Paul Devillers

[Committees of the House, November 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

The committee reviewed the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2005, and submits its report without amendment.

[Committees of the House, November 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

In accordance with the order of reference of Friday, October 15, 2004, your committee has considered Bill C-6, an act to establish the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and to amend or repeal certain acts and, as agreed on Wednesday, November 3, 2004, to report it with amendments.

[Petitions, October 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present a petition signed by approximately 50 constituents in my riding of Simcoe North.

They are petitioning Parliament to pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Criminal Code, October 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak to Bill C-10, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to the mental disorder provisions. I am sure, with my close proximity to the Chair, I will be able to garner your undivided attention.

This is an issue that is not unfamiliar to me in my professional capacity. The Oakridge division of the mental health centre is in my home town of Penetanguishene in the proud riding of Simcoe North. It is an issue that I have dealt with considerably in my previous life.

It is also a long-standing principle of our criminal law that persons who suffer from mental disorders do not understand the nature or quality of their acts or know that they are wrong should not be held criminally responsible.

In 1991, this Parliament implemented significant changes to modernize the act governing persons found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. The 1991 updates reflected the need to strike a balance between the rights of persons with mental disorder and the protection of public safety.

The updates contained in Bill C-10 share the same goals as those made in 1991. These changes seek to strike a balance between the rights of persons with mental disorder who come in conflict with the law and maintaining public safety.

It is also worth noting that the 1991 amendments called for a parliamentary review of the legislation five years following the proclamation. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights conducted the required review of the legislation in the spring of 2002, as we have already heard.

The committee review was thorough and comprehensive. Thirty stakeholders made oral or written submissions, including members of the Bar and Crown attorneys, psychiatric hospital administrators, review board chairpersons, service providers and mental health advocates.

It is fair to say in general that witnesses who appeared before the committee agreed that the legislation was working very well. However, they emphasized that further refinements were needed to ensure that the law continued to work well to govern persons found unfit to stand trial and not criminally responsible on account of mental disorders.

In June 2002, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights produced a report containing several recommendations, such as legislative modernization and other initiatives. The report described the need for this modernization and, in some cases, suggested specific amendments.

The standing committee report included 19 different recommendations and these key recommendations for the Criminal Code reform called for: more powers for review boards which are responsible for the monitoring and reviewing of the condition of the accused; the repeal of parts of the 1991 regime that were never proclaimed into force, including the capping provisions; streamlining the transfer of accused persons between provinces and territories; new provisions to deal with persons who are permanently unfit to stand trial; and enhanced protection for victims of crime who attend before review board hearings, for example, publication bans on the identities of these witnesses in appropriate cases and the opportunity to prepare and read a victim impact statement.

The committee also made recommendations calling for more indepth research and consultation on emerging issues, such as the appropriate standard to determine the fitness to stand trial and whether professionals other than psychiatrists should conduct these assessments. Consultations with the provincial and territorial ministers of health were also recommended to review the resources available to meet the needs of mentally disordered accused and the availability of facilities for youth.

The standing committee's thorough review of the mental disorder provisions has led to the groundwork of these reforms. Bill C-10 reflects the advice and guidance provided by the committee and all those who appeared before the committee. Bill C-10 also includes additional and necessary reforms that the committee did not specifically recommend but that complement the committee's recommendations and also reflect issues highlighted in the case law and in consultations conducted by the Department of Justice with key stakeholders over the last 10 years.

The provisions of Bill C-10 that are worth noting are very consistent with the recommendations of the committee and they deal with the new powers for the review board that exist in each province and territory to make important decisions governing mentally disordered and unfit accused. For example, review boards will be able to order an assessment of the mental condition of the accused to assist them in making the appropriate disposition for the accused, whether the accused should be discharged, held in custody in a hospital or discharged with conditions.

Other provisions are the new authority for the courts to determine whether a judicial stay of proceedings should be ordered for a permanently unfit accused who does not pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. Victim impact statements are to be read aloud by victims at review board hearings. Transfer provisions have been streamlined to permit safe and efficient transfer of a person found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder or who is unfit for transfer from one province or territory to another. There are more options for the police to enforce disposition orders and assessment orders that take into account the need for the accused's treatment to continue. The provisions of the 1991 law that were never proclaimed, which include the capping with related dangerous mentally disordered accused provisions and hospital order provisions, have been repealed. Finally, there is a range of clarifying and procedural amendments to ensure the effective application of the goals of the law.

The bill is not a whole scale reform of the law. Rather the bill is the next step in ensuring that our laws are effective, efficient and fair in governing mentally disordered accused. These reforms are necessary and the provisions of the code have remained the same since 1991, but the case law has evolved, as has the application of the code.

The Supreme Court of Canada has stated in several recent cases, including Winko and Tulikorpi, that the code regime has two goals: protection of the rights of the mentally disordered accused, and protection of public safety. Punishment is not one of the goals because, as I indicated earlier, our law does not hold the mentally disordered accused criminally responsible.

Recently the Supreme Court of Canada held, in Demers, that our law must provide for an accused who will never be fit to stand trial and who does not pose a significant threat to public safety to have criminal proceedings terminated. Bill C-10 includes a carefully crafted approach to ensure that a court may grant a judicial stay of proceedings for a permanently unfit accused who is not dangerous, but public safety and other relevant factors must be considered. The need for these amendments was canvassed by the committee and has been confirmed and made necessary by the decision of the Supreme Court in Demers.

I expect that the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Civil Protection of the House of Commons will be able to consider this bill rapidly and I certainly hope that it will support these amendments so that members of the former Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Civil Protection can see the implementation of their recommendations.

The ultimate goal of this bill is a speedy ratification by this House and I wish that all members will support the amendments.

[Criminal Code, February 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on this private member's bill, Bill C-393, an act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the offence of break and enter.

The government could not be more serious about its role in ensuring the protection of the public and providing for a fair and effective criminal justice system. In recognition of this fundamental and essential responsibility, all aspects of the system are under constant and rigorous review by the government.

However, careful consideration of the bill before us reveals that although well intended, the proposal would not render the criminal justice system any more effective, nor would it serve to further the protection of the public.

The stated purpose of the bill is to amend the Criminal Code to provide for the imposition of a mandatory minimum period of imprisonment of two years upon a second or subsequent conviction for the offence of breaking and entering, where the offence was committed in relation to a dwelling house.

I am certain that all members of the House share the concerns of the hon. member for Calgary East, which motivated him to introduce Bill C-393, and sincerely empathize with the victims of the offence of breaking and entering. Even those who have not been personally affected by an offence of this nature are capable of imagining the feelings of loss, violation and fear that victims suffer as the result of what is technically categorized as a property offence. This is a crime that can severely affect a victim's basic sense of security.

The existing provisions of the Criminal Code already clearly reflect the government's view of the gravity of the crime of breaking and entering and its effect on victims. Indeed, the view is significantly reflected by the fact that subsection 348(1)(d) of the Criminal Code provides for a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. It can hardly be said that the penalty for this offence is insufficient when it is the most severe sentence available under criminal law.

The hon. member for Calgary East now proposes to impose a mandatory minimum period of imprisonment of two years for those convicted of a second or subsequent conviction for the offence of breaking and entering where the offence was committed in relation to a dwelling house.

However, mandatory minimum sentences have not been shown to have a positive impact on crime rates in the great majority of cases. In fact, mandatory minimums are completely contrary to the notion of effective corrections, which relies on individualized assessment of risk and needs and to the basic statutory principles of sentencing. The unintended side effect of mandatory minimum sentences includes increased federal incarceration rates, associated increases in costs, system dysfunction and reduced safety and increased disparity.

Limiting judicial discretion by providing for the imposition of the mandatory minimum sentence for an offence can be seen as inconsistent with section 718.1 of the Criminal Code. This important section provides that every “sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender”. In other words, justice is best served when the judiciary has the necessary discretion to determine which sentence best fits the particular crime and offender.

As well, paragraph 718.2(d) of the code states that “an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances”. A key element of effective sentencing and corrections is distinguishing between offenders who need to be separated from society and those who can be safely and better managed in the community. Reducing or removing discretion makes the criminal justice system more arbitrary and expends resources unnecessarily on incarceration when other measures can be less expensive and more effective.

In the United States, there is now a movement away from strict sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimum sentences. This movement includes Justice Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court and has even led several noted jurists to resign from the bench.

Justice Kennedy has stated:

I can accept neither the necessity nor the wisdom of federal mandatory minimum sentences. In all too many cases, mandatory minimum sentences are unjust.

As the mandatory minimum penalty proposed by the bill before the House today is two years, this would result in virtually all individuals convicted of breaking and entering in relation to a dwelling house being incarcerated in federal penitentiaries as opposed to provincial facilities, where the majority is now incarcerated. This could result in offenders being placed in correctional facilities that are not suited to their needs and the risk they pose to society.

The proposal submitted by the hon. member for Calgary East is apparently motivated in part by his concern about criminal acts known as home invasions, a concern shared by all members of the House. Home invasion crimes have been the subject of much analysis and consultation by the Department of Justice. This matter was addressed as part of Bill C-15A, which received royal assent on June 4, 2002.

As a result of that legislation, the Criminal Code now provides that home invasion is an aggravating factor in sentencing for certain offences. A court sentencing a person for unlawful confinement, robbery, extortion or break and enter would have to consider it an aggravating circumstance that the offence was committed in an occupied dwelling where the offender was either aware that it was occupied or was reckless in this regard, and where he or she used violence or threats of violence against a person or property. In other words, the presence of any of these factors would justify the imposition of a harsher sentence.

Recent court judgments indicate that the judiciary is taking heed of this important amendment to the Criminal Code and is indeed imposing more serious sentences in home invasion cases. For example, soon after this amendment came into force, the British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld a ten year sentence in a home invasion case. The hon. member read a letter from someone saying that the most severe penalty they had heard of was three years, but here is one for ten years.

Honourable Mr. Justice Hall, speaking for the court, said it must be made clear that those who engage in planned home invasions will, upon conviction, face significant penalties. Justice Hall suggested that a sentence in the range of eight to twelve years should be generally considered appropriate in this class of case.

Similarly, in June 2003, the New Brunswick Provincial Court sentenced an offender to seven years' imprisonment in relation to a home invasion. The trial judge stated that a lengthy sentence was necessary in light of the severity of the offence.

The application of the fundamental principles of sentencing and the taking into account of mitigating and aggravating factors allow the courts to arrive at fit sentences such as these. This is the way sentence determination should be carried out, not through the mechanical process proposed in Bill C-393.

Although the hon. member is well intentioned, the proposal in the bill would make the justice system more arbitrary, fetter judicial discretion, and increase federal incarceration costs. Equally important, it would not improve the protection of society.

The government is fully committed to improving public protection. This will continue to be a key priority of the government. However, Bill C-393 falls short of this important objective and therefore, in our opinion, should not be supported.

[Petitions, February 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the pleasure to present a petition from constituents of the riding of Simcoe North.

The petitioners urge Parliament to pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Sport and Physical Activity, February 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, sport and physical activity are important to our country and offer significant ways for Canadians to participate in their communities and society.

Sport and physical activity are effective vehicles for social change, and participation in sport and physical activity can improve the health of Canadians and reduce health care costs.

Sport and physical activity transcends party lines. That is why this week, at the request of the Minister of State for Sport and at the instigation of the group, Sport Matters, the All Party Sport and Physical Activity Caucus was formed. One of the goals of this caucus is to raise the profile of sport and physical activity.

I was appointed chair of this informal all party caucus on sport and physical activity and, at our next meeting, I intend to ask the caucus to confirm the member for Longueuil as our deputy chair.

I invite all members of the House and the Senate to participate in this important caucus to ensure the well-being of Canadians.

[Mike Weir, February 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Ontario's Mike Weir won the Nissan Open at the Riviera Golf Club in Los Angeles yesterday, joining Ben Hogan and Corey Pavin as the only golfers to win consecutive Nissan Opens.

It was an exciting finish with Mike tied for the lead with only one hole remaining in regulation. In the pouring rain, Mike pulled out an even par round of 71 to win the tournament.

With this win Mike rises to number four in the official world golf ranking. The 33 year old was named Canadian Tour rookie of the year in 1993 and rose through the ranks to win the Masters just 10 years later.

Now, well established among the best golfers of the world, Mike is establishing himself as the best left-handed golfer ever.

I would like to extend my congratulations, along with those of the residents of Simcoe North, and indeed of all Canadians to Mike Weir on his success.

We say congratulations to Mike and tell him to keep up the good work.

[Skate Canada Junior Nationals, February 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to congratulate the gold medal winners of the Bank of Montreal Skate Canada Junior Nationals held recently in Ottawa.

The winners in the individual category were: Amanda Valentine of Ontario for novice women; Patrick Chan of Ontario for novice men; Jeremy Ten of British Columbia for pre-novice men; Natalie Kwong of Ontario for pre-novice women; Ronald Lam of British Columbia for juvenile men; and Karel Di Bartolo of Quebec for juvenile women.

The winners in pairs were: Sarah Burke and Eric Radford of Ontario for novice; Kyra and Dylan Moscovitch of Ontario for pre-novice; and Katherine and Alexandre Pigeon of Quebec for juvenile.

The winners in dance were: Andrea Chong and Spencer Barnes of Ontario for novice; Joanna Lenko and Mitchell Islam of Ontario for pre-novice; and Katherine Fenscke and Martin Nickel of Manitoba for juvenile.

These young Canadian athletes have brilliantly struggled to find the support needed to pursue and achieve their goals of athletic excellence.

Also worthy of commendation for their contributions to the competition, along with all volunteers, are Leslie Jeneau, Kay Bierko and coach Christine McBeth.

[Criminal Code, September 29th, 2003]

moved that Bill C-46, an act to amend the Criminal Code (capital markets fraud and evidence-gathering), be read the second time and referred to a committee.