Rushed legislation with puzzling provisions

On Wednesday of last week, Bill 48 — The Protective Detention and Care of Intoxicated Persons Act — was passed into law by the Manitoba Legislative Assembly. It was introduced on Oct. 2 and enacted little more than a month later.

Rushed legislation often leads to confusion among the public due to the limited opportunity for study, discussion and debate. That may be the case with respect to Bill 48.

Many in the media and public have focused on the legislation’s establishment of “protective care centres,” along with provisions that would authorize the involuntary detention of highly intoxicated persons for up to 72 hours (up from the previous maximum of 24 hours), but there is more to the bill than that.

In fact, it is fair to ask how many MLAs and ordinary Manitobans had actually read Bill 48 prior to its passage. If they had, it is likely that far more questions would have emerged.

For example, the legislation appeared to have broad support from Manitoba’s medical community when it was introduced, but media reports following its passage revealed that some medical professionals feel the new measures could actually put addicted persons at greater risk.

The failure to resolve those concerns prior to the passage of Bill 48 is troubling, but so is the lack of discussion regarding the scope and potential consequences of the legislation.

For starters, Section 2 of the bill defines an “intoxicated person” as someone who has ingested, injected, inhaled or otherwise consumed one or more intoxicants and, as a result, poses a danger to themselves or others and/or causes a disturbance and is reasonably likely to continue to cause a disturbance.

It’s a broad definition that gives police officers and other “designated officers” a huge amount of power over what happens to that person.

Under the legislation, an officer who finds an intoxicated person “in a place to which the public has access” can detain that person for up to 24 hours at a detention facility, or up to 72 hours at a “protective care centre.”

Under Section 5, a person held at a detention location must be released as soon as that person is no longer intoxicated or at the end of the 24-hour detention period, whichever happens first. In the alternative, an officer must release a detained person from the facility at the request of a person who undertakes to take care of the detained person and, in the officer’s opinion, is responsible and capable of taking care of the detained person.

Under Section 8, which applies to situations when intoxicated persons are taken to a “protective care centre,” the rules are the same, but the maximum holding period is 72 hours, not 24. Under Section 9, however, a qualified health professional who conducts an assessment of a person detained at a protective care centre may order the involuntary medical examination of that person under The Mental Health Act. That examination could result in the involuntary detention of the person.

Involuntary detention and treatment of addicted persons is clouded in controversy, but is favoured by right-wing governments such as the Smith government in Alberta. Given that reality, it is surprising that Bill 48 could make such an approach more likely in Manitoba — and that the possibility received no attention prior to the bill’s passage.

Finally, Section 10 of Bill 48 says “An operator may allow a person who is no longer intoxicated to voluntarily remain at the protective care centre to receive additional care or services.” Again, there was little to no discussion about what that “care and services” might include, nor the possibility that “protective care centres” could also become long-term treatment centres.

If the objective of Bill 48 was to simply extend the detention period for persons who might be suffering from drug-induced psychosis, as the government insisted, why were sections 9-10 necessary and why weren’t they fully discussed prior to the bill’s passage?

That’s a question for the government to answer, but it’s a fair inference that the inclusion of those provisions in the legislation was done to enable the expansion of addictions treatment services in Manitoba communities without further debate, discussion and/or community consultation.

If that is the case, many Manitobans may regret not raising concerns and asking questions about Bill 48 when they had the chance.

Deveryn Ross is a political commentator living in Brandon.

deverynrossletters@gmail.com X: @deverynross