Yes, thank you. I will begin by saying that we have very serious mental health challenges that contribute to many people ending up in the criminal justice system who shouldn’t be there, and the prison setting is obviously not one that is most conducive to the treatment, rehabilitation and reintegration of individuals who do suffer from mental health challenges. It’s very much in the interests of public safety to be putting individuals in the environment where they’re going to be getting the support and the care that they need to further their rehabilitation and reintegration. So we very much support measures that extend alternatives to incarceration.

There are, certainly, challenges and logistical issues to sort out when it comes to facilitating this particular approach and transferring between these settings, but we are of the position that it is something that is possible and it will require some work and some consultation between the provinces, which oversee the health care systems. There is a path forward here, and given that there are benefits to be had from getting people in the appropriate setting, it is worth the effort and overcoming those particular challenges.

Ms. Mitchell, clause 11 may be challenged before the courts and unenforceable from a legal perspective under the Criminal Code. Does the Criminal Code allow a judge to change the sentence delivered for the reasons listed in the new proposed section of this bill?

Our position is that section 24 of the Charter allows courts to grant any remedy that is appropriate to remedy a violation of Charter rights. Section 11 is not necessarily creating new powers, it’s simply affirming something that could already be done by the courts under section 24 of the Charter.

There is very significant value in saying that and to have legislation that enshrines this, which specifically empowers our courts to be doing this. Because before now it was not something that had been done, to the best of my knowledge, at least. We do need to take the steps that Justice Arbour said to be facilitating a level of collaboration between our courts and the legislature to protect rights.

Even if we do come to the conclusion that we need to make these coordinating amendments, I will reiterate that we should be doing that. Clearly, prisoners need access to effective remedies. As inconvenient and difficult it might be to make these amendments, it is possible and it is absolutely essential if we’re going to uphold the rights of prisoners.

Ms. Kish, one of the objectives of this bill is to allow for the provision of a correctional service and plans for release and reintegration into the community of people from disadvantaged or minority populations by community groups and other similar support services, which I have no issue with. I’m just wondering, does the bill provide for programs that should be provided within the correction services or correctional institutes to help the incarcerated find a path to safe reintegration into communities? Is there anything in there that ensures that the programs are being given and offered to these inmates and they can get these programs and services before they come to this point?

I think there’s not, and hopefully, quite intentionally so, because what we know from what’s happened is that the provision of programs and services in the penitentiary, although they all have to be done toward re-entry and reintegration in ways that are responsive to all the populations that are in there, they become integrated into the security frameworks that flaw them. From the perspective of supporting women and gender diverse people since the Creating Choices philosophy, it’s been recognized that the best way for people to get access to a program or to receive any kind of therapy or care is in the community where the standards of care and the goals of the training are the priority and not the goals of security. I’m sorry if that was convoluted.

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]

Thank you.

[English]

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.