Author Topic: MP struggle to enforce mental health laws  (Read 15375 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Habs

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 3,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 87
Re: MP struggle to enforce mental health laws
« Reply #75 on: August 01, 2017, 17:52:42 »
I have seen no 'belittlement' from him. Rather, he's sharing his experience and insight. From your previous posts, you're I think 21? You've got something around a year qualified in trade, maybe a year and a half? He's been doing your job for over 30 years- more time in uniform than you have on this earth. He's not talking out of his ***, he's not being condescending, he simply has an incredible wealth of experience and insight that you simply have not yet had the opportunity to gain. I have to raise an eyebrow at you characterizing this as a 'waste of time'. The opportunity to pick the brain of someone so experienced in your job in a relaxed setting like this isn't something that should be squandered. You may not agree with him, but I'd contend that shouldn't stop you learning.
 
What is this? Are we turning this into a "I was born before you, my uniform is more faded, your posts are irrelevant?" I'm trying to move on and push the discussion forward, why you choose to bring age into this is beyond me. It's not relevant to the discussion. I, and I'm sure you, have worked with people who are older and more experienced but make the wrong decisions. Where have I said he doesn't have experience and knowledge? Where have I said I have more than him? No where. The discussion itself is not a waste of time. What is a waste of time, is exactly that paragraph you just wrote doing nothing more than causing negativity and hindering a discussion moving forward.


A breach is exactly what you've got - a charter breach. A breach of peace arrest can indeed pring someone briefly into custody, but you'd better have a plan and it better be lawful. What legal authority do you have to hold that prisoner? What legal authority do you have to convey them to a hospital? You aren't a medical professional, you aren't capable of assessing them medically, and even if you were the law gives you no power. You can call EMS, but he can simply refuse to talk to them. I beleive that you *have* arrested someone for breach of peace and they you *have* conveyed them to hospital, but if you've been doing that, someone higher in your chain has not been exercising proper oversight.

It absolutely sucks that you're in this spot. I have nothing but sympathy for you on that- the law is hamstringing you. I have a lot of involvement with mentally ill soldiers and vets, and MPs have made the save in a few of my calls with that. I'll be your first defender in saying you guys should have these powers under provincial MHA. But you don't. You are putting yourself at considerable risk of legal liability. As I mentioned earlier, you will learn in time that there's always more room under the bus. Your enthusiasm is good, but there's only so far you can go in articulating points of law until you hit things they don't actually say or do. Breach of the peace gives you no ability to bring someone to hospital. In fact if you're arresting someone under S.30/31 C.C. powers and you have no specific authority from the NDA in the case of a mental health call, I would suspect you will quickly find yourself running beyond where you retain peace officer status per Nolan. At that point you're just a dude with a guy trapped in the back of your car on the way to hospital.

If circumstances still find you arresting someone for breach of the peace, I would suggest in the strongest terms that you get them into the custody of the police of jurisdiction ASAP, and convey your grounds tso that that officer with provincial powers can turn your breach of the peace arrest into an MHA apprehension. It may be a bit embarassing, but that is the *legal* way to do this, that ensures you're protected. Good luck with the inquiry if you breach of peace a guy, and on the way to hospital you get in an accident...

There you go, something that is moving the discussion forward and not basing someone's post off of their age/experience which you've got from anonymous posts on an internet forum. I've been saying that all along, that the CoC is not exercising proper oversight. I'm glad you've finally acknowledged it.

Holding him/her? Preventing the repetition of the offence. Transporting to hospital? That's more tricky as you've pointed out.

Interesting though. So, an arrest or detainment for breach of the peace, and then transferring custody to an officer with provincial jurisdiction/powers, who can then transport him/her to hospital, sounds like it ticks all of the checks in the box. I don't see how this could come back to bite the MP or the civilian officer. That sounds like the best bet moving forward. But of course, if you have the member in custody and he/she says they will go voluntarily to the hospital after they've (hopefully) had some time to change their mind on how they are approaching the situation, that also works.

« Last Edit: August 01, 2017, 18:02:54 by Habs »

Offline BeyondTheNow

  • Directing Staff
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 48,650
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 826
  • Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult
Re: MP struggle to enforce mental health laws
« Reply #76 on: August 01, 2017, 18:22:20 »
Quote
I have seen no 'belittlement' from him. Rather, he's sharing his experience and insight. From your previous posts, you're I think 21? You've got something around a year qualified in trade, maybe a year and a half? He's been doing your job for over 30 years- more time in uniform than you have on this earth. He's not talking out of his ***, he's not being condescending, he simply has an incredible wealth of experience and insight that you simply have not yet had the opportunity to gain. I have to raise an eyebrow at you characterizing this as a 'waste of time'. The opportunity to pick the brain of someone so experienced in your job in a relaxed setting like this isn't something that should be squandered. You may not agree with him, but I'd contend that shouldn't stop you learning.
 
What is this? Are we turning this into a "I was born before you, my uniform is more faded, your posts are irrelevant?" I'm trying to move on and push the discussion forward, why you choose to bring age into this is beyond me. It's not relevant to the discussion. I, and I'm sure you, have worked with people who are older and more experienced but make the wrong decisions. Where have I said he doesn't have experience and knowledge? Where have I said I have more than him? No where. The discussion itself is not a waste of time. What is a waste of time, is exactly that paragraph you just wrote doing nothing more than causing negativity and hindering a discussion moving forward.


A breach is exactly what you've got - a charter breach. A breach of peace arrest can indeed pring someone briefly into custody, but you'd better have a plan and it better be lawful. What legal authority do you have to hold that prisoner? What legal authority do you have to convey them to a hospital? You aren't a medical professional, you aren't capable of assessing them medically, and even if you were the law gives you no power. You can call EMS, but he can simply refuse to talk to them. I beleive that you *have* arrested someone for breach of peace and they you *have* conveyed them to hospital, but if you've been doing that, someone higher in your chain has not been exercising proper oversight.

It absolutely sucks that you're in this spot. I have nothing but sympathy for you on that- the law is hamstringing you. I have a lot of involvement with mentally ill soldiers and vets, and MPs have made the save in a few of my calls with that. I'll be your first defender in saying you guys should have these powers under provincial MHA. But you don't. You are putting yourself at considerable risk of legal liability. As I mentioned earlier, you will learn in time that there's always more room under the bus. Your enthusiasm is good, but there's only so far you can go in articulating points of law until you hit things they don't actually say or do. Breach of the peace gives you no ability to bring someone to hospital. In fact if you're arresting someone under S.30/31 C.C. powers and you have no specific authority from the NDA in the case of a mental health call, I would suspect you will quickly find yourself running beyond where you retain peace officer status per Nolan. At that point you're just a dude with a guy trapped in the back of your car on the way to hospital.

If circumstances still find you arresting someone for breach of the peace, I would suggest in the strongest terms that you get them into the custody of the police of jurisdiction ASAP, and convey your grounds tso that that officer with provincial powers can turn your breach of the peace arrest into an MHA apprehension. It may be a bit embarassing, but that is the *legal* way to do this, that ensures you're protected. Good luck with the inquiry if you breach of peace a guy, and on the way to hospital you get in an accident...

There you go, something that is moving the discussion forward and not basing someone's post off of their age/experience which you've got from anonymous posts on an internet forum. I've been saying that all along, that the CoC is not exercising proper oversight. I'm glad you've finally acknowledged it.

Holding him/her? Preventing the repetition of the offence. Transporting to hospital? That's more tricky as you've pointed out.

Interesting though. So, an arrest or detainment for breach of the peace, and then transferring custody to an officer with provincial jurisdiction/powers, who can then transport him/her to hospital, sounds like it ticks all of the checks in the box. I don't see how this could come back to bite the MP or the civilian officer. That sounds like the best bet moving forward. But of course, if you have the member in custody and he/she says they will go voluntarily to the hospital after they've (hopefully) had some time to change their mind on how they are approaching the situation, that also works.

Okay Habs, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and say that you simply aren't grasping how your posting comes across in general--in this thread and elsewhere. You are rife with defensiveness, arrogance and have resorted to name-calling on more than one occasion. (Just because you edited something out before another user quoted the post doesn't mean we didn't see it.)

You have no issue with doling out tone, but if you get called out on it or another user attempts to correct you in any fashion in return, you seem incapable of self-reflection on why it might be happening.

I was pleasant before. This time I am being extremely firm. Your reply to Garb (as much as I believe you thought you attempted to be productive) fell extremely short. Your reply to Brihard showed you are extremely unaware of how you are perceived.

Start absorbing information and learning from those around you. Put your ego aside. Humbleness goes a long way.
"Stop worrying about getting back to who you were before it all went wrong. To heal is to understand that the person you've since become is the one who's most capable of doing whatever it is you were put here to do."~SR

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 163,690
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,084
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: MP struggle to enforce mental health laws
« Reply #77 on: August 01, 2017, 18:54:43 »
What is this? Are we turning this into a "I was born before you, my uniform is more faded, your posts are irrelevant?" I'm trying to move on and push the discussion forward, why you choose to bring age into this is beyond me. It's not relevant to the discussion. I, and I'm sure you, have worked with people who are older and more experienced but make the wrong decisions. Where have I said he doesn't have experience and knowledge? Where have I said I have more than him? No where. The discussion itself is not a waste of time. What is a waste of time, is exactly that paragraph you just wrote doing nothing more than causing negativity and hindering a discussion moving forward.

No. You are taking something personally that was not personal. I did not say what you put in quotes. Rather I was trying to contextualize, in a way meaningful to you, just how much experience Garb has in the subject we're talking about. I did not say you don't know anything because of your age. I merely pointed out that he has been an MP far longer than you - or I - have been alive. I feel that's relevant in credibility. Taking offense is not serving you well. Yes, I have worked with older, more experienced people who were out to lunch- but in this case every single thing he has said has rung of good sense and subject matter expertise.

There you go, something that is moving the discussion forward and not basing someone's post off of their age/experience which you've got from anonymous posts on an internet forum. I've been saying that all along, that the CoC is not exercising proper oversight. I'm glad you've finally acknowledged it.

You have been very open about your age and experience in this internet forum. I have merely taken you at face value, and assumed you have been up front with us on this page about when you joined, how old you were at the time, and when you CTed into the MPs. Again, taking offense where none is offered serves you poorly. I hope you have a thicker skin than this on the job.

Holding him/her? Preventing the repetition of the offence. Transporting to hospital? That's more tricky as you've pointed out.

Repetition of what offense? There is no offense present or alleged, a breach of the peace is not an enumerated offense. That matters. You're getting S.30 and S.495 arrest / 497 release authorities mixed up. In theory you're suggesting that as an MP you can essentially detain someone indefinitely under S.30 as long as you think they're going to hypothetically breach the peace by attempting suicide. That of course is not the case- so where's the line drawn? This also does not address the gap between a 'right now' / imminent breach of the peace - because we can't 'minority report' this one - and the actual MHA provisions (I'll use Alberta's but most are very much the same) that allow an officer's apprehension if a person by virtue of mental disorder is "likely to cause harm to the person or others or to suffer substantial mental or physical deterioration or serious physical impairment,"

A person can easily be suicidal and at the point where an MHA apprehension can happen, yet they are not acting in such a way as to justify a S.31 arrest for breach of peace. As for the transporting part- that's not really tricky. You're trying to be tricky in justifying something the law does not allow you to do, but it's not tricky at all. You just do it correctly, which necessarily means you don't do it yourself. If a person voluntarily consents to go to hospital, and if you've made it clear that they're free to go, that you're offering a ride but they needn't take it, and they say "sure, I'll take the ride, thanks", you're in the clear, but you need to be bloody sure that a hard look would not conclude that you still have that person detained in a manner that's not lawful.


Interesting though. So, an arrest or detainment for breach of the peace, and then transferring custody to an officer with provincial jurisdiction/powers, who can then transport him/her to hospital, sounds like it ticks all of the checks in the box. I don't see how this could come back to bite the MP or the civilian officer. That sounds like the best bet moving forward. But of course, if you have the member in custody and he/she says they will go voluntarily to the hospital after they've (hopefully) had some time to change their mind on how they are approaching the situation, that also works.

If by 'ticks in the box' you mean 'compliant with the law', then yes, it's the best way moving forward and is what detachment leadership should be enforcing. The breach of peace arrest for suicidality is on rocky enough ground as is, but I can see circumstances where it's justifiable for a brief detention pending transfer of custody. Of course, as soon as that member 'changes their mind' or no longer presents as acutely, imminently, actively suicidal, you lose any 'breach of peace' grounds you have for ongoing detention to any extent.

No question about it dude. You guys are not in a good spot vis a vis suicidal people for whom you have no explicit statutory powers under NDA. Not an enviable spot. But you can only work with what you've got.

Out of curiosity, do you guys get trained in ASIST or MHFA or something analogous as part of your basic trades training or shortly thereafter? I have both, and have found both to be quite useful in the (at times lengthy) talking phase of a person in mental health crisis... I hope you guys get good suicide intervention and deescalation training to help putty the gap not filled by your legal powers...
« Last Edit: August 01, 2017, 19:26:41 by Brihard »
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline IslandTrooper

  • Member
  • ****
  • 6,609
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 108
  • Armoured Crewman
Re: MP struggle to enforce mental health laws
« Reply #78 on: August 02, 2017, 14:39:07 »
As others have mentioned, this has been a very insightful thread!

I wonder, could this issue be rectified if there was a section of the NDA written paralleling what is contained in the Provincial MHA to provide MP's with the authority to arrest/detain CAF members who are emotionally disturbed and deliver them to a treatment facility for assessment? Understandably, this would only pertain to those subject to the CSD, but could this not rectify the issue nationally for the primary customers of the MPs? Of course as has been mentioned earlier for other legislative changes, this will take a lot of political power to push through and action.

Thoughts?
Per tot discrimina verun

Offline EpicBeardedMan

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 9,491
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 462
  • Getting better, stronger, faster.
Re: MP struggle to enforce mental health laws
« Reply #79 on: August 03, 2017, 22:05:02 »
I had no idea that MP's were hamstrung like this. Hopefully something changes in the future to kind of streamline the job of the MP..

Informative discussion.  :)
The military isn't really like a James Bond movie where you go for jet training in the morning and then underwater demolitions after lunch.

Offline Ostrozac

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 29,810
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 696
Re: MP struggle to enforce mental health laws
« Reply #80 on: August 04, 2017, 08:23:01 »
Agreed, this is quite an informative discussion. I do have one question, though, because I'm clearly missing something important. For the specific task of dealing with a member who is at risk of self-harm, why does it need provincial mental health act coverage? Isn't this a service offence that the member should be arrested for, to prevent the occurrence of said service offence? NDA 98 is "Malingering, aggravating disease or infirmity or injuring self or another".

Note that my knowledge of Service Discipline is only an inch deep -- I've done Unit Disciplinary Investigations and Summary Investigations, and I've been an Ops O, but I am absolutely not an expert, and I constantly seek the advice of experts. And I acknowledge that I'm missing some knowledge in this case.

Offline Haggis

  • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 53,305
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,511
  • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
Re: MP struggle to enforce mental health laws
« Reply #81 on: August 04, 2017, 08:44:36 »
Agreed, this is quite an informative discussion. I do have one question, though, because I'm clearly missing something important. For the specific task of dealing with a member who is at risk of self-harm, why does it need provincial mental health act coverage? Isn't this a service offence that the member should be arrested for, to prevent the occurrence of said service offence? NDA 98 is "Malingering, aggravating disease or infirmity or injuring self or another".

NDA s 98 requires the "intent thereby to render himself .....unfit for service".  Pretty hard to establish specific intent at the scene unless the victim articulates it.

Second, NDA s 158(1) sets certain conditions for retention in custody which equate to what is colloquially known as the RICE rules, which were mentioned in an earlier post.  In short RICE stands for:

R = Is there a likelihood the offence will be Repeated?  If no; then
I = Can the Identity of the accused be established?  If yes; then
C =is the accused likely to appear in Court? if yes; then
E =Is there a need to protect or preserve Evidence which can only be met by retention in custody?

If all those conditions are met, under either the NDA or the CC, the arrestee must be released.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2017, 09:00:40 by Haggis »
Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.

Offline trooper142

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 3,890
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 69
Re: MP struggle to enforce mental health laws
« Reply #82 on: August 04, 2017, 09:05:48 »
Agreed, this is quite an informative discussion. I do have one question, though, because I'm clearly missing something important. For the specific task of dealing with a member who is at risk of self-harm, why does it need provincial mental health act coverage? Isn't this a service offence that the member should be arrested for, to prevent the occurrence of said service offence? NDA 98 is "Malingering, aggravating disease or infirmity or injuring self or another".

Note that my knowledge of Service Discipline is only an inch deep -- I've done Unit Disciplinary Investigations and Summary Investigations, and I've been an Ops O, but I am absolutely not an expert, and I constantly seek the advice of experts. And I acknowledge that I'm missing some knowledge in this case.

Arresting them, fine; but then what? We still don't have the authority at that point to transport them to a medical facility against their will. Not to mention civilians (often
dealing with them more than members!) Arresting someone who clearly needs medical help is not the solution.

The mental health act allows police to lawfully transport an individual to a medical facility to be assessed when it is the judgement of the police that they intend to harm themselves (among other things).

We, as MP, currently have an incomplete toolbox to carry out our duties. That is what this comes down to; MP having the authority and legal protections to help our members and members of the public in their time of need!

*edit* although we have no primary ability to act as peace officers and transport under the respective mental health act; there is an ability to detain that person for their safety; call a peace officer who has provincial status and tell them what's happening and if they ask you to take that person to the hospital for assessment, you are legally required to; as per sec 129 of the Criminal Code which states:

129 Every one who

(a) resists or wilfully obstructs a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty or any person lawfully acting in aid of such an officer,
(b) omits, without reasonable excuse, to assist a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty in arresting a person or in preserving the peace, after having reasonable notice that he is required to do so, or
(c) resists or wilfully obstructs any person in the lawful execution of a process against lands or goods or in making a lawful distress or seizure,

is guilty of

(d) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or
(e) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Although this may be an interim solution to address the gap in the short term; the long term solution is clearly provincial recognition of Military Police in some way or another.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2017, 11:57:00 by trooper142 »

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 483,175
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,717
    • The job.
Re: MP struggle to enforce mental health laws
« Reply #83 on: August 04, 2017, 09:20:32 »
Regarding, "MP struggle to enforce mental health laws" 

I'm not an MP. I'm not familiar with Mental Health Acts outside Ontario.

But, I would like to share some statistics regarding police apprehensions under the Ontario Mental Health Act ( OMHA ) that I found of interest.
 
Toronto Police only made 520 OMHA apprehensions in 1997.
( Considering Toronto has about 5,235 Police Officers, that was only about one OMHA apprehension for every ten officers. )
Back then, and as far back as I can remember ( 1972 ), OMHA apprehensions by police in Toronto were very infrequent, and only made as a last resort.

In 2013 - the last year I have seen statistics - Toronto Police made 8,441 OMHA apprehensions.
( OMHA apprehensions had increased to about one-and-a-half per officer. )

Hospital wait times for individuals under OMHA apprehension are a concern because mental illness complaints typically score a Canadian Triage Acuity Scale ( CTAS ) 3. ( CTAS 1 is highest priority. CTAS 5 is lowest. ) 

CTAS 3 can involve lengthy hospital wait times for police. Which means they are not able to respond to other calls in the community.

This may, or may not, be of interest to the discussion,

Toronto Police Service
POLICE ENCOUNTERS WITH PEOPLE IN CRISIS
July 2014

QUOTE

Emergency room transfer of care procedures

In addition to wasting scarce police resources, these extended delays aggravate the stigma associated with mental health issues by forcing individuals to wait under police supervision, often in handcuffs.

In certain divisions, the average emergency department wait time is in excess of two hours. The Review was told that wait times can stretch up to eight hours. The Human Services Justice Coordinating Committee Ontario has also reported two to eight hour waits for police officers in emergency departments. Regrettably, these long wait times can create a disincentive for police to bring people in crisis into the mental health system for treatment.

The stigma of being seated in an ER under police guard, often in restraints, adds to the stress of the situation.

END QUOTE

To reduce police wait times in hospitals, Mobile Crisis Intervention Teams (MCIT) now act as "second responders".
MCITs allow Primary Response Units to remain in service for calls in the community.





« Last Edit: August 04, 2017, 18:26:22 by mariomike »

Offline trooper142

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 3,890
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 69
Re: MP struggle to enforce mental health laws
« Reply #84 on: August 04, 2017, 11:52:05 »
Regarding, "MP struggle to enforce mental health laws" 

I'm not an MP. I'm not familiar with Mental Health Acts outside Ontario.

But, I would like to share some statistics regarding police apprehensions under the Ontario Mental Health Act ( OMHA ) that I found of interest.
 
Toronto Police only made 520 OMHA apprehensions in 1997.
( Considering Toronto has about 5,235 Police Officers, that was only about one OMHA apprehension for every ten officers. )
Back then, and as far back as I can remember ( 1972 ), OMHA apprehensions by police in Toronto were very infrequent, and only made as a last resort.

In 2013 - the last year I have seen statistics - Toronto Police made 8,441 OMHA apprehensions.
( OMHA apprehensions had increased to about one-and-a-half per officer. )
https://www.torontopolice.on.ca/publications/files/reports/police_encounters_with_people_in_crisis_2014.pdf

Hospital wait times for individuals under OMHA apprehension are a concern because mental illness complaints typically score a Canadian Triage Acuity Scale ( CTAS ) 3. ( CTAS 1 is highest priority. CTAS 5 is lowest. ) 

CTAS 3 can involve lengthy wait times for police. Which means they are not able to respond to other calls in the community.

To reduce hospital wait times, Toronto Police have developed Mobile Crisis Intervention Teams (MCIT) as "second responders".
MCITs allow Primary Response Units to remain in service for calls in the community.

Interesting statistics, and I'm not entirely surprised. In my own experience, I have only had one case where it took a lot of convincing to get the individual to go to the hospital, most go voluntarily. The argument is not that they happen frequently; the argument is that when they do happen, we need to have the tools to fulfill our primary mandate; preservation of life.

It is better to have a tool and not need it; than to need a tool and not have it.

I reject the argument "well it doesnt seem to be happening all that often, so whats the point in having this authority".

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 483,175
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,717
    • The job.
Re: MP struggle to enforce mental health laws
« Reply #85 on: August 04, 2017, 11:57:46 »
I reject the argument "well it doesnt seem to be happening all that often, so whats the point in having this authority".

I'm not an MP, and did not make an argument about anyone's authority, or lack of. I hope you did not take it that way.

I simply wanted to point out that the number of OMHA apprehensions, in the city I was familiar with, ( it may vary across Ontario and Canada ) has risen dramatically over the years.

Also, to perhaps consider some possible solutions, such as MCIT, to deal with the increase in OMHA apprehensions, and reduce hospital ( Toronto alone has 16 psychiatric emergency departments ) wait times for police. So they can get back in service to the community ASAP.

« Last Edit: August 04, 2017, 13:46:16 by mariomike »

Offline Blackadder1916

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 158,000
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,789
Re: MP struggle to enforce mental health laws
« Reply #86 on: August 04, 2017, 13:15:10 »
Interesting statistics, and I'm not entirely surprised. In my own experience, I have only had one case where it took a lot of convincing to get the individual to go to the hospital, most go voluntarily. The argument is not that they happen frequently; the argument is that when they do happen, we need to have the tools to fulfill our primary mandate; preservation of life.

It is better to have a tool and not need it; than to need a tool and not have it.

I reject the argument "well it doesnt seem to be happening all that often, so whats the point in having this authority".

Evolving into an interesting discussion.  Like others, I will preface by stating I'm not, nor have I ever been, an MP or any other type of LEO.  I agree that those who do the job need the appropriate tools even if it is an infrequent occurrence.

However, on the matter of statistics, are there any available about the interaction of MPs with those presenting with mental health issues?  Do the MP keep such statistics?  Are their workload statistics (I assume they, like almost every other agency, accumulate and correlate such) able to be broken down into the reason for contacts with individuals?

I imagine this is nothing new, though it is likely that the requirement for involuntary admission to mental health services has probably risen in the military community just as it has in the wider population, however to a lower percentage.  As a reminder, the various provincial Mental Health Acts, deal with much more than the authority of police to apprehend individuals requiring psych assessment and hold; it also delineates the requirements of individual physicians, "designated" facilities, and to some extent courts among others.

It has been many years since I've personally been involved in situations that required the apprehension of individuals needing to be placed on a psych hold.  Back in the day when medics used to make actual ambulance calls to the PMQs (both overseas and in Canada) it was not unheard of for the MPs to get the medics to respond when it was necessary to physically restrain an individual due to a mental health issue.  While I can't remember under what authority we would have involuntarily admitted an individual (dependant/civilian especially when we were in Germany) it was one of those info items that I kept in my personal SOP references when I was a hosp adm later in my career, though the only time that I specifically recall dealing with a military patient under an Ontario Mental Health Act hold was an individual I escorted from NDMC to a designated facility in Windsor when he was released from the CF (that was in the 1980s).  Perhaps someone more current with how the CFMS (or whatever you call yourself these days) view this issue can chime in.
Whisky for the gentlemen that like it. And for the gentlemen that don't like it - Whisky.

Offline trooper142

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 3,890
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 69
Re: MP struggle to enforce mental health laws
« Reply #87 on: August 04, 2017, 14:18:19 »
I'm not an MP, and did not make an argument about anyone's authority, or lack of. I hope you did not take it that way.

I simply wanted to point out that the number of OMHA apprehensions, in the city I was familiar with, ( it may vary across Ontario and Canada ) has risen dramatically over the years.

Also, to perhaps consider some possible solutions, such as MCIT, to deal with the increase in OMHA apprehensions, and reduce hospital ( Toronto alone has 16 psychiatric emergency departments ) wait times for police. So they can get back in service to the community ASAP.

I didn't think you were arguing against increased MP authority, I've just heard that argument circulating over the last few weeks and it can be a bit frustrating!

As I said, I have personally dealt with 3 instances of mental health in one year, with one requiring more pressure to get them to go voluntarily. That is not to mention the 10 I know of, from the base I work at. All within the last year.

As for the amount of times we would require this power; I can't imagine it would be very frequent, but it would be preferable to begging with the subject and hoping they are not too far down the rabbit hole!

I think it's interesting to note that as a professional police organization, the MPs have only really been a true police service for 6 years or so! So as an organization of course there are growing pains! What is not acceptable in my view, is reinventing the wheel when other services have already been through this, we can learn best practice from them and adapt our policies accordingly!



Offline putz

  • Member
  • ****
  • 3,490
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 171
Re: MP struggle to enforce mental health laws
« Reply #88 on: August 04, 2017, 14:28:12 »
Evolving into an interesting discussion.  Like others, I will preface by stating I'm not, nor have I ever been, an MP or any other type of LEO.  I agree that those who do the job need the appropriate tools even if it is an infrequent occurrence.

However, on the matter of statistics, are there any available about the interaction of MPs with those presenting with mental health issues?  Do the MP keep such statistics?  Are their workload statistics (I assume they, like almost every other agency, accumulate and correlate such) able to be broken down into the reason for contacts with individuals?

I imagine this is nothing new, though it is likely that the requirement for involuntary admission to mental health services has probably risen in the military community just as it has in the wider population, however to a lower percentage.  As a reminder, the various provincial Mental Health Acts, deal with much more than the authority of police to apprehend individuals requiring psych assessment and hold; it also delineates the requirements of individual physicians, "designated" facilities, and to some extent courts among others.

It has been many years since I've personally been involved in situations that required the apprehension of individuals needing to be placed on a psych hold.  Back in the day when medics used to make actual ambulance calls to the PMQs (both overseas and in Canada) it was not unheard of for the MPs to get the medics to respond when it was necessary to physically restrain an individual due to a mental health issue.  While I can't remember under what authority we would have involuntarily admitted an individual (dependant/civilian especially when we were in Germany) it was one of those info items that I kept in my personal SOP references when I was a hosp adm later in my career, though the only time that I specifically recall dealing with a military patient under an Ontario Mental Health Act hold was an individual I escorted from NDMC to a designated facility in Windsor when he was released from the CF (that was in the 1980s).  Perhaps someone more current with how the CFMS (or whatever you call yourself these days) view this issue can chime in.

I do not have the link handy, however, the Provost Marshal does put out an annual report breaking down population served, types of calls for service, crimes etc.

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 483,175
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,717
    • The job.
Re: MP struggle to enforce mental health laws
« Reply #89 on: August 04, 2017, 15:10:19 »
I do not have the link handy, however, the Provost Marshal does put out an annual report breaking down population served, types of calls for service, crimes etc.

Canadian Forces Provost Marshal Report - Fiscal Year 2015-2016
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs-cfpm-annual-reports/2015-2016-fiscal-cfpm-annual-report.page