Debates of June 18th, 2013

Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it a bit rich that a member from that party is somehow suggesting we are not doing enough for victims. It would be funny, if it were not so tragic.

We do a lot for victims. We could talk about the victims ombudsman. We could talk about doubling the victim surcharge. These are just a couple of things off the top of my head. This party has put in significant reforms within the NCR regime to support the requests of victims, so that they are not revictimized by the system.

The Liberals are going to vote against this bill, which would enshrine significant rights for victims. I do not what the comment is about in saying “We're not supporting victims”, but they are going to vote against this legislation.

Yes, there has been a critic, and a good critic obviously, a former Supreme Court justice; however, I respectfully disagree. I think this bill is necessary, reasonable and prudent. Bill C-54 is a second check to make sure that we have things right. I do not see how it cannot be supported.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague in the Conservative Party, who is a very good member of the justice committee. I mentioned that to make sure people know that just because he sits on that side of the House it does not mean he is not a Conservative. In fact, he is more Conservative than many of us on this side of the House.

The member is good at reading legislation placed in front of a committee and challenging witnesses on statements. Why is it important to have the facts in front of witnesses, or a member of Parliament, when dealing with a legislative committee like the justice committee?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member has asked a good question.

I was exceptionally disappointed with the number of witnesses who came to committee to help us make our decision with respect to this legislation. It was clear that they had not read the legislation, or if they had read it, they did not understand it.

In my speech, I raised the issue of brutality. Members said that if it is brutal it is going to be high risk. That is not true. Members said we are going to put NCR accused people in jail. That is not true. They said we are going to mandatorily make these assessments go on for three years. That is not true.

The justice committee works very hard. We sat for extended hours to make sure we had as many witnesses as possible come forward and to make sure we looked at different ways to perhaps improve this legislation. However, the majority of people who had concerns or objections to the legislation did not seem to understand it or had not read it. That was disappointing.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of concern has been raised about the possible stigmatization arising from bills like this, so I think it is important to put in perspective the kind of numbers we are talking about.

There was evidence that in Ontario only 0.001% of those convicted of a crime are found not criminally responsible. That is about one in 100,000 people, and of those the recidivism rate is between 2.5% and 7.5%. For other people who are convicted of a crime, the recidivism rate is between 41% and 44%. For those who think this is about mentally ill people being the problem in society, the other 99,999 people who are before the courts do not have any mental illness. This is not really about mental illness. A very small percentage of people are involved, and a small percentage of them would be considered potential high-risk offenders.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hate to say it, but my colleague has made an excellent point. It is hard to give these praising statements. I have done it twice today, so it is a good day.

The member spoke the truth. First of all, the number of people who are NCR in the criminal justice system is quite small. Let us look at the other factors. First, a crown attorney has to bring the application. That is going to whittle that number down significantly, for the reasons I raised in my speech. Second, crown attorneys do not win 100% of their cases. Being the husband of a crown attorney, I wish they did win 100% of their cases, but they do not. That will whittle it down again, because the judge will determine whether or not the person should be high risk.

When we talk about things like stigmatization, it is not the case. I want to make it clear and have it on the record that this would not stigmatize mental illness. It would do the exact opposite because very few people are going to be designated as high risk. That means the Canadian public has no reason to fear people who are not designated high risk or to stigmatize them. They are not high risk. This legislation would destigmatize, not stigmitize.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord.

I rise tonight to speak in favour of Bill C-54 at third reading. I must say that from the day the government first announced its intention to introduce this bill, I have supported the bill in principle. I believe the matters we are seized with in Bill C-54 are very important, even though the number of individuals affected is very small.

The unfortunate incidents which have brought us to this debate tonight are obviously extremely wrenching for all the victims and their families, yet, at the same time, there is a real danger that the very small number of extreme incidents resulting from mental illness will cloud our collective judgment when it comes to addressing the broader issues of mental health in Canadian society.

I believe the bill we have before us today is a reasonably balanced bill. It is certainly not as good as it might have been, but it is better in some key ways than what was originally introduced.

To me, the most important improvement was the addition of an amendment proposed by the NDP to add a mandated five-year review of the legislation by Parliament. This is a very good way to make sure we have this right. We will look at it again in five years to see what the impacts have been.

However, the most important reason for supporting this bill is the significant progress it makes in enhancing victims rights, especially in the cases where the accused is found not criminally responsible for his or her actions.

I want to draw attention to four ways in which the rights of victims, and in particular their safety, are improved in Bill C-54.

The most important one is the entrenching in law of the right of victims, upon request, to be notified when the perpetrator is discharged. We have had one case when someone ran into someone in the community who they thought was still in custody. Obviously, that could be very shocking It would be upon request, but victims should certainly have that right.

Second is the provision to allow orders to be made that forbid communication between the perpetrator and the victim.

Third is the provision that adds a requirement for the review boards that makes these decisions about the release of perpetrators to consider the safety of victims when decisions are being made about the perpetrator.

The fourth major improvement, and again it was not in the original bill but was added via an NDP amendment, is the provision that is closely related to the first improvement. It would give victims the right to be notified of the address of the perpetrator if the perpetrator is released, thus making it less likely that they will have inadvertent contact with the perpetrator, which can obviously be very traumatic.

The second reason I have for supporting this bill is the fact that it now makes public safety the paramount consideration for provincial review boards in decisions relating to those found unfit to stand trial or found not criminally responsible for their actions.

The change here is that public safety becomes the most important consideration; it is not just one item on a list of considerations. Our criminal justice system always ought to function with public safety in mind, so these cases should be no different. We also need to remind ourselves that public safety, as the main priority, does not diminish our responsibility to consider these cases and to make sure they function within the bedrock of our legal system, which is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The third reason I have for supporting this bill is the fact that it creates a high-risk designation for those who are found not criminally responsible for the most violent incidents. I want to stress that we are talking about a very small number of cases where the perpetrator is found not criminally responsible. It starts with a small number of those decisions, and then there is a very small number among that group.

The definition that is provided in the bill is quite sound. It talks about applying a high-risk designation to those found not criminally responsible for serious personal injury offences where there is a substantial likelihood for further violence that would endanger the public, or where acts were so brutal as to indicate a risk of great harm to the public. We are not saying that all of those found not criminally responsible will end up falling into this high-risk category, but only those who provide a great risk to the public.

This is a designation that would be made by a court and that could only be removed by a court. The result of such a designation would be to deny granting unescorted absences from a secure health facility. It would place limits on the reasons for escorted absences. It would also provide the possibility, just the possibility, of lengthening the period for review of the status of the perpetrator from one year to a maximum of three years, again at the discretion of the court.

When we are talking about creating this high-risk designation, it is important to remember the context. When considering the case of someone found not criminally responsible, provincial review boards have three choices.

The board's first choice is an absolute discharge if the person does not pose a significant threat to public safety. This means release back into society with no restrictions or supervision. I emphasize that very few of those who are found not criminally responsible are granted an absolute discharge at their first hearing. This is due to the obvious necessity of taking time to allow therapy to work. In fact, at the annual reviews in B.C., only 18% of cases are granted an absolute discharge, while the rate in Ontario is even lower at only 5%. If we look over time, studies revealed that 35% of those found not criminally responsible spend more than 10 years in the system, so it is not true that those who are found not criminally responsible are released immediately as the system exists now. However, the change we would make here is to ensure that there would be additional consideration: a second set of eyes to look at those decisions when those high-risk designated perpetrators are considered for release.

The second choice available to the expert provincial review boards is a conditional discharge. Just as it sounds, this option allows a return to society under conditions which include things like specifying a place of residence, a treatment regime or reporting requirements. These are conditions very similar to those used in the parole system.

Finally, the third choice is to retain the perpetrator in custody in a secure health facility.

I know there are those who are very worried about the creation of this high-risk designation, but its importance here is the reassurance that it would offer to both victims and the public alike, as a person designated as high risk would not be eligible for conditional or absolute discharge until both the review board and the court are convinced that the perpetrator is no longer high risk.

There is no doubt that the current system has left the public and families of victims feeling exposed. This is true if we are talking about the case of the beheading of Tim McLean on a Greyhound bus in Manitoba in 2008, where the perpetrator was held in a facility where the grounds were not fenced, and was allowed out on his own onto those grounds very soon after the events; and where the perpetrator was allowed escorted absences that were perceived to be much too early and caused a very strong public outcry. Many people were not reassured by the explanation that the perpetrator was fine so long as he was taking his medications.

This reassurance is also needed if we are talking about a case like the three Schoenborn children who were killed by their father in B.C., again in 2008. His ex-wife was understandably concerned when the perpetrator was granted escorted absences in the same suburban Vancouver community where she lived.

From the moment the government introduced this legislation, I felt it would be in the public interest to adopt it in principle, and I believe we have had significant improvements at the committee level.

However, before concluding, I would like to take just a moment to address some of the concerns expressed by those opposed to the bill.

First, I would say there should be no confusion. This bill in no way would affect the availability or the use of the defence of not criminally responsible by anyone accused of an offence.

Second, I would say that I understand the concern that the focus on the most violent incidents involving mental illness may inadvertently contribute to the unfortunate stigma surrounding mental illness in our society. However, it is my hope that in fact this bill would accomplish the opposite by helping reduce the fears surrounding these extreme incidents.

Finally, I would say that I share the concern of all those who have pointed out the deficiencies in the way we deal with mental illness in our society, especially in terms of the lack of services and supports for those individuals and families struggling to deal with the impacts of mental illness on a daily basis.

In conclusion, I believe that in Bill C-54 we have before us a balanced bill, one that could have been further improved with the additional amendments that were offered by the NDP, but nevertheless a balanced bill. Most important, I believe that Bill C-54 would deal more justly with victims and their families in cases where the perpetrator is found not criminally responsible. We have a bill before us that would make it clear that public safety must be the paramount consideration in all these cases. Finally, we have a bill in front of us that would address those very few cases involving extreme violence and high risk of recurrence, and it would do so in a way that would ensure a thorough review of the case in order to guarantee public safety and to reassure the families of victims.

For these reasons, I will be supporting Bill C-54 at third reading.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is so often the case when Conservatives have brought forward so-called justice legislation that they get the balance completely wrong. They often take a hammer to a problem that is of small significance or has low numbers.

As it has been pointed out by my friend from Newfoundland, the actual number of Canadians that we are talking about in this case is incredibly small, yet these cases are important. They tend to be high-profile cases, often because of their violent or extremely violent nature in some regard.

I suppose what my friend has offered is that we do not want to sacrifice the good for the perfect. In seeking to find a way to better achieve the balance, we did not get all the way there, but we made a great stride.

In the general question about justice and how we write laws for that area, is this a good example upon which the government and opposition can build in order to strike a better and more equal balance with respect to things?

The fact that we are under time allocation on this motion does not speak to a lot of confidence on the government side that they do have the right balance. They have to invoke it so often. Today was the 50th time to shut down debate in Parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, yes, I think there is some irony that the government quite often will not take yes for an answer.

We worked together in committee. We had a lot more improvements that we felt could have been made to further defend victims' rights in this bill and to further increase public confidence in what we were doing.

What saved it for me was the willingness of the government to accept the five-year review. Parliament will come back and look at this issue again. As the member says, we are making an improvement and we are taking a step forward.

It is not a perfect bill, but having a five-year review by Parliament will allow us to look at this issue again and see if we have in fact done the right thing or if there is more we could do to improve the situation.

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

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am bemused when she says there is no empirical evidence of a need to do something with this bill. Has she not heard the voice of victims? Has she not seen the things that have happened with victims all across the country? I believe there is, in fact, a lot of empirical evidence.

I want to say again that this bill would actually help to reduce the stigma around mental illness by separating out these very few high-risk offenders who have committed what I would say are quite brutal acts. There is no way to describe a public beheading other than as “brutal”. It would also help assure the public that we have the measures in place to take care of those situations so that we can then turn our minds to the other mental health issues in society without being worried about these extreme cases.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his comments with regard to the case involving Tim McClean. Tim McClean's family is one that I am quite close to, and Carol de Delley will be very pleased to hear that the NDP member is supportive of this bill.

I want to assist my NDP colleague and friend by adding to the answer he just provided to our colleague from the Green Party. I remind her that the term "brutal nature" has in fact been interpreted to mean "conduct which is coarse, savage and cruel and which is capable of inflicting severe psychological damage on the victim...". That is from R. v. Langevin in the Ontario court of appeal.

I wanted to help my learned friend across the way from the NDP in answering that question and once again thank him for his comments with regard to protecting victims and supporting this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her comments. I struggled thinking about this speech and whether to talk about the individual cases of victims, because I know that it is often quite difficult for them to relive this over and over. My hope is that the use of these examples in the bill will help the victims' families feel that they have contributed something when we come to cases of future victims. I believe that they will make a contribution.

As when I talk about the criminal law, I rarely use the name of a perpetrator. I do not think that even in these cases perpetrators should become famous. It is the victims we should remember.

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

Mr. Speaker, before getting to the meat of this subject, I would like to mark a sad anniversary today. Earlier in the day, we had the 50th time allocation motion imposed on us, the 50th gag order. In this 41st parliament, Tuesday, June 18 is a sad anniversary.

I recall bills on which I would have liked to have the opportunity to make my contribution and to present a different perspective on the debate, one that came from the constituents in my riding, but I could not do that because, unfortunately, a time allocation motion was imposed and curtailed the debate.

I am sure that as many members on the Conservative side as on the opposition side have found themselves in that situation in various debates.

In terms of the present bill, I would first like to say that it has changed for the better as it moved through the various stages of the legislative process. That is why I am going to vote in favour of this bill. It is not perfect. We wanted to make amendments that were rejected, but we have still been promised that this bill would be reviewed in five years to see whether it is working, as we hope it will.

Public safety and the attention that victims of crime receive are issues that had to be dealt with. We succeeded in addressing issues relating to the real consequences of the proposed changes and were careful to listen to experts and victims.

Public safety has to be considered. I agree that it is essential to keep our communities safe. However, we need to make sure that we abide by the rule of law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We had to be sure that the way we manage the cases of accused persons with mental illnesses is effective in treating mental disorders. I would therefore like to congratulate the legislators who wrote this bill, but mostly those who amended it, on the job they have done.

Numerous witnesses were consulted during and after the committee’s study. We took the time to listen to victims, families and our communities. We were thus able to have the bill amended to reflect some of the testimony given in committee, and I have to say I am reasonably satisfied with the final result.

It is nonetheless important to recall that the rules in the Criminal Code regarding mental disorders apply to a very small proportion of accused persons. It is always worthwhile to listen to debate in the House and to be able to ask questions afterward, I would note in passing.

A person who is deemed unfit to stand trial or found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder must appear before a provincial or territorial review board, which decides on a plan of action. The person is therefore neither convicted nor acquitted. Once again, this is an extremely limited number of individuals. Some of them have not committed serious crimes.

Concerns had been voiced about the bill at first. We had to make sure that we did not exacerbate the public’s fears for no reason. We also had to be sure not to hinder the reintegration of individuals found to be not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. We undertook a proper examination of the Criminal Code provisions relating to mental disorders, an issue that is important to many Canadians. Some recent cases that received heavy media coverage have also cast doubt on the effectiveness of the current approach, and the bill fixes some of those flaws in terms of victims’ rights.

Bill C-54 also deals with victims’ participation in the process. The ideas put forward are taking us in the right direction. In the NDP, we wanted to know, before anything else, how we could assist victims in this process. One thing the bill provides is for victims to be informed when an accused is released and for the accused to be prohibited from communicating with their victim, and for the safety of victims to be considered when decisions are made about an accused person.

I have no problem with these proposals. However, I have to say that more will need to be done to assist victims. The Conservatives have often applied the same formulas in the past. They complicate the judicial system, but they do not offer assistance for victims.

This bill, at least, is a first step in the right direction.

What else can we do? Catherine Latimer, of the John Howard Society of Canada, asks that more programs and services be offered to the victims of sexual abuse. In her view, the government should invest more in crime prevention. Prevention is something that is often lacking in the Conservative ideology. I totally agree with her.

Every year in Canada, the total cost of crime is at or near $100 billion. This is a huge bill for our society. With regard to individuals declared not criminally responsible on account of mental disorders, it is important to work with key players, such as the Schizophrenia Society of Canada, in order to prevent crimes.

There are costs associated with any amendment. Once again, it is the provinces that will have to pay the bill. It must be said that under the Conservatives we have grown accustomed to seeing the bill passed on to other levels. They really like to pass legislation and then let others pay for it. They also like applying legislation according to their own ideology, without consulting the provinces. I am starting to wonder whether this is not a centralizing government after all. Perhaps the Conservatives are centralizers.

With regard to provincial prisons in Canada, the provincial and territorial governments are already forced to do what they can with the pointless reforms passed by the Conservatives.

I am not saying that any change to the Criminal Code is pointless. It is even necessary to have certain provisions, or at least consider them. In any case, I will be voting in favour of the bill. Nonetheless, certain changes made by the Conservatives have not improved safety in our communities. The only thing they have managed to do is to bog the system down even more.

Can the Conservatives tell us if they now have a financing scheme that will enable the provinces to implement the changes proposed in Bill C-54? I would really like to have an answer to this question.

It is necessary to make sure that the provinces and territories will never again receive a bill that they do not have the resources to pay. The government could thereby learn from its mistakes and at least accompany its reforms with compensation for the provinces. We can all agree that it is very easy to pass legislation when you do not have to pay to implement it. Basically, it is a simple matter of justice.

Over the past few months, the members of the NDP have spoken with experts on mental illness, victims, as well as the provinces to find it out what approach they think would be the best. We did not indulge in political games. We have concentrated on the most important thing, that is, on the study of the merits of this policy, a policy that, we must remember, must come with adequate funding by the federal government.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate the fact that public safety must be protected as a priority, with due regard to the rule of law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is also essential to consider the needs of the victims. The bill does respond to these concerns.

With regard to the elements that raise concerns and the amendments put forward by the NDP, including clarification of the term “brutal”, amendments that in any case were not accepted by the government, there is at least a guarantee that we will be able to study the bill again in five years’ time, when we will be able to see the benefits and the positive impact of the change.

The NDP is not unwilling to change. We have done our homework, and we have managed to improve the bill. I recognize how much work we put into studying this bill and this is why I will be voting in favour of it.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to questions and comments, I see the hon. House leader is rising on a point of order.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I would like to say that we have had a lot to thank the staff for here on Parliament Hill, particularly for the last four and a half weeks but also the entire session and entire time since the last election. However, the last four and a half weeks, with our working late hours past midnight just about every night, a lot of people have been putting in a lot of work, security staff and the like.

I would particularly like to point out this time of year the service provided by our pages. When the House rises for the summer, they will have completed a remarkable year that they have served with us.

Being a parliamentary page is a special honour. It is an experience for which pages get to go back and tell stories of for months, years, indeed, for much of the rest of their lives because the experience of being a page is a very special one.

However, I know there is life after being a page. We have within our caucus two people who are former pages. My wife was a page in this place some years before I was elected a member of Parliament. It is interesting to observe the now chief of staff to the current leader of the Liberal Party was a page in the same year. Therefore, there is indeed life after this remarkable experience.

We want to thank all the pages for the tremendous work they do on behalf of all of us here in the House of Commons, quietly and efficiently serving all of our needs here, and we appreciate that a great deal.

However, those “thank yous” being in place, I would now like to propose the following motion for consideration of the House.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for this motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder), be read the third time and passed and passed on division.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

The House resumed from June 14 consideration of the motion that Bill S-14, An Act to amend the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, be read the third time and passed.

Fighting Foreign Corruption Act

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, Bill S-14, An Act to amend the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, be read the third time and passed.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?