Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 4, Evidence - March 6, 2014
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 6, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder), met this day at 10:34 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Bob Runciman (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good day and welcome, colleagues and invited guests, members of the general public who are following today's proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
We're continuing our study on Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder). This bill amends the mental disorder regime and the Criminal Code to specify that public safety is paramount in the decision-making process. The bill also creates a scheme for finding that those found not criminally responsible will be considered to be high-risk accused. It also enhances the involvement of victims in the regime.
This is our third meeting on this legislation. As a reminder to those watching, these committee hearings are open to the public and also available via webcast on the sen.parl.gc.ca website. You can find more information on the schedule of witnesses on the website under "Senate Committees."
For our first panel today, we have appearing, by video conference from Montreal, Ms. Isabelle Malo and Mr. Bruno Jetté.
Welcome, witnesses. Can you hear me without any difficulty?
Bruno Jetté, as an individual: Yes.
The Chair: We will begin with opening statements. I believe Ms. Malo will lead off. The floor is yours. Please proceed with your opening statement.
[Translation]
Isabelle Malo, as an individual: Good morning. My name is Isabelle Malo. I appear today on behalf of the entire Malo family. With me are my mother, Nicole Malo, and my brother, Sylvain Malo.
We fully support Bill C-14. My family's story perfectly illustrates how urgent it is to change the law. I speak to you today with my heart full of sadness. On January 13, 2012, our peaceful community was shaken by a terrible tragedy. My stepfather, Ronald Malo, was savagely murdered, stabbed 29 times by his neighbor, Rolland Belzil, who had been harassing him for 15 years.
My mother was also a target, but she was saved because she did not answer the door that Rolland Belzil was trying to open. Belzil's computer contained a list of people to be killed. My mother's name was on that list.
After killing Ronald Malo, Rolland Belzil went to the town hall in Verchères where he stabbed the town manager, Luc Forcier, in the head and neck. His assistant, Martin Massicotte, suffered wounds to his hands as he tried to help him. They owe their lives to the fire chief.
This sordid story began in 1997 when the neighbor, Rolland Belzil, assaulted my mother by saying that he wanted her twice a week. My mother immediately pushed him away, demanding that he leave her alone.
He then looked her in the eyes and said: "You do not know what I am capable of, my dear. I am not done with you yet."
For 15 years, my mother and Ronald were in a living hell. They were constantly harassed, sworn at and provoked. They received death threats all through the three years preceding the murder.
In April 2010, Rolland Belzil told a caseworker that he had acquired a weapon and that he was going to kill his neighbour, Ronald Malo.
In July 2010, Rolland Belzil was arrested for violating the terms of a permanent order restraining him from approaching my family. Nevertheless, he did approach us, carrying a gas can, paper and some beer and wine, and staring at us the whole time.
Rolland Belzil was found guilty of four out of five charges. He walked away with a discharge and a laughable $400 fine. We begged the judge not to release him again. People from CAVAC told us that he was like a big dog that barked a lot but did not bite, and that there was zero likelihood that he would act on his threats.
Our family unreservedly supports Bill C-14. The bill will make public safety a priority and will create the "high-risk" designation.
I would like to mention two improvements that you could make to the bill. Public safety is the urgent priority. Have you thought, just for a moment, of what would happen if this man were released? We could not carry on if we found our mother murdered. Victims must have more say.
Fortunately, Bill C-14 will make public safety a paramount concern in decisions about people deemed not criminally responsible. When public safety is paramount, it will be a victory for our right to safety.
At the moment, we believe that, if Rolland Belzil is released, three lives will certainly be in danger. It is agonizing for us to think that this individual could be released in the near future.
Our confidence in the justice system has vanished. This man represents a real danger to society. He must be kept under close surveillance, if only to protect him from himself. People are living in terror at the very thought of the day when Rolland Belzil is released. I am not even counting our seven children, aged from 15 to 25, who have lost their grandfather. For them, the word "justice" does not exist. They are terrorized.
One night a little while ago, my 22-year-old daughter came to me trembling. She had dreamt that Rolland Belzil had escaped from the Institut Philippe-Pinel de Montréal and wanted to kill us all. Those children have lived through enormous trauma. How do we reassure them? Our family is carrying a very heavy burden. I have a business in Verchères and not a day goes by without someone talking to me about it. People always ask me what is happening with him and whether he is out. Each time, my heart races.
In December 2012, I was hospitalized. My heart rate was 170 beats per minute when I found out about Guy Turcotte's release. I thought I was going to die. The number of victims goes beyond the family. It affects the entire community. People are afraid that these individuals, ill though they are, will be released.
Illness is not an excuse. From now on, with Bill C-14, public safety will be the highest priority. We are very much looking forward to that change.
Bill C-14 will create a designation of "high-risk accused" for the most dangerous cases. They must be detained in hospital under guard. A high-risk accused will not be allowed to leave unescorted. He will not be able to obtain a pass to leave with or without an escort, except in rare circumstances and with due regard for public safety.
We support the fact that judges, not the review board, will determine who is a high-risk accused. We are very pleased to learn that judges have to base their decisions on the risk of grave physical or psychological harm, as well as on the nature of the offence committed. That is very important to us. We cannot wait for these changes to come into effect. We are convinced that there is no greater risk than the one we are in currently.
In Rolland Belzil's computer, the police found a list of a number of potential victims. In our view, that proves premeditation. When one murder, two attempted murders and five violations of the terms of an order have been committed, the murderer is a high-risk case and must be put under extremely tight medical supervision. That is what Bill C-14 will make possible and I am asking you to pass it as quickly as possible.
Being able to get a break of up to three years between hearings before the review board — depending on the seriousness of each case, of course — is a real relief for victims; it makes all the difference.
You know as well as I do that a year goes by quickly. We know what we are talking about because we have already been invited to a second hearing in a few months.
Never have we been driven by revenge. These changes will have no effect on access to treatment for accused deemed not criminally responsible.
On the contrary, people who need special care will have access to personal care. They will be better looked after. Providing more structured medical care to those suffering from mental illness is not stigmatizing them. The concepts of reintegrating individuals remain in the act. So it is wrong to say that people who are ill will lose their rights.
By lengthening the period of care, the risk of reoffending is reduced, but, above all, lives will be saved. We cannot sit on our hands and wait. We have to save our mother's life. As victims, we have no place in all these interminable procedures.
We will certainly not be the last to live through a similar event. In Verchères, with a population of 5,000, three people have confided in us and told us that they are living in a situation similar to our own and are terrorized. We are supposed to have the right to security. At the moment, the only people with rights are those who have been charged and found not criminally responsible.
Ronald wore his heart on his sleeve; he was always smiling, gentle and ready to help others. His murder was an enormous shock. The public is completely outraged by this heinous action that has gone unpunished.
We have lost a second father, a grandfather, a husband. But above all, we have lost an exceptional human being whom we loved more than anything in the world. We will never be able to forgive the action, but now we have to learn to live with it. Ronald's death must not be one among many. It must serve to advance the cause of victims. This bill is extremely important for our security and our quality of life. Thank you all so much for giving me your valuable time and for letting me express to you my thirst for justice. We are behind you in supporting this urgent and vital bill.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Malo.
Mr. Jetté, do you have any comments at this point?
[Translation]
Bruno Jetté, as an individual: Good morning, my name is Bruno Jetté. I was a full-time educator for 33 years, 25 of which were at the Hôpital Rivière-des-Prairies and eight at Miriam Home and Services after a transfer between institutions on October 3, 2004. I worked at the Guimont centre until my retirement on May 23, 2013. I received a certificate of merit from the board of directors and the upper management of Miriam Home and Services, which says: "In recognition of your appropriate and heroic response to an emergency situation that helped to save the life of a client at Miriam Home and Services on April 14, 2010."
My understanding of the spirit of Bill C-14, which I think is an exact copy of Bill C-54, is that its primary purpose is to better protect citizens from the accused with intellectual disabilities. Accused with intellectual disabilities can justify their non-responsibility after committing a crime. Having worked for 33 years in a psychiatric clinic, I personally think it is indispensable to be aware of and recognize the serious mistakes made during the deinstitutionalization process. I take this opportunity to ask the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to set up a review board in order to review the deinstitutionalization process two years prior to, during and after the inter-institutional transfer of psychiatric patients from the Hôpital Rivière-des-Prairies to the Guimont residential complex in Laval on October 3, 2004. Without this review board, without this meeting and this review of the deinstitutionalization process during this period, I think it is impossible to understand and deal with the issue before us today, that is public safety. I am also asking all the various levels of government to put a full and complete end to relocating people with psychiatric illnesses from a residential complex or whatever it is called, to other psychiatric facilities, residencies, intermediary facilities or whatever they are called. That is important for the needs of persons with psychiatric illnesses and for public safety in general.
In terms of Bill C-54, I read it and reread it and saw almost no difference between former Bill C-54 and Bill C-14. I concluded that yes, the person with the disability may represent a high risk for the public and that members of the public must have the legal means to protect themselves.
For instance, when a patient needs three security officers for a meeting in a containment ward, the patient clearly represents a risk for society. If another patient causes three work injuries in eight months, that patient clearly represents a risk for society as well. If a pedophile is supposed to be released and he asks whether his residence will be close to a school, that patient also represents a risk for society.
The public itself can also represent a risk for the patient. The definition —
Senator Boisvenu: Mr. Jetté, you can have another minute, because the people here want to ask questions and your presentation is a bit long. Please state your conclusion about whether or not you support Bill C-14. We will then continue with a round of questions.
Mr. Jetté: In conclusion, I asked Philippe Couillard, the Minister of Health and Social Services, to rectify the situation. In October 2003, I received a response saying that there was an improvement in the attitude of the public and of the stakeholders in the network, the reactions of the clients were less dramatic and access to services was improved. All those improvements are proof that nothing was going well.
At one point, we were not able to tell parents where patients had to be relocated, places that were not up to their expectations. We also had to describe the patients' behaviours in a positive manner. For instance, a patient who had assaulted a caseworker three times might be labelled as a patient "capable" of assault.
Senator Boisvenu: Mr. Jetté, we will proceed with the questions, if you do not mind.
[English]
The Chair: We'll begin the questions with the deputy chair of the committee, Senator Baker.
Senator Baker: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to give my time to Senator Boisvenu.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Ms. Malo, let me first thank you kindly for your very sensitive testimony. I understand that Mr. Belzil, your father's murderer, was recognized non-criminally responsible, correct?
Ms. Malo: Yes, that is correct.
Senator Boisvenu: Since he was institutionalized, has he requested escorted or unescorted passes?
Ms. Malo: At a meeting on June 13, 2013, at Institut Philippe-Pinel, we were told that yes, he was escorted out a few times. That was not very reassuring for us because we thought he never went out. When you know that someone has committed such crimes, you think of the possibility that he might escape.
I can even give you an example. Last year, my daughter called me at 7 a.m. to say: "Mom, I heard on TV that someone escaped from Pinel." I was in a state of total panic and I contacted a police officer. I was panicking and he said: "Stay calm, I will look into it and find out." It was not him, but I can tell you that we are under a tremendous amount of stress every day because we know he has escorted passes.
Senator Boisvenu: Please answer the questions quickly. Every time the individual asks for a pass, does the Institut Pinel inform you?
Ms. Malo: No, we have never been informed. We found out at the moment of the audience at Pinel on June 13, 2013.
Senator Boisvenu: Mr. Jetté, I read your book and I want to congratulate you. I know you worked a long time in the field of psychiatry, a challenging area, having worked in it myself. Based on your experience, in the legal process, is it important to distinguish between a high-risk individual and someone with mental health issues who represents a lower risk? Is labelling the level of risk of a person important?
Earlier, you said that legal measures must protect the public. In your view, is the concept of designating someone who could reoffend as high-risk important for the bill?
Mr. Jetté: It is very important because individuals with intellectual disabilities have everything they need to be rehabilitated, comforted and represented. However, those who are assaulted by high-risk individuals with intellectual disabilities have no possibility of being represented properly and reimbursed for what they spend on their own rehabilitation.
Senator Boisvenu: Please provide a short answer. Here is my final question. You worked in the field of psychiatry for some 30 years. Have you seen many cases of repeat offenders who should have been considered high-risk? And if those people had been considered high-risk and had better legal supervision, would that have made it possible to prevent them from creating more victims?
Mr. Jetté: Yes, but not murder victims, rather victims of assault, theft, prostitution and whatever else you can think of.
Senator McIntyre: I would like to extend my deepest sympathy to you for the loss of your stepfather. As you know, the bill has three components: to make public safety the paramount consideration, to create a new designation of high-risk accused and to enhance the rights of victims.
In my view, the purpose of the bill is rather simple. The provinces and territories are afraid that public safety is not sufficiently taken into consideration by review boards, and Bill C-14 seeks to allay those fears.
Now, some critics say that the bill fuels the stigma of mental illness.
I am the sponsor of the bill in the Senate and I do not agree with that criticism. Could you tell me how you feel about that?
Go ahead, Ms. Malo.
Ms. Malo: I do not actually think that people will be stigmatized or labelled. I think that individuals with mental illnesses need specific care. I do not think that a mental illness can be cured in a year. The increase from one year to three years would enable us to see if the treatment is appropriate, which makes a huge difference for victims.
Having experienced a hearing at the Institut Philippe-Pinel, I can assure you that it is practically impossible to grieve when you are required to relive those events every year.
Senator Joyal: Ms. Malo, Mr. Jetté, our hearts go out to you for what you had to go through and the adjustments you had to make to get back to somewhat normal lives. As you said, Ms. Malo, it is important to be able to acknowledge reality and to take steps to ensure that you do not keep reliving your trauma.
Under those circumstances, how do you see the possibility of finding a balance between your protection and your right to a normal life — which we certainly wish for you — and the ability of the legal system to be fair to this man who has clearly lost his mind?
Ms. Malo: Actually, the legal system has not done much for us so far. We have been going to the Institut Philippe-Pinel board. This is our last hope to try to prove and demonstrate that this man is dangerous and that he had a plan that did not work as he had hoped.
To give you a better idea, it is quite troubling to see that, after 15 years of harassment, after a permanent restraining order, after a criminal court order, after three years of death threats, one murder, two attempted murders and five violations of conditions, we are still required to fight to prove that this man has a problem. Basically, no one has been able to recognize it except us. Now that he has committed the crime, people say he suffered from psychosis, but I do not think that is the case with someone who has had those problems for 15 years, who harasses people — we are talking about harassment every day, not once a month — and who committed serious crimes. We are talking about murder, not stealing gum.
This is the final stage and this is our heartfelt cry for help. It is our last option.
Senator Joyal: Does his family still live close to you, as you mentioned just now in your opening remarks?
Ms. Malo: His house was sold, he is separated and has no children. It was still quite disturbing to hear him say what he said after only one year of detention at the Institut Philippe-Pinel. He said that he forgives my mother, that he no longer hates anyone and that we do not need to be afraid of him. That does not reassure us in the slightest because we had several orders requiring him to leave us alone and to stay away from us, but he came and killed my stepfather in his own home. He also tried to kill my mother; he knocked on her door, but, because she was on the second floor, she did not answer. If his plan had worked, I would have found my mother, my stepfather and the two city employees murdered.
Senator Joyal: So what you want is for this man to have no way of coming near you and your family, in your daily lives, so that you can move on and get your lives back, without being so afraid and constantly feeling that he might be around somewhere.
Ms. Malo: Absolutely. I actually cannot bear the thought of this man being free in the near future. We will definitely no longer be able to live. It will be impossible. This man is really ill and he needs care. We tried to follow the rules, by calling the police, going to court and demonstrating that he had a problem. No one was able to recognize it. Now that he has committed murder, people believe he has a problem, but I do not think that this problem can be cured in a year. It will take years and years. I hope one day someone will realize how dangerous he is.
You know, sometimes, regardless of medication, people are manipulative. I believe that this is what we are dealing with here. He signed orders and said he would keep the peace, but then he started again once he was back home. Who is going to assure me that this man will take his medication if he is released from the institution one day? He is alone. And what if he does not take his medication one day — we are not talking about medication for cholesterol, we are talking about medication for a mental illness, which has serious consequences if not taken as prescribed? That is very troubling.
Senator Joyal: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Frum: Ms. Malo, thank you for sharing your story with us today. I know that it's difficult and you have been very eloquent on the issue of how, as Senator Joyal says, you may wish to have a normal life. However, it is clear to me from listening to you speak that that is difficult not just for you, but for your entire family and your children, and this victimization really does last for a lifetime.
I want to ask you very specifically, given the impact this has had on you, how do you think your life will be different on a daily basis after this law comes into force?
[Translation]
Ms. Malo: Once the bill is passed, we will certainly get in touch with the prosecutor to inquire about whether the perpetrator could really be designated a high-risk individual and initiate the procedure. I think he could because the three criteria would be met. Priority has to be given to our mother's safety. This is a man whose crime caused serious personal injury. When all is said and done, we are never informed of anything. For the past two years, I have felt like a mute puppet. We have gone to court 12 times and have never been allowed to speak.
There are two sides to every story, but we feel that the accused's side is the only one that has been taken into account in our case. We have never had the opportunity to talk about everything we have been through. We have never had the opportunity to present our evidence, to either the court or the board. It seems as though the decisions have already been made before we even get there. We have little say in anything. It is incredibly stressful. After all we have been through, the pain and suffering we have experienced, it is exhausting and incredibly discouraging to have to keep fighting.
This bill offers us a glimmer of hope. If public safety really is to come first, it should have a huge impact on our situation.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you for your comments, which I very much appreciate. I have no doubt that you have examined Bill C-14 closely, especially as it relates to victims' rights.
Is there anything else you would like to recommend as far as victims' rights and Bill C-14 are concerned?
Mr. Jetté: There is something I would like to add. The coroner, Mr. Guillemette, gave the public curator a report highlighting that de-institutionalization had not been entirely positive. And now de-institutionalization has been taken much too far. The best patients have already been placed in the community and those who still have to be placed are the worst of the worst. They are the ones who were not chosen because they pose the biggest danger. According to Mr. Guillemette, now that we are at the end of the process and almost all the institutes are gone, it is time to ask ourselves the question. The last of the sick inmates to be released were harder to place and may not have ended up where they should have, in his view.
We have to ask ourselves whether we have not gone too far. I think we have already taken things too far, and what lies ahead will be even worse.
In fact, I do not think Bill C-14 is strong enough because it should pre-empt the victimization of citizens by those with mental disorders, instead of making them wait until something happens and subjecting them to that horror. We should put a de facto stop to the release of all patients; the situation should be examined and subject to a review. Bill C-14 frequently mentions referrals for consultation, referrals for checks and referrals for all sorts of things. The time has come to stop everything and to see who we are letting out and what the real dangers are of putting these people in the community. That would keep people from becoming victims, instead of suffering the consequences once it was too late.
This is how I see the situation. We have a number of people who have had car accidents getting together to talk about their accidents, when we should actually be focusing on those who have driver's licences and explaining things to them before accidents happen.
Ms. Malo: I would like to add something.
It is important to realize that it is not just the less fortunate or the homeless who have problems. We dealt with an engineer. He worked in a big firm for many years and had travelled the world. Still, he was an engineer, and more and more, we are hearing about professionals who have mental health issues. That is what I wanted to say. Thank you.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to our two witnesses. This is for Ms. Malo. The person who killed your stepfather, Mr. Belzil, acknowledged the seriousness of his crimes before the court. He was able to plead guilty. When he did what he did, however, they said he was not aware of what he was doing. I find that strange.
The bill is primarily designed to protect victims and collateral victims, like you, your mother, your family members and all your loved ones.
Since the tragedy, has your mother had to move and how has her life been affected? What matters is what happens to the victims. The victims are the ones I am worried about. Accused individuals have a great many rights and sometimes disregard their obligations. That said, how did the tragedy affect your mother and those in your family?
Ms. Malo: I admire my mother; she is a very strong woman. She has really helped us get through it, because I will tell you that my brother and I have had a really tough time.
No, she did not move; she stayed in the same house. As long as he remains in the Institut Philippe-Pinel, she feels safe. And obviously things would be totally different if we learned that he was being released soon.
As for the children, my brother's daughter has never gone back there. The area where Ronald was killed is next to the water near a barn; there is no house there. The house is about two minutes away and sits on a big piece of land, a beautiful lawn, flowers and the whole bit. So my brother's daughter has never been back to the property. She just cannot do it. Clearly, the children cannot grasp the whys and hows of the justice system; they range in age from 15 to 25. They do not have the same life experience we do.
At the end of the day, we were all thrown into this situation. In the beginning, in fact, my mother would not tell us much because she did not want to frighten us. Eventually, we stayed abreast of everything that was going on, and we took all the necessary steps. I dreaded the moment. I knew he was a drinker; he was even in AA. But he always had a glass of wine, and we knew he took medication. I made the police aware of my concern; I told them it was a volatile combination. The police were excellent. But that is another thing when it comes to the justice system; it is as though there is no link between the police and those who work in justice. No matter how many statements we made or how much proof was gathered, it did not do a bit of good.
We have definitely gotten to the point where something has to be done; otherwise we will never be safe.
[English]
Senator Batters: I wish to thank both of you for attending our committee today. I want to express how brave I think you both are for doing this.
Ms. Malo, my question is for you. Thank you for the bravery you exhibited today. I hope this process of testifying before the House of Commons committee and our committee helps you feel you have a little bit of control back in the situation that you've had very little control over, that you are helping to improve a law in Canada and, hopefully, help other families so that they don't have to go through what you've been through.
Could you tell me if you believe that the provincial authorities in this case bear a share of responsibility in what's happened to you and your family?
[Translation]
Ms. Malo: I believe so, yes, because they are the ones responsible for health. I think everyone needs to work together. To me, we are each links in a chain, and if all the links are soldered together properly, we make a strong chain. But if we are not working together, we are working against each other.
We can tell you our story and what happened to us, and you, on your end, have the expertise and authority to change things. I think we can change things if we work together, but we have to want to make a difference. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much, witnesses, for your appearance today and for your assistance with the committee's deliberations.
For our second panel today, I'm going to encourage them to indicate to the committee the names of their organizations rather than attempting to pronounce it myself. We have Director General Doris Provencher, and Chloé Serradori, Analytical and Liaison Officer.
Could you, for the record, indicate the name of your organization?
[Translation]
Doris Provencher, Director General, Association des groupes d'intervention en défense des droits en santé mentale du Québec: We are from the Association des groupes d'intervention en défense des droits en santé mentale du Québec.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
As well, appearing via videoconference from Quebec City, we have Director General Hélène Fradet and President Christiane Trudel.
Could you also indicate to the committee the name of your organization?
[Translation]
Hélène Fradet, Director General, Fédération des familles et amis de la personne atteinte de maladie mentale: FFAPAMM stands for the Fédération des familles et amis de la personne atteinte de maladie mentale.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. Do you have an opening statement? Please proceed.
[Translation]
Ms. Provencher: Good morning. I want to thank the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for inviting us to appear today. The Association des groupes d'intervention en défense des droits en santé mentale du Québec was established in 1990.
We are a non-profit organization that advocates for the rights of individuals who have mental health issues or have had such issues in the past, rights that every Quebecer is entitled to. The principles that guide us are social justice, freedom and equality.
Right off the bat, my colleague and I want you to know that we are not lawyers. We are here to share the reality experienced by individuals who have or have had mental health issues, as it relates to the exercise of their rights.
We are expressly asking you to reconsider the bill in light of two major pillars of Canadian society: the rule of law and the principles of fundamental justice. We believe that the government should take steps to ensure that victims have access to justice, while providing psychosocial services, direct assistance and support services, as well as financial compensation.
Throughout the hearings on Bill C-54, a slew of witnesses criticized the proposed changes to the Criminal Code.
Unfortunately, Bill C-14 is a carbon copy of Bill C-54. In our view, it is actually worse, one reason being the provision that would allow victims to be notified of the accused's intended place of residence following their discharge.
Bill C-14 reintroduces provisions that had been rejected after a long consultation process and repealed by the government in 2005 with the passage of Bill C-10, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (mental disorder) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. While the terms may have changed, the intent is the same. When the Minister of Justice appeared before the committee last week, he said that the bill would affect less than 1 per cent of people.
The view of a number of legal and medico-legal experts is that the current procedure is working well, even though there is always room for improvement; they are wondering about the rationale behind the bill. Pitting the rights of victims against those of individuals found not criminally responsible in no way secures justice. On the contrary, putting punitive measures in place will do nothing to alleviate a victim's loss or suffering.
Chloé Serradori, Analytical and Liaison Officer, Association des groupes d'intervention en défense des droits en santé mentale du Québec: As was the case with Bill C-54, we are again asking that certain provisions be withdrawn from Bill C-14, provisions that significantly impact the application of Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code on mental disorders.
We are asking that the following provisions be removed from Bill C-14: clause 9, which makes public safety the paramount consideration in the board's decision-making process; clause 10, which defines what constitutes a significant threat to the safety of the public, in connection with clause 9; clause 12, which introduces the notion of a high-risk accused to the Criminal Code, as well as all related clauses; and new section 202.201(6), provided for in clause 26, which allows the victim to be informed of the accused's intended place of residence upon request.
We were also dismayed to learn from the hearings that it would be possible to retroactively apply the high-risk designation to those who had previously been found to be not criminally responsible. We are asking that this retroactive application not be allowed.
It is our view that these provisions diminish the ability of individuals who have or have had a mental health condition to exercise their rights, further stigmatize those individuals, perpetuate prejudices such as the idea that mental illness goes hand in hand with violence, and restrict access to sound, transparent and objective remedies that respect a person's rights and freedoms in a democratic state.
We believe that these provisions greatly undermine the basic principle that is fundamental justice and run counter to the very spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This bill gives the impression that it protects the safety of the public and victims. Unfortunately, however, the repercussions of the provisions in question could actually do the opposite.
Thank you.
Christiane Trudel, President, Fédération des familles et amis de la personne atteinte de maladie mentale: Mr. Chair, honourable senators, the FFAPAMM represents 39 organizations across Quebec that work to combat the isolation and help realize the potential of those who care for a loved one with a mental illness. Our movement responds to more than 60,000 requests for assistance every year. Our organization was borne of the desire expressed by families who, in the 1960s and 1970s, suddenly had to assume, without any support, the care of a mentally ill loved one as part of that individual's reintegration into society in the wake de-institutionalization.
In Quebec, as in the rest of the country, a person with a mental illness is often looked upon as a crazy person who has lost control of their mental faculties. The practice of associating mental illness with the condition of being dangerous is commonplace, despite efforts by the various levels of government to raise mental illness awareness. The stories we hear from families show that the treatment of mental illness does not systematically fit into an approach that takes both justice and health into account.
However, when judicial intervention is necessary, the mentally ill person and their family find themselves in an unfamiliar world that offers no reassurance. We are talking about an environment where the rules are complex to start with. And when you introduce the human element, the experience is unquestionably difficult given that the families' emotional distress is three times higher than that reported for the rest of the population, their loved one's suffering entangled with their own.
Bill C-14 is of particular concern to us because the families we represent are often witnesses to or victims of the decompensation of their loved one and the violent behaviour that can entail. They quickly find themselves at a dead end, where everything comes to a standstill, except the stress the family feels, which continues to rise.
The individual's loved ones have no idea where to go for help and live in dread of the person acting out and victimizing them. The reality is that loved ones often live under a cloud of danger. Those looking in from the outside may see no need to intervene because the likelihood of the person acting out is not high enough. But those families who, night after night, shut themselves away and listen to their loved one growing more and more aggravated as the hours pass are at the absolute limits of what their nerves can take. That fact only makes the symptoms worse and exacerbates the situation. Sometimes foreseeable, sometimes not, the situation can turn volatile and may result in tragedy.
This bill proposes new options after those tragedies occur. It contains worthwhile elements for both victims and individuals with mental disorders who have committed crimes causing serious personal injury and who are at high risk of reoffending.
With that in mind, as far as positive aspects and points of caution go, we would like to draw your attention to three aspects. First of all, we feel it is important that the reform allow victims' families to play a bigger role in the assessment process that precedes the individual's release. When it comes to the accused's loved ones, they are familiar with the person's history and background, and have usually had a hand in helping the person cope with the mental illness. Although the accused's family may not always exhibit objective judgment, they can help to identify risk factors.
Second, we recognize that establishing the "high-risk accused" designation could exacerbate the negative perception of mental illness. Nevertheless, given that it will apply to a tiny percentage of cases, we support the designation provided that the person undergo mandatory drug therapy, counselling and rehabilitation. Correctional plans and treatment plans must be rooted in rehabilitation.
Third, while the government's desire to make the safety of the public and victims the paramount consideration is commendable, we believe the criteria used to determine whether an accused is high risk are too vague. We must be careful not to adopt an approach so extreme that it marks a return to the 1950s, when the mentally ill were confined to psychiatric institutions. The decision as to whether or not an individual constitutes a high-risk accused rests on all relevant evidence such as the nature and circumstances of the offence, any pattern of repetitive behaviour of which the offence forms a part, and the past and expected course of the accused's treatment, including the accused's willingness to follow treatment. We believe that, in addition to those factors, the notion of dangerousness in relation to the accused's mental condition should be taken into account, so that individuals are not improperly designated as high-risk accused, forcing on them all the related conditions.
For instance, the assessment of the accused's current mental condition should take into account the following factors: the person is exhibiting symptoms associated with the mental illness and will continue to deteriorate without immediate treatment; the person is seriously troubled, meaning they are, in essence, incapable of meeting their basic needs, excluding as a result of poverty; and the person is exhibiting imminent signs of violence that could endanger their life or the life of someone else.
Families in Quebec are no different from those in the country's other provinces. They are often out of options when it comes to stopping a mentally ill loved one from causing irreparable harm. These are intolerable situations in which the individual's family members become victims of violent behaviour at the hands of their mentally ill loved one who is losing control of their brain functions.
There is nothing harder for a family member than to have to call the police to intervene to stop the behaviour of their loved one. But standing idly by and watching the person spin out of control is not acceptable; nor is picturing that person locked up in jail without any mandatory medical care. From the accounts we have heard from the families, this failure to provide proper medical care is a far cry from ensuring rehabilitation.
The families feel that society should take responsibility and step in to protect people from themselves and others to prevent tragedies that make headline news. The experiences that families share with us prove one thing time and time again: despite their best efforts, it is not always possible to intervene appropriately in situations that put people's mental health and safety at risk. Families believe that the more services are developed and targeted beforehand, the less often they will have to resort to the courts and the less often mentally ill individuals will end up behind bars.
In short, in light of the significant shortcomings in provincial preventive measures and in order to prevent repeat offences, the FFAPAMM supports Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act. However, we would like to draw the senators' attention to the importance of taking an in-depth look at the major deficiencies in the organization of mental health services across the country.
It is simply unacceptable that, in 2014, provincial governments do not provide seamless access to mental health care. From the perspective of the families, the real way to address the problem is through prevention, in other words, a proactive approach in which psychosocial treatment and legal intervention are provided in coordination. Of course, family members can invoke the law when the mental condition of a loved one causes them to endanger themselves or others, but the fact remains that assessment and treatment services still need to be available to deal with that individual.
The FFAPAMM will remain at your disposal should you undertake a review or study to improve services and legislation at the front end, in order to prevent tragedies involving the mentally ill and their families. Efforts to that end would make more sense and be more respectful of everyone concerned. Thank you for listening, and we would be happy to answer your questions.
[English]
Senator Baker: First, I would like to thank the witnesses who presented here today for their very excellent presentations. As I listened to Ms. Trudel give her presentation, I believe it was to direct politicians as to the preventive measures that can be taken in the provincial mental health situations in our provinces and that our attention as politicians should go there rather than with the legislation that we have before us.
The witnesses who have appeared here live before the committee presented a somewhat different presentation, I believe. The witnesses here have told us that these are punitive measures that are probably unconstitutional — although you haven't used that term, but I suspect that this is what you are suggesting.
Did you, Ms. Provencher, present before the House of Commons committee and did they give you an opportunity to be cross-examined on the matters very much? Did you have much to say in cross-examination before the committee? Did it go on for an extended period of time?
[Translation]
Ms. Provencher: No. There were four presentations, and the committee fell a bit behind schedule, so it went rather quickly. There was one comment and one question.
[English]
Senator Baker: A comment and a question. Well, here you get more time to answer.
I will put it to you as to what you would have liked to have said to the other place in the House of Commons when you presented in response to their questions. I'm particularly interested in your statement that these are punitive measures, that their retroactive application should not be there, and that it's a violation of fundamental justice which you said should not be tolerated. I imagine you would say "in a free and democratic society," which is section 1 of the Charter, as you know.
Can you elaborate on why you have made such extreme statements regarding this legislation and are there particular sections? I know you outlined three sections that you wanted to be in opposition to, but could you put some meat to the bones as far as what you've said is concerned?
[Translation]
Ms. Provencher: First of all, unless we missed it, Bill C-54 and Bill C-14 made no mention of this idea of retroactive application.
When we heard the Minister of Justice talk about it, we were very shocked to learn that the legislation could be applied retroactively to those who had been found not criminally responsible. They still received a sentence of some sort because they are not all out in the community; some are spending years in psychiatric facilities. And now it will be possible to judge them retroactively in connection with a crime that was committed a few years prior. It will be said that their crime was of a brutal nature, and then, they will be designated a "high-risk criminal". The retroactive application of an act offends all manner of justice, in our view. We are very much against that from a fundamental justice perspective. My colleague has something she would like to add.
Ms. Serradori: As far as the unconstitutional dimension goes, we are not lawyers. But we do know that those rights apply to all, including those with mental health issues. Canada adheres to certain instruments of the United Nations, including the principle of universal interdependent rights. We do not understand the idea behind paramount consideration being given to public safety in violation of an individual's right to freedom, when that very principle is guaranteed, recognized and implemented by all Canadian courts.
The House of Commons and Senate committees have heard from review board members, law society representatives and medico-legal experts, all of whom have pointed to the fact that this bill will likely cause problems as it relates to the charter.
Department of Justice officials said, in response, that they had done their work and that the bill's passage was a possibility. That is one thing, legally speaking. Something else that brings the unconstitutional element to mind is that, instead of tackling the real social problems facing victims, those with mental health issues and families, this bill sets out punitive measures, measures that would practically reopen the door to psychiatric institutes.
The discussion earlier on stereotypes and prejudice touched on the idea of people with intellectual disabilities being categorized or labelled as "high risk." If you want to know why we oppose the bill, all of those factors come into play. It has to do with the stigmatization; that is important to keep in mind. An attempt is being made to mislead the public and victims when it comes to this bill. Crimes will be committed with or without the bill. The recidivism rate is low, as we have seen.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to say what we were not able to say before the House of Commons committee.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you for your presentation.
As you so clearly pointed out, Bill C-14 has three components, and one is to enhance the involvement of victims in the system. The objectives are to increase victims' safety, to give victims the opportunity to participate in the scheme as it relates to individuals with mental disorders, to ensure victims are notified when the accused is discharged, to prohibit accused from communicating with victims and to see to it that court and review board decisions take the safety of victims into account. The application of this bill will be country-wide, and its purpose is to give victims a more effective say in the criminal justice system.
With that in mind, do you have any other recommendations for the committee to consider should Bill C-14 be passed into law?
Ms. Provencher: As we said, there are two elements to consider. There is the whole definition of a "high-risk accused," a designation that applies for three years. Why three years? I think the question has already been raised. Why three years and not four or five years? Who knows? That is something that needs to be revisited.
We are not saying there is no work to be done on the review board side of things; there may be some work to do in that respect. First, there is the whole idea of retroactively applying the high-risk designation. Where does that come from? It is not in the bill. Second, there is the measure on providing the accused's place of residence. I understand the person's loved ones being notified upon discharge and victims being involved in the process. But victims need help too, beyond that protective measure. They need real help, financial support, among other things. I think people and victims would benefit if that aspect were reviewed.
Senator McIntyre: Ms. Trudel, would you care to comment?
Ms. Trudel: From our perspective, victim involvement is key, so in that respect, we feel it is important that families receive information on the intended place of residence of their loved one upon discharge.
Today, we are looking at the legislation, not in terms of minor offences, but as it relates to crimes resulting in human tragedy. That means situations where individuals with mental disorders, having lost their faculties, ended up committing very serious crimes. From that viewpoint, we very much support families being given more information than they are now.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you. I quite appreciated your presentations. Ms. Serradori, could you please explain why you have such a problem with the term "high-risk accused"?
Ms. Serradori: I would like to start by saying that I am not the only one who feels that way. We represent many groups, and the position you, as senators received, was that of the association supported by numerous organizations.
The problem lies in the arbitrary nature of the designation, especially since we are dealing with serious risks. The issue has sparked an entire legal debate; we will leave that aspect to you. What is clear, however, is that case law X says one thing and case law Y says another. That verges on arbitrary decision making.
Furthermore, there is a risk of locking up those who, in addition to just medical treatment, require a certain type of environment and other conditions, owing to a lack of knowledge or solutions. So the easy answer is to lock them up.
Another consideration revolves around the appalling stories we have heard. In some cases, it is necessary to call the justice system into question and not to lay the blame for judicial errors on someone who had been deemed not criminally responsible. Are you aware that, in the most recent cases of not criminally responsible accused, they had never had any history of mental health problems? They had never seen a psychiatrist or received a diagnosis. With that in mind, millions of people with mental health issues could quickly be labelled dangerous. That is one reason among others.
Ms. Provencher: Another is the fact that the biggest prejudice surrounding people with mental health issues is really the association between mental health and violence. In some cases, that is true, and we are not denying that reality. I have been advocating for the rights of those with mental health issues for more than 20 years; they run our organizations and work alongside us. And anytime these terrible tragedies occur, anytime these horrendous, intolerable and inexcusable situations we hear about happen, the burden falls on them, as well.
When someone receives a psychiatric diagnosis, the first thing that goes is their credibility. The next thing that comes to mind is violence, and the person may be seen as dangerous because of that diagnosis. Adding the "high-risk accused" designation simply bolsters that thinking.
I do not agree. Although this may be one of the bill's unintended consequences, the impact on the ground is significant for thousands of people who have not committed a crime and who may never go before the courts. Regardless, they will be stigmatized further. That is what the designation will do.
[English]
The Chair: We have approximately 20 minutes left, and there are a lot of senators who still wish to ask questions. I would ask the witnesses as well to try to tighten up their responses so that we can hopefully accommodate all of the senators.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I would like to thank our witnesses.
My question is for Ms. Provencher. I heard your presentation, where you talked about social justice, equality and freedom. You seem a bit nervous about the bill making it possible to inform the victim where the offender will live.
We must not forget that the offender does know where the victim lives. The victim often continues to reside at the same place. We saw that in the case of previous witnesses. In a high-profile Quebec case of Dr. Turcotte, a physician who is very knowledgeable about medication, an assumption could even be made that he may occasionally be somewhat manipulative. That being said, individuals with mental health problems have to take medication and sometimes end up isolated or are left to their own devices.
So there is no guarantee that they will take their medication. Moreover, I would point out that the bill targets very serious crimes, so only a small portion is affected — not everyone is being painted with the same brush. In addition, the purpose of the bill is to protect victims.
Do you not think that individuals who have committed very serious crimes — the individuals the bill targets — should be monitored, so that they take their medication and so that victims are protected? That is the bill's purpose.
Ms. Provencher: There are legal tools to ensure that someone undergoes treatment, at least in Quebec. This is called judicial authorization for treatment.
For instance, thousands of people in Quebec have to go to an external clinic every month to receive an injection, or to ensure that they are taking their medication. If they miss their appointment, the police pick them up and bring them to the hospital. Legal tools exist to meet those needs.
I do not think that going backwards and institutionalizing those people would really help us and that we would automatically be safe.
Senator Dagenais: For your information, and for the sake of disclosure, I was a police officer for about 30 years. We were often called in to pick up people at home because they had a mental illness. We needed a court order and a judicial authorization, without which we could not bring the person to the hospital. I can assure you that finding a judge on Saturday and Sunday afternoons was a tall task. We were very ill-equipped and caught in a bind.
Since you followed Dr. Turcotte's case, you know that he refused to undergo treatment at the Pinel Institute. I think that the bill targets treatment for very serious cases, as well as victim protection. It is not a matter of generalization.
Ms. Provencher: For me, it is not clear that the bill forces an individual to undergo treatment. We are talking about something else.
Senator Dagenais: That is not what I said. I said that those people should be monitored better and that we were mainly focused on protecting victims.
Ms. Provencher: But no treatments.
Senator Dagenais: That is your answer.
Senator Joyal: Welcome, ladies. Ms. Trudel, we do not have the pleasure of having you among us. We want to thank all four of you for your very thoughtful input.
I would like to come back to the issue of information provided to the victim on the offender's place of residence. As you pointed out, Ms. Provencher, we are familiar with section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that deals with mobility. Everyone must have the right to take up residence where they want and the right to confidentiality with regards to the location.
I think it is also important to understand that, for a victim who had a major traumatic experience — as we cannot ignore the fact that the victim's family or the victim themselves are left with psychological scars that are extremely difficult to heal — time and distance play a role in the healing process. I am not a psychiatrist or a psychologist, but I am speaking from personal experience with family members. The more time passes, the more people are able to put things in perspective and get their life back on track.
Take, for example, the case we heard about this morning, where the individual guilty of the offence in question would take up residence, in a worst case scenario, across the street from their victim's home. How do you think the victim can get the time and space they need to get back to their day-to-day life? The same applies to the person who had a mental disability. How could they be reminded of their crime on a daily basis?
It seems to me — and this is just common sense — that distancing those individuals from each other is a recovery factor both for the person suffering from a mental disability and for the victim. I am talking to you as an ordinary citizen. I am putting myself in their shoes.
How can informing the victim of where the person who was or is suffering from a mental disability may take up residence work both ways? This factor is not absolute, and I am trying to see how we can identify the inconveniences and benefits for both sides.
Yesterday, I heard the bar representatives say that this may be a violation of the charter. I am very sensitive to those arguments, but I am trying to see them in concrete terms. These are everyday lives we are talking about, and not theory. Both the psychiatric patients and the victims suffer, as some traumatic experiences are extremely severe and often long-lasting. Providing the victim with the offender's place of residence, if they want to know, can also be part of the treatments to which victims are entitled and which are not sufficiently developed. With regard to high-risk accused, Ms. Trudel said the following on page 2 of her presentation:
Second . . . will have mandatory pharmacological treatment, psychological monitoring and social reintegration assistance . . .
That also applies to the victim. There are two victims in this kind of a situation. I am trying to see how your argument, to which I am receptive, would apply in practice and how a judge would react in a real situation.
Ms. Serradori: We want to clarify that we did not ask that this bill be withdrawn, but rather that certain provisions be withdrawn. We support all the sections concerning victims, except for this amendment.
Besides the fact that this is a violation of a right to privacy — which is no minor thing — what would it change? Let us use your example to illustrate a potential situation. Let us say that, unfortunately, the offender has taken up residence across the street from their victim. What would that change for the victim or for the offender? The victim would know that the offender is living there, and what would that change in practical terms? What would happen?
Both individuals have the right to live there. I remind you that, in principle, this is also part of justice, as the person has been released. They paid their debt. We understand how victims may feel, but practically speaking, what would this change? Nothing. All it would do is violate a right, give the victim a false sense of security, but nothing would change in reality.
Senator Boisvenu: Ms. Fradet and Ms. Trudel, I am very happy to see you again. We would have liked to have you with us this morning. I want to congratulate you on your brief, which is very clear and well-prepared. I especially want to congratulate you on the almost missionary work you are doing. I know that you provide support to families whose loved ones are suffering from a mental disorder. Those families are never sure whether the individual may be dangerous or not, especially as mental health in Quebec is sort of the orphan of the health care system. And since the deinstitutionalization, community resources have often failed to provide families with adequate support.
Ms. Trudel and Ms. Fradet, your support of Bill C-14 indicates that you have a very good grasp of the issues families are dealing with in terms of mental health. I would like to go back to the notion of proximity.
Earlier, we heard the testimony of Ms. Malo, whose stepfather was murdered by an extremely dangerous individual. It is said that people with a mental disorder rarely reoffend. Yesterday, Senator Plett gave us some rather alarming statistics whereby almost 30 per cent of individuals who commit serious crimes have committed crimes of a different level of severity in the past. So the level of recidivism may be much higher than the official statistics indicate.
I would like to go back to victim protection. I will ask you to speak as if you were a member of a family with a mentally ill loved one. Regarding individuals who have been released — such as a 34 year old or a 35 year old with a mental disorder who is considered at risk — I think it is of the utmost importance for their family to know where they will reside and what kind of services they can have access to. I think that the address is essential for the family. Do you not think so?
Ms. Trudel: I know few families that completely cut ties with their loved one. I am involved with the FFAPAMM, but I am also the mother of a young man with a mental health disorder, and I know very few families that want to sever ties. As we pointed out in our presentation, the problem is related to the treatments, and not only pharmacological treatments, but also psychological monitoring, such as social reintegration measures, and the establishment and adherence to a concept of rehabilitation. This applies to both the individual with a mental illness and their family. The problem lies with the treatments, response plans and monitoring plans.
Ms. Fradet: Regarding the proximity of the place of residence, I think it makes perfect sense for families to be told where their loved one is living after being released. I do not think it is realistic to believe that there would be no discomfort if someone who had committed a very serious violent crime were to set up residence across the street from their parents' home. I understand how this relates to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but the parents went through a major traumatic experience. They are bound to feel unsafe and worried, and have an impression that they are being watched by their loved one. That psychological damage remains. In my opinion, providing the family with some information is a minimum requirement when the offender is scheduled to leave the detention facility. I feel that failing to provide that information is completely illogical.
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you very much.
Senator Rivest: Thank you and welcome. I tend to agree with you. I am always a little wary when we discuss these kinds of issues. This is basically a mental health problem that can lead to violence and come under the Criminal Code, but not in all cases. This bill glosses over the real issue and the disadvantages you pointed out. It must be recognized — as you do — that the bill still has some merits when it comes to victims' rights, and Senator McIntyre went over that. However, I do think the legislation is going too far, in the sense that, by penalizing, it is establishing a direct link between mental health and violence, and that is far from the truth.
Ms. Trudel also said that there are so many other dimensions associated with this major social issue — including dimensions that come under the jurisdictions of the Quebec National Assembly and municipal social services. We are not dealing with mental health here, but rather with mental health issues that have resulted in a crime and have violated victims' rights. I fully agree.
I have a point of clarification. Ms. Provencher, I understand that providing information on the place of residence violates legal rights to privacy, and Senator Joyal raised some practical issues with regard to that. But how would that specifically inconvenience or harm the individual who suffered from mental illness and committed a crime? What could be the inconvenience for them of having their place of residence revealed to the victim?
Ms. Provencher: The same as it would be for us in terms of basic rights.
Senator Rivest: I know, but aside from basic rights?
Ms. Provencher: An individual with mental health issues who has committed a crime is a person, a citizen.
Senator Rivest: Everyone knows where we live.
Ms. Provencher: I do not.
Senator Rivest: Senators are especially interested in this matter, given the problems we have had with our expense accounts. We were asked where we lived.
Ms. Provencher: We have seen some information on that, but the two situations are somewhat different. You occupy a public position.
I am talking about ordinary citizens. I want to clarify something. Having the address of a loved one is definitely normal. When we said that we did not agree with providing the individual's address, we were talking about providing it to a stranger. Of course, unfortunately, when an offence is committed in the immediate family, the family is affected. But the fact of the matter is that basic rights of privacy are involved here. Everyone is entitled to that.
Senator Rivest: I agree with you.
Ms. Provencher: Everyone has the right to that. Otherwise, it would mean that this individual is not considered a person or seen as equal to all other Canadians. That is my point.
Senator Rivest: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Batters: Thank you all for coming here today.
To Ms. Trudel and Ms. Fradet, I relate very well to you, unfortunately, due to tragic personal events in my life. I very much sympathize with the position you are in here and I thank you for your hard work on behalf of people who deal with mental illness and for all of those families who suffer along with them.
Ms. Provencher, when Minister Peter MacKay was here last week, he and I had a question and answer exchange. What I thought he and I conveyed during that presentation is that there are millions of Canadians living with mental illness right now, unfortunately. Probably 5 million Canadians right now will suffer from mental illness at some point in their life. We were trying to demonstrate that only a very small percentage of those people would be dealt with under this law.
Now, that doesn't diminish that these offenders need to be dealt with properly to protect the public and themselves and to help treat them, but in my view what we emphasized is that this bill doesn't stigmatize mental illness. It deals with just a small percentage of these people, showing that there are 5 million people that will suffer with mental illness in their life and out of that number of people only a tiny percentage would be dealt with under this law.
I wanted to make it clear to you and to those Canadians watching today that this is simply dealing with a very small category of offenders who happen to have mental illness. So I very much disagree that this bill directly links mental health and violence.
I just wanted to point that out to you. Thank you very much for your presentations today.
Senator Frum: Senator Batters just made the point I essentially wanted to make, because I also reacted when you said that this will draw a connection in the minds of the general public between mental health issues and violence.
I also want to note that in order to be designated a high-risk accused, the court has to find at least five different conditions of the individual: the nature and circumstance of the offence; the pattern of repetitive behaviour; the accused's current mental condition; the past and expected course of the accused's treatment and the accused's willingness to follow treatment; and the opinions of experts who have examined the accused. As Senator Batters said, and as you acknowledged in referencing Minister MacKay's remarks, we're talking about a small number of individuals.
I want to ask you again why you extrapolate that because there will be this very small percentage of individuals who are found to have this designation, that your concern is that the general public will think everyone with a mental illness is prone to violence?
[Translation]
Ms. Provencher: That is certainly not the bill's intention. We understand perfectly well that only a small number of people are affected. However, we have been working on the ground for 20 years, and we can confirm that, when something bad happens, the general population automatically makes an association between mental health issues and violence.
This is not a problem with the bill or the government. Prejudices do exist in society, and people are afraid of individuals with mental health issues. They do not make the distinction, as the bill does by explaining. Average people do not do that.
The association is automatic. Here, we are talking about a high-risk criminal, so the situation is even worse. There is even more stigmatization. That will be the outcome on the ground, based on our experience of over 20 years.
[English]
Senator Frum: I appreciate your concern and the work you do in this area. It's very important work. I also heard you say that that bill actually will not change that. The work you do to address the destigmatization of mental illness won't actually be affected by this bill one way or another because you are saying that to the extent there is a misunderstanding that exists, this bill won't change that.
The Chair: We will have to leave it at that.
On behalf of the committee, I thank all of our witnesses for their appearance here today. We very much appreciate your contribution to our deliberations.
Our final witness today, Carol de Delley, travelled from Manitoba to be with us, which is appreciated by all committee members. Do you have any opening comments you wish to make before we get into questions?
Carol de Delley, as an individual: Given the events of last week, I haven't had a great deal of time to prepare — including the travel — so this is as condensed as I can get it. The issue is so big that trying to put it into a five-minute statement is difficult, but I will do my best.
The Chair: Please proceed.
Ms. de Delley: Good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to speak to the issue of not criminally responsible from the victim's perspective. I will keep this as brief as possible.
On July 30, 2008, my 22-year-old son Timothy was brutally and savagely murdered on a Greyhound bus while he slept. His body was completely desecrated, his corpse cannibalized while the RCMP watched for four hours and 48 minutes. It was described as one of most horrific killings in Canadian history. Since that day, the entire system has been focused on Vince Li's rights and well-being. The psychiatric community is focused on rehabilitating and reintegrating, to use their own words, this "extremely ill individual."
Timothy has, for all intents and purposes, been completely forgotten by the system. Why? He is forgotten because NCR cases are removed from the justice system and placed into and overseen by the health care systems in each province. Not criminally responsible is a global problem and national crisis, and it is being handled provincially. I believe the issue of NCR needs to be a federal issue, not provincial, and remain in the justice system, not the medical system.
In our first meeting with the Crown, I was told the man who did this to my child came to this country from China in 2001 and that he is as Canadian as I am. As an Aboriginal woman, I found that offensive. I expressed my concerns to the provincial Justice Minister and my concerns were disregarded. This raises grave concerns for me because as the experts have testified, schizophrenia is not an overnight illness. Typically, it takes years to manifest itself. I ask: How did this man manage to get into the country? What kind of screening is in place? I sat in court and heard the killer say "not guilty," and his defence attorney says, "No crime was committed here; Vince Li is not a criminal." My son is no less dead. Under current Canadian law that is the truth, and that is disgraceful.
Fundamentally, I believe that all killers need to be segregated from society and the only thing that should change is where they serve their time. Mentally ill killers should be in a secure facility specifically designed to treat their illness, not in a mental health facility designed to assist those with mental illness who have not committed any crimes. If I needed psychiatric help I should not have to seek it at a facility housing these dangerous offenders.
I have been sifting through several cases of NCR that the families of victims have sent to me. It is fair to say that in most, if not all, the cases I've read, the offender has had previous, often frequent, interaction with the provincial health care systems. The truth is that even when family, friends, coworkers and associates of the accused have verifiable proof that an individual is suffering from severe mental illness, so long as that "very disturbed individual" is resistant to treatment, they are under no obligation to get treatment. So essentially we give the responsibility of a very sick person's well-being and decision making to that individual, even though they are clearly incapable of making those decisions. Then when they do something wrong, they are not responsible.
They cannot and should not have it both ways. If they are so sick as to not appreciate the consequences of their actions, the state must step in and assume responsibility for them.
I believe that there needs to be transparency and accountability within the institutions and the professionals caring for these offenders. We need to establish, implement and enforce a legal mechanism that would require these mentally ill, medication-dependent individuals to treat their illnesses. Failure to do so would result in criminal charges of foreseeable gross negligence causing death. That way there would be a criminal record. Victims' families would have some sense of justice having been served, the offender gets the treatment he clearly requires, and the safety of the community can be ensured.
To my knowledge, there have been no improvements to the systems that failed us, and with a severe shortage of mental health care providers in this country, I have no confidence that the system is any better prepared to provide the services to these mentally ill killers out in the community than they were six years ago, which led to the death of my son.
So again I ask: Who will be monitoring? How will they be monitored? Who is responsible if they reoffend?
I want to know why Timothy's basic human right to life and security of his person while on a public mode of transportation is being trumped by the killer's rights. How can we best meet the needs of the offender?
When I spoke to the House of Commons last June, I closed with these questions: How are we monitoring? Who is monitoring? What programs and resources are in place to assist these offenders once they are released?
Thank you again for the opportunity to bring the concerns of my fellow citizens and communities to the attention of the leadership and policy makers of this country.
Meegwetch. Ekosani. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you again. We will begin the questions with Senator McIntyre.
Senator McIntyre: Ms. de Delley, my warmest sympathy for the loss of your son.
Ms. de Delley: Thank you.
Senator McIntyre: Before I became a senator, I was Chair of the New Brunswick Review Board. During my tenure I had the opportunity to do both the fitness and the NCR hearings in the case of a Gregory Allen Despres, a young man who killed an elderly couple in Minto, New Brunswick, in 2005. As a matter of fact, he decapitated the male victim. I vividly remember the family of Fred Fulton coming into the courtroom and submitting their victim impact statements. Those thoughts are very much in the back of my mind when I'm addressing you.
Mr. Despres is currently held at the Shepody Healing Centre which is part of Dorchester Penitentiary in New Brunswick. He has never admitted the actus reus; that is, he has never admitted to the killings, although the evidence was overwhelming. He continues to suffer from chronic paranoid schizophrenia. He takes his medication but he has no insight into his mental illness.
In the case of Vince Li, my understanding is he was allowed to leave the mental hospital without an escort. I was reading that his treating psychiatrist was of the opinion that Mr. Li, who also suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, has stopped experiencing delusions and is a model non-violent patient, just like Mr. Despres is, at the present time. He is taking his medication and so is Mr. Despres.
I understand you don't agree with that decision. Is it because, as in the case of Mr. Despres, you feel that Vince Li may take his medication but has no insight into his mental illness, because if one does not have insight, then chances of recuperating are very minimal?
Ms. de Delley: My understanding of paranoid schizophrenia is it's incurable. It is manageable with medications and intensive therapy.
Senator McIntyre: You're absolutely correct on that one.
Ms. de Delley: Over six years of intensive therapy and regularly administrated medications in a controlled environment, I would be shocked if he were not doing well. While in care and in treatment he is not a concern. My concern is when he is ultimately released and is left to his own resources. I have no confidence that the community is able to correctly monitor. Depending on where he is living, if he's living in a rural or more remote location, the chances of him accessing any programs, et cetera, are practically zero.
I think that he can be treated and managed to a place where he can live with his own mind. Left to his own recourse, I don't know that that would be the case. He has already proven himself to be non-compliant. It's indicative of the illness. When they begin to feel well, they stop taking medications. I read somewhere that either 75 or 85 per cent will stop taking medications within a 12-month period from the time they are released. Those numbers scare me.
I don't think that we should have to worry about it. Freedom into a community, especially into a community that has no legal mechanism that would require him to take treatment — they can demand it and suggest it and make a condition of his release, but ultimately there is no legal mechanism requiring him to take it. If he reoffends who, then, is responsible? We already know he is not responsible. The review board is not going to be responsible. Ultimately, I believe the responsibility lands on us, the community, to protect not only the innocent victims but also the afflicted individual.
He's incurable. I'm sorry for that. Does that mean that I think he should be roaming around free? I don't think so — not ever, given what this man did. He went far and beyond what a normal schizophrenic would even have done. Though they say he has insight to his illness, he has not admitted or recognized the cannibalism aspect of it. That's huge!
Senator McIntyre: I agree entirely with you. If a person suffers from chronic paranoid schizophrenia, you cannot cure that mental illness. All you can do is have that person take his or her medication to keep the mental illness under control. I agree entirely and I am worried about that.
Senator Plett: Thank you, Ms. de Delley, for coming. I'm a fellow Manitoban, and I watched the television while this was happening. I can only say that we feel your pain and certainly feel your fears that Vince Li is being offered unsupervised passes. I agree with you when you say that it is not curable; it is manageable, and in order for it to be manageable, he has to be under somebody's care.
Yesterday, I read into the record stats on recidivism. The stats are high as to people who reoffend. Critics of the bill are saying that is not so. I would like you to give us your insight on that a bit and I will just throw one more question at you before you do.
Other critics are talking about the stigma. I know what your answer will be, but I would like you to share that. Would you not agree that the stigmatization of this heinous crime is the fault of Vince Li for publicly decapitating and cannibalizing your son, whether he is not the one responsible if there is stigmatization to the mentally ill as a result of his crime?
Those are two questions for you, if you would address them?
Ms. de Delley: Okay, the first one was —
Senator Plett: It's repeat offenders. The critics are saying the danger of someone like this repeating an offence is very low. We heard stats yesterday of 7 per cent, where I had stats that they were over 30 per cent. The fact of the matter is I don't think it's any consolidation if you are in that 7 per cent of people who are killed on a re-offence. It's on the re-offence as well as the stigmatization.
Ms. de Delley: I think it's criminal to allow an individual who has demonstrated this level of violence and his capabilities to ever have the opportunity to repeat that behaviour.
Recidivism? I don't know if he will reoffend; I just don't think he should have the opportunity to do so. Some do; some don't. Some, like the individual who was NCR and who, on the East Coast, on a one-hour pass, murdered a prominent gay rights activist. I'm sure that is cold comfort to his family that the recidivism rates are so low — blah, blah, blah. That's what I hear when I hear statistics and percentages, particularly coming from the opposition on this case. I don't take any comfort in that. I think that statistics and percentages can be skewed in favour of or against. I'm just dealing with the straight-up facts that I don't think these individuals should have the opportunity ever, given what he has done and given what he has demonstrated as his ability to do and he's incurable.
It concerns me even more that if he is ultimately let go and if he does do something, there is nothing in place to hold him responsible or to hold anybody else responsible. If Vince Li is not responsible for what happened to my child, who is? I have a lot of questions and concerns that have not been answered and there are probably no good answers for them.
Vince Li arrived in this country in 2001. He didn't receive his citizenship until 2005, which is the same year that he was seen and treated for schizophrenia. That concerns me. How did he get into this country? What is the screening process? What questions were asked or not asked that allowed in a severely ill individual like this? This disease takes years and years to manifest. It doesn't happen overnight. Yet, it presented very late for Vince Li. He was seen and walked away from an institution, with no follow-up from the mental health care field at that time. They're all there to speak on his behalf and protect him now. Where were they when he was looking for help?
That is a very common occurrence. In fact, in all the cases that I have read — and I have read several — in every case, the individual, the perpetrator, has been seen by the system, usually on multiple occasions. There have usually been several confrontations before the index offence, which is how they refer to the slaughter of my child now — the index offence.
I have trouble with all the terminology. Was Vince Li mentally ill, mentally defective, mentally diseased? There are so many different terms, and what do they all mean? Is it all the same?
What I do know for sure is what he did to my child and that he is incurable and that I believe he needs to be segregated.
That's kind of in reference to your first question. The second one was?
Senator Plett: The stigma.
Ms. de Delley: I cannot be responsible for the stigma of an individual. This is not stigma. This is fact. This is what he did. That's not a stigma. The stigma surrounding mental illness? I didn't create that and neither did my son. I don't think this furthers that. I think people want to be protected from individuals that are this seriously ill.
Stigma? I don't even know what else to say to that. I don't know what else to say to that.
Senator Plett: I appreciate that.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I want to offer you my condolences for the death of your son. I want to discuss your participation in the proceedings that have taken place. I have a specific case in mind. A psychiatric patient, in Trois-Rivières, killed his parents by beheading them. The family had to fight, so that he would not be released. On the day that the Commission de la santé mentale du Québec released him, he set fire to the hospital. That is why he was incarcerated. According to statistics on victim participation in the release process — in the mental health commission's hearings — 0.4 per cent of victims are able to speak during the process.
What was your experience with your provincial mental health commission when your son's killer applied for parole? Did you participate in the hearings? Were you allowed to speak to his release? Were you considered during the release process?
[English]
Ms. de Delley: I was certainly not consulted, no. I had many concerns. We don't generally know what Vince Li's treatment team is asking for until either the day of the review board or very shortly before. We don't know what they're asking for until the day that we go in. Really, we're just spectators to the procedure.
There's very little impact. Even our victim impact statements are censored. I have one opportunity to say how I feel or to address this, and it is censored so as not to offend the offender and his treatment. That's disgusting. He should have to hear how I feel and how he has devastated my family. The trauma and devastation that my family has experienced is not only by my family but all Canadians. This was so horrific that it captured international headlines. Then we go to a review board and have to listen to how well he's doing, what a model patient he is, what a good guy, and it's very difficult to sit there and listen to the defence attorney stand up and say, "Vince Li is not a criminal; no crime was committed here." Just because no one is being held accountable does not mean that the act didn't occur. Somebody did kill my son, and this is disgraceful, a miscarriage of justice for sure, because we haven't had any justice.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Do you think Bill C-14 does enough to protect victims and families?
[English]
Ms. de Delley: No. Without that mechanism that would require them to take the medication in treatment, absolutely not.
Do I think it's a step in the right direction? Yes, absolutely, because I'm at the point here where any improvement, anything, is going to be better than what we currently have.
I'm not surprised by the percentage you told me of victim's families who speak out because the sense of hopelessness and helplessness that is felt is beyond measure. Don't forget that victim's families are so traumatized and feel that sense of helplessness that they can't speak out, and not only can't they but they don't want to because then they get the backlash from the mental health field and everybody else.
Guess what? I don't care. I don't care what the backlash is. I know that in my "self" and my spirit and my being that it is my responsibility to do what I can to further protect the remaining members of my family and my community, and that's all I'm trying to do. I don't think that is best served by Vince Li walking around free, not in this lifetime.
[Translation]
Senator Rivest: In light of Senator Boisvenu's question, my understanding is that you were not at all asked for your opinion on Vince Li's release. For his protection, the authorities did not want you to talk about your and your family's experience. Frankly, this defies logic.
Did you and your family receive any assistance from your local social services or community services following that event and during the process you had to undertake in the wake of the terrible tragedy?
[English]
Ms. de Delley: The short answer to that question is that, yes, victim services was involved. We were directed and given a list of choices of counselling services that we could access. Keep in mind that it's different in each province. In each province, the ability to access mental health care is limited. They would cover I can't remember if it's four or maybe six visits to a psychiatric professional, for me as a victim. That's barely enough time to get out what happened let alone be given any tools or resources to use to cope.
I chose to access spiritual guidance and counselling through my Aboriginal elder, which I have found extremely helpful and beneficial. She has remained open 24/7 to me and my family and committed to that, whether she's being paid or not, which is huge. When I confront the system, if I want to go see a psychiatrist, or whatever, first there's a huge waiting list, and then when you get in to see them, you get six or seven opportunities to say what's wrong and they say, "Your time's up; see you." Really. The shortage is so great nationally, not just provincially. The number of mental health care providers is extremely low. The number of mentally ill offenders is increasing. The whole thing is very out of balance.
Senator Batters: Thank you very much for being here, Ms. de Delley. I was very upset last week to see the news about your son's killer receiving an un-escorted day pass, especially when I learned that the Manitoba government's Crown prosecutor had not opposed the application. The provincial NDP Justice Minister in Manitoba, was that Andrew Swan?
Ms. de Delley: Yes.
Senator Batters: You told us earlier that he had disregarded your concerns that you had expressed to him.
Ms. de Delley: It was a different Justice Minister at the time.
Senator Batters: Was it Dave Chomiak?
Ms. de Delley: Yes, it was.
Senator Batters: Could you please tell us about that?
Ms. de Delley: I should have brought the letter. I sent a letter explaining the situation and that in my first meeting with the Crown attorney I didn't like what she was telling me. I probably wouldn't have liked what anyone was telling me, to be fair. To be told point blank, blatantly, that Vince Li was as Canadian as I am, I understand that that's in the eyes of the law, but as an Aboriginal woman who has been here her whole life, has been a tax-paying, law-abiding, contributing member of this society all of these years, to be told that an individual who came from China who hasn't really contributed to our society is as Canadian as I am, and now I am paying taxes to keep the man who did this to my child alive, it's absurd. It's absurd. I cannot express to you my frustration with that.
There was financial devastation to my family. My husband had just stepped into a higher position in his employment. Due to the aftermath of the F5 tornado that hit our street the year before and then my son's murder, given all of that, it was just too much for him. He had to step down from his position at work. Alcoholism is now prevalent in my family because people can't cope with this.
Let me make this very clear. The 30 some-odd witnesses that were on the bus, ranging in age from children to the elderly, and the 30 or 40-plus emergency personnel that were on the scene were traumatized by Vince Li taunting them with my son's head. There was devastation and probably mental illnesses that Vince Li created in these people, but they now can't get the help that they're going to require, but we're really focused on taking really good care of him and we're going to make sure he gets all the therapy and counselling and blah, blah, blah. That's all good and fine, but keep him in a locked institution where he can continue to get that and we can feel safe.
Senator Batters: Just very briefly, we will not forget your son. I wanted to give you a short opportunity to tell us a bit about Tim McLean, about your son.
Ms. de Delley: That's really refreshing, thank you, because for the most part it is all about Vince Li. His picture in the paper is this big all the time, on the front page. There might be, if there is, a little square with one of Timothy's images.
Timothy was my wild child, without question. He was the joker. He was funny. He had a wicked sense of humour. He was fearless. He jumped into everything with both feet. He was intelligent, very bright, but bored in school. He had read everything in the school library by the time he was in Grade 5. Academically, when he got into high school, he wasn't challenged and dropped out. He chose to travel with the carnival. It gave him the opportunity to travel and meet lots of new and interesting people. He wasn't afraid to do that. He was afraid of flying, which is why he took the bus. He was a remarkably funny kid.
From the time he was little, I swear to God, he would always to say to me, "I'm going to be famous one day, mom." It was one of the last things he said to me. Because he had dropped out of high school, he very much encouraged our youngest child Kendall, his younger brother, to finish school. Kendall struggled with school, very much, but he did graduate, and Timothy came to Kendall's graduation in June of that year. I'm very grateful to have had that evening with him, because the last words that we exchanged were, "I love you." As he was walking away from me to go to the parkade, he turned around and said, "I'm going to be famous one day, mom." I never knew that it would be his last day that would make his famous, and I miss him.
Senator Batters: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you, Ms. de Delley, for the amazing courage you have shown by coming to talk about that event today. Your story reminds me of a similar case we had in Quebec where a boy named Lin Jun was dismembered by Luka Rocco Magnotta. The government sent me to attend the memorial service, where I met the devastated father, mother and brother. I can understand that you are just as devastated, but you still had the courage to come talk to us.
The murder happened, and you and your family are the victims. How did you live after the murder? And now, another offender has been released and can move around freely. I assume that this is another tragedy upon a tragedy.
[English]
Ms. de Delley: That's right. I feel re-victimized yet again. Timothy will not have been dead for six years until July 30 of this year. We have been through the trial and six review board hearings already. Each time, it's like being re-victimized because we feel like the system doesn't give a shit about us anyway. Pardon my French — my language.
It's difficult to go each time knowing that there is nothing that can be done anyways, that the system and way it is set up doesn't allow for anything different. That's why I fight. I want to create change in Timothy's memory so that many other people can be saved and the individuals requiring the treatment need to be protected from the public, need to be protected from their own illness, and we need to keep them safe as well.
I don't jump on the bandwagon with people who want to reinstate capital punishment, but I do think that if you're going to make a commitment to treating this person, if they're incurable and it's a life-long illness, they need to be kept and held forever, for the rest of their natural life, in a facility that will ensure that the treatment continues.
The Chair: In your opening statement, I think you caught the gist of concerns here very well when you talked about giving the responsibility of a very sick person's well-being and decision-making to that individual. Then, when they do something wrong, they're not responsible. I think that's been a common theme, even from witnesses who are not overly supportive of the legislation, the fact that there's so much frequent interaction with the mental health system and no obligation to seek treatment and the seriousness of offences gradually increases.
This is really a legal question. You've been such a vocal commentator with respect to the weaknesses of mental health legislation in this country. I wonder if that's an issue you've been able to speak to anyone about. Is there any way that perhaps this committee could address that particular situation? I'm thinking specifically of the right to refuse treatment. It's an issue that I spoke out about and against when the Mental Health Act was changed in Toronto quite a number of years ago to allow this to occur. I'm wondering if this is an issue that you've had any opportunity to look at in depth.
Ms. de Delley: Well, I have been so focused on just trying to raise awareness to the issue that I haven't had opportunity to do that.
I think it's ridiculous that we would give the decision to a person who has clearly indicated that they're incapable of making that decision. Again, pardon me for the expression, but I think that's crazier than the person that did it in the first place, to then go to that person and say, "You're going to be free; it's up to you whether or not you want to continue treatment or medication." I understand that that's not the way it's going to be told to him. He's going to be told he's required. We can demand it of him, but if there is no legal mechanism, then everybody else's hands are tied. If he can be found not responsible and then is given the choice not to take his medication and does that and reoffends, shame on us for allowing that to happen.
The Chair: You mentioned earlier as well in response to one of the questions that there is no recourse if someone actually does what you just suggested, commits another serious crime. They are exempt from civil liability. As I understand it, they cannot be sued.
Ms. de Delley: He's already proven himself to be non-compliant.
The Chair: I'm talking about the review board members themselves who make these release decision. They're exempt from civil liability.
Ms. de Delley: Exactly. Vince Li can't be held responsible and the review board can't be held responsible and the mental health system can't be held responsible. I know that my ex-husband launched a lawsuit six or eight weeks after Timothy was killed. I don't have any say in that and I'm not given information on how that is transpiring, but I understand that the government and the RCMP have been dropped from the lawsuit. Vince Li and Greyhound are now the only ones being sued. That's all I know about that.
Senator Frum: I didn't want you to leave without me expressing to you what a wonder you are. You're just amazing. I know your son would be so proud of what you're doing and what a great advocate you are.
I'm curious to know specifically, once this measure comes into force, whether or not it's going to be able to affect your particular situation. I understand the Crown would have to appeal.
Ms. de Delley: I don't know what the steps are that would have to transpire in order to ensure that Vince Li stays locked up, or even if it will be retroactive. I don't know. That's not in my hands. I wish it were.
The Chair: I think we've wrapped up. This has been an emotional appearance on your part, and I think it has impacted members of the committee as well. As mentioned, you are very courageous and you have made a significant contribution to our hearings on this legislation.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
The Chair: You have also given us a great deal to think about. One of the things the committee has the opportunity to do when we complete our hearings is to add observations to the report back to the Senate, and you've given us a number of worthwhile areas for discussion that we can incorporate in that report. We give you our heartfelt thanks.
Ms. de Delley: Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)