Bill C-375 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (presentence report)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to require that a presentence report contain information on any aspect of the offender’s mental condition that is relevant for sentencing purposes.

The House resumed from September 18 consideration of the motion that Bill C-375, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (presentence report), as reported (with amendment) from the committee be concurred in.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-375, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (presentence report), as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Justice and Human Rights

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have two reports to table.

I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 18th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-375, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to pre-sentence reports. The committee has considered the bill and agreed to report it to the House with amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 19th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill S-210, an act to amend an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Basically, in Bill C-375, there is only one clause. On clause 1, we have three amendments that were received, two of which are similar, and one is being withdrawn, which is LIB-1.

There are two we know we are hearing. The first is LIB-2.

Mr. McKinnon, the floor is yours.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

I'm calling this meeting to order.

Committee members, we're just going to have a brief housekeeping issue before we move to the clause-by-clause on Bill C-375. As everybody knows, we had planned to table in the House on Thursday our report on jurors, and we were going to do our press conference at noon, but in deference to the fact that, unfortunately, there is a funeral some of us are going to—in particular Mr. Nicholson—we're going to delay the press conference and the tabling of the report, if everybody agrees, until we return on Tuesday, May 22. We'll deposit it at 10 o'clock in the House, and then we'll do our press conference. Mr. Rankin has a meeting, so he can only get there for 1:15 p.m. We'll do the press conference at 1:15 p.m. on Tuesday, May 22, if everybody is okay with that.

We will proceed with our regular meeting on Thursday, because we have witnesses coming from out of town. For that, we will indeed go ahead. The meeting will proceed as scheduled on Thursday, but not the press conference. Is everybody good with that?

[Catherine Latimer]

I believe so. As I pointed out, the ones who I think have really slipped through the cracks are the ones who are self-representing and are completely disoriented. It's awkward for everyone in the process. If there were a pre-sentence report that indicated even what was evident at the proceedings, which was that the person seemed to have some significant mental health issues, it would inform the sentencing process in a better way.

I also think that there should be, and it would be nice if it could be attached to Bill C-375, sort of a fitness test. You may not be fit, you may not have the cognition or the mental capacity, to actually serve a federal sentence or a sentence in a custodial facility. People with mental illness in a custodial facility are often bullied. They can't follow the instructions. They're often subject to administrative segregation and other disciplinary measures by the correctional system, and some end up being killed in the correctional system. A lot of it has to do with the disjuncture between their mental health and their capacity to serve the sentence.

[Catherine Latimer, Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada]

Thank you. I would like to express my appreciation for your inviting the John Howard Society to share our concerns and perspective on Bill C-375.

As many of you know, the John Howard Societies are charities providing services in more than 60 communities across Canada, and we are all committed to effective, just, and humane responses to the causes and consequences of crime.

The John Howard Society has been long concerned about those with mental illnesses who are involved in the criminal justice system. Too often, people default into the criminal justice system because needed services in the community are unavailable and alternatives are not in place. The end result is that we end up punishing the mentally ill rather than treating them.

I share the perspective of Savannah that correctional services or correctional institutions are not well placed to deal with people with serious mental health issues. I therefore see some hope that Bill C-375, if properly implemented, could be an advantage in keeping people who do not need to be in the criminal justice system out of it.

What the bill does, as you know—and it's a nice short bill, the kind I like—is suggest that any mental disorder from which an offender suffers as well as any mental health care program available to him or her should be noted in a pre-sentence report. This amendment, I think, would really help sentencing judges become more aware and take note of the mental health issues and programs that might be available to assist.

If an individual is about to be sentenced, he or she will have been convicted, and so a finding that the accused was not criminally responsible because of a mental disorder will not have been made. NCR is a very low bar, and many people who face very serious mental health issues will find themselves being sentenced in the criminal justice system. The fact that they are at the sentencing stage and have been found to be criminally responsible—or not found not to be criminally responsible—does not relieve us of the likelihood that someone with significant mental issues is about to come into the criminal justice system.

The sentencing judge really has two important determinations to make. One is the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the perpetrator when assessing the quantum of penalty. The second issue they have to deal with is what sentencing option should be imposed in order to hold the person accountable in the proportionate amount.

I'm easy as to whether it comes in a pre-sentence report or, in the youth justice system, conferencing that would keep it out of a formal record and the information be available to the judge, but if that information were available, it could really help individuals who are suffering from mental health issues take a look at the extent to which they are morally blameworthy for the offence, if they have serious mental health issues. The more incapable the mental illness makes individuals of understanding the nature and consequences of their criminal behaviour or appreciating that it is wrong, the more the quantum of the penalty is appropriately mitigated.

In my experience, some people who find themselves in the formal correctional system are completely disoriented as to time and place. They are so badly riddled with senile dementia that they have no idea why they're in prison or what happened that led them to be there. It is quite conceivable that this affliction was present at the time they committed their offence and at the time of sentencing and that, whatever is currently available to sentencing judges now, this was not picked up.

We could have a flag of some sort that reinforces that if the person is not aware of the consequences of his or her behaviour, that should be taken into account in mitigating the sentence.

The other thing that would really help is trying to figure out the appropriate sentencing option for someone who is criminally responsible but suffering from a mental health problem.

In my experience, there are some mental health conditions that predispose people to commit breaches. If you gave them a probation order, they would breach the order, because if they're suffering from fetal alcohol spectrum disorder or other brain injuries, they cannot understand causality in the way that the criminal justice system requires them to understand causality to avoid breaches.

It is thus important, I think, when assessing whether there should be a custodial penalty or a community-based penalty as your sentencing option or what the nature of the sentencing options should be, to have a clear understanding of the mental health condition and as to whether the sentence being imposed is one the prisoner is capable of discharging without attracting further breaches and other problems with the criminal justice system.

I take Mr. Embry's point that the information needs to be relevant and that it's not fair to the individual being sentenced for incidental information about his mental health issues to be placed on the public record. I think, though, that if the provision of the requisite information were done in a way such that the individual is consenting and the information is relevant to the offence, it could be really beneficial in ensuring that the penalties being imposed and the sentences being rendered have a better chance of being just, effective, and humane, taking into account the moral turpitude of the individual and the type of sentencing option that the individual can carry out.

We believe that valid consent is needed for any treatment option imposed through a criminal sentence and also for soliciting that information. I take the point that there continues to be significant stigma against those with mental health issues and that in correctional services and other agencies, identifying mental health problems can be understood as an enhanced risk factor and operate to the detriment of the individual who reveals it. We think, however, that if there were ways to do it in a manner that helps the sentencing judge craft a sentence that is fair, just, and appropriate, there is a reason to proceed with Bill C-375.

In sum, the inclusion of mental health information in pre-sentence reports is an important step in dealing with the mental health crisis in our prisons. It will allow sentencing judges to be better informed about mental illness and be an important tool in the promotion of just, effective, and humane sentences. For that reason we would like to see Bill C-375 proceed.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much.

While I appreciate all of the comments, this is really about Bill C-375 and this committee cannot go beyond Bill C-375 and can only make amendments to what is before us. I'd appreciate it if witnesses would stick to the scope of the current bill because anything otherwise is not what we're actually here to talk about. You may get some questions, but they will be about Bill C-375.

[Savannah Gentile, Director, Advocacy and Legal Issues, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies]

Thank you.

I would like to begin by acknowledging that we have the honour and privilege today of meeting on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin nation.

Thank you for inviting our organization to speak today on Bill C-375. I'm the director of advocacy and legal issues with the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, and I regularly visit the prisons for women across Canada with our regional advocate teams.

CAEFS has extensive experience advancing the equality rights of women whose behaviour is or is thought to be criminalized, and a depth of knowledge concerning the interactions of such women with the legal system. CAEFS has a substantial interest in ensuring the criminal justice system operates fairly with respect to women, and that the perspective and experience of women, in particular indigenous women, are represented in its design and operation.

My remarks today are born out of my experience working closely with women at CAEFS and whom our 24 local EFrys serve. I'll do my best to do justice to the experiences of these women and to identify the issues they have raised with me.

The numbers of women in prison with mental disabilities continues to rise. Indeed, with the majority of the female prison population identified as experiencing mental health issues, it appears prisons are becoming the default option for mental health intervention. This pattern persists despite the common practice in many jurisdictions to include mental health information in pre-sentence reports. As such, it is CAEFS's position that formalizing this practice into law does not go far enough. It will not reverse or even make a dent in the current practice of incarcerating women with mental disabilities, and it will not lead to their compassionate care.

In fact, there is a risk of which there is growing evidence that women may be sentenced to prison terms because of the false perception that appropriate counselling services are available in prison. In CAEFS's experience, women sometimes receive federal sentences rather than provincial sentences because of the misconception that they will have more access to rehabilitative programming at the federal level.

This pattern is exacerbated by the gaps in mental health services in the community and the unwillingness on the part of some community-based services to accept criminalized women. We need to work on changing this.

The fact that prisons have become the accepted placements for women with mental disabilities is deeply problematic. CSC's response to women's mental health behaviour is overwhelmingly security driven and damaging. Incarcerated women who need quality mental health care end up receiving punishment in its place. It is CAEFS's position that this substitution is unacceptable in Canada.

When prison officials adopt counselling services like those seen in community-based programs, they often lack a gender, race, and class analysis of women's experiences and needs, and become part of the punitive regime. This is a mistake. A good example of this is the heavy reliance by CSC on cognitive behavioural therapy, a technique that is not meant to address past issues or provide supportive counselling.

For most women in prison, mental health problems and their occurrence, for that matter, are intractably linked to a lifetime of being subjected to poverty, systemic racism, and physical and/or sexual abuse. Within prison, women are frequently punished for responses to trauma, which are perceived by CSC as simply bad behaviour. In too many cases, CSC's approach to mental health can be deadly. For example, current CSC policy prescribes that prisoners at risk of self-injury or suicide be placed in a segregation cell on what they call mental health observation. It's segregation by another name.

CSC's position that segregation is a status and not a place, and that individuals on mental health observation are not in segregation, demonstrates its inability to recognize that confinement of this kind escalates women's distress and can lead—and has led—to further and more lethal forms of self-harm and suicide attempts. The jury at the Ashley Smith inquest made two concrete recommendations that had the potential to lead to significant changes in CSC's approach to self-injury back in 2009. Both were rejected by CSC.

In 2016, Terry Baker committed suicide while under mental health observation in a segregation cell at the Grand Valley Prison for women. Just days prior to her death, Ms. Baker had been bound to her bed for a prolonged period of time, which is another common practice used on women at risk of self-harming.

CSC has been on the same trajectory for decades, without any signs of real change, despite several reports, commissions, inquests, and recommendations to support change. This trajectory, which is security-driven, discriminatory, and harmful, is antithetical to the treatment of mental health issues. CSC's classification scheme confines indigenous women and women with mental health problems in maximum security and segregation because of their histories, not in spite of them.

Unemployment, lack of education, family instability, and homelessness prior to incarceration all lead to higher ratings on the custody rating scale, a tool that was developed over 25 years ago based on a sample of white male prisoners, which results in overly high classifications when used on women. This has been reported on for decades. Women's needs, especially those with mental disabilities, are translated to risks. Maximum security is a form of segregation that separates women with complex needs from the general population and therefore, from programming, meaningful work opportunities, family visits, and important mental health supports. In short, placement in maximum security greatly diminishes these women's chances of obtaining parole and successfully reintegrating into the general population and ultimately, into their communities.

The following are recommendations that, unlike the current bill, could amount to real and significant changes to the circumstances of women with mental disabilities.

First, we could support the UN special rapporteur on violence against women recommendation that preference be given “in every case, to alternatives to imprisonment for prisoners with disabling mental health by utilizing [section 29 of the CCRA] to transfer prisoners to mental health services, facilities, or psychiatric hospitals.” We've reported on this before. There are currently only two mental health beds designated for women.

In the meantime, while women with mental disabilities remain incarcerated, we should transfer the responsibility for the health care, including for mental health, of prisoners from public safety to the ministry of health, as has been done in British Columbia, Alberta, and Nova Scotia.

We should legislate an absolute ban on the use of solitary confinement; segregation, including maximum security in women's prisons; medical observation; mental observation; and all other related forms of isolation of incarcerated young women and women with mental health issues. This is something that has been supported by the special rapporteur on torture.

We should create a mechanism for the external judicial oversight of CSC and specifically, in relation to decisions regarding segregation placements, placement on mental health observation, and any other forms of isolation and the use of physical restraints, like Pinel restraints.

We should create a mechanism through which judges can revisit the sentences they impose if legalities, gross mismanagement, or unfairness in the administration of a sentence renders that sentence harsher than that imposed by the court. A reduction of the period of imprisonment may be granted to reflect that the punishment administered was more punitive than the one intended. That's a recommendation coming out of the 1996 Arbour report.

Overall, we hope that you recognize that the relatively low number of women in prison as compared to men is an opportunity to innovate, rather than to ignore. Women prisoners, as a group, are low risk, and the potential gains from progressive and substantive changes to the law for this group, and for their families and communities, could be immeasurable.

Thank you.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

In the way Bill C-375 is written, by adding proposed paragraph 721(3)(a.1), it not only lists a mental disorder from which the offender suffers, but as well mental health care programs that are available to them. Is that something that you do already?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses for coming today. I appreciate hearing your insights on this, especially given the level of expertise and direct access to the justice system you experience.

You said in your opening remarks that, “Bill C-375, if passed, should consider legislation that would assist in facilitating the sharing of information between Corrections and the health care systems.” Can you just expand a little bit on that?

[Christine Beintema, Vice-President, Probation Officers Association of Ontario]

Probation and parole officers recommend conditions in a pre-sentence report that best suit the needs of the offender, with consideration, of course, to victim safety and the safety of the general public.

One of the challenges faced by probation and parole officers is that community agencies often provide services on a voluntary basis. They are not equipped or prepared to provide services to offenders who are resistant or unwilling to attend for treatment. Although an offender may be directed to attend a particular service or agency, the agency is not compelled to provide services to an offender who is disinclined to seek treatment. In addition, offenders who are motivated to engage in mental health treatment or supports may lose motivation because of lengthy waiting lists at community agencies.

In many instances, offenders will advise that they have been diagnosed with various mental health issues but are unable to provide details or confirm that they've been formally diagnosed. During the process of gathering information, they can tell us many different things but not always be willing to give the information or be able to provide the correct information for us to follow up.

In such cases it's difficult to gather the appropriate information necessary to confirm and provide an accurate and thorough report. Bill C-375, if passed, should consider legislation that would assist in facilitating the sharing of information between Corrections and the health care systems. As gathering health care information can take a longer period of time, the court should also consider granting probation and parole officers additional time to investigate, for these reports, diagnoses that are reported but unconfirmed.

Currently, probation and parole officers experience difficulty when attempting to obtain information from medical professionals related to the mental health diagnosis or otherwise. Probation and parole officers must consider and are limited by the offender's right to privacy and must have the offender's consent to access health records. If this consent is received, obtaining health records can take an extended period of time, which affects the amount of time needed to adequately prepare a pre-sentence report for court.

If Bill C-375 passes, perhaps the new legislation would encourage changes to the health care system to require medical professionals—of course, where release of information is signed by the offender—to provide requested mental health information to probation and parole services in a timely manner, at no cost, and in a language that is suitable for the layperson.

That's one of the complications we run into: we're often sent a bill for information we're requesting, which we are not permitted to pay for. It often takes a long time. We understand they're busy, but we have timelines to follow. Oftentimes we'll have notes from a medical professional that are handwritten and be unable to read them but also to understand them, because we aren't medical professionals.

POAO members have suggested that if mental health concerns are being identified at court, as specified on a request for a preparation of a pre-sentence report, perhaps representatives at the court could facilitate offenders' signing of releases at that time, because at that point they're willing to provide permission for us to investigate and to reach out to their medical professionals. Sometimes, by the time they get to our office, they've said, “No, this is what we wanted. We wanted you to prepare a pre-sentence report, but now we're here and we're not really sure that's what we'd like to see happen”—which is their prerogative, but it would be nice if we could catch them at the court.

POAO members note that probation and parole officers are limited to providing information relative to the offender's willingness to co-operate and ability to make informed and appropriate decisions. We are restricted to being able to access only information and records to which the offender provides consent. That's something to keep in mind: even if the bill goes further and we are compelled to include that information, we can only include the information the offender is willing to provide.

POAO expresses the need for more comprehensive and organized information regarding the availability of mental health resources throughout the province and in individual areas. Ontario is a vast province, and resources vary in availability from region to region. The spirit of the bill, which is compassionate and noble, does not align with the reality of available services. Those involved in the justice system are often unable to access psychiatric services, as psychiatrists and mental health professionals are overburdened by the ever-increasing demands for services in the community.

One suggestion is to hire psychiatrists to work exclusively out of correctional institutions or probation and parole offices, which would allow clients direct access to services. At present, many offenders are compelled to seek services from their family doctors, who, while skilled, lack the knowledge and experience of a qualified psychiatrist.

[Chris Podolinsky, President, Probation Officers Association of Ontario]

I can start by thanking the committee for inviting the Probation Officers Association to speak on Bill C-375.

The Probation Officers Association was established in 1952. We're a voluntary, non-profit organization, representing professional interests of the probation officers and probation and parole officers across the province of Ontario. POAO is not a union, but an association of like-minded professionals, who believe in the work they do and the role they play in the criminal justice community in Ontario. POAO is an autonomous representative of probation officers and probation and parole officers in Ontario and is committed to the preservation of the fundamental role of the probation officer within community corrections.

Our association encourages members to improve their knowledge and skills by engaging in continuous education through seminars, workshops, and courses, with mental health being a topic of interest for the past several years.

As mentioned, my name is Chris Podolinsky. I'm the current President of the Probation Officers Association of Ontario. I am based out of Windsor. I work in the Ministry of Children and Youth Services, dealing with youth between the ages of 12 and 17. I've written many pre-sentence reports over the years, but they are governed under the YCJA Act. To my left is Christine Beintema, working in Chatham probation and parole. She's written many pre-sentence reports over the years.

We're here to speak on Bill C-375, which proposes an amendment to subsection 721(3) of the Criminal Code, that any mental disorder from which the offender suffers as well as any mental health care programs available to them are to be included in pre-sentence reports. Bill C-375 concerns the preparation of pre-sentence reports that are prepared by probation and parole officers. The bill proposes that pre-sentence reports are to include information about any mental health disorder from which the offender suffers as well as any mental health care programs available to them.

In recent years, mental health has been identified as a significant concern. It's estimated that 10% of the general population suffers from a mental health disorder and the rates of mental health disorders experienced by those within community corrections and institutions are significantly higher, 26% for males, and estimated over 50% for females in the corrections system.

POAO continues to advocate many forums for increased mental health services for our offenders. POAO is pleased that improvements have been made in recent years to destigmatize mental illness. However, it recognizes that there are still many steps that need to be taken.

The bill requires in federal legislation that pre-sentence reports provide, unless the court orders otherwise, information on any mental health illness that offenders may suffer and any mental health care programs available to the offenders. Our association agrees that the issue of mental health is of significant concern to the criminal justice system and should be taken into consideration when making sentencing decisions.

In Ontario, the role of a probation and parole officer already includes a requirement to provide information related to an offender’s mental health in court reports. Feedback from our members, the members of POAO, with respect to the bill, concern the process of gathering the required mental health information, physical and mental limitations of the clients, and the lack of available resources in the community.

The association wishes to highlight that probation and parole officers in Ontario currently conduct skill-based interviews with offenders for the purpose of gathering information to prepare comprehensive pre-sentence reports. Investigative information is provided by the offender and collateral sources including but not limited to family, employment, counselling resources, community agencies, and health information, including mental health for inclusion in the pre-sentence report.

Through this investigative process, probation and parole officers comment on general patterns of behaviour; psychiatric, psychological, physical, and cognitive limitations; and disorders that may impact the offender’s pattern of criminal behaviour. In the event that the offender has a mental health diagnosis, probation and parole officers will investigate and confirm through contact with mental health professionals where possible. In instances where there is no confirmed mental health diagnosis, but reports of related mental health concerns from the client or collateral sources, probation and parole officers will comment on observed or reported behaviours.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

We've had debate back and forth, so I'll now call for a vote on Mr. Cooper's motion.

(Motion negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

I'm sure the committee will engage privately in discussions.

I don't want to take away any longer from our witnesses who are now here before us, so I would very much like to welcome, from the Probation Officers Association of Ontario, Mr. Chris Podolinsky, who is the President; and Ms. Christine Beintema, who is the Vice-President.

Welcome. Thank you so much for being before us. I will turn the floor over to you to talk about the bill we have before us, which is Bill C-375.

[Dr. Patrick Smith, National Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Mental Health Association]

That's great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, members of the committee.

Thank you for inviting us here today. My name is Dr. Patrick Smith. I'm the National CEO of the Canadian Mental Health Association. Bill C-375 is a very important bill to us. I would definitely have been there in person if today weren't April 26, 2018. Today marks 100 years to the day when, in 1918, Dr. Clarence Hincks came together with other prominent Canadians in the historic Château Laurier, just around the corner from you, to form what is now the Canadian Mental Health Association. Today we are a Canada-wide organization with divisions in every province. We provide services to more than 1.3 million Canadians in over 330 communities across Canada.

We are celebrating this important milestone today in Toronto with some of Dr. Hincks' immediate family, in honour of his vision and commitment to two very clear goals: to end stigma and discrimination, and to provide more humane care for people with mental illness. In many ways—100 years later, to the day—this discussion on Bill C-375 is about addressing these same issues.

Today, I'd like to focus on some of the ways in which mental illness, including addiction, intersects with our criminal justice system, as well as on key areas that we believe will help to ensure that Canadians with mental health problems are supported in their treatment and in their recovery.

Specifically, I will be speaking in favour of passing Bill C-375, because we know that it will confer significant benefits onto many Canadians who are marginalized and living with mental illness and substance use problems. We're also confident that the bill will lessen the burden on our criminal justice system.

We talk about the current shortfalls.... As many of you are aware, in the 1970s, the deinstitutionalization of mental health services transferred mental health service delivery from psychiatric facilities to more local communities, resulting in the closure of psychiatric hospitals across Canada. This shift has been heralded as a positive step in respecting the rights, dignity, and self-determination of people with mental illness.

However, the psychiatric deinstitutionalization has been replaced by a new form of institutionalization: the Canadian prison system. Given that mental health supports at the community level are often underfunded and poorly integrated, many people with mental illness and in need of treatment fall through the cracks and end up in the criminal justice system. You now know, through the debates over the last few years, that Canada has invested a lower percentage of its total health care budget in mental health care than any G7 country. Basic primary mental health care provided by addiction counsellors, psychologists, social workers, and specialized peer support workers form the bedrock and the foundation of other G7 countries' response to the mental health needs of their populations. They're not covered in Canada's universal health care system. Thoughtful, targeted investments in treatments that are effective and save money have been replaced by the high burden of costs of untreated mental illness that we see in jails and prisons. These unnecessary costs are carried by every Canadian.

The Office of the Correctional Investigator estimates that at least one in four admissions to federal correctional institutions present with a mental illness, and many of these also have a concurrent substance use disorder. This number is highly disproportionate to the number of people with mental illness in the population at large.

Despite the high number of people with mental illness in Canadian correctional facilities, Canada's prisons are not equipped with enough staff, resources, and funding for mental health supports for people who are incarcerated. As a result, Canadians with mental illness who end up in the correctional facilities do not receive the treatment that they need to facilitate their recovery and rehabilitation. In fact, the absence of treatment for many inmates can result in violent confrontations with other inmates and staff, as well as additional charges and time spent in segregation, which typically exacerbate mental health problems.

Once out of prison, Canadians with mental illness are more likely to experience homelessness and to have difficulty reintegrating into the community. Many do not have the necessary wraparound supports, and subsequently end up cycling through the criminal justice system at high cost. They often face discrimination and stigma as a result of having been incarcerated, and have difficulty finding meaningful employment. That's unjust, especially because people with mental illness who enter the criminal justice system are far more likely to have committed minor criminal offences when compared to offenders who don't have a mental illness. The majority of arrests are for minor crimes, such as causing a disturbance, mischief, minor theft, and failure to appear in court, which may be directly or indirectly related to the mental illness or substance use itself.

As a community-based organization with a long history of supporting people with mental illness and addictions at the local level, CMHA knows from experience that providing the necessary supports and care for people can greatly change the course of their lives, the course of the lives of their families, and their communities.

An ideal health care system—and here I'm not even talking about the ideal, but even one that's based on smart investments in treatments that work—can actually save many people and can save money. People with mental illness would have easy and timely access to well-funded, integrated community-based services, including housing and employment supports and individual and family supports, in addition to accessing a range of professionals, including family physicians.

This continuum of services allows individuals to receive support in the community and to thrive in recovery. In Canada we don't have to take a leap of faith on this. When you're a pioneer, you often have to go out on a limb and see how it works. On this front, we're not pioneers; we're laggards.

We can learn from other G7 countries that have been in our situation and have made the smart investments in health responses to mental illness, and dramatically reduce the high cost of untreated mental illness. When community-based services are well coordinated, they can also positively impact people with mental illness who come into contact with the law. Although the research on court support and diversion programs is limited, these measures that divert people with mental illness, pre- or post-charge, have been shown to increase access to mental health services, improve mental health functioning, and reduce hospitalization and recidivism, again saving money. They also relieve some of the pressure on the criminal justice system.

Supporting people at the community level is also much less expensive than incarcerating them. In Canada it costs over $100,000 per year to house and support a male federal inmate and $180,000 a year for every female inmate. Offenders who are supervised in the community, on the other hand, cost considerably less, about one-eighth of those amounts. The funding that would be spent on the incarceration of people with mental illness would be better spent on proactive investment in treatment and social integration.

This brings me to Bill C-375. This bill proposes to amend the Criminal Code to introduce information about mental health issues and disorders in pre-sentence reports. The goal of the bill, as I understand it, is to make the criminal justice system aware of and more responsive to individuals with mental health issues and to ensure that they receive the appropriate treatment and supports that they need throughout their rehabilitation.

Although some jurisdictions already collect information on mental health in pre-service reports, this bill would create a national standard for all jurisdictions to consider mental health during sentencing. It is important that you don't have to win the postal code lottery to know that you live in a province that just so happens to provide and seek your mental health information. That's good for you, but what about the ones who don't? We really are applauding this bill to ensure there is a national standard.

This is important because research conducted by Public Safety Canada suggests that pre-sentencing reports make a difference in sentencing outcomes. They've been shown to increase the likelihood that offenders will receive a community sentence rather than a custodial sentence. We believe that with the right supports, community sentences can better facilitate recovery for people with mental illness.

In conclusion, we believe that the Government of Canada needs to continue showing leadership by addressing the current gaps experienced by people with mental illness and addictions in our criminal justice system. We strongly support the government's efforts to conduct a comprehensive review of the criminal justice system, and one of its stated goals, which is to determine how services can be improved for offenders who suffer from mental illness.

Bill C-375 presents an important opportunity to achieve this goal and ensure that people with mental illness and substance use problems are treated with care and compassion. It is also an opportunity to break the vicious cycle of institutionalization that unfairly impacts people with mental illness and substance use problems.

We also encourage the government to continue to make smart investments in early health responses to mental illness, which not only save lives but also lower the high cost of untreated mental illness in our communities. As such, we strongly urge the government to support Bill C-375.

Thank you again for inviting me here today. I'd be happy to answer any of your questions.