Debates of June 18th, 2013

Bill C-54—Time Allocation Motion

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Again, Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the hon. member that we introduced this bill in early March. This has been part of the public record and has been before Parliament since that time.

If members do not like a bill or do not want us to move forward in the justice area, I can appreciate that they would want to continuously debate these issues, but they have another five hours of debate after this has already been before the committee and debated at second reading. Most Canadians analyzing this would think that is pretty reasonable. Most Canadians would say that this is an important piece of legislation, making the protection of the public the paramount consideration when these matters are heard and better protecting victims in this country. Most victims would say to never mind last March; they wish we could have done this a long time ago. This is consistent with what this government has been doing over the last seven years.

Again, I urge hon. members to do the right thing by victims by supporting this bill and getting it passed.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for what he has said. However, I would also like to correct him when he says that debate serves no purpose.

I would remind the minister that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which includes Conservative members, accepted two NDP amendments. The first related to victims.

The minister says debate and conversation serve no purpose, yet we listened to victims, and they said they wanted to know about the intended place of residence of the accused. The government had to backtrack. It realized that its bill was incomplete, and still had flaws. It was because the opposition was able to look into this and listen to the experts and the victims that we were able to solve the problem.

We proposed other amendments for which we requested verification. We also asked the government to change its position. Unfortunately, it refused.

The government did accept another amendment so that the legislation will be reviewed in five years because, as noted, it still has many flaws. Moreover, there has not been much consultation, particularly with experts working in the field of mental health.

If the minister says that debate serves no purpose, why did the Conservatives accept amendments which resulted in a better bill for victims?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am all in favour of debate. What I have also said is that indefinite debate is not helpful in moving forward and making progress.

The hon. member made a very good point on the value of committees. The bill was before a committee, a couple of amendments came forward and the government accepted them. I hope that this pleases the opposition member. I have always said that if something makes sense, we should have it.

That is what committees are all about. They hear evidence, they analyze it, they look at the legislation and they come to a conclusion. They came to a conclusion and they made the motion for a couple of relatively minor amendments, but they are important amendments nonetheless. Yes, the government accepted that.

The system is working. This is why it is important to get this bill passed before the summer. We have listened to the opposition. We have listened to what has taken place in the debates. We have listened to victims groups, law enforcement agents and people across the country.

Let us move forward. This bill is important.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the observation made by my colleague from Ottawa—Vanier when he referenced an article from The Globe and Mail on the weekend about the Chief Justice. The article was on the issue of mentally ill offenders, and it said:

At least once a year, their status is reviewed by expert panels. After treatment, most of them return to society and resume normal lives. But under a federal proposal, it will become more difficult for those designated as high-risk offenders to be released.

Chief Justice McLachlin points proudly to a 1990 Supreme Court of Canada decision, R v. Swain, as the key move that created a new template for giving mentally ill offenders regular reviews.

“It said you can’t just lock up a person who has been found not guilty by way of their illness, and throw away the key,” she says. “That was the breakthrough.”

Endorsing the review-board system, she says: “The interesting thing is that the hearing process is staffed heavily by psychiatrists and I think it is well-supported by the medical side of things, by the police and by judges.”

At the ‘intake’ end of the system, however, Chief Justice McLachlin says offenders are too often warehoused...

The Chief Justice of Canada, who will likely be tasked with reviewing this legislation at some point in the reasonably near future, has said that the system actually works very well as it is.

Essentially, this is a reaction to an egregious set of facts and ultimately an attack on those who are the most vulnerable in our society, namely those who are mentally ill, dressed up in the name of victims. The ultimate irony of this entire process is that the victims who deserve every sympathy that we can afford them will actually be potentially victimized once more because of the system that the hon. Minister of Justice is proposing.

My simple question is to the Minister of Justice. Why will he not listen to his Chief Justice, who thinks that this is the wrong direction?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear on this. The bill is not directed at the vast majority of individuals who come before the review boards and are found not criminally responsible. It is directed in the sense that we will better protect victims, give them better notification and take their concerns into consideration.

I completely disagree that this is dressed up for victims. This is all about victims and better protecting them.

When we are talking about individuals who are found not criminally responsible, we are talking about a small group of individuals who have been accused of a serious personal injury offence. The court will make a finding of it. If there is a substantial likelihood that an NCR accused will use violence that would endanger the life or safety of another person, or if the court is of the opinion that the offence was particularly brutal so as to indicate a greater risk of harm to another person, then that person would be designated high risk. That high-risk designation would not only protect the public, but the individual as well.

That is one of the things that the hon. member did not mention. For the vast majority of individuals, there is a process in place. It goes through our courts and that will of course continue. I agree with that and I certainly support that.

However, this specifically addresses the issues of victims and those high-risk individuals who, again, are a risk to the public and to themselves.

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

Mr. Speaker, some of the comments that have been made would lead the public to believe the system has been radically changed because all of a sudden there has been a high-risk designation. The member previous asked a question about the timeliness of this and the failure to bring this through quickly resulting in greater victimization, greater harm to victims who had to go through a yearly process every year.

Could the minister comment on the fact that bringing this forth will somehow take away the victimization of victims having to go annually each year to hear the evidence again and relive the trauma of what has caused the death of loved ones. Would the minister agree with me that there is a compulsion to treat not only the victims by permitting them to heal by giving a longer period before the review of NCR individuals and also the treatment of the NCR period when it is found reasonably necessary to treat them for a longer period and lengthening the period of time before they are reviewed?

My point is that there is treatment not only for the victims who are permitted a cure and a longer period of time before the review and also a substantial period of treatment for a longer period of those who are found on the balance of probability need a longer period of treatment before they are reintegrated. The key is not being thrown away. We are giving them treatment. Would you agree with that, minister?

[The Deputy Speaker]

Again, I would ask all members to direct their comments through the Chair to the minister.

The hon. Minister of Justice.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am regularly in agreement with the hon. member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe. He is doing a great job, and continues to do, as my parliamentary secretary.

Again, getting these individuals the help they need is everyone's priority. These individuals come generally within the provincial health system. We want them to get the treatment. We want them to get the help they need so they are no longer a danger to the public or to themselves.

As the hon. member has pointed out, with the high-risk designation, the review period can be extended up to three years. Again, this works in everyone's favour to ensure the individual gets the kind of help he or she needs.

Anything we can do to reduce victimization ensuring that victims are notified upon request is important. There are some victims who do not want to have their name registered and be notified, but among those who do, we have to accommodate that so they do not find themselves surprised. They are not in a grocery store and see the individual who may have murdered their children or they see this individual in church or some other place. That is a re-victimization of these individuals. The efforts to contain that and to ensure those kinds of things do not happen are very important and should have the support of everyone in this chamber.

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

Mr. Speaker, seeing that the minister wants to address the substance of the bill, having been at committee when the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Sue O'Sullivan testified, I was surprised that among her many amendments that would have spoke to what victims wanted, so many of the measures were not included in Bill C-54. It was very clear from the victims rights groups that testified at committee. Most of them saw the very compelling need to ensure adequate mental health services, that we had more in place for prevention and that the not criminally responsible sections that were most important to victims were the ones about notification. These are not the ones who are most under assault by those who are expert in clinical psychology, forensic psychology, review boards and legal experts.

There was a way forward to respond to victims' needs and to also respect the system that, according to all the experts, was working well in the stream of not criminally responsible people who were then monitored closely. Why did the minister not pursue a compromise in which victims' rights and the rights of mentally ill people who found themselves in the NCR system were both respected?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, every aspect of this is very reasonable and supportable. We are making the protection of the public the paramount consideration. As has been pointed out, this is one of the considerations. We are saying, let us make this the paramount consideration to ensure that public and society is protected. We have focused in on a group of high-risk individuals. We have judicial oversight for that designation.

Again, however, she did address the whole question of victims and ensuring, for instance, that victims were notified upon request when an NCR accused was discharged. I do not think there is anything unreasonable about that. This is very important.

Allowing for non-communication orders between an NCR accused and the victim, again, makes a lot sense, ensuring that the safety of victims is considered when decisions are made in this area.

From the analysis of all this government legislation, taking into consideration and ensuring that victims are heard is the right balance. It is not just about the individual who has been accused. It is about public protection. It is about victims. We have to take these all into consideration.

Again, the Prime Minister has made it very clear that the rights of victims, what victims need, what they want, what they expect, what is reasonable for them under the circumstances, is, and will continue, to be a priority for this government. That is why we have included all those provisions with respect to victims. It is the right thing to do.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, it is a sad fact that we are here at this time speaking to another closure motion. This has gone on for a long time. It has become habit forming. The government is addicted to the process that it has created with the closure motions it has put forward.

Quite clearly, through the limited debate time today, many issues have been raised and have not been responded to fully. Are we going to get to those in the five hours? I do not think so.

What we see is a failure of the government to recognize the nature of its own addiction to its belief that it is right on all issues, that it is correct. Those things are very dangerous to our process.

Would the minister look into his heart and understand what he is doing by supporting these types of closure motions over and over again? What is he doing to this process we are in?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said that the process has made him sad. I would suggest he should be very happy about what we are accomplishing this afternoon. When he speaks with victims groups, they may ask him about the process. The processes are always important and I appreciate that. What he can say to those people is that they will feel much better about the fact they will be notified. Their interests will be taken into consideration. When a decision is made in this regard, the protection of the public, the society, will be the paramount consideration. That should cheer him up and all his colleagues when they have a look at this.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is now my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion 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 Deputy Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

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

Vote #760

Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

It being 5:55 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's order paper.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-452, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (exploitation and trafficking in persons), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Criminal Code

[The Deputy Speaker]

There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed without debate to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

moved that Bill C-452, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (exploitation and trafficking in persons), as amended, be concurred in at report stage.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

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