Debates of May 27th, 2013

Bill C-54—Time Allocation Motion

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #697

Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from April 26 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.

Second Reading

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act. This is a legal policy issue that has preoccupied many Canadians, not only today but over the years.

Recent high profile cases in many parts of Canada have caused Canadians to question whether our laws in this area are strong enough or clear enough to ensure that the public is adequately protected when a risk to public safety exists.

In my remarks, I plan to outline the key milestones of Parliaments consideration of this issue. It is important to canvass the legislative history of the Criminal Code mental disorder regime in order to put today's debate into context, essentially to have a clear understanding of how Bill C-54 seeks to build on and improve the existing law.

What used to be referred to as the “insanity defence” was included in Canada's first Criminal Code, which was enacted in 1892. Even before then the defence existed at common law. It stemmed from a decision rendered in 1843 from the British House of Lords. The common law principle was known as the M'Naghten Rules, which stated:

—every man is to be presumed to be sane, and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes, until the contrary be proved to their satisfaction; and that to establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.

The text of the first Criminal Code stated:

No person shall be convicted of an offence by reason of an act done or omitted by him when labouring under natural imbecility, or disease of the mind, to such an extent as to render him incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission, and of knowing that such act or omission was wrong.

This legislation continued to apply relatively unchanged and without much public debate for the first half of the 20th century.

In 1977, the Law Reform Commission of Canada produced a report to Parliament on mental disorder in the criminal process, which made 44 recommendations about procedures and dispositions for the mentally disordered offender. In order to consider and respond to the recommendations, the Department of Justice launched the mental disorder project in 1978. The review process led to the release of a discussion paper in 1983, exploring over 100 issues in the area of psychiatric remand, fitness to stand trial, the defence of insanity and criminal responsibility, just to name a few. A final report was produced in 1985, followed shortly thereafter by a draft bill that was introduced in the House of Commons by the then minister of justice John Crosbie.

The proposed amendments to the Criminal Code and the draft bill were the first formulation of what would eventually become the new Criminal Code mental disorder regime.

The proposed amendments sought to modernize and clarify the criminal law on mental disorder, strengthen due process and ensure the continued protection of the public. It proposed to change the law in a number of respects.

Under the law at the time, insane or unfit accused were held in strict custody under the pleasure of the lieutenant-governor of the province was known. There was not a requirement to hold a hearing and the lieutenant-governor's decisions, essentially the provincial cabinets, were not subject to appeal. Therefore, there were many gaps with respect to due process that needed to be remedied.

In 1986, the draft bill proposed to remove the role of lieutenant-governors in the process and to establish review boards in all jurisdictions, with uniform procedures to follow across the country. Another significant change in the draft bill was to replace the defence of insanity with the verdict of “not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder”. I will have more to say about that amendment in a moment.

Discussions and consultations with the provinces and territories on the draft bill and other intervening events resulted in the bill not being introduced until 1991 as Bill C-30. It proposed much of what was contained in the 1986 draft bill.

With respect to the previous defence of “not guilty by reason of insanity”, it is noteworthy to highlight the remarks of Kim Campbell, the then minister of justice, about that amendment. She said that a number of psychiatrists had indicated that persons found not guilty by reason of insanity deluded themselves into thinking that they had done nothing wrong and this presented an obstacle to therapy. She also explained that the previous wording was difficult for the public to understand how the accused could be found not guilty despite proof that he committed the offence. The “not guilty by reason of insanity” defence was therefore replaced with a verdict of “not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder”.

However, I think it fair to say that the public still has difficulty understanding a “not criminally responsible” verdict. I believe it is part of our job as parliamentarians to talk about the verdict and to help explain it to the public. Therefore, I would like to reiterate that the verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder is not an acquittal; nor is it a conviction; it is a special verdict that the court makes when it has been established that a person committed an act or made an omission that constitutes a criminal offence. What has also to be established as a legal issue for the court to determine is whether the person suffered from a mental disorder at the time of the commission of the act, or the omission, that rendered the person incapable of appreciating what he or she did or of knowing that it was wrong.

When the court enters a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, it does not release the accused. The accused is referred to a provincial or territorial review board that is responsible for making orders to govern how the accused will be dealt with.

Bill C-30 introduced three possible orders that could be put into place, depending on the level of risk posed by the person. Only if the person did not pose a significant threat to the public safety would the person be discharged without conditions. If the person posed a significant threat to the safety of the public, the person would be kept in custody in a hospital or discharged with conditions. The choice between custody or a conditional discharge is determined in accordance with the level of risk posed to the public safety.

Bill C-30 also introduced the factors that must be taken into consideration in deciding which order should be put in place. The section provides that the court or review board shall take into consideration 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. This is a key provision of the Criminal Code mental disorder regime, as it guides the courts and review boards in their decision-making. It was introduced in 1991 by Bill C-30 to provide criteria and factors that did not previously exist in the legislation.

As I mentioned in the beginning of my remarks, I want to take some time to canvass the legislative history of the Criminal Code mental disorder regime in order to put Bill C-54 in context and to better understand how it seeks to build on and improve the existing law.

With respect to this key decision-making process, Bill C-54 proposes to clarify that among the existing listed factors that the courts and review boards must consider when they make decisions with respect to the mentally disordered accused, public safety is the paramount consideration.

In clause 9, it says:

When a court or Review Board makes a disposition... it shall, taking into account the safety of the public, which is the paramount consideration, the mental condition of the accused, the reintegration of the accused into society and the other needs of the accused, make...[the disposition] that is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances....

Bill C-54 would also clarify what is meant by the phrase “significant threat to the safety of the public”. In 1999, the case of Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), the Supreme Court of Canada interpreted that phrase to mean a risk of serious physical or psychological harm to members of the public resulting from conduct that is criminal in nature but not necessarily violent. Bill C-54 would codify the Supreme Court's interpretation.

The mental disorder regime that was introduced in 1992 included new rules and procedures with respect to appeals. I mentioned earlier that the previous law did not provide either party with a right of appeal of a lieutenant-governor's decision. Last year, the Court of Appeal for Ontario identified a problem with one of the appeal provisions in this part of the code. The Criminal Code currently states that when an absolute discharge is appealed, the absolute discharge is automatically suspended. In R. v. Kobzar, the Court of Appeal for Ontario found this automatic suspension to be in violation of sections 7 and 9 of the Charter, but suspended its order to allow Parliament to pass an amendment to correct the defect. The proposed reforms would eliminate the automatic suspension of the absolute discharge and instead would grant the Court of Appeal the discretionary power to suspend the absolute discharge if the mental condition of the accused justifies it.

I support the effort to clarify this area of the criminal law. The reform seeks to improve the existing legislative framework that guides decision-making when courts and review boards hear matters involving mentally disordered accused persons. Bill C-54 would help ensure more consistent interpretation and application of the law across the country. That is a valuable goal.

In my view, the proposed reforms are reasonable measures to take into consideration the protection of the public and to ensure confidence in our justice system. Mentally disordered accused will continue to receive treatment and have their cases overseen by the courts and review boards.

I encourage all members to support passage at second reading of Bill C-54. This would mean that it would be referred to committee for further study.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, given that it is focusing in part on victims in this bill, does the government intend to bring forward new programs to provide further assistance for victims?

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.

As she knows, the government already provides a wide range of services. When we study this bill in committee, it may very well be that evidence is presented that will lead us to consider even more carefully if there are gaps, if there are things that can be improved and if we can provide better services. We know that the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime is still waiting and is taking a hard look at this important issue.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would certainly like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice for his speech in regard to this much-needed legislation. In fact, this is something that is of concern in my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla, and was particularly so during the last election, when I was door-knocking. There was a tragic case of three children being murdered by their father in the city of Merritt, and this is still a very difficult issue for my riding.

The parliamentary secretary has certainly done a lot of work in supporting victims' rights, particularly with the victim surcharge. We have doubled that. Many opposition members chose to vote against that important legislation, but what I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary is not so much about victims' rights at this time.

We want to empower victims so they have more information, but we also want to empower the judiciary to be able to put forward high-risk designations. That allows for a check in an area that many victims have raised as a gap in the system.

I would like to hear the parliamentary secretary's comments on empowering the courts and also on helping victims to be protected through this legislation.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, certainly the tragedy that occurred in his riding is an illustration of why this law has been brought forward, which is to make the protection of the public the paramount consideration when it comes to the release of mentally affected offenders.

Not all mentally-affected offenders will be given high-risk designations, but the court will always look at this question. In the event an offender is in fact a high-risk offender, much more security will be placed around that person, who will not be able to go on unescorted visits. Escorted visits will be for health reasons. Victims will always be informed upon their release, when and if that occurs, and there will be enough information so that victims can avoid encounters with the people whom they are absolutely terrified of.

This is all about one single thing: protecting the public while balancing the protection of the public with the rehabilitation of offenders and causing less of a disruption for the victims, who have basically been sentenced for the rest of their lives through circumstances beyond their control.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have seen many bills go through the House in which financial obligations are passed on to provinces, cities or first nations. I want to ask the parliamentary secretary if he can assure the House that financial discussions have taken place with the provinces so that they are not left holding the bag. Who is responsible for carrying out the responsibilities for this bill, and will any federal transfers will be made to the provinces?

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, this bill was brought forward at the request of the provinces and territories because they have concerns for the safety of the public.

As to the costs, transfers to the provinces are at an all-time high. I believe it was $64 billion last year. There is a cost to protecting the public, and certainly in this case the provinces and territories have sought to get additional protection. It is, of course, within their purview to want to protect their public, as do we.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

I stand in support of Bill C-54, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act in relation to mental disorder. The bill's short title is the “not criminally responsible reform act”.

To be more specific, New Democrats support the bill so that it can be further studied in committee. It merits further study.

Cutting to the chase, this bill amends the legislative framework applicable to mental disorder in the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act.

It amends the legislation to specify that the safety of the public is the paramount consideration in the decision-making process. I repeat, because this is key, that public safety must be paramount in the decision-making process.

The bill also creates a mechanism by which Canadians who are found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder may be declared high risk, and the bill increases the involvement of victims. I will have more to say about that in just a moment, but first I will provide an overview of the current Criminal Code mental disorder regime.

The current Criminal Code mental disorder regime applies to a small percentage of accused. Under Canadian criminal law, if an accused person cannot understand the nature of the trial or the consequences and cannot communicate with their lawyer on account of a mental disorder, the court will find that the person is unfit to stand trial. Then, once that person becomes fit to stand trial, they are tried for the offence with which they were initially charged.

At the same time, if a person is found to have committed an offence but, because of a mental disorder at the time, lacked the capacity to appreciate what they did or know that it was wrong, the court makes a special verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. They are either convicted or they are acquitted.

A person found either unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible is referred to a provincial or territorial review board, and the board decides on the course of action.

Under the current law, a review board can make one of three possible decisions.

First, if the person does not pose a significant threat to public safety, there can be an absolute discharge. That is only available to a person found not criminally responsible.

The second possibility is a conditional discharge.

A third option that is open to a review board is detention in custody or detention in a hospital.

This bill proposes to amend the mental disorder regime in three ways. The first is by putting public safety first. I cannot stress that enough: public safety must come first. The changes proposed in this bill would explicitly make public safety the paramount consideration in the court and in the review board decision-making process.

Second, the legislation would amend the Criminal Code to create a process for the designation of those found not criminally responsible as “high risk”. That is the designation, “high risk”. That would be in the case when the accused person has been found not criminally responsible for a serious personal injury offence where there is a high likelihood for further violence that would endanger the public, or else in cases where the acts were of such a brutal nature as to constitute a risk of grave harm to the public.

As for what happens when a not criminally responsible person is designated high risk, they would not be granted a conditional or absolute discharge. That would not happen. Further, the designation of high risk would only be revoked by the court following a recommendation of the review board.

This bill outlines that a high-risk, not criminally responsible person would not be allowed to go into the community unescorted. Again, it is all about public safety. The escorted passes would only be allowed in narrow circumstances and subject to conditions sufficient to protect public safety. Also, the review board could decide to extend the review period for those designated high risk to up to every three years instead of annually.

The third way this bill proposes to amend the mental disorder regime is by enhancing the safety of the victims and by providing them with opportunities for greater involvement of the Criminal Code mental disorder regime in three ways.

First is by ensuring that they are notified, upon request, when the accused is discharged. Second is by allowing non-communications orders between the accused and the victim. Third is by ensuring that the safety of victims is considered when decisions are made about an accused person.

Provisions in the proposed legislation would also help ensure the consistent interpretation and application of the law across the country.

Amending the legislative framework applicable to mental disorder in the Criminal Code and National Defence Act is a difficult issue for victims, families and communities. However, and I cannot repeat this enough, public safety must come first when complying with the rule of law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We support this bill so that it can be further studied in committee. In the coming weeks, at the committee stage, we will talk to mental health experts, victims and the provinces to find out what they believe is the best approach, but, and this is a big but, we do not want to play political games with this bill. We must focus on the policy's merits.

As for consultation and who pays the cost, which was a question asked of the Conservative speaker who spoke last, in a Global News interview, a spokesperson for the Department of Justice stated that the provinces would be responsible for assuming the costs of the new policy. That said, we must ensure that the provinces have the financial resources to pay for the new policy.

However, there are other unknowns. There are outstanding questions and information the federal Conservatives should be able to provide. Again, with this bill, public safety must be paramount, but we also need the information and data to make the best decisions we can make.

There are several outstanding questions. First, what statistics did the government collect on persons deemed not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder? We would be looking for those statistics by province, by territory and by type of offence.

Second, how many people were deemed not criminally responsible over the past ten years, and how many of those people were granted an unconditional discharge?

Third, which persons deemed not criminally responsible and discharged were found guilty of a subsequent offence? That is a good question. Fourth, what persons deemed not criminally responsible and discharged were deemed not criminally responsible for a subsequent offence? What was the nature of the subsequent offence?

Fifth, for each of the last ten years, what was the rate of repeat offences for all offenders under federal jurisdiction by province and by territory?

Finally, which treatment facilities across the country, public and private, accept people deemed not criminally responsible, and how much money is out there to actually look after these people once they are in institution, if they go to an institution?

Most Canadians are familiar with Sheldon Kennedy. He is a former National Hockey League player. He is also an abuse victim. His story is well known across the country. Here is what Kennedy had to say when he heard about this bill. He said:

What I really like is the focus on victims. I think that's key, and when we look at this type of crime we catch some child sex perpetrators but I think it's paramount we take care of the victims of these perpetrators.

Let me be clear. We want to know how we can help victims. Over the next few weeks, we will talk to mental health experts, victims and the provinces to learn what they believe is the best approach.

I cannot stress this enough: we do not want to play political games with this. We want to examine the merits of the bill, which must be adequately funded by the federal government. We need answers to those outstanding questions. What I listed were just several questions. There are many more. We need the answers to those questions to make the best decisions about moving forward.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague rightly pointed out that he has lots of questions. I have lots of questions as well. I spoke to the bill earlier, and I still have questions. One reason we are not able to get answers to these questions, in my opinion, is that we do not know who the government has consulted on this.

I want to ask my colleague if he knows of the organizations, individuals and experts in his community the government consulted. At the law school in Halifax, professor Archie Kaiser teaches disability law. We have Atlantic regional offices, for example, of the Canadian Mental Health Association and the schizophrenia association. As far as I know, none of these organizations have been consulted.

We want to make sure that public policy is based on the best evidence out there, not on just our gut reaction to a couple of high-profile cases. I wonder if my colleague has heard of any consultation on this legislation happening in his community.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer to the hon. member's question is that I do not know. I do not know who has been consulted. In my riding of St. John's South—Mount Pearl, there is a lot of talk, especially among police authorities, about mental health and the fact that the services are not there for people who suffer from mental health illness.

I mentioned in my speech a number of questions, but the list of questions is as long as my arm. We have many questions that are outstanding. Which treatment facilities, for example, accept people with the mental health illnesses we outlined? Of the facilities, which are private? How many people can each facility accept? How many people are currently in each facility? What analysis has the government done to determine that these legislative measures will require these facilities to increase their capacity? There are so many questions we just do not have answers to.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl for yet another speech in the House that has brought us a lot more sense of what is missing from this particular legislation. The member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl is one of the most eloquent members in the House of Commons. He is very hard working. He does a terrific job. He raised significant questions for which the government does not seem to have any answers.

We all support the principle of the legislation. We support the principle of helping victims, but the fact that the government is incapable of answering these key questions is very important.

The government has a history of, and unfortunately there is no other way of putting it, screwing up legislation. I think of the refugee legislation and the Veterans Charter. In each case, the government tried to rush through legislation that had not received due diligence.

I am wondering if the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl is concerned about the closure motion the government has brought forward. Is it repeating the same mistakes it has made in the past?

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about closure, and I am always concerned any time the government limits debate. To me, that interferes with our democracy. It interferes with the way this place is supposed to run.

The bottom line is that our party supports the bill going to committee, and in committee, we are going to bring in experts and have further study. With all of these outstanding questions, we are going to need answers. The government had better be prepared when we go to committee stage to answer some important questions.

We do not know if the homework has been done on the bill in terms of treatment facilities and raw numbers. If Canadians with mental health issues are charged and convicted of a crime, how often do they repeat crimes? How often are they put back in jail? We do not know whether they get the treatment they need or whether the treatment is out there. There are so many questions. We do not know if the homework is being done, because we do not have any answers yet. We will see at committee stage.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join my hon. colleagues in speaking about Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder). We have discussed it at length in the House today.

The bill addresses a particularly important and troubling issue for victims and other Canadians. Regrettably, almost every region or community in Canada has seen some tragic event of this kind. I will refrain from naming some high-profile cases in Quebec since everyone already knows what we are talking about.

However, it is important to take the time to debate this properly in the House. I find it deplorable that once again, the government has moved time allocation to limit debate on an important bill that has a direct bearing on the problems victims experience. The time allotted for debate at second reading has again been reduced. I hope that we do not have to face the same situation in committee as we have in other committees, where the government has put restrictions on the witnesses who come forward to tell us about their experience and their views on the bill. In several other committees, we have seen the government abuse its majority to silence opinions that are not necessarily in line with its proposals. I hope that will change this time. This is a crucial issue.

This bill was introduced in the wake of events that made headlines and, not surprisingly, shocked people. We have to take the time to study this bill thoroughly. It would amend certain Criminal Code provisions to make the safety of the public the paramount consideration in courts' and review boards' decision-making processes involving persons found not criminally responsible.

The bill would also create a new mechanism to designate NCR accused as high-risk and subject them to additional restrictions with respect to parole and conditions under which an offender can be released. It would also enhance victims' involvement in the release process for persons found not criminally responsible.

Bill C-54 puts forward major changes worthy of in-depth consideration in committee. That is why my colleagues and I will support it at second reading. We believe that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights must take a very close, non-partisan look at the bill's provisions.

We can all agree that partisanship and political games have no place in our debate on this issue. We need genuine consultation with mental health experts, the provinces and victims to ensure that this approach is really the best possible approach for Canada. We all know that protecting public safety is the highest priority, but that protection must go hand in hand with respect for the rule of law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The committee's study will enable us to ensure that the bill before us is truly in line with the basic principles our country was founded on. These principles must be evident in every law we pass and must be our foremost consideration for every bill introduced in the House, be it to protect victims or anything else.

We also have to make sure that we are doing everything in our power to support victims of crime. I have no doubt that all parties in the House consider that a priority.

We all have a duty to provide victims with the services they need and to ensure that we give them the best support possible during their hardship. We must also continue to provide that support well into the future, so that they can truly reintegrate into society and move beyond the tragic events they experienced. It is difficult to do, but as parliamentarians, it is our responsibility to put those measures forward. We know that victims are the hardest hit by crime, and we have a duty to help them.

There are already various victim compensation programs in place, and they are essential. However, when faced with a bill such as Bill C-54, we must ask ourselves whether or not the measures it contains will really be enough to protect victims of crime from potentially being revictimized.

We must also ask ourselves whether the bill will truly offer more support to victims of crime. I hope that the committee will at least be able to take a closer look at those elements, which are priorities for the NDP, and shed some light on them.

There are other elements that should also direct the committee's work, and I hope that they will be reflected in the work that will begin after the mere five hours of debate allocated for second reading in the House.

Some mental health experts are already concerned about the potentially harmful effects this bill may have on Canadians with mental health issues who do not break the law. These people obey our country's laws, but they still need additional support from the different levels of government.

Based on what I have heard in the various speeches about Bill C-54, it seems as though the government believes that there are quite a few individuals who would have been found not criminally responsible for crimes, and that these individuals are hiding on every street corner. However, such is not the case. We need to keep these statistics in perspective.

For example, in Ontario, the most populated province in the country, only 0.0001% of people accused of a Criminal Code offence were found to be not criminally responsible. That is a very low number. That does not mean that we do not still have work to do to provide better protection for victims in the future and to prevent more people from becoming victims of crime. However, when we adopt such measures, we must also consider what kind of effect they could have on other Canadians living with mental health issues.

Before I became an MP, I earned a bachelor's degree in psychology from Laval University. During my studies I learned about the stigma experienced by people living with mental illness. These issues are still poorly understood by the vast majority of Canadians.

For example, according to a fairly widespread stereotype, people living with schizophrenia are considered to be violent. That is often not at all the case. These people certainly have some problems, but it is rare for them to commit violent crimes.

There are already a number of community services available. A number of organizations are doing excellent work. Take, for example, Arc-en-ciel, which serves the people of Portneuf, in my riding. This organization is trying to challenge mental health stereotypes.

These are issues I would like to see studied in committee, which is why I support Bill C-54 at second reading. I look forward to seeing what the committee comes up with, so we can ensure that the Criminal Code is properly equipped to deal with people who are declared not criminally responsible.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for a very thoughtful speech on a very difficult subject.

When we are dealing with issues of justice in this country, dealing with crimes that involve some of the most serious emotions and serious impacts on people that we can imagine, it behooves us as parliamentarians to move very prudently and cautiously, because what we need is an incredible balance. We need a sensitive balance that recognizes the unbelievable pain victims experience when they suffer from a crime committed against them or their loved ones. We must also balance and temper that with a sense of justice for the person who has committed that crime, because the point of our criminal justice system is, at the very end, to do justice.

I ask my hon. colleague if there are any facts or statistics that were used by the government in crafting this law, or does she feel that, like so many other Conservative laws before it, this is a law that is more about politics and wedging than it is about coming to thoughtful, effective criminal law?

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question.

It is difficult to deal with such a serious and complex subject when confronted with political games. Unfortunately, that happens far too often in the House.

Unless I am mistaken, the time allocation motion that was debated a little earlier today was the 33rd one that has been imposed. Another time allocation motion was moved this afternoon, which makes this the 34th time the government has decided to close down debate.

My colleague from Gatineau pointed out to the Minister of Justice that the statistics he used to justify the bill before us were not the right ones.

Too often, we see the government making decisions that are perhaps based on the media and on what we see in the newspapers; reactions may be very strong and people may be on edge following incidents that are very difficult for communities and families to deal with.

I hope the committee will be able to fill in the gaps that we unfortunately see far too often when this government drafts bills.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of political games, my question to my colleague is about political games when it comes to victims.

As we all know, there is a bit of a scandal happening around expenses in the Senate. I heard one of our Conservative colleagues on the radio saying that this is not what Canadians really care about, but Canadians really care about keeping our streets safe and keeping pedophiles off the street.

Really? We are talking about Senate expenses, and our Conservative colleague is talking about keeping pedophiles off the street. This is not what people are actually talking about to me day to day in my riding. They are talking to me about things that are happening in their real lives.

In that vein, it is like creating a fear, creating a sense that all these bogeymen are out there to get us, and then creating public policy based on a couple of instances of tragedy, which need to be addressed but do not necessarily create the best basis for public policy for all.

I wonder where the attention to victims is. Why do we not actually have funding for victims organizations, have funding for victims to be able to get on with their lives? That would be true attention to victims, as far as I am concerned. I wonder if she agrees.