Evidence of meeting #76 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was illness.
A video is available from Parliament.
6:05 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
The John Howard Society was not consulted. It's important for you to have a variety of voices offering different perspectives to give you an opportunity to make adjustments and improve the quality of the legislative framework that you're dealing with.
6:05 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Alliance Facilitator, Schizophrenia Society of Canada
This is the year 2013 not 1013. We know far more today about how to help people with enduring mental illnesses which are treatable and also how to recover. Up to 65% of people with schizophrenia recover. What does that mean? They learn how to manage their illness and live beyond the limitations of the illness.
You have all these professional organizations, family organizations, and people in experienced organizations who have studied and who have lived through the experience. You have this huge body of information in the year 2013. Unfortunately, that vast amount of knowledge has not been utilized.
Even Dr. Anne Crocker is quoted in the press as saying, “Hasn't the government read the research I did for you?”
6:10 p.m.
NDP
6:10 p.m.
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
I lived on Afton Avenue when that happened, just a few blocks from where it happened. We knew the stories in our neighbourhood about this particular lady. It was beyond tragic because the evidence was there.
Dr. Summerville, my mother was institutionalized for 10 years. To your point about people not being able to get out when their treatment reaches that optimum place, I can remember my mother saying that she was better because now she could hear them locking the doors. When she was delusional and all that, she did not perceive that. I hope our friends across the way are listening because this is so compelling.
In your case, with what you've lived through and what you live with every day, it is very important the fact that you were able to put together this comprehensive response when every bone in your body and every emotion you have is with Zachary. I want to thank you for that.
I hope my friends across the way will take the time to take it in. This is a flawed bill. We can do better. Let's do better.
Thank you.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Thank you for those questions and answers.
Our next questioner is Mr. Goguen from the Conservative Party.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Thank you to the witnesses for testifying.
Our sympathies to you, Ms. Triano-Antidormi. I think I said your name close to right, but I know it's Lori.
We heard some testimony, and we're led to the impression this bill radically changes the whole mental health way of dealing with those not criminally responsible. In essence, it does two things. It ensures that public safety is first in releasing those who are held not criminally responsible to the public and it enhances the victims' rights and gives them notification so they can avoid, perhaps, meeting the perpetrator.
How does it do this? Basically, there's the possibility of a not criminally responsible person being designated a high-risk person. In doing so, that person's case would be reviewed after three years, during which time, of course, they would receive treatment. Under the current regime, people can be held indefinitely. I believe the perpetrator in your case, Lori, is still being held. It was back in 1998. This is nothing new. 1998 is longer than three years ago. In both cases treatment is followed. In this new format, treatment is followed.
One can argue that very few of the not criminally responsible will be given a high-risk designation. Why? The tests to have that designation are relatively serious. The court can only make the finding if it is satisfied that there is a substantial likelihood the not criminally responsible accused will use violence; that they could endanger the life or safety of another person, if discharged absolutely or conditionally; or that the court is of the opinion the offence was particularly brutal as to indicate a risk of grave harm to another person.
Who would be the not criminally responsible who might be found of this? The cases of Vincent Li, Allan Schoenborn, Andre Denny, and Guy Turcotte come to mind. There are not millions of cases; there are very few. With that in mind, what we're doing here, in essence, is putting public safety first. It's making sure that these criminals are treated for whatever time is needed. There's no one-size-fits-all because some may need more time than that. It may be more than three years. Prior to their being released into society, they have to satisfy not only the Mental Health Commission, but they also have to satisfy a second level of scrutiny from the judge of the superior court.
Don't you think that in the minds of average Canadians sitting at home, they would take some comfort knowing that prior to Vincent Li, prior to Allan Schoenborn, prior to Andre Denny, and prior to Guy Turcotte being released into their society, in their hometown, that there's been not one, but two levels of scrutiny to ensure that maybe—just maybe—the incidents that these perpetrators have caused will not recur in their community?
6:10 p.m.
Psychologist, As an Individual
I think the level of scrutiny is what's ill-informed. I think the high-risk designation is ill-informed. There are other factors that determine risk, such as the person's personal history. The NCR accused in our case had a history. It's ill-informed. I think part of that is probably because the mental health community wasn't consulted. It's just an effort to work together to define the terms properly based on evidence.
The woman who killed my son remains high risk, and that was determined by a review board. So they are working because she's still a risk.
6:15 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
The evidence I've seen is the review boards are pretty good at determining whether somebody constitutes an ongoing risk, and if they do, they don't release them. The perpetrator in Lori's offence would be a good example of that.
I think it's also important, though, to be able to release them in a graduated way, which this scheme doesn't contemplate. It's a good idea to figure out what their triggers are to ensure they can follow a medical regime, that they stay on their medications, that they don't cross the path of the victims when they've been asked not to. You can do that better when you have a release with conditions.
This regime seems to only contemplate in the hospital or not. I may be misreading it, but I think you probably need that tri-level of graduated release, particularly if someone is known to pose a particular risk. The real problem with the designation is that the proposed paragraph 672.64(1)(b) component which allows you to make a determination based on a single brutal incident that the person is high risk will not hold up. You will not find adequate evidence to suggest and to be able to predict from a single brutal act that this will constitute a future risk of harm. You would know if it happened again it would be very serious, but what you often find is that the more serious the incident, the less likely it is to recur; the less serious the incident, the more likely it is to recur. It's not a straight line.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Thank you for those questions, and thank you for those answers.
Our next questioner is Mr. Casey from the Liberal Party.
June 5th, 2013 / 6:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Triano-Antidormi, I came in just as you were starting your testimony. It was very compelling. I want to say first to you, thank you very much for telling your story, and thanks for having the courage to do it in such a public way.
In furtherance of your story, my question directly relates to the woman who murdered Zachary. Has she responded to treatment? Where is she now, 16 years later?
6:15 p.m.
Psychologist, As an Individual
She hasn't responded very well to treatment, and she's still in a psychiatric institution.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Thank you.
Mr. Summerville and Ms. Latimer, I apologize in advance if my questions were already covered in your testimony because, as I indicated, I just came in when Dr. Triano-Antidormi started to speak.
Mr. Summerville, have you or any member of the Schizophrenia Society of Canada been consulted by the government on this legislation?
6:15 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Alliance Facilitator, Schizophrenia Society of Canada
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
On Monday, the minister appeared before this committee. I had the chance to question him about the lack of consultation with mental health groups. In his answer, he basically said that he had consulted extensively with provincial attorneys general and that health care, and mental health in particular, are within the purview of provincial governments.
In your view, is that sufficient?
6:15 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Alliance Facilitator, Schizophrenia Society of Canada
I don't think it's sufficient. If I understand your question correctly, I think it's important to talk with the people who work really closely with mental health patients. What I've learned through this whole process is that the public and unfortunately I think, some politicians, don't understand what NCR really means, what the review board does in its process, and how risk assessments are done. Mr. Li's name has been brought up a number of times. I visit him since I'm in Manitoba. Contrary to what people want to believe, he's doing marvellously well in terms of response to the treatments.
Risk assessments are based on insight and that the person understands that they have competency, they're adhering to medication, cognitive behavioural therapy. The session is based on how you respond to other patients and staff. Are there any unresolved trauma issues, addiction issues, psychopathology, social pathology, criminal history? An example again, since the name was brought up, Mr. Li is not characterized by any of those things, so he's not deemed high risk as such. But we're not trying to make him the poster person of the Schizophrenia Society of Canada. I'm simply trying to illustrate that to create a bill that will do what it ought to do, and do what the Supreme Court said, and that is public safety and therapeutic treatment, mental health professionals and experts and family members should have been, and ought to be, consulted with. Might I dare say this is somewhat political in Manitoba. Even with an NDP government, the polls are very close, and I won't say any more.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Thank you, Mr. Summerville.
Ms. Latimer, I'd be interested in your views on this topic as well. I did hear you say that the John Howard Society of Canada had not been consulted. Now that you know the minister's response to a question regarding consultation was essentially to reference the involvement of provincial governments, how do you react to that?
6:20 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
I'd be very interested to know who the provincial governments consulted with if they perceive that they're carrying the entire mental health input with them to this particular forum and comments and bringing it to this particular bill. The attorneys general.... You'd probably want some kind of a joint FPT forum which includes the health ministries, not just the attorneys general, I think, if you really want good input. Even then I think you'd probably need to consult with some of the national organizations as well.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Thank you very much for those questions and answers.
Our next questioner is Mr. Seeback from the Conservative Party.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Catherine, I wrote down one of your quotes, because I think it's important with one of the statements you made earlier. You said that the review boards are pretty good. I know you were here because I saw you sitting in the back, so you heard the previous panels. They also said they think the review boards do a very good job in these cases. I think there's general agreement to that.
You said that this legislation will push off reviews for three years. I take it you've read the legislation when making that statement. You're nodding your head, so would you agree with me?
6:20 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
Yes, and I think I know where you're going with this, which is up to three years.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
