Debates of May 27th, 2013

Second Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, to answer my colleague's question, I will go back to the start of my speech, and that is the substance or the “why” we are looking at this legislation.

This legislation has been proposed to be respectful of the rights of victims, as well as to provide them with additional peace of mind and security. Given their recovery from a traumatic situation, we have to be cognizant of their mental health as well. That is what this bill proposes to do. I cannot speak on behalf of some of these victims because I have never had something like this happen to me, but I can only imagine, and that is why we stand here today in support of this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that I am not yet at the place where I think this legislation would actually do more good than harm. I am trying to debate that in my own mind, looking at the evidence and the expertise that comes forward.

One of the experts to whom I referred earlier, Dr. Anne Crocker, professor of psychiatry at McGill University, put the statistics this way, so we really can focus on this. She said that, of all those offenders considered not criminally responsible, in B.C., Ontario and Quebec, less than 10% of that group were responsible for violent crime. Within that group, getting down to very small numbers, less than 15% went on to reoffend.

Therefore, what happens is that we have some very high-profile, extremely upsetting cases. It is devastating when we have the kind of cases that we all have on our minds as we debate this legislation. I do not need to mention the names. However, this legislation would do nothing to prevent somebody with a mental health issue who had no previous record from committing the offence. Surely, when we have experts in mental health and in the criminal justice system who are saying that the current system is not letting us down in terms of handling NCR cases and avoiding recidivism, where we are being let down is that we are not putting in place the structures to support those people so that mental health issues can be streamed into the health system and not into the criminal justice system.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague opposite has admitted that she is looking at this bill and trying to decide whether or not it should pass at the committee stage.

I implore her to at least get it to the committee stage for a few reasons. First of all, yes, we can talk about recidivism, absolutely. However, the point I am trying to make here today is that when we talk about percentages of reoccurrence, we have not acknowledged the fact that there are high-profile cases, and the lack of legislation we have in this area can lead to deep distress and a deep sense of non-peace in the minds of victims.

For that reason, it is very important that we at least examine the merits of this bill at the committee stage. I fundamentally feel that, as legislators, we cannot fail even one person in this regard, in this context. That is why it is so important.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak to Bill C-54 on behalf of my constituents from Surrey North. Last week, in the debate on Bill C-489, I spoke about the impact the proposed legislation could have on victim rights. Today I will speak about it again but in the context of Bill C-54, which is an act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act.

Bill C-54 would modify the legislative framework in the Criminal Code and National Defence Act that applies to trials that result in an alleged offender being deemed not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. The bill presents a timely and very important discussion on mental health issues, victim rights and public safety. It is clear, in the wake of several recent highly publicized cases, that we need to examine the current legal instruments to ensure that adequate protection is awarded to the public and that victims' needs, particularly in relation to psychological healing and safety, are being considered and given the utmost priority.

However, as with any discussion in the House, we must carefully weigh the balance between perspectives. Many mental health professionals have already voiced their concerns about the effect the bill will have on people with mental health issues. Those concerns are legitimate and deserve the chance to be explored in depth. This is a fragile issue for victims, families and communities, and we must be careful that we protect the interests of all Canadians in our deliberations. Bill C-54 proposes to amend the current legislative mental disorder regime by putting public safety first, creating a high-risk designation for certain offenders and enhancing victims' involvement in the justice process.

Obviously, as members of Parliament and legislative decision-makers, we need to place Canadian interests and security as paramount in all our evaluations and resolutions. From this perspective, the public-safety-first focus Bill C-54 proposes should be reflective of the majority of Canadian legislation, and we should welcome its relevance to the common good. However, this must be met with balance. The concerns of mental health professionals are that Bill C-54 might create mass panic, resulting in increased prejudice and decreased understanding of mental illness. We need to be cautious that we are not perpetuating an unwarranted stereotype that all people with mental illness have the potential for violence.

Furthermore, Bill C-54 proposes that some offenders deemed not criminally responsible may be categorized as high risk when the person has been involved in a serious injury offence and there is a considerable likelihood of further violence that would endanger the public. High-risk offenders should be subject to an increased amount of time between review board hearings. It would be 36 months instead of the 12 months it is currently. They would also have escorted community visits, and in some cases, community visits would be eliminated.

There is a concern that some defence attorneys may avoid seeking a mental illness defence because of the limits of this designation, limiting the treatment and resources available to their clients and potentially exposing their clients to harm in traditional detention facilities.

Bill C-54 also enhances victims' involvement in the Criminal Code mental disorder regime. They would be notified, upon request, when the accused is discharged. The bill would provide for non-communication orders between the accused and the victim and would ensure that the safety of the victim was paramount in the judicial decision-making process. This element of Bill C-54 could be particularly important for the healing process of victims and their families. It might be essential to the development of a safety response strategy.

Obviously, I have reservations about the proposals in the bill, but we must equally weigh the balance of arguments of any proposal that comes across the floor of the House. Specifically, in the discussion around Bill C-54, we need to be conscious of the fact that only a small number of cases are found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder under the Criminal Code.

Furthermore, the rate of reoffending for an accused found not criminally responsible due to mental disorder is only 2.5% to 7.5% compared to a reoffending rate of 41% to 44% for federal offenders in the regular justice system. That being said, our focus in this debate must be public safety as well as justice and support for victims. We need to explore Bill C-54 in detail to ensure that it offers effective solutions for victims and adequate protection for the public. At the same time, we need to be respectful of the challenges that face people with mental health issues. We must keep the focus on prevention, treatment and support resources.

I will be supporting Bill C-54 so that it can be studied extensively. I am looking forward to the opportunity to hear from mental health professionals, legal professionals, victims' rights groups and the families of victims to ensure that we are making informed decisions that will be valuable to Canadians and will have their best interests at the core.

I would encourage my Conservative colleagues to not only listen to the professionals but to make the appropriate amendments needed to make this bill even better than its current state. I know that the Conservatives hesitate to add amendments, as we have seen over the last year or two, when 99% of the amendments introduced by my NDP colleagues have been rejected by the sitting government. I would encourage them to listen to the front-line workers and the people providing these services.

The Correctional Investigator, Howard Sapers, pointed out today in the media that he has some concerns. I am hoping that the Conservatives will listen to the concerns of not only government workers but of the people on the front lines so that we can further enhance this bill.

It is important to note that, in its current form, Bill C-54 would rest all financial obligations with the provinces. The federal government should ensure that adequate financial support is provided so that provinces have the financial capacity to carry out these responsibilities.

Bill C-54 presents an opportunity for us to review how underfunded mental health services are in Canada. In fact, recently I spoke to social service providers in my riding who have expressed their frustration in not being able to provide adequate mental health resources to their clients due to funding challenges. We must ensure that adequate funding is provided for mental health services, as their work is invaluable to prevention, treatment and advocacy for accused offenders deemed not criminally responsible due to mental disorder.

In closing, I hope the government will seriously consider the amendments proposed by the opposition parties as well as the advice and stories of mental health professionals, legal professionals, victims' families and rights groups. As policy-makers, we must be open to institutional changes that are productive and effective. We cannot present grandiose ideas with little to back them up. We must ensure that potential legislation we debate is critically explored and presents effective remedies for its intended focus.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to talk about the whole idea of prevention and how we would love a government more focused on prevention. We have this bill before us, and I understand that the New Democrats will be supporting its passage to committee stage.

I have a question regarding the need for amendments or changes to the current legislation. I anticipate that New Democrats will be bringing forward amendments. Are they saying that if the amendments do not pass, they will not support the bill? Is there tentative support for second reading subject to amendments from the New Democratic caucus being passed?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it amazes me that every time the Liberals stand in the House, they talk about what they want to do. However, when they are in government, they basically do what the Conservatives do, which is nothing, most of the time.

My answer to the hon. member's question is that I do not have a crystal ball. In principle, we agree with this bill going to committee, and we are hoping that the Conservatives will listen to the advice provided in committee by experts and community workers and that they will make some of the changes to make this bill much better than it is already.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Surrey North for his very eloquent speech tonight. He brings a lot of experience and knowledge to the justice sector, having worked for the Justice Institute in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. It was clear tonight from all he said. The member has great knowledge of these issues. He was asking questions other NDP members have been asking about how the government actually put together the legislation, which we support, and who they are going to be consulting with.

Another concern we on this side of the House have been raising is that ultimately, this will be downloaded onto the provinces. Members of the Conservative Party have been saying that it is not true and that they have been increasing health transfers. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says different. We are looking at 20% of health care funding for the provinces coming from the federal government. That is going to fall to 18%, then 13%, then 11%. This is a matter of real concern. We are talking about victims, yet the federal government is trying to cut back on services for health care, services for mental health and services for victims. Does that concern the member for Surrey North?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have seen a trend from the Conservatives over the last two years I have been here, and I have seen the downloading of responsibilities to the provinces and the downloading of costs to the provinces. Of course, I am very concerned about what the Conservatives have been doing over the last two years and about what they have done with our health care transfer funding to the provinces, which is going to be cut over the next few years.

On issues such as mental health, we need preventive programs. We need programs that will help the mentally ill. Clearly, the Conservatives are not supporting the services needed in our communities.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this legislation proposes to make it explicit that the review boards need to take public safety into account in their decision-making. However, when I go back to the Criminal Code, which talks about dispositions from a court or review board, it says that, in fact, the review board needs to take into consideration the need to protect the public from dangerous persons.

I do not understand even what this legislation does. How is this actually anything new, and where is the evidence that we actually need to have another provision saying to take into account public safety? I do not know if my colleague will have any answers to this, but where is the evidence that this needs to be done, and how is this different?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have similar questions for the hon. members' across the floor. We are hoping that Conservatives will provide those answers at committee. We asked those questions throughout this session earlier today, and we have not had any satisfactory answers from the government side. Hopefully, we will be getting an answer to my hon. colleague's question at the committee stage. Hopefully, the Conservatives will look at some of the amendments and some of the expert testimony we will hear at committee so that we can make a bill that truly helps victims and also addresses the needs of the mentally ill.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise tonight to speak to Bill C-54. Canadians expect that their justice system will keep them safe from high-risk individuals and that is why our government has introduced Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act.

It is paramount that victims' rights and public safety are balanced off with the decisions taken for high-risk patients who are accused of being not criminally responsible for their actions. Our government's intention is to strike a better balance between the need to protect society against those who pose a significant threat to the public and the need to treat the mentally disordered accused appropriately. Our government has always put victims first and we always will.

The timing of this debate unfortunately is late. Just last week in Manitoba, the Manitoba Criminal Code Review Board made a decision that I was extremely disappointed in when it granted increased community access for Mr. Vince Li.

As most of us will remember, Vince Li was on a Greyhound bus in Manitoba just outside of Portage la Prairie on July 30, 2008, when all of a sudden he started stabbing a young carnival worker by the name of Tim McLean. As the bus stopped and horrified passengers fled, Mr. Li went on to cut up Mr. McLean's body and ate parts of it. Vince Li told a mental health advocate that he heard voices, including the voice of God, telling him that Mr. McLean was an alien who he needed to destroy.

Vince Li was not found criminally responsible and was sent to the Selkirk Mental Health Centre in my riding. It was incredibly disappointing to hear the decision reached, because that decision did not put the victim's rights first and it definitely did not put public safety first, and I will speak to that in more detail.

As everyone knows from tonight's speeches, the not criminally responsible reform act, which we introduced on February 8, would do three main things.

First, it would enhance victims' rights and that includes enhancing the safety of the victims by ensuring that they would be specifically considered when decisions were made about accused persons found not criminally responsible.

Carol de Delley, who is the mother of Tim McLean, said in the Winnipeg Free Press on Monday:

I don't feel particularly safe or comfortable with Vince Li having these outings...I had the assumption before all of this happened that we all have basic human rights. So how come Timothy's aren't being considered here and only Vince Li's are?

She is concerned that now he has free and open access on the grounds at the Selkirk Mental Health Centre as well as escorted leave into Selkirk, Winnipeg, Lockport and the surrounding beautiful beaches on the south basin of Lake Winnipeg, she feels she may come into contact with him because she does not know where he is going. This is why it is important that there needs to be a non-communications order between an NCR accused and the victim as well as notifying victims when a not criminally responsible individual like Mr. Li is discharged so they can make plans as to where they are going to be in the community that day and avoid the happenstance of running into the individual who has harmed a loved one.

It is important that we put victims' rights first because the decision was just made in Winnipeg by the Manitoba Criminal Code Review Board did not at all consider the victim's rights or the family of Tim McLean. Both Tim's sister and mother read victim impact statements at that trial and again their considerations were thrown by the wayside.

The second thing the bill would do is put public safety first. Bill C-54 explicitly sets out that the public's safety is the paramount consideration in the decision-making process relating to accused persons found not criminally responsible.

This weekend at home I heard from constituents across the riding, especially constituents in the city of Selkirk, about how concerned they were that Mr. Li had free and open access to the grounds of the Selkirk Mental Health Centre, beautiful grounds, unfenced, right across the street the new public library is going up, just down the street is Walmart, Canadian Tire and Home Hardware. There is all sorts of activities happening around the mental health centre. He has the ability to roam those grounds and, without being monitored, easily walk off the grounds. Therefore, the public is extremely concerned.

It is not at all comforting for people to run into Mr. Vince Li when he is being escorted in the community. Even when he has a health care worker and a security guard with him, it is still disconcerting to see Mr. Li walk past the front of their home or to bump into him in a shopping mall. Although he has escorted leave, whenever I run across a murderer who is under the control and oversight of a security officer, I do not feel any more safe knowing that security guard is there. It is more troubling to see that level of security required for an individual to be constrained while he or she is out in public.

The third thing proposed Bill C-54 will do is create a higher risk designation to protect the public from those accused who are deemed not criminally responsible. Upon being designated as a high-risk offender by a court, that person 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. There needs to be that higher judicial oversight that does not exist with the review board process. It allows for access to treatment for any accused person deemed not criminally responsible, so it would not affect that. It also needs to propose reforms.

Earlier I heard the concern from the member for Halifax that this was not warranted. The constituents in my community want to see this bill go through as quickly as possible. In the case of Mr. Li, it is already too late. However, our mental health centre is one of the main health centres in Manitoba. It is located in Selkirk. The public is concerned about who else might be found not criminally responsible and end up housed there.

I also heard member for Saanich—Gulf Islands say earlier that this was completely unwarranted, that there was no need for it. I do not think we need to look at all of the cases as to why we need it. However, I want to draw to everyone's attention the situation of Andre Denny.

Andre Denny was detained at a secure hospital in Halifax in 2012 after a court ruled that he was not criminally responsible for a charge of assault causing bodily harm. Under this act, he would be considered a high-risk offender. As a teenager he was diagnosed with schizophrenia. The records showed that after the court verdict, he was agitated, argumentative and paranoid in hospital. Therefore, he was a problem patient. The hospital adjusted his medication, his condition improved and he was granted supervised outings in early February 2012, just over a year ago. Several weeks later, while on a one-hour pass, he failed to return to the hospital. He is now charged with second degree murder in the beating death of activist Raymond Taavel who was killed after he tried to break up a fight between two men outside a bar.

I do not think we need to argue about the need or talk about the conditions of individuals. I know that medication does not always work for some people who struggle with mood and personality disorders. Sometimes medication can amplify the problem or create other violent tendencies. Because of that, we have to err on the side of public safety and consider the rights of the victims and their families so they do not have to endure the long, drawn-out hardship of having these people in their communities, knowing that their loved ones are never coming back because of the very violent acts committed by those individuals who have definitely been found by the courts to have some form of mental health issue. At the same time, a very horrific and heinous crime has been committed and they feel there needs to be some justification for that individual to undergo the proper treatment under close supervision, putting the rights of victims and public safety first.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for my colleague.

Why is it that, most of the time, the Conservatives' bills are punitive rather than preventive? If we really want to focus on victims, why do bills such as this one not come with financial support for victims, for example?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, victims are not looking for financial help. They are not necessarily looking for increased punishment. What they are looking for is that their rights are respected, that they are put first and foremost in these decisions and that the memories of their loved ones are not insulted, like we just saw in Manitoba.

We want to ensure that we find a balance. We also have to look at the overall aspect, so we are putting, as a paramount decision, through the review board process, the victims' rights and public safety first and foremost.

If we talk to those who are impacted, some have had to go on long-term disability because of their own mental health after they lose a loved one. Our government has introduced a number of reforms to EI to help with that fact.

More important, they are not looking for those types of supports as much as they are looking to ensure public safety is put first and that their loved ones' memories are honoured.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, first, I really appreciate my colleague's presentation. However, I was kind of shocked when I heard the member for Halifax ask a question earlier. Her question was about why this was needed.

In the member's presentation, he talked about Mr. Denny, who is from the home riding of the member for Halifax. He is a perfect example of exactly why this legislation is needed. How can that member stand and ask why this is needed when a constituent of hers killed again and the victim would have been protected, probably, by a law like this?

I would like to ask the member why there is a disconnect, if he wants to take a guess, in the reasoning of this issue by the member for Halifax.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone who was a friend of Raymond Taavel—

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I was.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

I understand that. I am just saying that we cannot return that life. If this had been in place, it is very unlikely that Andre Denny could have done that heinous crime, that horrific second degree murder of Mr. Taavel. He was doing a lot of good in the gay community in Halifax. His family and his friends were devastated. I think we all saw the media coverage of that.

It always concerns us when somebody who is dealing with a mental health issue becomes this violent. However, for those individuals, like Mr. Denny, we have to take the measures possible to confine them and protect the public so these types of crimes do not happen.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I hear the dialogue tonight and I hear Conservative members defending the memory of Raymond Taavel from Halifax. I know the member for Halifax has raised this issue in good faith in the House.

First, we cannot bring someone back. Second, in this debate the Conservatives continue to demonize and stigmatize people with mental health issues, not to protect the public but to pit one group of Canadians against another.

Where is the member's passion to defend the rights of gay and lesbian Canadians? Where was it during the debate on same sex marriage?

While I thank the member for his interest in these issues tonight, I would ask him to actually consider his long-term perspective and his party's long-term perspective on these issues and not to use the memory of Raymond Taavel to try to take and defend a position that Raymond Taavel would find—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We are out of time. The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake, a short response.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not find our debate here at all divisive. This is a commentary about wanting to improve the system. I appreciate the work that Raymond Taavel did on behalf of the gay community.

If the hon. member wants to talk about divisive comments, what about the leader of the Liberal Party earlier this week talking about the rights of one region of Canada versus the other? Let us pit east against west. This is what we are hearing coming from the Liberal end of this House.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to Bill C-54. The bill amends the mental disorder regime in the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act to specify that public safety comes first in the decision-making process. The bill creates a mechanism for ensuring that certain persons who have been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder can be designated as high-risk accused. It also promotes the greater involvement of victims in the regime.

I will come back to the reasons why we must discuss the bill today. Recently, a number of very high-profile cases involving very serious offences, where the accused was declared not criminally responsible, have brought the issue to the forefront. In Quebec, there was the case of Guy Turcotte, a man who killed his two young children. This story shocked people, not just because of the violence of the act, but also because of the verdict. Even though this man obviously committed the act, he was declared not criminally responsible.

First and foremost, we want to determine how we can better help the victims in such situations. As with a number of other cases, the Turcotte case planted doubt in the minds of many people as to the effectiveness of the current approach to criminal responsibility. It is especially important to restore public confidence in the administration of justice.

According to his psychiatrist, the anger of a certain segment of the population with respect to this situation is due to a lack of understanding of how the mental disorder review board works. I would therefore like to make a few comments about the nature of the current process. First, we must reassure viewers by pointing out that the mental disorder regime in the Criminal Code applies only to a very small percentage of accused persons. It is not as if it applies to every accused person.

If an accused cannot understand the nature or the consequences of the trial and cannot communicate with his lawyer on account of a mental disorder, the court can find the person unfit to stand trial. Obviously, if that person can stand trial later, the case will be heard by a court at that time.

There is another possibility, but that would apply during the trial. If a person is found to have committed the act that constitutes an offence, but lacked the capacity to appreciate the seriousness of what they did, the court can make a special verdict of not criminally responsible. Note that they are neither convicted, nor acquitted.

A person found either unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible for reasons of mental disorder is referred to a provincial or territorial review board, which reviews the person's situation and can make one of three possible decisions: if the person does not pose a significant threat to public safety, an absolute discharge; a conditional discharge; or, detention in custody in a hospital.

Bill C-54 would amend the Criminal Code to clarify certain provisions in the mental disorder regime and make public safety the paramount consideration in the court and the provincial review board decision-making process. The bill would amend the Criminal Code to create a process for the designation of not criminally responsible accused persons as high risk where the person was accused of a serious personal injury offence and there is a substantial likelihood for further violence that would endanger the public. Those persons would not be granted a conditional or absolute discharge, which means they would be detained in custody in a hospital. The designation could only be revoked by the court following a recommendation of the review board.

A high-risk not criminally responsible 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. The review board may decide to extend the review period to up to three years for those designated high risk, instead of annually.

The bill is also designed to enhance the safety of victims by allowing them to be more involved in the process. It is designed to ensure that victims are notified, upon request, when the accused is discharged. It also allows non-communication orders between the accused and the victim and ensures that the safety of victims is considered when decisions are made about an accused person.

The NDP agrees that public safety needs to be protected, as long as the rule of law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are upheld. We believe that these changes are desirable, but we need to ensure that they will allow us to deal effectively with accused individuals who are mentally ill.

According to an estimate from the justice department, Criminal Code offences in Canada cost more than $31 billion. Of that, nearly half is directly absorbed by the victims. We are talking about more than $14 billion a year. That is huge. That is the cost of medical care, hospitalization, lost wages, school absences and stolen or damaged property.

In addition to the direct victims, people close to the victims also suffer harm. It is estimated that the various costs reach $2.1 billion for third parties. Those costs are even higher if we take into consideration intangible costs such as lost productivity over a lifetime, mental health costs, psychological effects on other family members and so on. We are talking about nearly $70 billion.

Each year, crime costs Canadian taxpayers' approximately $100 billion, although we need to remember that those are just estimates. However, they give us an idea of the impact that crime can have on society as a whole.

I would like to talk more about Guy Turcotte because his is probably the best-known and highest-profile case, at least in Quebec. As I was saying, Mr. Turcotte was found not criminally responsible by the court that tried his case. The review board decided that he could leave the psychiatric facility under certain conditions. The team of psychiatrists working on his case agreed. He is no longer sick or a danger to society.

His former partner, Isabelle Gaston, is still fighting to change the system. I would like to share her words with the House, as someone else did earlier.

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.

The NDP supports the aim and the spirit of this bill. That is why we will vote at second reading to study it further in committee. Still, some things need to be clarified. Even though we agree for the time being, we are concerned that the proposed changes might be mere window dressing.

Allow me to explain. The most significant change contemplated in Bill C-54 is that review boards will have to make public safety the paramount consideration in their decision-making process. The fact is, they already consider public safety, so I do not see what real difference this bill will make.

There are other legitimate questions we should be asking. Were mental health experts and other stakeholders in the system consulted, or did the government work with them to ensure that this new approach is the best one? Will the government set aside additional funding for the provinces and territories to cover the cost of the review boards' new responsibilities? I do not believe so. Will additional measures be implemented to support victims? We have not heard anything about that either.

Nevertheless, the NDP and I are open to the proposed changes. We will support this bill at second reading so that the committee can study it further.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to get up this evening on behalf of a mom who lives in a small town not very far from where I live. Her family was victimized. Her son was murdered brutally. Two young fellows murdered her son, Rob Vicente. He was shot twice in the head. Then he was taken, rolled out of a vehicle and shot in the head again. Then he was buried in the yard of the home of one of the murderers' grandmother.

The mom does not sleep. The family is having a very difficult time with the murderers getting off on second-degree murder. Living in a small community, they are very worried that these young people will come back.

How do we tell that mom that her story is not as important, that all the things that happened to her are not quite what we want to hear? These young people showed no remorse and the mom has to live with losing her son. What do we tell the mom that would assure her that these young men will never ever get out of jail?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning of my speech, there are some truly horrible cases like that, and this has caused the public to lose confidence in the justice system. That is one of the reasons why we want to support this bill, even though we think there are already safeguards in place against this type of crime.

Moreover, mothers like this one are victims and should receive assistance. Earlier I asked the Conservatives, twice, whether help would be provided to victims. Well, there is no such help.

If the government really wants to help this mother—and my heart goes out to her—something more than this type of bill is needed. This bill already covers most of the points made by my colleague.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question addresses just this point.

Given that the federal government's health transfers to the provinces have started free-falling, is the hon. member concerned that the provinces will not be able to meet victims' needs?

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

Mr. Speaker, obviously reduced funding will make it increasingly difficult to meet victims' needs.

A number of Conservatives said they consulted with the provinces. When I asked specifically what kind of consultations these were, I did not get an answer. I would really like to know—and I still have no answer on this—whether the government consulted with the provinces on the financial aspects of this issue.

Did the provinces, if they were indeed consulted, realize they had to bear all the financial burden, and if so, did they agree to this?