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.
5 p.m.
Conservative
David Wilks Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
That was my next question. If a person is designated to a three-year review and in that period of time there is evidence to show clinically that the person has improved, they could request a review by the review board to be redesignated, if that's a word I could use. How would that process work?
5 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I'm glad you asked the question.
It's actually not going to be a redesignation by the review board. The court, in this bill, is empowered to make the high-risk designation, and the court is empowered to revoke the high-risk designation.
After someone is designated as high risk and they're supervised and managed by the review boards, they will have reviews—whether annually or every two or three years—and the review board will look at their progress and how they're doing. If the review board then becomes of the opinion that the person no longer poses a substantial likelihood of committing further violence, the board can refer the matter back to the court with a recommendation to the court that perhaps the designation should be revoked.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
David Wilks Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
To be clear, if the review is to be revoked it's a judicial decision. It's not made by a review board; it's a judicial decision.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
No. It goes to a superior court of criminal jurisdiction.
5:05 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It could have been a superior court of criminal jurisdiction that made the order to begin with, or it could have been a provincial court that made the order. But certainly for the revocation it's a superior court of criminal jurisdiction.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
David Wilks Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
That's good to hear because that means it is going to the highest court possible in that jurisdiction.
Is that correct?
5:05 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
There are courts of appeal that are higher courts of jurisdiction. We're talking about it being a trial-level court, let's say.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Thank you for those questions and thank you for those answers.
The final questioner I have on my list is Mr. Jacob from the New Democratic Party.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Pierre Jacob NDP Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My thanks to the witnesses for joining us today.
Following the study conducted in 2002 by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the federal Department of Justice set up a data collection system for mentally disordered accused. According to those data, almost 50% of the accused found not criminally responsible or unfit to stand trial do not have a criminal record and a large majority of violent accused are suffering from schizophrenia (up to 75%), organic brain disorders (71%) or disorders related to the abuse of alcohol or other substances (82%).
Could you tell me what the recidivism rate is for the accused found not criminally responsible and whether it is higher than the rate for offenders who have served time in prison.
5:05 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Unfortunately, I am not a statistician. The Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics does not keep track of those types of data.
The Department of Justice did start to collect data after 2002. You are no doubt aware of the report that was prepared in 2006, I believe, by Mr. Latimer and Mr. Lawrence. Even though it is a very thorough report, it has no data on recidivism. That was not part of the existing data held by the review boards. The data was collected from all the review boards. So I don't have any other information to give you on that.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Pierre Jacob NDP Brome—Missisquoi, QC
If the regime dealing with high-risk accused is adopted, will a procedural mechanism need to be provided so that an NCR accused can directly ask a court of competent jurisdiction to remove the high-risk designation once a year?
5:05 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Are you asking whether the accused themselves can ask to have a hearing? Is that right?
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Pierre Jacob NDP Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Let me repeat my question. If the regime dealing with high-risk accused is adopted, will a procedural mechanism need to be provided so that an NCR accused can directly ask a court of competent jurisdiction to remove the high-risk designation once a year?
5:05 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Bill C-54 states that the review board first looks at the risk aspect and, if it is of the opinion that the person no longer represents a serious danger—we are talking about serious and violent offences—to public safety, it refers the case back to court. That is what is set out in Bill C-54.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Pierre Jacob NDP Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Are victims entitled to additional psychological support or additional funding to exercise their rights as set out in Bill C-54?
5:10 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I think the minister answered that question.
5:10 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I did not get that.
The bill does not provide for financial measures for victims, but I think the minister said it in a different way.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Thank you.
We've spurred on a few other questioners, so next, from the Conservative Party, is Mr. Armstrong.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm going to ask a couple of questions surrounding clause 7. It's more about the process between the review board and the possibility at the judicial level of the disposition being revoked, and the impact that would have on a victim impact statement.
What would trigger a review board to review a case before they send it to the court for possible revocation? What triggers that review?
5:10 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It would be the standard review, whether the person is on a one-year cycle, two-year cycle, or a three-year cycle. By and large, it would be when they're up for review. The review board holds the hearing and hears the evidence from all the parties, and there's invariably psychiatric evidence presented there. So that's the trigger.