JUST Committee Meeting

The Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness met at 3:38 p.m. this day, in Room 308 West Block, the Chair, Paul DeVillers, presiding.

The Chair called Clause 1.

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

On Clause 1,

“1. The definition “unfit to stand trial” in section 2 of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:

“unfit to stand trial or to be sentenced” means unable on account of mental disorder to conduct a defence, or to instruct counsel to do so, at any stage of the proceedings before a verdict is rendered or a sentence is imposed, as the case may be, and, in particular, unable on account of mental disorder to

(a) understand the nature or object of the proceedings,

(b) understand the possible consequences of the proceedings,

(c) communicate with counsel and provide rational instructions to counsel, or

(d) understand the consequences of the decisions to be made during the proceedings;

1.1 (1) Section 672.1 of the Act”

After debate, by unanimous consent, the amendment was withdrawn.

“1. The portion of subsection 578(1) of the Criminal Code before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

578. (1) Where notice of the recommencement of proceedings has been given pursuant to subsection 579(2) or 672.851(10), or an indictment has been filed with the court before which the proceedings are to commence or recommence, the court, if it considers it necessary, may issue

1.1 (1) Section 672.1 of the Act”

After debate, by unanimous consent, the amendment was withdrawn.

““assessment” means an assessment by a mental health professional of the mental condition of the”

After debate, by unanimous consent, the amendment was withdrawn.

“practitioner or any other person who, in the opinion of the court, is qualified of the mental condition of the”

Paul Harold Macklin moved, — That the amendment be amended by deleting the words “in the opinion of the court, is qualified” and substituting with the following: “has been designated by the Attorney General as being qualified to conduct an assessment”

After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Paul Harold Macklin and it was agreed to.

The question was put on the amendment of Richard Marceau, as amended, and it was agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, carried.

On Clause 2,

“2. (1) Paragraph 672.11(a) of the Act is is replaced by the following:

(a) whether the accused is unfit to stand trial or to be sentenced;

(2) Paragraph 672.11(e) of the Act is”

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

“l'accusé, déterminer si une ordonnance d'arrêt des procédures devrait être rendue en”

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

Clause 2 carried.

On Clause 3,

“(b) make a disposition under section 672.54.”

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

Clause 3 carried.

Clauses 4 to 13 inclusive carried severally.

On Clause 13.1,

“13.1 Subsection 672.38(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

672.38 (1) A Review Board shall be established or designated for each province to make or review dispositions concerning any accused in respect of whom a verdict of not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder or unfit to stand trial or to be sentenced is rendered, and shall consist of not fewer than five members appointed by the lieutenant governor in council of the province.”

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

On Clause 14,

“following the verdict, in original or copied form, any transcript of the court proceedings in respect of the accused, any other document or information related to the proceedings, and all exhibits filed with it, to the Review Board that has jurisdiction in respect of the matter, if the transcript, document, information or exhibits are in its possession.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Paul Harold Macklin and it was agreed to.

Clause 14, as amended, carried.

Clause 15 carried.

On Clause 16,

“16. (1) Section 672.5 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (5):

(5.1) At the victim's request, notice of the hearing and of the victim's rights shall be given to the victim within the time and in the manner prescribed, or within the time and in the manner fixed by the rules of the court or Review Board.

(1.1) The portion of subsection 672.5(8)”

Paul Harold Macklin moved, — That the amendment be amended by deleting the words “victim's rights” and substituting with the following: “relevant provisions of the Act” and by deleting the words “and in the manner prescribed, or within the time”

After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Paul Harold Macklin and it was agreed to.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Richard Marceau, as amended, and it was agreed to.

“(13.2) On receiving an assessment report, the court or Review Board shall determine whether, since the last time the disposition in respect of the accused was made or reviewed there has been any change in the mental condition of the accused that may provide grounds for the discharge of the accused under paragraph 672.54(a) or (b) and, if there has been such a change, the court or Review Board shall notify every victim of the offence that they are entitled to file a statement in accordance with subsection (14).”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Joe Comartin and it was agreed to.

“the request of a victim who has been notified under subsection (13.2), permit the victim to read”

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

Clause 16, as amended, carried.

Clauses 17 and 18 carried severally.

On Clause 19,

“respect of the matter, in original or copied form, a transcript of the hearing, any other document or information related to the hearing, and all exhibits filed with it, if the transcript, document, information or exhibits are in its possession.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Paul Harold Macklin and it was agreed to.

Clause 19, as amended, carried.

Clauses 20 to 26 inclusive carried severally.

On Clause 27,

“accused, the prosecutor and the person in charge of the”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Paul Harold Macklin and it was agreed to.

Clause 27, as amended, carried.

Clauses 28 to 31 inclusive carried severally.

On Clause 32,

“accused to appear at the hearing at the time and place fixed for it.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Paul Harold Macklin and it was agreed to.

Clause 32, as amended, carried.

On Clause 33,

(a) by replacing, in the English version, line 14 on page 14 with the following:

“and is not likely to ever become fit to stand trial,”

(b) by replacing, in the English version, line 36 on page 14 with the following:

“and is not likely to ever become fit to stand trial;”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Paul Harold Macklin and it was agreed to.

“proceedings if it is satisfied

(a) on the basis of clear information, that the accused remains unfit to stand trial and is not likely to ever become fit to stand trial;

(b) that the accused does not pose a significant threat to the safety of the public; and

(c) that a stay is in the interests of the proper administration of justice.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Paul Harold Macklin and it was agreed to.

Clause 33, as amended, carried.

Clauses 34 and 35 carried severally.

On Clause 36,

(a) replacing line 28 on page 17 with the following:

“672.92 (1) If a”

(b) replacing lines 33 to 42 on page 17 with the following:

“may release the accused from custody and

(a) issue a summons or appearance notice compelling the accused’s appearance before a justice, and

(b) deliver the accused to the place specified in the disposition or assessment order.

(2) A peace officer shall not release an”

(c) replacing lines 8 and 9 on page 18 with the following:

“of an assessment order,

(iii) prevent the commission of an offence, or

(iv) prevent the accused from contravening or failing to comply with the disposition or assessment order;”

(d) replacing lines 15 to 24 on page 18 with the following:

“required, before a justice.

(3) If a peace officer does not release the accused, the accused”

(e) replacing line 30 on page 18 with the following:

“(4) If a peace officer arrests an accused under section 672.91 who is subject to a disposition under paragraph 672.54(c), the accused shall be taken before a justice having jurisdiction in the territorial division in which the accused is arrested without unreasonable delay and, in any event, within 24 hours.

(5) If a justice described in subsection (3) or (4) is”

(f) replacing line 40 on page 18 to line 9 on page 19 with the following:

“(1.1) If the justice releases the accused, notice shall be given to the court or Review Board, as the case may be, that made the disposition or assessment order.

(2) If the justice is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has contravened or failed to comply with a disposition or an assessment order, the justice, pending a hearing of a Review Board with respect to the disposition or a hearing of a court or Review Board with respect to the assessment order, may make an order that is appropriate in the circumstances in relation to the accused, including an order that the accused be returned to a place that is specified in the disposition or assessment order. If the justice makes an order under this subsection, notice shall be given to the court or Review Board, as the case may be, that made the disposition or assessment order.”

(g) replacing lines 11 and 12 on page 19 with the following:

“notice given under subsection 672.93(1.1) or (2), it may exercise the powers and shall”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Paul Harold Macklin and it was agreed to.

Clause 36, as amended, carried.

Clauses 37 to 48 inclusive carried severally.

On Clause 49,

(a) by replacing, in the English version, line 16 on page 25 with the following:

“stand trial and is not likely to ever become fit to”

(b) by replacing, in the English version, line 2 on page 26 with the following:

“trial and is not likely to ever become fit to stand”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Paul Harold Macklin and it was agreed to.

“peut également, de sa propre initiative, tenir une audience afin de”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Paul Harold Macklin and it was agreed to.

“proceedings if it is satisfied

(a) on the basis of clear information, that the accused person remains unfit to stand trial and is not likely to ever become fit to stand trial;

(b) that the accused does not pose a significant threat to the safety of the public; and

(c) that a stay is in the interests of the proper administration of justice.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Paul Harold Macklin and it was agreed to.

Clause 49, as amended, carried.

Clauses 50 to 54 inclusive carried severally.

On Clause 55,

(a) replacing lines 12 to 15 on page 28 with the following:

“province, in original or copied form, a transcript of the hearing, any document or information relating to the hearing and all exhibits filed with it, if the transcript, document, information or exhibits are in its possession.”

(b) replacing lines 21 to 25 on page 28 with the following:

“of mental disorder, in original or copied form, any transcript of the proceedings in respect of the accused, any document or information relating to the proceedings and all exhibits filed with it, if the transcript, document, information or exhibits are in its possession.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Paul Harold Macklin and it was agreed to.

Clause 55, as amended, carried.

On Clause 56,

“56. Subsections 202.23(2) to (4) of the Act are replaced by the following:

(2) An officer, a non-commissioned member appointed for the purposes of section 156, or any other peace officer within the meaning of the Criminal Code, may arrest an accused person without a warrant if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the accused person

(a) is at large contrary to the terms of a disposition made by a court martial under section 201, 202 or 202.16 or by a Review Board; or

(b) has contravened or wilfully failed to comply with the disposition or any condition of a disposition or assessment order, or is about to do so.

(2.1) An officer, a non-commissioned member or another peace officer who makes an arrest under subsection (2) may, as soon as possible, release an accused person arrested under that subsection who is subject to a disposition made by a court martial under paragraph 201(1)(a) or 202.16(1)(b), a disposition made by a Review Board under paragraph 672.54(b) of the Criminal Code or an assessment order and deliver the accused person to the place specified in the disposition or assessment order.

(2.2) The officer, non-commissioned member or other peace officer shall not release the accused person if they believe on reasonable grounds

(a) that it is necessary in the public interest that the accused person be detained in custody having regard to all the circumstances, including the need to

(i) establish the identity of the accused person,

(ii) establish the terms and conditions of the disposition or assessment order referred to in subsection (2.1),

(iii) prevent the commission of an offence, or

(iv) prevent the accused person from doing anything referred to in paragraph (2)(a) or (b); or

(b) that the accused person is subject to a disposition or an assessment order of a Review Board of another province.

(2.3) An accused person referred to in subsection (2.1) who is not released or an accused person arrested under subsection (2) who is subject to a disposition of a court martial made under paragraph 201(1)(b), subsection 202(1) or paragraph 202.16(1)(c) or a disposition of a Review Board made under paragraph 672.54(c) of the Criminal Code shall be taken to a justice having jurisdiction in the territorial division in which the accused person is arrested or a commanding officer without unreasonable delay and in any event within a period of twenty-four hours after the arrest.

(3) If a justice having jurisdiction in the territorial division in which the accused person is arrested or a commanding officer is not available within a period of twenty-four hours after the arrest, the accused person shall be taken before a justice or commanding officer as soon as practicable.

(3.1) A justice or commanding officer shall release an accused who is brought before them unless they are satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the circumstances referred to in paragraph (2)(a) or (b) exist.

(3.2) If the justice or commanding officer releases the accused, notice shall be given to the Review Board that made the disposition or to the court martial or Review Board that made the assessment order.

(4) If a justice or commanding officer before whom an accused person is taken is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the circumstances referred to in paragraph (2)(a) or (b) exist, the justice or commanding officer may, pending a hearing of a Review Board with respect to the disposition or a hearing of a court martial or Review Board with respect to the assessment order, make an order that is appropriate in the circumstances in relation to the accused person, including an order that the accused person be delivered to a place that is specified in the disposition or assessment order. If the justice or commanding officer makes an order under this subsection, notice shall be given to the Review Board that made the disposition or to the court martial or Review Board that made the assessment order.”

Joe Comartin moved, — That the amendment be amended, in the French version only: a) in paragraph (2.1), by adding after the word “en vertu de l'alinéa 672.54b) ” the following: “du Code Criminel”, (b) in paragraph (2.3), by adding after the word “en vertu de l'alinéa 672.54c) ” the following: “du Code Criminel”; c) in paragraph (3.2), the word “martial” with the following: “martiale”

After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Joe Comartin and it was agreed to.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Paul Harold Macklin and it was agreed to.

Clause 56, as amended, carried.

Clauses 57 to 65 inclusive carried severally.

The Title carried.

The Bill, as amended, carried.

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

ORDERED, — That Bill C-10, as amended, be reprinted for the use of the House at report stage.

At 5:10 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.