I don't think you can really draw clear parallels with the United States, because sentences are so much longer for what we would consider often relatively minor offences in Canada. Obviously there's a much greater incentive in a court that says, if you do this, you won't go to jail. There's much greater incentive for people than there may be in the mental health courts.
I would say that I actually am not an advocate of a particular model. I think it's important that the model fit the community. Different communities have different strengths in terms of treatment, and you'll never make treatment and treatment options universal. So I think it's fairly important to allow particular communities to set up the models that work for them, but you have to give them guiding principles. The principles really need to be that you've got specialized people, that you've got treatment available, that you have housing available when you need it, and that you have some way to ensure that participation is voluntary and participation results in a better outcome than they would otherwise get.
One of the criticisms of mental health courts has been that people sometimes are made to jump through more hoops than they would if they weren't mentally ill. So you really have to be careful in Canada not to do that, which is why I'm saying I think the focus should be really on the level two offence rather than just the level one non-violent offences. I think there should be an emphasis on level two offences because that's where you get more bang for your buck.