MLAs told detention bill rushed and incomplete

Heated public discussion kicked off Thursday evening over a bill that would increase the length of time an intoxicated person can be involuntarily detained to three days from one day, which Wab Kinew’s NDP government hopes will respond to the growing crisis of methamphetamine use in Manitoba.

Bill 48, which was introduced earlier this month, is intended to acknowledge that the intoxicating effects of meth can last longer than that of alcohol. The proposed legislation, the Protective Detention and Care of Intoxicated Persons Act, would allow intoxicated people to be involuntarily detained for up to 72 hours at what it terms a “protective care centre” – up from the current 24 hours.

After three hours of remarks from the public, the legislative committee studying the bill had heard from roughly a dozen people, almost all of whom criticized the bill, including what several categorized as its rushed timeline and the lack of clarity around how it will be rolled out in practice.

Presenters told MLAs that the bill could result in possible breaches to the Charter right not to be arbitrarily detained; questioned whether involuntary detention is backed by clinical evidence as a way to treat and manage addiction; and raised concerns about the over-burdened health-care system and the reality that these “protective care centres” have not yet been staffed or funded.

“I looked at this bill and thought, ‘is it going to help?’ At the end of the day, set aside partisan politics, this is a fight to save lives,” said Joseph Fourre, who told the committee about his prior struggles with crystal meth addiction, the death of his son from fentanyl poisoning, and the beating of his elderly mother by a person using drugs.

He argued more infrastructure is needed to address addiction, not a “piecemeal” approach, and said that while this bill could be a first step, the necessary subsequent care is not in place.

“I’m asking the committee to seriously consider postponing this bill until we can get it right,” he added.

The proposed legislation, which would replace the Intoxicated Persons Detention Act, was endorsed Thursday by Winnipeg Mayor Scott Gillingham, as well as earlier this month by Winnipeg police chief Gene Bowers. While Manitoba Tories have said they support increasing the duration of involuntary detention, they’ve raised concern about how the law would be applied in rural and northern areas, which may not have access to detox facilities, as well as about where sites would be located.

If the bill passes, the NDP government has said it hopes to open a detox site at 190 Disraeli Fwy. on Nov. 1, where it had previously proposed a supervised consumption site. Though on Thursday, several Point Douglas residents, who successfully resisted the initial plan, again spoke out against the Disraeli location for the proposed detox site, saying their neighbourhood is already under immense strain.

The bill may still be subject to amendments, and to become law, needs to pass third reading, as well as receive royal assent.

A synthetic and highly addictive drug, meth is a central nervous system stimulant with harmful effects that can include headache, elevated heart rate, hallucinations and delusions, according to the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction, which says the high from the drug can last up to 12 hours. It means people using meth may see and hear things that aren’t there and act in ways that are difficult to predict, or at times, violent.

And there has been a rise in meth use in Manitoba. A 2020 study by the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy found that between 2013-2018, there was a seven-fold increase in the number of Manitobans who’d used meth and subsequently had contact with the health care system. Many of these users were young adults and lived in the poorest areas of the province.

In a written submission to the committee, Gillingham threw his support behind the bill, saying that “real compassion means acting when someone cannot act for themselves.”

He said the current act was written for a different time.

“It was designed for a world where alcohol was the primary intoxicant encountered on our streets. Today, we face an entirely different challenge. The drugs people are consuming are more potent, unpredictable and deadly,” he wrote.

In his written submission to the committee, police Chief Gene Bowers called the proposed legislation a “beneficial tool” for police when they encounter people under the influence of methamphetamine.

“Currently, the only place police can take these individuals to is an emergency department,” he wrote, noting there will continue to be times police take an intoxicated person to a hospital for medical treatment. “But where that is unnecessary, this is a human alternative that puts the safety of the individual and community at the forefront.”

Few at the committee on Thursday agreed with that assessment, however.

Levi Foy, the executive director of Sunshine House, said the bill presents anyone who uses drugs as an “inherent threat” to others’ safety – a framing, he noted, that is not in line with Sunshine House’s own statistics. In a copy of his planned remarks to the committee, Foy said that of the more than 111,000 visits this year to Sunshine House, which delivers harm reduction services, there were just 11 reported incidents of violence on the part of community members.

“I worry that the 2025 version of vagrancy laws present in the discussion of this bill and Winnipeg’s encampment ban will further embolden those who wish to commit harm to the people that we work with,” he said referring to the proposed legislation as “rushed.”

He said one person he has spoken to, who’d been involuntarily detained under the existing legislation, described the experience as “humiliating,” while others report that those detained under the act are often separated from their belongings and come out of this detention at increased risk for overdose.

Foy argued for expanded mobile crisis outreach and supervised consumption sites.

Michael Dyck, a member of the Manitoba Bar Association, had also planned to raise concerns about the bill, noting in his prepared remarks that while the legislation “no doubt” needs updating, he focused on the lack of details in the proposed law and the possibility that it could hopscotch citizens’ Charter-protected right not to be arbitrarily detained.

“Will the protective care centre have a space where detainees can exercise their Charter-protected right to obtain and instruct counsel in private and without delay?” he asked.

He noted there is currently no mechanism in the law, when someone has been released after 72-hours, to prevent their immediate subsequent detention.

Under the bill, a “protective care centre” would be required to release a person whenever they are no longer intoxicated or when the 72-hour period ends, whichever comes first. The increased detention period would only apply to protective care centres. Someone brought to what’s described in the law as a “detention location,” such as a jail, could still only be held for 24 hours.

marsha.mcleod@freepress.mb.ca