Evidence of meeting #75 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was accused.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I find some of the lines of questioning curious, this assessment of strain to the provinces. When you look at this, you look at the fact that you're talking about an individual who will be deemed by a court to be a high-risk offender. That's when these provisions kick in.
Is that not accurate? These are for high-risk offenders?
4:50 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
A new designation process is proposed in the bill for certain individuals to be determined to be high risk. The minister mentioned it's not expected that a large number of individuals will be affected, because this is a smaller subset of the already small group of individuals who are found not criminally responsible. So that's one aspect of what the bill does.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
Right. So we're not talking about anybody who might be found to be NCR. We're talking about high-risk offenders who—I don't have the exact wording in front of me—are likely to reoffend, or people who have committed a brutal offence. That's what this is dealing with.
I know some people are wondering what the definition is. The definition to me...in a number of cases that we hear about in the media, what would qualify as “brutal” is quite clear. So again, I believe these would be fairly narrow applications.
This is a discretionary application put forward by a crown attorney. So you put that on top of it as well. To me, this is not going to be the broad stroke of a brush going across everybody who has been found not criminally responsible. It's going to be a narrowly focused issue dealing with some of the most serious cases.
Is that a fair and accurate assessment?
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Thank you, sir, for those questions.
Thank you for those answers.
Our next questioner from the New Democratic Party is Madame Day.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am going to pick up on Mr. Seeback's question. Does this apply only to people at high risk, yes or no?
4:55 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The bill proposes a number of things. One of its parts deals with the new designation of “high risk”. The threshold has been moved up. In other words, it is more difficult for a prosecutor to show that a person meets the criteria for a high-risk designation. However, other elements of the bill deal with accused found not criminally responsible or unfit to stand trial. It depends on which amendment we are dealing with. In any event, the high-risk accused designation is one quite specific element.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Thank you. That answer is all I need.
The bill's title is “An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act”. What does National Defence have to do with it? Is it because of post-traumatic stress syndrome? Why is there no mention of the RCMP?
4:55 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The National Defence Act has a parallel regime for accused who appear before the military justice system. In Canada, as a general rule, people appear before provincial or superior courts when they are accused of a crime under the Criminal Code. But members of the Canadian Forces stand trial before a court martial.
In that act, a parallel regime governs the way in which those people are treated. The amendments are simply in order to reflect the same concepts and to make the two regimes consistent.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
So members of the RCMP are treated like everyone else?
4:55 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
To my knowledge, yes, but I am not very familiar with the courts before which RCMP members appear. I seem to recall that they are criminal courts, just like for everyone else.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
The minister has said that victims can be advised, on request, when an NCR accused is released. At what point is that request made? Is it when the accused is released or when he is declared guilty? When and how? Do victims sign a form or do they make an official request to a court?
4:55 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It happens when a person's file is sent to the review board. When the criminal court has finished the trial, with a verdict of not criminally responsible or unfit to stand trial, the individual's file is sent to the review board. At that point, the board takes over the individual's file and checks whether a victim wants to be made aware of the hearings that will take place in subsequent years. They keep a registry.
Each board has its own procedures, but, as a general rule, it gathers that information and sets up a registry when it takes on a new file. I also believe that victims' support services, which can be found across Canada, provide their assistance in those situations.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Okay.
So it is not done in writing. But the victim still has to be contacted. I imagine they do not provide the NCR accused with the victim's address or whereabouts.
You may smile, Mr. Chair, but that is what happened with the lady and her son whom I mentioned earlier. There is nothing funny about it.
I imagine that victims have the right to ask that their addresses not be disclosed.
4:55 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Each review board is responsible for its own registry of victims, the procedures to contact the victims and to notify them of upcoming hearings, and so on.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Does the legislation provide for additional protection for those who feel that they are likely to be victims again once the accused is released?
4:55 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes, it does. The bill proposes new measures so that review boards give consideration to any safety concerns victims may have.
If you read the new provisions 672.541 and 672.542 under clause 10 of the bill, you will see that those are the key provisions that remind review boards to specifically take into consideration the safety concerns of victims.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Thank you very much for those questions, and thank you for those answers.
Our next questioner is Mr. Wilks, from the Conservative Party.
5 p.m.
Conservative
David Wilks Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for appearing here today.
You had mentioned earlier, and I just want to clarify this, that although there has been no discussion with regard to high-risk versus dangerous offenders, certainly the dangerous offender classification has been in the code for some time. It recognizes that a person who continually repeats a criminal offence could, under certain circumstances, be found to be a dangerous offender. Those offences stream from murder to infanticide to a number of the most serious and grievous crimes that are found in the Criminal Code.
Would you agree that a person who is NCR under high risk, who commits a crime that would be designated as a dangerous offender crime in the Criminal Code, would be recognized as having committed one of those crimes in which the accused would fall under one of the amendments to the code under which they could be held for up to 36 months or three years?
Could you explain to this committee, if you are able to, how we came to that three-year requirement to be held, as opposed to the one year now?
5 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Just to start I'd like to request that you have a little bit of caution in comparing the dangerous offender scheme and this scheme. They're not meant to replicate one another.
5 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
So I'd rather focus on what's proposed in Bill C-54 with respect to the mental disorder regime. I think the specific question you had was, why possibly up to three years—
5 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
—while currently one year is the standard. It was in 2005 and in that set of reforms, if I'm not mistaken, that it was made possible to extend that period to two years in cases of a serious personal injury offence.
With the high-risk designation, for an individual who is found to be high risk, it can be extended to three years. It can also still be just the one year, so it's a discretionary review period that can be extended. It could be one year longer, but the requirement is that the decision-maker has to be of the view that there is not likely going to be a substantial change in the person's mental condition in that period of time. Otherwise, it stays on a shorter review cycle.
Even if it is set to three years it can be on consent, which sometimes happens. In the event that there is significant improvement within the review period, there is an ability for the parties to request a hearing at an earlier date if that's deemed to be necessary.