Justice Committee on June 3rd, 2013

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

That's one of the good things about this. Before this individual is even released it's very clear to the board that the protection of the public is paramount. That's the first consideration. It's not enough to say that's one of the considerations, there are a number of things they'll look into. No, this is the paramount consideration, and I think that is absolutely important. In cases similar to the type that you're talking about, the non-communication orders that can be imposed on these individuals I think are an essential part of what we have to do to better represent the interests of victims in this country.

First of all, the case has to be made that the protection of the public is not being compromised by the release of that individual. I'm very interested in and very supportive of the measures we are taking to better protect victims. Again, when you go through this you'll see these issues. I'm sure you'll agree with me.

I'm sure second reading support is a wonderful thing. We have to go beyond second reading support. We have to get these things passed. It's not enough to say we support victims, but that's it, that's as far as it goes at second reading. No, we have to go further. We have to get this passed. We have to get this through the Senate. We have to get royal assent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

You have one minute.

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

In the past, people found not criminally responsible were those with intellectual disabilities or schizophrenia, for example. But now, when people who take drugs or alcohol cause the death or another person, they are declared not criminally responsible because they were under the influence of one or other substance.

How will that new factor be handled? How do you define a person who is not criminally responsible?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Again, that regime remains relatively unchanged in this, except for one major difference, which is the protection of the public. This is a determination that will be made in the court for an individual whose solicitor comes forward with the claim that the individual is not criminally responsible.

We have to have confidence in the judiciary and the judicial process in this country, and that's exactly who will do it. We're giving greater guidelines to the courts in terms of what happens to these individuals after they have been found.... But it is a judicial decision to begin with. With respect to the high-risk individuals, that's another consideration, but it is under the complete auspices of the courts.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you for those questions.

Our final questioner for the minister this afternoon is from the Conservative Party, Mr. Wilks.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here today.

This has been a much-needed piece of legislation, which is recognized by both victims and also those who need the care. I have a couple of questions. I wonder if you could clarify for everyone why the high-risk NCR designation doesn't apply to those who are found unfit to stand trial.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

As you pointed out, Mr. Wilks, these individuals haven't been convicted of an offence. For the high-risk individuals to be considered at all for that designation, they have to have committed one of a number of the serious offences that I touched on in my opening remarks. Right off the bat the individual doesn't fit into that category because they haven't been tried. They haven't been found to have been responsible for their actions. There is a regime in place for those individuals within the provincial health system, and that will continue.

But I think you have made a valid point that the not criminally responsible designation applies specifically to those individuals who have been found guilty of the serious offences.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you.

Minister, I wonder if you could clarify one question that hasn't been asked here today. Why is the National Defence Act being amended in concert with this bill?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I think it's important to have all legislation consistent, quite frankly. It's not enough to have one regime for individuals who are civilians and a different one for individuals who may be in the military.

Whenever we look at these pieces of legislation, or changes, or reforms, I think it's appropriate to look at what happens on the military side. There have been a number of pieces of legislation that may not have come to this committee. They may have gone before the national defence committee. But we have reformed a number of areas of justice with respect to individuals in the armed forces. That being said, we want to make sure that any updates or changes here apply right across the board, to everyone. I think it's entirely appropriate.

Just so you know, the Minister of National Defence is completely supportive, and indeed my other cabinet colleagues are very enthusiastic about this legislation.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you.

Minister, certainly police officers across Canada, including me, though I'm retired now, welcome this. At times it is difficult for police officers to recognize that they have an individual who needs care. Sometimes they are doing offences that they don't recognize at that point are wrong, and they need to have that assistance.

It was asked earlier with regard to the requirement between provincial and federal jurisdiction, but I wonder if you could clarify, again, the importance of this bill to the NCRs and their ability to get help.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

As I indicated to your colleague across the aisle, the designation of whether an individual is not criminally responsible is a question of fact and evidence that is decided at the criminal trial. There are no changes to that.

The changes come within the mental health regime that the individual is then referred to. The disposition of that individual, where we want to take the protection of the public as the paramount consideration.... But again, we want that individual to get the kind of help that they have to have. It's in everyone's interest. This is why, as I indicated on a number of occasions, I discussed these matters with my provincial counterparts. This is an essential component of what we want to do with these people.

As I pointed out to Mr. Casey, we do work a lot in the area of mental health, mental health assistance in the prison system, the Mental Health Commission, and a number of different areas. It's working with the provinces that have the responsibility within the hospital system of this country to make sure these individuals get the kind of treatment they need. These changes don't take away from the need for an individual to get that help. Nothing does that. I believe there's an encouragement for everyone to work together to get these individuals the kind of assistance they need.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

Thank you for those questions, Mr. Wilks. Thanks for those answers, Minister. That is the time you've allotted to us. Thank you, Minister, for joining us today.

We have added an hour of committee time over the next number of committee meetings. We've filled all the spots with 24 witnesses. The clerk has done a fantastic job of contacting people, and we're ready to deal with this. Thank you for your passion for this bill, which was obvious today.

With that I will suspend for a minute while we change over to the next panel.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I call the second half our meeting back to order.

Mr. Goguen, you would like the floor.

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

Mr. Chair, as you know, in subcommittee we added some hours to accommodate more witnesses in the study of this bill. Also I believe we agreed we would do the clause-by-clause on June 12. I'd like to propose a motion that the amendments be presented within a certain timeframe, no later than 4 p.m. on June 10, which is of course a couple of days prior to June 12, when we're going to do the clause-by-clause.

Also in the context of this amendment I would like to permit a broader consultation and permit the participation of all members of Parliament, including those who are not represented on the committee, and of course those would be the independents, the Bloc, and Ms. May of the Green Party. It's about giving them some input, some inclusion into this whole process.

So if you permit me, Mr. Chair, I'll read the motion.

That, in relation to the Order of Reference of Tuesday, May 28, 2013, respecting Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder), (a) amendments shall be submitted to the clerk of the Committee no later than 4:00 p.m. on June 10, 2013, for the clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill, which is to be completed on June 12, 2013, and be distributed to the members in both official languages; (b) the Chair shall forthwith write to each Member of Parliament who is not a member of a caucus represented on the Committee to invite those Members to file with the clerk of the Committee any amendments to the Bill which they would propose that the Committee consider: (c) any proposed amendment filed with the clerk, pursuant to paragraph (b), shall be filed, in both official languages, no later than 4:00 p.m. on June 10, 2013, for the clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill and shall be presented together with any amendments which may have been filed by members of the Committee; and (d) during the clause-by-clause consideration, at the relevant time, (i) an amendment filed with clerk pursuant to paragraph (b), and presented to the Committee pursuant to paragraph (c), shall be deemed to have been moved, and (ii) the Chair may call upon the member who filed the proposed amendment to offer brief remarks in support of it.

The French version follows. I don't intend to repeat it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you, sir. I appreciate your giving us the motion in both official languages, that's very nice. On a personal note, I think it's very nice of us to include independent members in motions on bills. I think that's a very good item.

Would somebody like to speak to this?

Mr. Mai.

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

I would like to speak to the motion.

We know that the other parties who are not represented at this committee cannot participate in the debate or the discussion. We know that their normal avenue is to express their views in the House. That is a democratic way of doing it because they are not represented on the committee.

In one sense, what the government is doing here is what it always does: introducing closure motions and limiting debate. We understand why it is doing that. But we do not support that approach. If we look around us, we can see no one from the unrecognized parties. But one of the parliamentary procedures they can use is to make amendments and participate in debate in the House.

So we will not be supporting the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you.

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

Mr. Chair, I request a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Sure, no problem.

Any other discussion on the motion?

The clerk will do the role call on the recorded division.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Is there anything else before I move to the official orders of the day?

Ms. Morency and Ms. Besner, thank you for joining us from the Department of Justice. Do you have an opening statement you'd like to make? Or are you just here to answer questions?

[Carole Morency, Acting Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Who would like to start?

Mr. Mai.

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

Good afternoon, ladies. Thank you for being here today to shed light on this bill for us.

The bill creates a new category and the minister spoke to us about it briefly.

In your view, what are the specific procedures that will have to be discussed for high-risk offenders who are deemed to be not criminally responsible?

[Julie Besner, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

The bill requires that several stages have to be gone through in order to submit a request to the court. Subsequently, the case will be heard by the court that has the file, either the provincial court or the superior court.

As defined in the Criminal Code—and the minister mentioned this just now—when an accused is found not criminally responsible for a serious offence, a serious personal injury offence, the crown may make a special request for a hearing to be held on the matter. During that hearing, a number of aspects of evidence have to be presented.

If I am not mistaken, this is mentioned in clause 12 of the bill, where the court is asked to consider evidence such as the nature and circumstances of the offence, the accused's current mental condition, the past and expected course of the accused's treatment, and, something that is likely to be very relevant for the court, the opinions of expert witnesses and psychiatrists appearing to provide evidence.

As the minister mentioned just now, after examining the evidence, the court may invoke one of two situations if the court is satisfied that there is a substantial likelihood that the accused will commit violence that could endanger the life or safety of another person and if it is of the opinion that the original offence for which the accused was found not criminally responsible was of such a brutal nature as to indicate a risk of grave harm to others.

In either of those situations, the court may declare that an accused is high-risk. At that point, the accused will be subject to a detention order and the case will be sent to the review board that will review it. Reviews can be conducted annually, or every two or three years, depending on the particular circumstances of each case. If, at a later date, the review board is of the opinion that the danger has decreased, the court may reconsider the case to see if there are grounds for revoking the high-risk accused designation. Actually, the review board may send the case back to the court, which will hold a new hearing to determine if the threshold is still met or if, on the other hand, the designation may be revoked.

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

So you mention that there are two situations and, in the first instance, checks are done. If psychiatrists say that the person is not ill and no longer represents a danger for society, the person will then not be considered at high risk, unless the crime was brutal. Do I have that right? Those who have committed a brutal crime would be considered high-risk accused. Is that correct?