Evidence of meeting #93 for Justice and Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was illness.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Good afternoon, everyone.
It's a pleasure to welcome everyone to this meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights as we commence our study of Bill C-375, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (presentence report).
It is also a pleasure to welcome Mr. Majid Jowhari, the sponsor of the bill.
Welcome, Mr. Jowhari.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
It's also a pleasure to welcome Mr. MacGregor back to the committee.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Welcome.
On behalf of everyone on the committee, Mr. Ehsassi, we want to extend our deepest condolences to the people of your riding and all of Toronto on the incredible loss they suffered the other day from the brutal killings in your riding.
Mr. Jowhari, you are the first person to speak about the proposed bill. You have approximately 10 minutes to tell us why we should all jump and support it. The floor is yours.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
At the outset, let me also echo the sentiments expressed by the chair to Mr. Ehsassi regarding the unfortunate situation that happened in Willowdale. All of our thoughts and prayers are with the ones who lost their lives and those in the process of recovery. We commend the great work of our first responders, and also of Mr. Ehsassi, who went to the riding to be there for the people.
On that note, good afternoon, members and colleagues. It is a privilege to be here before this committee today.
Let me start by saying that one in five Canadians will directly face a mental health issue at some point in their life. Four out of five will indirectly be impacted. The economic impact of mental health-related issues is estimated at $50 billion a year, and it continues to rise. While there are vulnerable populations across Canada, mental illness will affect all Canadians regardless of age, sex, or background. Accordingly, there is an overwhelming desire for real change across a broad range of stakeholders.
This bill reflects what I've heard on the ground in my constituency, testimony from various groups championing mental health, such as the CMHC, CMHA, and CMHI, and my own research and expertise as chair of the mental health caucus. I also considered the testimonies of front-line workers, research organizations, and most importantly our experience on our visit to the Ray of Hope youth facility and the Grand Valley Institution for Women last year.
As highlighted earlier, this also reflects the priority of my constituents in Richmond Hill, who have, since I took office, often shared their concerns regarding the dynamics between the criminal justice system and mental health.
In Canada, 10% of the population reports symptoms consistent with mental illness. Among our youth, 25% will experience a mental health issue as they navigate through their adulthood, particularly in the vulnerable transition period between ages 18 and 24. This vulnerable population is profoundly overrepresented in our prison system, and studies have shown that the majority of young inmates demonstrate a mental health issue.
According to the Mental Health Commission of Canada, only a fraction—20% of youth—have access to the mental health services they need. We must be very clear on that fact. Mental health services are as much needed as any necessary medical services. To be forced to go without them is to invite life-altering consequences.
The correctional investigator's 2012 annual report found that 36% of offenders at federal penitentiaries were identified as requiring psychiatric or psychological follow-up. Forty percent of male inmates and 69% of female inmates were treated for mental health issues while in prison.
Bill C-375 would amend paragraph 721(3)(a) of the Criminal Code, mandating that unless otherwise specified, when a pre-sentence report is required by a court, in addition to information such as age, maturity, character, behaviour, attitude, and willingness to make amends, information outlining any mental health disorder, as well as any mental health care program available to the accused, be provided as part of the pre-sentencing report.
As Bill C-375 passed through the House, a range of opinions were expressed on the bill as it currently stands. Arguments were made questioning the need for such a bill, and in contrast that the bill does not go far enough. I'm happy to have this opportunity to discuss those concerns, and I'm intrigued to see what amendments may be proposed.
Today, there exists no mandate for the court to consider the mental health history of an individual in pre-sentencing proceedings, yet the court is mandated to take into account such nebulous and subjective factors as attitude or character. As Bill C-375 ensures that pertinent information will be taken into account during pre-sentencing, an individual with a history of mental health issues will be afforded the appropriate care and treatment during the administration of justice and their rehabilitation.
In the long term, the legislation presents an opportunity for us to take a real step forward, decrease recidivism, improve rehabilitation, and further erode the stigmatization of mental illness. In the short term, there are immediate benefits to the quality of life in our prisons, as well as to the efficacy of the services in the administration of justice and the rehabilitation of vulnerable populations.
In any individual sentence, our justice system is well-served by being made fully aware of relevant mental health concerns. With mental health information included in a pre-sentence report, the interplay of mental health with the condition of incarceration can be taken fully into account. Readily available mental health information is invaluable when considering a step as drastic as solitary confinement or choosing the facility that can best provide the appropriate mental health services.
By ensuring that mental health concerns are considered in these decisions, we can reduce the strain on penitentiary security officers while creating an environment that mitigates inflammatory factors and encourages conditions that reduce recidivism in the long term. This can be particularly useful in crafting cases of conditional sentencing as well as in creating conditions for effective reintegration following release.
Ensuring that mental health information is available at every step of the process will also make cases less vulnerable to attack on appeal, saving time and money for our judicial system and providing a net benefit to the overall cost and burden associated with mental health issues. Many members of Parliament do not have a chance to see their private members' bills seen before the House, let alone passed to committee. I'm proud of the bill that you have before you today, but it's decidedly a product of compromise. A private member's bill is one of the most direct venues through which a member of Parliament can direct real change on behalf of their constituents, and this private member's bill is a tool to further the discussion on this topic.
While I wish the scope and the reach of this bill was more encompassing, I believe that this balancing act has produced a bill that will do tangible good in the lives of Canadians while attracting common sense support on all sides. Likewise, I'm excited to work with the committee to re-examine and potentially strengthen the bill through amendments, and I believe the legislation as it stands is a strong model that will facilitate a fruitful discussion.
To conclude, I would like to remind the committee that the nexus of mental health care in our criminal justice system is complex, dynamic, and evolving. A judge must be presented with the relevant information in any given case in order to take advantage of this. This complex situation should be addressed by more than a single private member's bill, and I certainly would not frame Bill C-375 as a be-all solution.
I thank you for the opportunity. I would like to also acknowledge the work of Mr. Glenn Bradbury, who was instrumental in getting the bill to this state.
Mr. Chair, colleagues, I'm ready to answer questions from the committee.
Thank you very much.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much, Mr. Jowhari.
We're going to start with Mr. Nicholson.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Jowhari, and thank you for introducing this bill. Thank you as well for your comments that you're prepared to look at amendments that might strengthen or clarify the bill. Certainly we appreciate that.
I'm pleased to see, and we're all grateful for the fact, that you're focusing on the whole area of mental health. We've come a long way in this area, even within the criminal justice system. When I was a kid, they used to tell me the last thing someone would ever want to do was plead guilty by reason of mental problems, because then you would be detained, basically, for the rest of your life. They used to say it was at the pleasure of the lieutenant-governor. So that was completely avoided, but nonetheless, we've come a long way since then.
Now, one of the issues that the present Minister of Justice has raised and set out on a number of occasions is that she wants to expedite the process, to move the justice system so that it's not clogged up and so that delays won't result in people having their charges stayed.
Pre-sentence reports are very common in our criminal justice system, and, as you pointed out, some of them contain facts about the age, the background, and the criminal records of the individuals. According to your analysis, will adding this new requirement for a pre-sentence report on mental health slow down the justice system as it is right now?
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Let me start by saying that in most cases, the court system is already taking into account the mental health of the accused being sentenced, so this bill is just codifying an already-existing process.
As to the concept of overburdening the court or adding to the length of the process, we have not seen that in the discussions and in our studies. We are just codifying an existing practice, and making sure it's standard.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
However, this doesn't exist in all pre-sentence reports. All of them do not come with a mental analysis of these things. It's when it's called upon, or where it's obvious to the court. But this would require it in every case, every single pre-sentence report, so that certainly would increase the number of....
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Yes, one could argue that it would increase, but a majority of the pre-sentence reports and a majority of the judges already request that type of information, as I said. It's basically codifying it.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
I believe there will be an increased call upon mental health professionals, experts, and doctors, and everybody else. Do you think the provinces are prepared to step up to the plate here and provide this?
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Those requests are already there to a large extent. As we went through the different correctional services, we realized that this need that is being highlighted during the incarceration is being communicated to the provinces. Therefore, the provinces could potentially be looking at it—but really, that's a jurisdictional issue. All we are trying to do in this bill is make sure that two things happen: one, as I said, is that the mental health-related information of the person to be sentenced be included; and two, that the programs needed to make sure that individual gets the services needed to be able to successfully reintegrate back into the community are considered and made available.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
Let me just be hypothetical. In the documentation we've been given, there's a listing of a number of the types of mental disorders. They include agoraphobia, anorexia, bipolar disorder, pathological gambling, panic disorder, phobias, post-traumatic stress disorder, drug and alcohol abuse, to name just a few.
Could you anticipate the fact that no matter what the report looks like, it may not include all aspects of mental illnesses, and this certainly would be a ground for appeal? If, in fact, the pre-sentence report was there, and it didn't include some area of mental illness because perhaps the doctors, the professionals, didn't scour every possibility, we could see that as part of the court of appeal proceedings. The individual could have had some other mental illness that wasn't taken into consideration. This would now be a requirement.
April 26th, 2018 / 3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Yes. The mental health field is evolving. We are finding new methods and new tools to deal with mental health, and new conditions are also being identified. That's why the text of the bill has been left open to allow consideration of those new conditions as they are identified, and also to identify different approaches.
Ten years ago a simple approach might have been just prescribing a medication. Now we see there are different cognitive and therapeutical approaches that might help to resolve the situation.
As I said, again, the focus is to make sure that the language of the bill is broad enough to be encompassing, and to allow for the evolving science in mental health and the new, innovative ways that those services are being provided.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Thank you very much, Mr. Jowhari. Thanks so much for bringing this important bill forward, and for appearing at our committee and helping us understand it a little better. I know the good work you have done on mental health issues in your time as a member of Parliament, and I commend you for that. It's an important issue, and I think everyone around here notices the good work you have done in that regard.
Section 718 of the Criminal Code includes sentencing principles. Of course, to denounce an offence, or to deter other people from committing that offence is important. One of them, though, under paragraph 718(d), is to help rehabilitate the offender and make sure they get the help they need so they are not as likely to commit another offence, thereby protecting society in the future.
Do you think your bill will help rehabilitate offenders?
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
I believe my bill will go a long way in making sure that the programs are made available. I think the person who is incarcerated and going through his or her sentencing period should be awarded the opportunity to go to those programs. The intent of those programs is to deal with and stabilize the mental health of that individual.
I believe that through this process we would be able to make sure that the rate of reoccurrence is reduced. The way it's done is by making sure that the condition is dealt with. Also, we provide an environment for the individual to be able to reintegrate effectively back into the community, so it would reduce the chance of recurrence.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Very good.
I know from my experience in practising criminal law in Nova Scotia that taking into account mental disorders was almost always a practice in a pre-sentence report. I would say that, in many ways, this is really just standardizing good practice to ensure that the court has a complete picture of the circumstances of the offender who is before the court at sentencing.
Would you agree with that, and do you think it's important to ensure that probation officers are directed to turn their minds to any mental disorder that might exist in order to give the court the complete picture on sentencing?
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Yes, and thank you for highlighting that, based on your experience.
As we were doing our study, we heard consistently as well that in most cases, the pre-sentencing reports contain information about the mental health status of the individual. However, what was missing and not consistent and not standardized was that the programs needed to ensure that the individual gets the needed support were not there, or consideration was not given to where he or she needed to get assigned to be able to receive those services. As we were visiting some of the penitentiaries, we realized that, for those services, they needed to bring external psychiatrists or psychologists, yet in others, there were in-house services provided, because the facility also provided those types of services.
If you take a step back, we're actually standardizing or codifying an existing process, in most of the cases, and also amending or strengthening it by making sure that those programs and services are also provided with a clear focus on helping an individual to reintegrate back into society very effectively.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Usually the accused person or the defence is okay with, or actually requests, that such a pre-sentence report be done so that it can give the court a complete picture of the circumstances of the accused on sentencing. Sometimes that's not the case, though, and the court can order a pre-sentence report on its own, or the crown can ask for it over the objection of the defence.
If, for example, an accused person were not wanting information to be known to the court, for whatever reason, and the mental disorder information were only obtainable by that person consenting, is there a problem with the confidentiality of that information when it becomes known to the court? If so, is there any way we can remedy that problem?
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
To the best of my knowledge and the research that we've done, it is not mandatory right now for the person who is being sentenced to disclose if he or she does not wish us to do so. Therefore, I would say that the probation officer or the person who is preparing the pre-sentencing report could do his or her best to make sure that the information is gathered and those programs are made available.
I think that's a prudent thing to do, because if a person is hiding a serious condition or is not comfortable with sharing that serious condition, when he or she is going through their incarceration, there may be cases where mental health will become an issue, and then they have to go back and really consider it.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
But there would be no obligation, obviously, on the accused to consent to this information being provided?
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Absolutely not. There is no obligation for the accused to consent.
