JUST Committee Meeting

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met in a televised session at 3:45 p.m. this day, in Room 253-D, Centre Block, the Chair, Mike Wallace, presiding.

Thomas Frederick Shreeve, Susan O'Sullivan, Richard D. Schneider and Bernd Walter made statements and answered questions.

At 4:43 p.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 4:45 p.m., the sitting resumed.

Christine Russell, Mike McCormack and Heidi Illingworth made statements and answered questions.

At 5:15 p.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 5:45 p.m., the sitting resumed.

The Committee proceeded to the consideration of matters related to Committee business.

It was agreed, — That a proposed budget in the amount of $32,400, for the study of Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder), be adopted.

At 6:15 p.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 6:25 p.m., the sitting resumed.

Pursuant to the Order of Reference of Tuesday, May 28, 2013, the Committee resumed consideration of Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder).

The Committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.

Carole Morency and Julie Besner answered questions.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of Clause 1, Short Title, was postponed.

The Chair called Clause 2.

Clause 2 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 4.

Clause 3 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 4.

Clause 4 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

Clause 5 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

Clause 6 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

After debate, by unanimous consent, Clause 7 was allowed to stand.

Clause 8 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

On Clause 9,

“taking into account, on the basis of medical evidence and expert testimony, the safety of the public,”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Irwin Cotler and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 6.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on the previous amendment be applied to the following amendment which is therefore also negatived:

“shall, taking into account, on the basis of medical evidence and expert testimony, the safety of the”

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, June 10, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-54, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing lines 35 to 40 on page 4 with the following:

“the mental condition of the accused person, the reintegration of the accused person into society and the other needs of the accused person, make one of the following dispositions that is the least restrictive and least onerous to the accused person:”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was contrary to the principle of the Bill, as provided on page 766 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.

Whereupon, Elizabeth May appealed the decision of the Chair.

The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the decision on the admissibility of the previous amendment be applied to the following seven (7) amendments:

That Bill C-54, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing line 39 on page 4 with the following:

“dispositions that is the least restrictive and least onerous in”

That Bill C-54 be amended by adding after line 40 on page 4 the following new clause:

“9.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 672.54:

672.54001 Any disposition or order of a Review Board must both respect the public safety consideration mentioned in section 672.54 and be the least onerous and least restrictive to the accused.”

That Bill C-54, in Clause 22, be amended by replacing line 38 on page 11 to line 3 on page 12 with the following:

“public, the mental condition of the accused person, the reintegration of the accused person into society and the other needs of the accused person, make one of the following dispositions that is the least restrictive and least onerous to the accused person:”

That Bill C-54, in Clause 22, be amended by replacing lines 2 and 3 on page 12 with the following:

“one of the following dispositions that is the least restrictive and least onerous in the circumstances:”

That Bill C-54, in Clause 24, be amended by replacing lines 25 to 30 on page 12 with the following:

“public, the mental condition of the accused person, the reintegration of the accused person into society and the other needs of the accused person, make one of the following dispositions that is the least restrictive and least onerous to the accused person:”

That Bill C-54, in Clause 24, be amended by replacing line 30 on page 12 with the following:

“the least restrictive and least onerous in the circumstances:”

That Bill C-54, in Clause 25, be amended by adding after line 26 on page 14 the following:

“(6.1) Any disposition or order of a court martial must both respect the public safety consideration and be the least onerous and least restrictive to the accused person.”

Clause 9 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

On Clause 10,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, June 10, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-54, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 45 on page 4 to line 5 on page 5 with the following:

“public means a real and substantial risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public that is serious and that results from conduct that is criminal in nature.”

Debate arose thereon.

The question was put on the amendment and it was negatived to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on the previous amendment be applied to the following three (3) amendments which are therefore also negatived:

“public means a real and substantial risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public — including any victim of or witness to the offence, or any person under the age of 18 years — resulting from conduct that is criminal in nature.”

That Bill C-54, in Clause 21, be amended by replacing lines 26 to 31 on page 11 with the following:

“means a real and substantial risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public that is serious and that results from conduct that is criminal in nature.”

That Bill C-54, in Clause 21, be amended by replacing lines 26 to 31 on page 11 with the following:

“means a real and substantial risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public — including any victim of or witness to the offence, or any person under the age of 18 years — resulting from conduct that is criminal in nature.”

“672.543 For greater certainty, every decision by a court or Review Board under this Act that relates to a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder must accord with the principles that the accused who has been declared not criminally responsible is to be treated with the utmost dignity and afforded the utmost liberty compatible with his or her situation, and is not to be punished or left to languish in custody.”

Debate arose thereon.

The question was put on the amendment of Irwin Cotler and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on the previous amendment be applied to the following amendment which is therefore also negatived:

“202.203 For greater certainty, every decision by a court martial or Review Board under this Act that relates to a finding of not responsible on account of mental disorder must accord with the principles that the accused person who has been so declared is to be treated with the utmost dignity and afforded the utmost liberty compatible with his or her situation, and is not to be punished or left to languish in custody.”

Clause 10 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

Clause 11 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

On Clause 12,

“(b) the court is of the opinion that there is a substantial likelihood of an immediate and serious risk of psychological harm to another”

Debate arose thereon.

The question was put on the amendment of Irwin Cotler and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on the previous amendment be applied to the following amendment which is therefore also negatived:

“(b) the court martial is of the opinion that there is a substantial likelihood of an immediate and serious risk of psychological harm to another”

Debate arose thereon.

The question was put on the amendment of Irwin Cotler and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on the previous amendment be applied to the following two (2) amendments which are therefore also adopted:

That Bill C-54, in Clause 25, be amended by deleting lines 33 to 37 on page 13.

“that constitute the offence were in the nature of a serious personal injury offence within the meaning of subsection 672.81(1.3) and indicate a future risk of grave physical or psychological harm to another person.”

Debate arose thereon.

The question was put on the amendment of Hoang Mai and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on the previous amendment be applied to the following amendment which is therefore also negatived:

“acts that constitute the offence were in the nature of a serious personal injury offence within the meaning of subsection 672.81(1.3) and indicate a future risk of grave”

“(1.1) For the purpose of paragraph (1)(b), in respect of a serious personal injury offence, an act of violence that is out of the ordinary due to its exceptionally cruel and savage character is an act of brutal nature.”

Debate arose thereon.

The question was put on the amendment of Irwin Cotler and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on the previous amendment be applied to the following amendment which is therefore also negatived:

“(1.1) For the purpose of paragraph (4)(b), in respect of a serious personal injury offence, an act of violence that is out of the ordinary due to its exceptionally cruel and savage character is an act of brutal nature.”

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, June 10, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-54, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing lines 8 to 18 on page 7 with the following:

“consider all relevant evidence.”

Debate arose thereon.

The question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 6.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on the previous amendment be applied to the following amendment which is therefore also negatived:

“martial shall consider all relevant evidence.”

“(e) the opinions of medical experts who have exam-”

Debate arose thereon.

The question was put on the amendment of Irwin Cotler and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on the previous amendment be applied to the following amendment which is therefore also negatived:

“(e) the opinions of medical experts who have exam-”

“(f) resources and other supports available to the accused that, if he or she were to be released, would mitigate the risk posed to the public or ensure compliance with any treatment plan.”

Debate arose thereon.

The question was put on the amendment of Irwin Cotler and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on the previous amendment be applied to the following amendment which is therefore also negatived:

“(f) resources and other supports available to the accused person that, if he or she were to be released, would mitigate the risk posed to the public or ensure compliance with any treatment plan.”

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, June 10, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-54, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing lines 25 to 32 on page 7 with the following:

“(a) the Review Board determines that it is appropriate, based on all available evidence, for the accused to be absent from the hospital for medical reasons or for any purpose that is necessary for the accused's treatment, if the accused is escorted by a person who is authorized by the Review Board; and”

Debate arose thereon.

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided on page 766 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the decision on the admissibility of the previous amendment be applied to the following two (2) amendments:

That Bill C-54, in Clause 12, be amended by adding after line 36 on page 7 the following:

“(3.1) The court may, at any point in a hearing under this section, refer to a Review Board under subsection 672.47(1), the determination, in accordance with the parameters, considerations and restrictions set out in this section, of whether the accused is a high-risk accused.”

That Bill C-54, in Clause 12, be amended by adding after line 36 on page 7 the following:

“(3.1) The court may, at any point in a hearing under this section, refer to a Review Board under subsection 672.47(1), the determination, in accordance with the parameters, considerations and restrictions set out in this section, of whether the accused is a high-risk accused.”

“(6) For greater certainty, the high-risk designation does not create a presumption of dangerousness and does not impose a burden of proving lack of dangerousness on the accused not criminally responsible.”

Debate arose thereon.

The question was put on the amendment of Irwin Cotler and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on the previous amendment be applied to the following amendment which is therefore also negatived:

“(6.1) For greater certainty, the high-risk designation does not create a presumption of dangerousness and does not impose a burden of proving lack of dangerousness on the accused person who is found not criminally responsible.”

“(6) If an application under subsection (1) has been decided, no subsequent application in respect of the accused with regard to the same offence may be brought under this section.”

Debate arose thereon.

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was contrary to the principle of the Bill, as provided on page 766 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the decision on the admissibility of the previous amendment be applied to the following amendment:

That Bill C-54, in Clause 25, be amended by adding after line 11 on page 15 the following:

“(9) If a finding has been made in an application made under subsection (1) or (2), no subsequent application in respect of the accused with regard to the same offence may be brought under this section.”

Clause 12 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

Clause 13 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

On Clause 14,

“under paragraph 672.54(a) be suspended”

The question was put on the amendment of Robert Goguen and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 11; NAYS: 0.

Clause 14, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

On Clause 15,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, June 10, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-54, in Clause 15, be amended by replacing line 24 on page 8 with the following:

“maximum of 12 months after making or”

Debate arose thereon.

The question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 10.

“maximum of 24 months after making or”

Debate arose thereon.

The question was put on the amendment of Hoang Mai and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, June 10, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-54, in Clause 15, be amended by replacing line 34 on page 8 with the following: “to a maximum of 12 months if the Review”

Debate arose thereon.

The question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 10.

“to a maximum of 24 months if the Review”

Debate arose thereon.

The question was put on the amendment of Hoang Mai and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 15 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

On Clause 16,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, June 10, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-54, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing lines 26 and 27 on page 9 with the following:

“of another person, revoke the finding and make a disposition under any of paragraphs 672.54(a) to (c).”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was contrary to the principle of the Bill, as provided on page 766 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the decision on the admissibility of the previous amendment be applied to the following amendment:

That Bill C-54, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing line 30 on page 9 to line 24 on page 10 with the following:

“under paragraph 672.54(c).”

Clause 16 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

Clause 17 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

On Clause 18,

“(1.1) The Attorney General shall consult with the relevant federal and provincial ministers and agencies on an annual basis regarding the implementation of sections 672.1 to 672.89.

(1.2) Following the consultations referred to in subsection (1.1), the Attorney General shall, not later than October 30 of each year, table a report of these consultations in the House of Commons.”

Debate arose thereon.

The question was put on the amendment of Irwin Cotler and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 18 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

Clause 19 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

Clause 20 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

On new Clause 20.1,

REVIEW

“20.1 (1) Within five years after sections 2 to 20 come into force, a comprehensive review of the operation of sections 672.1 to 672.89 of the Criminal Code is to be undertaken by a committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament that may be designated or established by the Senate, the House of Commons or both Houses of Parliament, as the case may be, for that purpose.

(2) Within a year, or such further time as authorized by the Senate, the House of Commons or both Houses of Parliament, as the case may be, after the review is undertaken, the Committee referred to in subsection (1) must submit a report on that review to the Senate, the House of Commons or both Houses of Parliament, as the case may be, including a statement of any changes recommended by the Committee.”

Debate arose thereon.

The question was put on the amendment of Irwin Cotler and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 11; NAYS: 0.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on the previous amendment be applied to the following amendment which is therefore also adopted:

“31.1 (1) Within five years after sections 21 to 31 come into force, a comprehensive review of the operation of sections 197 to 233 of the National Defence Act is to be undertaken by a committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament that may be designated or established by the Senate, the House of Commons or both Houses of Parliament, as the case may be, for that purpose.

(2) Within a year, or such further time as authorized by the Senate, the House of Commons or both Houses of Parliament, as the case may be, after the review is undertaken, the Committee referred to in subsection (1) must submit a report on that review to the Senate, the House of Commons or both Houses of Parliament, as the case may be, including a statement of any changes recommended by the Committee.”

Clause 21 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

Clause 22 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

Clause 23 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

Clause 24 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

Clause 25 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

By unanimous consent, Clause 26 was allowed to stand.

Clause 27 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

Clause 28 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

Clause 29 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

Clause 30 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

Clause 31 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

By unanimous consent, Clause 32 was allowed to stand.

Clause 33 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

By unanimous consent, the Committee reverted to Clause 7 previously stood.

“discharge and accused's intended place of residence shall, at the victim's request, be given”

Debate arose thereon.

Hoang Mai moved, — That the amendment be amended by adding the words “and of any conditions of release” after the word: “discharge”

After debate, by unanimous consent, the subamendment was withdrawn.

The question was put on the amendment of Hoang Mai and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 11; NAYS: 0.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on the previous amendment be applied to the following amendment which is therefore also adopted:

“and the accused person's intended place of residence shall, at the victim's request, be given to the”

Clause 7, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 11; NAYS: 0.

By unanimous consent, the Committee reverted to Clause 26 previously stood.

Clause 26, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

By unanimous consent, the Committee reverted to Clause 32 previously stood.

“and the accused person's intended place of residence shall, at the victim's request, be given to the”

Debate arose thereon.

The question was put on the amendment of Robert Goguen and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

Clause 32, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

Clause 1, Short Title, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

The Title carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

The Bill, as amended, carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Dan Albas, Scott Armstrong, Blaine Calkins, Robert Goguen, Pierre Jacob, Hoang Mai, Pierre Nantel, José Nunez-Melo, Kyle Seeback, David Wilks — 10; NAYS: Irwin Cotler — 1.

It was agreed, — That the Chair report the Bill, as amended, to the House carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

ORDERED, — That the Chair report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

ORDERED, — That Bill C-54, as amended, be reprinted for the use of the House at report stage.

At 8:20 p.m., by unanimous consent, the sitting went in camera.

At 8:30 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.