Debates of May 27th, 2013

Second Reading

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to say that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Vancouver Centre.

I find myself in, I suppose, a not unusual position for me, but nevertheless, one where I am swimming against the tide.

I have no doubt at all that there is a need for us to take the issue of victims and victims' rights very seriously. If we were to look back at how the law could be improved, this would be one area in which we can all agree. However, when I look at the legislation overall, and after the discussions I have had over the last several weeks with a number of groups involved with the issues of mental health and mental illness, I find myself unable to recommend to my colleagues that we vote in favour of this legislation, even at second reading.

I know that when I say that, there will be members who will be struck with disbelief and others who will say that surely I recognize that dangerous people should be kept off the street. My answer to that is, of course, and they are.

The facts are these. The defence of insanity, the recognition that people who are not able to judge the consequences of their acts and are unable to say whether they are right or wrong and are found either not able to even stand trial or not criminally responsible, has been a foundation of our criminal justice system in the common law world for hundreds of years. It is a basic principle of the criminal law that people who can understand the consequences of their actions and have the necessary intent should be found criminally responsible. Others have to be treated in a different way. They are not simply set free, as some using stereotypes might like to make people believe, but rather are kept away from society, and today, as we try to deal with these issues, are hopefully treated and rehabilitated in such a way that they are able to be successfully reintegrated into society.

It was Madam Justice McLachlin, who, in consideration of a case before the court before she became chief justice, said:

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.

That was in the so-called Winko case.

Until the early nineties, the rule was that one was held at will under a lieutenant-governor's warrant. The lieutenant-governors in the provinces established review committees, but there were really no clear criteria that established how incarceration would suddenly end. It was response to a decision of the Supreme Court, in the Swain case, that said that the protection of the public was not guaranteed by that practice and that we had to establish a new system.

The basis of the new system was to say that first of all, we are not punishing people, because they are not capable of being punished. I am glad that the Minister of Natural Resources emphasized that in the speech he gave. We are not punishing people. We are incarcerating people for the protection of the public. Yes, of course. Public safety is an absolutely important concern we all have and all share. No one wants to see public safety in any way, shape or form compromised. It is also to allow people to become rehabilitated, because they were not capable of understanding what they were doing. We want to put them in a condition where they will be able to understand what they are doing. We understand that this is an area of life that is full of fear, insecurity, mythology and misunderstanding and in which it is only too easy, from time to time, to say, “We have a hot button. Let's press it”.

I certainly believe and share the comments made by members of both the Conservative and New Democratic parties that it is entirely legitimate for us to take the concerns of victims far more seriously than we have in the past. I can say, as someone who has been in government, that we have made every effort to do that, when it was important for us to do that, in terms of having victim statements and the courts taking what is happening to victims much more seriously than they had.

However, we also have to understand that we live in a society governed by the rule of law, wherein we cannot incarcerate people indefinitely without providing for due process, which is what the court told us in 1991. There had to be due process.

The government will argue that it has provided for due process and that the process it is establishing is perfectly adequate. I have to say to the government that I am not sure it has been able to do that. In fact, I have recommended strongly to my colleagues, when I was in a position to recommend something to my colleagues, that we not support this legislation, although I said to them that this response will not be politically popular. This will not be a winner with people because when we press a button like this, we will get a response from the public.

I say to my colleagues in the Conservative Party as well as in the New Democratic Party, both of which are now supporting this legislation, let us not manufacture a crisis that does not exist. There is no crisis in public safety. It does not exist.

The evidence is not there that justifies the sense that if someone has committed a horrible crime and is mentally ill, he or she is any more likely than anyone else to commit that crime again. In fact, the opposite is true. The rate of recidivism for those people who are found to be not criminally responsible is 4% for those people who have been given an absolute discharge; for people who have left prison, it is 44%.

The fact of the matter is we cannot incarcerate people indefinitely. We have to have a process that respects the rights of the individual as well as the rights of society. That is the balance we have to strike.

Naturally, there will be situations that are trying and emotional. We see that. However, people with a mental illness who are linked to a serious crime are not criminals. That is not a principle that the Liberal Party just made up. It is a long-standing principle of natural justice within our society. This bill is off kilter and, unfortunately, that is why we cannot support it.

I spent particularly the last few years of my political life campaigning for people to better understand the nature of mental illness, the importance of getting rid of stigma, the importance of understanding that the mad individual is not necessarily and in all circumstances someone who is to be incarcerated for an indefinite period of time and the importance of understanding that we have gone through a steady evolution over the last 100 years in understanding how important it is to treat, yes, the causes of crime, just as truly as we treat crime itself.

If I believed that our current legislation denigrated the importance of public security and public safety, I would agree with the government and I would agree with the New Democratic Party, but that simply is not the case. It simply is not the case to say that these review boards are conducting their work as if public safety were of no concern or of no consequence to them or to anyone else.

We have allowed certain mythologies, certain stereotypes, to take over. We are failing to recognize the real risks that apply to this legislation.

I was interested that Mr. Sapers, the corrections investigations officer for the country, expressed concern about this legislation, saying it would increase the number of mentally ill people in jail, not decrease that number.

I may be at risk of being even further stereotyped by my colleagues in the other way when I say this. Shakespeare said it best:

The quality of mercy is not strain'd.
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
'Tis mightiest in the mightiest. It becomes
The thronèd monarch better than his crown.
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings,
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
It is enthronèd in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself.
And earthly power doth then show likest God's
When mercy seasons justice.

Let us never forget, colleagues, that mercy must season the justice that we seek.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, since we are quoting this evening, I may say, “More matter with less art”. If one is going to talk about mercy and if one is going to quote the figure of 4% acceptability, I ask my colleague this: is he assuming that there is an acceptable limit or a floor in which the circumstances that we are trying to prevent in the bill become acceptable or merciful?

I do not think that is the case, and I would implore him to think quite carefully about his answer, as those 4%, the people who are impacted, have just as many rights as those that he spoke against this evening.

That is the definition of mercy in this place, I would argue, and that is why the bill is worthy of study.

I would ask the member to explain what rights the 4% have.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if we follow down the path the member for Calgary Centre-North is suggesting we should follow, the logic would be that we would never let anybody out of prison at all, ever, if we ever thought there was any risk whatsoever of their recommitting an offence.

The fact of the matter is that those who are found to be criminally responsible for their crimes, even under all the changes to the Criminal Code that the members opposite would like to make, eventually are going to be released. The statistics show that for those people, the rate of likelihood of recommitting a crime is 44%.

What I am suggesting is that the stereotype that says the person who has been found not criminally responsible is likely to recommit a crime is false. The evidence does not support it.

The premise of the Conservative bill, which unhappily is being supported by the New Democratic Party, is that somehow the current system is broken and that there are dangerous, crazy people running around that we have to lock up for even longer. That stereotype is completely false.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a good discussion.

My hon. colleague for Toronto Centre was talking about a 44% recidivism rate of the prison population at large. What percentage of those are people who have committed the kinds of heinous crimes we are talking about and are concerned about with the 4%?

I do not know what the number is and I do not know whether my colleague knows or not, but there needs to be some perspective in terms of the kinds of crimes we are talking about, the not criminally responsible that we are most concerned about versus the broader prison population that has the 44% recidivism rate. I accept the member's numbers. Is there some perspective there?

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is a friend of mine.

I say this to my colleague from Edmonton: even in the system that you are inventing or creating, wherein you add the category of a high-risk crime or you add the additional factors the review board has to consider, people will still be allowed out. Eventually they are going to be allowed out, once they are able to convince people that they are in fact better and are not likely to commit another crime.

Who knows? There is no perfect system that says none of those people will ever commit another crime.

The other thing you have to understand is that when we talk about the high-risk situation and the heinous crimes, not every person who is found to be not criminally responsible is guilty of a heinous crime.

There are horrible crimes. Some of them are committed by people who were found to be criminally responsible and some of them were committed by people who were found to be mentally ill and not capable of understanding their actions. In both cases we want to establish a system that does everything possible to see that people are rehabilitated and are not likely to recommit a crime.

I do not think this measure adds to the protection of the public. If I thought it would, I might change my mind.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before we resume debate, I just want to remind all hon. members to direct their comments to the Chair rather than directly to their colleagues.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Toronto Centre said that he is advising us not to support the bill, but we as Liberals will be voting against it on a basic premise, the premise being that Bill C-54, which is the non-criminally responsible reform act, would not achieve the desired result. Instead, it would cause more harm than good and further stigmatize the mentally ill at a time when the good work of the Mental Health Commission of Canada has begun to undo that misinformation with good evidence and is encouraging mentally ill people to seek the treatment and the early diagnosis that they need.

This is the most important thing that we want to stress here. This legislation would send mentally ill people back underground, because they will be terrified of being stigmatized in the way that they used to be in the past.

Liberals agree fully that the rights of the victims should be enhanced. We have no problem with that part of the bill. We agree that public safety is of the utmost importance and is a core part of the justice system. We have no problem with the issue of public safety, but our concern lies with the lack of balance in the bill.

The designation of high-risk offender for a person who is not criminally responsible would create a fear of the mentally ill. The point to remember is that only 0.2% of all criminal cases in the courts—any criminal case at all—is an NCR person, and only 10% of that 0.2% are violent offenders. We are talking about a very small number of people.

This is the kind of problem that we do not want to see, this knee-jerk reaction of creating legislation that would do more harm by trying to deal with a problem that has been dealt with already in a manner that has been shown to be successful with some tweaking.

We agree that the bill needs some enhancement. We would like to see an evidence-based approach that would incorporate the experience and the expertise of professionals in the field of mental health and justice. Our approach would enhance public safety by focusing on the prevention of violence by individuals with severe mental illness, and that means early diagnosis.

A lot of time should be spent in catching young offenders and diagnosing them before they offend. Many instances of NCR cases who commit violent crimes involve people who did not know they had a mental illness and suddenly had a crisis and became severely incapable of being criminally responsible. They became schizophrenic or they had an acute episode of manic depression or something that caused them to do that violent act.

Therefore, we would also like to see intervention and treatment as part of a good solid bill that would deal with this issue. Rather than adding to the stigmatization of the mentally ill by using a small number of high-profile cases to foster the impression that Canada is overrun with dangerous psychopaths, we would like to reduce the stigma. We would like to encourage Canadians suffering from severe mental illness to seek treatment. If we keep the stigma up, people with mental illness do not want to seek treatment.

That has been the whole problem over all the years, and it is why the Canadian Mental Health Commission has stepped in to deal with this issue. The government has repeated many times in the House that it wants to decrease stigmatization, but this legislation would do the exact opposite.

The mental health groups, all of whom claim that they have never been consulted by the government despite the minister saying that he had consulted them, feel very strongly about this issue.

I would like to quote the Mental Health Commission of Canada, which was created by the federal government. It says that in fact this bill

...paints an inaccurate picture of violence and mental illness. The more mental illness is stigmatized, the harder it is to get people to seek treatment and to stay in treatment. Yet treatment is the most effective preventive measure for the small number of people with mental illness who commit violent offenses.”

The Mental Health Commission of Canada, which the government has mentioned in many speeches, says that it did not necessarily approve of the bill.

Let us look at the evidence.

As I said earlier, non-criminally responsible offenders make up only 0.2% of all criminal cases, and only 10% of that 0.2%, which is 0.02%, are actually violent offenders, so we are talking about a very small group of people.

When appropriately treated, the recidivism rate of these offenders is actually 7%. However, if they are not appropriately treated in a mental institution, their recidivism rate becomes increasingly high, something like 63%.

I ask hon. members to think about it and compare 7% recidivism rate when properly treated and a 63% recidivism rate when put into the criminal justice system and imprisoned.

I want hon. members to look at what we can do, because the problem, and we have heard this said before by the Bar Association and by many people, is that if we force people who are mentally ill into this mandatory three year treatment in a hospital before they get any release leave, so lawyers tell their clients not to ask for an NCR designation. In other words, these people therefore will go to courts and they will be put into the criminal justice system, they will be put into prison and therefore we will see what damage is done and that recidivism rate will rise to 63%.

We are talking about a bill that can damage and can cause more harm than good, and I want to stress that.

The point is that the recidivism rate of all persons released from any kind of federal custody in terms of the criminal justice system and prisons is 46%. That means all people, not just people with violent crimes. The key is to recognize that NCR offenders, by being put into the appropriate criminal treatment facility as opposed to prison, will actually be able to achieve the kind of treatment they require, the ability then to go out and be rehabilitated.

I think this is the some of the problem that everyone wants to talk about, that in fact the public fear of people who have their NCR, who have been treated and are going through their actual community rehabilitation, are out on the street. This concerns people. It could be easily looked at, in spite of evidence, to ensure that every time this community rehabilitation occurs and the offenders are out in the community, that there is a custodian with them. They are actually with someone who is looking after them so they are not alone in the system. That would help to bring down the kind of public fear about which we are talking.

Let us look at the system currently. When offenders currently are NCR and they are put into the appropriate facility, which is a mental hospital, they have a yearly review. Every year they are reviewed and that is done by a review board. This has worked very well in the past. The review board has psychiatrists and other people who then decide whether the individuals have been cured and are ready for the next stage in rehabilitation, so the public safety is assured that they do not go out into the public until they are ready to go do so.

If people are concerned, we could tighten this. We could look at a judicial review instead of an ordinary review by psychiatrists only, as long as the judge who is reviewing someone is in fact learned in mental illness, how mental offenders are treated and the treatment facilities. We could live with that.

However, we do not want people to be sent to federal prison. When we demand that they have three years, a lot of people will not claim NCR and instead go into prison, and that could be a problem.

The other thing is that there are people currently in the system who may have been rehabilitated, are ready for community rehabilitation and to go back out into the system. This retroactivity in the bill would force them to stay for a further three years within the system. I do not know if this meets the charter challenge. I do not know if anyone looked at the constitutionality of that kind of mandatory incarceration of offenders for three years, regardless of whether they are ready to go out and regardless of whether people have said that they are ready to leave.

We would want to look at the bill. It does not have charter scrutiny. There are no prevention components in the bill. There is no early diagnosis of mental illness in the bill. There are no community institutional support systems in the bill. We heard this very clearly. Mr. Howard Sapers, a correctional investigator, had this to say:

My concern is that we may see an increased number of offenders going into penitentiaries who have known significant diagnosed mental illness including major psychosis, and the concerns around the capacity of the correctional service to deal with that [is a problem]

We would like to look at something else. In fact, my colleague, the hon. member for Mount Royal, had a bill when he was justice minister in our government, and it was excellent. The current Minister of Public Safety said that he thought it was a great bill. Therefore, why do we not look at that bill again? Why do we not bring it in, instead of something that would do more harm than good and stigmatize the mentally ill?

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the member for Mount Royal's bill, but based on what I heard, the Liberal Party is arguing in favour of the status quo in the system.

I have a question for the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. A victim, Isabelle Gaston, is quite vocal about the injustice of it all and is calling for changes to the system. She said:

Even if I devote my time to changing the justice system, if ministers, deputy ministers, the Barreau and the Collège des médecins do not change their ways, then injustices like this one will continue.

How will the hon. member explain to Ms. Gaston that we are keeping the system as is?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I guess the hon. member did not really listen to my speech. We did not argue for the status quo at all. We suggested that it was important to look at ways in which we could enhance public security and ensure that the anxiety of the public was brought down.

One of those ways would be to look at a judicial review instead of the review that currently is going on. We also suggested custodial community rehabilitation. Every time a rehabilitated person is put into the community, there is a custodian for a particular period of time until the psychiatrist is absolutely assured that the person is ready to be out on his or her own. We have agreed with the victims' problems. We think a judicial review should actually look at victims' impact statements. We were in agreement with some of the things that would support victims.

We are not seeking status quo at all, so I would ask the member to try to listen in future.

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to cite a few statistics relating to recidivism and then make a general point about stigmatization. It is very important that when we talk about what the risk to the public is, we try to get as close as we can to the facts. The facts are: 27.3% of not criminally responsible accused have a past finding of NCR; 38.1% of NCR accused of a sexual offence had at least one prior NCR finding; 27.7% of NCR accused of attempted murder had at least one prior NCR finding; and 19% of NCR accused of murder or homicide had at least one prior NCR finding. Those facts have to be brought into the analytical picture so we get a more objective understanding of what is in fact going on.

Few individuals, as the member opposite—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. Other members still have comments and questions and we have about a five minute period so we like to keep it to around one minute.

The hon. member for Vancouver Centre.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have absolutely no idea where the hon. member is getting his statistics from, but we got our statistics from the source like the Mental Health Commission of Canada, the Canadian Psychiatric Association and all of the mental health groups that have collected this data over all of the years. The Canadian Bar Association also has these kinds of statistics.

However, if the member wants to talk about one prior, and we are talking about 0.2% of people in the criminal system who have committed violent acts, he should get his facts correct and look at the numbers with which he is dealing. When he is dealing with such tiny numbers, it really does not make much sense for him to quote the—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The hon. member for St. Paul's.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Toronto Centre explained about the hot button issue and as the member for Vancouver Centre said, this is an issue of public safety. If lawyers are advising the accused to not plead NCR, he or she will end up on the streets earlier and with a greater recidivism rate.

Could the member explain really what it means to be NCR, what it means to have a treatable condition that very quickly can be remedied and within one year this could be a very different person than the person who committed the crime?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, because we have to understand the nature of mental illness. We have to understand that it is a mental illness, not simply a disorder, as I heard it referred to here. It is a mental illness and the many people who commit violent crimes who have a mental illness are not aware they have one. They suddenly have a schizophrenic episode or suddenly have a manic depressive episode that they have never had before, and they can have these when they are 30.

We know these are treatable people. My colleague is right. Within a year, with good treatment, these people could be ready. Many of them, when they are aware of the criminal act they have committed, are appalled at the fact that they did such a thing. Many of them become—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The time has expired for this round of questions and comments.

Just to let all hon. members know, we have passed the five-hour mark since the first round of speeches on this stage of the bill. From this point forward all interventions will be 10-minute speeches, followed by a 5-minute period for questions and comments.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the second reading debate in support of Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act. This bill would ensure that the mental disorder regime found in the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act achieves its objective of protecting the Canadian public by addressing a small but, nonetheless, significant segment of the cases that come before our country's courts, those in which a person is found to be not criminally responsible, or NCR, for his or her actions, on account of mental disorder.

In my remarks today, I would like to explain why I think Bill C-54 is a targeted measure that would advance protection of the public while upholding the fundamental principle that a person found NCR for an offence must be treated differently than an offender who is convicted of a criminal offence.

Before I address the particular reforms contained in this bill, I believe it is critical to state up front what this bill is not about. In particular, this bill is absolutely not about seeking to punish persons found not criminally responsible. In Canada's system of criminal justice, we draw a distinction between, on the one hand, individuals who possess the requisite capacity and intent to know that their conduct was wrong and, on the other hand, those individuals who are so mentally ill that their illnesses prevent them from appreciating the basic tenets of moral culpability that allow them to safely function in our society.

The verdict of not criminally responsible is the means through which our justice system mutually recognizes the fact that harmful conduct was committed, which has real consequences for the victims and society more broadly, and the reality that the individual who committed that conduct suffers from a mental disorder. It is for this reason that Bill C-54 would maintain the distinction between those found not criminally responsible and those who are convicted. The mentally disordered regime in the Criminal Code and National Defence Act creates a separate process that aims to determine the risk that the person poses to society and decides how to best mitigate that risk in all of the surrounding circumstances.

However, Canadians agree that one key consideration that is common to persons found not criminally responsible and to those who are found guilty is the protection of the public. The Supreme Court of Canada has rightfully recognized in its 2010 decision in Regina v. Conway that public safety is paramount. As a result, sometimes there is simply no other choice than to restrict the liberty of an individual who is very ill in order to mitigate the risk that his or her unique illness poses to others, to ensure that the risks to the safety of our communities are meaningfully addressed irrespective of their source. Society expects no less of the government. That is what Bill C-54 aims to achieve: a tailored and fair procedure to confront the real and significant risks posed by a small number of ill persons who commit criminal conduct.

Bill C-54 would achieve its objective by establishing a new tool for Crown prosecutors that mitigates the risk posed by a small subset of accused who are found to be not criminally responsible. That tool is the discretionary option for the Crown to apply to seek a determination that a particular individual is a “high-risk accused”. The high-risk designation made by the court is to be based on all of the relevant circumstances and evidence relating to that individual's particular illness, treatment and behaviour.

In assessing the merits of Bill C-54, it is important to situate this high-risk designation in its proper context. It is not a mandatory procedure and it would not be used in each and every case where a person is found not criminally responsible. This is because the risk posed by a person who is seriously ill depends on the unique facts of his or her case. This high-risk designation would only be available in cases involving serious personal injury offences, where a court is satisfied that there is a substantial likelihood that the accused would use violence that could endanger the life or safety of another person, or where the court is of the opinion that the acts that constitute the offence were of such a brutal nature as to indicate a risk of grave physical or psychological harm to another person.

I am confident that Crown prosecutors will exercise their discretion to bring such an application in instances where the public interest in keeping our communities safe is present. A further feature of the process is that the threshold in the proposed test for the high-risk designation is higher than the threshold in the standard test under the current law for continuing to supervise a mentally disordered accused and the burden of meeting this threshold is on the Crown, not the accused.

Bill C-54 also recognizes that the risk to public safety of an individual can change over time. High-risk NCR accused would still be entitled to regular reviews to determine their progress. The starting point is for them to receive annual reviews, but this review period could be extended up to three years if the accused and the Crown consent. The period can also be increased at the discretion of the review board members if they are satisfied that the high-risk NCR accused person's condition is unlikely to improve in the following three years.

This is an incremental change from the current law that already allows for extending the review period from one year to two years. It is a sensible approach that properly recognizes that each and every illness is unique, including such grave conditions that so profoundly affect the behaviour of individuals. When seen through this perspective, it becomes abundantly clear that Bill C-54 is a just and reasonable approach.

I am sure we all recognize that all serious offences are tragedies for the victims as well as for our communities. Bill C-54 would preserve confidence in the administration of justice, protect the safety of the public and uphold fair treatment of ill persons who are found not criminally responsible. It is a targeted bill that I am proud to stand in support of.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on some of the points that have been made.

It is hard when battling statistics are raised in debates and people are left to wonder what the actual state of evidence is. I am persuaded by the various briefs by the Canadian Bar Association, scientists and people who have dedicated their life's work to this area, such as McGill University psychiatrists and others.

The rate of recidivism for people who actually have been found not criminally responsible is extremely small. Therefore, I was baffled by the statistics used earlier in the debate by the Minister of Natural Resources, and I wish I could have gotten a question to him. However, the best statistics I can find say that only 7.3% of designated NCR accused actually return to commit a violent offence within the next three years.

The experts in this area are saying that this is not where we need to fix the problem. They are not saying that there is no problem, but they are saying that where we really need to focus resources is on adequate treatment and identification of people with mental health issues to ensure that both they and society are protected.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources cited a few recidivism statistics, and whether it is 27.3% of NCR accused who have had past findings of NCR, or 4%, or 7% as the member stated, what is important in this legislation is that prosecutors would have some additional tools at their disposal, and we leave it to the people with the expertise to decide where and when the appropriate time is to use those tools. Ultimately, the protection of society is paramount.

I think we can all agree that these are all terrible tragedies, whether it is 4 out of 100 people who experience recidivism or 25. We need to do everything we can as a society and as a justice system to make sure that the experts and the prosecutors who deal with these kinds of things, using the advice of mental health experts, can decide whether these kinds of tools need to be applied in each individual case.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, throughout this debate this evening my colleagues in the NDP caucus have been asking a series of questions that seem to come with no response. We are supportive of the legislation. We are supportive of the principles. We have said this a number of times, but we do need answers to these important questions that we have been asking.

One question is on the fact that there appears not to have been any real discussions in any meaningful way with the provinces. Given the fact that the Conservative government has moved to cut back on health care funding, as we know, following next year, we are seeing a cut in transfers to the provinces, which was something that was done unilaterally the year before last. The concern is that the government is putting forward legislation without providing the financial support to ensure that the legislation could actually be put into effect.

Can the member comment on the cutbacks that the Conservative government is effecting in health care transfers?

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, no government has done more to support the provinces when it comes to transfers. Just to cite some numbers, we are currently transferring to the provinces $62 billion a year, which is up 50% since 2006. When it comes to provinces managing their budgets, we are really providing them with the resources they need through the strong economy that we have.

I want to thank the member for his question because I do recognize that NDP members have decided to support this bill and advance it through second reading. I think they recognize that there was a lot of consultation done, there is a lot of balance here, and it certainly deserves to go to committee.

To cite another voice on this, The Globe and Mail from my city of Toronto said, “The Conservative government’s proposed new law aimed at making sure severely mentally ill offenders are not set free while they’re still dangerous is a fair and measured response to the problem of Vince Li, Allan Schoenborn and Guy Turcotte”.

That is one voice, but there are many others. People have weighed in, including mental health experts and criminal law experts. Also, all the provinces and territories were consulted on this bill. That is why we think it is fair and balanced, and deserves to go to third reading.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, just before I begin my remarks tonight, when we gather in this place here late at night, away from our families, sometimes it behooves us to take a moment to remember them. With that, I beg the indulgence of the House to wish my stepfather, Randy Field, a very happy 60th birthday. I am so sorry I am missing his birthday tonight.

What is very interesting about the bill is the stage that it is at in debate here in the House. We are debating, as a group of colleagues, whether or not it has merit to move to the committee stage of review. I have spoken in this House a few times now about the difference between the how and the why of an issue. I think we need to set the record straight on the why of looking at this legislation, first.

I had some notes prepared tonight. I think I want to start off by looking at my Twitter feed. I have someone named Dave Teixeira talking about the Darcie Clarke family and thanking government members, as well as my colleagues opposite, for at least giving this legislation a chance to go to committee, because the why of the bill is important.

I have heard colleagues opposite talk about rehabilitation rates and times and the rights of the offender. We do, as legislators, have an obligation to examine the rights of all individuals in this country. However, for this legislation, the why is looking at victims of crime who are victimized, who, day after day, wonder if they are going to be threatened again, living in a state of fear. These are real people with real questions as to how they are going to be protected by us who stand here in this place. I just do not accept the premise of some of my colleagues' arguments. I am quite shocked, frankly, to hear them say that somehow this is not an issue.

What I had hoped to hear tonight was acknowledgement that the why of this issue is fundamentally important and worthy of study. That is why I am very glad to hear my colleagues opposite in the NDP at least support moving this to the committee stage, because the why here is so vitally important that we look at as legislators.

I will speak very briefly to the technical aspects of the bill. There are three components that we on the government side see it addressing.

The first is to enhance victims' rights. The legislation would enhance the safety of victims by ensuring that they are specifically considered when decisions are being made about accused persons found NCR, not criminally responsible; ensuring that they are notified when an NCR accused is discharged; and allowing non-communication orders between an NCR accused and the victim.

The second component is to put public safety first. The legislation would explicitly set out that public safety is the paramount consideration in the decision-making process related to accused persons found to be NCR.

The last component is to create a high-risk designation. The legislation would create a new designation to protect the public from high-risk NCR accused. Upon being designated by a court as a high risk, an NCR accused must be held in custody and cannot be considered for release by a review board until his or her designation is revoked by a court.

Now, some of the questions that have come up tonight are very valid and they should be looked at, at committee stage. Specifically on the question of consultation, absolutely, we want to consult with affected stakeholder groups on any legislation. That is our job as legislators. That is what we do at committee stage.

However, I think it is worth noting the amount of discussion that this legislation has generated in federal, provincial and territorial discussions between public safety ministers and ministers of justice. We have heard from our provincial and territorial counterparts that this is something that is important.

Now, why is that important? Because for such a long time, we have not addressed the rights of victims such as Miss Darcie Clarke and her family. I think that for anyone who is sitting at home, watching this debate, we would be hard-pressed to find someone who would say that this is not worthy of at least moving to committee stage.

Some of the other points that I wanted to make were with regard to some of the content of the bill; for example, that the bill proposes to expand the notice requirement so that victims would be made aware when a mentally disordered accused person is to be discharged into the community.

This is something that is quite reasonable. I think if we took it to the Canadian public or to a constituent, most people would find it reasonable to notify a victim when someone is going into the community who has committed a crime against them or their family, often an atrocious crime. I would love to hear the results of the committee phase hearings on this, of course, but I think this is something most Canadians would say is fundamentally reasonable.

The approach of the bill also reflects the reality that not all victims want to participate in some of the hearings around the NCR designation, nor do all victims want to be kept abreast of when and if an NCR accused is to be discharged. This is understandable, because people who have been victimized probably do not want to be re-traumatized over and over again. An automatic notice provision, as would be alleviated in this bill, might cause them to be further traumatized by forcing them to relive the incident. The requirement that victims must request notification is therefore intended to protect those victims who do not wish to be notified.

I will go back to the second element of Bill C-54, related specifically to the safety of victims. Currently, the mental disorder regime requires the review boards to consider on an annual basis whether or not an NCR accused still represents a significant threat to public safety. However, at present there is no requirement that the review boards take into account the safety of the victim when they conduct their analysis. That is something that is perfectly reasonable to take into consideration.

Yes, we have to look at the balance between the individual and society, as some of my colleagues have mentioned. However, in this case, to take the safety of the victim into account is something that I find reasonable. I am pretty certain that, if I took it back to my constituents, they would find it reasonable as well.

What would Bill C-54 do to change this? It would clarify that a significant threat to the safety of the public includes the safety of the victim. This would ensure that when a review board is considering whether or not an NCR accused person continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public, it would be required to specifically consider the safety of the victim.

This element would provide some much-needed assurance for victims who are concerned that their interests are not being adequately considered by the review boards. In that, giving victims a little bit more assurance that their rights are at least being considered by our review boards is another thing that is perfectly reasonable and should also be used to support the passage of this bill into committee stage.

This bill also proposes that the review board consider whether or not it is in the victim's interest to make an order of non-communication between an NCR accused person and the victim, and to make an order that the accused person not attend a specified place. Although it is currently possible for review boards to make these orders, the proposals in Bill C-54 would require the review board to turn its mind to the issue in every case.

These are practical solutions that could be considered to address the safety and peace of mind of a victim. The goal of these orders would be to provide increased security to victims and much-needed peace of mind and to ensure that NCR accused would not be permitted to have any contact with them. They may, in fact, be ordered to stay away from certain places, such as the victims' place of employment or their children's school.

When we stand here in this place, we have to consider all sides of an issue. I know there are very many views of how we can address the “why” of this concern, but one should not just oppose it without even giving pause to think of people who have been victimized.

We can cite recidivism rates all we want. My question to my colleagues opposite is this. What percentage is acceptable? What percentage requires us to abdicate our duty to look at those who may be affected in a situation like this?

That is why I certainly support this bill's passage to committee stage. I know the justice committee would conduct further diligence and bring in witnesses to review this bill.

I ask, with great honesty, my colleagues in the Liberal Party to at least consider voting for this at second reading due to the “why”, and to really consider asking themselves when they go home at night what percentage is acceptable.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her comments, and I really appreciate the emphasis she gave to improvements for victims that would be contained in this legislation, because that is a large part of why we in the New Democratic Party are in support of this in principle.

I do have a concern, and that is the use of time allocation again on this bill. The chair of the Mental Health Commission of Canada, Louise Bradley, said:

We encourage all legislators and stakeholders to work together to ensure Bill C-54 strikes the right balance to encourage treatment and to avoid the unnecessary stigmatization of Canadians who live with mental illness.

Therefore, my concern is that, when we get to committee, we do hear from those who have those concerns, and see if there are changes that need to be made in this legislation that would help mitigate those concerns, because I do think the legislation is fundamentally sound. Therefore, I would like to hear some assurance from the other side that we would hear those voices at committee.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very respectful comment on this issue.

I will answer the question in two parts. First, it was our government that actually established the Mental Health Commission, so we do have an emphasis on this issue. Second, as someone whose family is affected by mental health issues, I am quite cognizant of the effect that these particular disorders and illnesses have on family and people around them.

Certainly, we need to be cognizant of ensuring we are supporting those with mental health concerns, not only in this context but also in the greater health care provision. I would certainly support a full review of this at committee, ensuring we have the best legislation possible.

I do respect my colleague for stating he will support this bill's passage to the committee stage.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it was of interest to me that the member from the Liberal Party spoke about lawyers advising the accused not to plead not criminally responsible, that they could go through the normal process of court and probably get out earlier. That would probably indicate to me that they are not NCR from that perspective, because they would understand that they could go through the normal court process.

This leads to my question. Could the parliamentary secretary explain to the Canadian public who is actually affected by the reforms and the three-year review period?