He is their lead critic.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 81% of the vote.
Safer Witnesses Act May 30th, 2013
He is their lead critic.
Safer Witnesses Act May 30th, 2013
What about your revenue critic?
Safer Witnesses Act May 30th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I accept your response in regard to the almost exclusive number of questions, but I would ask that they remain relevant.
What we are debating is time allocation on Bill C-51. On one hand, the NDP wants to talk about certain methods of moving it through when they want to expedite it and, on the other hand, now we are hearing about everything other than Bill C-51.
If we are going to have questions, then they should be questions in regard to the debate and to the bill we are discussing.
Safer Witnesses Act May 30th, 2013
What? Back and forth on that side. Is that the way we are doing this?
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to understand how the person who is debating will be going.
The Canadian Museum of History Act May 28th, 2013
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At this hour any movement is an effort.
I listened to the member's speech. Obviously, he has been an educator, not only in Nova Scotia, but my understanding is, although I do not know him really well, he was out west as well and he has taught across the country.
I wonder if he would just expand a little. One of the things I have tried to understand from what they are trying to do is how students from schools might now be able to take a field trip to a local museum that up until now, especially in the west, has had very limited artifacts. It would have artifacts about the west, but now some key Canadian national types of artifacts could actually show up in rural Alberta and rural Saskatchewan. How will this help teachers?
Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act May 27th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. Right now, our committee is travelling across the country and looking at best practices. Last week it was in Prince Albert, in Calgary and other places as well. Among the many things it has found is that we need a community reaction, not only a knee-jerk reaction, as someone earlier said, but we need to work with all the different aspects of the community, such as mental health, health care, the education system, all of those. We are seeing more and more where our government is working on strategies and plans to bring people together to prevent. This has come out in our committee. All members understand that.
Let me say what our government has done. When we were first elected in 2006, we created a mental health commission. It was not there before. We invested over $376 million in mental health research because we realized that it was not just about health care; it was about the justice system, public safety and all those things. We have continued to work with the provinces in areas where we ask how we can network better and find the therapy and help that these people need to prevent recidivism. That word, recidivism, is a big word when we deal with mental health.
Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act May 27th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, this type of legislation moves forward. We have been able to, first, address a situation and then our minister always works closely with his attorneys general in the many different provinces. There have been many different cross-country consultations.
A lot of the legislation comes from concerns that are brought to the government. It is not that the minister is sitting back thinking what we can bring forward on legislation. This is reactive to many different issues and to many different stories in the news. We see these are the issues about which provinces and people all across Canada are concerned.
Some provinces and territories expressed concern in the lead-up to this legislation that public safety was not the guiding principle and that more needed to be done around the area of mental health issues.
In our committee, we realize that our prisons are full of individuals who really need to have some type of help for mental disorders. Years ago, our provinces stepped back in some respect to institutionalization of some of these individuals. We find them in many of our prisons. We need to find ways that we can find the proper therapy for those who suffer from these kinds of illnesses, but we also need to make certain, as the provinces have expressed to us, that public safety remains the guiding principle.
Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act May 27th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the ability to stand in the House this evening to discuss this bill that has been brought forward through the justice committee. I have the privilege of chairing the public safety and national security committee. One thing that I think all of us realize is the number of issues that arise around mental health issues. We have seen in it in the news and at committee. We understand this is one of the issues we have to deal with.
This issue is not just of concern to members of Parliament. It is increasingly of concern to many Canadians. The question that lies at the heart of this bill is how to ensure public safety is paramount when decisions are made about individuals who have been found not criminally responsible for their criminal offences on account of mental disorders. This bill would amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act's mental disorder regime to ensure that public safety is the paramount consideration and that victims no longer feel left out of the process. The changes to the National Defence Act essentially mirror those being proposed in the Criminal Code to ensure that public safety and victim-related improvements also apply when dealing with individuals who have been found not responsible for offences within the military justice system.
I am going to focus my comments this evening on the elements of the bill that relate to victims. On the day the bill was introduced, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice emphasized that this bill aims to enhance victims' safety and involvement in the decision-making process. It is important to make sure that our laws reflect those objectives explicitly and adequately.
The victims of individuals who are found not criminally responsible are concerned that inadequate consideration is given to their safety by the review boards when a decision is made regarding a mentally disordered person who has been accused of a criminal offence. Victims have also raised concern about the fact that they have no way of knowing when an accused who is found not criminally responsible has been released into or given access to their communities. They are, therefore, afraid that they may encounter the accused person unexpectedly and without being adequately prepared. We know of the damage that can be done when those types of incidents take place, where the ones who have been victimized all of a sudden bump into accused persons at the neighbourhood grocery shop or wherever it may be in their communities. Bill C-54 would address these issues.
I am very pleased to note that Bill C-54 includes specific measures to better protect victims. The bill expressly provides that when a court or review board decides on a course of action relating to a mentally disordered accused person, the victim's safety would be taken into consideration. That is the first thing, that they view this through the scope of the victim.
In addition, the proposed reforms would allow the court or review board to order that the person found not criminally responsible abstain from communicating with the victim. We know of occasions where victims become re-victimized when alleged offenders or the ones not guilty because of mental disorders then begin communicating with the very people they have victimized.
In addition to the reforms relating to victims' safety, Bill C-54 proposes amendments to improve notification to victims and enhance victims' involvement. The bill provides that at a victim's request, he or she will be informed when a mentally disordered accused person is being absolutely or conditionally discharged.
Victims may also request to be informed of the holding of any hearing in respect of the accused, including hearings concerning any possible finding that an accused is high risk or revocation of such a finding. This bill would increase awareness to society, but also certainly to the one victimized.
Since some victims do not wish to participate in the hearings and thus relive the trauma of the incident, they have been given the choice of not requesting notice. However, again, the victim decides. It is up to the victims to choose whether they want to appear or be made aware of any of these requests.
The notice will enable victims to exercise their right to file a victim impact statement if they desire, for consideration by the court or by the review board, outlining the harm done to them or the loss that they have suffered.
I am very pleased to see how the bill adds to the government's many initiatives to meet the needs of victims. Since the federal victim strategy was announced in 2007, our government has supported many different measures to meet the needs of victims of crime, including enhancing the victim assistance program across Canada and increasing the capacity of non-governmental organizations to deliver victim impact statements or to deliver victims' services.
The bill is full of public safety measures to make certain that the guiding principle of protection of society remains the guiding principle. In addition the specific measures, I am pleased the bill includes that.
The Prime Minister stated on February 8, “Canadians want a justice system that puts the safety of our communities and our families first”.
The legislative amendments proposed in the not criminally responsible reform bill will clarify that the safety of the public is the paramount consideration in the court and in the review board decision-making process in respect of individuals found to be not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder or also if they are found to be unfit to stand trial.
The proposed bill will also amend the Criminal Code to create a process by which a court may find that a not criminally responsible accused is a high-risk accused. The court can make this finding with regard to individuals who has been found not criminally responsible for a serious personal injury offence where there is a substantial likelihood that they will use violence that they will endanger the life or safety of another person.
There are several effects of this high-risk designation. A high-risk accused would have to remain in hospital and a review board would not be authorized to order a conditional or absolute release until a court had revoked the finding.
Moreover, the review period for an accused found to be high risk would be extended for up to three years, whereas the general rule that a mentally disordered accused under the jurisdiction of a review board would have his or her case reviewed on an annual basis.
As well, the individual would only be permitted escorted absences from the hospital for medical reasons or reasons related to his or her treatment and in accordance with a structured plan prepared to address risk related to the mentally disordered accused absent from the hospital.
While the bill proposes to make important changes to the mental disorder regime, I feel it is incumbent upon me to point out some things that the bill will not impact. We have already had constituents call us in regard to some of these.
For example, the proposed bill will not impact in any way the access to treatment to which a mentally disordered accused has access. The bill will also not impact the location of detention for mentally disordered accused. They individuals would continue to be detained in appropriate mental health facilities and not in prisons.
The criminal law governing persons found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder is not well known. Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code comprehensively sets out the law and procedure governing persons found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder and those found unfit to stand trial. This regime provides for both the supervision and treatment of mentally disordered accused, as well as the protection of public safety.
Another point I would like to make in closing is that although Bill C-54 asks us to consider how to strengthen the law to ensure it protects Canadians from actual threats to public safety, this is not meant to suggest that all people who suffer from a mental disorder commit criminal offences and are dangerous. Some mentally disordered persons will commit minor offences, but others commit major violent offences.
The bill would help to address these issues. It is timely. It was learned over the period of time that we needed to make changes. It is good to hear that the opposition is supportive of these measures as well.
Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act May 27th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for bringing forward government legislation like this, government legislation we called for when we were in opposition, government legislation that would enhance victims' rights. I remember that as the official opposition, we talked about the protection of society being the guiding principle. It is here in this legislation. The high-risk offender designation is also included in this legislation.
Concerns have been expressed about the potential for day passes or even longer passes, in some cases. Mentally disordered accused could be granted out-of-hospital passes. These are people accused under the jurisdiction of review boards who may pose a danger to society. In at least one recent case, such an unescorted absence from the hospital led to the killing of an innocent victim.
Could the minister please explain to the House how the bill aims to prevent such tragic incidents from occurring in the future?
Safer Witnesses Act May 23rd, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his speech today and also for his service on the public safety and national security committee. The member for Compton—Stanstead has been there and has been contributing to the committee.
One of the issues that I know that our committee looked at when we dealt with this and did a study on it is the fact that other jurisdictions have something fairly similar in witness protection programs, including the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec.
I know that everyone in government is very conscious of infringing upon provincial jurisdiction on certain issues. I know that this government was also very cautious in how it approached programs like this one. We heard from all involved that all these jurisdictions were very supportive of the changes that were made here.
When we draft legislation, I think we want to draft is as perfectly as we can. In the previous speech, the question was asked, “Why did the former government not draft it perfectly”? As time goes on, we see ways that things can be changed. It was not against the legislation in the past, but those involved stepped forward and said that we could improve this legislation by doing these things.
Maybe this member of the committee would talk a bit about the provincial jurisdictions and how this would work hand in hand with his province, Quebec, and make the witness protection program even stronger. It is what law enforcement is asking and I think what all those involved are asking. He may want to elaborate a bit on that.