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

5:35 p.m.

As an Individual

André Samson

That's great.

5:35 p.m.

General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association

Nathalie Des Rosiers

Glad you agree. Ha, ha!

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace

You agree and that's nice, but we don't care.

5:35 p.m.

Voices

Oh, oh!

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace

Go ahead, Madame Des Rosiers.

5:35 p.m.

General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association

Nathalie Des Rosiers

One of the issues here is to avoid any changes in the message that will raise the danger of continuing to have misinformation about mental disorders. Particularly, the act does use the words “mental disorder” without specification, and I think that has contributed to the criticism that the act unfortunately perpetuates some of the stigmatization that identifies all persons suffering from mental illness as being dangerous or incurable.

Indeed, I think it's very important that the government take this step, because we know that to the extent there is increased stigmatization about mental illness, it decreases public safety because it decreases self-awareness, decreases self-referral, and it certainly increases discrimination and stereotyping, which is not a good thing.

I want to focus on the pièce maîtresse of this legislation, which is the definition of the “high-risk accused”. I will make a couple of points here. The language that is used has two flaws, in our view. The first is that if you look at the definition, it's one of either proposed new paragraphs 672.64(1)(a) or 672.64(1)(b).

The first is essentially whether “the court is satisfied that there is a substantial likelihood that the accused will use violence...”. It's inviting the court to do a prospective assessment of the potential for violence. I think this is the wrong place to do this, because the treatment has not begun. It's a little bit like putting the cart before the horse.

I think 672.64(1)(b) is the place where we have more concerns. It states, “the court is of the opinion that the acts that constitute the offence were of such a brutal nature...”.

I think the flaw here is that it will be very difficult to identify what the acts are that the minister wants to address here. I think it's a little bit of an “I'll know it when I see it” type of approach. Many of the tragedies that have been referred to evoke such a deep emotional response from all of us that we think we know. Our concern is that it will be very hard for any victim not to think they have been brutally aggressed. I could not ever imagine a victim of sexual assault or a family of a murder victim who would not say, “There was brutality here”.

Indeed, in trying to assess why this is the right word, we looked around the world to try to assess whether there were other uses of the word “brutal”. What does “brutal” mean? Is that the right word? In our view it's not the right word. We would suggest that proposed new paragraph 672.64(1)(b) be deleted because of the possibility of an unworkable definition that is unfairly vague and may lead to too many people being caught in this web.

In our view, the second part of the criticism is that the concept of “high-risk accused” may present a confusion between the approaches that are necessary. I think we have to remember that the reason there is "not criminally responsible” is when it has been deemed—and there could be mistakes at times—that the person is incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong, and therefore it's the illness that caused the crime and not the person. In that context we have a therapeutic approach that looks to correct the illness, as opposed to punishing the person. Focusing on the acts as opposed to the illness is a slippage in the way in which we should approach this problem.

Finally, I think it is absolutely crucial that there be a form of evaluation. I would suggest that this would be an appropriate amendment for this committee to make, to ensure that in five years there is a proper evaluation.

We've heard today that there are some differences of opinion as to whether or not this will have the perverse effect of diminishing the number of people who will opt for NCR and they end up in prison and all the problems increase. A prison is not the right place to treat serious mental illness. We know that. It creates tremendous problems for the prison system, and for the offenders and the guards. It's not the right place.

As we are assessing in our evaluation, the way in which the legislation is framed does not accomplish the goal. The use of the word “brutal” will not serve the victims well either. They will feel slighted if the acts that have been committed are deemed not to be brutal enough. In our view the intent will not be carried through by the concepts and language used in the bill.

In conclusion, we think, one, the government owes it to the Canadian public to counteract some of the messages with respect to mental health illness associated with this bill. Second, it should review the use of the word “brutal”, despite all the other examples. Third, an evaluation framework must be put in the legislation.

Thank you.

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace

Thank you very much.

Our final presenter for this panel is Madame Malo. The floor is yours for 10 minutes.

5:40 p.m.

Isabelle Malo As an Individual

Good afternoon. My name is Isabelle Malo. I am appearing today on behalf of the entire Malo family. My mother, Nicole Malo, and my brother, Sylvain Malo, are sitting behind me. We are in full support of Bill C-54. My family's story is a perfect example of why it is urgent to change the law. As I talk to you today, my heart is full of sadness.

On January 13, 2012, our peaceful community was shaken by a terrible tragedy. My stepfather, Ronald Malo was savagely murdered, stabbed 29 times by his neighbour, Rolland Belzil, who had been harassing him for 15 years.

My mother was also a target, but, luckily, she was spared because she did not answer the door that Rolland Belzil was trying to open. In Belzil's computer was a list of people to be killed and my mother's name was on it. After killing Ronald Malo, Rolland Belzil went to the town hall in Verchères, where he stabbed Luc Fortier, the town manager, in the head and neck. His assistant, Martin Massicotte, suffered wounds to the hands as he tried to help. They owe their lives to the fire chief.

This sordid story began in 1997 when the neighbour, Rolland Belzil, assaulted my mother by saying that he wanted her twice a week. My mother rebuffed him immediately, demanding that he leave her alone. He then looked her in the eyes and said: “you do not know what I am capable of, my dear; you have not heard the last of me.”

For 15 years, my mother and Ronald's life was pure hell, and I do not use the word lightly. They were constantly harassed, sworn at, provoked, honked at up to 150 times in a row. They received death threats for the three years before the murder.

In April 2010, Rolland Belzil told a case worker that he had a weapon and was going to kill his neighbour, Ronald Malo. In July 2010, Rolland Belzil was arrested for violating the conditions of a permanent order. Under that order, he was not supposed to come near my family. Nevertheless, he did approach us, with a can of gas, paper, beer and wine, staring right into our eyes all the time. Rolland Belzil was found guilty on four criminal charges out of five. He walked away with a discharge and a laughable $400 fine. We begged the judge not to release him again. The people at the CAVAC told us that he was like a big dog who barked a lot but did not bite and that the probability that he would do what he threatened to do was zero.

As you can see, our story has a number of missing elements. Primary prevention, in Dr. Isabelle Gaston's words, was a failure. Our family wholeheartedly supports Bill C-54. The bill will make public safety a priority and will create the definition of “high-risk”.

I would like to discuss two improvements with you. It is urgent for public safety to be the priority. Have you thought for just one moment about what would happen if this man were to be released? If we found our mother murdered, we could not survive it. Victims must have a more prominent place. Fortunately, Bill C-54 will make public safety a major concern in coming to decisions about people deemed not criminally responsible. When public safety is paramount, it will be a victory for our rights.

Currently, if Rolland Belzil is released, three lives will certainly be in danger. It is agonizing to think that we are at the mercy of that decision. Our trust in the justice system has vanished. That man represents a real danger for society. He must be kept under strict supervision, primarily to protect him from himself.

People are living in terror simply thinking about the day when Rolland Belzil will be released, without even mentioning our seven children, aged from 14 to 24, who have lost their grandfather. The word “justice” does not exist for them. They are terrorized. One night, a little while ago, my 22-year-old daughter came to me shaking, because she had dreamt that Rolland Belzil had escaped from the Institut Philippe-Pinel in Montreal and wanted to kill us all. My brother's 20-year-old son sleeps with a bat under his bed, and his 16-year-old daughter has never gone back to where the tragedy happened. These children have had a hugely traumatic experience. How will we go about reassuring them? The burden our family has to bear is a very heavy one.

I have a business in Verchères and not a day goes by without someone talking to me about it. I am often asked what is happening to him and whether he is out. My heart races each time. In December 2012, I had to go to hospital. My heart rate went up to 170 beats per minute when I heard that Guy Turcotte had been released. I thought I was going to die. The number of victims goes beyond the family; the entire community is affected.

People are afraid when sick people like those are released. Their illness is not an excuse. From now on, with Bill C-54, public safety will be paramount. We cannot wait for that change.

Bill C-54 provides for the creation of a “high-risk” designation intended for the most dangerous cases. They should be detained in hospital under guard. A high-risk offender must not be allowed to leave without an escort. He must be able to get a pass to leave, with or without an escort, only in rare circumstances and with public safety in mind.

We support the fact that a judge, not a board, will determine who is to be designated high-risk. We are very happy to learn that judges will have to base their decisions on the risk of grave physical and psychological harm, and on the offences committed. That is very important for us. We cannot wait for those changes to go into effect. We are convinced that there is no higher-risk situation than the one we are living in.

In Rolland Belzil's computer, the police found a list of several potential victims. When one murder and two attempted murders have been committed, the murderer becomes a serious case and must be under strict medical supervision. That is what Bill C-54 will make possible, and I ask you to pass it as quickly as possible.

Having a respite of up to three years between assessments, depending of the gravity of each case is, of course, a real relief for victims. You know as well as I do that a year goes by quickly. Rolland Belzil has mentioned that he has only killed one out of four and that he has to finish what he set out to do.

At no time have we been motivated by revenge. These proposed reforms will have no effect at all on the access to treatment for those deemed not criminally responsible. On the contrary, those needing special care will be able to have it tailored to their own specific needs.They will be better supervised. Providing more structured medical supervision for people suffering from a mental illness is not stigmatizing them. The concept of rehabilitating the offender remains in the act. So it is wrong to say that ill people will be losing their rights.

By lengthening the period of care, the risk of reoffending is reduced, but, above all, lives will be saved. We cannot sit on our hands and wait. We have to save our mother's life.

As victims, we have no place in all these interminable procedures. We will certainly not be the last to live through a similar event. In Verchères, with a population of 5,000, three people have confided in us and told us that they are living in a situation similar to our own and are terrorized.

We are supposed to have the right to security. At the moment, the only people with rights are those who have been charged and found not criminally responsible. Ronald wore his heart on his sleeve; he was always smiling, gentle and ready to help others. His murder was an enormous shock. The public is completely outraged by this heinous action that has gone unpunished.

We have lost a second father, a grandfather, a husband. But above all, we have lost an exceptional human being whom we loved more than anything in the world. We will never be able to forgive the action, but now we have to learn to live with it. Ronald's death must not be one among many. It must serve to advance the cause of victims. This bill is extremely important for our security and our quality of life.

Thank you all so much for giving me your valuable time and for letting me express to you my thirst for justice. We are behind you in supporting this urgent and vital bill.

5:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace

Thank you, Ms. Malo

Thank you, witnesses. We'll go to questions. I hope Mr. Samson is still on the line for us.

Our first questioner is Mr. Marston from the New Democratic Party.

June 10th, 2013 / 5:50 p.m.

NDP

Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON

Thank you, Chair. I presume Mr. Samson is on the line, but I would like to address my first comments to Ms. Malo and Mr. Samson.

Fear is a very real thing, particularly in the dramatic situations you both have suffered. I want to put on record that one of the amendments the NDP is putting forward will be to have family notified, if they wish, of the residency of a person released back into the community. Both of your testimonies are heart-wrenching, but you both have been very clear, so at this point I'll move my questioning to Ms. Des Rosiers. Did I pronounce that right?

5:55 p.m.

General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association

5:55 p.m.

NDP

Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON

I've never been accused of being perfect when it comes to French.

We've had expert witness after expert witness come before us. There is clearly a gap between what the community feels they should have for protection and understanding of circumstances, and what the courts have ruled in the past on the so-called rights of the accused person. From my standpoint, the witnesses called into question the approach of the government with this particular bill. I've said before at this committee that our responsibility is to write the best piece of legislation we possibly can.

The testimony I've heard here today, as well as previous testimony we've heard, including Mr. Battista's, leads me to believe there's a high risk this will be challenged in court, because of previous statements and positions taken by the Supreme Court of Canada. You spoke of the overloading of the system. There's a variety of things. I'd like you to comment on that.

5:55 p.m.

General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association

Nathalie Des Rosiers

I think everybody wants to have a system that has the right balance and reflects the need for public safety. Everybody is in agreement with this. Our position is that the bill responds to some of the victim's needs, but not all of them. It gives information rights, but it does not give rights to financial aid, services, or support. That's a mistake.

The second part has to do with a mental health strategy that looks at the way in which you could prevent some of the...to improve the way access to services and identification is done, and that those are done in the appropriate way. I think that's what we are hearing. We are concerned that the use of the word “brutal” in proposed paragraph 672.64 (1)(b) regarding high-risk accused is unworkable. It is vague enough and arbitrary enough that it will not do what the government wants it to, and it has the potential to raise some constitutional challenges.

Finally, I want to reinforce how important it would be to have a proper evaluation framework to see what the effect of this bill is on the ground. Experts have feared it would have the reverse effect. I think the responsible way, if you're going to go forward, is at least to ensure that you're putting yourself on notice that in three to five years, you will be able to see whether it worked, whether it did the things the government said it was going to do.

5:55 p.m.

NDP

Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON

One of the things that comes to mind in listening to Ms. Galt, Ms. Malo, and Mr. Samson is consultation and support for their mental health, the kind of pressures that are put on families, the horrendous pressures of the unknown. One of the biggest fears of all of us is the unknown. I spent a night in a house with an NCR patient who had murdered my sister 10 years before. I didn't sleep. I was 12 years old. My imagination ran wild that whole weekend. As to the word “brutal” in the bill, if a parent takes the life of their own child, no matter the brutality of the act, the fact that they've done it in itself is brutal. It just strikes me that we need to do more with this bill. There's more that can be done for victims' rights than what this bill does. If we got expert consultation, we could work to develop it even further.

I presume that's my time.

5:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace

That is your time, my friend. Thank you for those questions and answers.

Our next questioner is Monsieur Goguen from the Conservative Party.

5:55 p.m.

Conservative

Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for your testimony. It is very much appreciated. The matter is really complex.

Ms. Malo, as I listened to your testimony, I understood that you are very much in favour of this bill. You stated that, when a verdict of not criminally responsible is handed down, the protection of the public is the first concern. It is paramount.

On June 5, Dr. Isabelle Gaston testified before this committee. She stressed the fact that our Bill C-54 would provide better protection for victims and for society in general. She said: “…this bill gives me greater hope that one day, the scales that are the symbol of our justice system will once again attain a certain balance for the parties involved.” She also said: “I have the impression that people are playing Russian roulette with my life. I don't feel protected, really, at this time.”

We also heard the testimony of another grieving mother, which echoed Dr. Gaston's. Her name was Carol de Delley, the mother of Tim McLean, who was killed in his sleep on a Greyhound bus. The murderer, Vince Li, got a verdict of not criminally responsible. We all know how barbaric the act was.

Ms. Malo and Mr. Samson, I would like you both to answer. Do you believe that Bill C-54 will provide better protection for victims, and for society in general?

6 p.m.

As an Individual

6 p.m.

Conservative

Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB

Well, there's a quick answer.

What do you think, Ms. Malo?

6 p.m.

As an Individual

Isabelle Malo

The bill certainly will provide better protection. Primary prevention failed completely in our case. Just a year and a half after the murder, Rolland Belzil was already before a review board. It is terrifying to know that the decision as to his release is in the hands of people like that. The man has spent his life manipulating others to his advantage. We are not reassured at all.

He said that his work was not finished and that he had only killed one out of four people. Just imagine what will happen if he gets out. My life will be over. Even if he had an escort, I would not have any kind of reassurance, because you never know what can happen. We have had issues with him for 12 years, both civil and criminal, and there has never been any question of mental illness in his case.

He was always well dressed, with his briefcase and everything. They said that Ronald's murder was the result of a psychotic episode, but, for years, he threatened him and said he was going to kill him. We do not understand any more; we are confused. At no time did we have the right to say a single word. Only the accused's own statements counted for anything. No psychiatrist questioned us; no one from the Institut Philippe-Pinel in Montreal and no one to provide another opinion. We sat in the room like statues. We never had a chance to say a word; we were never able to share our opinion. Only the day of the murder counted.

For us, the “high-risk” designation and the fact that people have to wait three years before they can go before the board again, that's a lot, it's a big step. This bill will give us trust in justice again.

6 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace

Monsieur Samson, would you like to add to that answer?

6 p.m.

As an Individual

André Samson

Yes, that's it. This bill will give us a lot of safety. Before this, we had absolutely none, we were aware of nothing. It will give us more safety. In fact, my family and I support this bill.

Thank you very much for listening to me.

6 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace

Thank you very much for that.

Our next questioner is Monsieur Cotler from the Liberal Party.

6 p.m.

Liberal

Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My first question is for Nathalie Des Rosiers.

First of all, if I may, I'd like to congratulate you on becoming the dean of the common law program of the faculty of law at the University of Ottawa. Welcome back here.

I'd like to put a question to you that will draw on your legal expertise.

If you were to present your students with an assignment that asked them to develop reforms to the NCR regime, but reforms that would have to be constitutionally compliant, and they came up with Bill C-54, would you regard that as being a regime that, in fact, is constitutionally compliant?

6 p.m.

General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association

Nathalie Des Rosiers

As I've indicated, there are some provisions in it that are vulnerable. The use of the word “brutal” is not one that commands sufficient definitional certitude for it to pass an arbitrariness test. That's the first part.

The second part is there's some difficulty in reconciling the way in which the framework is limiting the therapeutic approach, which limits the way you treat the disease. That also may raise some concern on the security of the person, fundamental justice....

In our view, that's where le bât blesse, in the malleability of the terms that are used. It's not going to be sufficient to say that we know what we mean because those were the tragedies that were dealt by Parliament at the time. That's our concern. The wording just does not do justice to what's being sought.

It's quite possible to give good informational rights to victims, which should be present throughout the system, and they are. They should continue to be forcefully advocated for. The other needs should be looked after as well.

There's a nice argument now that section 7 also provides some ways in which to reconcile these rights.

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC

On a related matter, the bill removes the requirement that the conditions imposed on the NCR accused be “the least onerous and least restrictive” possible, while elevating, if you will, the requirement to protect the public, which we all agree needs to be in there, and you've made reference to it.

The language I quoted was drawn directly from the ruling by the Supreme Court. Can you speak to the consequences, both practically and constitutionally, of deleting this particular criteria?