Bill C-375 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (presentence report)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to require that a presentence report contain information on any aspect of the offender’s mental condition that is relevant for sentencing purposes.

[Dr. Patrick Smith, National Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Mental Health Association]

That's great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, members of the committee.

Thank you for inviting us here today. My name is Dr. Patrick Smith. I'm the National CEO of the Canadian Mental Health Association. Bill C-375 is a very important bill to us. I would definitely have been there in person if today weren't April 26, 2018. Today marks 100 years to the day when, in 1918, Dr. Clarence Hincks came together with other prominent Canadians in the historic Château Laurier, just around the corner from you, to form what is now the Canadian Mental Health Association. Today we are a Canada-wide organization with divisions in every province. We provide services to more than 1.3 million Canadians in over 330 communities across Canada.

We are celebrating this important milestone today in Toronto with some of Dr. Hincks' immediate family, in honour of his vision and commitment to two very clear goals: to end stigma and discrimination, and to provide more humane care for people with mental illness. In many ways—100 years later, to the day—this discussion on Bill C-375 is about addressing these same issues.

Today, I'd like to focus on some of the ways in which mental illness, including addiction, intersects with our criminal justice system, as well as on key areas that we believe will help to ensure that Canadians with mental health problems are supported in their treatment and in their recovery.

Specifically, I will be speaking in favour of passing Bill C-375, because we know that it will confer significant benefits onto many Canadians who are marginalized and living with mental illness and substance use problems. We're also confident that the bill will lessen the burden on our criminal justice system.

We talk about the current shortfalls.... As many of you are aware, in the 1970s, the deinstitutionalization of mental health services transferred mental health service delivery from psychiatric facilities to more local communities, resulting in the closure of psychiatric hospitals across Canada. This shift has been heralded as a positive step in respecting the rights, dignity, and self-determination of people with mental illness.

However, the psychiatric deinstitutionalization has been replaced by a new form of institutionalization: the Canadian prison system. Given that mental health supports at the community level are often underfunded and poorly integrated, many people with mental illness and in need of treatment fall through the cracks and end up in the criminal justice system. You now know, through the debates over the last few years, that Canada has invested a lower percentage of its total health care budget in mental health care than any G7 country. Basic primary mental health care provided by addiction counsellors, psychologists, social workers, and specialized peer support workers form the bedrock and the foundation of other G7 countries' response to the mental health needs of their populations. They're not covered in Canada's universal health care system. Thoughtful, targeted investments in treatments that are effective and save money have been replaced by the high burden of costs of untreated mental illness that we see in jails and prisons. These unnecessary costs are carried by every Canadian.

The Office of the Correctional Investigator estimates that at least one in four admissions to federal correctional institutions present with a mental illness, and many of these also have a concurrent substance use disorder. This number is highly disproportionate to the number of people with mental illness in the population at large.

Despite the high number of people with mental illness in Canadian correctional facilities, Canada's prisons are not equipped with enough staff, resources, and funding for mental health supports for people who are incarcerated. As a result, Canadians with mental illness who end up in the correctional facilities do not receive the treatment that they need to facilitate their recovery and rehabilitation. In fact, the absence of treatment for many inmates can result in violent confrontations with other inmates and staff, as well as additional charges and time spent in segregation, which typically exacerbate mental health problems.

Once out of prison, Canadians with mental illness are more likely to experience homelessness and to have difficulty reintegrating into the community. Many do not have the necessary wraparound supports, and subsequently end up cycling through the criminal justice system at high cost. They often face discrimination and stigma as a result of having been incarcerated, and have difficulty finding meaningful employment. That's unjust, especially because people with mental illness who enter the criminal justice system are far more likely to have committed minor criminal offences when compared to offenders who don't have a mental illness. The majority of arrests are for minor crimes, such as causing a disturbance, mischief, minor theft, and failure to appear in court, which may be directly or indirectly related to the mental illness or substance use itself.

As a community-based organization with a long history of supporting people with mental illness and addictions at the local level, CMHA knows from experience that providing the necessary supports and care for people can greatly change the course of their lives, the course of the lives of their families, and their communities.

An ideal health care system—and here I'm not even talking about the ideal, but even one that's based on smart investments in treatments that work—can actually save many people and can save money. People with mental illness would have easy and timely access to well-funded, integrated community-based services, including housing and employment supports and individual and family supports, in addition to accessing a range of professionals, including family physicians.

This continuum of services allows individuals to receive support in the community and to thrive in recovery. In Canada we don't have to take a leap of faith on this. When you're a pioneer, you often have to go out on a limb and see how it works. On this front, we're not pioneers; we're laggards.

We can learn from other G7 countries that have been in our situation and have made the smart investments in health responses to mental illness, and dramatically reduce the high cost of untreated mental illness. When community-based services are well coordinated, they can also positively impact people with mental illness who come into contact with the law. Although the research on court support and diversion programs is limited, these measures that divert people with mental illness, pre- or post-charge, have been shown to increase access to mental health services, improve mental health functioning, and reduce hospitalization and recidivism, again saving money. They also relieve some of the pressure on the criminal justice system.

Supporting people at the community level is also much less expensive than incarcerating them. In Canada it costs over $100,000 per year to house and support a male federal inmate and $180,000 a year for every female inmate. Offenders who are supervised in the community, on the other hand, cost considerably less, about one-eighth of those amounts. The funding that would be spent on the incarceration of people with mental illness would be better spent on proactive investment in treatment and social integration.

This brings me to Bill C-375. This bill proposes to amend the Criminal Code to introduce information about mental health issues and disorders in pre-sentence reports. The goal of the bill, as I understand it, is to make the criminal justice system aware of and more responsive to individuals with mental health issues and to ensure that they receive the appropriate treatment and supports that they need throughout their rehabilitation.

Although some jurisdictions already collect information on mental health in pre-service reports, this bill would create a national standard for all jurisdictions to consider mental health during sentencing. It is important that you don't have to win the postal code lottery to know that you live in a province that just so happens to provide and seek your mental health information. That's good for you, but what about the ones who don't? We really are applauding this bill to ensure there is a national standard.

This is important because research conducted by Public Safety Canada suggests that pre-sentencing reports make a difference in sentencing outcomes. They've been shown to increase the likelihood that offenders will receive a community sentence rather than a custodial sentence. We believe that with the right supports, community sentences can better facilitate recovery for people with mental illness.

In conclusion, we believe that the Government of Canada needs to continue showing leadership by addressing the current gaps experienced by people with mental illness and addictions in our criminal justice system. We strongly support the government's efforts to conduct a comprehensive review of the criminal justice system, and one of its stated goals, which is to determine how services can be improved for offenders who suffer from mental illness.

Bill C-375 presents an important opportunity to achieve this goal and ensure that people with mental illness and substance use problems are treated with care and compassion. It is also an opportunity to break the vicious cycle of institutionalization that unfairly impacts people with mental illness and substance use problems.

We also encourage the government to continue to make smart investments in early health responses to mental illness, which not only save lives but also lower the high cost of untreated mental illness in our communities. As such, we strongly urge the government to support Bill C-375.

Thank you again for inviting me here today. I'd be happy to answer any of your questions.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

At the outset, let me also echo the sentiments expressed by the chair to Mr. Ehsassi regarding the unfortunate situation that happened in Willowdale. All of our thoughts and prayers are with the ones who lost their lives and those in the process of recovery. We commend the great work of our first responders, and also of Mr. Ehsassi, who went to the riding to be there for the people.

On that note, good afternoon, members and colleagues. It is a privilege to be here before this committee today.

Let me start by saying that one in five Canadians will directly face a mental health issue at some point in their life. Four out of five will indirectly be impacted. The economic impact of mental health-related issues is estimated at $50 billion a year, and it continues to rise. While there are vulnerable populations across Canada, mental illness will affect all Canadians regardless of age, sex, or background. Accordingly, there is an overwhelming desire for real change across a broad range of stakeholders.

This bill reflects what I've heard on the ground in my constituency, testimony from various groups championing mental health, such as the CMHC, CMHA, and CMHI, and my own research and expertise as chair of the mental health caucus. I also considered the testimonies of front-line workers, research organizations, and most importantly our experience on our visit to the Ray of Hope youth facility and the Grand Valley Institution for Women last year.

As highlighted earlier, this also reflects the priority of my constituents in Richmond Hill, who have, since I took office, often shared their concerns regarding the dynamics between the criminal justice system and mental health.

In Canada, 10% of the population reports symptoms consistent with mental illness. Among our youth, 25% will experience a mental health issue as they navigate through their adulthood, particularly in the vulnerable transition period between ages 18 and 24. This vulnerable population is profoundly overrepresented in our prison system, and studies have shown that the majority of young inmates demonstrate a mental health issue.

According to the Mental Health Commission of Canada, only a fraction—20% of youth—have access to the mental health services they need. We must be very clear on that fact. Mental health services are as much needed as any necessary medical services. To be forced to go without them is to invite life-altering consequences.

The correctional investigator's 2012 annual report found that 36% of offenders at federal penitentiaries were identified as requiring psychiatric or psychological follow-up. Forty percent of male inmates and 69% of female inmates were treated for mental health issues while in prison.

Bill C-375 would amend paragraph 721(3)(a) of the Criminal Code, mandating that unless otherwise specified, when a pre-sentence report is required by a court, in addition to information such as age, maturity, character, behaviour, attitude, and willingness to make amends, information outlining any mental health disorder, as well as any mental health care program available to the accused, be provided as part of the pre-sentencing report.

As Bill C-375 passed through the House, a range of opinions were expressed on the bill as it currently stands. Arguments were made questioning the need for such a bill, and in contrast that the bill does not go far enough. I'm happy to have this opportunity to discuss those concerns, and I'm intrigued to see what amendments may be proposed.

Today, there exists no mandate for the court to consider the mental health history of an individual in pre-sentencing proceedings, yet the court is mandated to take into account such nebulous and subjective factors as attitude or character. As Bill C-375 ensures that pertinent information will be taken into account during pre-sentencing, an individual with a history of mental health issues will be afforded the appropriate care and treatment during the administration of justice and their rehabilitation.

In the long term, the legislation presents an opportunity for us to take a real step forward, decrease recidivism, improve rehabilitation, and further erode the stigmatization of mental illness. In the short term, there are immediate benefits to the quality of life in our prisons, as well as to the efficacy of the services in the administration of justice and the rehabilitation of vulnerable populations.

In any individual sentence, our justice system is well-served by being made fully aware of relevant mental health concerns. With mental health information included in a pre-sentence report, the interplay of mental health with the condition of incarceration can be taken fully into account. Readily available mental health information is invaluable when considering a step as drastic as solitary confinement or choosing the facility that can best provide the appropriate mental health services.

By ensuring that mental health concerns are considered in these decisions, we can reduce the strain on penitentiary security officers while creating an environment that mitigates inflammatory factors and encourages conditions that reduce recidivism in the long term. This can be particularly useful in crafting cases of conditional sentencing as well as in creating conditions for effective reintegration following release.

Ensuring that mental health information is available at every step of the process will also make cases less vulnerable to attack on appeal, saving time and money for our judicial system and providing a net benefit to the overall cost and burden associated with mental health issues. Many members of Parliament do not have a chance to see their private members' bills seen before the House, let alone passed to committee. I'm proud of the bill that you have before you today, but it's decidedly a product of compromise. A private member's bill is one of the most direct venues through which a member of Parliament can direct real change on behalf of their constituents, and this private member's bill is a tool to further the discussion on this topic.

While I wish the scope and the reach of this bill was more encompassing, I believe that this balancing act has produced a bill that will do tangible good in the lives of Canadians while attracting common sense support on all sides. Likewise, I'm excited to work with the committee to re-examine and potentially strengthen the bill through amendments, and I believe the legislation as it stands is a strong model that will facilitate a fruitful discussion.

To conclude, I would like to remind the committee that the nexus of mental health care in our criminal justice system is complex, dynamic, and evolving. A judge must be presented with the relevant information in any given case in order to take advantage of this. This complex situation should be addressed by more than a single private member's bill, and I certainly would not frame Bill C-375 as a be-all solution.

I thank you for the opportunity. I would like to also acknowledge the work of Mr. Glenn Bradbury, who was instrumental in getting the bill to this state.

Mr. Chair, colleagues, I'm ready to answer questions from the committee.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Good afternoon, everyone.

It's a pleasure to welcome everyone to this meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights as we commence our study of Bill C-375, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (presentence report).

It is also a pleasure to welcome Mr. Majid Jowhari, the sponsor of the bill.

Welcome, Mr. Jowhari.

Criminal Code

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-375, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (presentence report).

The House resumed from March 2 consideration of the motion that Bill C-375, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (presentence report), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise once again to discuss my private members' bill, Bill C-375. At the outset, I would like to thank all members who have substantially contributed to the substance of this private members' bill. I would like to thank the members today for once again covering the scope and intent of the bill.

For the next four minutes, I limit my remarks to responding to some of the concerns raised earlier as part of the first hour of debate. I listened intently to those members who spoke previously to the bill. While the debate has been spirited, I have been encouraged by its good faith and co-operative nature. In and of itself, this is an of acknowledgement by all parties that there is a need for real change at the intersection between our justice system and mental health. I hope that Bill C-375 can play a role in this change and inform future changes as governments of today and tomorrow navigate that dynamic relationship.

If I could, I would like to take some time to address the contradictions and inaccuracies raised by some of my colleagues across the aisle during the first hour of debate. They raised two concurrent concerns. First is that, in cases where mental health information is relevant, judges already choose to include mental health information in pre-sentence reports. Second is that the process of mandating that this information be provided where relevant would add a new burden to the justice system.

I think the contradiction here is very clear. If judges are already choosing to include this information in the pre-sentence report in all relevant cases, then we are simply codifying an existing practice. There can be no additional burden because this practice is already applied when relevant. As well, if this legislation would add a burden, then we must accept that mental health information is, in fact, not being requested in all relevant cases.

While we are on the topic of additional burdens, it is my understanding that a sentence imposed without reference to relevant, available medical evidence is vulnerable to attack on appeal. Whatever hypothetical burden would be added to the justice system by adding additional information to a pre-sentence report cannot possibly compare to the burden of time and cost that the judiciary is opened to by vulnerable verdicts.

In addition, more than one of my colleagues have suggested that providing mental health information in pre-sentence reports would result in unfairness and inconsistencies in the administration of justice, by which they must mean to say that judges will make considered decisions based on information they would otherwise not have had. This is an intended feature, not a bug. I trust our judiciary. I consider them credible decision-makers and I trust they will not become confused when provided with additional context. However, for our judges to make an informed consideration, they must have all the facts.

Mental health is an ongoing project, a frontier of medical and social science. Even those at the forefront of their field continue to make new discoveries and find new connections and contexts. As such, judges must be provided with all information, whenever possible, so as not to prejudge an offender before they have all the facts. In this constantly changing field, what may or may not be pertinent is in flux, and it is unreasonable to expect every judge to take full account of relevant mental health information in the absence of the facts and context contained in the pre-sentence report.

There have also been colleagues who have suggested this bill would not go far enough. I agree. In drafting legislation, particularly private members' bills, there may be a tendency to err on the side of caution. To narrow the scope, one must consider the end result. I am proud of the bill as it stands, but far be it from me to suggest we cannot broaden its scope or clarify its existing intent. I believe the House stands united in our belief that improvements can and must be made at the intersection of our sentencing process and the lived reality of Canadians who continue to struggle with mental health.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak to private member's Bill C-375, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to pre-sentence reports.

Let me say at the outset that our government will be supporting Bill C-375, and we commend the hon. member for Richmond Hill for his leadership and collaboration on the important issue of mental health in our criminal justice system.

I was listening very carefully to some of the concerns expressed by my Conservative colleague from the riding of Durham. It is important to address the thrust of it, which is that this private member's bill is somehow vague. In fact, in our interpretation of this private member's bill, it serves to clarify and cure a vagueness in the Criminal Code by making an express reference to mental health concerns in the context of the criminal sentencing process. What is important for my hon. colleague to appreciate is that in that context, when we are talking about finding someone not criminally responsible as a result of not having the mental capacity to appreciate the consequences of committing a criminal offence, it is a separate and distinct legal concept from the provisions under sections 718 and 721 of the Criminal Code, where after an accused individual pleads guilty and has accepted responsibility for committing those offences, a judge would take into consideration mental health issues as part of the overall sentencing exercise. I offer those comments in the spirit of constructive dialogue.

Let me say for my hon. colleague from Richmond Hill that in the first hour of second reading debate, the sponsor stated that his bill is intended to ensure that individuals with mental illnesses who find themselves in the criminal justice system are afforded the care, compassion, and appropriate treatment they need during the process of their rehabilitation. Specifically, the bill aims to make the criminal justice system more responsive to individuals with mental health issues by amending subsection 721(3) of the Criminal Code to specify that a pre-sentence report must contain information regarding any mental disorder from which the offender suffers.

A pre-sentence report is a written document prepared by a probation officer to help the court learn more about the person to be sentenced. Its purpose is to assist the court in making the appropriate sentencing decision. These reports are intended to be an accurate, independent, and balanced assessment of an offender and his or her prospects for the future.

Accordingly, these pre-sentence reports help to provide judges with a firm evidentiary basis on which to exercise their discretion at sentencing. When judges are given the necessary background and context about each unique set of circumstances, the result is a sentence that better protects the community, rehabilitates the offender, and ultimately reduces crime.

The Criminal Code currently outlines that certain information about the offender, including his or her age, maturity, character, behaviour, attitude, and willingness to make amends, should be contained in a pre-sentence report.

It should also include the criminal history of the offender under the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the history of previous sentences and findings of guilt. The history of alternative measures used to deal with the offender, and the offender's response to those measures, should similarly be contained in the report. Those measures may include judicial cautions or programs requiring community service or repairing harm done.

However, the Criminal Code does not presently expressly require that information about the mental condition of the offender, as it relates to the offence, be included in the pre-sentence report. In my view, this is highly relevant information for a judge who is attempting to craft an appropriate sentence. Indeed, as we learn more and more about the role of mental health issues in contributing to criminal behaviour, the importance of considering this information at sentencing is beyond question.

The impacts of mental illness are of course not limited to the criminal justice system. They are linked to much broader challenges being faced by our society as a whole. Today mental health issues cost Canadians millions of dollars each year. As the sponsor has previously said, it is estimated that the total cost of mental health challenges exceeds $50 billion annually in health care expenses and lost productivity. According to the Canadian Mental Health Association, in any given year, one in five people in Canada will personally experience a mental health problem or illness. These challenges are even more pronounced in the criminal justice system.

While statistics are not as fulsome as we may like, there is evidence to suggest that in our penitentiaries, mental health issues are two to three times more prevalent than in the general population. The rate of mental illness among federal offenders has more than doubled in the last 20 years. In fact, individuals with mental illness are more likely to be arrested, detained, and incarcerated and are consequently more likely to be disciplined rather than treated. This is an ongoing issue, as once they have been released from the criminal justice system, they are also more likely to be rearrested and to reoffend. In other words, an offender whose mental illness is unrecognized and untreated is at far greater risk of being caught in the revolving door of incarceration and repeat offending.

That is why we need to continue to develop measures like the one proposed in Bill C-375, to address mental health in a proactive way. In particular, the bill will help to ensure that our judges are well-equipped to assess the needs of those being sentenced and enable them to direct the offenders to proper rehabilitation. This, ultimately, will help to break the vicious cycle of criminality by addressing this issue at the outset.

The social and economic benefits of this smart and proactive approach to criminal justice can hardly be overstated. Under the prior government, we saw time and time again that a regressive approach to sentencing divides families and consumes financial resources that could be better used to improve the lives of Canadians and to keep all of them safe. Instead, by identifying and meeting the mental health needs of offenders in the short term, we can stop that revolving door of chronic reoffending and create a safer, more prosperous community for all. All of this begins by identifying the underlying problem, which is precisely what Bill C-375 works to ensure.

It appears to me that supporting this bill is consistent with a number of broader initiatives of our government that are aimed at supporting those mental health issues, and they go back to our prior budgets. In budget 2018, we build on the investments made in past years, proposing an additional $20.4 million over five years, beginning in 2018-19, and $5.6 million per year ongoing. The funding is aligned with the recently announced investment of $5 billion over 10 years to improve mental health services across the country.

Bill C-375 is also consistent with the mandate given by the Prime Minister to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General . In particular, she was directed to “address gaps in services to...those with mental illness throughout the criminal justice system.” In my view, the measures proposed in Bill C-375 are consistent with that mandate and will serve to advance our government's broader plan to address the challenges related to mental health in Canada.

Before concluding, I wish to draw attention to a few questions I have identified with this bill. I would like to think that these issues could be studied by the committee and possibly addressed through minor amendments.

First, I note that the bill focuses on the need for a diagnosis of an offender, and not on the symptoms or behaviours that manifest as a result of a mental health issue. In my view, it would be more useful to a sentencing judge to have broader information about the offender's mental health more generally, rather than the official diagnosis.

Second, I would note that the bill does not contain a link or a nexus between the mental health information that is sought and the purpose for which it will be used. For me, this raises some concerns that a sentencing court could be provided with mental health information that may not be directly relevant to the offence, and by extension the sentencing process. I trust that these are issues the committee will address through its study.

Finally, it seems to me that the language with respect to “mental health programs” could create some confusion as to what type of information should be provided to the court. In my view, it is unclear what is meant by the term “programs”, as mental health care is, indeed, a specific type of medical care and not specifically delivered through programming.

Once again, I expect that all these issues can be thoroughly addressed at committee.

I would once again like to thank the sponsor of this bill and commend him for his work and his commitment to mental health issues. I know that it comes from a place of great sincerity and authenticity. I look forward to supporting this private member's bill, along with all members of the House.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the House today to speak to Bill C-375, which would amend the Criminal Code in order to introduce information about mental health issues and disorders in pre-sentence reports.

The NDP is committed to building a criminal justice system that works for everyone. We want compassion and rehabilitation to be central to our policy. That is why my NDP colleagues and I will support this bill, which we believe is necessary to ensure fair and effective justice for all Canadians.

The NDP believes that this bill is a step in the right direction because it ensures that the judge will have all the information needed to hand down a fair and equitable ruling.

At present, nearly 36% of federal offenders need some form of psychiatric or psychological follow-up. I would remind the House, however, that paragraph 721(3)(a) of the Criminal Code requires only certain information to be included in a pre-sentence report, namely “the offender’s age, maturity, character, behaviour, attitude and willingness to make amends”, but nothing on possible mental health issues.

This is despite the fact that people with mental illness are currently overrepresented in our criminal justice system. It would therefore be a good idea to take them into account by including mental health information in pre-sentence reports so that judges can make fairer and more appropriate decisions. Adding information on offenders' mental health represents a real opportunity to modernize our justice system and adapt it to reflect the current reality.

Bill C-375 is far from perfect, however. My NDP colleagues and I all agree that this bill desperately lacks ambition and does not go far enough. If we really want to bring about change, we need meaningful action on the accessibility of mental health care. Tuesday's budget could have been an excellent opportunity to invest, but no.

The NDP believes that mental health care should be just as readily available and accessible as any other health care service in our communities. It is only logical and only fair that comparable resources be allocated to mental and physical illnesses.

We must continue to focus on compassionate care in order to help Canadians with mental illness rejoin society after incarceration and avoid over-criminalization wherever possible.

That is why I believe that it is high time for the Liberal government to invest in programs that will truly help people with mental illness before or during their time in the criminal justice system. According to the Mental Health Commission of Canada, over a million children and youth in Canada have a mental illness, yet less than 20% of them are able to get the treatment they need.

That is why, during the last election campaign, the NDP promised to create an innovation fund for youth mental health services, with a particular focus on first nations and rural and remote communities. This innovation fund would be a real way of proactively preventing crimes committed by people with mental illness.

I believe that we need to completely rethink the way we look at things. We need to take care of these people and ensure that they get the treatment they need instead of completely abandoning them as is currently far too often the case.

We must also remember that these people who have serious illnesses often do not have the skills or the ability to adapt to the prison environment. However, with the closure of care facilities for people with mental illness and developmental disabilities, the criminal justice system has become a refuge for people who do not have the resources to cope with life in society.

Solitary confinement and other such measures meant to enhance prison security are never appropriate solutions for people with mental illness. When they leave prison, they end up having untreated or aggravated mental health problems, which may contribute to recidivism.

While the Conservatives want to focus on harsher penalties that will only make matters worse, the NDP prefers to focus on real solutions. This is why the NDP believes in helping convicts who have a mental disorder get access to resources and support so that they can rehabilitate and reintegrate as productive members of society. We believe that we must do everything to reintegrate former inmates into society and to make sure they have the tools to do so.

I want to take a moment to highlight a number of organizations in my riding of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot that are working very hard to help people with mental illnesses and their families. These organizations include The Lighthouse; Les Ateliers de transition; the Auberge du coeur Le Baluchon; the Centre psychosocial Richelieu-Yamaska; the Centre de femmes L'autonomie en soiE; the Collectif de défense des droits de la Montérégie; the Maison alternative de développement humain, or MADH, as it is known; the Trait d'Union Montérégien; and, of course, our volunteer centres and our health and social services institutions.

Every day, these organizations work to help people in need and contribute to improving life for the entire Saint-Hyacinthe and Acton Vale community. Le Phare is one such organization. Its mission is to bring together and help the loved ones of a person with serious mental health problems and provide them with a wide range of support services in order to help them reintegrate into society more easily.

Saint-Hyacinthe and the surrounding region can also count on the work of the Centre psychosocial Richelieu-Yamaska, which has set out to help people with mental health problems in their quest for a better quality of life with a focus on significant and lasting integration into the community.

It is thanks to local organizations like those that we can change things. That is why I believe that we must help them at a federal level in order to allow them to continue their vital mission.

I want to acknowledge another community organization in my riding in particular, the Trait d'Union Montérégien, a not-for-profit community organization that provides a sponsorship service for the social reintegration of adults who have lived with, continue to live with, or are at risk of living with emotional distress.

Since 1991, more than 300 people were able to meet a friend through this organization. When one understands how much support a good friend can provide, one understands how essential an organization like Trait d'Union Montérégien is for people who do not benefit from such relationships in their usual social circle.

The work that these organizations do is invaluable and a source of hope for thousands of people across Canada who are struggling with mental illness. However, I believe that it is vital that the government take action at the national level because the work that these community organizations do locally is not enough to bring about real change. That is why the NDP committed to working with all community workers, mental health professionals, front line workers such as the RCMP, and the provincial and territorial justice systems to seek better support services for people with mental illnesses. I encourage the government to do the same.

I repeat that the NDP will support this bill. However, my colleagues and I believe that the government needs to do more to deal with the overrepresentation of people with mental illness in the criminal justice system.

In our eyes, amending our Criminal Code to include information about mental health issues and disorders in pre-sentence reports is a good start. In conclusion, however, this move falls well short of what is needed to make a real difference for the thousands of people suffering from mental health issues who need real support from the federal government. It is time for the government to find the courage to release funds for mental health care. That is the kind of ambitious initiative I was expecting from the 2018 federal budget, but sadly, we will have to keep waiting.

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been a good debate here on a Friday and I appreciate the time given to me by the House earlier with respect to my question of privilege.

I am rising now to speak on behalf of the Conservative Party with respect to Bill C-375 brought forward by the Liberal MP for Richmond Hill with respect to amending the Criminal Code. It is a short bill, because it is really trying to insert one element into the pre-sentence report. I will speak for a few moments about the bill's intention, from what I can find, and then some of the concerns we have with it essentially because it is vague and causes us some concern, which I will get into.

Specifically, the goal of the bill is to amend the pre-sentence report prepared under the auspices of the Criminal Code under subsection 721(3). It wants to insert a new ground for the pre-sentence report, which would be:

(a.1) any mental disorder from which the offender suffers as well as any mental health care programs available to them;

The MP for Richmond Hill with respect to introducing the bill has said that he wants it to include information on families with a history of mental illness to ensure that they are afforded care. We all agree with the afforded care aspect of this.

Mental health conditions and mental health conditions that may be involved in someone's criminal behaviour are serious but there also must be compassion. There is compassion with respect to treatment and making health care programs available and that sort of thing. Generally, our criminal justice system does that.

Various prisoner ombudsmen and people like that have highlighted that we do not have enough mental health resources within our criminal justice system, but the bill is not about that. The bill is about basically just highlighting mental health programming. I agree with that. That is reasonable. It is already being done now but perhaps it is not being done well enough. This legislation would insert that availability into the pre-sentence report. If the person is sentenced, that availability comes later but that is the part of this private member's legislation that we generally feel we are aligned with.

The trouble with the bill is that because it is vague, maybe intentionally so, it seems like mental health might be an aspect of every sentencing decision that a judge looks at in a criminal court context. This being only a one-line bill, it is hard for us to determine. There has not been much public discussion on this, so it is hard for us to determine if that is the case. That concerns me and I will get into why shortly.

Right now what is in the pre-sentence report under subsection 721(3) of the Criminal Code is age, character, maturity, history, including criminal history, and the remorse or willingness to make amends. These sorts of things are the typical aspects that go into the pre-sentence report that a judge will consider before rendering a sentence, after a finding of guilt.

The reference to mental health in a vague sense here, “any mental health disorder from which the offender suffers”, does not actually go to intent or mens rea or actus reus, the fundamentals of criminal law. Was there a guilty mind? Was there a guilty act?

Is the member for Richmond Hill suggesting that even property crimes or things like that should consider all mental health aspects? It is not clear enough. If someone was depressed that would not necessarily mean he or she did not understand, that he or she did not have the mens rea to commit a theft. What is worse is when we start getting into crimes against other people. How does this relate to mental health impacting a decision when violence, for example, is committed against another citizen. This is why we have some concerns with it being vague.

Is the bill's intention to make this a requirement for consideration in all aspects of mental health or is it meant to be part of the general discussion on not criminally responsible due to mental disorder? That is already firmly established and I will talk about that in a moment.

I always try to remind people when we talk about criminal justice issues that rehabilitation, treatment, and all of those things are very important, and they have a place in our criminal justice system. However, what often is the difference in the House of Commons is that the Liberals or the NDP put rehabilitation of the offender always first, and in some cases, it is the only consideration with respect to sentencing and incarceration, whereas I find the Conservatives look at all aspects of the principles of sentencing an offender.

Remember, this is after a finding of guilt, regardless of what the underlying Criminal Code provision is. I refer the member and anyone following this debate to section 718 of the Criminal Code, which is our principles of sentencing. This is something we learn in law school, because it is kind of the foundation of our criminal justice system. While some people, advocates and people on the left, talk almost exclusively about rehabilitation, what are the principles of sentencing? What are the foundations of our criminal justice system? I will read them out.

The first is denunciation of unlawful conduct. The second is deterrence. The third is the separation of the offender and protection of society. The fourth is the assistance in the rehabilitation of the offender, which is the rehabilitation aspect. The fifth is reparation for criminal conduct on society or in some cases the victim. Finally, the last principle of sentencing in our Criminal Code is the promotion of a sense of responsibility.

I think that final one is probably the most important, alongside protection of the public in cases where there is violence. Certainly in cases where there is no violence, rehabilitation should probably be a key priority, especially for young people, and our system has that already. However, when we talk about cases that involve violence, that is when we think protection of the public, denunciation of conduct, promotion of a sense of responsibility, deterrence, and all of those other factors should take priority. I think average Canadians agree with that.

What is not clear about the bill is how it relates to capacity decisions of an offender. In pre-sentencing, is any mental health condition just part of a “not criminally responsible” discussion, because there is already provision for that, or is it just meant to be a consideration for later treatment? In the bill there is treatment and the consideration of historical conditions, and we see a lot of talk in society today now about trauma being intergenerational. Is intergenerational trauma somehow a consideration at pre-sentencing, meaning somebody should not receive a sentence appropriate because of trauma committed in the past? When there is a very light, vague bill, it is not clear for us to understand.

We already have a not criminally responsible provision for mental disorder where somebody does not have the capacity to understand, the mens rea or the mental intention of their act. They committed the act, the actus reus, which is one part of a criminal act. The mens rea or the mental intention is the other. We already have not criminally responsible.

In the Winko decision in 1999, the Supreme Court said that within that construct, if there is not capacity, then security of the public, if the offender is violent, is still a key priority. We talk about this often, because there are cases like the Schoenborn case in Merritt, B.C., where the public loses faith in the criminal justice system because they see NCR cases not having the protection of the public and other aspects of criminal sentencing principles applied. We know of the Vincent Li case in Manitoba and others. These erode public confidence in our system.

Our concern from the Conservative Party is that the bill is so vague. If this is just about making sure that treatment options are discussed while the person is incarcerated or serving a conditional sentence or something, that is one thing. However, with the consideration of historical mental illness and this sort of vague notion, we do not want to see a situation where there is a violent crime committed and the history of intergenerational trauma or depression would somehow be an excuse for the mens rea. Mental health conditions often will mean that people do have the capacity. I talk about veterans and mental health all the time. It is an injury in some cases, but that person still has the capacity.

Therefore, the MP for Richmond Hill has to shed a little more light on this to address these reasonable concerns.

The House resumed from December 8, 2017, consideration of the motion that Bill C-375, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (presentence report), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech. As he highlighted, the purpose of Bill C-375 is to amend subsection 721(3) of the Criminal Code to require pre-sentencing reports to provide, unless the court orders otherwise, information on any mental illness that offenders may suffer from and any mental health care programs available to them.

Our government acknowledges that the criminal justice system must provide better answers to mental health problems. To that end, in budget 2017, the government committed $5 billion over five years to help the provincial and territorial governments make mental health care more accessible to Canadians. In her mandate letter, the Minister of Justice was asked to conduct a comprehensive review of the criminal justice system. This includes identifying the needs of offenders that suffer from mental illness and determining how these services can be improved. By acknowledging the needs of offenders suffering from mental illness, we can reduce recidivism rates and make our communities safer.

We will continue to look at measures to address the disproportionate representation of offenders with mental disorders in the criminal justice system. According to the Correctional Service of Canada, more than 70% of federal offenders and more than half of federally sentenced offenders have mental disorders.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the second reading debate on this private member's bill, Bill C-375, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding pre-sentence reports. This bill seeks to address the issue of mental health in the criminal justice system through a targeted amendment to the Criminal Code provision governing pre-sentence reports. Specifically, the bill would clarify that a pre-sentence report should, where possible, contain information about any mental disorder from which an offender suffers as well as any mental health care programs available to them.

I am in full agreement with the sponsor that the issue of mental health is of great concern to the criminal justice system. It has been identified as a key concern by many criminal justice stakeholders over the years. As part of our commitment to broadly review the criminal justice system in Canada, the Minister of Justice has indicated that addressing the needs of vulnerable offender populations in the criminal justice system is a key priority. Addressing the issue of mental health is also part of the Minister of Justice's mandate letter from the Prime Minister. Specifically, her mandate directs her to address gaps in services for those with mental illness throughout the criminal justice system.

The issue of mental health has arisen numerous times so far in the course of the minister's criminal justice review. It was raised by experts and other community stakeholders at the series of criminal justice round tables hosted by the Minister of Justice across Canada over the past two years. This thorough consultative process included a total of 20 round tables, with at least one in every province and territory. Mental health professionals, as well as representatives from traditionally marginalized communities, including indigenous and other racialized populations, featured prominently among the participants.

The round table held in Vancouver, in August 2016, was explicitly focused on mental health. At that event, our government heard, in no uncertain terms, that our criminal justice system must do a better job responding to mental illness. Experts in the field, as well as those with first-hand criminal justice experience, explained that addressing mental health is one of the critical ways our government can reduce crime, and in doing so, create safer and more prosperous communities throughout Canada.

Not only must we recognize mental health issues among those already involved in the criminal justice system, but by improving the mental health of our citizens before they engage in criminal behaviour, we can prevent longer-term struggles, which ultimately deprive our society of the full potential of those people. This idea was borne out in many of the stories and first-hand accounts we heard from Canadians throughout the round table process.

A typical story, one that is all too often true in our society, frequently begins with a young person from a marginalized community. That person experiences symptoms of mental distress, often beginning with depression or anxiety, but they go unnoticed because of a lack of institutional capacity or social support. The young person's mental state deteriorates, leading to lower performance at school, social withdrawal, and poor decision-making. The person's first involvement with the criminal justice system is often pursuant to a minor offence, such as a low-value theft or mischief. Nevertheless, he or she is convicted, and most likely, on a second offence, sentenced to a short period in custody. At this stage, the system fails to recognize the presence of worsening mental illness. Once inside the criminal justice system, the youth is exposed to an environment that aggravates rather than treats the mental health issues and the young person identifies with older, more serious offenders.

Upon returning to the community, the young person now suffers from a worsening, untreated mental illness and lacks the tools to effectively reintegrate. The unfortunate reality is that this person is now far more likely to reoffend and to live a life of continued criminal behaviour.

This story should not surprise any member of this House. While it is merely an example, our experience, including that gained through our own government's consultation process, has shown that this type of scenario continues to present itself in Canadian society.

It is because of stories like these that I commend the sponsor for his commitment to addressing mental health in the criminal justice system through Bill C-375. As I read the proposal, it would essentially codify the current practice of including mental health information in a pre-sentence report, where that information is readily available. In my view, this bill would not compel offenders to provide information about their mental health situation against their wishes, nor would it provide the court with the power to order the production of mental health records or empower it to order an assessment of the mental condition of the offender.

I understand that it is already common practice in many jurisdictions for offenders to provide information about their mental health through a probation officer where they feel it is beneficial to them. Therefore, in my view, the practical result of the bill would be to signal to a sentencing judge that this information is a relevant consideration at sentencing.

As I was reviewing the bill, I considered how such a proposal might fit within the broader goals and mandate of the Minister of Justice. The criminal justice system must protect all Canadians and keep our communities safe, but it must also protect the rights of all Canadians.

Our government is committed to ensuring the criminal law meets the highest standards of equity, fairness and respect for the rule of law. Healthy and safe communities are built upon a criminal justice system that treats the individuals with whom it interacts with respect, dignity, and in a manner that always upholds the rights and freedoms afforded to all by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Such a proposal could be seen as complementing our government's broader objectives of improving access to mental health care services for all Canadians.

For example, as members of the House will know, our government made a historic investment in mental health in budget 2017, with $11 billion of federal money being transferred to the provinces and territories over the next 10 years, almost half of which is to be dedicated to improving access to mental health and addiction services.

In addition, budget 2017 committed $118.2 million over five years to improve mental health supports for first nations and Inuit peoples. This money will be provided directly to communities so they can specifically tailor programs to meet their individual needs. This funding is in addition to the $69 million over three years announced in 2016 for immediate mental health needs and the more than $300 million provided annually to support culturally relevant mental wellness services for Canada's indigenous communities.

These significant and historic investments in front-line mental health services will benefit all Canadians, not just those who find themselves at odds with the criminal justice system. These upstream investments in mental health services could prevent a mentally ill person from coming into contact with the criminal justice system in the first place. Investing resources in our currently saturated mental health care system could decrease the likelihood that the criminal justice system would become the default method of dealing with these individuals.

I would like to briefly reflect on the communication I have had with members of my own community, constituents in my riding of Mississauga—Lakeshore, who have repeatedly written to me on the importance of mental health in Canada, particularly with respect to young people, indigenous communities, and also increasingly our seniors. In their correspondence to me, they underscore the importance for the government and all parliamentarians to take mental health seriously, to integrate mental health systematically into our policy decision-making processes, and to backstop the need to invest in mental health with adequate resources and investments.

I would like to thank the sponsor again for the steps he took in introducing the bill into the House of Commons. Through his own framework, his own lens of criminal justice and its intersection with mental health needs in Canada, he has moved the yardstick forward.

I am thankful for the opportunity to discuss this important proposal. I look forward to continued debate on this important private member's bill.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I want to recognize and express deep gratitude to remarkable leader, a former minister, my predecessor, the Hon. Rona Ambrose, who served the people of Sturgeon River—Parkland with distinction. It is an honour to follow in her footsteps as the representative of Sturgeon River—Parkland.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-375, an act to amend the Criminal Code in regard to pre-sentencing reports. I want to thank my hon. colleague, the member for Richmond Hill, for championing the issue of mental health in Canada. The bill would amend the Criminal Code to require a pre-sentencing report that contains information on any mental disorder a offender suffers from.

Canadians expect their justice system to keep them safe from high-risk individuals, and we need a policy that strikes a balance between the need to protect society from those who pose a danger and to treat with compassion those with mental illness and mental disorders. I will not be supporting the bill because I do not believe it would achieve this balance between compassion for victims and their families, and for the offenders who suffer from mental illness.

Currently, section 721 of the Criminal Code enables a probation officer to publish a pre-sentence report after the offender is found guilty. The purpose of the report is to assist the court in imposing a sentence or in determining whether an accused should be discharged. A pre-sentence report must contain the following information: the offender's age, maturity, character, and willingness to make amends. It also contains the history of previous dispositions under the Young Offenders Act and the history of alternative measures used to deal with the offender and the offender's response to those measures.

Bill C-375 proposes to add another requirement to this list: the consideration of any mental health disorder from which the offender suffers, as well as any mental health care programs available to him or her. In practice, this would create some unfairness and inconsistencies in the application of laws and justice. Not all mental health disorders are the same. In fact, even the same mental health disorders can have a great deal of variance in how they impact individuals. It is paramount that compassion for those suffering with mental health disorders be balanced with the need to protect public safety and provide justice for victims and their families.

These changes are also a concern because they could add considerable delays to our court system, which is already overburdened. Increased delays and complexity would not help those in the justice system who have mental health disorders, nor would they be good for victims and their families. I do not think any of my colleagues in this House would want trials to be unnecessarily delayed, or after the fact, and I believe this legislation could add delays to our system.

Our understanding of mental health continues to evolve with more research. It is an incredibly complex issue, as I mentioned. There is a danger when anyone attempts to address mental health too broadly. The requirement of the bill to add pre-sentencing reports for mental disorders is too broad. As I said, not all mental health disorders are the same, and not all of them are equally relevant to our justice system. Currently, judges are able to take into account relevant information to ensure that the mentally ill are not treated poorly, and can do so without this legislation and in a way that is not cumbersome to the system. In the case of Vince Li in Manitoba, I believe that the justice system dealt quite ably with it by showing compassion both to the offender and to the victims and their families. It shows that the system is largely working well, and I believe this legislation could further tip the balance too far in the favour of the accused and against the victims and their families.

Another danger with this proposed change would be that its broad definition could be applied to something very different from the sorts of illnesses considered relevant in past cases. For example, we are increasingly becoming aware that hard-drug addictions can be considered mental illnesses, but do we really want drug addicts using their addictions as an excuse for committing crimes? For the law to maintain the confidence of Canadians, it must be consistently applied. Sentencing exceptions for mental health disorders could create an incentive for the accused persons to claim they have a mental disorder.

Like all Canadians, we hope for the successful rehabilitation of those who have taken up a life of crime. Our first priority, however, must be the safety and security of Canadians and the communities where we work and live.

It is well known that an increasing number of people who have become involved in the criminal justice system have mental health disorders. These individuals pose unique challenges for police, courts, correctional facilities, and social workers.

In closing, any justice bill must balance the right of the public to be adequately protected when those who suffer from mental illness pose a danger to society with the right of those suffering from mental illnesses to be treated appropriately and with compassion.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand today and join in the second reading debate on private member's Bill C-375, an act to amend the Criminal Code.

Before I begin my speech I would like to thank my hon. friend from Richmond Hill, who in caucus and throughout this Parliament has been a tireless advocate for mental health.

This legislation would amend provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with pre-sentence reports to be more responsive to offenders with mental health issues. A pre-sentence report is ordered in some cases to help the court learn more about the person being sentenced.

Specifically, the bill would amend subsection 721(3) of the Criminal Code to provide that a pre-sentence report must, where available, and unless the court orders otherwise, contain information on any mental disorder from which an offender suffers, as well as any mental health care programs available to the offender.

Requiring information about the offender's mental health disorder would be in addition to the information that the Criminal Code currently requires to be included in a pre-sentence report. Under the current law, a pre-sentence report must, wherever possible, contain certain information about the offender, such as age, maturity, character, and willingness to make amends.

Bill C-375 would make it clear to the courts that where mental health information is readily available, it should be included in the pre-sentence report. For example, often offenders will provide information about their mental health situation to the probation officer who is preparing the report. The officer will often include this information in the report, which is in turn relied upon by the crown, defence counsel, and the sentencing judge.

The sponsor of the bill, the hon. member for Richmond Hill, has indicated that his intention in introducing the bill was to ensure that information outlining any mental health disorders as well as any mental health care programs available is before the courts to ensure that those offenders with histories of mental illness are afforded care and compassion, and that they will receive appropriate treatment throughout the process of their rehabilitation.

I agree with the sponsor that this is important information that can be extremely valuable to a sentencing judge. In fact, it is my understanding that criminal courts in Canada can, and do, consider the mental health information of an offender when it is before them. Any sentence that is imposed without reference to available medical evidence, including mental health information, is vulnerable to attack on appeal. I do not read this proposal, however, as compelling offenders to provide information about their mental health situation against their wishes.

I understand that including mental health information in pre-sentence reports is already common practice in many jurisdictions. The legal effect of Bill C-375 would serve to codify this practice and signal to sentencing judges that this information is relevant to their deliberations.

Inroads are being made in recent years to eliminate the stigma around mental illness. People are more willing to talk about their struggles and their lives with a mental illness. This increased openness has led us to learn more about the scope of mental illness in Canada.

The Mental Health Commission of Canada indicates that in any given year, one in five Canadians experience a mental health or addiction problem. Other statistics indicate that by the time Canadians reach 40 years of age, one in two experienced a mental illness. Additionally, we know that our young people are more likely to experience mental health issues than any other group.

It is well known that in the past decades, the number of individuals with mental health issues involved in the criminal justice system has increased. There is no singular reason for this increase, however, a number of causes have been cited as contributing factors. These include gaps in services for marginalized populations, including housing, income, and health services. In this regard I am extremely proud to be part of a government that is making great strides in these areas, for instance, the recently announced national housing strategy.

We also know that individuals with mental health illness are often likely to come to the attention of the police and be arrested and detained. Once detained, accessing appropriate mental health services can be a challenge.

The complexities of this issue cannot all be addressed through a private member's bill, nor can the Criminal Code solve such a profound and complex social problem.

However, I think it is fair to say that the sponsor's intent is to take one meaningful step in addressing the larger problem of the overrepresentation of the mentally ill in the criminal justice system. The bill proposes a narrow and targeted approach to ensure that in situations where a pre-sentence report is ordered, readily available mental health information is to be considered.

The stated goals of the bill are consistent with the mandate given by the Prime Minister to the Minister of Justice, which asks her to address gaps in services to those with mental illness throughout the criminal justice system. I think most Canadians would agree that the issue of mental illness could be better managed in the criminal justice system. It is an area where we must continue to work together with our provincial and territorial counterparts as well as community stakeholders to ensure that meaningful progress is made.

I want to be clear that improving the mental health responses of the criminal justice system is not about letting offenders off easy. On the contrary, it is consistent with our government's stated commitment to a criminal justice system that keeps communities safe, respects victims, and holds offenders to account. In particular, addressing mental health is one of the critical ways we can divert offenders from the so-called revolving door of incarceration, improve chances of successful reintegration, and make more efficient use of scarce resources. These outcomes, and not simply punitive measures, should drive our decision-making. As a result, every step we take to improve outcomes for those with mental illness is a step worthy of careful consideration by parliamentarians.

The proposals in the bill are also consistent with our government's other efforts to improve mental health care more generally across the country.

In budget 2017, the government committed $5 billion over the next 10 years to the provinces and territories to improve access to mental health services. In addition, to ensure that federally sentenced offenders with mental health needs receive proper care, budget 2017 proposed to invest $57.8 million over five years starting in 2017-18, and $13.6 million per year thereafter, to expand mental health care for all inmates in federal correctional facilities.

This funding is in addition to the $69 million over three years announced in 2016 for immediate mental health needs, and more than $300 million provided annually to support culturally relevant mental wellness services in indigenous communities. These significant and historic investments in front-line mental health services will benefit all Canadians, not just those who find themselves at odds with the criminal justice system.

I am encouraged by these financial commitments. It reflects the importance of investing in upstream services to ensure that people can receive help when they need it, before they come into contact with the criminal justice system.

I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate on this important private member's bill. Safe and healthy communities are built upon a criminal justice system that treats all Canadians with respect, dignity, and in a manner that always upholds the rights and freedoms afforded to all Canadians by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I would like to thank the sponsor of the bill, the hon. member for Richmond Hill, for providing us with an opportunity to debate this important issue facing the criminal justice system.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity today to speak to Bill C-375 sponsored by my colleague from Richmond Hill to amend the Criminal Code.

This bill has just one clause, and its objective is to provide more information on the profile of the accused in the pre-sentencing report used by the judge when determining the most appropriate sentence under the circumstances, or whether the accused should be absolved from serving a sentence.

At first reading, when the member for Richmond Hill introduced his bill, he stated the following:

The bill would mandate that, unless otherwise specified, when a pre-sentencing report is required by a court, in addition to such information as age, maturity, character, behaviour, attitude, and willingness to make amends, information outlining any mental health disorders as well as any mental health care programs available for the accused be provided as part of their pre-sentencing report. Such information is vital for the courts to have in order to ensure that those Canadians with histories of mental illness are afforded care and compassion, and that they will receive appropriate treatment throughout the process of their rehabilitation.

Bill C-375 states:

Subsection 721(3) of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after paragraph (a): (a.1) any mental disorder from which the offender suffers as well as any mental health care programs available to them;

Pre-sentence reports are given to members with a vested interest in the case: the presiding judge, both counsel for the defence and prosecution, the parole officer, the individual and in some cases the institution where the sentence will be served.

This report serves to help the judge determine the most appropriate sentence for the accused and to inform them of the available services that might be necessary in their rehabilitation.

The NDP is committed to building a criminal justice system that works. We want to ensure that compassion and rehabilitation are at the heart of our policies. Providing information about an individual’s mental health in a pre-sentencing report allows the judge to make a more informed and appropriate sentencing decision and falls directly in line with a justice system based on rehabilitation, as does including information about available mental health programs and services.

To be clear, the objective of this measure is not to disclose the mental health condition of the individual or to perpetuate the stigma or false perception that people with mental health disorders are dangerous.

The objective of the bill is to add information to pre-sentence reports with a view to helping individuals receive appropriate sentences and, with the proposed changes, receive the services they need.

People with mental illnesses are overrepresented in Canada's criminal justice system. Documenting the number of people with mental illnesses who are convicted of certain crimes will help us make the case for alternative programs and solutions. This information can also be used to develop resources and initiatives that prevent people with mental illness from entering the criminal justice system in the first place.

Although provisions providing for pre-sentence reports are set out in the Criminal Code, which is a federal legislation, the administration of the courts and law enforcement are the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories.

At present, the provinces and territories include different information in their pre-sentence reports.

Some provinces, like Nova Scotia, already advise that mental health considerations be disclosed, but this is not the case for all jurisdictions. This bill would create a national standard for all jurisdictions to consider mental health during sentencing.

Bill C-375 would also require the report to include information about any mental health care programs that might help with the individual's rehabilitation.

The following is an excerpt from a 2015 John Howard Society of Ontario report:

Since the closure of institutions serving individuals with mental illness and developmental disabilities, the criminal justice system has become a repository for individuals who lack adequate resources to cope with living in the community.

The correctional investigator's 2012 annual report found that 36% of federal offenders were identified at admission as requiring psychiatric or psychological follow-up.

What is more, 45% of male inmates and 69% of female inmates were treated for mental health issues while in prison.

Young adults aged 18 to 34 are overrepresented in correctional facilities since, according to Statistics Canada data from 2015-16, they represent only 28% of the Canadian adult population.

An Ontario study also showed that 80% of young inmates had a mental health issue.

In 2015-16, indigenous adults were also overrepresented in provincial and territorial corrections facilities since they accounted for 26% of admissions but represent only 3% of the Canadian adult population.

The overrepresentation of indigenous adults was more pronounced for women than men. Indigenous women represented 38% of women serving a sentence in a provincial or territorial institution, whereas for indigenous men, that figure was 26%.

In the federal correctional system, indigenous women accounted for 31% of women serving prison sentences, whereas for indigenous men, that figure was 23%.

The fact that people with mental health problems are being sent to prison and not being given the appropriate care is a real problem. Last April, the Toronto Star published the following quote from Justice David Paciocco of the Ontario Court of Appeal. He said:

From arrest to prosecution, conviction, sentencing, use of segregation, all stages of our criminal justice system are now consistently overrepresented by people who are suffering from psychosis, mania, mood disorders, depression, alcoholism and addiction, anxiety disorders, and personality disorders.

The judge continued:

Those suffering from mental health issues who are swallowed up by the criminal justice system do not fare well. The use of segregation or other standard isolation practices are the clearest examples of a system whose practices rooted in punishment and control can exacerbate the challenges facing people with mental health issues. Individuals leaving the system leave with unmanaged or worsened mental health issues, which can contribute to recidivism.

That is exactly what we want to avoid.

The New Democrat Party is committed to working with community workers, mental health professionals, front-line workers like the RCMP, and the provincial and territorial justice systems to demand better support services for people with mental illness. We also want to make sure communities have the resources and services they need to help people with mental illness before and during incarceration.

We need to continue focusing on compassionate care to help people with mental illness rejoin society after incarceration and avoid over-criminalization wherever possible.

If we can improve our ability to assess the needs of those being sentenced, our justice system will be able to direct them to the appropriate rehabilitation resources and so reduce the risk of recidivism—even eliminate recidivism entirely, in an ideal world. That is one of the reasons the New Democrat Party is calling for more detailed pre-sentence reports and will be supporting this bill.

Mental illness can have a tremendous impact on a person's life. Disclosure of mental illness definitely needs to factor into the determination of an appropriate sentence and rehabilitation plan.

Instead of spouting tough-on-crime rhetoric, the New Democratic Party has long been looking for ways to make our justice system work. Our goal is to help people convicted of crimes who have mental health problems get the resources and support they need to be rehabilitated and become fully functioning members of society.

We believe it is important to provide more support services and resources to people with mental illness who are involved in the criminal justice system.