Justice committee  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.

Justice committee  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.

Justice committee  The point of the John Howard Society is that when it's within their range of expertise, they should be the ones making the determination. With sentencing, a judge is aware of the particular set of factors and the individual. They're in the best position to shape a sentence that best reflects the severity of the offence and the degree of responsibility.

Justice committee  He's not necessarily bound by them. He only needs to consider them.

Justice committee  I do think that they should have discretion, but I think that the efficiency and economy of the courts are best served by allowing boards to make determinations in specialized cases where specialized knowledge is needed. The review boards are ones where particular knowledge of causality, likely future risk, and mental health issues is vested.

Justice committee  Three years later.

Justice committee  I was just going to ask why you need it, then. What you're describing is pretty consistent with the existing structure, so that the review board would make the determination. I don't understand why this is an advance.

Justice committee  No, the John Howard Society would not support the bill in its current form.

Justice committee  I'd be very interested to know who the provincial governments consulted with if they perceive that they're carrying the entire mental health input with them to this particular forum and comments and bringing it to this particular bill. The attorneys general.... You'd probably want some kind of a joint FPT forum which includes the health ministries, not just the attorneys general, I think, if you really want good input.

Justice committee  Yes, and I think I know where you're going with this, which is up to three years.

Justice committee  Right.

Justice committee  No.

Justice committee  Yes, I noticed that. But you will find that if you give very burdened organizations like parole boards and review boards an option to extend the review periods, they always take it to the outer limit. At least this is certainly the case with the parole boards, even though they could have capacity to—

Justice committee  I'm saying that they will likely have more people there for extended periods of time and therefore more pressure on them to do reviews.

Justice committee  Right.