House of Commons Hansard #217 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was victims.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by people from Montreal and Gabriola Island.
The petitioners urge all members to support my private member's bill, Bill C-442, which calls for the creation of a national Lyme disease strategy.
Patients and doctors across Canada tell me they support this legislation. I certainly hope my colleagues will join me with all-party support.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is related to the northern gateway project. The petitioners call on the House, and particularly on the Privy Council, to give this project a very clear, strong and transparent review.
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Mr. Speaker, like other members of the House, I rise this afternoon on behalf of many people from my riding and other parts of Canada.
They also condemn the practice of sex selective pregnancy termination. Among other things, they claim that in a poll some 92% of Canadians believe such sex selective pregnancy terminations should be illegal.
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present three petitions, representing thousands of people from British Columbia. The petitions highlight that last year, 22-year-old Kassandra Kaulius was killed by a drunk driver. A group of people who have also lost loved ones to impaired drivers, called Families For Justice, say the current impaired driving laws are too lenient. They call for new mandatory minimum sentencing for people who have been convicted of impaired driving causing death. They also want the Criminal Code of Canada to change to redefine the offence of impaired driving causing death to vehicular manslaughter.
Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder) be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Speaker, I rise to address Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, which would change how the Canadian justice system deals with accused found not criminally responsible, or NCR, on account of mental disorder.
It may seem like déjà vu for some that I am speaking again on this issue. As minister of justice and attorney general of Canada, I stood in this place to introduce the legislation that reformed this system, legislation, I might add, that passed with the support of all parties in 2005 and that has stood the test for the last eight years and more.
Throughout that debate, and the discussion thus far on Bill C-54, I have come to appreciate that members of the House have a clear compassion and concern for all innocent victims of violence and their loved ones, that we all seek to protect public safety, and that we agree on the need to support victims and victims families. Guaranteeing their well-being, as I said on the occasion of the introduction of my legislation regarding reforms to the mental disorder regime in 2005, is of primary importance in our justice system. It is precisely for that reason, as minister of justice, that I enacted measures allowing victims to provide impact statements at review board hearings for NCR accused. We should not think that the matters are being established or initiated for the first time now.
I was proud of the legislation that we introduced on NCR accused because it adopted an evidence-based approach and incorporated the guidance of the Supreme Court of Canada, the expertise of justice and health professionals and reports of standing committees of the House on this matter. Regrettably, the same cannot be said of the bill before us. In the matter of Bill C-54, the government's approach and rhetoric appear to be grounded more in fear and stigma than in the facts and evidence.
I will begin my remarks, therefore, with an overview of the available data about NCR accused. I will then share my specific concerns regarding this legislation while suggesting alternative measures that would likely prove more effective at preventing violence by people with mental disorders and hence better protect public safety, let alone having less victims. Finally, I will discuss how the bill fits a pattern of Conservative justice legislation that focuses excessively on the addition of punitive measures to the Criminal Code, on a punitive rather than preventive perspective.
Let me begin by reminding us all of the scope of the bill. NCR accused are neither found guilty nor innocent.
As the Supreme Court explains, this regime “supplements the traditional guilt-innocence dichotomy of the criminal law with a new alternative for NCR accused--an alternative of...assessment to determine whether the person poses a continuing threat to society coupled with an emphasis on providing opportunities to receive appropriate treatment.”
NCR accused account for less than 1% of accused persons annually. In evaluating the NCR regime and determining whether reform is needed, it is important to keep these facts in mind, yet on the day the bill was tabled, the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and currently the Associate Minister of National Defence appeared on CBC and said with respect to the recidivism rate of NCR accused, “I'm not aware that there are any particular statistics available on that. I'm not sure that this is what it's all about.”
This is a particularly puzzling statement, given that the Supreme Court, in the case from which I just cited, Winko v. British Columbia, found that “Research shows that NCR accused are no more likely than their convicted counterparts to commit any offence, let alone a violent offence, upon release”. While that particular case is from 1999, more recent statistics are available, but they are not favourable to the government's case.
That statement by the parliamentary secretary was in essence an admission that the government has eschewed empirical evidence in the drafting of the bill, which aims expressly to make it more difficult to release NCR accused in the name of public safety, yet if legislation is to protect the public against a particular threat, information regarding the extent of that threat is fundamental. Otherwise we are legislating based on myth, gut instinct and stereotyping, which the NCR regime sought specifically to guard against with respect to the mentally ill.
The data to which we do not have access—and I have submitted an order paper question in this regard that I hope will receive a full response in the near future—indicate that very few mentally ill people commit violent acts, even fewer are found not criminally responsible and only a minuscule percentage of those found to be NCR reoffend after treatment.
To begin with, according to researchers from McGill University and Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, 90% of people with mental illness are non-violent. Moreover, a report prepared for the Department of Justice shows that in 2004, the last year studied, only 0.18% of all criminal cases resulted in a finding that the accused was either NCR or unfit to stand trial for reasons of mental incapacity. Finally, a Canadian study from 2003 puts the recidivism rate for people who have been found NCR, treated and released at just 7.5%. By contrast, those who are not NCR and have served in federal prisons have a reconviction rate of over 40%.
I realize I am using many numbers here, but I do not want there to be any confusion. This bill is dealing with less than 10% of a population that is already less than 1% of all those criminally accused in Canada. One would think that for all the hype over this legislation that it would be targeting a large group of Canadians, not less than one-tenth of a percent.
There is no doubt that the rarity of the occurrence is of little importance to those who are victimized and the horror that they have experienced, and certain efforts to refine our NCR regime may well be worthwhile. In fact, Bill C-54 does contain some measures that are reasonable and worthy of support, such as keeping victims families better informed and prohibiting perpetrators from contacting victims after their release. However the government's overstatement of the problem and the heavy-handed response to it risks doing more harm than good.
This brings me to the second part of my remarks, in which I will discuss specific concerns about Bill C-54 and particular aspects of the bill that may have unintended negative consequences. To begin with, Bill C-54 would allow certain NCR accused to be designated high-risk, not by mental health experts, but by criminal courts. This designation would devolve subsequent decision-making authority regarding the accused from specialized review boards to criminal courts, once again despite the fact that general criminal courts lack the requisite expertise to make determinations about the risks posed by a person with mental illness.
The government is proposing this change without offering any evidence that review boards have failed to protect the public from a dangerous NCR accused. Indeed, under the current system, review boards do not release NCR accused who continue to pose a threat, something that appears to be ignored by the government in its deliberations thus far.
The high-risk designation, combined with tripling the time period between reviews from one year to three, may cause NCR inmates to remain in custody long after successful treatment. Such an outcome would be unacceptable, given that, as the Supreme Court has stressed, NCR accused have not been convicted of a crime. Indeed, as the court has stated, “the NCR accused is to be treated with the utmost dignity and afforded the utmost liberty compatible with his or her situation. The NCR accused is not to be punished, nor is the NCR accused to languish in custody...”.
Accordingly, Bill C-54 could lead to charter claims with respect to the section 7 right to life, liberty and security of person; the section 9 guarantee that everyone has the right to not be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned; and we could see section 15 challenges, as there is prohibition against discrimination on the basis of mental disability. Yet again, the government is seeking to enact legislation that will invite protracted, expensive and avoidable constitutional litigation. May I add parenthetically that, ever the optimist, I await the minister's report of charter inconsistency pursuant to section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act.
Beyond the litigation risk, detaining more NCR accused for longer periods of time gives rise to the very practical problem of where these individuals will reside while in treatment. For this reason, I have asked the government for details about the capacity of the mental health institutions in which NCR accused are placed, and about any plans to increase that capacity, as well as any analysis that has been performed on Bill C-54's potential consequences in this regard.
It is by no means clear that our system is at present capable of dealing with greater numbers of NCR accused who are institutionalized for longer periods of time, and we risk complicating their recovery by straining the resources of the institutions and the individuals who are treated. That potential strain and resulting decrease in the effectiveness of such institutions, combined with the possibility that NCR accused could be detained for years even after successful treatment, might mean that mentally ill accused will be less likely to plead NCR as a result of this bill.
We would therefore find ourselves with even more mentally ill people in our prison system.
I am sure that I do not have to remind members of the tragic consequences of housing people with mental disorders in prison rather than in medical facilities. There are consequences for the inmates, as was demonstrated by the heart-wrenching videos of Ashley Smith, and there are consequences for public safety, which the government says is the primary concern that underpins the bill.
When mentally ill people are returned untreated into society after servicing a prison sentence, they pose a far greater danger than NCR accused who have been treated by medical professionals and evaluated by experts. For this reason, I introduced an amendment to last year's omnibus crime bill that would have allowed offenders to receive mental health treatment prior to incarceration, as is already done in cases of drug addiction. Regrettably, the Conservatives rejected this amendment.
Yet the best way of minimizing the potential that someone with a mental illness will commit a violent act, and therefore the best way of protecting the public, which appears to be the objective, as stated by the government, of this legislation, is to ensure effective treatment for the mentally ill.
This brings me to the next section of my remarks, in which I will discuss ways of minimizing the risk of violence by the mentally ill without resorting to punitive, counterproductive and constitutionally suspect measures, which underpin this legislation.
Parliament must encourage and facilitate timely and effective treatment, not only for NCR accused but especially for people in the early stages of mental illness whose conditions can be treated effectively. Indeed, according to the Schizophrenia Society of Canada, the key is early identification, intervention and treatment. To that end, we could train people who work with youth to recognize the initial symptoms of psychosis, since many psychoses develop in adolescence. We could help expand the reach of first episode psychosis clinics, institutions specifically designed to help young patients and their families deal with mental illness in its early stages.
Sadly, however, too many people wait years before receiving treatment, sometimes because their symptoms go unrecognized, and often because they fear the stigma associated with mental disease. It is therefore vital for parliamentarians to set the example by combating that stigma through our words and deeds.
Earlier this month, the members for Toronto Centre and Oak Ridges—Markham encouraged Canadians to openly discuss mental illness, emphasizing that there is no shame in having a mental disease and that recovery is possible. This is the attitude that must underpin our approach to all matters of mental health, including evaluation and refinement of the NCR regime.
However, through its rhetoric and approach to Bill C-54, the government has cast NCR accused as irredeemably violent and has contributed to the impression that Canadians have much to fear from the mentally ill. By overstating the problem of violence by people with mental illness and by understating or ignoring the potential effectiveness of treatment, the government adds to the stigmatization that so many Canadians are working so hard to undo.
As the bill goes forward, I call upon members to engage in the legitimate debate about the particulars of our NCR regime without ceding to stigma and stereotype.
I will use the remainder of my time to take a step back and view the legislation before us as it fits into the overall Conservative justice agenda.
With Bill C-54, the government would continue a pattern of focusing almost exclusively on criminal punishment, behaving as though incarceration is the only tool at the justice minister's disposal and criminal law the only legal domain over which Parliament exercises authority.
Given the rhetoric about the necessity of such reforms, one could be forgiven for mistakenly assuming that Canada is overrun with dangerous criminals and violent psychopaths terrorizing our country unimpeded. The truth of the matter is that the government's rather myopic focus on criminal law and its overemphasis on punishment, as opposed to prevention and rehabilitation, not only undermines its own efforts to promote public safety but prejudices the many other aspects of the justice agenda that are being overlooked.
For example, legal aid is woefully underfunded in this country, and the government has yet to commit to a comprehensive and sustainable civil as well as criminal legal aid program. Moreover, when it comes to judicial appointments, diversity on the bench is seemingly not a priority. Indeed, the only statistics the federal government keeps with respect to such appointments is in regard to gender, ignoring the diversity imperative that the judiciary reflect the populace, with representatives from different ethnic and religious groups.
Canada has also missed the opportunity to use the 30th anniversary of the charter to share our significant and storied legal expertise with judiciaries in developing countries. The government marked this anniversary only by releasing factually questionable press releases that seemed to highlight the Bill of Rights, which, ironically, Bill C-54 may also infringe. Instead, the government should have celebrated what legal scholars around the world have lauded as a landmark document and should have committed to public legal education, domestic law reform and international law-building.
The government could also recommit to wrongful conviction review, increase funding for the war crimes and crimes against humanity program or introduce legislation, oft promised, to allow random roadside breath testing.
I realize it may seem as though I have strayed somewhat from the subject before us, but perhaps it bears pointing out to the government the reality that more Canadians will die at the hands of drunk drivers annually than will die at the hands of NCR accused. Where is the legislation for those victims? Where is the focus on what is a criminal justice issue, where the government has real preventive powers? Bill C-54 demonstrates clearly the government's failure to prioritize and to consider the evidence before it.
This is but one example. In the aftermath of the Idle No More movement, which may have temporarily quieted down but has by no means disappeared—nor should it—now would be the ideal time for the government to commit to an aboriginal justice strategy, ensuring that indigenous legal traditions have their proper place before our courts.
There are also changes needed in the areas of statutory interpretation, alternative dispute resolution, consolidation of statutes, restorative justice and treaty reform, among many others, yet the government persists with a justice agenda limited almost entirely to criminal law, using as justification the odd high-profile case as opposed to empirical data. The bill before us today fits this unfortunate pattern.
As I mentioned, I have submitted an order paper question asking for evidence that would demonstrate the need for a bill like this one. I am open to any possibility that the government will table statistics and analysis that does just that. However, for the moment, the available research indicates the opposite, suggesting that recidivism rates are low, that review boards are thorough, and indeed, that mental illnesses are treatable and ought to be treated as a means of preventing crime.
I have no trouble understanding the fear and frustration many Canadians feel when certain NCR accused are returned to society, and I appreciate the horror victims have felt in this regard and the trauma that has thereby been experienced. However, we will never protect the public by letting fear outweigh facts as a basis for legislation or by having a punitive approach overtake the need for prevention.
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Speaker, I gather the Liberals will oppose the bill. Since the Conservatives have a majority, however, it will surely pass at second reading.
I would like the Liberal member to describe the amendments his party would like to include in the bill in committee.
Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Speaker, first off, I would like to say that I have not decided that we will oppose the bill. What I said is that, as it stands, the bill is not evidence-based.
We are currently quite troubled by the bill and we intend to propose amendments in committee. They may deal with victims' rights, for instance. As I said in my speech, we support some of the measures in the bill that deal with victim protection. That said, we will propose amendments in order to strengthen the protection of victims and the public.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Mount Royal for his presentation, and of course, for his particular expertise, since he was the Minister of Justice who first brought in the not criminally responsible regime eight years ago.
Of course, it is difficult to imagine the hypothetical of having the evidence we need to look at the situation. However, it seems to me, and this is somewhat intuitive, that if we had the evidence we need, we would find that the larger part of the problem is our failure to deal with mental health issues in a comprehensive way, through society, to ensure the prevention of violent acts by the very small minority of people with mental illness issues who find themselves then committing violent crimes. We recognize that this is a tiny proportion of all those with mental health issues, but when it occurs, of course it is devastating.
Would it not, on the evidence, make more sense to address our attention to preventing these rare occurrences from ever happening rather than to trying to keep those few people in jail indefinitely and finding fault with a system that we have no evidence is failing?
Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would agree. The whole approach of this legislation regrettably fits a pattern whereby one addresses the issue through the lens of punishment rather than through the lens of prevention. Since we are dealing, in particular, with the issue of the mentally disordered, this becomes crucial in terms of approaches with regard to prevention.
Again, I regret that when I submitted amendments on Bill C-10 that would have addressed the approach to the mentally ill through treatment rather than incarceration and through prevention rather than punishment, they were rejected by the government, although they were designed for the sole purpose of simply improving that which the government was ostensibly concerned with in Bill C-10, and that was the promotion and protection of public safety.
Through prevention we would, in fact, end up protecting public safety, ensuring that there are fewer victims, better treating offenders with respect to their reintegration into society, and treating those, particularly in the NCR regime, who are not regarded as offenders and have not been deemed criminally responsible with the appropriate approach.
Tarik Brahmi NDP Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to my Liberal colleague's speech. As a lawyer and a law professor, he is able to share his knowledge and expertise with us.
Unlike the member for Gatineau, who had the floor earlier today, he did not address section 16, which authorizes a court to deem someone not criminally responsible. I would like his views on that issue.
Currently, section 16 is about whether or not a person can tell right from wrong. Does my colleague believe the bill we have before us can address the issue of people who are charged with a criminal offence who invoke section 16 despite being fully able to tell right from wrong?
Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question.
I listened to the member for Gatineau and, in general, I concur with what she said.
I would also like to quote the Supreme Court of Canada in its decision about the principles in this issue. The ruling states:
Treatment, not incarceration, is necessary to stabilize the mental condition of a dangerous NCR accused and reduce the threat to public safety created by that condition.
This is taken from the 1999 ruling in Winko v. British Columbia. The court also said:
By creating an assessment-treatment alternative for the mentally ill offender to supplant the traditional criminal law conviction-acquittal dichotomy, Parliament has signalled that the NCR accused is to be treated with the utmost dignity and afforded the utmost liberty compatible with his or her situation. The NCR accused is not to be punished. Nor is the NCR accused to languish in custody...as was once the case.
We must remember that the accused who is not criminally responsible has not been found guilty or acquitted of any crime. These people have been declared not criminally responsible, and therefore it is wrong to say that they are criminals. It is an insult and harmful. That is the basis for my remarks.
We should not pass legislation that clouds this important distinction and the restrictions that the Supreme Court of Canada points out in its ruling on the issue.
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, our hon. colleague gave an extremely informative debate with respect to putting this bill in the context of previous legislation.
I wonder if he could elaborate a bit on his concern that the courts do not really have the expertise to engage in what the bill seems to want them to do. I would be grateful if he could inform us a bit more on that point.
Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Speaker, I made specific reference to the fact that it has been demonstrated that the review board does have the necessary expertise. Devolving that decision-making authority back to criminal courts that lack the requisite expertise would prejudice the very objectives this legislation purports to have, namely the protection of public safety, a decrease in the numbers of victims and in particular the whole question of the rehabilitation of the mentally disordered person through treatment and evaluation, which the Supreme Court recommended and which the review board can implement, but for which the criminal courts may not have the expertise.
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to discuss Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder) at second reading.
I am very pleased to be the first member to speak for the official opposition after our justice critic, who is also the member for Gatineau. She gave an excellent speech. I would like to talk about the aspects that I think are the most important in relation to the position we will be taking as the official opposition. Before going any further, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce-Lachine.
Basically, Bill C-54 presents three major amendments. The first is that the safety of the public will be the paramount consideration in the decision-making process relating to the accused or those found not criminally responsible for an offence. Second, it creates a scheme for finding that certain persons who have been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder are high-risk accused. Finally, the bill enhances the involvement of victims. The victim will be informed when the person found not criminally responsible for a crime against the victim is released. There may also be a disposition that communications between the not criminally responsible accused and the victim be prohibited. The bill also provides that the victim’s safety must be considered in decisions made with regard to the release of the person found not criminally responsible for a crime.
When we talk about making public safety a priority, we should point out something that is often ignored: the issue of public safety is already taken into account in decisions made either by a judge or by review boards. This includes cases involving mental disorders. This can be found in Criminal Code section 672.54, which provides that the courts or the review boards must consider the need to protect the public from dangerous persons. The mental condition of the accused, the reintegration of the accused into society and the other needs of the accused are also discussed. Therefore, the Criminal Code already has provisions that oblige the court and the review boards to consider the issue of public safety in the decisions they are making.
With regard to findings that certain accused persons are not criminally responsible but that they are high risk, a different category is proposed. Anyone who has been accused and found not criminally responsible may currently receive one of three verdicts from the court.
The first is an absolute discharge. Here again, the Criminal Code clearly states that an absolute discharge is given if the person is not considered to be a threat to public safety. This newly created category does not affect the matter of absolute discharge. There is also the possibility of a conditional discharge that includes a number of conditions. If a person found not criminally responsible is considered high risk, he cannot be given a conditional discharge. The third possibility, which already existed for not criminally responsible people who might be a risk or a threat, is detention in custody in a hospital.
So, ultimately, this new category of not criminally responsible but high-risk accused affects only one of three possible verdicts. Even before, a high-risk person could not get an absolute discharge and could be kept in custody in a hospital. Now, that person will no longer have the possibility of getting a conditional discharge.
The third question is an issue to which we are sensitive, and that is to increase victim participation in the process. Of course, in many cases, the mental disorder review board—I am familiar with the one in Quebec—must really think about the impact on the victim. We are concerned about this issue because there have been a few cases in Quebec, including one in particular to which the hon. member for Gatineau referred, which is that of Dr. Turcotte.
Before discussing this case, I want to mention a concern that we have, not necessarily regarding the bill and its content but, rather, the Conservative government's approach to these issues and, more specifically, this legislation.
There is really a desire to play political games for populist motives. I am concerned about the government's approach to this bill. We have known for a number of months that the government wanted to propose a bill to deal with accused persons found not criminally responsible. We knew that because the government had already announced its intention, last fall if I am not mistaken.
When it was announced that the Quebec mental disorder review board would conditionally discharge Dr. Turcotte, who was being detained at Institut-Philippe-Pinel, it generated debates, particularly in Quebec. Immediately, on the same day, the government held a press conference to announce once again that it would soon introduce this bill, which was still not ready or drafted.
Therefore, I am very concerned about this government's desire to make political hay with very important issues that should be dealt with in a responsible and reasoned fashion, with a cool head and without using very sensitive situations that stir emotions.
I say this as a person, as a parent, as a father of a four-year-old boy and a one-year-old girl who finds the crime committed by Dr. Turcotte extremely disturbing and traumatic. In that regard, I am thinking about my own children.
However, we are here to represent society and our constituencies. Despite the horror of the actions that are sometimes taken and highly publicized, we must deal with these issues in a reasoned way and with a cool head.
We have another problem, which is the issue of political gains. If this bill is passed—and it probably will, given the Conservative majority—the government could go everywhere in Canada, and particularly in Quebec with, among others, a well-known senator who often speaks for the government on these issues. That senator would meet with victims of acts committed by people found not criminally responsible and tell them that he listened to them and solved their problem. That is not really the perspective we should have on this issue. I am asking the government to be very careful in the way it deals with this issue, whether here in the House or in committee.
We do want to work and help victims be more involved in the process. They must see that the system meets their expectations and needs. However, we want to achieve that result in a balanced fashion that also meets the imperatives of our system, which is a system of law and order, a system based on the rule of law.
The hon. member for Gatineau, who is the justice critic for the official opposition, also mentioned the government's usual approach, which is of great concern to us and which we witnessed, particularly with Bill C-10. That was the omnibus crime bill that imposed a number of measures without consultation with the provinces and territories. Moreover, the government did not provide any impact studies on the ramifications of this bill, including the need for statistics.
For example, in this specific case, what are the recidivism rates? What are the numbers for crime and recidivism by accused found not criminally responsible? We do not have answers. The question was put to the Minister of Justice, but we did not get an answer. These are important issues that will have to be dealt with, and we want answers from the government on this sensitive matter.
In conclusion, I also asked the Minister of Justice if the provinces had been consulted to see if they were prepared to bear the costs. Again, I did not get an answer. There was no prior consultation on the issue of minimum sentences in Bill C-10. This bill will generate additional costs, not only for the system, but also for the institutions that must treat these people.
Let us not forget that, in Ontario, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health is currently operating at 104% of its capacity. If Ontario is not able to provide adequate resources, this bill will unfortunately fail to address a significant part of the problem.
I look forward to questions from my colleagues.
Mathieu Ravignat NDP Pontiac, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have been wondering about something ever since we started debating this bill.
Where are the victims’ voices in this bill? Is the government really listening? As I see it, we are not really addressing this basic question.
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, the victims’ voices must indeed be heard. I am well aware of that. We support the bill at second reading. Moreover, I sincerely hope that when the proposed legislation is examined in committee, careful attention will be paid to what victims have to say.
To that end, the committee will, I presume, hear from many experts, from people who are in the system and from victims who will have an opportunity to voice their concerns. Certain provisions of the bill will ensure that victims will be better represented and served by the system. Among other things, it will be easier to obtain an order barring communication between the victim and the accused, when the latter is not criminally responsible, of course. For instance, injunctions may be issued or ordered. In addition—and this seems perfectly natural to me—the system will be able to contact the victim when the accused found not criminally responsible is released, with or without conditions, from an institution.
The philosophy behind these provisions seems reasonable to me, but I want assurances that this is not just a public relations exercise on the government’s part and that victims’ expectations and concerns will truly be addressed in the comments made and in the version of the bill that ultimately will be voted on.
Not Criminally Responsible Reform ActGovernment Orders
Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo B.C.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue
Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated hearing my colleague say that New Democrats are concerned about the words of victims. I do not know if he is aware, but there was a very difficult case in British Columbia, the Schoenberg case. When this particular piece of legislation was announced, the victims of that crime, who have had horrific difficulties over the last few years, asked Parliament to please pass this legislation and pass it quickly.
My question to the hon. member is this: is he willing to move this forward very quickly so that victims will have their voices heard throughout the whole process?
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am not necessarily aware of all of the cases outside Quebec, but I am quite familiar with the cases in that province. I can sympathize with the victims, because there are cases in Quebec that are quite similar in terms of the uproar they caused.
However, while it is important to hear from victims, to give them a voice, to meet their expectations through legitimate means and to make provision for this in the system, we must not lose sight of our duty as elected representatives. We must ensure that the bill contains adequate measures that can be properly incorporated into the Criminal Code. As such, we cannot move forward as quickly as the hon. member would like. The issue must be examined calmly and rationally to ensure that we do our job properly. I trust that is what the committee will do as well.
Not Criminally Responsible Reform ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles has the floor. As there is only one minute left, she has 30 seconds for her question.
Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Speaker, Catherine Latimer, who works for the John Howard Society of Canada, argues that we need more programs and services for victims of sexual abuse. The same is true of gay, transgender and transsexual people, who suffer a second and third type of discrimination and are victimized in our society.
The hon. member touched on the media and discussed the influence that newspaper headlines had on the bill. Ms. Latimer believes we need a stronger focus on prevention. Could the member comment on that?
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, that is a very relevant question.
There are many aspects to consider. First of all, we need to ensure that the bill does not stigmatize people with mental illness. The committee and Parliament need to keep that in mind.
I cannot say much about prevention right now because of time constraints. I already mentioned the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, which treats people who were found not criminally responsible for their actions. It is currently operating at 104% of its capacity.
Without the necessary resources in place for prevention and treatment, this bill will be mostly a failure. That is why we are asking the government to give special attention to prevention and treatment when we debate the bill.