Justice Committee on May 27th, 2009

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Okay. I remember now. That's fine.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

That raises another question. If the property of a third party is used for production purposes, under existing mechanisms relating to the confiscation of property, particularly in cases involving gangsterism, is there not a risk that the house belonging to that third party would be confiscated, for instance? Is it not possible that new legislation passed in 2005-06 could have an unforeseen impact on the confiscation of property?

[Paul Saint-Denis]

It is important to understand that we are talking about other people's property here and not the offender's own property. If it is someone else's property and that third party is innocent, his property cannot be confiscated.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

In the legislation that was passed in 2005, are there not certain provisions dealing with property from the perspective of the place where the offence occurred, as opposed to being aimed at proving property title? If you can reassure me in that respect, I will not have a problem with this.

[Paul Saint-Denis]

Yes, provisions were indeed enacted in 2001 that deal with offence-related property. At the same time, this Part of the Criminal Code does include provisions whereby an innocent third party can defend his or her interests. In the case under discussion, if a person rented his house in good faith but someone else ruined it, the Crown would not be authorized to confiscate that property because it belongs to an innocent third party and not to the accused.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

All right. That is reassuring.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Let's call the vote on NDP-20.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 3 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 4)

Moving on to clause 4, we have amendment NDP-21.

Ms. Davies.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Amendment NDP-21 is basically here to try to get a review of this bill. It looks like it's going to go through, so we think it's fairly serious. We have had other bills pass through the House where there have been reviews, so we think it's important to build it into this particular legislation before us so as to ensure that there is a report to Parliament as laid out here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Is there any further discussion?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 4 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 5)

We'll move on to amendment BQ-5.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chairman, the Bloc Québécois is withdrawing amendments BQ-5 and BQ-6, in light of the previous votes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you, Monsieur Ménard.

We'll go to BQ-7.

Monsieur Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that clause 5 of the bill deals with eligibility for drug addiction treatment programs. We would like to delete certain provisions of the bill which restrict access to these programs. That would enable us to broaden the concept of “court program”, as well as the other provisions of the Criminal Code, obviously. I believe it is section 720 that provides for other measures.

I would just like to remind the Committee that access to drug addiction treatment, based on the current wording of the bill, is really quite restrictive. Government members, and even the Minister, when he appeared, tried to present this as almost a panacea. However, as I say, in order to be eligible to receive treatment, the individual must have pled not guilty and must follow a specific program of treatment. He is not eligible under certain other restrictions, including minimum sentences.

What we are proposing would make treatment programs more meaningful and generous and would better reflect what the witnesses described.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Murphy.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Saint-Denis, the effect of this would be to take out the consent of the prosecutor as being necessary for a drug treatment court program approved by the Attorney General and other conditions that are set out there. But proposed paragraph 10(4)(b) says that an offender could attend a treatment program under subsection 720(2) of the Criminal Code.

An important thing for us, I think, is that this is a very interesting interregnum: you're convicted, and you have the choice to better yourself, such as get treatment at the drug treatment court or deal with that, as opposed to being given the mandatory minimum.

So does Mr. Ménard's amendment make access to the DTC easier or more difficult?

[Paul Saint-Denis]

I don't believe it actually changes much of anything, in a sense. The limiting factors that are listed here are already the types of factors that are taken into account when the drug treatment courts look at admitting an individual. An individual has to have been found guilty and then must meet a number of criteria.

For instance, if you committed a drug offence and there was an element of violence attached to it, or if you used a weapon, or if you made a threat, or if you did it for the purpose of aiding an organized crime group, you would not have access to the drug treatment court program.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Maybe I can just cut to the chase here. That's with respect to the second part of what's eliminated here. But what about the prosecutorial consent? Why is that in here, first of all, and does it make much difference if we take it out?

For the Liberals here, as I say, our objective is to get people to those DTCs, to push the government to expand DTCs. There isn't a DTC anywhere near where I live, or where a lot of us live.

[Paul Saint-Denis]

Well, as perhaps you're aware, I think there are only six drug treatment courts in the country, and those are being evaluated. Some regions of the country have expressed an interest in opening up a court. I guess that's being looked at.

In the end, I guess the admission criteria will always be there.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

But what about the prosecutorial consent? That's part of what Mr. Ménard is taking out, right? Why is “if the prosecutor consents” in there, and what difference does it make if it's taken out? That's all I want to know.

[Paul Saint-Denis]

It would be in there because admissibility criteria are managed by the prosecutors. If the admissibility criteria are not met, a prosecutor would not consent to an individual going into the drug treatment court program. Someone has to make a decision as to when an individual is admitted into the drug treatment court program, and that is made by the prosecution.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Monsieur Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

As you know, the witnesses expressed deep concerns about this provision of the bill. Requiring that someone plead guilty in order to be eligible is the first cause of concern. A whole set of restrictions apply. Furthermore, we do not understand why it is the prosecutor who decides, rather than the court.

[Paul Saint-Denis]

Mr. Ménard, that is the way the program is structured at the present time. If you want us to reorganize it entirely--

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

To make me happy?

[Paul Saint-Denis]

I would love to make you happy, but I would not be the one responsible.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

In any case, those are our concerns.