Evidence of meeting #76 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was illness.
A video is available from Parliament.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
My other question is for Mr. Summerville, and Lori, if I may.
Mr. Summerville, you spoke about what you termed “stigmatizing measures” in the bill, and Lori you said the bill is “very stigmatizing and punitive”.
I wonder if you could each spend a little time elaborating, perhaps with examples, on why you think the measures in the bill are stigmatizing.
I'll start with you, Mr. Summerville, please.
Chief Executive Officer, Alliance Facilitator, Schizophrenia Society of Canada
What I would have hoped the government would have done when they began talking about this bill is that they would have had disclaimers. I would have hoped they would have told Canadians about the 3% of people with mental illness who come in contact with the law, that the percentage of those who get an NCR designation is 0.001%, that the recidivism rate, according to CAMH, in Toronto, is 7.35%, and that it's up to 45% for the people released from the federal correctional system.
Just the emphasis on heinousness and brutality and mental illness, and putting all that together.... I mean, all of you already know that social prejudice is a huge problem in our society. It's the number one reason that people do not get help and treatment. I didn't do it myself for nearly 40 years.
Psychologist, As an Individual
I think in terms of the stigmatizing, it has to do with the focus on the brutality of the act. It really does perpetuate the myth that people with mental illness are violent. We were well treated by the forensic community and educated that this is not the case. When I saw the media on the bill, it just struck me as very stigmatizing because of that attitude to lock them up for three years and don't review them again, and the punitive nature as well.
NDP
Pierre Jacob NDP Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank our witnesses for joining us today. I thank Ms. Triano-Antidormi for her remarks.
You are both a victim and an expert and, as a result, you are in a good position to say that Bill C-54 does not have a solid foundation. This is how you summarized the thoughts of our other two guests.
You said that the bill is vengeful in nature, stigmatizing, punitive and focused on brutality. You reiterated that this perpetuates the myth that people with mental illness are violent, whereas the reality is completely different. The recidivism rate is very low for patients.
You also pointed out that understanding mental illness is complicated. In your view, the solution is to have a better system that deals with mental health issues. Could you tell us what you think about rehabilitation and reintegration into society, which might be the best way to effectively ensure public safety over the long term?
Psychologist, As an Individual
I think that's what the current focus of the legislation is in terms of providing treatment and then every year reviewing how the treatment is working, and gradually loosening the restrictions to see how the people are responding to treatment.
As I said, it's not a person of sound mind who has committed the act. It's someone whose mind was not working, as I describe it to my children.
I think the current approach is to try to provide treatment and rehabilitation, not take away that opportunity.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Thank you very much.
Our final questioner for this afternoon is Mr. Wilks from the Conservative Party, for five minutes.
Conservative
David Wilks Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and I thank the witnesses for being here today.
It's interesting that all of the witnesses today, whether they come from the medical side or as a victim, have mentioned the police in one sense or another. That's my background; I am retired from the RCMP. It's normally the police who have to deal with these individuals time and time again.
I've heard today that we don't want to stigmatize those who do the minor crime, and I completely agree with that. But the fact of the matter is that this is the only book the police can go by; they cannot go by any other book. The minor crimes don't allow them to do anything. If I arrest someone for theft under $5,000, I'm immediately going to release the person. I can't hold them; I have no authority to do it.
We talked about brutality. The police act on brutality. That's how they act. That's how it works. We in this room may not like it, but that's how it works. I heard Lori say that they've called the police many times, but the police were probably saying, “There's nothing we can do. Call a hospital; call a doctor; call someone.” The police get to the point at which they say, “You need to fix this so that we can do something.”
We get to section 670 of the code, which has been there for many a year. The police recognize there's something broken there, because it's a revolving door for these people, whether it's those in east Vancouver who have severe mental illnesses, who we all recognize shouldn't be where they are, who need to get help, or others. The only help they get is from the police. It's the only help they get.
My question to you is from the perspective of police. What do you expect them to do? There's so much expectation put on them, and yet there's nothing they can do, but they are the ones who will decide.... I had this happen so many times in my career. I have gone to the hospital and said, “Please, I hope there are two doctors who will commit this person, because if there's only one, the person is not going to be committed.” In British Columbia that's the rule.
You're hoping that two will commit, but they don't, and you're going.... You have to let them go. We know what is going to happen within 24 hours. We know.
I think personally that these proposed sections are what is needed. Otherwise people, such as me in my former position, are going to ask, “What are you guys doing?” This is not, with all due respect, a bleeding heart society. Sometimes we have to take the bull by the horns. Even though it's uncomfortable, we have to put them in there for their own safety, recognizing that they will come gradually back into society, but we need to get them there first.
What suggestions do you have for the police? Is it to do nothing?
Psychologist, As an Individual
I was just going to say that I'm not sure how the current legislation is going to target that issue. This is on the front end again. The police could have apprehended her under the Mental Health Act, in our case, many times. The Mental Health Act has changed.
Conservative
David Wilks Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
They could only if they have the consent of two doctors.
Psychologist, As an Individual
The police can apprehend under the Mental Health Act in Ontario.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
I think you raise a very interesting point. It is one of the great challenges for police to decide how to deal with people with mental illness, because you will be first on the scene. They are the ones who are called when there is an incident and a problem.
I know that the Mental Health Commission has been working and has a stream that is trying to work with police to give them some help to deal with the front-end issues, but you will need some comprehensive reforms of the provincial mental health legislation.
Conservative
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
It is the front end, but if you look at the YCJA, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, for example, which is tucked in the back, the police can make referrals. They can do things. But you are powerless. You could refer them to the CAMH or to an addictions organization, but if the addictions organization doesn't pick up your referral and deal with the young person, you as a police officer don't have recourse.
There are things that can be done. I have spoken to people who have had mental health conditions, and their ray of assistance has come from a police officer who took the time to say, “I think you need some help. Here is somebody who can help you,” and gave them a card.
To suggest that the police aren't big players at the front end of the system in terms of trying to get some assistance particularly to the chronic offenders—and you know who I'm talking about.... I think there is a lot more that needs to be done at that end, and probably more that needs to be done, but—
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Mr. Wilks, that's your time. Thank you very much.
I want to thank our witnesses for their presentations today. I want to thank the committee members for their questions.
It's been three hours. We will do this again on Monday after question period. The meeting is adjourned.