Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the official opposition is supporting this bill as is.
I read it carefully and studied it, and I still do not find that it achieves the right balance in its approach to the not criminally response system. There is currently no empirical evidence whatsoever that the system is not working for Canadians.
I am very supportive of the sections that give advance notice to victims. I think we could have done a better job of balancing the interests for victims' rights. At the same time, we did not need to include, for instance, the word "brutal". “Brutal” is now a word that would mean one or the other for the high-risk accused. If the crime committed is of a brutal category, even if it does not result in death or another serious crime, the brutality of the offence is in the act as a single reason to put someone in the high-risk accused category.
The word “brutal” has no definition in criminal law, nor does it have a definition in the field of mental health or in academic and scientific understanding. Therefore, it creates a vast uncertainty for people who might be assigned high risk accused.
I ask my friend about that weakness in the bill.