Justice Committee on Oct. 31st, 2006

[Richard Coleman]

I can't really speak to the prison system. They would be eligible to enter treatment once they've completed their sentence, certainly, and I know there is some treatment available within the prison system. However, I'm sorry, I'm really not familiar with how much is available and what the waiting period is.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Could you talk about any experience you have with FAS, fetal alcohol syndrome, and how you might deal with those people differently?

[Richard Coleman]

In Toronto, we haven't seen really significant numbers of applicants with FAS or FASD. Our staff have been trained, are aware of, and certainly look for any indicators of FASD. We would certainly then be looking to specialize the treatment to accommodate those individuals, including some of the ways in which their court appearances would work, because there are some cognitive and behavioural issues that could come up in court.

So we are aware of it, but it's not an issue in our community. In some of the other drug treatment courts, they deal with a much higher incidence of FASD than we do.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Wilson, what about other parts of the province? Is it more first nations people?

[Kevin Wilson]

We don't see a lot of first nations people in our court. We've had a handful, but our courthouse, the Old City Hall court in Toronto, also houses the Gladue Aboriginal Persons Court, which has a specialized clientele of first nations accused. In my experience, that's the court that first nations accused tend to go to, rather than to our court.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

On the whole point of my question about the other person who is incarcerated, if the goal is to make things safer through less recidivism, my first question is whether that's the result you're getting. Is there less recidivism? Second, if you're eliminating all these robberies and violent people, then the people who need it the most are the ones who are going to have the most dangerous recidivism. We're denying them treatment that could make communities safer.

[Kevin Wilson]

It's not so much that they're being denied treatment; they're just being denied this particular avenue of treatment. Whenever someone applies to the court, comes in, and then isn't successful or is screened out, they always have the opportunity to seek treatment elsewhere. I'm afraid I can't speak to what treatment is or is not available in either the provincial reformatory systems or in the federal penitentiary system.

In terms of actual recidivism, it might interest the committee to know that the research and statistics division of the Department of Justice recently published a study specifically on drug treatment courts and recidivism. It was a meta-analysis of reports from the U.S. and Canada, and it reached the conclusion that drug treatment courts do decrease recidivism.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Bagnell.

Mr. Lemay.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Good afternoon. I have several years of experience in criminal law. You are doing exceptional work. When I was practising in Quebec, I had clients from Ottawa and Toronto who had committed offences in Quebec, and we were able to send them to your program. I think this is an extraordinary program.

I just want to understand certain parts of the program better. If I am not mistaken, when an individual agrees to go through your treatment program, he does not have to go to prison. How does that work? He appears in court, then goes directly into treatment. That means he makes a commitment to stop using. How do you determine whether the person is using? Do you run tests? Does the person have to undergo periodic—say, weekly—screening? I do not understand that part of what you do.

[Richard Coleman]

Once the person enters into the program, the treatment is provided within the community. The person is released into the community on a special bail, but we initially will be dictating the address they can live at.

In addition to receiving treatment immediately, they're also returning to court twice a week. Each person in the program is assigned a colour for the purpose of random urine screens. They have to call a 1-800 number every day—in case they don't have a quarter, they can call from a pay phone—and if their colour comes up that day, they have to go to the centre where treatment is provided and provide a urine screen. We know whether they're using based on their random urine screens. The screens are frequent enough. On average, a person is screened a minimum of once a week, but more usually twice.

When they come into court twice a week, the judge is going to be asking them, “How have you been doing? Did you use today, or did you use since your last appearance?” If they say they didn't and we find out otherwise, there's going to be a sanction applied by the court. If they state, however, that they did use, then we work with them to reduce the frequency with which that happens, to the point where they are abstaining and carrying on with the other activities that are part of the program, like going back to school, becoming employed, and maintaining stable housing.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Does that person have the right to a lawyer? This is, after all, an unusual system.

Mr. Chair, just as an aside, I think it would be interesting to see first hand how this program works. I would like to see how it works because we do not have anything like it in Quebec. I think it is a very good system.

What I want to know is this: Does a lawyer keep working with the individual or does that relationship end once the lawyer has defended the client, the client has appeared before the drug treatment court, and the job is done? Does the lawyer's mandate remain in place until the end of treatment?

[Kevin Wilson]

A Legal Aid Ontario duty counsel is in the drug treatment court every Tuesday and Thursday. That counsel participates in the closed pre-court sessions and represents the interests of the participants in exactly that adversarial way. It's a modified adversarial process when something is contentious. If I'm asking for someone's bail to be revoked, then duty counsel will say, “Why don't we try something short of revoking bail?” But within the team process, we still have our distinct roles, so the person always has an advocate there in court.

If participants want their own private defence counsel to be there, that's open to them. Sometimes when people do want their own counsel, that counsel is present when they enter their guilty plea at the beginning of the program. If there's a conflict that comes up, if they're about to be expelled from the program, their own private lawyers may attend for that. Otherwise, the duty counsel is there to represent them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Coleman.

[Richard Coleman]

Speaking as an outsider to the justice system—my background is in psychology—my impression of these courts is that they are far less adversarial than those within the traditional court system. I would encourage you to go see one. There's one here in Ottawa, and if you'd like to visit us in Toronto, we'd welcome you.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

The issue of recidivism was brought up at the beginning of your presentation, Mr. Wilson. How do you calculate recidivism? How do you define it?

[Kevin Wilson]

It's a bit hard to quantify. Coming to this as a criminal justice system participant, I would define recidivism in terms of a subsequent conviction for a criminal offence. I think the presumption of innocence obliges us to treat it that way. However, the report that the research and statistics branch of Justice has just released, which relies on reports from across the United States and Canada, as well as two reports from Australia, defines recidivism not just in terms of subsequent convictions, but also in terms of subsequent charges. I have a little difficulty with that conceptually, because of the presumption of innocence. But I don't think the research has been consistent. I'm not an expert in how the research is being done. I think the best I could do is direct the committee to this recent report from the research and statistics branch.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Yes, it would be good to see that report.

[Kevin Wilson]

I have a copy of it with me. You're welcome to have my copy if you like. I can provide it to the clerk afterward. I'm sure I can get another copy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I'd like to know more about the expansion of the drug treatment courts to four new cities. There are now six cities in which drug treatment courts are operating. Was this report instrumental in the decision to expand the treatment courts?

[Kevin Wilson]

Which report?

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

The one you're speaking of today. What reasons were behind the expansion of the drug treatment courts to four other cities?

[Kevin Wilson]

The funding for the four additional courts was announced, I think, in 2004. There was a lengthy application process that led to the decision to fund the new courts in the four new cities where they're now being set up: Edmonton, Regina, Winnipeg, and Ottawa. As for the reasoning behind the government's decision, I'm afraid I'm not in a position to know.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Lee.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

About three or four years ago, I and several members of the House on the Special Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs had an opportunity to visit the Toronto court. All of the parties were very impressed with the way the court was being run. It wasn't your typical criminal court at all. It struck us that there was a fair bit of infrastructure in the court—public, taxpayer paid, some volunteers. It was professional infrastructure, all of which cost money, but it appeared to be well worth it.

I would say that the drug treatment courts aim for and obtain better outcomes for individuals than they would receive from the traditional courts. In the traditional system, they are processed, classified, put in jail for eight months, and then sent back on the street to steal somebody else's car. Would you agree that there are consistently better outcomes in the program managed by the drug treatment court?