No, it wasn’t. It was helpful, Ms. Kish.

[Translation]

I’d like to thank the three witnesses for being with us today.

Ms. Latimer, I’d like you to reconsider your comment about the definition of “disadvantaged or minority population.” You seemed to indicate that this definition is not inclusive.

Could you clarify what should be added or written differently?

[English]

Thank you very much. I started working in youth justice with young people who were in conflict with the law, and many of them were coming from backgrounds of deprivation, poverty, abuse, foster care, and many of them were white. Even though they experienced these situations, I’m not sure that they would necessarily be within the definition of disadvantaged there.

The problem in my mind is that they were not — I don’t know how to describe this — properly socialized. They didn’t learn the social norms. It would be like integration for the first time rather than reintegration. I wouldn’t say they were necessarily suffering from a mental disability or anything like that. They were just disadvantaged, absolutely disadvantaged, in terms of their start in life.

Many of them, I find, have ended up in the federal prison system. I think it would be beneficial if they also had access to community-based supportive programming that could help them overcome the legacy of their disadvantage and their experiences from when they were young.

[Translation]

Thank you. That answers my question.

Do you have a suggestion for different wording? Because it seems to say here, in the definition of section 8: “disadvantaged or minority population includes any population that is or has been the subject [...] of discrimination [...].”

Should we add an element?

[English]

Perhaps if you just said, “People who have experienced disadvantage and those who have —.” If you just made it a separate.

[Translation]

That answers my question.

[English]

If it were a separate category, then I think it wouldn’t be as limiting.

[Translation]

Bill S-230 would require, under certain circumstances, that a detained person who has a disabling mental health issue, be transferred to a hospital, including a mental health facility. That’s one of the requirements. How should “disabling mental health issues” be defined for the purpose of Bill S-230?

It is a challenging issue to define what we mean by “disabling mental health.” I certainly know that the litigation dealing with the damages for administrative segregation — those class action lawsuits — are looking at serious mental health problems and the challenges of people with serious mental health issues being placed in administration segregation.

I know, for example, that the Mental Health Commission of Canada is developing a national action plan or call for action associated with the criminal justice system, so look to see if there’s some possible definition there that makes sense.

I think “disabling” is as good as any. I mean, if people are unable to function, they’re sufficiently disoriented or retreating and they can’t function, then that’s debilitating and probably does require some focused professional assistance.

It seems to me that regardless of how we land on that definition that it’s suggesting that people who are suffering from that level of mental health issues would need custodial hospitalization. I’m wondering if I’m right about that in most cases. What do you think would be the implications of that, both administrative and the infrastructure demands of that requirement?

You point out a very interesting element that in Canadian society generally, there is not sufficient mental health care for everyone who needs it. Frankly, I think there needs to be a lot more effort dedicated to dealing with mental health issues in the general population and for this particular population, which doesn’t get a lot of help.

I had the opportunity to interview some people who were in the mental health unit at Millhaven who had been subjected previously to administrative segregation, and it was probably the series of interviews that left me the most sleepless. It was very tragic and very unfortunate that people with those levels of mental health problems are being subjected to something that’s making it worse for them.

We have a challenge, but if you were going to allocate resources on the basis of need, these people are very needy. Some of them are extremely needy of the resources that are available.

Would I be right to suggest that this condition would also go hand-in-hand with the need for drug treatment, which is another infrastructure issue for this country?

That’s a good question. There’s no doubt that there are often dual diagnoses and there are new types of drugs that seem to promote more of a psychotic episode in people. I don’t know if it’s long-lasting or if it’s enduring; I think it probably is enduring. Yes, I think there is a real dual diagnosis challenge there with addiction and mental health.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, both. Senator Simons, I’m going to invite you to forego the second round if we could. We started a bit late, and I’m worried that we will be noticeably inconveniencing the second panel.

The question I have in my head will work just as well for the second panel.

Maybe you can ask Senator Pate later. Senator Pate, you are the sponsor of the bill. I’m going to turn over the last set of questions to you.

Thank you very much. I wanted to pick up where Senator Busson left off. One of the questions raised by some who have spoken to us about the bill is that there are an awful lot of people to whom the mental health provisions in particular might apply. One of the reasons for that is the fact that the mental health system has not been able to keep up, and when they have not, the prison system has been used. Do you see that as a viable reason, either morally, legally or ethically to continue the practice of keeping people in prison?

Not at all. I think we had a problem with deinstitutionalization and the thought that the community resources were going to be adequate to deal with the people who are no longer being subjected to custodial for mental health issues. The community was not able to keep up. The resources are just not there. So, no, I think there needs to be more resources, particularly community-based mental health services.