Debates of May 27th, 2013

Second Reading

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member brings up a very good question.

The courts still have discretion. If the courts deem an individual not criminally responsible, but that the individual involved has committed a very serious offence and is possibly a risk to the community, then that individual will have this high-risk designation. That could be removed at a future time, if the review board applies to have it removed.

Right now, someone who is found not criminally responsible does not have that designation. Having that designation for the very serious offences, provides the courts discretion but it also provides another step of assurance that public safety is paramount.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to return to the concern that I have expressed this evening, that despite good intentions perhaps in the way this legislation is drafted to deal with a concern the public has, which I feel is driven by the headlines as opposed to empirical evidence, we may inadvertently make the situation worse.

The courts have been very clear that the not criminally insane provisions and much of the law that surrounds them must be seen in the context of mental health and treatment and not in a more punitive approach.

In evidence of this, I would just cite briefly from Mr. Justice Binnie in the Owen case, who said:

It is of central importance to the constitutional validity of this statutory arrangement that the individual...be confined only for reasons of public protection, not punishment.

I put it for my friend from Langley, that this bill, in many areas, seems to trespass from the preventative mental health focus to one that is treating mentally ill persons as criminals and subject to more severe punishment.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for being here during these late hours.

As parties, we have the opportunity to take a breather, but she is here, faithfully representing her community. I want to thank her for that. It takes a lot of effort for her to do it by herself.

To the member's question about whether this is punitive, it is absolutely not. This is reaching a balance where the courts still have discretion to put a classification on somebody who presents, or could present, a very high risk of reoffending. The paramount consideration is whether this designation needs to be put on an individual to protect the public.

The courts have the discretion. If the designation is put on, it would only be the courts that could remove it.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this profoundly important bill before the House. Bill C-54 is one that calls for all parliamentarians to reach deeply into their experience and their commitment to making good sound public policy in the country and it calls upon us to balance some of the most important values that we have, not only as parliamentarians but as Canadians.

The proposed legislation will amend the Criminal Code to create a process for the designation of “not criminally responsible” accused persons as high risk where the accused person has been found not criminally responsible of a serious personal injury offence and there is a substantial likelihood for further violence that would endanger the public or, alternately, in cases in which the acts were of such a brutal nature as to indicate a risk of grave harm to the public.Those designated as “high-risk” accused persons will not be granted a conditional or absolute discharge and the designation can only be revoked by the court, following a recommendation of the review board. It is important that this designation will apply only to those found not criminally responsible and not to persons found unfit to stand trial.

The proposed legislation outlines that a high-risk accused person would not be allowed to go into the community unescorted and escorted passes would only be allowed in narrow circumstances and subject to sufficient conditions to protect public safety. Also, the review board may decide to extend the review period for up to three years for those designated high risk, instead of annually. The high-risk NCR designation would not affect access to treatment by the accused.

This bill would also speak to the very important role of victims in this important matter. These changes would ensure that victims were notified upon request when an accused who had been found guilty and received a not criminally responsible designation was discharged. It would allow non-communication orders to be issued between the accused and the victim. Finally, it would ensure that the safety of victims be considered when decisions were being made about an accused person.

Provisions in the proposed legislation would also help ensure consistent interpretation and application of the law across the country. These proposed reforms would not change the existing Criminal Code eligibility for the exemption from criminal responsibility on account of mental disorders.

This is a very difficult issue for victims, families and communities and for all of those involved in the criminal justice system, from the police to the prosecutors to the defence bar to the judiciary. Public safety must come first when complying with the rule of law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but it calls on very important balancing to be done. A number of recent cases that received significant media attention in Canada raised questions about the appropriateness and effectiveness of the current approach. In particular, we want to know how we can help victims better in the process and deal sensitively, fairly and effectively with not criminally responsible offenders.

In the coming weeks, we New Democrats want to talk with mental health experts, victims and members of the bar in provinces to find out what they believe is the best approach. It is important to note that we New Democrats do not want to play political games with this file. We must focus on the policies, merits and serious issues that are involved in this matter.

I want to talk about some things that jump out as inherently positive from the bill. First, Public safety as a paramount consideration is important to note. Second, increasing the involvement of victims in the process is something that will find favour on all sides of this House. Third, the ability of victims to be notified, to have non-communication orders issued and to have their own safety be considered in all matters respecting a not criminally responsible offender are all laudable goals.

It is positive to have review boards have the option and not the obligation to extend the time for review and it is something that will expand the efficiency of our system. However, it is important to note that there are important causes for concern and pause here.

This bill proposes that there be a limit to the number of community visits for high-risk accused persons. That introduces the concept of having mandatory minimum approaches to this area of the law that I think is so typical and characteristic of the Conservative approach to crime, which study, statistics and experience of jurisdictions around the world have shown to be such an utter failure. There is also a legitimate concern about charter compliance and, very importantly, unjustifiable stigmatization of those with mental illness.

I want to address something that I think the Minister of Natural Resources mentioned a couple of hours ago, and that is the fact that a very sizable proportion of offenders who get NCR designations had some experience with the law prior. In fact, a very sizable percentage of those people had been incarcerated before. It is very important for us to note what kind of assistance is available to people with mental health issues in the current federal justice and penal systems and what the Conservatives' record is on dealing with the people who have experience with our criminal system before they get NCR designations.

There was a committee prepared in December 2010 entitled, “Mental Health and Drug and Alcohol Addiction in the Federal Correctional System”. In that report, after exhaustive study across this country, visiting some 20 federal institutions and hearing from all kinds of witnesses, there were 71 recommendations made to the government to deal with mental health in our prison system. Those recommendations were for the very people whose mental health issues first emanate in our system and end up getting NCR designations in many cases. These were some of the things recommended.

Recommendation 1 stated:

That the federal government, in cooperation with the provinces and territories, make a commitment to and a serious investment in the mental health system, in order to ease the identification of and access to treatment for people suffering from mental health and addictions before they end up in the correctional system.

Recommendation 3 stated:

That the federal government work with provinces and territories in order to ensure that police officers, Crown prosecutors and other key players in the criminal justice system be trained to recognize the symptoms of mental health problems, mental illness and drug and alcohol abuse so that they can direct offenders to the appropriate treatment services.

Recommendation 4 stated:

That the federal government work with the provinces and territories on early identification of mental health and addiction issues affecting offenders in remand, and secure access to treatment services for them in order to address conditions that are so often precursors to escalating crime and incarceration.

Recommendation 5 stated:

That the federal government support the creation and funding of more drug treatment courts to divert offenders with addictions to treatment centres and mental health courts to divert those with mental health needs to appropriate services.

Recommendation 17 stated:

That Correctional Service Canada work towards a psychologist/patient ratio of no more than 1:35 at all federal institutions.

That was evidence received from the Canadian Psychological Association.

Recommendation 19 stated:

That Correctional Service Canada add psychiatric nurses and nurses at every federal institution.

Recommendation 21 stated:

That Correctional Service Canada place a renewed focus on individualized treatment for all offenders with diagnosed mental health conditions, including addiction issues.

Recommendation 28 stated:

That Correctional Service Canada cover the cost of all medication prescribed to treat mental illness of offenders on conditional release in the community through warrant expiry.

Those are just a handful of the 71 recommendations made three years ago to the government. Do members know how many recommendations the Conservatives have put into practice? Not one, not one of 71 recommendations. Yet the Conservatives stand in the House when there is a serious media story of someone who finally commits a serious act, someone who has been involved with the correctional system, and want to pass a law that deals with the aftermath.

Here is the difference between the New Democrats and the Conservatives. New Democrats want to work to prevent crime from happening in the first place. New Democrats care more about victims than the Conservatives do because we want to make sure that there are no victims in the first place. Instead of trying to deal with the aftermath, the shattered lives of victims after crimes have been committed, New Democrats will actually put money and resources into the system, unlike the Conservatives. Instead of chasing cheap headlines and cheap answers that do not work, we will put the resources in so that people suffering from mental health in this country get the treatment they deserve that will keep them out of the penal system, out of the courts and, most importantly, keep our communities safe. That is the sensible approach to mental health in this country. That is a sensible approach to deal with people in the criminal justice system. It is the only way we are going to make the public safe in this country. That is the New Democrat way.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on a point my hon. colleague made about wanting more mental health professionals in the system. It is very laudable and a very appropriate thing to do. The NDP railed against this for another issue that involved that and that was getting more mental health professionals into the military system to deal with veterans and PTSD and so on. We started with 225, tried to get to 450, we have it to about 350 and that is far as we can get because those people simply do not exist. It came to the point where the civilian mental health world was getting a little cranky with the Canadian Armed Forces because they were taking all the people and there were none left for anyone else.

This is not a criticism of the member's statement. The question is, when there is such a paucity of mental health professionals and we cannot get there with Veterans Affairs or the Canadian Armed Forces, how does he suggest that we overcome that challenge for the bigger picture of getting more mental health professionals into the prison system?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question and one that the committee looked at extensively in 2010, because there is a problem attracting and retaining health care professionals into the prison system. We looked into that very issue. In fact, recommendation 16 of our report says that Correctional Service Canada should develop an attraction and retention program for psychologists, nurses, psychiatric nurses, occupational therapists, social workers and other necessary professionals including paying market salaries, that Correctional Service Canada provide for dedicated budgets for the ongoing training of health professionals in order to make the environment more attractive to them.

These were two very tangible recommendations already made to the government three years ago. A further suggestion that was made as well was to locate prisons near hospitals, as is happening in Saskatchewan, where there can be a synergy between the psychology and psychiatric divisions of hospitals and universities working with the prison.

These are the kinds of innovative measures that have been taken in other countries and this is why the countries are having greater success at lowering recidivism rates than Canada is. But how much money have the Conservatives put in the Correctional Service system in terms of adding to the salaries to attract these professionals to the prison system? They have not done the job. They did not get the job done and that is why there is a paucity of those professionals in our system.

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

Mr. Speaker, thanks to the member for Vancouver Kingsway for putting forward the committee report on the record. It is very clear that the government seems to pay lip service to the whole issue of mental health services in this country.

I am wondering two things. One is that we have seen the Conservative government actually cut back on crime prevention programs. The member for Vancouver Kingsway said very eloquently a few moments ago the difference between New Democrats and Conservatives is Conservatives will perhaps do something after the fact, but New Democrats want to prevent the crime from being perpetrated in the first place.

Is the member concerned about the government's propensity to eliminate the funding that would actually prevent victims from being victims and prevent crimes from being committed?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, not only has the Conservative government failed to add resources to make a meaningful improvement to treating mental health in our prisons, it has cut resources.

We had the prison farm system at a number of institutions in this country that was a resounding success, where we had mentally ill offenders working with animals. Prison psychologists and psychiatrists pointed out that it made a profound difference in the abilities of these people. Many of them had difficulty relating well to other human beings, but through the use of animal husbandry and other responsibilities, they learned the value of work and learned how to relate to other living beings.

The government cut the CORCAN program, a program where prisoners learned skills and trades and would build furniture that would then be sold to the federal government at reduced rates and give them a reason to work and adequate skills. There are closed CORCAN industrial arts places across this country in prisons.

Finally, there is not one stand-alone psychiatric facility for women in this country. The only one in Saskatchewan is in a male institution. There was a little part carved off for women in the middle of a male institution. Most of those women have been sexually abused or suffered from traumatic abuse and they are in the middle of a male institution. In our report we recommended that there be a stand-alone women's psychiatric facility. The government would not even do that.

Not only did it not put the resources in, it has cut the very resources in our system that would actually make our communities safer.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasant evening listening to the debate on this important piece of legislation. Canadians have been talking about and asking for this legislation. They want to see some changes in this area with regard to the Canadian Criminal Code.

The not criminally responsible reform act was introduced on February 8, 2013. This legislation would, in brief, enhance victims rights. The legislation would enhance the safety of victims by ensuring that they are specifically considered when decisions are being made about an accused person, an NCR, and ensure that they are notified when an NCR accused is discharged. The bill would allow non-communication orders between an NCR accused and the victim.

Putting public safety first of course is our main concern. The legislation explicitly sets out the public safety parameter considerations in the decision-making process relating to accused persons found to be NCR. The legislation would create a new designation to protect the public from high-risk NCR accused. Upon being designated by the court as a high risk, an NCR accused must be held in custody and cannot be considered for release by a review board until the designation has been revoked by the courts.

There are some good questions that I will go through here. I will talk about what some of my constituents have been telling me and some of the questions they have in regard to this piece of legislation and why it is so important. Why do we not look at those questions in the order that some of them have addressed to me?

One of the questions that I have had is, what happens to someone who is found not criminally responsible? If a person is found to have committed an act that constitutes an offence but lacks the capacity to appreciate what he or she did or know that it was wrong due to a mental disorder at the time, the court makes a special verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. The person is neither convicted nor acquitted. Instead, that person is referred to a provincial or territorial review board, which decides on the course of action to both protect the public and provide opportunities for treatment for the underlying mental disorder. Under the current law, a review board can make one of three possible decisions: an absolute discharge for a person who does not pose a significant threat to public safety, a conditional discharge or detention in custody in hospital.

One of the other questions that I have been asked is, how will the proposed amendments better protect Canadians? The highest priority of this government is to keep citizens safe. This legislation would amend the mental disorder regime of the Criminal Code proposed in the not criminally responsible reform act and explicitly set out that public safety is the paramount consideration in the court and review board decision-making process relating to an accused person found to be not criminally responsible on account of mental disorders or unfit to stand trial.

The legislation would also amend the Criminal Code to create a process to designate an accused person found NCR for serious personal injury offences who poses a substantial risk to commit further violent acts as a high-risk accused. Upon being designated by the court, a high-risk NCR accused must be held in custody and cannot be considered for release by a review board until the high risk status is revoked by the court.

The other consequences of being designated as a high-risk NCR accused include his or her review period being extended up to three years. Such individuals would not be entitled to unescorted passes and could only obtain an escorted pass in narrow circumstances and subject to sufficient conditions to protect the public safety.

Why does the high-risk NCR designation apply to those found unfit to stand trial? The high-risk accused designation only applies to the verdict of an NCR because the person was found by the courts to have committed the alleged act and an unfit accused has not yet been tried for the offence. If a person is not fit to stand trial, he or she would not be fit to participate in a high-risk hearing. The majority of unfit accused become fit within a very short period of time at which point they would be tried. An individual may be convicted as charged, acquitted or found NCR. If found NCR, the individual could be subject to a high-risk designation if the criteria were met.

Will legislation increase the possibility of an NCR accused person being kept in custody longer or indefinitely regardless of whether he or she continues to pose a risk to society? This is a good question. As long as the NCR accused person continued to pose a risk to public safety, the individual would remain under supervision of the provincial or territorial review board. The issue of whether the individual is kept in custody in a hospital or under conditional discharge would depend on the level of risk in each case. The creation of a high-risk NCR accused designation further enhances public safety while ensuring judicial and review board oversight and ongoing detention of these individuals. The possibility of indefinite detention exists under the current law and would continue to exist under the proposed law.

Why is this legislation tightening the eligibility criteria for the Criminal Code defence and mental disorders?

The purpose of the legislation is focusing on the decision-making process after a person has been found NCR. This proposed legislation responds to the primary concerns of the stakeholders, including victims as well as provincial and territorial governments.

Will these amendments apply to all accused persons who suffer from a mental illness who come into contact with the criminal justice system? No. The bill only applies to accused persons who are either found unfit to stand trial on account of mental disorder or who are found by the court to be NCR.

What is the difference between someone who is found unfit to stand trial and someone who is found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder? That is again another good question.

Under criminal law, if an accused person cannot understand the nature of the trial or its consequences and cannot communicate with his or her lawyer on account of mental disorder, the court will find that person unfit to stand trial. Once an accused becomes fit to stand trial, that person will then be tried for the offence with which they were initially charged.

If a person is found to have committed an act that constitutes an offence but lacks the capacity to appreciate what they did or know that it is wrong due to mental disorder at the time, the court makes a special verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. Such a person is neither convicted nor acquitted.

Do these reforms address situations like the one that occurred with Ashley Smith? No, they do not. The bill does not deal with the correctional system. Persons found to be NCR are unfit to stand trial on account of mental disorder and are not imprisoned. They may, however, be detained in a hospital or psychiatric facility.

What information or research does the government have on reoffending by NCR accused persons to justify these reforms? There has been a limited amount of data on the rates of reoffending by NCR accused persons. What we do know about NCR accused persons is that the majority have committed serious acts that brought them into the review board system. These reforms will provide the data we consider necessary for public safety to come first. Let me make that point clear: public safety must come first.

Why are changes to the current regime for NCR accused being proposed? Is there evidence that the system is not working?

Recent high-profile cases, including in British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec, Nova Scotia, have caused Canadians to question whether or not the laws are strong or clear enough to ensure that public safety is given paramount consideration in decision-making.

Stakeholders, including victims, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for justice and public safety, and concerned Canadians have urged the government to take action that would ensure the safety of the public is paramount in consideration of the decision-making process regarding NCR accused persons and enhance the role of victims in the process.

The responsibility of the ongoing monitoring of NCR accused persons rests with the provincial established review boards.

If the bill passes, would it prevent people like Guy Turcotte, Vince Li, Alan Schoenborn and Andre Denny from being released into the community?

This proposed legislation provides important new tools to deal with high-risk NCR accused and ensure that the concerns of the victims are heard. It would not be appropriate to comment on specific cases, of course.

What were some of the concerns raised by victims? This is important because the victims should be considered.

Victims were concerned that their safety was not being specifically taken into consideration by review boards when they made a disposition. Victims often expressed concern that they often had no way of knowing if and when an NCR accused would be given access to the community and were afraid that they would unexpectedly run into them without being adequately prepared.

That would be a shock. A victim would walk down the street and all of a sudden see the person who did harm to a family member, colleague or friend and not know about it. I do not think that is acceptable and I do not think that constituents accept it, which is another reason the bill is moving forward.

How would the bill respond to the concerns raised by victims? The bill would enhance the safety of victims and provide an opportunity for greater involvement of the victims in the Criminal Code mental disorder regime. The legislation would help ensure that victims were notified upon request when an NCR accused is discharged, allow a non-communication order between NCR accused and the victim and ensure that the safety of the victims would be considered when decisions are being made about an NCR accused person.

What are the concerns raised by provinces and territories? Some provinces and territories expressed concerns that public safety was not being adequately taken into consideration by review boards when determining which decision to order for a mentally disordered accused.

How would our new legislation address the concerns raised by these provinces and territories? Addressing concerns raised by victims, provinces and territories, the proposed legislation would clarify that the safety of the victim must specifically be considered and that public safety must always be of paramount consideration in the review of decisions.

There are lots of questions and there are lots of good answers. That is why it is a good idea to get this bill to the next stage and to move it forward to committee. I notice that the New Democrats have some questions, and I look forward to their participation in the committee work.

I see this piece of legislation actually meeting the needs that our constituents have asked the government to meet, by making sure victims are understood and their rights are protected in these situations.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned that he is looking forward to working in committee. I presume that he sits on this committee, but I am not certain that I understood correctly.

I wonder if the Conservative members plan on listening to the witnesses this time because, most of the time, they interpret what the witnesses say. Do they intend to really listen to the expert witnesses on mental health, for example, and to act on the suggestions made by these witnesses?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that is one thing we always do. We always listen to all the witnesses, and we evaluate what they say and how they participate in the committee work. I look forward to seeing them work with all sides of the House to bring forward the best piece of legislation.

However, we must keep in mind that as this legislation was being drafted, we talked to a lot of people. We addressed and talked with a lot of victims and specialists in this field. We will find that a lot of witnesses who come forward to committee actually back this piece of legislation and say we have come very close and have done very well in bringing forward what is required for them to do their jobs.

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

Mr. Speaker, with regard to NCR, the NDP has been speaking all night specifically on criminal issues and how we are going to try to deal with those who are within the criminal system.

The proposed reforms would extend the annual review to three years with regard to the NCR. I wonder if my colleague could talk about that a bit?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question and I appreciate all the hard work he has done on this file. I know he has put a lot of time and effort into it and it is something he is taking very seriously. I appreciate that.

He asks a good question. What it would do is change the review period from an annual review to a three-year review. This is a situation where the accused would not have to go through this review every year. Instead of having to look at the possibility of this person coming up for review and release every year, and going through the process of being a victim and testifying in this type of situation, it would only be once every three years.

That would provide a little bit more stability for the victims and the families of the victims to proceed with their lives and move on and get this type of horrible situation behind them.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to ask my question very simply to ensure that the member does not go off topic in his reply.

There are costs associated with a bill such as this. Who will foot the bill?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I guess there are a lot of questions that need to be answered.

There is cost involved. There is also cost in being a victim. There is cost involved in having a family member put into this type of situation and trying to recover from that. There are a lot of costs that need to be considered, and the appropriate governments will take on their role in paying for the costs accordingly.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am actually going to ask the same question again. The member pointed out that there are governments that will bear this cost. What we have heard from the justice official is that the costs would be paid by the provinces.

Have they discussed this with the provinces, in particular with regard to costs being downloaded to the provinces?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it was actually the provinces that asked us to do this to protect society.

I would like to remind members that we have invested close to $376 million in mental health research and continuing work for the provinces. We will continue to that as it is required.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to speak in support of Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder).

The NDP supports sending the bill to committee. As a number of people have said before me, there are some serious flaws in the bill that we want to address there. I have heard some welcoming comments from members across the aisle that they are looking forward to our amendments. I hope they really want to work with the opposition to make the legislation work. With that in mind, I am sure that the NDP representatives on the committee will put their hearts and souls into writing those amendments.

However, it will be the first time since I have been in the House.

I do not think there is anybody in this room who would disagree that public safety is paramount. No matter what part of the country one goes to, whether one has children or not, people really care about their communities and making sure they are safe.

I have strong feelings about the very poor job we are doing as a country and in the provinces addressing mental health issues. Recent reports show that depression is on the increase. The economic and health care costs related to that are huge.

For example, in my province of British Columbia, we saw many institutions that used to house people with mental disabilities and disorders shut down. Where did those people go? They ended up on the streets getting into all kinds of trouble, simply because they are ill and not able to manage on their own.

Bill C-54 is not talking about that larger group. We are talking about a very tiny group. It is a very small percentage of those with mental disorders who commit serious violent crimes. That is the crux of the legislation.

As many members are aware, based on a psychiatric report, even those who commit serious violent crimes can be released. We have examples of that. I have an example in my riding. A mother comes to see me quite regularly because she just cannot understand how that can happen.

We are talking about those who commit serious violent crimes. They would go before a review board, and now the victims would have a right to go to the review board and make impact statements. Not everybody can do that. Not every victim would be able to face the person who did them harm directly or indirectly. However, it is a very important part of the healing process and the social justice process for a person to be able to give an account of the impact a crime has had. I think that is a welcome piece of this legislation.

Of course, when the psychiatric review board made a decision, it would be reviewed by the courts before the accused was released. That is an additional element to ensure public safety and keep our communities safe.

It seems reasonable that before we release somebody, we would want to have that review so the medical and psychiatric professions have their input. A review board takes place at that time, impact statements are made and as a measure to ensure that everything is on track, the court will review that before the person is released. All of that sounds really good.

Then we get to the crux of the matter, which is who will pay for this? If this is more downloading of costs to the provinces, then I will have some serious concerns because we have had so much downloading of costs to them. There is so much they have had to pick up. We know where that ends up in each province. In British Columbia it has led to impacting the education and health care systems and many other programs. Therefore, we want to ensure we look at that.

As I mentioned earlier on, having been a teacher and counsellor in a high school, as well as a counsellor in the community, what hits me hard is that I absolutely believe in our judicial system, which is a rehabilitative system, but I also believe in prevention programs and taking proactive steps. It is high time the federal and provincial parties work together to find ways to address mental health issues as well as the costs associated with that.

Some people would say that we cannot afford to do that. However, the costs of incarceration are eightfold to the cost of quality education. It seems that in many cases we are not willing to spend $8,000 a year on educating a child, but we are willing to spend $60,000 to $100,000 a year to incarcerate people and keep them in prison. If incarceration were a judgment of how safe we are as a society, we just have to look to the south where the U.S. probably has a very high number of people in prisons. It does not make its streets and communities any safer. I would say it is less so.

We are pleased to support this and send it to committee where we will bring in amendments. We are pleased to see that for the very small percentage of people with mental disorders who commit violent crimes there will be an opportunity for victims to make statements. Also, through Bill C-10, there will be a review by the courts for those people to be released.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It being 11:22 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen: