Evidence of meeting #77 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 responsible.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Stacy Galt  As an Individual
Louise Bradley  President and Chief Executive Officer, Mental Health Commission of Canada
Patrick Baillie  Member, Advisory Council, Mental Health Commission of Canada
Giuseppe Battista  Lawyer and President, Committee on Criminal Law, Barreau du Québec
Alexander Simpson  Chief of Forensic Psychiatry, Head, Division of Forensic Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Lucie Joncas  Lawyer and Member, Barreau du Québec
Dave Teixeira  President, Dave.ca Communications, As an Individual
André Samson  As an Individual
Nathalie Des Rosiers  General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
Isabelle Malo  As an Individual
Ben Bedarf  As an Individual
Peter Coleridge  National Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Mental Health Association
Michel Surprenant  President, Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared
Doris Provencher  General Director, Association des groupes d'intervention en défense de droits en santé mentale du Québec
Chloé Serradori  Analytical and Liaison Officer, Association des groupes d'intervention en défense de droits en santé mentale du Québec
Marc Ferdinand  National Director, Public Policy, Canadian Mental Health Association

6:25 p.m.

Peter Coleridge National Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Mental Health Association

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, and fellow witnesses. These victims' stories are very tragic and heart-wrenching, and quite frankly, point to challenges in the system well beyond the amendments to the Criminal Code we're discussing today.

My name is Peter Coleridge. I am the national CEO of the Canadian Mental Health Association, also known as CMHA. With me today is Mark Ferdinand, our national director of public policy.

CMHA is the largest and oldest provider of mental health services in communities across Canada. We were founded in 1918, and we serve thousands of people every day in hundreds of communities across the country. We rely on the work of staff and thousands of volunteers to facilitate access to the resources people require to maintain and improve their mental health, reintegrate into the community, build resilience, and support recovery from mental illness.

In addition to being a front-line provider of community mental health services, we're also a champion for mental health for all Canadians. We actively promote positive mental health, ways in which people can focus on strengths, well-being, and functioning in the community, at home, at school, and at work. We provide advice on the development of good public policies that support positive mental health as well as improve access to the quality of mental health services and community supports, which is why we're here today. We share many of the concerns of some of our other mental health partners that spoke earlier: the Schizophrenia Society of Canada, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, and many others.

We also work hard to increase the understanding in our society about mental illness. Unfortunately, our society holds many misperceptions about mental illness. Depictions in the media and labels used in our society create an impression that high-profile violent crimes are committed by people with a mental disorder, and that these things are common, when such occurrences are infrequent. The majority of people who are violent do not suffer from mental illness. Mentally ill people are no more violent than any other group in our society; in fact, people with mental illness are more likely to be victims of violence. It's also important to understand that some people who become involved with the criminal justice system had not been diagnosed with a mental illness, but were diagnosed upon connecting with the criminal system because of a crime.

These people need treatment and care. Punishment does not lead to recovery for individuals who are found not criminally responsible. This might explain in part why the relapse rate for individuals who are NCR on account of mental disorder is three to four times lower than the general criminal offender population. By all accounts, mental illness is complex. I think that is clear from all the witnesses you've heard from. However, with the appropriate supports and access to care, people with mental illness, including those with severe mental illness, can be helped. Today there's more hope than ever before that we can effectively treat these illnesses and improve the chances of recovery.

Long-term research has shown that many people with severe mental illness are able to lead productive lives. As you know, Canada has made important strides in reducing discrimination and stigma associated with mental illness. CMHA looks forward to continuing this progress with all Canadians, the federal government, the Mental Health Commission of Canada, and our many other mental health partners across Canada. However, we are concerned that the proposed changes to the not criminally responsible provisions of the Criminal Code will negatively impact the lives of people found NCR, and unjustifiably increase the stigma toward people with mental illness that is pervasive in our society at the systemic, community, and individual levels.

For example, we're concerned the provisions aimed at creating a high-risk accused category, and restricting unescorted passes may have unintended consequences on the ability of mental health professionals to appropriately monitor and evaluate people who have been found NCR. We're also concerned that the creation of a high-risk accused category reinforces the stigma associated with mental illness, such as connecting mental illness with danger to the public and violence.

We know from studies that many people who would otherwise benefit from mental health services or care will not seek or fully participate in their care in order to avoid the labels that have the potential to diminish their self-esteem or social opportunities.

Finally, with regard to the public safety paramount provision, we are unaware of evidence to suggest that review boards are not already taking public safety into consideration when making dispositions. As such it's not clear that the proposed amendments will make any real difference to protecting the public. Such an amendment would appear only to fuel stigma by creating an impression that all individuals who are found NCR are likely to reoffend.

We understand that the federal government in proposing this bill is seeking better consistency and coherence in the application of the Criminal Code across Canada. To ensure the realization of this dual goal of consistency and coherence, we recommend that parliamentarians seek input on how the proposed provisions will impact victims, NCR accused, public safety, and health and mental health service providers across the country.

Measuring these impacts is even more important when we consider that mental health is an intersectoral issue involving several different sectors. These issues are very complex.

Given that we do not know today—and it was said earlier by many witnesses in their different perspectives—the possible impact of these changes on people or on our systems, we would strongly recommend that Bill C-54 include a provision that would create a flexible yet rigorous evaluation framework to better understand the implications of the proposed criminal law changes on a victim's ability to access meaningful and pertinent information regarding NCR accused, capacity issues in the forensic mental health system, actual impact on public safety, actual impact on treatment, reoffence rates and health outcomes of NCR accused.

A simple provision, as we've seen in other federal and provincial laws, would suffice to ensure regular review of the impacts of the law on people and to determine whether or not the expected outcomes are being achieved.

In closing, we believe it is appropriate that the government undertake periodic reviews of mental health disorder provisions of the Criminal Code. We equally believe that even if we were able to arrive at the perfect balance between individual rights and public interest through criminal law provisions, we would still fall woefully short of what is needed to address the part of the iceberg that we cannot or sometimes refuse to see.

Ultimately better cooperation and coordination between the levels of government are desperately needed to improve how we treat mentally ill offenders in the criminal justice system. We would welcome the opportunity to work on this pressing agenda. This agenda should include reducing stigma, improving recovery, continuity of care, reintegration into society, and improving public safety.

We know care has been taken in developing this bill, and that the individuals who worked on its development have carefully considered the legal and even constitutional aspects of the bill. However, more meaningful consultation and greater policy coherence are needed.

Specifically, we need to know that victims are involved appropriately in the review board system, that public safety is truly being enhanced, that the rights of the accused are not infringed, and that recovery and access to effective treatment is not unintentionally made more difficult or limited as a result of these amendments.

Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee today. We're happy to answer any questions the committee may have.

6:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace

Thank you very much for that presentation.

Our next presenter is from the Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared.

Please introduce yourself.

6:35 p.m.

Michel Surprenant President, Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared

Good evening. My name is Michel Surprenant, and I am the president of the AFPAD, or the Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared.

I would like to thank the members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for having me here today for the study of Bill C-54.

I would like to share a few examples of not criminally responsible cases that have been of concern to member families of the association in recent years and that justify the AFPAD's support of this bill.

Allow me to start by telling you a little bit about the AFPAD, which I represent. It was founded by victims' families for victims' families. The main mission of the Association of the Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared is to support, advise and defend the interests of families affected by a homicide or disappearance under apparently criminal circumstances. The AFPAD has over 500 member families.

In recent years, a number of cases have attracted the attention of victims in Quebec. I would like to tell you about some of these cases.

I would like to start with the case of Pascal Morin. On February 10, 2012, a little over a year ago, in a murderous fit and affected by a mental illness, Pascal Morin in turn killed his mother, Ginette Roy-Morin, 70 years of age, and his two nieces, Laurence and Juliette Fillion. At the end of his trial, Pascal Morin was found not criminally responsible for his actions under section 16 of the Criminal Code.

No one is questioning the fact that he was sick. He is currently in hospital under the responsibility of the mental health commission. However, the idea of Pascal Morin's being released causes enormous fear on the part of the family and the community, which knows Pascal Morin well.

The idea of releasing such people makes the families of victims and the authorities fear the worst. I would like to quote Francis Fillion, the father of the victims, “Our other daughter, who is five years old, still wonders if her uncle will come and see her and kill her. All I want now is to take care of my family without the fear that he can visit her!”

Furthermore, the mayors of the Saint-Roman region have asked the government to intervene to prevent this type of case. On December 8, 2012, the council of mayors of the Granit RCM expressed that it was urgent to find solutions so that tragedies like this wouldn't happen in the future.

According to the AFPAD, in addition to strengthening medical resources for people with mental health issues, Bill C-54 is an essential solution.

As Dr. Gaston said during her testimony before the committee on June 5, 2013, a distinction needs to be made between primary and secondary prevention. Primary prevention means providing resources to treat individuals with mental health issues before their case become so severe that they are a danger to other members of society. The provincial government is responsible for taking care of this because it comes under the responsibility of health care authorities.

Furthermore, when a crime has been committed and it involves serious personal injury, the AFPAD believes it is reasonable and fair to take preventive measures so that an individual who committed a crime, but who was deemed not criminally responsible, cannot commit another one. To achieve that, the person needs to remain very closely monitored for a certain number of years.

Bill C-54 will ensure that the most serious cases cannot be quickly released from hospital. That doesn't mean putting them in prison, but rather giving them the care they need.

Bill C-54 is a reasonable and fair response that could have enabled Ronald Malo's family to feel respected as victims. Remember that Ronald Malo was murdered in cold blood by Rolland Belzil at the Verchères city hall. Rolland Belzil was found not criminally responsible after he was charged with attempted murder in 2012 of two City of Verchères employees in Montérégie. A third charge, for the murder of his 80-year-old neighbour, Ronald Malo, was brought later.

The justice system needs Bill C-54 to restore public confidence in institutions of the judicial system. When citizens lose confidence in the justice system, not only does it lead to distrust of judges, defence lawyers and Crown attorneys, but it also causes mistrust and fear within families and the community. These fears are not unjustified.

Rolland Belzil stabbed his neighbour, Ronald Malo, to death following a dispute over a fence that had gone on for 12 years. He then went to city hall, where he allegedly attacked Luc Fortier, the city manager, and Martin Massicotte, his assistant, at knifepoint. Allow me to quote the lawyer of the victims, who had the opportunity to be represented. These comments by Christine Dubreuil-Duchaine appeared in an article:

“At what point do we declare a person dangerous or not? How far can we go without there being any true consequences? As far as I'm concerned, this situation mirrors that of Guy Turcotte...,” said Ms. Dubreuil-Duchaine.

According to the lawyer, the Quebec justice system needs to ask the right questions, so that there are no more situations like Ronald Malo's. Should justice be harsher? Should we step in more quickly?

“Someone paid with their life for these questions to be asked,” lamented Ms. Dubreuil-Duchaine....

I would also like to tell you about the case of Alain Piché, an accountant who lived in Cap-de-la-Madeleine and who had no prior criminal record. However, on March 19, 2007, Alain Piché killed his parents. He cut off their heads with an axe and a blunt object before hiding their bodies in a freezer. In July 2008, the court rendered its verdict and found him not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. In June 2009, Piché was admitted to the Institut Philippe-Pinel.

The mental disorder review board had granted Piché unescorted absences. I repeat: they were unescorted absences. The only condition imposed on him was that he not communicate with members of his family. The attending medical team was even given the power to determine the terms, duration and frequency of his absences based on his clinical state and his behaviour.

This raised the indignation of the criminal and penal prosecuting attorney responsible for the case, Jean-François Bouvette. He had deplored the fact that it was up to the board to monitor Alain Piché's absences and to issue conditions to ensure the public's safety. This example clearly reveals the fear that this type of permission can lead to in the community. This example also shows the risks of giving the mental disorder review board too much leeway.

Thanks to Bill C-54, the most serious cases of personal injury can be better monitored. It will be up to judges to determine when a person will be at high risk and when that person is no longer at high risk. High-risk individuals will not be able to go out into the community. They will have to receive intensive medical care, surrounded by trained medical personnel. Some might say that it is stigmatizing toward individuals with mental illness. The AFPAD feels that it is a secondary prevention measure that will protect the lives and safety of community members, including families and individuals with a mental illness who have not committed any serious offences.

I will close by reminding you that these cases of being not criminally responsible, including the case of Guy Turcotte, who killed his two children, affected the population. A mother from Sherbrooke, Fanny Denoncourt, who was quite shocked by the outcome of the Guy Turcotte trial, took the initiative of organizing a march to denounce violence against children. The protest took place on March 2, 2013, in the streets of Sherbrooke, and other similar protests were held at the same time elsewhere in Quebec to demand tougher criminal legislation.

On behalf of victims, on behalf of future victims who will have to experience tragedies, on behalf of the population, we ask you to support Bill C-54 and pass it as quickly as possible; otherwise, the justice system will lose even more of its legitimacy.

Thank you.

6:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace

Thank you, Mr. Surprenant.

The next group of witnesses represents the Association des groupes d'intervention en défense des droits en santé mentale du Québec.

6:45 p.m.

Doris Provencher General Director, Association des groupes d'intervention en défense de droits en santé mentale du Québec

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, Mr. Vice-Chair and members of the committee, thank you for inviting us to present our brief.

The Association des groupes d’intervention en défense des droits en santé mentale du Québec, or the AGIDD-SMQ, was founded in 1990. It advocates for the recognition and rights of individuals who have or have had mental health issues. We are a non-profit organization, a community organization.

Since our foundation, we have gained recognized expertise in the rights of individuals who have or have had a mental health issue. We look critically at mental health practices and get involved in improving those practices.

First off, I would like to say that the AGIDD-SMQ has never supported violence of any kind and never will. Having a mental health issue is no excuse for violence. I want to mention that right off the bat. However, we feel that pitting the rights of victims against the rights of criminals does not guarantee justice. On the contrary, implementing punitive measures will relieve neither the loss nor the suffering.

The Government of Canada needs to put in place measures to give victims access to justice, psychosocial services, direct assistance, support services and financial compensation, as mentioned by many people today.

I will turn things over to my colleague, Ms. Serradori.

6:45 p.m.

Chloé Serradori Analytical and Liaison Officer, Association des groupes d'intervention en défense de droits en santé mentale du Québec

Good afternoon.

We will talk about the following provisions in particular: clause 9, regarding the preponderance of the safety of the public; clause 10, concerning the definition of a significant threat to the safety of the public; and clause 12, which adds the notion of a high-risk accused to the Criminal Code, and all the provisions consistent with that notion.

We feel that these provisions reduce the exercise of the rights of people who are living or have lived with mental health issues. We also feel that they reinforce the stigmatization of those people, foster prejudice and restrict access to credible, transparent and impartial recourse respectful of rights.

Although we are not legal experts, we feel that those three provisions greatly undermine the principles of fundamental justice and the very spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This bill proposes returning to the past. You probably all remember that some of those provisions were repealed in 2005, only to be reintroduced in 2013. There are some slight differences, but the idea is the same.

In addition, this bill reinforces disinformation. It establishes a link between mental health and violence, even though, most of the time, people who are living with or have lived with mental health issues are victims of violence and are only subject to the coercive system of medicine.

We will not talk to you about research. You have had a tremendous amount of time and have heard about Anne Crocker's research results.

People think that individuals who have been found not criminally responsible go home free, but that is totally untrue. They often remain incarcerated longer than they would had they been found criminally responsible for their actions.

Moreover, people believe that mental health issues are due to a chemical imbalance in the brain or are hereditary. No research currently exists that can prove that. Unfortunately, this bill will not prevent unreasonable actions.

The AGIDD-SMQ thinks that these measures restrict human rights because they are unreasonable and cannot be justified in a free and democratic society, as set out in section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In addition, these measures violate the principles of fundamental justice—human dignity, freedom and the respect for autonomy, pursuant to section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

For all the above-stated reasons, we ask that clauses 9, 10 and 12 be repealed, along with any relevant provisions.

6:50 p.m.

General Director, Association des groupes d'intervention en défense de droits en santé mentale du Québec

Doris Provencher

The work done, the research, the process and the jurisprudence have so far made it possible to reduce arbitrariness, comply with sections 1, 7, 9 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, create section XX.1 of the Criminal Code and prioritize release.

The introduction of the “high-risk accused” notion and the amendment of the procedure to include that notion are more consistent with a punitive process, especially when it comes to various provisions.

The first provision has to do with the high-risk designation. That measure could become the usual procedure for any accused individual and result in their being automatically deprived of their freedom and detained in a hospital. As my colleague was saying, this measure establishes a link between mental health and dangerousness by elevating the likelihood of recidivism as it relates to the brutality of the action.

The second provision has to do with the possibility of amending the review time frames, and thereby extending the detention period from one year to three years.

The automatic deprivation of freedom and detention in a hospital constitute a third provision.

As we said, it is also a matter of the following: the addition of the definition of “significant threat to the safety of the public”; the inclusion of the past and expected course of the accused’s treatment, including the accused’s willingness to follow treatment; and the impossibility of the high-risk accused being absent from the hospital, whereby detention becomes the norm.

Legislation—and even less so the Criminal Code—cannot be arbitrary and move away from the rule of law and the spirit of the Canadian Charter on Rights and Freedoms. This legislation is excessively broad in its scope and directly threatens the spirit and the scope of part XX.1 of the Criminal Code.

These measures reflect a certain inaccuracy, especially in terms of the factors that need to be taken into consideration to designate someone as a high-risk accused. Mental health is based solely on a series of symptoms and behaviours. Therefore, we are talking about a field conducive to subjectivity.

These measures will increase the vulnerability of people who are living with or have lived with a mental health issue by stigmatizing them.

Finally, some consistency would be appropriate with the spirit of the Canadian strategy presented to us this afternoon by the Mental Health Commission of Canada, which was created in 2007 by the current government.

6:50 p.m.

Analytical and Liaison Officer, Association des groupes d'intervention en défense de droits en santé mentale du Québec

Chloé Serradori

In closing, we will suggest two prerequisites that should be met before any legislative amendments are considered.

The first prerequisite would consist in countering systemic disinformation and educating the public, various stakeholders and the media about rights, recourse, mental health and psychotropic drugs.

To achieve that, it would be important to provide education on mental health by using such publications as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, DSM. We also suggest providing critical training on the effects of psychotropic drugs. In addition, we are trying to extend the vision of mental health to stakeholders other than psychiatrists, such as sociologists, neurologists and other specialists, including, of course, individuals who are living with or have lived with mental health issues. This is also a matter of respecting human rights.

There is another prerequisite, which is also very important. The government should try to affect social determinants before proposing any amendments to the law.

WHO defines social determinants of health as follows:

The social determinants of health are the circumstances in which people are born, grow up, live, work and age, and the systems put in place to deal with illness.

We think that dealing with causes is often more effective than dealing with symptoms. For instance, changes to employment insurance will have certain effects on the workers' mental health. We think that the government should try to affect social determinants.

6:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace

Thank you very much.

We're going to go to one question per party, so you have a minute to two minutes to talk to this.

Monsieur Jacob is our first questioner.

6:55 p.m.

NDP

Pierre Jacob NDP Brome—Missisquoi, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank our guests for being here this evening.

My first question is for the representatives of the Association des groupes d'intervention en défense des droits en santé mentale du Québec and the Canadian Mental Health Association. They can take turns answering it.

Were your two associations consulted about Bill C-54? If so, in what way?

6:55 p.m.

General Director, Association des groupes d'intervention en défense de droits en santé mentale du Québec

Doris Provencher

My answer will be very short. We were never consulted.

6:55 p.m.

NDP

Pierre Jacob NDP Brome—Missisquoi, QC

What about you?

6:55 p.m.

National Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Mental Health Association

Peter Coleridge

Yes, this is also very brief. We had one meeting with some staff in the minister's office, and that was it.

6:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace

That's it.

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

June 10th, 2013 / 6:55 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll ask one question due to limited time, and I'll go down the line.

Bill C-54 would provide the authority for a non-communication order between an NCR individual and the victim, and an order that the accused not attend a specific place upon the request of the victim.

Mr. Bedarf, you brought that up in one of your comments, so I'm assuming you support those two pieces in this legislation.

6:55 p.m.

As an Individual

Ben Bedarf

Most certainly. It's a must for the peace of the victim.

6:55 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS

Thank you.

Mr. Coleridge, do you support those two pieces of the legislation?

6:55 p.m.

A voice

[Inaudible—Editor]

6:55 p.m.

Marc Ferdinand National Director, Public Policy, Canadian Mental Health Association

I would say yes.

6:55 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS

Mr. .

6:55 p.m.

President, Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared

Michel Surprenant

Sorry, but I did not quite understand your question.

6:55 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS

I'm asking if you support the part of Bill C-54 that allows a victim to request that the accused, if released, not be in a specific place, and also a non-communication order.

6:55 p.m.

President, Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared

Michel Surprenant

Yes, I agree.

6:55 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS

Mrs. Provencher.

6:55 p.m.

General Director, Association des groupes d'intervention en défense de droits en santé mentale du Québec

Doris Provencher

I don't know what to say in response to that question.