When Care Becomes Confinement: Rethinking Manitoba’s 72-Hour Detention Model - a podcast
- Featured in Robson Crim
- 6 hours ago
- 22 min read
Public responses to addiction and mental health crises are often framed as urgent matters of safety and intervention. In this episode of the Robson Hall Criminal Law Podcast, Member of Parliament Leah Gazan offers a grounded, community-based perspective on Manitoba’s Protective Detention and Care of Intoxicated Persons Act (Bill 48); legislation that permits the detention of highly intoxicated individuals for up to 72 hours without a criminal charge.
The discussion situates Bill 48 at the intersection of criminal law, public health, and constitutional rights. While the legislation is framed as a form of care, the conversation raises a central question: when does care become confinement, and at what cost to fundamental rights?
What emerges is a picture of a system grappling with a real and urgent crisis yet responding in ways that may prioritize immediacy and optics over legality, effectiveness, and long-term solutions. As Gazan puts it, “you can’t police mental health and addictions away… this is not something you can arrest your way out.” The takeaway is clear: Addressing complex social crises requires more than coercive interventions; it demands responses grounded in evidence, rights, and human dignity.
Summary of the Podcast
Care, Control, and the Charter: A Frontline Perspective on Bill 48
Five key takeaways from a conversation with MP Leah Gazan on detention, public health, and constitutional limits
Debates surrounding public safety and addiction often focus on visible disorder and political urgency. This episode shifts the focus to how these issues are experienced on the ground, and how legal responses can unintentionally deepen the very harms they seek to address.
1. A Public Health Crisis Is Being Framed as a Detention Problem
A central theme throughout the discussion is that Manitoba is facing a mental health and addictions crisis, not a criminal one. Gazan emphasizes that rates of poverty, houselessness, and untreated mental illness have risen since the pandemic, while investments in social supports have not kept pace.
In this context, detention-based responses risk mischaracterizing the problem. As she notes, addiction and mental health challenges cannot be “policed away” or resolved through confinement. Without parallel investments in housing, treatment, and community-based care, such measures are unlikely to yield meaningful improvements in public safety.
2. The Facility Raises Serious Charter Concerns
From a legal standpoint, the model raises immediate Charter issues, including sections 7 (life, liberty, and security of the person), 9 (arbitrary detention), and 10(b) (right to counsel). Individuals may be detained for up to 72 hours without access to legal representation or a meaningful process to challenge their confinement.
The episode highlights how this framework departs from existing safeguards under Manitoba’s Mental Health Act, which typically require judicial authorization for involuntary detention. The absence of comparable procedural protections raises concerns about due process and the erosion of constitutional norms.
3. “Care” Functions in Practice as Confinement
Although the legislation is framed as protective, the facility's physical and operational design closely resembles that of solitary confinement units. Individuals in acute distress, including those experiencing psychosis, may be placed in stark, controlled environments with limited medical oversight.
This creates a fundamental tension: measures intended as care may operate in ways that are functionally punitive, particularly when individuals are confined in isolation during moments of heightened vulnerability.
4. Short-Term Detention May Increase Long-Term Harm
The conversation also draws on concerns raised by medical professionals, particularly the increased risk of overdose following forced withdrawal. Temporary detention may reduce tolerance, meaning individuals are more vulnerable to fatal overdose upon release if they resume prior levels of substance use.
Additionally, confinement without follow-up supports risks exacerbating mental health conditions and pushing individuals further away from services. Rather than stabilizing individuals, the model may contribute to a cycle of harm that extends beyond the period of detention.
5. Policy Is Being Driven by Pressure, Not Evidence
A final key insight is the role of political and public pressure in shaping legislative responses. While Gazan is clear that the legislation is not motivated by bad intent, she notes a broader trend toward fast-tracked policies that may not fully align with constitutional obligations or empirical evidence.
This dynamic is not unique to Bill 48; it reflects a wider pattern where governments respond to public concern with visible, immediate action, even when those measures may be ineffective or legally vulnerable. The result is a system that risks prioritizing short-term reassurance over sustainable, rights-compliant solutions.
Conclusion: Human Rights Must Anchor Crisis Response
The bottom line: responses to addiction and mental health crises must be grounded in public health, not detention.
While Bill 48 is presented as a protective measure, the episode highlights the risks of normalizing coercive interventions that bypass due process and disproportionately affect marginalized communities, particularly Indigenous and low-income populations.
Effective reform requires more than emergency-style responses. It demands investment in housing, treatment, and community supports, alongside a firm commitment to constitutional principles.
At its core, the conversation returns to a simple but critical idea: legal frameworks must preserve human dignity, even (and especially) in moments of crisis.
TL;DR
Manitoba’s 72-hour detention model raises significant constitutional and public health concerns. While intended as a form of care, it operates in ways that resemble confinement, with limited procedural safeguards and potential for increased harm. Without meaningful investment in social supports, detention-based responses risk worsening the crisis rather than resolving it. Real solutions require evidence, accountability, and a commitment to human rights, not reactive policy-making.
Further Reading & Resources
For readers interested in exploring the legal framework, public reporting, and ongoing debate surrounding Manitoba’s 72-hour detention model:
Manitoba Legislature, Bill 48 – The Protective Detention and Care of Intoxicated Persons Act:
CTV News Winnipeg, “First look at new centre that will detain drug-intoxicated people up to 72 hours”:
CTV News Winnipeg, “Winnipeg advocates say follow-up care needed in drug detox facility plan”:
CBC News Manitoba, “Doctors raise concerns about involuntary detention in proposed detox centre”:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/72-hour-detox-centre-doctors-involuntary-detention-9.6968451
CBC News Manitoba, “Winnipeg protest over 72-hour detox centre”:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/winnipeg-protest-72-hour-detox-centre-9.6989744
---------------------------------------------------------
Otter AI Transcript
SUMMARY KEYWORDS
human rights, mental health crisis, Bill 48, protective detention, charter concerns, public health response, solitary confinement, indigenous communities, poverty, affordable housing, legal aid, public safety, addiction crisis, constitutional rights, public health impact
SPEAKERS
Speaker 3, Speaker 2, Speaker 1, Speaker 4, Speaker 5
Speaker 1 00:20
We need to be mindful of our humanity at a time when we're seeing the rise of conflict globally, but also conflict in our community, to always remember that every person has a story, every person comes from a parent, and that everybody has somebody who knows them, and probably most people have at least one person that loves them unconditionally.
Speaker 2 01:02
You
Speaker 3 01:02
welcome back to the Student Edition of Robson radio, and thank you for joining us. I'm Austin
Speaker 4 01:16
and I'm tessia.
Speaker 3 01:18
Today's episode looks at a question that sits right at the intersection of criminal law, public health and human rights. When does care become confinement?
Speaker 4 01:27
In November 2025 Manitoba passed bill 48 the protective detention and care of intoxicated Persons Act. It allows individuals who are highly intoxicated to be detained for up to 72 hours, even if they haven't committed a crime.
Speaker 3 01:43
For listeners, thinking about this through a legal lens, this raises immediate charter concerns, including the following, section seven, life liberty, security of the person. Section nine, arbitrary detention. Section 10, B, access to counsel.
Speaker 4 01:57
But beyond the legal doctrine, we wanted to understand how this actually plays out on the ground in the communities most affected.
Speaker 3 02:05
Our guest today is Leah Gazan, a longtime human rights advocate and Member of Parliament for Winnipeg center the writing where this facility is located.
Speaker 4 02:13
MP Gazan, thank you so much for being here.
Speaker 1 02:16
Yes, thank you. And I'm glad that you're focusing on this. I know that some law students put a submission in on this.
Speaker 3 02:25
So MP Gazan, can you tell us what you're seeing on the ground in your riding for instance, what does the addictions and mental health crisis look like for the people you
Speaker 1 02:33
represent? Well, I mean, certainly since the pandemic, you know that. We know that we're in a growing mental health crisis. We have seen massive divestment in affordable social housing unit. We know that certainly rates of poverty have gone up. Rates of first time houselessness have gone up. We are in, I would say a mental health crisis, which is often, you know, people often use substances, for example, to deal with mental health issues. We have a lack of mental health supports. We have unprecedented amounts of money spent on policing. But the problem is you can't police mental health and addictions away. This is this is not something you can arrest your way out. This is not a crisis that you can incarcerate your way out. We need a public health response. We are not seeing funding on the ground to truly respond to the crisis with a public health response, and as a result, it's a crisis
Speaker 4 03:50
even clear that this is a real crisis, and that the intentions behind Bill 48 aren't necessarily bad. So at what point did the response start to feel like it was going in the wrong direction?
Speaker 1 04:01
Well, I think it's important that I don't think people are making decisions with bad intentions. You know, people are trying to figure out the best way to deal with the crisis. But here's the thing, what I've noticed as a legislator in this country is that we are seeing a trend of passing legislations and laws that are not do not uphold our constitution or charter. I'm going to give you a couple of examples. Bill C 12, that's a current piece of legislation in the House that violates the rights of migrants and asylum seekers and international conventions we've signed on to Bill c5 federally that that's another example of a law that was fast tracked at an unprecedented rate through the House of Commons, that waters down environmental laws, but also. Bill fails to uphold human rights law, including the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous people, something that was affirmed to have application in Canadian law in the last parliament, with the passing of Bill C 50 that affirmed the application of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Canadian law and Bill 48 that has a number of concerns. First of all, it's forced detention without access to legal aid or a lawyer for 72 hours, if you look at the committee meetings and the testimony that was shared, people aren't worried if somebody is going to die. They're worried about how soon it's going to happen. So it also has a lot of public safety issues to it. I don't think it would pass a charter challenge. And really, what are we doing here? They're looking at putting in place four beds for people who are supposedly on methamphetamines. Here's the difficulty with that. The former chief psychiatrist for the Province of Manitoba said it's difficult to ascertain whether the behavior is a result of meth psychosis, psychosis, schizophrenia, bipolar. And on top of that, it's hard to test the amount of math that's in the system. You could have traces of math, but you can't necessarily ascertain whether that's the cause of the behavior. The other problem is the people that are assessing the person that would be picked up and put into this 72 hour detention, something that Senator Kim pate likened to a solitary confinement unit police are not trained to do proper psychiatric assessments, to make the assessment when somebody is picked up. And although you know they are saying that there will be a psychiatric assessment, which is required even under the Mental Health Act, there is no psychiatrist that is going to be situated at the location to make that psychiatric assessment. So that's very concerning to me. The other thing is, it puts a tremendous strain on paramedics, who are going to be the primary people responsible to look after acute health care needs. If you also look at the cells, if you look at the former, it was, it was nicknamed the drunk tank. It was an empty solitary confinement unit with kind of there was a grade on the floor where people could defecate if needed. In these particular solitary confinement units, there's a sink with a toilet, raised metal, without beds, I think they're going to throw in a mat. I know at the time, when I last was researching, they were looking at blankets that were safe for people that were having issues with mental health. My concern is you have people who are intoxicated, whether alcohol or on narcotics, in these cells. What if they fall and they bump their head? So I'm not necessarily convinced that the design of the unit. Now I'm not an expert. I want to be really clear, I'm not an expert, but I'm not convinced that that design is a safe design for somebody who's intoxicated or narcotics. I'm not sure that it's safe just looking at it, we know that when you're on substances, you might get dizzy, you might trip, you might have trouble keeping your balance. I'm curious about the design of the solitary confinement unit. That's
Speaker 3 09:11
really helpful. Context. I want to take a second and turn to the facility itself. I understand that Senator Kim pate visited your riding and you both tried to access the site. Were you able to tour the facility?
Speaker 1 09:22
Well, no, it did not happen. You know, I hope to tour it. I do have a legal right to tour as a member of parliament, so I will exercise that right. I have to make sure that my constituents, I have to make sure that their constitutional rights are being held, that their Charter rights are being protected. I and I think that's really important, because as legislators, we are obliged to uphold the rule of law, and that's the constitution. We can't be picking and choosing when to uphold. Old rights or constitution, which includes the charter. What's deeply troubling is that this seems to be coming the new norm, and it's impacting the people that are most marginalized, whether it's people in encampments, whether it's people with mental health issues, whether it's people with housing issues, a failure to uphold those rights is deeply troubling, especially when we see all levels of government passing laws that are not consistent with the Constitution. It's a slippery slope, and it's a slippery slope. I'm very concerned that all levels of government are going down. I also requested an access to information to find out more about the building. One of the concerns that was raised in the construction of the building, for example, was when you go into detentions or places where people are incarcerated, particularly in places of solitary confinement, people are locked in for a certain amount of hours per day. They're only a let out for for, like, I think, an hour a day. And very often they have these bars that go across that lock people in. What if there's a fire? One of the things that I found out is that the bars initially that we're locking these units could not be open through a main panel. Should there be a case of a fire? That's also a safety concern. That's that's a safety risk in terms of making sure that even the units are safe, we need to be mindful. I understand that people want quick fixes to things that are becoming a greater crisis. There are ways to fix this, and I'm going to go back. We need a public health response. We need to listen to experts. We need to make sure that we're not spending millions of dollars on revolving doors. I believe this cost $8 million if you can only house, for example, for people on meth in it. Let's say you, you do like this solution. That's not even a drop in the bucket. We're not even going to notice a difference on the streets. So why is there this rush? Why are we not taking a public health response? Why are we not taking an aggressive public health response to deal with this crisis? It doesn't make sense to me. As somebody who actually lives in the riding, who actually lives in the eye of the storm, I know it's not going to make a difference in public safety. So what are we achieving here? And I'll tell you, if you look at the testimony in committee, what we are doing not with ill intent. I want to be really clear. I don't think this was done to be mean or with ill intent, but what we are actually doing is placing people at risk who end up being incarcerated in the cells, but we're also forcing a mental health and addiction crisis to go further underground.
Speaker 4 13:11
So the concern isn't limited to physical harm. There's also a risk of compounding mental health issues.
Speaker 1 13:18
Yeah, 100% that's 100% and there's been lots of studies on long term mental health impacts of solitary confinement. There's ample research on on the long term impact with it. The other thing we're potentially harming people's mental health even further, and then they leave the facility after sobering, and there's no place for them to go. So what? What are we really achieving with that? The other thing, if you look at the testimony that came out of the committee meetings, is that you're putting people that are in drug psychosis in solitary confinement that's very dangerous to mental health, locking them up in the midst of a psychosis in these rooms that are with almost like fluorescent, bright lights. Now I have not toured it. My assessment, in all fairness, is coming from a tours that were posted on media that is the only time I viewed it, but from what I saw in the media, that is what it looks like. I can't imagine in the middle of a psychosis, being placed in solitary confinement under fluorescent lights with a mat on the floor and expect anything good to come out of it.
Speaker 4 14:40
I really appreciate that perspective. It almost sounds like while these facilities aren't intended to be punitive, they function that way. The provincial government treats people in crisis more like numbers than individuals with rehabilitative needs.
Speaker 1 14:54
Yeah. The other thing is that it's a jail cell like I've been in. Jails. It looks no different than a solitary confinement unit, the only difference being that they don't even have a bed, they have a mat, and they haven't figured out safe blankets. It's a solitary confinement unit, that was the observation by Senator Kim paid it's a jail cell. It's a detention center. It really
Speaker 3 15:26
comes back to what you said earlier, that this is fundamentally a mental health crisis, not a criminal problem requiring government
Speaker 1 15:32
intervention. Yeah, it's a mental health problem without enough mental health support, without enough support for people who actually want treatment you also have a right to bodily autonomy. If you're a legislator, we take an oath that we're going to uphold the rule of law. That's the constitution. We can't then pick and choose when to uphold somebody's rights to bodily autonomy. I mean, that's that's the reality of it. It's a public health crisis, which means that, why aren't we spending the $8 million investing in housing with low barrier housing with wraparound supports? Because you can't demand somebody to stop using narcotics. We know there's so much research that says it doesn't work. So why are we doing it? Why are we spending millions of dollars on solutions that have been researched to death, to be totally ineffective? What's the outcome of that? It's getting worse.
Speaker 3 16:40
Why do you think they're going down this route of not studying the effects of this bill or studying the effects of the program? Because it is going to hurt people, let's be honest. But why are they taking this route that's clearly on the face of it, it appears unconstitutional. You know, has law students not running it through strict analysis, but even just looking at it, you know what I mean?
Speaker 1 16:58
Well, again, I don't think it's bad intention. It's so I'm a legislator, but I'm also in the public eye. And, you know, I understand that there's a lot of concerns about safety. I want to honor that, that that feeling is real, and that there are things like, for example, I have my car on a permanent suburban holiday, because I'm tired of getting my window smashed all the time, right? So, so I want to honor that. So there's a tremendous amount of pressure on public officials to come up with solutions to make the community safe. I think this was done with that in mind, but the reality is you cannot build healthy communities without the community in mind and everybody in the community tough on crime approaches we know don't work lots of research. I also know that there are an easy political sound bite. You know, in terms of fixing things, we need a major investment in mental health. We need a major investment in low barrier housing with wraparound supports, something that I do hear the provincial government talk about. We can't police our way out of it. We can't foot patrol our way out of this. We need trained professionals that can work with people on the ground form relationships, and there's all sorts of people doing good things. I think of Niddah way Mac that does regular outreach, that works directly with people on the ground where they're at and does that kind of work. We need people that are on the ground, people with experience, whether it's personal or professional, to address the crisis where it's at
Speaker 4 18:47
you mentioned earlier, the role of political pressure in shaping these responses, and that's something we're seeing in other areas as well, including bail reform. I wanted to turn to a comment from premier Kinew.
Speaker 2 18:59
He described the facility as replacing what he called a dungeon, referring to the old drunk tank, and said it was designed with input from addictions experts. What's your response to that?
Speaker 1 19:10
Well, I'm not going to respond to the Premier's intention. I don't think he did this with bad intent. But looking at it, they're solitary confinement units. I currently have a bill that I'm co sponsoring with Senator Kim Kim pate on the House side to get rid of to bad solitary confinement. So I don't want to go after the Premier's intention. What I can say to that is, those are solitary confinement units. They're detention cells.
Speaker 3 19:47
Thank you. That's really helpful. I want to shift a bit to the legal concerns. From your perspective as a legislator, do you think the facility is charter compliant?
Speaker 1 19:57
Well, it's not charter compliant. You know, I. Not a charter expert, but people have a right to legal counsel. Right, for example, when you're detained, you have a right to legal counsel. There is no legal counsel provided here. People are have a right to due process. There is no due process here. People also have a right under the Mental Health Act, unless they're a threat to themselves or other, to choose whether they want to receive mental health treatment. We have a mental health act in this country. I mean, there's just so many other things. I mean, people have a right to security and safety under the charter. When you have medical professionals saying, I'm not sure if somebody's going to die. I'm just unsure how soon that's going to happen. You're not honoring somebody's right to safety and security. So those are a couple of things. As somebody who's not a charter expert, they're obvious to me. The other thing that's really concerning just in this whole trend, when you're talking about charter and constitution is this move at all levels of government to take you spoke about bail to take away the discretion of judges. There's a reason why there has been a very clear line between the legislative branch and the judiciary. We see this with Bill C 12. I mean, this is a different topic, but it's on the same sort of pattern of legal behavior that we're seeing now, where the minister can interfere on immigration cases. Well, look at what's happening with Trump in the States. Do we want to leave it up to the legislative branch to be able to interfere. We can control who's going to be elected. We might not get the election results we want. Do we want to give that much power to ministers and legislators to be able to interfere in decisions of judges? I argue, no, I think that's a dangerous, dangerous path that we're taking that is becoming far too normalized, that I continue to push back against.
Speaker 4 22:15
What stands out to me is the lack of due process. In Manitoba, if you're concerned about someone's mental health, there's a formal process. You apply for an assessment, and a judge, or Judicial Justice of the Peace must approve any involuntary detention. This facility really seems to bypass that framework entirely.
Speaker 1 22:34
Yeah, there's a reason why we have a constitution and a charter. There's a reason why, as legislators, we take an oath of office. You know, I'm an indigenous person, I had to pledge allegiance to the king. It was not a great experience for me. I'm just being honest to have to pledge allegiance to my colonizer. I take my oath really seriously. It's difficult because, you know, I was talking to a good friend of mine yesterday, who's a human rights lawyer, and I was saying, it's really hard because I don't want to cause trouble, but I'm a legislator, and I've taken an oath, and I'm bound by that oath, and I have to uphold and respect my oath, even if It means standing alone, and it's a lonely time right now, particularly when you're on the side of respecting the charter and respecting the Constitution,
Speaker 3 23:30
that's a really important point. It's something we've been discussing a lot in the law school lately. Particularly, there's concerns around democratic backsliding and increasing deference to government decision making becoming the norm, which is troubling, to say the least.
Speaker 1 23:43
And the other thing, I think, like we need to remember that we live in a constitutional democracy, and governments are bound by the Constitution. And you know this, you're the law students. I'm not the law student, but it means that we cannot override the rights in it. Why are we trying to pass legislation that ends up in the courts all the time with charter challenges? How is that effective? I went on a massive push against Bill c5 which relates to projects of national interest, because I said, like, no projects are going to happen. It's a pipeline to the court. And what do we see now, it's a pipeline to the court. I mean, it's a different topic. But even with this bill 48 it's a pipeline to the court. But does somebody have to die for us to prove that their Charter rights were violated? Is that where we want to go? So I'm deeply, deeply concerned about the 72 hour detention. Why can't we just respect the charter? Why do we have to waste time in the courts? Why can we just not respect the charter? And what concerns me is that it's targeting the most vulnerable people who often are not even. Aware of what their rights are like. And you know this, you're the law students. I'm not the law student, but, but it means that we cannot override the rights in it, which is, why? Why are we making why are we trying to pass legislation that ends up in the courts all the time with charter challenges. How is that effective? I went on a massive push against Bill c5 which relates to projects of national interest, because I said, like, no projects are going to happen. It's a pipeline to the court. And what do we see now? It's a pipeline to the court. If you look at all the I mean, it's a different topic. But even with this bill 48 it's a pipeline to the court. But does somebody have to die for us to prove that their Charter rights were violated? Is that where we want to go. So I'm deeply, deeply concerned about the 72 hour detention. Why can't we just respect the charter? Why do we have to wait waste time in the courts? Why can we just not respect the charter? And what concerns me is that it's it's targeting the most vulnerable people who often are not even aware of what their rights are. So then it becomes incumbent on people like us, who are legislators, to do right particularly for those who are not even aware what their rights are to make sure that they are protected and make sure they are safe, whether it's people who are unhoused in encampments or
Speaker 5 26:53
I really appreciate that perspective, especially your
Speaker 4 26:55
point about everyone being a constituent. I want to ask about something more practical. There's been concern for medical professionals that short term detention can increase overdose risk by reducing tolerance. How does that factor into the broader issues with this facility?
Speaker 1 27:12
Well, what's concerning is that all of these concerns were raised in committee in the study of the bill, so you just have to read through the committee report to know that the increased race or rates of overdose that will happen, because we know that when you and I'm certain, again, I full disclosure, I'm not a nurse, I'm not a public health expert. But what the facts say is that when people withdraw from narcotics, if they take the same amount after or if their tolerance is lower, they're more likely to overdose. That's in the committee report. That's, that's not my that's not my thought. That's, that's information that was given by public health experts, and I question as somebody who's not a lawyer, having all of that testimony in committee, if the provincial government is not putting themselves in a very precarious legal position, having all that information on public Record and still continuing on with this 72 hour detention center, I question the legal wisdom of that. As somebody who's not a lawyer, because they know all of this and they're still proceeding forward, I think it puts the provincial government potentially in a edit.
Speaker 4 28:52
I'm not sure if you can hear us. We just, I think you cut out for a moment and you're we still can't hear you.
Speaker 1 29:01
Can you hear me now?
Speaker 4 29:03
Yes, we can, perfect. Sorry,
Speaker 1 29:05
okay, what, what? Where did I end off? Sorry.
Speaker 3 29:09
I'm sorry.
Speaker 4 29:11
Oh, no, go ahead, Austin.
Speaker 3 29:12
I was just saying, you got up to precarious situation, and then it stopped. I think it's also important to talk about the effect of this facility on indigenous communities?
Speaker 1 29:31
Well, it is going to disproportionately impact indigenous people, I'm pretty sure. But in saying, In saying that, one of the things that that I've, I've often spoke about, is the fact that, you know, first of all, Winnipeg Center is one of the poorest urban ridings in the country, if not the poorest at sometimes, and the highest level, highest rates of poverty. Or actually with indigenous folks, indigenous folks, many of whom are from treaty one territory, who come to urban centers and are now homeless on their very own lands. You know, poverty, one of the reasons why I was fighting for a guaranteed livable basic income is, from my perspective, one of the simplest, most resolvable human rights violations. Poverty inflicting people to impoverish circumstances, is a violent human rights violation. Poverty is bad for mental health, not having proper housing is bad for mental health, not having a food security is bad for mental health. So you're not going to resolve a mental health and poverty crisis through incarceration. You you resolve a crisis through a public health response. Housing is a public health response. Mental health supports is a public health response, providing people with PharmaCare so that they can deal with mental health issues by providing them with with the proper medication they need to function. For example, people suffering from schizophrenia is a public health response. We are not doing it, and we know the highest rates of poverty are with are found within the indigenous community.
Speaker 4 31:40
Our audience is mostly law students, future lawyers, advocates and policymakers. What do you want them to take away from this conversation?
Speaker 1 31:50
You know, I met with a really dear friend of mine yesterday, and I'm not going to name drop, but she's a pretty big name in human rights, and we were just talking about the state of the world and how there's this growing disconnection with our shared humanity. And what I've said many times, and I found out it was actually my grandmother who said it, and I've probably picked it up unknowingly, but when you strip people of their humanity, you can justify the most unjustifiable acts. That's true for people that live in poverty. We often objectify people in poverty, and then we start justifying the most unjustifiable acts, like taking away a heater, which is in violation of international human rights law for people who are houseless, which results in mass amounts of amputations in the houseless community, that's the result of taking away people's humanity to heat locking them up in detention centers where there's ample testimony of the risk of that that's a way of stripping somebody of their rights and humanity. We need to be mindful of our humanity at a time when we're seeing the rise of conflict globally, but also conflict in our community, to always remember that every person has a story, every person comes from a parent, and that everybody has somebody who knows them, and probably most people have At least one person that loves them unconditionally, and we need to never forget the humanity of others, because that's when things get really bad. And I encourage all legislators at all level of government to make decisions to put in place legislation that always lifts up the humanity of all people. So I'll leave it at that.
Speaker 3 34:13
That was liaison Member of Parliament for Winnipeg center speaking with us about Manitoba, 72 hour detention model and its human rights implication.
Speaker 2 34:20
If you're interested in exploring this further, we'll include links in our show notes to Bill 48 relevant charter provisions and medical and legal commentary.
Speaker 3 34:31
This episode is a part of our ongoing work through the Robson Crim digital externship, where we aim to bridge legal analysis with real world impact.
Speaker 4 34:38
Thanks for listening, and stay tuned for future episodes from the Robson Hall community.
