Youth Justice Adds Addiction Treatment Options

Summary#

This bill changes the Youth Criminal Justice Act to make addiction treatment a clearer option for young people whose offences are linked to drugs or cannabis. It adds new points where police and courts can refer or order a youth to attend an authorized addiction program, and it prevents custody based only on failing to follow that treatment condition. It also lets a court delay sentencing, with consent, so a youth can take part in treatment.

• Police must consider referring a youth to an authorized addiction treatment program, with the youth’s consent, when the offence is linked to drugs or cannabis (Bill: s.6(1.1)).
• Extrajudicial sanctions programs may include addiction treatment (Bill: s.10(2)(a) replacement).
• Courts may delay sentencing to allow treatment participation, with consent of the Attorney General and the youth (Bill: s.42(1.1)).
• Courts may include treatment in intensive support, supervision, or non-residential program orders, up to 240 hours over 6 months (Bill: s.42(2)(l)-(m)).
• Courts cannot impose custody solely because a youth failed or refused to attend the ordered addiction program (Bill: s.39(1.1), s.55(2)(e.1)).

What it means for you#

• Households and parents

  • If a youth’s offence is linked to drugs or cannabis, police must consider a referral to an authorized addiction treatment program, but only with the youth’s consent (Bill: s.6(1.1)).
  • Courts can add a condition to attend an authorized addiction program to certain orders, such as probation-like or supervision orders (Bill: s.55(2)(e.1), s.42(2)(l)-(m)).
  • A court may delay sentencing so the youth can join a treatment program, but only if both the youth and the Attorney General agree (Bill: s.42(1.1)).
  • A youth cannot be sent to custody just for failing or refusing to attend the treatment program condition; other responses may still apply (Bill: s.39(1.1)).

• Young persons (12–17)

  • Police may refer you to treatment instead of pushing the case forward, if you agree and the offence is linked to drugs or cannabis (Bill: s.6(1.1)).
  • If found guilty, the judge must consider your participation in treatment when deciding your sentence (Bill: s.42(1)).
  • The judge can order you to attend a non-residential program, including treatment, for up to 240 hours within 6 months, or into an intensive support and supervision program that includes treatment (Bill: s.42(2)(l)-(m)).
  • Not going to treatment cannot, by itself, lead to a custody sentence; other breaches or factors could still be considered (Bill: s.39(1.1)).

• Police and prosecutors

  • Police have a duty to consider treatment referrals in drug- or cannabis-linked cases, with youth consent (Bill: s.6(1.1)).
  • Extrajudicial sanctions can include addiction treatment programs authorized by the Attorney General or designated provincial authority (Bill: s.10(2)(a)).
  • Delayed sentencing to enable treatment requires Attorney General consent (Bill: s.42(1.1)).

• Youth justice courts and probation/services

  • Courts may delay sentencing for treatment participation in eligible cases and must consider any participation when sentencing (Bill: s.42(1), s.42(1.1)).
  • Courts can order attendance at authorized addiction programs as part of intensive support/supervision or non-residential program orders (Bill: s.42(2)(l)-(m), s.55(2)(e.1)).
  • Custody cannot be imposed solely for non-compliance with the treatment condition (Bill: s.39(1.1)).

• Provinces and service providers

  • Only addiction programs authorized by the Attorney General or by a person/class designated by the lieutenant governor in council qualify for referrals and orders; intensive programs must be approved by the provincial director (Bill: s.6(1.1), s.10(2)(a), s.42(2)(l)-(m), s.55(2)(e.1)).
  • Program availability and approval processes will shape how often these options are used (Bill text; implementation depends on provincial authorization).

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• The bill creates no explicit federal appropriations, fines, or fees (Bill text).
• Federal administrative costs (policing, courts, prosecution): Data unavailable.
• Provincial/territorial costs for program authorization, delivery, and oversight: Data unavailable.
• Any savings from reduced custody or court time due to diversion or delayed sentencing: Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Expands early diversion: Requiring police to consider treatment referrals in drug- or cannabis-linked cases can move suitable youths into help sooner, with consent (Bill: s.6(1.1)).
• Adds clear treatment tools: Courts can delay sentencing for treatment and include treatment in supervision orders, aligning with rehabilitation aims in s.38 (Bill: s.42(1.1), s.42(2)(l)-(m)).
• Protects against punitive responses to relapse: Non-compliance with a treatment condition alone cannot trigger custody, reducing custody for health-related setbacks (Bill: s.39(1.1), s.55(2)(e.1)).
• Maintains safeguards: Participation requires the youth’s consent and Attorney General consent for delayed sentencing; programs must be authorized/approved, supporting quality control (Bill: s.6(1.1), s.42(1.1), s.10(2)(a), s.42(2)(l)-(m)).
• Keeps judicial discretion: Judges must consider treatment participation when sentencing but still apply the Act’s principles and other relevant information (Bill: s.42(1)).

Assumptions: Increased use of treatment depends on program availability and approvals; evidence of reduced reoffending is not provided in the bill text.

Opponents' View#

• Uneven access risk: The bill relies on provincially authorized programs and approvals; areas with few programs may see limited benefit, creating unequal access (Bill: s.6(1.1), s.10(2)(a), s.42(2)(l)-(m)).
• Administrative delays: Requiring Attorney General consent to delay sentencing could slow cases and create bottlenecks, especially in busy jurisdictions (Bill: s.42(1.1)).
• Compliance and enforcement complexity: Courts cannot use custody solely for treatment non-compliance, which may reduce leverage to ensure attendance; managing breaches may require added hearings (Bill: s.39(1.1), s.55(2)(e.1)).
• Cost shifting without funding detail: The bill adds referral and program-use pathways but includes no funding; provinces and justice actors may face new workload and program costs (Bill text; no appropriations).
• Limited scope: Measures apply only when the offence is linked to drugs or cannabis, leaving other underlying issues outside these specific tools (Bill: s.6(1.1), s.42(1.1)).

Assumptions: The scale of delays, costs, or access gaps depends on local capacity and policies; the bill provides no fiscal or capacity data.