Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think they've used the term “PV” here for Parti vert. So it's actually not in the name of a private member. It's actually here as Green Party amendment 1.
As you see, it is on clause 9, which is amending section 672.54. You can follow it on page 4, at lines 35 to 40.
I'm proposing this amendment based on testimony that was received by the committee from the Canadian Bar Association to reinstate the “least onerous and least restrictive” requirement that has been used in not criminally responsible cases in the past.
I just want to cite this from the Canadian Bar Association evidence, at page 5:
Currently, the Court or Review Board must discharge absolutely any accused found not criminally responsible, unless they pose a significant threat to the safety of the public.... In making this decision, the Court or Review Board must consider the need to protect the public from dangerous persons,
—we certainly want to do that—
the mental condition of the accused, the reintegration of the accused into society and other needs of the accused. Where an accused does pose a significant threat to the safety of the public, the Court or Review Board must select the “least onerous and least restrictive” form of disposition....
Now that Bill C-54 makes it very clear and codifies what's already the law under the Supreme Court of Canada—that the safety of the public is the paramount consideration—I'm putting forward this amendment to say that certainly the balancing is very strongly in favour of the paramount consideration being public safety. The least onerous and restrictive qualification is now balanced against that paramountcy of public safety and security.
That provision, as the Canadian Bar Association recommends, can be reintroduced into the legislation very simply—through the mechanism of my Green Party amendment 1.