Guy Caron

[Intergovernmental Relations, March 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, why does the Minister of Finance not table—

[The Budget, March 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives rode into Ottawa on the great white horse of accountability, but ever since then, they have undermined the accountability process at every opportunity.

Two former senior civil servants with the Department of Finance have strongly condemned this government. The Conservatives have deliberately kept parliamentarians in the dark and systematically used the Access to Information Act to undermine transparency. They have done everything in their power to hide information.

With the next federal budget on the horizon, will the minister promise to reveal all of the relevant information, including detailed budgets for departments and agencies, and stop trying to hide information?

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, March 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very relevant question.

There are many aspects to consider. First of all, we need to ensure that the bill does not stigmatize people with mental illness. The committee and Parliament need to keep that in mind.

I cannot say much about prevention right now because of time constraints. I already mentioned the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, which treats people who were found not criminally responsible for their actions. It is currently operating at 104% of its capacity.

Without the necessary resources in place for prevention and treatment, this bill will be mostly a failure. That is why we are asking the government to give special attention to prevention and treatment when we debate the bill.

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, March 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am not necessarily aware of all of the cases outside Quebec, but I am quite familiar with the cases in that province. I can sympathize with the victims, because there are cases in Quebec that are quite similar in terms of the uproar they caused.

However, while it is important to hear from victims, to give them a voice, to meet their expectations through legitimate means and to make provision for this in the system, we must not lose sight of our duty as elected representatives. We must ensure that the bill contains adequate measures that can be properly incorporated into the Criminal Code. As such, we cannot move forward as quickly as the hon. member would like. The issue must be examined calmly and rationally to ensure that we do our job properly. I trust that is what the committee will do as well.

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, March 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the victims’ voices must indeed be heard. I am well aware of that. We support the bill at second reading. Moreover, I sincerely hope that when the proposed legislation is examined in committee, careful attention will be paid to what victims have to say.

To that end, the committee will, I presume, hear from many experts, from people who are in the system and from victims who will have an opportunity to voice their concerns. Certain provisions of the bill will ensure that victims will be better represented and served by the system. Among other things, it will be easier to obtain an order barring communication between the victim and the accused, when the latter is not criminally responsible, of course. For instance, injunctions may be issued or ordered. In addition—and this seems perfectly natural to me—the system will be able to contact the victim when the accused found not criminally responsible is released, with or without conditions, from an institution.

The philosophy behind these provisions seems reasonable to me, but I want assurances that this is not just a public relations exercise on the government’s part and that victims’ expectations and concerns will truly be addressed in the comments made and in the version of the bill that ultimately will be voted on.

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, March 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to discuss Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder) at second reading.

I am very pleased to be the first member to speak for the official opposition after our justice critic, who is also the member for Gatineau. She gave an excellent speech. I would like to talk about the aspects that I think are the most important in relation to the position we will be taking as the official opposition. Before going any further, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce-Lachine.

Basically, Bill C-54 presents three major amendments. The first is that the safety of the public will be the paramount consideration in the decision-making process relating to the accused or those found not criminally responsible for an offence. Second, it creates a scheme for finding that certain persons who have been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder are high-risk accused. Finally, the bill enhances the involvement of victims. The victim will be informed when the person found not criminally responsible for a crime against the victim is released. There may also be a disposition that communications between the not criminally responsible accused and the victim be prohibited. The bill also provides that the victim’s safety must be considered in decisions made with regard to the release of the person found not criminally responsible for a crime.

When we talk about making public safety a priority, we should point out something that is often ignored: the issue of public safety is already taken into account in decisions made either by a judge or by review boards. This includes cases involving mental disorders. This can be found in Criminal Code section 672.54, which provides that the courts or the review boards must consider the need to protect the public from dangerous persons. The mental condition of the accused, the reintegration of the accused into society and the other needs of the accused are also discussed. Therefore, the Criminal Code already has provisions that oblige the court and the review boards to consider the issue of public safety in the decisions they are making.

With regard to findings that certain accused persons are not criminally responsible but that they are high risk, a different category is proposed. Anyone who has been accused and found not criminally responsible may currently receive one of three verdicts from the court.

The first is an absolute discharge. Here again, the Criminal Code clearly states that an absolute discharge is given if the person is not considered to be a threat to public safety. This newly created category does not affect the matter of absolute discharge. There is also the possibility of a conditional discharge that includes a number of conditions. If a person found not criminally responsible is considered high risk, he cannot be given a conditional discharge. The third possibility, which already existed for not criminally responsible people who might be a risk or a threat, is detention in custody in a hospital.

So, ultimately, this new category of not criminally responsible but high-risk accused affects only one of three possible verdicts. Even before, a high-risk person could not get an absolute discharge and could be kept in custody in a hospital. Now, that person will no longer have the possibility of getting a conditional discharge.

The third question is an issue to which we are sensitive, and that is to increase victim participation in the process. Of course, in many cases, the mental disorder review board—I am familiar with the one in Quebec—must really think about the impact on the victim. We are concerned about this issue because there have been a few cases in Quebec, including one in particular to which the hon. member for Gatineau referred, which is that of Dr. Turcotte.

Before discussing this case, I want to mention a concern that we have, not necessarily regarding the bill and its content but, rather, the Conservative government's approach to these issues and, more specifically, this legislation.

There is really a desire to play political games for populist motives. I am concerned about the government's approach to this bill. We have known for a number of months that the government wanted to propose a bill to deal with accused persons found not criminally responsible. We knew that because the government had already announced its intention, last fall if I am not mistaken.

When it was announced that the Quebec mental disorder review board would conditionally discharge Dr. Turcotte, who was being detained at Institut-Philippe-Pinel, it generated debates, particularly in Quebec. Immediately, on the same day, the government held a press conference to announce once again that it would soon introduce this bill, which was still not ready or drafted.

Therefore, I am very concerned about this government's desire to make political hay with very important issues that should be dealt with in a responsible and reasoned fashion, with a cool head and without using very sensitive situations that stir emotions.

I say this as a person, as a parent, as a father of a four-year-old boy and a one-year-old girl who finds the crime committed by Dr. Turcotte extremely disturbing and traumatic. In that regard, I am thinking about my own children.

However, we are here to represent society and our constituencies. Despite the horror of the actions that are sometimes taken and highly publicized, we must deal with these issues in a reasoned way and with a cool head.

We have another problem, which is the issue of political gains. If this bill is passed—and it probably will, given the Conservative majority—the government could go everywhere in Canada, and particularly in Quebec with, among others, a well-known senator who often speaks for the government on these issues. That senator would meet with victims of acts committed by people found not criminally responsible and tell them that he listened to them and solved their problem. That is not really the perspective we should have on this issue. I am asking the government to be very careful in the way it deals with this issue, whether here in the House or in committee.

We do want to work and help victims be more involved in the process. They must see that the system meets their expectations and needs. However, we want to achieve that result in a balanced fashion that also meets the imperatives of our system, which is a system of law and order, a system based on the rule of law.

The hon. member for Gatineau, who is the justice critic for the official opposition, also mentioned the government's usual approach, which is of great concern to us and which we witnessed, particularly with Bill C-10. That was the omnibus crime bill that imposed a number of measures without consultation with the provinces and territories. Moreover, the government did not provide any impact studies on the ramifications of this bill, including the need for statistics.

For example, in this specific case, what are the recidivism rates? What are the numbers for crime and recidivism by accused found not criminally responsible? We do not have answers. The question was put to the Minister of Justice, but we did not get an answer. These are important issues that will have to be dealt with, and we want answers from the government on this sensitive matter.

In conclusion, I also asked the Minister of Justice if the provinces had been consulted to see if they were prepared to bear the costs. Again, I did not get an answer. There was no prior consultation on the issue of minimum sentences in Bill C-10. This bill will generate additional costs, not only for the system, but also for the institutions that must treat these people.

Let us not forget that, in Ontario, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health is currently operating at 104% of its capacity. If Ontario is not able to provide adequate resources, this bill will unfortunately fail to address a significant part of the problem.

I look forward to questions from my colleagues.

[Parliamentary Budget Officer, March 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the entire world is in economic turmoil. The eurozone is going through some tough times, the United States is on the brink of a sequester that could rock the North American market, and Canada's economic growth stagnated in the last quarter of 2012.

So what are the Conservatives focusing on? Going after the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who makes sure that Canadians know the truth about government finances. That is completely unacceptable.

When will they stop these attacks on the work and legitimacy of the Parliamentary Budget Officer?

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, March 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, we agree with the intent of the legislation. There are likely some important discussions to be had in committee.

I would like to ask the Minister of Justice about administration. The proposed measure will increase costs for the provinces, which are responsible for administering justice. Judging by what we hear from the justice department, the provinces will not be compensated.

Can the minister confirm that the provinces will not receive compensation for the additional costs that will be imposed on them for the administration of justice? Have there been negotiations and discussions with the provinces about that?

We were deeply troubled by that issue in the case of other bills, such as Bill C-10. I would like to know if that is the case for this bill.

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, February 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé to comment on the process used at committee stage.

Of the nineteen witnesses who appeared before the committee, twelve had been called by the Conservatives and only seven by the opposition. The first of the seven opposition witnesses was not heard until the fourth meeting. As a result, most of the opposition witness testimony was squeezed into the last meeting. The Conservative majority on the committee also forced the opposition to table its amendments by 3:30 p.m. on that same day, the day of the last meeting.

Since some questions from the government side implied that they were right and we were wrong, could my colleague comment on the process the Conservative majority chose to use at committee stage?

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, February 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned in her speech the importance of the change in culture within the RCMP that we hoped to see effected, or at least addressed, by this bill.

At committee stage, an NDP amendment I find particularly interesting was rejected by the Conservatives, with no debate or discussion. It involved adding mandatory harassment training for RCMP members to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. I find it absurd, in fact, that such training is not systematically provided.

I would like to hear my colleague’s comments on the impact mandatory training for RCMP members would have in terms of the cultural change we of the NDP are calling for.