Justice Committee on June 3rd, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thanks for that answer. Thank for those questions.

Our next questioner from the Conservative Party is Mr. Seeback.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I know that one of the things that we consistently try to work on is keeping citizens safe. It's a priority for our government. We brought forward a number of pieces of legislation in this Parliament, the Safe Streets and Communities Act being one of them. I think this is another important piece of legislation when we think about community safety. Maybe you could explain for us why this bill is so important and what it will do to help protect Canadians.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Again, I think this is an important component of what we do. You're quite correct. We've introduced dozens of pieces of legislation, all with the aim of better protecting the public, and at the same time, making sure that the interests of victims are heard and considered. This bill is consistent with our efforts to better represent victims across this country. This is why I believe that so many victims are pleased and supportive of what we are proposing in Bill C-54

As I indicated in an answer to an earlier question, ensuring that the victims are notified when an individual is being discharged, I think is only fair and appropriate. Again as I indicated to you, this is “if requested”, if they want to be notified. Victims sometimes say to me that they don't want to hear about this, and that's fair enough. But for those victims who do want to be notified, I think it's fair and reasonable that there's a regime in place to have the ability to have a non-communication order between that individual and the victim, If an individual gets released into the community. This is one of the important components of this particular bill, to ensure that the safety of victims is considered when decisions are being made.

We don't want anybody to be victimized in this country over and over again. So, yes, a major component of what we are doing here is ensuring that the individual concerns of victims are recognized.

I indicated three different components of what we are doing for victims, and again, I believe these are all very reasonable. I think they will stand the test of time. I hope that when you have individuals or groups before this committee, this comes up for discussion, because again, I've been very encouraged by the comments I have heard and the comments from my provincial counterparts for that matter as well.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

When you say “reasonable”, I think in a lot of circumstances specifically what you are talking about is just common sense. If you talked to the average person on the street and let them know these are the kinds of things that are going to be included in this bill, I think they'd say they couldn't believe that wasn't part of the system before. So I think those changes are going to be quite welcomed by the vast majority of Canadians.

One other thing I quickly want to talk about is that in one of the sections we amend, we talk about making public safety a stronger consideration. Maybe you could comment on that a little.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

That's a very good point.

What we say is that public safety will be the paramount consideration when the boards make a decision with respect to a not criminally responsible individual. Now there are individuals who will say that actually it was one of the considerations. That's on the list. I appreciate that, and you appreciate that. But what we're saying is that this should be the number one, the paramount, consideration, to begin with, in terms of making sure the public is protected.

Again, what we have found on other pieces of legislation.... You're not just protecting the public, you're protecting the individual from getting involved with something like that again. Everybody has a stake. Everybody has an interest in that. So yes, you're quite correct. We have made that very clear. That's in addition, of course, to the other provisions that I believe better protect people, and the ones that are specific to victims. So you have that, but again, that's something you will hear in your discussion of this.

Again, I believe that's one of the very reasonable propositions we have put in this bill. The protection of the public is the paramount consideration when a decision is being made with respect to an NCR-accused. That's only fair and reasonable, and I think you will hear support of that. Certainly I hope it gets your support, as I'm sure it will.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much, Mr. Seeback. Thank you, Minister.

Our next questioner, for five minutes, is Mr. Jacob.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here this afternoon, Mr. Minister.

Let me remind you that we supported this bill at second reading. But that was not to give you a blank cheque, it was to achieve a balanced approach. We recognize that this is a very difficult issue for victims, families and communities. Of course, as my colleague said, public safety must be the top priority, within the context of respect for the rule of law and for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So we will be studying this bill closely.

We have been clear that we are open to change. We must be sure of the way in which we manage cases in which the accused suffers from a mental illness. So there must be effective mental health care. We also want to know, very specifically, how we can help victims through this process.

In the coming weeks, we will be speaking to victims, to mental health experts, to representatives of the provinces, and so on. A number of witnesses will shed light on this for us and we will choose the best solution, the most balanced approach. We will not get involved in political games; we will examine the issue on its merits, case by case.

Mr. Minister, a number of victims have told us, not once, twice or ten times, but hundreds of times, that what they are looking for first and foremost is (a) psychological support and (b) financial support. Will Bill C-54 provide victims with psychological and financial support?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I'm encouraged, Monsieur Jacob. I think you said that you support the bill and you support a balanced approach, and about a minute or so later you said you're open to the bill. I hope that's not changed and that you will continue to support the bill. I think that's very important, for the reasons you've enumerated with respect to the interests of victims. This would be good. I hope you work on your colleagues in the Liberal Party, as well, and speak to them about perhaps getting together and unanimously moving forward on this. That would be very encouraging for everyone who worries about victims in this country.

You talked about some of the monetary issues. This is one of the reasons I have been such a supporter of the victims fund and the tens of millions of dollars that the government has put into it. We've funded many groups and individuals. We've better assisted people who have been victimized. I tell people that the money we have put toward these issues is taxpayers' money well spent.

Mr. Chairman, you know that I'm a big fan and a big supporter of child advocacy centres, which are to provide for children who are victims of crime. Again, all those people who find themselves victimized, I think should agree with me that there's much better support at the federal level for them, on a number of different levels.

As I pointed out to Mr. Casey, this is not in any way to diminish the huge responsibility that the provinces have with respect to health care. Indeed, that is their constitutional responsibility. But I always say that we have a responsibility as well. When you have a look at estimates and you see things for the victims fund, you don't even have to ask. You know I'm a big supporter of that because I think these things are appropriate.

Again, getting back to your initial comments, I would certainly hope that this bill moves through expeditiously. I hope all the opposition members stand up and say they're going to support victims in this country and that they're going to move forward on this important, and at the same time very reasonable, legislation. Certainly I look forward to your support.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

I add that we are supporting the bill at second reading, but that does not mean we are giving you a blank cheque.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I know, but—

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

As I understand it, Bill C-54 provides no additional psychological or financial assistance.

The Canadian Alliance on Mental Illness and Mental Health said that Bill C-54 was going to continue to perpetuate the myth that people suffering from mental disorders are violent. As we know, it is prevention that protects victims more.

What do you think of that statement?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

In answer to your first comment, this is not a budget bill. I have been very supportive over the years of the different efforts this government has made—too many, quite frankly, to enumerate here. There have been all the different financial supports we made to people either with mental health issues or people who find themselves victimized.

As I indicated in my opening comments—and I'm hoping that you and others will make sure we get that message out—not all mentally ill individuals commit crimes, and of those who do commit crimes, not all are violent or dangerous. This is why we are continuing with the not criminally responsible health regime and designation that's within the system. We're continuing with that. But as I indicated in my opening comments, we are also focusing on a relatively small group of violent individuals who may qualify for the high-risk category.

The good thing about it, which is something on which we can all agree, is that this has complete judicial oversight. When the crown makes the application, the judge who is in the position to make the not criminally responsible designation will also have that decision as well. I think that is something we can all support.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you for those answers and thanks for those questions.

The next questioner from the Conservative Party is Mr. Armstrong.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you very much for being here today to speak about this very important piece of legislation before us. From my reading of the legislation, I don't think there is any concern that the passage of this bill will see accused persons being kept in custody longer or indefinitely, regardless of whether they continue to pose a risk to society.

Could you expand a bit on that? If someone is incarcerated or in some sort of treatment facility and no longer poses a risk, can you satisfy those concerns that many people may have?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

You've made a good point. Sometimes you can get confusion when you're talking with people in this area. They don't go to prison, they don't go to jail, if they've been found not criminally responsible. In fact, they go to a hospital and that's entirely appropriate.

The boards that are set up under provincial auspices include people who will have a look at this individual to see what the best way of dealing with the individual is. Keeping the individual detained is one of the options, of course, but conditional release is another one, or an absolute discharge if in fact it's determined that the individual doesn't need to be detained. These medical questions come into play but there are certain guidelines that are given to these boards. Again, they're modified within this particular bill.

Your colleague mentioned making sure the protection of the public is the paramount consideration before we get into this. So there are a number of considerations taken into account, as they should be. But again, nobody should be confused about this. People aren't being jailed. This is not part of the prison system.

My colleague, Vic Toews, will tell you that he is very determined and very supportive of the efforts within the Canadian prison system to get these individuals the kind of mental health treatment that they need. Again that's another expenditure from the federal government in the whole area of mental health, and one, of course, that I support as well.

But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about people who have been hospitalized within the provincial system. I'm a big supporter of giving more money to the provinces to assist them in health care, but that being said, they are within this system and we want to get them the help they need, because everybody benefits from that. The individual benefits, and certainly society benefits. It's a safer, better place in which to live when they do get that kind of help.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Because these people have neither been acquitted nor convicted, they're not involved in the criminal justice system at that level. But we are talking about a very small percentage of high-risk offenders. I don't need any numbers. You probably don't know the exact number, but when you're talking about a small sample of people with mental illness who have committed a crime actually getting to this position of being high-risk offenders, what types of crimes have they committed to qualify for that type of risk?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

These are the most serious of offences. As I indicated in my opening remarks, things like certain sexual offences, offences that are involved with intending to endanger the life or safety of another person, again, sexual offences involving violence or attempted violence. We're talking about the most serious personal injury offences as found in the Criminal Code, and again, that's entirely appropriate.

This is not directed against the individual who, unfortunately, has become mentally disabled. That's not what it's about. We want that individual to get treatment and everybody supports that. As you pointed out, we're talking about a small number of individuals who have been found to be NCR. A small group of them would get this high-risk category, but again, we're talking about individuals who have committed serious personal injury offences as defined within the Criminal Code. I've enumerated some of them, but as you pointed out, this is a relatively small group.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

In your consultations with victims' groups, what was their opinion on this path you're taking forward with the not criminally responsible.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

They tell me they want to be notified. They say they don't want to see the individual who has caused horrible tragedy to their families in the grocery store or sitting in church with them next Sunday. They'd have a problem with that. As one of your colleagues said, a lot of these things just make common sense.

Again, this is what we are doing at the federal level with respect to victims across this country. We're looking at all aspects of the criminal justice system and within this regime as well, to make sure that victims are heard, that their priorities are taken into consideration. This is why I say to people, when they want to look at this, to have a look at what we're doing for victims. Yes, they should be notified if that's what they want. Yes, there should be provision for non-communication orders. Wouldn't that be reasonable if somebody has been victimized, that there should be an order out there that this individual shouldn't be communicating with them?

When I have met with victims, these are the kinds of stories they tell me. It's very disconcerting, quite frankly, when people start telling you about some of the things they have gone through. I always tell them the same thing, that they have the right group in Ottawa today. We are determined to do something about that. We will stand up with victims and that's exactly what's taking place in this piece of legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you for those answers.

Madame Day, welcome to the committee, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to the minister for kindly agreeing to answer our questions. It really is much appreciated.

Mr. Minister, in reply to a question from Mr. Armstrong, you said that groups had been consulted. Could you tell us if provincial and territorial review boards, as well as community groups that provide assistance to victims, have been consulted?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Again, I undertake consultations across this country, and I believe I've been to every capital in every province and territory. I've sat down with individuals, and quite frankly, it's true. A lot of the groups that come to see me are victims' groups that want to have their voices heard. I can tell you they have been very welcomed by me and my colleagues.

I meet on a regular basis with my provincial counterparts, the provincial and territorial attorneys general. The Attorney General of Manitoba has come out in support of what we're doing. I always tell them the same thing, that I'm very appreciative, regardless of their political affiliation. I welcome their coming forward and getting their support for the reasonable proposals that we've made. They've been very good at the provincial level.

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

Thank you, Mr. Minister. I have another question for you.

It is said that victims will be advised, by request, when an NCR accused is released. Since I worked with women's groups for a long time, I am going to discuss those victims with you.

How will they be advised? Who will do it, and when? Are measures in place to protect people in that situation when an NCR accused is released from prison?

I would appreciate a quick answer because I have another question for you. Thank you.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

That's assuming that quick answers are in order. I have full confidence in the regime set up by the provinces, that they will do this once they've had this direction. What ongoing protection will they have? One of them I just mentioned to my colleague is the non-communication order that can be a part of the order in releasing this individual, that they are not to contact the individual who has been victimized by them. It's not just a question of their being notified, as you pointed out. It's wonderful that they're being notified that the individual is out, but it goes farther than that. The non-communication order can be an order by the provincial tribunal to stay away from these people, to not communicate with them. As I indicated to my colleague, I think this is common sense.

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

We are talking about public safety, so it is very important. Let me tell you a quick story.

In Baie-Comeau, a woman with a 16-year-old child was advised that the person who had been charged with, and imprisoned for, domestic assault against her had been released. Subsequently, she and her 16-year-old son were murdered.

The public has to be protected. What protection will be provided to people when those found not criminally responsible get out of prison?