Lorsque le projet de loi C-10 a été présenté en octobre 2004, le secrétaire parlementaire du ministre de la Justice a souligné la lo
urde responsabilité dont il fallait s’acquitter au
moyen d’une loi qui doit permettre de parvenir à un équilibre entre la sécurité du public, d’une part, et les droits individuels, d’autre part(70). Un député ministériel a fait remarquer que les dispositions du
projet de loi C-10 étaient très largement conf ...[+++]ormes aux recommandations faites par le Comité permanent dans son rapport de juin 2002(71), mais un député du Bloc Québécois s’est dit préoccupé de ce que cinq des recommandations faites de façon unanime n’avaient pas été adoptées(72).When Bill C-10 was introduced in October 2004, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice pointed out the onerous
responsibility that must be discharged in legislation that needs to balance public safety and individual rights (70) Although a Government Member noted that the provisions of Bill C-10 were very
consistent with the recommendations of the Standing Committ
ee in its June 2002 report,(71) a Member from the Bloc
...[+++]Québécois expressed concerns that five of the unanimous recommendations had not been adopted (72) A Conservative Party Member emphasized that persons found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder are not to be punished, but rather kept in custody for only as long as required to get help from medical personnel (73) Another Conservative Member raised the possibility of greater victim involvement and ensuring that verdicts of not criminally responsible appear on criminal record checks (74) While the New Democratic Party announced its support of Bill C-10 in principle, a Member expressed some reservations regarding expanded law enforcement powers, greater authority for Review Boards, and inadequate legal representation of mentally disordered accused (75)