Justice Committee on May 27th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Ms. Jennings.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Regarding the amendment proposed by the government, I would like to point out that it is not the Crown prosecutor who accepts or refuses. It is the court that decides. The administrative judge or presiding court official decides whether or not sentencing will be postponed to allow the convicted offender to participate in a program. The Crown has an opportunity to say whether it is, or is not, in favour of the individual's participation and to state its reasons.

[Paul Saint-Denis]

I believe that, initially, it is the Crown prosecutor who determines whether the person is eligible or not for a drug addiction treatment program. Once that person has been admitted to a program and appears before the court, it is the court—you are right about that—which decides whether or not the individual has met the objectives of the program. Based on the new amendment, a minimum sentence might or might not be imposed.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

So, it is not necessary to specify that here. If the legislation does not already specify that the consent of the Crown prosecutor is necessary, I see no reason why the government would want to specify that now through this bill.

[Paul Saint-Denis]

We wanted to codify the practice, Ms. Jennings.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

All right, we're dealing with Bloc amendment 7.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We also have Bloc 8.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chairman, let us just hope that this trend will continue. Let me just write “agreed to” on my little paper here. You see how smoothly things run when people are reasonable?

Amendment BQ-8 is consistent with the one we just passed. I suppose that the vote on this amendment will be in keeping with the last one, so that people who have met the objectives of a drug addiction treatment program will not be subject to a minimum sentence. That is the purpose of this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Is there any further discussion?

Monsieur Saint-Denis, does this particular amendment have the effect of simply reflecting the previous amendment that was adopted? I know it adds (b), but it reflects the fact that the wording in Bloc amendment 7 changes the current bill.

[Paul Saint-Denis]

Actually, no, it doesn't. At least, I don't believe it does. The motion BQ-8 applies to both the drug treatment court program and the treatment program under subsection 720(2) of the Criminal Code. So it goes beyond what the previous amendment would do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Murphy.

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

This treatment under subsection 720(2) is what?

[Paul Saint-Denis]

Well, section 720 allows for the court to refer an offender to a treatment program of some sort. It doesn't have to be a drug treatment program; it could be any type of program. But it does not take away the obligation of the court to impose a minimum penalty, even if the individual successfully completes the program.

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

The 720 treatment is imposed and agreed upon, but ordered by the court?

[Paul Saint-Denis]

Yes.

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

So it's a court-ordered treatment program different from the drug treatment court.

[Paul Saint-Denis]

Yes.

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

So it would seem to me that the government shouldn't have a problem with this, then. It's the same objective.

[Paul Saint-Denis]

If I can just point this out, the individuals who would go to a 720 treatment program would be individuals who are not eligible for the drug treatment court program. So individuals under the 720 approach would be individuals who possibly used a weapon to commit the offence or may have used violence to commit the offence. And the thinking here is that while those types of individuals would benefit from a treatment program, the nature of their offence was such that it still warranted at least a minimum penalty.

Under the 720 approach, once an individual has successfully completed the program, the court would have to impose the minimum, but would not necessarily impose more than the minimum. Depending on the circumstances, individuals who are open to the 720 approach could get considerably more than the minimum. It depends on the severity of the violence or the use of a weapon, and so on. It was felt that allowing the court to impose the minimum was the least we could do in light of the fact that these types of offences were of a much more serious nature than the type of offender who went into the drug treatment court program. And the judge, in those cases where an individual has successfully completed that approach or that program, could impose a lesser sentence--i.e. perhaps just the minimum--if an individual has successfully completed the 720 treatment program.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Just briefly, carrying on from that, it could also be a person who was thought to be harmless and the drug treatment program wasn't the place they should go, so they went under a 720. This would give the court the option of not having to provide the mandatory minimum sentence.

[Paul Saint-Denis]

This amendment would do that, yes.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

And this case I talked about is possible, right?

[Paul Saint-Denis]

I'm sorry, then perhaps I misunderstood.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I basically said that maybe the drug treatment court wasn't the place for someone if the person appeared to be relatively harmless to the judge or jury. But if they need this other type of treatment--I don't know what it is, anger management or something--then this amendment would allow the court not to have to provide the mandatory minimum to a harmless person like that.