts to be not criminally responsible on account of their mental disorder. It is not jail time. We want to make sure that is there.

I can tell members the witnesses we heard from were all excellent witnesses. They all brought an expertise to the table, whether a victim or an individual representing the legal field or the mental health field. However, when questioned on the specifics of the wording of the bill, of the different clauses, it was interesting to see that this is what they thought could happen but it was not actually the wording of the bill.

Nothing in Bill C-54 would affect the access of mentally disordered accused persons to mental health treatment. There is no prohibition to their getting help. With this bill, accused persons would still be NCR. They would get a high-risk designation and they would still be hospitalized. The government would be there to help them overcome the mental illness that caused the serious and brutal actions to take place. The government wants them to get better and to be integrated back into society. We have a responsibility as a government to make sure that high-risk individuals get the treatment they need.

Bill C-54 does not seek to stigmatize the mentally ill. The bill does not suggest that mentally ill people commit crimes or are dangerous. The bill does not say that. People came to see me in my office. I agree that the messaging from all of us here is that the support in this bill does not suggest that we are stigmatizing mental illness.

We know people need help. We know that happens. As a government, we put together the mental health strategy, and the high-risk category does not apply to everyone who has a mental illness. It would apply to very few individuals. The new high-risk NCR accused finding does not create the presumption of dangerousness. Rather, it focuses on a relatively small group of NCR accused persons who qualify for the high-risk finding.

The other item that is important to understand is twofold. One, the review board still exists and the review board is still required to provide information on how individuals are progressing through their treatment. The review board change is simple. Right now it is every year that victims attend to hear how the perpetrators are doing. They are re-victimized over and over again. The bill would make it up to every three years. We are adding two years. The review board could make a decision of up to three years.

The only other major change, which was highlighted by a question from my colleague in the Conservatives, is that a judge would determine whether a person is high risk. I have faith in the court system, and if that happens, a judge would decide, based on the evidence, including the review board evidence, whether individuals have accomplished what they needed to do in that high-risk designation, at which point the NCR designation can be removed and people can be reintegrated into society.

Those are two of the changes. If a judge determines that someone is high risk and NCR, that judge has the ability, the authority and the responsibility to determine when those designations will be removed.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

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

I agree with many of the things he has said tonight, but I would like to ask him a question about costs.

How much does he think this bill will cost, more or less? I am talking about costs that will be passed on to the provinces, for example.

If he thinks there will be some cost to this, how high will it be, approximately? What resources does he intend to make available to those who will be paying for it?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to be at the committee that she chairs. She does an excellent job as chair. I wanted to point that out.

I am guessing that there will be some costs. If it is a provincial court, the provincial court will bear those costs. If it is Federal Court, we will bear those costs. For the small number of people who I think will be designated high-risk NCR, I think the Canadian public would be more than willing to spend a few of their hard-earned tax dollars to make sure that the public is safe. There is a sense of safety in designating someone as high-risk NCR.

This is not about dollars and cents. This is about the security of mentally ill individuals, the public and the community, and rightly so. I did not even get to this part of the bill, but there is a section on protecting victims from being re-victimized. I do not think it is a tax issue. It is something that we need to do, something that this bill would do, and it is long overdue.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that was not a bad speech for such a late hour. The member spoke on the bill and the justification for the bill, which was commendable.

One of the areas the member started to speak about is what the bill does not do. Some of the mental health experts who came before the committee said that prevention is the key and that if we could diagnose people who suffer from mental illness at an early stage, it would help.

Would investing more money in trying to prevent these crimes perhaps be the best way to protect victims, by stopping the crime from ever happening?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree 100%.

If we could legislate away mental illness, I would do it tonight. I would probably get unanimous consent to do it, and we would do it.

However, it is not possible, and we do have to have a balanced approach on all topics, including mental health, crime and other health issues. If I could legislate away cancer, I would do that also by unanimous consent. I cannot do it. It does not happen. It will not work.

We have to have a balanced approach. Part of the balance in our view is, through Bill C-54, to make sure we have appropriate mental health help for those who have committed serious personal and brutal offences. In Bill C-54, we need to find a balance to help victims with the issues they are now going to face as victims of these mental health offences.

It is a balancing act. This is not the complete answer. I do understand that there are two sides to it. We have been investing in prevention as a government and we will continue to invest, but we also have to help those who have already committed those offences.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, in July 2008, just outside of Portage la Prairie, Tim McLean was brutally murdered on a bus by Vince Li, who was later deemed not criminally responsible.

As members can imagine, this is something that is very important in my riding of Portage—Lisgar and in the province of Manitoba, as well as for Canadians across the country.

I want to ask my hon. colleague if he could talk a little about what this bill would do for victims and for their families. I am thinking of Tim's mom, Carol de Delley, who I have talked to many times. She has worked tirelessly. She is not only dealing with her horrendous grief, which never ends, for what her son had to endure and how her son died, but is also going through all of the fallout from it, with Vince Li going through different appeal processes and now being given passes.

I wonder if my colleague could talk very specifically about victims, and how this bill can help support them while not assigning blame to somebody who has been deemed not criminally responsible.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things in this legislation for victims, including one of the amendments that was brought forward by the New Democratic Party, which we unanimously accepted.

The amendment included a notification, if a victim asked to be notified, of where someone with a high-risk NCR designation would be living afterwards.

There is notification of when that discharge would happen. There are non-communication changes so that victims do not have to run into or have communication with someone who has a high-risk designation. We are ensuring the safety of victims.

One area I heard mentioned over and over again as I was chairing the justice committee was the review board. Every year victims go and listen to the review board's recommendations. They listen to the discussion and the evidence. They have to relive their victimization. They have to relive the serious offence that happened to them or their family.

This legislation allows for a longer-term period of healing for those victimized families.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to rise to thank the hon. member for Burlington again for the very collegial way in which he navigated the committee hearings on the bill, and also for the fact that, rather unusually, two opposition amendments were accepted. Again, I thank the member for allowing me to speak at the committee.

I still, as members may imagine, have grave concerns about the direction of this bill, and I would like to ask the hon. member for Burlington a question.

Does he have any theories as to why it was that a bill of this importance, dealing with the not criminally responsible regime, was brought to the floor of the House and developed by the Department of Justice without any consultation at all with the not criminally responsible review boards?

Mr. Schneider, who testified last week to this issue, said that the review boards were not consulted at all. I think this may be a case of the Conservative administration thinking that if something is not broken, it is going to fix it until it is.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for attending those meetings and for bringing forward amendments. I also thank her for her professionalism at committee.

The fact is that the minister came to committee and talked about consultation. There was consultation across this country with every provincial government of every stripe, and the discussion was that we needed to move forward on this high-risk designation.

We as a Conservative government like to take action. We like to move forward. We like to make decisions on what we should be doing and address whatever problem comes to our attention. In this case, there have been a number of issues across this country with respect to those who have been found NCR committing brutal, serious, personal criminal offences. We consulted with the provinces and with those in the business of prosecuting those offences. We asked what solutions they would like to see come forward in terms of changes to the legislation. Consultation was done, as the minister put forward, and that is why this bill is here today. We heard over and over again from victims at committee that we should pass this legislation as soon as possible.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise before the House for the second time this evening, this time, to speak to Bill C-54.

Bill C-54 is important. It is the latest bill on the Conservative government's crime agenda. Based on the controversial example of Dr. Guy Turcotte in Quebec, the government thinks it is better to impose its ideological measures.

The profound, collective feeling of injustice triggered by the murder of his two children was a completely normal, healthy reaction. Indeed, he made us question the essence of justice and the future of our society and prompted us to ask other important questions of that sort. As parliamentarians, it is our duty to ask whether such a case, which fortunately, is very unusual, requires us to question where the justice system is going.

I would like to quote a senator who was talking about one of her bills dealing with this issue. I think this quotation is quite relevant:

Even though there may be the odd case that concerns us all, Canada has recognized mental health experts and a proven judicial system. Anger and pain should not dictate our courts. Nor should they dictate our laws. It is a mistake to go down this path because instead of building a peaceful society we would create an unstable, harder, less tolerant one. We would fall into a vicious cycle of repression and violence, precisely into which the [Prime Minister's] Conservatives—and Senator Boisvenu—seek to lead us....We are talking about sick people. Punishment will not cure them. Prison does not cure.

That was Senator Hervieux-Payette, and those were her words regarding her own Bill S-214. I am quite certain that she will not mind if I draw a parallel with the current situation.

Is the government outraged that I would dare claim that it is playing politics at the expense of victims? The government is constantly accusing the opposition of siding with pedophiles, murderers and other criminals of that ilk, so I would simply like to try a little experiment.

The government has made several public statements on this bill, as did Senator Boisvenu and the mother of the two murdered children, Isabelle Gaston, whose state of mind I cannot even begin to imagine. The following is an excerpt of the statements of Senator Boisvenu and the Minister of Canadian Heritage at the announcement of Guy Turcotte's release on parole:

We believe that Isabelle Gaston doesn't deserve to live in fear of her children's killer, and neither do other victims...

Such decision is clearly undermining Canadians’ confidence in our justice system.

That's why our Government will shortly introduce legislation to address Canadians’ concerns about high-risk accused persons found Not Criminally Responsible on account of mental disorder who may pose a threat to public safety if released.

Well, if the government is not engaging in petty politics, and if the bill does not apply in any way to Dr. Turcotte's case, why are the Conservatives promoting the bill by using an emotionally charged and high-profile case involving children?

It smacks of demagogy and is very dangerous when the government plays with Canadians’ feelings and keeps them in the dark. The Conservatives know full well that this legislation will give the government an opportunity to capitalize on Canadians’ empathy for Ms. Gaston, while at the same time never clearly pubically admitting that the legislation cannot, and will never, apply to Ms. Gaston even if Mr. Turcotte were to face a second trial. Moreover, when Ms. Gaston was questioned on a Quebec public affairs television program, she admitted to being unaware whether the legislation would even apply in her situation. To quote Ms. Gaston “As far as I am concerned, I do not know, it is perhaps too early to get a sense of whether it will have an impact on my situation—the process is ongoing.”

This proves that all Ms. Gaston really wants is for things to change, and for her children not to have died in vain, which is entirely admirable. However, I seriously doubt that a more rigid position and the criminalization of mental illness will resolve the problem.

I use the word criminalization because, in truth, government members do not really believe in rehabilitation—we realized this when Bill C-10 was adopted. After listening to Senator Boisvenu, the jury is out as to whether he even believes that people genuinely suffer from psychological distress or severe mental illness.

In fact, the senator even wants the government to review the definitions of a number of mental illnesses whereby individuals may be found not criminally responsible.

Why? Simply because Mr. Boisvenu does not think that the incidence of mental illness could have increased so significantly over the past 10 or 15 years.

Why did the number of people found not criminally responsible increase twenty times? I do not think that the incidence of mental illness has increased at such a rate over the past 10 or 15 years. We must find out why there has been such a drastic increase in the number of these cases.

My colleague, the member for Gatineau, our justice critic, explained this during her opening speech. She said:

It is true that the percentage has risen over the years. However, and this is what it does not say, before 1991, if I recall correctly, when the amendment was made to the Criminal Code, the term was changed from “not guilty by reason of insanity” to “not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder”. At that point, summary conviction offences were also added, and this resulted in a lot of cases that had not been covered previously. Obviously that had an impact on the statistics. According to the government's responses, we are talking about a tiny percentage of cases where the individuals were found to be not criminally responsible.

To what point are mentally ill offenders dangerous?

This question was at the heart of an extensive study the Canadian government's Department of Public Safety conducted at the end of the 1990s. It recorded and analyzed more than 60 studies on this subject to properly identify the problems.

These studies looked at more than 15,000 offenders who had been released from prison or specialized hospitals and who were followed in their communities for a period of four to five-and-a-half years, on average. What were the findings?

When compared to offenders who do not have major psychological or psychiatric disorders, mentally disordered offenders are less likely to recidivate violently.

Second, mentally disordered offenders are not always actively psychotic. They may be in remission or their symptoms are being managed by medication.

The study also evaluated the relative importance of different risk factors. Many mental health professionals place considerable emphasis on “clinical” variables. Examples are length of hospitalization and type of mental disorder (e.g., schizophrenia, manic-depression). The meta-analysis found that these variables demonstrate very weak associations with violent re-offending. Much more potent predictors of violent recidivism are the factors typically found to predict violence among non-disordered offenders. Examples of these risk factors are criminal history, unemployment and family problems.

When the Minister of Justice said in his opening speech on second reading that the objective of the proposed reforms was not to impose criminal penalties on individuals found by a court to be not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, that was only half true, in fact.

In reality, Bill C-54 will divide the clientele into two types of cases: those who meet the criteria in Bill C-54 and those who do not meet those criteria, even though they have all been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. This means that accused persons whose cases meet the criteria and who are found to be high-risk accused could be held in custody with no possibility of release by the review board as long as the court has not revoked the finding.

Why place people who are not criminally responsible outside the jurisdiction of the review boards that deal with mental disorders, quasi-judicial tribunals that are composed of psychiatrists, not judges? Only a court could find an accused to be “high-risk” and then revoke that finding, at present. Before revoking it, the court would seek the recommendation of the mental disorder review board, but the final decision would no longer be the board’s.

In Quebec, the mental disorder review board makes decisions concerning individuals who have been found unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

As long as the accused is not discharged unconditionally or found fit to stand trial, a review must be held each year. With Bill C-54, that time will be extended to three years, and this could cause a number of problems, according to the experts with the Canadian Forensic Mental Health Network. It would prompt defence counsel to stop pleading not criminally responsible and opt for custodial prison sentences in the traditional prison system. In addition, individuals found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder would not receive proper care, but they would still present a danger when they were released.

The study I referred to earlier also found that the similarities between risk factors for offenders with mental disorders and other offenders suggest that there is a point at which health care services and the criminal justice system could integrate their approaches in order to effectively manage offenders with mental disorders.

There are two specific areas where co-operation between the two systems is possible: risk assessment and rehabilitation of offenders. I am not citing that study to embarrass anyone, but simply to try to make the government members understand the consequences of deinstitutionalization, poverty and the criminalization of mental health problems. Prison does not cure people.

This bill, like so many others, was drafted without much thought to the consequences and without consultation, in order to make the public, and particularly the Conservative base, believe that this government is tough on crime. In reality, this bill would probably not apply to the case of Guy Turcotte.

Clause 12 of Bill C-54 adds a new section to the Criminal Code, section 672.64, which lists the conditions that must be met in order for a person to be considered high-risk:

672.64 (1) On application made by the prosecutor before any disposition to discharge an accused absolutely, the court may, at the conclusion of a hearing, find the accused to be a high-risk accused if the accused has been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for a serious personal injury offence, as defined in subsection 672.81(1.3), the accused was 18 years of age or more at the time of the commission of the offence and

(a) the court is satisfied that there is a substantial likelihood that the accused will use violence that could endanger the life or safety of another person; or

(b) the court is of the opinion that the acts that constitute the offence were of such a brutal nature as to indicate a risk of grave physical or psychological harm to another person.

For Guy Turcotte to be declared an assumed high-risk accused, the judge has to be convinced, beyond a doubt, that he would likely seriously harm another person or could endanger the life of another person. Everyone agrees that the murders were both brutal and grotesque. I, too, have children. However, that is not what justice must decide. Rather, it should focus on whether or not there is a chance the accused will reoffend.

Given the decision made, the experts were obviously able to convince the judge that this was not the case. I am going to outline the five criteria that the judge must take into consideration—and he must take all of them into consideration—when determining whether the individual is a high-risk accused.

He must consider the nature and circumstances of the offence, any pattern of repetitive behaviour of which the offence forms a part, the accused’s current mental condition, the past and expected course of the accused’s treatment, including the accused’s willingness to follow treatment, and the opinions of experts who have examined the accused. If one must take into consideration all these criteria, the Turcotte case does not at all fit, given the experts' opinions, his mental condition and the treatments and therapies that he is following.

The nature of the offence is the only criterion that might lead a judge to consider him dangerous. However, given his mental condition at the time, and based on what the judge took into consideration, the risk of reoffending is very low. According to the Conservatives' bill, Guy Turcotte would not be a high-risk accused.

The one thing I agree on is that victims should be at the centre of the process. The problem is that the bill says very little on this aspect.

In closing, I want to reiterate that the government must realize the importance of providing real support to victims of crime, including by following up on more than one recommendation of the report by the ombudsman for victims of crime. It must also understand the whole psychosocial structure surrounding prevention, the study of risk factors, research, health care and rehabilitation.

It is difficult because each case is unique, but experts have tools to try to have everyone make progress. Some are probably beyond redemption, but just like with the concept of high-risk accused or mental disorder, it is certainly not up to politicians, or even the legal profession to establish the foundations. It is up to psychiatrists and doctors.

While referring to the former cardiologist's case, the Minister of Canadian Heritage said that such decision obviously undermines Canadians' confidence in our justice system. However, the minister was not able to say how this desire to put victims at the centre of the process would translate into concrete measures.

That is another contradiction in the Conservatives' logic, and it is the reason why we presented a number of amendments in committee. In fact, one of those amendments was accepted, and it is one of the few that the Conservative government has accepted in any committee.

The amendment would inform victims, at their request, of the address of a person already found to be not criminally responsible for a crime so that the victim can avoid the area for his or her own well-being. It is one of the examples that showed that we do care about the victims. We want to improve this bill so that it reflects this concern.

One of the reasons why we will be supporting this bill is that we were able to have the Conservatives accept a second amendment that would require the government—no matter which party is in power in five years, that is in 2018—to have a committee study and re-examine the situation.

There are still many concerns about this bill, and I have pointed out a few of them. I think it is worthwhile examining them. There are other concerns that I did not have the time to address in my speech. They were brought up by experts, or in committee, and had to do with the possibility that this bill may be unconstitutional.

The validity of such measures is obviously based on the victims' rights, but also the rights of those deemed to be not criminally responsible for the acts committed. These laws must also be protected. In that sense, a contradiction could easily lead to interpretation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The committee was informed of concerns by the media. That is why, five years after the bill becomes law, such a study would be pertinent.

In my speech, I made sure that I talked about the danger of politicizing cases like the Guy Turcotte case. I am certain that other members could cite similar cases that have occurred in their riding or region. These cases are very delicate and they affect us.

I already mentioned that I have children. Anyone who has young children will be emotional about a situation like that. It is the reason why such a delicate and sensitive situation must be handled by parliamentarians in the same manner, that is in a delicate and sensitive manner. These types of cases must not be used to promote a political agenda.

The reference made by the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Senator Boisvenu to what I just mentioned was the second speech made on the same bill. It was announced twice. The government must be very careful, because this kind of issue is very volatile. Again, the politicization of these cases has muddied the waters for the collective debate we should be holding on this issue. This makes it much more difficult to find our way.

In the future, for law and order bills on crime, I would like the government to be much more sensitive to the reactions it causes and the way they interfere with the debate when similar bills are introduced.

On this side of the House, we showed we were willing to work with the government. We will do so by voting for this bill, among other things. In addition, we demonstrated our co-operation by proposing and expediting the passage of Bill C-2, which allows for the group prosecution of biker gangs.

We will continue to work on this issue, but we need the government's co-operation in order to have a healthy and useful debate for Canadians.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I found one of my hon. colleague's comments interesting. Maybe the member is not aware, so I would like to bring his to attention this. It was the discussion about medical experts and having them comment. The review panels at present are composed of three members, and one of them is a judge and not a medical expert. There was an amendment put forward that the committee did not accept because it would have limited the panel to medical experts only. However, the review panels already have judicial expertise on them.

Based on the presentation tonight, is the member recommending that those voices not be heard and that, for example, there would be changes to the review panels so they would consist of all medical experts and no longer have judicial representation on them?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if it is a question of interpretation, but that is not exactly what I said.

Everyone needs to be able to understand their role. Psychiatrists or doctors who specialize in the underlying issues need to be involved in the process. Judges and lawyers who understand the legal issues must also be involved.

It is not a question of excluding anyone. I think that each person needs to understand their role, and the legislation needs to provide a framework for each person's role so that those roles complement one another.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his speech, and I would like to assure the constituents in the riding of Rimouski that they are being well served by their MP here in the House.

The member has often mentioned the case of Guy Turcotte. I would like to quote his ex-wife, Isabelle Gaston, and then I would like to hear the member's comments:

Even if I devote my time to changing the justice system, if ministers, deputy ministers, the Barreau and the Collège des médecins do not change their ways, then injustices like this one will continue.

Can the member comment on that?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, that statement came from someone who suffered a terrible tragedy.

Quite frankly, it is very difficult for me to imagine what she went through, even though I have two young children. I think she is right in the sense that victims of a crime like this one feel extremely disadvantaged and helpless when the offence is committed by someone who is found not criminally responsible. They feel as though the justice system has let them down.

That is why it is never a bad idea to examine these elements of the justice system. In this case, Bill C-54 deals with the issue of individuals found not criminally responsible. If victims feel as though the system ignored their needs and their situation, we need to be able to comfort those victims through possible changes to the system, but again, from a perspective that does not violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, for instance, or use the issue for political gain.

These debates are extremely important and very sensitive, and this matter must be dealt with accordingly.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member ended by talking about this issue being clouded in fog. I am trying to pierce through that fog to really see the position of the NDP on this issue. He talked a lot about victims and why some of the measures in this legislation were important.

I attended the justice committee and I attended Dr. Isabelle Gaston's session. I found her to be one of the most compelling witnesses I have heard in my time in Parliament. She was not just speaking as a victim, but also as a physician and somebody who was advocating on this issue. She asked critics to stop saying that she lacked empathy because she supported the legislation.

We have heard a lot about stigma tonight. Certainly that horrendous case in Quebec caused stigma.

Would it not reduce that stigma if victims and victims' families were to feel that the law addressed their concerns for public safety going forward?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, ideally, I would agree with the member for Durham. However, I am not convinced that the bill addresses the issue specifically.

I believe that we can see how the bill will be implemented and how the changes will benefit the victims and families of victims of criminal acts committed by someone deemed to be not criminally responsible.

That is the reason why I am pleased that there will be a review after the bill has been adopted, hence after the legislation goes into effect. We will be able to study how the lives of victims and the people affected by the crime have been enhanced. We shall see whether or not that is the case. I hope so. If not, the review will allow us to revisit the law.

Ms. Gaston's testimony was very emotional. I do not believe that she lacks empathy, quite the opposite. Her circumstances are extremely difficult and she sees how her own experience can help improve the judicial system, not just for herself, but also for other people who are experiencing the same thing.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques will have three and a half minutes for questions and comments when the House resumes debate on the motion.

It being midnight, pursuant to an order made on Wednesday, May 22, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at midnight.)

Bill C-54—Time Allocation Motion

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

moved:

That, in relation to C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder), not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the Bill; and

That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration of the third reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order. There will now be a 30-minute question period. The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, people say hitting 50 is not easy. It can be hard on a person, realizing that shutting down debate 50 times in the House of Commons is breaking all previous records by any government, and there have been some bad governments.

I am sure my Conservative colleagues would agree that there have been some awful Liberal and Conservative governments, but this one is beating them all. Even on bills that we in the official opposition agree on and even on bills that we should have some discussion about, the government feels inclined to abuse its power as a majority government, something the Conservatives said, when they were in opposition, was wrong and anti-democratic.

I remember the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the Prime Minister saying that for a majority government to abuse its power by shutting down debate like this was wrong. These guys took lessons from those bad governments and made it so much worse.

Shutting down debate 50 times is not something that the Conservatives should be celebrating. On something as important as justice issues, the government wants to shut down debate even before the discussion has begun. How can the minister possibly expect, after so many experiences with his government writing bad law that gets challenged at the Supreme Court, that he is justified here again today in shutting down debate in the House of Commons? I am not the one saying it is bad law; it is our Supreme Court justices who are striking down his laws, which is very costly to Canadians and bad for justice.

Let us just have the conversation. Let us get justice right. Let us make the system work for Canadians and not have some draconian ideology shutting down conversations and shutting down our democracy.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, in the first part of his remarks, the member said there was something we could agree on. I want the House to know that as a student of Canadian history, I am very familiar with the governments that have governed this country, and there have been no bad Conservative governments in the history of this country—none.

If the member wants me to table evidence or information with respect to that statement, we could go right back to Sir John A. Macdonald and the founding of this country. We could go back to Mr. Mulroney, John Diefenbaker, R.B. Bennett, Arthur Meighen and Sir Robert L. Borden. They did a great job.

The hon. member—

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I remember Brian Mulroney not paying his taxes on $250,000, and he was the Prime Minister of this country.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order. That was not a real point of order.

The hon. Minister of Justice.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to spend the whole 30 minutes talking about great Canadians like Brian Mulroney and other great Canadians, but 30 minutes would not be nearly enough to talk about the accomplishments of Conservative prime ministers in this country. It would not even come close to what we would need.

That said, I am pleased that we are moving forward on this Bill C-54 that concerns not criminally responsible individuals. I think, and everybody should agree, that having five hours of debate can be very helpful. This bill has been in the works for quite some time. It has been before committee and it was here for second reading.

Again, I hope nobody over there is offended that protection of the public will be the paramount consideration. It seems to me that protection of the public should have the support of everyone. I look forward to this debate.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are putting forward closure for the 50th time, but there is reason to celebrate. We saw the money that the Conservatives spent on 1812, and I think celebrating this is at least worthy of the same type of budget.

The Montreal Canadiens have won 25 Stanley Cups and have pennants hanging from the ceiling. The New York Yankees have 40 World Series championships, and pennants hang from their rafters. Are the Conservatives contemplating action plan signs hanging from the roof of the chamber? They should take a great deal of pride in their abuse of the democratic process in this House.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this party, I think, invented the democratic process and certainly adapted it here in Canada, so we have so much to be proud of.

I would say to the hon. member that I appreciate that those members always just want to talk about procedure, but I would ask them to sometimes, on these justice bills, look at the substance. It is standing up for victims and protecting the public. They should think about that. Let us talk about that.

Again, I am probably talking to deaf ears when I talk to members of the Liberal Party. Procedure is all they want to talk about. They never want to get into protecting victims and standing up for the public interest of this country. That is what we are all about on this side.

[The Deputy Speaker]

On a point of order, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. Minister of Justice for interrupting. However, when we are on a motion, which by its terms requires us to speak to procedure on time allocation, I do wish the Minister of Justice would stick to the relevance and not accuse those of us in opposition for being irrelevant when we speak to the point at hand, which is time allocation, a matter of procedure.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I, and other members of this chair, have said repeatedly that the relevancy of debate is both with regard to the procedural motion this is before the House and the piece of legislation that is before the House. Comments with regard to either of those are proper and relevant to the discussion.

The hon. member for Chambly—Borduas.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, if Canadians thought that the Mulroney government was so extraordinary, they would not have reduced it to a two-member caucus at the next election.

The fact remains that the minister is doing what his colleague, the Minister of Heritage, did with Bill C-49. He claims that he is mulling over the issue and that he has been working on the bill for some time. However, he should make the distinction between his work, the work he does behind the scenes, and the business of Parliament. I think that they are three separate things.

Members heard the same thing from the Minister of Canadian Heritage when he claimed that the matter has been a topic of discussion for the past eight months. Perhaps he has been discussing the issue for the past eight months, but members of the House, duly elected by Canadians, have not had the same opportunity. We support the bill being debated in the House. However, as members, we are nevertheless very pleased to be able to have an opportunity to speak.

I think that the minister should make the distinction. Moreover, he should stop saying that the simple act of debating the issue automatically means that victims’ rights are not being respected. In my opinion, that is a disrespectful case to be making, both to colleagues in the House and to me.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will not correct one of the mistakes the member made about what happened in Canadian history.

That being said, I am very pleased to discuss the substance of this bill. I appreciate that other members say that we should always talk about procedure, but, again, I respectfully disagree with that.

The member asked what we have done. Yes, I have discussed this with my federal-provincial counterparts, certainly in my last meeting with them at the end of last year. What is most important as well, and this has been a priority for this government throughout the last seven and a half years, is that we speak with victims' groups all the time.

Whenever I leave Ottawa and visit any community across this country, I always sit down and meet with victims. They were very clear on issues like the not criminally responsible provisions of the Criminal Code, other areas of the Criminal Code and indeed the procedures that are in our criminal courts and our judicial system. They have been very clear that they want their priorities to be heard, that they are important and that their issues should be addressed. I have been very pleased and very proud that this legislation does exactly that. This is why I think it is so well received among victims' groups.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have more of a comment than a question.

I just want to say that on the weekend I had the great pleasure of reading a fairly well-written piece in The Globe and Mail about our Supreme Court Chief Justice. I think colleagues here may wish to read that report, because the Chief Justice did make comments about the direction the bill we are now going to be debating for the next five hours or so is headed. I think members might want to take it into account before they cast their vote.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, many different elements go into making up this legislation, a number of which I am particularly proud of.

Certainly helping to ensure that victims are notified upon request when an NCR accused is discharged makes a lot of sense. I think it is only fair. Again, this is what victims groups have told me: allow non-communication orders between the not criminally responsible accused and the victim. I think most people would agree with that. It does not fit into an argument about procedure, but rather about substance, putting that in there to make sure victims are heard.

This is not confined, of course, to this piece of legislation, but is relevant to all the pieces of legislation that we have introduced. In fact, that is one of the first questions my colleagues will ask once a bill is drafted: “What are you doing for victims? Are victims being taken into consideration?”

I have been very proud over these last six or seven years to assure them that, yes, the rights and the concerns of victims are incorporated into legislation, and this bill is no exception to that rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the Minister of Justice's explanations thus far. I would simply like to ask the minister this.

The NDP voted at committee for this legislation to proceed. The Liberals, obviously, are certainly happy with the status quo and do not believe that needs to be changed. The victims that were heard at committee clearly said that this bill would help people like them in very tragic circumstances have a sense of safety, security and that they are being heard. If we do what the NDP wants, which would be to stall this, what consequences would that have? It would certainly take us through the summer break.

I would like to hear if the Minister of Justice thinks it is appropriate to make victims suffer further under the status quo that the opposition seems to be fine with.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member said that my comments and answers so far were very acceptable and pleasing to him. I want him to know that I will do my best to continue throughout the balance of this half hour to ensure my comments are satisfying and pleasing to him.

That said, he makes a very good point. We know what is happening. My colleagues across the aisle would like to debate this continuously and indefinitely. Then again, if we did that, the bill would not be passed before the summer break, and it is important that this piece of legislation, which, as I have indicated, takes into consideration what victims have been asking for, becomes the law of Canada.

I say to all members that there will be five hours of debate. The hon. government House leader indicated that is available to members. If members have not had an opportunity or did not take into consideration what happened in committee or during the second reading debate, I encourage them to get on their feet. Hopefully, when they analyze this, as I am sure they have over the last four or five months that this bill has been before Parliament, they will come to the same conclusion that my colleagues and people across this country have: that this is a good piece of legislation and what we need in this country.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, 48, 49, 50, that is what should be announced in all the social media and on television all across Canada. That makes 50 times this government has muzzled us and prevented us from discussing a bill, one that deserves to be debated here in the House. We have the right to debate it. For some of my constituents and many of those of other members, the only time they hear it discussed is when we talk about it together here.

McDonald's no longer just refers to fast food. We are talking about a McDebate here. The Conservatives do not want to sit in the House any longer. They no longer want to take the time to sit in the House, apart from a mere five hours per bill.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Again, Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the hon. member that we introduced this bill in early March. This has been part of the public record and has been before Parliament since that time.

If members do not like a bill or do not want us to move forward in the justice area, I can appreciate that they would want to continuously debate these issues, but they have another five hours of debate after this has already been before the committee and debated at second reading. Most Canadians analyzing this would think that is pretty reasonable. Most Canadians would say that this is an important piece of legislation, making the protection of the public the paramount consideration when these matters are heard and better protecting victims in this country. Most victims would say to never mind last March; they wish we could have done this a long time ago. This is consistent with what this government has been doing over the last seven years.

Again, I urge hon. members to do the right thing by victims by supporting this bill and getting it passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for what he has said. However, I would also like to correct him when he says that debate serves no purpose.

I would remind the minister that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which includes Conservative members, accepted two NDP amendments. The first related to victims.

The minister says debate and conversation serve no purpose, yet we listened to victims, and they said they wanted to know about the intended place of residence of the accused. The government had to backtrack. It realized that its bill was incomplete, and still had flaws. It was because the opposition was able to look into this and listen to the experts and the victims that we were able to solve the problem.

We proposed other amendments for which we requested verification. We also asked the government to change its position. Unfortunately, it refused.

The government did accept another amendment so that the legislation will be reviewed in five years because, as noted, it still has many flaws. Moreover, there has not been much consultation, particularly with experts working in the field of mental health.

If the minister says that debate serves no purpose, why did the Conservatives accept amendments which resulted in a better bill for victims?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am all in favour of debate. What I have also said is that indefinite debate is not helpful in moving forward and making progress.

The hon. member made a very good point on the value of committees. The bill was before a committee, a couple of amendments came forward and the government accepted them. I hope that this pleases the opposition member. I have always said that if something makes sense, we should have it.

That is what committees are all about. They hear evidence, they analyze it, they look at the legislation and they come to a conclusion. They came to a conclusion and they made the motion for a couple of relatively minor amendments, but they are important amendments nonetheless. Yes, the government accepted that.

The system is working. This is why it is important to get this bill passed before the summer. We have listened to the opposition. We have listened to what has taken place in the debates. We have listened to victims groups, law enforcement agents and people across the country.

Let us move forward. This bill is important.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the observation made by my colleague from Ottawa—Vanier when he referenced an article from The Globe and Mail on the weekend about the Chief Justice. The article was on the issue of mentally ill offenders, and it said:

At least once a year, their status is reviewed by expert panels. After treatment, most of them return to society and resume normal lives. But under a federal proposal, it will become more difficult for those designated as high-risk offenders to be released.

Chief Justice McLachlin points proudly to a 1990 Supreme Court of Canada decision, R v. Swain, as the key move that created a new template for giving mentally ill offenders regular reviews.

“It said you can’t just lock up a person who has been found not guilty by way of their illness, and throw away the key,” she says. “That was the breakthrough.”

Endorsing the review-board system, she says: “The interesting thing is that the hearing process is staffed heavily by psychiatrists and I think it is well-supported by the medical side of things, by the police and by judges.”

At the ‘intake’ end of the system, however, Chief Justice McLachlin says offenders are too often warehoused...

The Chief Justice of Canada, who will likely be tasked with reviewing this legislation at some point in the reasonably near future, has said that the system actually works very well as it is.

Essentially, this is a reaction to an egregious set of facts and ultimately an attack on those who are the most vulnerable in our society, namely those who are mentally ill, dressed up in the name of victims. The ultimate irony of this entire process is that the victims who deserve every sympathy that we can afford them will actually be potentially victimized once more because of the system that the hon. Minister of Justice is proposing.

My simple question is to the Minister of Justice. Why will he not listen to his Chief Justice, who thinks that this is the wrong direction?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear on this. The bill is not directed at the vast majority of individuals who come before the review boards and are found not criminally responsible. It is directed in the sense that we will better protect victims, give them better notification and take their concerns into consideration.

I completely disagree that this is dressed up for victims. This is all about victims and better protecting them.

When we are talking about individuals who are found not criminally responsible, we are talking about a small group of individuals who have been accused of a serious personal injury offence. The court will make a finding of it. If there is a substantial likelihood that an NCR accused will use violence that would endanger the life or safety of another person, or if the court is of the opinion that the offence was particularly brutal so as to indicate a greater risk of harm to another person, then that person would be designated high risk. That high-risk designation would not only protect the public, but the individual as well.

That is one of the things that the hon. member did not mention. For the vast majority of individuals, there is a process in place. It goes through our courts and that will of course continue. I agree with that and I certainly support that.

However, this specifically addresses the issues of victims and those high-risk individuals who, again, are a risk to the public and to themselves.

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

Mr. Speaker, some of the comments that have been made would lead the public to believe the system has been radically changed because all of a sudden there has been a high-risk designation. The member previous asked a question about the timeliness of this and the failure to bring this through quickly resulting in greater victimization, greater harm to victims who had to go through a yearly process every year.

Could the minister comment on the fact that bringing this forth will somehow take away the victimization of victims having to go annually each year to hear the evidence again and relive the trauma of what has caused the death of loved ones. Would the minister agree with me that there is a compulsion to treat not only the victims by permitting them to heal by giving a longer period before the review of NCR individuals and also the treatment of the NCR period when it is found reasonably necessary to treat them for a longer period and lengthening the period of time before they are reviewed?

My point is that there is treatment not only for the victims who are permitted a cure and a longer period of time before the review and also a substantial period of treatment for a longer period of those who are found on the balance of probability need a longer period of treatment before they are reintegrated. The key is not being thrown away. We are giving them treatment. Would you agree with that, minister?

[The Deputy Speaker]

Again, I would ask all members to direct their comments through the Chair to the minister.

The hon. Minister of Justice.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am regularly in agreement with the hon. member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe. He is doing a great job, and continues to do, as my parliamentary secretary.

Again, getting these individuals the help they need is everyone's priority. These individuals come generally within the provincial health system. We want them to get the treatment. We want them to get the help they need so they are no longer a danger to the public or to themselves.

As the hon. member has pointed out, with the high-risk designation, the review period can be extended up to three years. Again, this works in everyone's favour to ensure the individual gets the kind of help he or she needs.

Anything we can do to reduce victimization ensuring that victims are notified upon request is important. There are some victims who do not want to have their name registered and be notified, but among those who do, we have to accommodate that so they do not find themselves surprised. They are not in a grocery store and see the individual who may have murdered their children or they see this individual in church or some other place. That is a re-victimization of these individuals. The efforts to contain that and to ensure those kinds of things do not happen are very important and should have the support of everyone in this chamber.

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

Mr. Speaker, seeing that the minister wants to address the substance of the bill, having been at committee when the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Sue O'Sullivan testified, I was surprised that among her many amendments that would have spoke to what victims wanted, so many of the measures were not included in Bill C-54. It was very clear from the victims rights groups that testified at committee. Most of them saw the very compelling need to ensure adequate mental health services, that we had more in place for prevention and that the not criminally responsible sections that were most important to victims were the ones about notification. These are not the ones who are most under assault by those who are expert in clinical psychology, forensic psychology, review boards and legal experts.

There was a way forward to respond to victims' needs and to also respect the system that, according to all the experts, was working well in the stream of not criminally responsible people who were then monitored closely. Why did the minister not pursue a compromise in which victims' rights and the rights of mentally ill people who found themselves in the NCR system were both respected?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, every aspect of this is very reasonable and supportable. We are making the protection of the public the paramount consideration. As has been pointed out, this is one of the considerations. We are saying, let us make this the paramount consideration to ensure that public and society is protected. We have focused in on a group of high-risk individuals. We have judicial oversight for that designation.

Again, however, she did address the whole question of victims and ensuring, for instance, that victims were notified upon request when an NCR accused was discharged. I do not think there is anything unreasonable about that. This is very important.

Allowing for non-communication orders between an NCR accused and the victim, again, makes a lot sense, ensuring that the safety of victims is considered when decisions are made in this area.

From the analysis of all this government legislation, taking into consideration and ensuring that victims are heard is the right balance. It is not just about the individual who has been accused. It is about public protection. It is about victims. We have to take these all into consideration.

Again, the Prime Minister has made it very clear that the rights of victims, what victims need, what they want, what they expect, what is reasonable for them under the circumstances, is, and will continue, to be a priority for this government. That is why we have included all those provisions with respect to victims. It is the right thing to do.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, it is a sad fact that we are here at this time speaking to another closure motion. This has gone on for a long time. It has become habit forming. The government is addicted to the process that it has created with the closure motions it has put forward.

Quite clearly, through the limited debate time today, many issues have been raised and have not been responded to fully. Are we going to get to those in the five hours? I do not think so.

What we see is a failure of the government to recognize the nature of its own addiction to its belief that it is right on all issues, that it is correct. Those things are very dangerous to our process.

Would the minister look into his heart and understand what he is doing by supporting these types of closure motions over and over again? What is he doing to this process we are in?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said that the process has made him sad. I would suggest he should be very happy about what we are accomplishing this afternoon. When he speaks with victims groups, they may ask him about the process. The processes are always important and I appreciate that. What he can say to those people is that they will feel much better about the fact they will be notified. Their interests will be taken into consideration. When a decision is made in this regard, the protection of the public, the society, will be the paramount consideration. That should cheer him up and all his colleagues when they have a look at this.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is now my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #760

Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

It being 5:55 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from June 17 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.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased tonight to be speaking to Bill C-54.

As a member of the justice committee, I had the opportunity to review the legislation in detail. I had the benefit of hearing witnesses who came to the committee to testify with respect to this piece of legislation. We heard from people who were strongly in favour of the legislation, people who had been victimized by those who ultimately became NCR accused. They had certain things that they thought this legislation would do to help them. They had some other comments.

We also heard from some people who had concerns with respect to the legislation. I would respectfully submit that when we deconstructed most of the concerns that people raised at the committee, they were a result of either not understanding the legislation or not having read the legislation, or perhaps a combination of both, because most of the criticisms really did not withstand an examination by members of the committee.

I want to talk a bit about what this legislation would do. I will start off by going through four of the key changes.

In my view, one of the key changes in Bill C-54 starts off with making the safety of the public the paramount consideration when determining whether or not somebody who has been found not criminally responsible is going to be released into the public.

As I have often done when I get up and talk about these particular pieces of criminal justice legislation and many of the things that we have brought forward, I say that many of the things that we put forward actually just make common sense. When we talk to the average Canadian on the street, for example, or when I talk to people in my riding of Brampton West and explain some of these things and tell them this is the change that we are going to make with respect to this particular bill, often their response is, “Really? You have to make that change? Boy, it would just make common sense for that would be the law. Why would you have to make that change?”

Therefore, when we say that safety of the public is paramount, it means that when a court or a review board is going to make a disposition with respect to an NCR accused, it would take safety of the public as the paramount consideration. Not only would that make sense, but we would also be codifying some of the Supreme Court jurisprudence in that area. In R. v Conway, it was made very clear by the Supreme Court that safety of the public should be the paramount consideration, so when we amend section 672.54 of the Criminal Code, we would make it clear that:

When a court or Review Board makes a disposition...it shall, taking into account the safety of the public, which is the paramount consideration, the mental condition of the accused, the reintegration of the accused into society and the other needs of the accused,

—and here is the next change—

make one of the following dispositions that is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances....

Again, that just would make sense. We would make a disposition that is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances.

The next major substantive change would be incorporating what we call a “high-risk” accused.

There are have been many who have come to this committee and said, “Well, this is going to stigmatize people. I mean, how dare you call somebody “high risk”? This is a person who has perhaps a significant mental disorder, and you're stigmatizing that person.”

I would say the exact opposite. In fact, we would not be stigmatizing people who have mental health issues, because what we are actually doing is saying that there are a select few who might be high risk, and we are destigmatizing everybody else, because people would then know they are not high risk.

I went back to this at committee over and over. When people were raising concerns about these issues, I would say, “Let us look at the section.”

Quite clearly, proposed section 672.64 would state, “On application made by the prosecutor before any disposition to discharge an accused absolutely, the court may, at the conclusion of a hearing, find the accused to be [a] high-risk...”

There are a number of processes taking place here.

The first is an application that may be brought by a crown attorney. It is not saying a crown attorney would bring this application for every person who is found to be NCR. It is quite the contrary. I know crown attorneys. My wife is a crown attorney. They are hard-working people. They are not looking for extra work. They would not try and dig up case files just because they want to make a person high risk. That would be reserved for cases where there is a significant concern.

Even if a crown prosecutor had that significant concern, it would not mean that person would be designated high risk because there is a two-fold test: first, the crown prosecutor has to bring the application; and, second, he or she has to convince a judge that the high-risk designation is necessary in the circumstances.

If I go back to the proposed section, it states:

...at the conclusion of a hearing, [the court may] find the accused to be a high-risk accused if the accused has been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for a serious personal injury offence...and...the court is satisfied that there is a substantial likelihood that the accused will use violence that could endanger the life or safety of another person;

When we really take the time to listen to that section, it is saying that for a person to be designated high risk a court has to be satisfied that there is a substantial likelihood that the accused would use violence that could endanger the life or safety of another person. That to me is absolute common sense. Why would we consider an absolute discharge where a person would be released into the community, if he or she may be a high risk and there is a substantial likelihood that he or she would use violence that could endanger the life or safety of another person? That is the part of the test that has been changed. I am quite sure it would be used judiciously by our judges and it would not be used by crown attorneys all the time.

The second way that someone could be found high risk is if the court is of the opinion that the acts that constitute the offence were of such a brutal nature as to indicate a grave risk of physical or psychological harm to another person. That is a proposed section that a number of people at committee have said is wrong and that, if it were a brutal offence, would mean that the person is high risk. That is not true. A number of witnesses made that statement at committee. I had to walk them through the proposed section. It does not just say “brutal”. We must look at the proposed section, which does not say that. It states:

[If] the court is of the opinion that the acts that constitute the offence were of such a brutal nature as to indicate a risk of grave physical or psychological harm to another person.

It is saying that there has to be some correlation. It is not just brutal; rather, it is brutal such that there is a risk of grave physical or psychological harm to another person. Therefore, if people want to suggest that we are saying brutal is high risk, they are not being truthful or they did not take the time to read the proposed section and understand what it says.

That is not enough. It does not just mean that there must be an indication of a grave risk of physical or psychological harm to another person because under subclause (2), “Factors to consider”, it goes on to state:

In deciding whether to find that the accused is a high-risk accused...

That could be under that first part of the test I talked about or the second part of the test. In either case, the courts would have to be satisfied that they have considered all relevant evidence included in the list. However, the phrase “all relevant evidence” does not mean that they are constrained by the factors in the list for a judge to consider. It is a non-exhaustive list.

Even if we accept the argument, “brutal”, we would then go down and look at what else has to be considered: the nature and the circumstances of the offence; any pattern of repetitive behaviour which the offence forms a part; the accused's current mental condition; and the opinions of experts who have examined the accused.

Even if someone tried to bring an application under the so-called “brutal nature” section, a court would have to look at all the evidence, which would include such things as the opinions of experts who have examined the accused.

The criticism that this might lead to a brutal crime, meaning the person is high risk, does not hold water. It is not a legitimate argument because a section in the statute says something very different.

Another issue that was raised at committee was that if a person was designated high risk, that person had to wait three years for his or her review and this was not a good thing. That is absolutely not true. It is not automatically three years. In certain circumstances, the review for a person who has been designated high risk can be moved to three years, but it is not automatic.

It is interesting, because the person who raised the matter of this being an automatic three years was Justice Richard Schneider, who came to the committee to provide us with his evidence on this and suggested that the three years was mandatory. I asked him if he could show me where it said that in the section. I understand there was constraints of time and we were talking, but he could not find it. However, when I look at the section, which is on page 8 of the statute around line 20, there are two ways in which this can be extended to three years.

First, it can be moved to 36 months after reviewing a disposition if the accused is represented by counsel and the accused and the Attorney General consent to the extension. It has to be with the consent of the accused. Because we are dealing an accused, and in this case in particular an NCR accused, it has to be represented by counsel and with consent of the Attorney General because we want to ensure we have real and legitimate consent to extend something to 36 months.

The other extension goes to the section again. I keep going back to this because we have to read the section before we decide to make the commentary. It says:

—at the conclusion of a hearing under subsection 672.47(4) or this section in respect of a highrisk accused, the Review Board may, after making a disposition, extend the time for holding a subsequent hearing under this section to a maximum of 36 months...

Here is the reason. If the review board is satisfied on the basis of any relevant information, including disposition information, in an assessment report made an offer under certain paragraphs, and this is key, “That the accused's condition is not likely to improve and that the detention remains necessary for the period of extension”. There is a burden of proof that has to be met in order to do that extension.

One of the things that was quite clear at committee, and this was virtually unanimous, was that review boards did good work. They work hard. They understand the law and we are putting that decision, the 36 months, back with the review board.

It is interesting because we did have a witness who came to the committee and who suggested that there was a problem with this 36 months review. When we look at the section, it is only if the accused's condition is not likely to improve and that detention remains necessary for the period of the extension.

Interestingly enough, when I had the opportunity to discuss that with Catherine Latimer from the John Howard Society, her response was, “Yes, I noticed that, but you will find that if you give very burdened organizations and review boards an option to extend the review periods, they always take it to the outer limit”.

Ms. Latimer was basically suggesting that review boards do not care what the test is. They do not care if the accused person's condition will or will not likely improve. The boards will do it at 36 months, because they do not want to work, because they have too much work. Ms. Latimer was one of the people who came to the committee and suggested that this bill should not pass. That was the argument. I vehemently disagree with that position.

I am going to talk briefly about the rights of victims, which is an important aspect of this legislation. I can say that I heard what I consider to be, in many circumstances, absolutely heartbreaking testimony from people who came to talk about family members who had been killed by an NCR accused person. They talked about their children being killed. We heard these things, and it was very difficult to listen to that kind of testimony.

I can tell you some of the things they were unhappy with that we wanted to fix. We cannot fix what happened. We all know that.

I cannot remember who told this story, but a person was walking in a mall and bumped into the NCR accused person who had committed the acts of violence against his or her family member. The person was in a panic. One of the revisions in this act would give the victim notice of the discharge of an NCR accused. The victim would receive notice when the NCR accused was going to receive an absolute discharge. That would be a huge step up.

The bill would make victim impact statements mandatory. If victims wanted to make statements, they would have to be considered before a disposition was made. Non-communication orders would also be mandatory. If victims did not want communication from an NCR accused, they would not have to have it. It is common sense.

I have a great example of the bipartisanship at the committee. An amendment was put forward by my colleagues in the NDP on letting victims know the intended place of residence of NCR accused people. That goes back to the story of someone bumping into the NCR accused in the mall. If victims know that they are being discharged and where they are being discharged to, the chance of having those unfortunate incidents would decrease.

Another point raised at committee was that with this legislation, NCR accused persons would be put in jail. That was put forward by Dr. J. Paul Fedoroff. I asked him where in the legislation it said that an NCR accused person would go to jail. He could not point it out. I then walked him through the section and talked about what would happen. When dealing with people deemed high risk, they would be put in treatment.

Going back to the terms of disposition, subsection 672.54(c) states that, “by order, direct that the accused be detained in custody”, and this is key, “in a hospital”. Somebody designated high risk would not go to jail. I do not know where that came from. It is not true. NCR accused persons would be put in a hospital for treatment.

When I pointed that out, the response was that before people were declared NCR, they would be put in jail, and that was the problem. The answer was that this is how the system currently exists. When people have committed serious crimes, are awaiting trial and do not get bail, they are put in jail. This legislation would not change that.

This is a piece of legislation that would be moderately used. It is a tool. I like to call it a double-check. When a review board was about to absolutely discharge an NCR accused person, there could be an application to the court to say that the person might be high risk and could reoffend and commit a violent act. The court could be asked to look at it to make sure that it was the right disposition. It would be a sensible, reasonable safety check. I hope that it has the support of all members of the House of Commons.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have talked about cases of people found not criminally responsible on account of mental illness. In various cases, there has been an opinion that has received heavy media coverage in Quebec. I have not necessarily taken a position, but I would be curious to know whether it was discussed in committee.

People have talked about the complexity of mental illness and whether it makes a person not criminally responsible. For example, a person can have schizophrenia but may have been completely aware of what they were doing at the time they did it, and be criminally responsible, just as they may not be.

People have said that when a person pleads not criminally responsible, they should be tried, not by ordinary juries, but by a panel of health professionals who are more capable of understanding the complexity of mental illness.

As I said, I have not necessarily taken a position on this, but I think it is particularly appropriate, given the subject.

I would like to know whether this question was addressed in committee or whether it unfortunately was not.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. She certainly raised an interesting point.

Changing the system of how one is designated an NCR accused was certainly not discussed at committee. However, from listening to evidence from witnesses who were victims, I can say there certainly is a concern about how people are designated as NCR accused.

I am paraphrasing to an extent, but I think that many victims felt the NCR accused designation is applied too easily and too liberally. Of course, this legislation has nothing to do with that determination, but I can certainly understand and sympathize with victims who feel that way. To an extent, they feel there is no one who is therefore responsible, in some cases, for the murder of one's children.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in debating Bill C-54, there are two issues that come to mind for me personally.

One issue is regarding the issue of victims. I, for one, in representing Winnipeg North, am very much concerned about victims. In fact, I believe the Conservative government is doing very little to prevent people from becoming victims in the first place. It has not been progressive in terms of coming up with ideas to deal with the causes of crime in the first place. It is something in which the government has fallen short.

Speaking specifically to the bill, could the member provide a brief comment regarding the Chief Justice of Canada, who has indicated that the bill is not necessary to deal with the mental disorders and NCRs? I would appreciate a comment on that.

The other issue is on why it is that again we have the bill being rushed through in this fashion. We have seen this disturbing behaviour from the Prime Minister's Office of wanting to prevent members from having proper debate on important issues that Canadians want us to address.

Could the member could provide comment as to—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Brampton West.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it a bit rich that a member from that party is somehow suggesting we are not doing enough for victims. It would be funny, if it were not so tragic.

We do a lot for victims. We could talk about the victims ombudsman. We could talk about doubling the victim surcharge. These are just a couple of things off the top of my head. This party has put in significant reforms within the NCR regime to support the requests of victims, so that they are not revictimized by the system.

The Liberals are going to vote against this bill, which would enshrine significant rights for victims. I do not what the comment is about in saying “We're not supporting victims”, but they are going to vote against this legislation.

Yes, there has been a critic, and a good critic obviously, a former Supreme Court justice; however, I respectfully disagree. I think this bill is necessary, reasonable and prudent. Bill C-54 is a second check to make sure that we have things right. I do not see how it cannot be supported.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague in the Conservative Party, who is a very good member of the justice committee. I mentioned that to make sure people know that just because he sits on that side of the House it does not mean he is not a Conservative. In fact, he is more Conservative than many of us on this side of the House.

The member is good at reading legislation placed in front of a committee and challenging witnesses on statements. Why is it important to have the facts in front of witnesses, or a member of Parliament, when dealing with a legislative committee like the justice committee?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member has asked a good question.

I was exceptionally disappointed with the number of witnesses who came to committee to help us make our decision with respect to this legislation. It was clear that they had not read the legislation, or if they had read it, they did not understand it.

In my speech, I raised the issue of brutality. Members said that if it is brutal it is going to be high risk. That is not true. Members said we are going to put NCR accused people in jail. That is not true. They said we are going to mandatorily make these assessments go on for three years. That is not true.

The justice committee works very hard. We sat for extended hours to make sure we had as many witnesses as possible come forward and to make sure we looked at different ways to perhaps improve this legislation. However, the majority of people who had concerns or objections to the legislation did not seem to understand it or had not read it. That was disappointing.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of concern has been raised about the possible stigmatization arising from bills like this, so I think it is important to put in perspective the kind of numbers we are talking about.

There was evidence that in Ontario only 0.001% of those convicted of a crime are found not criminally responsible. That is about one in 100,000 people, and of those the recidivism rate is between 2.5% and 7.5%. For other people who are convicted of a crime, the recidivism rate is between 41% and 44%. For those who think this is about mentally ill people being the problem in society, the other 99,999 people who are before the courts do not have any mental illness. This is not really about mental illness. A very small percentage of people are involved, and a small percentage of them would be considered potential high-risk offenders.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hate to say it, but my colleague has made an excellent point. It is hard to give these praising statements. I have done it twice today, so it is a good day.

The member spoke the truth. First of all, the number of people who are NCR in the criminal justice system is quite small. Let us look at the other factors. First, a crown attorney has to bring the application. That is going to whittle that number down significantly, for the reasons I raised in my speech. Second, crown attorneys do not win 100% of their cases. Being the husband of a crown attorney, I wish they did win 100% of their cases, but they do not. That will whittle it down again, because the judge will determine whether or not the person should be high risk.

When we talk about things like stigmatization, it is not the case. I want to make it clear and have it on the record that this would not stigmatize mental illness. It would do the exact opposite because very few people are going to be designated as high risk. That means the Canadian public has no reason to fear people who are not designated high risk or to stigmatize them. They are not high risk. This legislation would destigmatize, not stigmitize.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord.

I rise tonight to speak in favour of Bill C-54 at third reading. I must say that from the day the government first announced its intention to introduce this bill, I have supported the bill in principle. I believe the matters we are seized with in Bill C-54 are very important, even though the number of individuals affected is very small.

The unfortunate incidents which have brought us to this debate tonight are obviously extremely wrenching for all the victims and their families, yet, at the same time, there is a real danger that the very small number of extreme incidents resulting from mental illness will cloud our collective judgment when it comes to addressing the broader issues of mental health in Canadian society.

I believe the bill we have before us today is a reasonably balanced bill. It is certainly not as good as it might have been, but it is better in some key ways than what was originally introduced.

To me, the most important improvement was the addition of an amendment proposed by the NDP to add a mandated five-year review of the legislation by Parliament. This is a very good way to make sure we have this right. We will look at it again in five years to see what the impacts have been.

However, the most important reason for supporting this bill is the significant progress it makes in enhancing victims rights, especially in the cases where the accused is found not criminally responsible for his or her actions.

I want to draw attention to four ways in which the rights of victims, and in particular their safety, are improved in Bill C-54.

The most important one is the entrenching in law of the right of victims, upon request, to be notified when the perpetrator is discharged. We have had one case when someone ran into someone in the community who they thought was still in custody. Obviously, that could be very shocking It would be upon request, but victims should certainly have that right.

Second is the provision to allow orders to be made that forbid communication between the perpetrator and the victim.

Third is the provision that adds a requirement for the review boards that makes these decisions about the release of perpetrators to consider the safety of victims when decisions are being made about the perpetrator.

The fourth major improvement, and again it was not in the original bill but was added via an NDP amendment, is the provision that is closely related to the first improvement. It would give victims the right to be notified of the address of the perpetrator if the perpetrator is released, thus making it less likely that they will have inadvertent contact with the perpetrator, which can obviously be very traumatic.

The second reason I have for supporting this bill is the fact that it now makes public safety the paramount consideration for provincial review boards in decisions relating to those found unfit to stand trial or found not criminally responsible for their actions.

The change here is that public safety becomes the most important consideration; it is not just one item on a list of considerations. Our criminal justice system always ought to function with public safety in mind, so these cases should be no different. We also need to remind ourselves that public safety, as the main priority, does not diminish our responsibility to consider these cases and to make sure they function within the bedrock of our legal system, which is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The third reason I have for supporting this bill is the fact that it creates a high-risk designation for those who are found not criminally responsible for the most violent incidents. I want to stress that we are talking about a very small number of cases where the perpetrator is found not criminally responsible. It starts with a small number of those decisions, and then there is a very small number among that group.

The definition that is provided in the bill is quite sound. It talks about applying a high-risk designation to those found not criminally responsible for serious personal injury offences where there is a substantial likelihood for further violence that would endanger the public, or where acts were so brutal as to indicate a risk of great harm to the public. We are not saying that all of those found not criminally responsible will end up falling into this high-risk category, but only those who provide a great risk to the public.

This is a designation that would be made by a court and that could only be removed by a court. The result of such a designation would be to deny granting unescorted absences from a secure health facility. It would place limits on the reasons for escorted absences. It would also provide the possibility, just the possibility, of lengthening the period for review of the status of the perpetrator from one year to a maximum of three years, again at the discretion of the court.

When we are talking about creating this high-risk designation, it is important to remember the context. When considering the case of someone found not criminally responsible, provincial review boards have three choices.

The board's first choice is an absolute discharge if the person does not pose a significant threat to public safety. This means release back into society with no restrictions or supervision. I emphasize that very few of those who are found not criminally responsible are granted an absolute discharge at their first hearing. This is due to the obvious necessity of taking time to allow therapy to work. In fact, at the annual reviews in B.C., only 18% of cases are granted an absolute discharge, while the rate in Ontario is even lower at only 5%. If we look over time, studies revealed that 35% of those found not criminally responsible spend more than 10 years in the system, so it is not true that those who are found not criminally responsible are released immediately as the system exists now. However, the change we would make here is to ensure that there would be additional consideration: a second set of eyes to look at those decisions when those high-risk designated perpetrators are considered for release.

The second choice available to the expert provincial review boards is a conditional discharge. Just as it sounds, this option allows a return to society under conditions which include things like specifying a place of residence, a treatment regime or reporting requirements. These are conditions very similar to those used in the parole system.

Finally, the third choice is to retain the perpetrator in custody in a secure health facility.

I know there are those who are very worried about the creation of this high-risk designation, but its importance here is the reassurance that it would offer to both victims and the public alike, as a person designated as high risk would not be eligible for conditional or absolute discharge until both the review board and the court are convinced that the perpetrator is no longer high risk.

There is no doubt that the current system has left the public and families of victims feeling exposed. This is true if we are talking about the case of the beheading of Tim McLean on a Greyhound bus in Manitoba in 2008, where the perpetrator was held in a facility where the grounds were not fenced, and was allowed out on his own onto those grounds very soon after the events; and where the perpetrator was allowed escorted absences that were perceived to be much too early and caused a very strong public outcry. Many people were not reassured by the explanation that the perpetrator was fine so long as he was taking his medications.

This reassurance is also needed if we are talking about a case like the three Schoenborn children who were killed by their father in B.C., again in 2008. His ex-wife was understandably concerned when the perpetrator was granted escorted absences in the same suburban Vancouver community where she lived.

From the moment the government introduced this legislation, I felt it would be in the public interest to adopt it in principle, and I believe we have had significant improvements at the committee level.

However, before concluding, I would like to take just a moment to address some of the concerns expressed by those opposed to the bill.

First, I would say there should be no confusion. This bill in no way would affect the availability or the use of the defence of not criminally responsible by anyone accused of an offence.

Second, I would say that I understand the concern that the focus on the most violent incidents involving mental illness may inadvertently contribute to the unfortunate stigma surrounding mental illness in our society. However, it is my hope that in fact this bill would accomplish the opposite by helping reduce the fears surrounding these extreme incidents.

Finally, I would say that I share the concern of all those who have pointed out the deficiencies in the way we deal with mental illness in our society, especially in terms of the lack of services and supports for those individuals and families struggling to deal with the impacts of mental illness on a daily basis.

In conclusion, I believe that in Bill C-54 we have before us a balanced bill, one that could have been further improved with the additional amendments that were offered by the NDP, but nevertheless a balanced bill. Most important, I believe that Bill C-54 would deal more justly with victims and their families in cases where the perpetrator is found not criminally responsible. We have a bill before us that would make it clear that public safety must be the paramount consideration in all these cases. Finally, we have a bill in front of us that would address those very few cases involving extreme violence and high risk of recurrence, and it would do so in a way that would ensure a thorough review of the case in order to guarantee public safety and to reassure the families of victims.

For these reasons, I will be supporting Bill C-54 at third reading.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is so often the case when Conservatives have brought forward so-called justice legislation that they get the balance completely wrong. They often take a hammer to a problem that is of small significance or has low numbers.

As it has been pointed out by my friend from Newfoundland, the actual number of Canadians that we are talking about in this case is incredibly small, yet these cases are important. They tend to be high-profile cases, often because of their violent or extremely violent nature in some regard.

I suppose what my friend has offered is that we do not want to sacrifice the good for the perfect. In seeking to find a way to better achieve the balance, we did not get all the way there, but we made a great stride.

In the general question about justice and how we write laws for that area, is this a good example upon which the government and opposition can build in order to strike a better and more equal balance with respect to things?

The fact that we are under time allocation on this motion does not speak to a lot of confidence on the government side that they do have the right balance. They have to invoke it so often. Today was the 50th time to shut down debate in Parliament.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I think there is some irony that the government quite often will not take yes for an answer.

We worked together in committee. We had a lot more improvements that we felt could have been made to further defend victims' rights in this bill and to further increase public confidence in what we were doing.

What saved it for me was the willingness of the government to accept the five-year review. Parliament will come back and look at this issue again. As the member says, we are making an improvement and we are taking a step forward.

It is not a perfect bill, but having a five-year review by Parliament will allow us to look at this issue again and see if we have in fact done the right thing or if there is more we could do to improve the situation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the official opposition is supporting this bill as is.

I read it carefully and studied it, and I still do not find that it achieves the right balance in its approach to the not criminally response system. There is currently no empirical evidence whatsoever that the system is not working for Canadians.

I am very supportive of the sections that give advance notice to victims. I think we could have done a better job of balancing the interests for victims' rights. At the same time, we did not need to include, for instance, the word "brutal". “Brutal” is now a word that would mean one or the other for the high-risk accused. If the crime committed is of a brutal category, even if it does not result in death or another serious crime, the brutality of the offence is in the act as a single reason to put someone in the high-risk accused category.

The word “brutal” has no definition in criminal law, nor does it have a definition in the field of mental health or in academic and scientific understanding. Therefore, it creates a vast uncertainty for people who might be assigned high risk accused.

I ask my friend about that weakness in the bill.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am bemused when she says there is no empirical evidence of a need to do something with this bill. Has she not heard the voice of victims? Has she not seen the things that have happened with victims all across the country? I believe there is, in fact, a lot of empirical evidence.

I want to say again that this bill would actually help to reduce the stigma around mental illness by separating out these very few high-risk offenders who have committed what I would say are quite brutal acts. There is no way to describe a public beheading other than as “brutal”. It would also help assure the public that we have the measures in place to take care of those situations so that we can then turn our minds to the other mental health issues in society without being worried about these extreme cases.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his comments with regard to the case involving Tim McClean. Tim McClean's family is one that I am quite close to, and Carol de Delley will be very pleased to hear that the NDP member is supportive of this bill.

I want to assist my NDP colleague and friend by adding to the answer he just provided to our colleague from the Green Party. I remind her that the term "brutal nature" has in fact been interpreted to mean "conduct which is coarse, savage and cruel and which is capable of inflicting severe psychological damage on the victim...". That is from R. v. Langevin in the Ontario court of appeal.

I wanted to help my learned friend across the way from the NDP in answering that question and once again thank him for his comments with regard to protecting victims and supporting this bill.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her comments. I struggled thinking about this speech and whether to talk about the individual cases of victims, because I know that it is often quite difficult for them to relive this over and over. My hope is that the use of these examples in the bill will help the victims' families feel that they have contributed something when we come to cases of future victims. I believe that they will make a contribution.

As when I talk about the criminal law, I rarely use the name of a perpetrator. I do not think that even in these cases perpetrators should become famous. It is the victims we should remember.

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

Mr. Speaker, before getting to the meat of this subject, I would like to mark a sad anniversary today. Earlier in the day, we had the 50th time allocation motion imposed on us, the 50th gag order. In this 41st parliament, Tuesday, June 18 is a sad anniversary.

I recall bills on which I would have liked to have the opportunity to make my contribution and to present a different perspective on the debate, one that came from the constituents in my riding, but I could not do that because, unfortunately, a time allocation motion was imposed and curtailed the debate.

I am sure that as many members on the Conservative side as on the opposition side have found themselves in that situation in various debates.

In terms of the present bill, I would first like to say that it has changed for the better as it moved through the various stages of the legislative process. That is why I am going to vote in favour of this bill. It is not perfect. We wanted to make amendments that were rejected, but we have still been promised that this bill would be reviewed in five years to see whether it is working, as we hope it will.

Public safety and the attention that victims of crime receive are issues that had to be dealt with. We succeeded in addressing issues relating to the real consequences of the proposed changes and were careful to listen to experts and victims.

Public safety has to be considered. I agree that it is essential to keep our communities safe. However, we need to make sure that we abide by the rule of law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We had to be sure that the way we manage the cases of accused persons with mental illnesses is effective in treating mental disorders. I would therefore like to congratulate the legislators who wrote this bill, but mostly those who amended it, on the job they have done.

Numerous witnesses were consulted during and after the committee’s study. We took the time to listen to victims, families and our communities. We were thus able to have the bill amended to reflect some of the testimony given in committee, and I have to say I am reasonably satisfied with the final result.

It is nonetheless important to recall that the rules in the Criminal Code regarding mental disorders apply to a very small proportion of accused persons. It is always worthwhile to listen to debate in the House and to be able to ask questions afterward, I would note in passing.

A person who is deemed unfit to stand trial or found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder must appear before a provincial or territorial review board, which decides on a plan of action. The person is therefore neither convicted nor acquitted. Once again, this is an extremely limited number of individuals. Some of them have not committed serious crimes.

Concerns had been voiced about the bill at first. We had to make sure that we did not exacerbate the public’s fears for no reason. We also had to be sure not to hinder the reintegration of individuals found to be not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. We undertook a proper examination of the Criminal Code provisions relating to mental disorders, an issue that is important to many Canadians. Some recent cases that received heavy media coverage have also cast doubt on the effectiveness of the current approach, and the bill fixes some of those flaws in terms of victims’ rights.

Bill C-54 also deals with victims’ participation in the process. The ideas put forward are taking us in the right direction. In the NDP, we wanted to know, before anything else, how we could assist victims in this process. One thing the bill provides is for victims to be informed when an accused is released and for the accused to be prohibited from communicating with their victim, and for the safety of victims to be considered when decisions are made about an accused person.

I have no problem with these proposals. However, I have to say that more will need to be done to assist victims. The Conservatives have often applied the same formulas in the past. They complicate the judicial system, but they do not offer assistance for victims.

This bill, at least, is a first step in the right direction.

What else can we do? Catherine Latimer, of the John Howard Society of Canada, asks that more programs and services be offered to the victims of sexual abuse. In her view, the government should invest more in crime prevention. Prevention is something that is often lacking in the Conservative ideology. I totally agree with her.

Every year in Canada, the total cost of crime is at or near $100 billion. This is a huge bill for our society. With regard to individuals declared not criminally responsible on account of mental disorders, it is important to work with key players, such as the Schizophrenia Society of Canada, in order to prevent crimes.

There are costs associated with any amendment. Once again, it is the provinces that will have to pay the bill. It must be said that under the Conservatives we have grown accustomed to seeing the bill passed on to other levels. They really like to pass legislation and then let others pay for it. They also like applying legislation according to their own ideology, without consulting the provinces. I am starting to wonder whether this is not a centralizing government after all. Perhaps the Conservatives are centralizers.

With regard to provincial prisons in Canada, the provincial and territorial governments are already forced to do what they can with the pointless reforms passed by the Conservatives.

I am not saying that any change to the Criminal Code is pointless. It is even necessary to have certain provisions, or at least consider them. In any case, I will be voting in favour of the bill. Nonetheless, certain changes made by the Conservatives have not improved safety in our communities. The only thing they have managed to do is to bog the system down even more.

Can the Conservatives tell us if they now have a financing scheme that will enable the provinces to implement the changes proposed in Bill C-54? I would really like to have an answer to this question.

It is necessary to make sure that the provinces and territories will never again receive a bill that they do not have the resources to pay. The government could thereby learn from its mistakes and at least accompany its reforms with compensation for the provinces. We can all agree that it is very easy to pass legislation when you do not have to pay to implement it. Basically, it is a simple matter of justice.

Over the past few months, the members of the NDP have spoken with experts on mental illness, victims, as well as the provinces to find it out what approach they think would be the best. We did not indulge in political games. We have concentrated on the most important thing, that is, on the study of the merits of this policy, a policy that, we must remember, must come with adequate funding by the federal government.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate the fact that public safety must be protected as a priority, with due regard to the rule of law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is also essential to consider the needs of the victims. The bill does respond to these concerns.

With regard to the elements that raise concerns and the amendments put forward by the NDP, including clarification of the term “brutal”, amendments that in any case were not accepted by the government, there is at least a guarantee that we will be able to study the bill again in five years’ time, when we will be able to see the benefits and the positive impact of the change.

The NDP is not unwilling to change. We have done our homework, and we have managed to improve the bill. I recognize how much work we put into studying this bill and this is why I will be voting in favour of it.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to questions and comments, I see the hon. House leader is rising on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I would like to say that we have had a lot to thank the staff for here on Parliament Hill, particularly for the last four and a half weeks but also the entire session and entire time since the last election. However, the last four and a half weeks, with our working late hours past midnight just about every night, a lot of people have been putting in a lot of work, security staff and the like.

I would particularly like to point out this time of year the service provided by our pages. When the House rises for the summer, they will have completed a remarkable year that they have served with us.

Being a parliamentary page is a special honour. It is an experience for which pages get to go back and tell stories of for months, years, indeed, for much of the rest of their lives because the experience of being a page is a very special one.

However, I know there is life after being a page. We have within our caucus two people who are former pages. My wife was a page in this place some years before I was elected a member of Parliament. It is interesting to observe the now chief of staff to the current leader of the Liberal Party was a page in the same year. Therefore, there is indeed life after this remarkable experience.

We want to thank all the pages for the tremendous work they do on behalf of all of us here in the House of Commons, quietly and efficiently serving all of our needs here, and we appreciate that a great deal.

However, those “thank yous” being in place, I would now like to propose the following motion for consideration of the House.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for this motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder), be read the third time and passed and passed on division.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)