Legislative Assembly of Ontario

DRAFT REPORT: VICTIMS OF CRIME

CONTENTS

Tuesday 5 April 1994

Draft report: Victims of crime

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

*Chair / Président: Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)

*Acting Chair / Présidente suppléante:Akande, Zanana L. (St Andrew-St Patrick ND)

*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)

*Bisson, Gilles (Cochrane South/-Sud ND)

*Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West/-Ouest L)

Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)

*Haeck, Christel (St Catharines-Brock ND)

Harnick, Charles (Willowdale PC)

*Malkowski, Gary (York East/-Est ND)

*Murphy, Tim (St George-St David L)

*Tilson, David (Dufferin-Peel PC)

*Winninger, David (London South/-Sud ND)

*In attendance / présents

Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:

Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South/-Sud PC) for Mr Tilson

Clerk / Greffière: Bryce, Donna

Staff / Personnel: McNaught, Andrew, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1553 in room 228.

DRAFT REPORT: VICTIMS OF CRIME

The Chair (Mr Rosario Marchese): I call this meeting to order. What I'd like to do is start with having Andrew McNaught, the research officer, just give us some background into what we have done over the last little while with this report, and after that we'll go through the report page by page.

Mr Andrew McNaught: The report you have in front of you, dated March 1994, is based on public hearings that were held by this committee last May and June and was drafted according to instructions I received from the subcommittee. Subcommittee meetings were held in July and again in December 1993. The highlighted text in the draft report reflects the changes that I was asked to make by the subcommittee at those meetings.

While I received specific directions on most of the issues discussed in the report, there were a couple of instances where I did not, and so I simply came up with a couple of recommendations based on submissions that were made to the committee. You can use those as a starting point for the recommendations you would like to see.

At last week's meeting I was asked to provide copies of reference materials that were referred to in the Victim Services Review which was conducted by the Ontario Police College in 1992. I've only been able to obtain one copy of those. The police college called this morning to say that they could get copies for the whole committee if we would like them, but that would take at least a week. So I'm in your hands on that. In the meantime, we have this one copy. You all have a copy of the actual report, but not the attached materials.

The Chair: What I would simply say with respect to that is, if there's a member who would want all of that, let us know. Rather than having 10 or 12 copies, we'll just give the members who are interested a copy of those reports. Okay?

Mr David Winninger (London South): I think it was Mr Jackson who actually requested that.

The Chair: We will give him this, but if there are other members who want it, please let me know.

Mr McNaught: So anyway, I guess at this point, it's probably the simplest thing to go through the draft report page by page.

The Chair: I should also point out Mr McNaught has answers to some of the questions that you have raised. At the appropriate page, we will simply give him an opportunity to give those answers.

What I propose then is that we go through the report page by page and get your responses to that in terms of omissions, additions, changes that you think need to be there. Is that all right? We'll begin with the introduction on page 1.

Mr Winninger: The indented portion at the middle of the page, does that reflect word for word the reference under 125?

Mr McNaught: Yes.

Mr Winninger: That's what I thought. Good.

The Chair: Any additional comments or questions? Seeing none, we'll move on to page 2 and the background.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Could we say that was a "following motion" instead of a "matter," since it is a motion as Mr Winninger has said?

The Chair: We could if there are no objections.

Mr Jackson: It doesn't make it clear why it's indented, I think is the reason. If it's a motion, then it's clear and we could --

The Chair: If there are no objections to the change of the word "matter" to "motion," we'll simply accept that.

Mr Jackson: And could we put the date with 1993? That would just strengthen it in case some of these research fanatics want to know the exact date on which the committee --

The Chair: It says in the beginning, "In 1993."

Mr Jackson: I know. I was going to give the specific date on which that motion was passed by the committee, that is all. Mr McNaught is nodding; it's not a problem. It's an exact matter. He can get it.

Ms Zanana L. Akande (St Andrew-St Patrick): Fine.

The Chair: Page 2, "Background": Questions?

Mr Winninger: Line 4, the phrase "legal fiction" appears. I would just ask, first of all, the legislative researcher whether that term "fiction" was carefully chosen from some particular text or whether the word "principle" might serve just as well as the word "fiction" there.

The concern I have is all the connotations that the word "fiction" suggests. We use it from time to time, but not really as a term of art. It seems to me that it's certainly a "principle," and I would never dispute that, but "fiction" suggests something made up or not true or not necessarily consistent with fact. Maybe I could hear from Mr McNaught on that.

Mr McNaught: It was certainly carefully chosen, but I don't think it is referring to any one particular submission that was made or --

Mr Winninger: I guess my preference would be for the word "principle" as opposed to "fiction."

The Chair: So you're suggesting the deletion of "legal fiction" and replacing that with "principle"?

Mr Winninger: That's a word that I was suggesting. If someone has a better word, I can probably live with that.

The Chair: Comments on that?

Mr Winninger: Maybe Mr Murphy, a former prosecutor, might have a comment on that.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I'm not sure the crime is committed against the state per se; in a sense it is. Yes. I mean, it doesn't really matter that much. I understand why the opposition to "fiction." You can say "under the legal notion." "Fiction" does have a bit of a connotation to it.

1600

Mr Jackson: It is a fiction that it's against the state. It's a crime against the state but in fact, it's against the individual.

Mr Murphy: No, it's not a fiction that it's -- I mean, it is against the state in the sense that you have a social contract that there is an agreed set of rules and it is actually a violation of the rules of the state to commit a criminal act. So it's not a fiction, as such. It is in fact a crime against the state.

Mr Winninger: As well as the individual.

Mr Murphy: As well as the individual.

Mr Jackson: Even though the individual's not named.

Mr Murphy: We could count the angels on this pin for a while, I think. So I'd think something other than "fiction," because of the connotation that it carries, is probably a good idea: "notion," "principle," who cares?

The Chair: So you're agreeing with the idea of the word "principle" then?

Mr Murphy: Sure.

The Chair: Okay. Other comments on that page? Page 3?

Mr Winninger: The first full paragraph begins, "At the provincial level." Certainly, I don't dispute the fact that most provinces have attempted to implement the 1988 declaration of principles through the adoption of a victims' bill of rights. In fact, many provinces have bills of rights. Quebec is the only one, I understand, that has a legally enforceable bill of rights.

Ontario has, as an alternative, focused its attention on improving programs and services, and some of that is mentioned in the body of the paragraph. But I think I would add mention of a couple of services that were brought up during the evidence presented to the committee, and also the announcement of the Attorney General which was made, I think, in June of last year.

So I would ask that in addition to what's given by way of example in line 5 of that paragraph, there also be mention of the victim impact statements which have existed in Ontario, I think, since at least 1988, 1989, although there's no uniform victim impact statement. That became implemented just last Monday, on the 28th. So the victim impact statement; the provincial surcharge on fines that was announced last year.

Lastly, I would like to see added the permanent funding that was announced some time ago for the two child witness projects, one in London and one in Toronto.

Those would be the three programs or services that I would like to see added to the list of four examples.

Mr Murphy: My only objection is that -- I guess twofold. One is, some of those things, I think, are mentioned elsewhere, although I understand why --

Mr Jackson: Quite in detail.

Mr Murphy: Yes, and quite detailed. The other objection I have is, if that is overridden, one of those is a promise yet to be fulfilled, which I think is the provincial fine surcharge, and so this seems to focus on specific measures taken as opposed to promised, and I don't think this is an appropriate area in which to say, "We've promised to do X, Y, and Z, and that's a measure taken." So I would object to that.

To the extent that there are specific initiatives in geographically limited areas, I suppose you could mention that if you want, although on the general principle, that I think this is adequate and those specific measures are mentioned elsewhere in the document.

Mr Winninger: Mr Chair?

The Chair: I would allow Mr Jackson, and then you can reply to both.

Mr Jackson: I support the notion that we're giving a more fulsome explanation of these announcements later in the report. At this point in the report, we're trying to make the notion that provinces have different approaches, not a whole listing of what Ontario has or hasn't done. I agree that at some point we should be exposing that, but at this point we're just highlighting a couple of examples, or in this case, an example which demonstrates the notion that even though every province but Ontario and Alberta has implemented a victims' bill of rights, Ontario's approach has been not to go that route but rather to go in making these reforms.

I think it's fine the way it is. In fact, the only way I would strengthen it is to say "the provincial government in Ontario has implemented a number of specific measures and pilot projects" -- which it has -- "to assist victims." Then you've given an example. You've highlighted the screens and the closed-circuit. We want to be careful getting into that, because when I checked with the deputy, that pilot project's moneys have been extended a further year; it's not permanent and absolute funding. That was the deputy's own statement, that this was an extension of the pilot program.

Screens and closed-circuit TVs have to be separated because one was implemented in most courts, whereas closed-circuit is only in two courts in Ontario. We don't want to imply that most courts have one when in fact only two have them, and those were pilot project moneys that were extended. That's the flaw in trying to clarify it here, whereas we're going to be giving it a more fulsome treatment later on in the report. I think we're still in the introduction of this whole thing as a concept. So that's for what it's worth. If we're going to load up this front end, then maybe we can pare down further on. I think it has more impact when it's bunched together in the body of the report.

Mr Winninger: I may be able to live with what the other members have said. One thought had crossed my mind, that the victim fine surcharge had not been implemented yet, but in looking at the first line of that paragraph, where it says "most provinces have attempted to implement," I realize that other provinces may not have fully implemented their own measures under the bill of rights. As long as we deal with each of the points later, and I know the report touches on them in the body of the report, I can probably live with both what Mr Murphy and Mr Jackson said if my own colleagues can.

Just a minor point: I used to use the word "fulsome" too, but then I looked it up in the dictionary and I found out its meaning was entirely different from the way I was using it. It pertains more to smell, I think, than anything else.

Mr Jackson: It's a wine expression.

The Chair: Anyway, they must have an extended definition, for sure.

Mr Winninger: I stopped using that word because the dictionary didn't support the meaning I was giving to it, which was the same meaning that another member gave it earlier.

The Chair: I'm sure it is an evolving word.

Any other questions or comments with respect to that? Anything else on page 3?

Mr Jackson: If we get down to the second paragraph, in the middle it talks about, "Screens and closed-circuit televisions have been installed in courtrooms to allow child victims and witnesses...." On a pilot project basis, closed-circuit televisions have been installed in two courtrooms in Ontario. That's the fact. So if we're going to say it, we don't want to mislead people. Screens, on the other hand, have been provided more generously, but we don't know how many courts have them.

Mr Winninger: Just to be fair, though, I can't tell you how many courts have actually borrowed the equipment for closed-circuit evidence, but some have. Even though it's not installed in every single courtroom in Ontario, which would be frightfully expensive, they can borrow it and then the equipment is provided. I know that in London, for example, they have used closed-circuit equipment that was borrowed from the other courtrooms.

Mr Jackson: But you would agree that at no point could they be in three or four or five courtrooms simultaneously, that at no point could the two sets of closed-circuit TV equipment be in any more than two courts on any given day.

Mr Winninger: The equipment can be rented. I don't think it's that specialized equipment that it can't be rented for that purpose, and you set up your monitors and your camera.

1610

Mr Murphy: But you only have two pieces of equipment anyway.

Mr Jackson: You've got two pieces of equipment on a pilot project basis, according to your own deputy, in a meeting that Mr Murphy and I and you had attended.

Mr Winninger: Right. Permanently installed.

Mr Jackson: Unless you can bring to this committee that there are more than two, I think it would be misleading to suggest that it's been installed in courtrooms to allow child witnesses. When you go into the body of the report, there's some very compelling evidence that child witnesses are disproportionately victimized in this province because we only have two.

Mr Winninger: Would you prefer if it said "some courtrooms"?

Mr Jackson: No. Let's separate screens from closed-circuit. On a pilot project basis, two closed-circuit televisions have been installed in courtrooms, or closed-circuit televisions have been installed in two courtrooms in Ontario to allow child victims and witnesses to have interviews. Later on, we recommend that this project be expanded. That's all I'm saying, and that's a fact. If you want to say there's a screen program where we can separate the child physically from their assailant, lots of screens exist in lots of courtrooms. But it would be misleading to suggest more than two courtrooms have it, especially when we're recommending --

Mr Winninger: I don't think it would be. It doesn't say "all courtrooms." It doesn't even say "some courtrooms." It says "courtrooms." I don't think it's misleading at all, because the fact is that televisions and screens have been installed in courtrooms.

Mr Murphy: He can almost say it with a straight face.

Mr Jackson: I'm not disagreeing with you. In the interest of not misleading the public with this report and being consistent with the recommendation that we need more of them, we should tell it the way it is.

Mr Winninger: I don't think anyone's going to be misled by this. The evidence was that --

Mr Murphy: Do you want to put a bracket in there that says "which have occasionally been borrowed by other courtrooms"?

Mr Jackson: No. I don't think that's the point. The point is that depending on which jurisdiction you are in as a child sexual assault victim, you will be served better by virtue of this equipment. Now, if you're not going to recommend that later in the report, share that with the committee, and then it's academic if we're not going to provide this service to kids. We're explaining that we only have two courtrooms that have it now.

Mr Winninger: But there's a difference between talking about installing permanently and actually bringing in equipment to use for a particular trial, as they did in London. I suppose you could say they installed the equipment for the purpose of that trial, which lasted many days. Similarly, I imagine, they do that in other jurisdictions.

Mr Jackson: First of all, you'd better get up to speed on this, because one of the courtrooms it's in is in London. That's my understanding.

Mr Winninger: One of the courtrooms it's in is in London?

Mr Jackson: That's correct.

Mr Winninger: Okay, because the evidence was that they had a set in Ottawa.

Mr Jackson: No.

Mr Winninger: What happened was that when the child witness project came and gave evidence, they said, "Isn't it too bad that we have to rent this equipment or borrow it to use in London?" We can go back and look at the evidence that was given, but it wasn't my understanding that it's been permanently installed in London.

Mr Murphy: The bottom line is that there are only two. Regardless of where they are, my understanding is that only two are permanently installed, that we had some evidence they had to borrow it for a trial where they thought it would be most useful to have, but that there isn't permanent access to it. I'm wondering if wording that says two courtrooms have permanent access to closed-circuit television, or some adjective like "permanent" around the access or installation, could serve the purpose of implying, at least, that other courtrooms can occasionally have access by virtue of renting or borrowing, but that only two have it on a permanent basis.

Mr Winninger: We're not trying to hide anything here, but if we're going to change the language --

Mr Jackson: You're being really defensive, David. The government won't fall on this.

Mr Winninger: -- let's be clear in the way we change it, okay? If you're saying it's misleading because it appears that we have equipment installed permanently in all our courtrooms, and you want to change it to say that equipment is installed in two courtrooms -- and maybe we can verify where they are -- and that other courtrooms are required to borrow the equipment for the purposes of their child abuse or sexual abuse trials, that seems a fair way of stating it.

The Chair: I should point out for clarity that on pages 20 and 21, it only speaks of Ottawa as being the city. "In Ottawa, closed-circuit television has been provided to allow children to testify outside a courtroom." So with respect to how many there are and wherever they are, that is the only mention we have of where closed-circuit equipment is currently located.

Third paragraph on page 20, end of the paragraph.

Mr Winninger: Right, so Ottawa I know about.

Mr Murphy: Did they not have TVs, though, for use at the special child court at old city hall? I'm wondering where the other, the second courtroom --

Mr Winninger: I think that's where the other one is.

Mr Murphy: Yes. That's why I think there might be two, one in Toronto at old city hall and the one in Ottawa. But you've sent someone to check that, have you, David?

Mr Winninger: We're checking on that.

Mr Jackson: Mr Chairman, I was on page 20 when you brought it to our attention, because I wanted to check it.

The other point is that George Thomson -- my notes to me indicate I said, "This is permanent funding." He said, "No, we've extended the pilot funding a further year." Now, he made that clarification in front of all of us.

Mr Winninger: Are you talking about the child witness project?

Mr Jackson: Yes.

Mr Winninger: It's permanent funding. We announced that last year; permanent funding, not just extending it. When George Thomson spoke, I forget if it was before or after that announcement was made.

Mr Jackson: After the announcement.

Mr Winninger: But it's definitely permanent funding, because I made that announcement myself in London. I know something about it.

Mr Jackson: Okay. I still rest my case that two courtrooms have them, out of the dozens and dozens of courtrooms in this province. We're recommending later that we expand it, so we should be clear at the front, that's all. In the interests of time, I think we should just amend it accordingly and move on.

Mr Winninger: If we deal with it later in some detail, what are you worried about at the beginning? How do you amend it accordingly without restating what's already said further on, on page 21, as our Chair pointed out?

Mr Jackson: I'm only suggesting that we add the words "in two courtrooms," that's all, which is accurate, and it's not inconsistent. That's a fact; that's what's stated later in the report. But one gets the impression, how many courtrooms? With the pilot project basis, I'll accept your statement --

Mr Winninger: By saying "in two courtrooms," you're not recognizing the other trials that have already taken place where they borrowed the equipment, installed it and had trials using closed-circuit TV.

Mr Jackson: I'm agreeing that at any one time in Ontario you can only find these in two courtrooms, that's all. That's what we say later on page 20, and I sure wouldn't want people to think that this -- if this is what you're showing as a hallmark of your government's commitment, then why are we recommending that we'd better get on and fund it? I think we'd better call it the way it is so that we can further on say it needs help.

Mr Winninger: I'll tell you what. Hopefully, before we conclude this afternoon, I'll find out how often it's been used and where and whether they have capacity to have it in more than two courtrooms, and then we can be very precise about how we express this.

The Chair: If that's all right with all the members, we'll stand it down. Agreed. Anything else on that page?

Mr Jackson: Just in the interest of form, Compensation for Victims of Crime Act, if we could just put the year 1980 or whatever it was. Andrew can look that up.

The Chair: Sorry. Where are you?

Mr Jackson: It's just that if people want to track the act -- this is the third paragraph -- under the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act, then it has a date on when it was proclaimed. Just a minor item.

In the next paragraph we talk about the advisory board's report. I think it might be helpful, since they may want to pull it out of the legislative library or their local library, to name the report: Victims of Crime in Ontario: A Vision for the 1990s, released in June 1991. It just would be helpful, if I could make that recommendation.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr Jackson: It contained 13 -- I'm just finishing that paragraph -- "important recommendations," and then what may not be accepted, "To date, neither the government of Ontario nor the Attorney General have publicly responded to this report."

Mr Winninger: Are you asking that something be added?

Mr Jackson: That's what the process of this is all about.

1620

Mr Winninger: No. You just said "to date." Where are these words coming from?

Mr Jackson: After "access to victim services," I wanted to indicate that there's no response to that report.

Mr Winninger: Where were you wanting to put that?

Mr Jackson: At the bottom of page 3, once we name the report. Thirteen recommendations came out in June 1991. "To date, neither the government of Ontario nor the Attorney General have publicly responded to this report."

Mr Winninger: You have this report that our researcher obtained.

The Chair: Yes. Everybody does, Mr Winninger.

Mr Winninger: Right. So why would you say something, having read the report, where it goes on for pages to indicate how the Attorney General and the Ontario government have responded to many of the recommendations in that report?

Mr Jackson: What I'm saying is when the government commissions a report, it reports to the government of the day. The government then is in a position to publicly respond to it or not. When people are looking at documents that are date-specific, they want to know if there was ever any public response to those.

Mr Winninger: Well, look at --

Mr Jackson: You asked me a question; let me finish the concept. Partially, this comes from doing a lot of educational reports, because the government has a greater penchant for responding to education reports. It's customary to indicate that there was an official response from the government when it commissions its own report. The Fair Tax Commission was a huge investment of money. Where's the response from the government?

The government can choose not to respond, but instead of sending a researcher on a wild goose chase to look to see if there was a response, which is separate from "The government has begun implementing recommendations" -- that's a separate point, but at no point did the government publicly respond to the report. I didn't know that until I talked to one or two of the people who were on the commission. Because they tabled the report, they were hopeful of some sort of official response. It dealt with a whole lot of areas which the government is implementing, a little of this and a little of that, and saying, "None of this," or "Some of that." That's separate from the government announcing a response to a report.

SARC was another example. The government made an official response to SARC. That's all I wanted to do here.

Mr Winninger: Look then at the top of page 5, where it states quite clearly:

"The government has implemented, or has undertaken publicly" -- that was the word you used -- "to implement, all the measures listed above despite unprecedented financial constraints and despite a full and busy legislative agenda. These commitments reflect its assessment of victims' most important needs and interests and of the most effective ways of addressing them."

Mr Jackson: I'm sorry, where are you reading this?

Mr Winninger: The top of page 5 of the Ministry of the Attorney General, criminal -- oh, sorry. Just a second now.

Mr Jackson: You're directing me to something else here.

Mr Winninger: You're talking about victims --

Mr Jackson: What is the first line at the top of the page? "The Ontario government has prepared no formal response to the report of the advisory committee. It has, however, taken steps that implement...." That's all I was saying. Now you want to get into what you've brought in. Great. I'm just simply saying that the government has made no public statement about this report of that date. That's all.

Mr Winninger: Why is that necessary to say?

Mr Jackson: It's necessary for people who are doing research from this document and this report. When they can go to the library and get the report, they'll read it. "Now, what did the government say when that was tabled? There was none. Fine. I won't waste my time looking for it. I'll move on to other aspects." That's what we did mostly in our educational reports in the select committee on education when we were writing these reports, because the Minister of Education of the day didn't have much difficulty responding to reports. Or he'd say: "I'm not going to respond. I appreciate it. I'll take it under advisement." That's all.

Mr Winninger: But anyone researching this area would see this tabled as part of the record in these proceedings and would know that the government has publicly undertaken to implement all of the measures. I just don't follow your statement and why it's necessary or why it's even accurate.

Mr Jackson: Considering it took us six and a half months just to get a response from the government about the report, and its opening statement is, "We've never given any formal response," then we can start tearing it apart to determine which ones they did recommend and which they didn't. We don't even have a policy statement that in fact they appreciated the work of the committee. According to Wendy Calder, they never even got a thank you from the government for doing this.

Mr Winninger: This may be an area of compromise. If you want to put in "incorporate" at the bottom of that paragraph on page 1, the three lines that appear at the beginning in their entirety --

The Chair: Again, which report? The bottom of page 1, meaning the other report?

Mr Winninger: First of all, I'm referring to the bottom of page 1 of our draft report.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr Winninger: Sorry, page 3, Mr Jackson has referred to the opening paragraph under the title "Government Programs and Initiatives for Victims." Right? Where it says: "The Ontario government has prepared no formal response to the report of the Advisory Board on Victims' Issues. It has, however, taken steps that implement a number of the recommendations included in the advisory board report."

Mr Jackson: I have no problem with that. That's what I've been saying.

Mr Winninger: That reflects what's in our own response.

Mr Jackson: Do you understand my point? I don't want somebody looking for an official government response, that's all.

Mr Winninger: What you suggested connotes that the government has just ignored the recommendations of the advisory committee and done nothing.

Mr Jackson: The minister has the right to do that.

The Chair: Let's just get a sense of what we're agreeing to. Mr Jackson was suggesting some wording changes in the final sentence of that page 3?

Mr Murphy: The final two sentences.

Mr Jackson: Yes, the two sentences.

The Chair: I'm going over the other stuff that --

Mr Jackson: "The Ontario government" down to "advisory board report."

The Chair: Hold on, Cam. I just want to get his attention.

Mr Winninger, I'm just going to read the changes that Mr Jackson had recommended.

This is the last sentence of page 3. "The advisory board's report," Mr Jackson proposes that we add in the name of the report, "released in June 1991, contained 13 important recommendations." That's one suggestion.

What you both have agreed to is language which you might want to read in again that there is agreement to.

Mr Jackson: Andrew's got it.

The Chair: Andrew, do you have that?

Mr McNaught: Do you want me to quote from the ministry's response?

Mr Winninger: The first three lines.

Mr Jackson: It's two lines.

Mr Murphy: Two sentences.

Mr Jackson: "The Ontario government" is one sentence.

The Chair: Mr Winninger, please read that.

Mr Winninger: It's two and a half lines. "The Ontario government has prepared no formal response to the report of the Advisory Board on Victims' Issues. It has, however, taken steps that implement a number of the recommendations included in the advisory board report."

Mr Jackson: Fine. That's great.

Mr Winninger: I think that reflects a better balance.

The Chair: Page 4.

Mr Jackson: We should delete the words "victim rights" because you can't convey a right unless it's conveyed in legislation or it's protected under the charter, so we're using a word out of turn. "Victim rights" are either constitutionally protected or contained in a bill and nowhere do we have it.

Mr Murphy: No, that's not right. You can have a common-law right to something.

Mr Jackson: All right. I apologize. The point is, "Despite the significant developments in victim rights," the question we have to ask is, where's the significant development in victim rights if victim rights are defined from the victims' bill of rights as opposed to victim services, which I think it's a fair statement to say that despite increasing developments in victim services in recent years, to classify it as a right, I've yet to have it drawn to my attention that a victim in Ontario has that right no matter where they are in Ontario. It's a service, and if you're in Ottawa and you're a child sexual assault victim, you get increased victim services, but if you're in Mississauga or Halton and you're a sexual assault victim, you don't have the same services. So we have to be careful using "rights." It's the only place in the report where "victim rights" is used instead of the words "victim services." It's used to refer to a victims' bill of rights in every other place in the report. So it's again form and consistency.

1630

The Chair: Mr Murphy, were you speaking to that?

Mr Murphy: I just don't -- well, I won't say that. I think the hair is sufficiently well split by Mr Jackson.

Mr Jackson: That means he supports my recommendation.

The Chair: That's very clear.

Mr Winninger: I'm not sure what Mr Jackson is saying. There are rights that exist outside of provincial bills of rights. For example, the amendments to the Criminal Code which allow children to testify behind screens or using closed-circuit television are rights that aren't necessarily in provincial bills of rights. I also said earlier that with the exception of Quebec, and we're carefully monitoring the situation in Quebec, in no other province that has a bill of rights are those rights legally enforceable. So if you're talking about rights --

Mr Jackson: They are in Manitoba and they are in BC, so you are misinformed.

Mr Winninger: Well, we had this discussion at the time that evidence was presented and it appeared that --

Mr Jackson: No. I challenged the minister on one example. For the record, I challenged the minister her flip answer about "largely symbolic," and I used the example of Quebec. If you wish for me to make a presentation on which bills of rights are symbolic in this country, I will tell you which ones they are, but to suggest that Quebec stands alone is misleading, and that's not what the Attorney General responded to. She responded to my quick interjection of Quebec as an example, and she capitulated. If I had said Manitoba, with its native rights aspect for justice, she would have had to say yes as well.

Mr Winninger: Maybe I could just complete my train of thought here.

Mr Jackson: Well, don't put on the record --

Mr Winninger: No, no. If I can complete my train of thought, my point was that victim rights don't have to be enshrined in a provincial bill of rights to be rights, nor is a provincial bill of rights necessarily a good vehicle in which to enforce these rights. So to suggest that we can't say what's said here, "Despite the significant developments in victim rights," just because we don't have a bill of rights in Ontario is misleading in itself. So I don't see the need to change the report to the extent that you feel it needs to be changed, or at all there.

Mr Jackson: Well, I've made note that it's the only reference to victims' rights outside of the context of a victims' bill of rights, and I think we should be careful not to use the word in an inappropriate placement, because it implies something different in this sentence than it does. If you want to say that there are developments in victims' rights at the federal level and services at the provincial level, that would be more accurate. That would be splitting hairs. But this implies that because we've referenced a whole bunch of federal bills to guide our provinces, without getting into a long and harried explanation of how the Canada Act, the BNA, divided the powers, which allows the federal government to set the parameters and the provinces to implement -- I didn't think that was necessary.

If you want to make this more clear, then you could indicate at both the federal and provincial level that "Despite increasing developments" or significant developments "in victim rights and services at the federal and provincial levels in recent years, the committee heard from...." and then the rights, because rights have been conveyed in a framework at the federal level.

Mr Winninger: What about the right under the victims-of-crime legislation to seek compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board? Is that not a right? But it's a right that's not enshrined in a bill of rights; it's simply in the victims-of-crime act. So it would be entirely misleading to say, well, we have federal rights and we only have provincial services. I think you're splitting hairs in a manner that's going to be in itself misleading.

Mr Jackson: I don't have the time, and neither does the committee, to proceed in this fashion. There are more substantive issues. So if Mr Winninger wants me to capitulate in this regard, I'm more than willing to, in the interests of time. We've got a lot of work ahead of us in this report.

The Chair: Moving on with other matters on this page. Seeing none, page 5.

Mr Murphy: I'm sorry, Mr Chair, I forgot -- actually, I hate to do this to you, but back on page 3 there's one thing I had forgotten to ask about. It was following up on a question I think actually Mr Jackson had posed. It says, "A number of initiatives have been taken in crown attorney offices." I can't remember whether it was here or elsewhere, where he had asked what the number of offices was, because some of these, as our discussion pointed out, have not been taken in all of the offices. Some of them have been. I couldn't remember whether it was there or in another place, where it would be appropriate to mention. Maybe Mr Winninger has that information now; I don't know.

Mr McNaught: It arose in the context of the victim-witness assistance program.

Mr Jackson: Yes, page 17.

Mr McNaught: But the actual number of crown offices is 54 in Ontario.

Mr Jackson: So 12 out of 54 crown attorneys offices is where -- okay.

Mr Murphy: So later it's more appropriate?

Mr Jackson: It doesn't matter. It's where I'd raise it.

Mr Murphy: It doesn't matter then. Sorry.

The Chair: Page 5. No comments then? Page 6.

Mr Jackson: It strikes me that the second paragraph describes one of the recommendations of the report which has not yet been implemented, according to my research, and then the committee supports the recommendation of the advisory committee, which is unusual. Why don't we make it a recommendation? Why don't we treat it as such and have it highlighted as such?

Mr Winninger: What are you talking about specifically?

Mr Jackson: The second paragraph describes a recommendation contained in the advisory board report. Are you with me?

Mr Winninger: You're talking about provision of information to victims?

Mr Jackson: Right on. Wendy Calder and subsequent inquiries have indicated we just don't have the money to do all this. We'd love to do it but we've got these other things we have to do. What you're now doing in the third paragraph is you're saying, "We recommend that this recommendation be implemented." Why aren't we making it a recommendation? It's a matter of form; that's all I'm saying.

I apologize. I'm over on page 7 and we've got a choice, an (a) or a (b), right, or a 1 or a 2, to make it --

The Chair: Or 1a and 1b.

Mr Jackson: Okay, I'm sorry; I see it now. If I'd flipped the page I'd see we do make it as a recommendation. I wanted to suggest that these matters that were contained in the report have not been implemented. That's all I wanted to indicate in that second paragraph.

Mr Winninger: Assuming, then, that we're moving from page 6 to 7 now, I would comment about the recommendation. If we're not, then I'll wait.

The Chair: Hold on. Mr Jackson, Mr Winninger is ready to speak to page 7, okay?

Mr Winninger: Is page 6 okay?

Mr Jackson: I had indicated that we haven't implemented those matters. We've discussed something; we say that we support the recommendation. We should note that to date, these recommendations have not been implemented. Therefore, we're recommending whatever we recommend, because then I want to get into this issue about the police to provide information.

Mr Winninger: Okay, so we've already said that some of these recommendations have not been implemented, right?

Mr Murphy: Yes, but I think the point is, nothing with respect to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board arising under the advisory board report has been implemented, I don't believe.

Mr Winninger: No, we can't say that, because we know that some of them have.

Mr Murphy: They've stopped sending out the "Don't contact us for six months" letter.

1640

Mr Winninger: We have some literature on that.

Mr Jackson: Mr Winninger, in that second paragraph are you aware of any of those items being implemented? Because when we called the board, it indicated that they weren't -- "better training of police and other referrals...about the CICB's activities" and "ensuring a wider distribution of application forms." It indicated on budget restraints that they were fighting to get the money just to print up the brochure, which was Ms Calder's comment to this committee.

Mr Winninger: Could I just have a chance to compare this list here to what's been done? I think the expanded community outreach program was something that the chair did touch on during her evidence.

Mr Jackson: She touched on it when she said she didn't have enough money to produce her brochure, let alone her annual report. We're not even going to talk about her annual report here. She said she was waiting for budget approval so she could produce a brochure.

Mr Winninger: She did get money from us to produce her report. In fact, we put an extra $1.5 million into the pot.

Mr Murphy: For a glossy report.

Mr Jackson: No, no. She indicated she'd like to do it, but she was unable, that most of that money was going into compensation. I sure would hope that of the $1.5 million most of it didn't go into staff and paper and computers.

Mr Winninger: Could I refer then, Chair and members of the committee, to page 4 of the document, which we were looking at earlier, that is entitled "Government Programs and Initiatives for Victims and the Report of the Advisory Board on Victims' Issues," halfway down, where it says, "Recently, the CICB has...." Do you have that? If we run through the list, we'll see a couple of the initiatives mentioned on page 6 of our draft report reflected there; for example, the third bullet point, "Implemented the recommendations of a 1992 operational review,...streamlining...processes and procedures,...enhanced and upgraded its existing computerized case management system."

Mr Jackson: Right. What does that have to do with outreach?

Mr Winninger: The next bullet point is, "Established a new client services unit and undertaking to develop a user evaluation feedback strategy."

Mr Jackson: Yes, that's getting feedback. How does this increase access?

Mr Winninger: Up above is "review its telecommunications arrangements, in order to provide better telephone service to applicants."

Mr Jackson: So they've fixed the one receptionist.

Mr Winninger: I think we have to be very cautious here about saying that there has been no action to implement these recommendations, because it's right there in black and white.

Mr Jackson: I don't know why you're defending these people, because you're not responsible. They're an independent group.

Mr Winninger: Yes. But aside from that, I'm looking at what's been implemented and what hasn't. I think it's fair to say --

Mr Jackson: This is all internal administration.

Mr Winninger: -- some things have not been implemented. I think that if you want to change the language here, we have to be very particular about how we do it, because some things have been implemented and some haven't. That's all I'm saying. We have a list here of things that the CICB has done. If you want to put that in and then have a separate list of things they haven't done, fine, but it's going to make the report a lot longer.

Mr Jackson: We're not recommending their internal operations be fixed; we're recommending their external operations. That is a report, by definition, of an external process, that's all, and why we want to get into it. I don't think this committee wants to get into how it's run internally. Basically, she admitted under testimony that she had a problem with outreach. She was trying to get a handle on her internal administration because of the huge increase of numbers of people applying, that's all.

If the advisory committee on victims' issues got into internal problems -- I don't think they did; I think they were only concerned with external stuff. This is a report on internal stuff, which is all laudable, and we're delighted that they're getting refocused, but it doesn't square with her own testimony that "We just would like to do more, but we're relying on the current system and, frankly, we're getting enough people applying." I'm paraphrasing what she said.

Mr Winninger: My only point is this: To change it in the way Mr Jackson earlier suggested, to say that none of these recommendations have been implemented, is just not so.

Mr Jackson: Pick any one you want. The only one that comes close here is better training of police and other referral services about their activities. That's the only one that comes close, according to my investigations and according to this document. I read this document through; I didn't see where --

Mr Winninger: Would it help you if I jumped ahead and said that I have no problem with the first recommendation at the top of page 7? Clearly the police are probably the first point of contact for victims, and if, at that initial stage of the investigation, they're provided with a victim information package that's comprehensive and lets them know where the services are and what their rights are and that yes, they really do count in these proceedings, then I think it would be quite beneficial. So if that will short-circuit what you're getting at here, it might be an easy way to do it.

Mr Jackson: Why don't you support the second one?

Mr Winninger: Because the Attorney General is at several removes. First of all, the Attorney General doesn't decide what charges are laid -- the police do that under our current system -- and the Attorney General's time of contact with the victim is long after -- sometimes shortly, sometimes long after -- the charges are laid. What we heard consistently from some of the witnesses that I think you had a hand in bringing forward was that it's not good enough just to provide victim assistance to people whose offenders have already been charged, that they need a point of contact even earlier than that.

So I think it's entirely appropriate that the police provide this kind of package. The Solicitor General may have different views, but that happens to be my view. I don't know if that helps or hinders you or makes any difference, but I don't have a problem with the recommendation.

Mr Murphy: I have a partial problem with number 1 and I guess ultimately it's this: Under the Police Act, the police have an obligation related to victims, and I think that's clear. My concern is the degree to which this could be read, as it currently stands, as a downloading of responsibility to police which may or may not be paid for out of provincial coffers.

In other words, it's just not clear what we're asking the police to provide in the form of that information package. I think it's important to say that if it's a little brochure with sub-brochures in it that describe, "If you need this, this and this, here's where you call and here's the address," and it's a simple pamphlet produced by the government and all they need to do is have a pile of them in their office and when they go out, they just give them the pamphlet -- if it's clear that's what we're trying to do, I have less of a problem with that.

If it's something that has to be developed by the police and accommodated to each situation, I think frankly, to be honest with you, police are going to have more of a difficulty with that because it's another case where you're just adding more tasks, asking them to do more with less money.

If it's a simple thing of reaching over behind them on the desk, getting something from the credenza and passing it across the front counter, that's okay. I think we can live with that. But I think the recommendation should reflect that, if that's what we're have in mind, that it's a pamphlet or pamphlets produced by the provincial government and paid for by the provincial government that the police just hand it out. Then I think I can support that, and I think the recommendation and its wording should reflect that.

Mr Jackson: I'll be brief. My comments are similar to Mr Murphy's and also in respect that if you read the preceding page, we're basically saying that victims need information. The reference to the police is a suggested transmitter of the information. We're concerned about who develops it, who pays for it and who changes and is responsible for its updating.

1650

Given that the Attorney General is also responsible for criminal injuries compensation, my view is that recommendation 2, as has been worded by our researcher, is excellent because it sets out all aspects of what we're trying to do. It does mention that the police would be one of several ways of transmitting the information, but I do not want the chiefs of police of Ontario defining what victims' rights exist.

I bring the committee's attention to this point. Scott Newark during the presentation, and Hansard will bear that out, suggested that we look at both the province of Manitoba and the province of BC, which have a comprehensive booklet which lists, by community, the victims' services and victims' numbers. Their victim fine surcharge fund was used to create this directory. It's also produced in Chinese, which is interesting. It is available in a variety of courtrooms, rape crisis centres, interval homes. He was quite impressed because it had five or six pages and it gave -- I almost used the word "fulsome" treatment of the availability of these.

I think that's what we want to get closer to. To just simply say the police should hand something to a victim, yes. But I think we've come this far and we should say we want something very comprehensive, developed under the authority of the Attorney General's office, to say: "Here's our commitment and statement about victims' rights. If you're victimized in this community, here's what you can expect and here's who to phone." We really should say who should be responsible for doing it.

The Chair: Before your response, Mr Winninger, if I could get all of you to also look at pages 25 and 26, which speak to this as well, so that you bring them together in terms of the kind of recommendation you want to make, because there is a recommendation there on page 26 which very much relates to this, although there's a notation underneath it. I would ask all of you to look at that to see how you would want to fit your comments respectively.

Mr Winninger: You must have been reading my mind, Mr Chair. I was just going to allude to what's being done currently in British Columbia with the police-based victim assistance program, and that's outlined in detail here at page 25, plus the rationale that the victim's first contact is usually with the police. It doesn't describe what kind of literature the police in BC actually hand out to the victims, but it's clear here that information is provided and referrals and court orientation and so on and assistance in completing applications. So this seems more interventionist perhaps than just a pamphlet.

I think this is something certainly that we have to be a little cautious about, knowing that the police are already strapped for resources and that they need to use their resources in the best possible way. If indeed it's a pamphlet that they're able to provide victims, it'll still be far better than what the victims described to the committee they're currently receiving, which tends to be piecemeal and ad hoc and not a coordinated effort.

Mr Murphy: I think that's fair enough. I think what we're trying to focus on here, though, in this recommendation on page 7 -- on page 26 we make reference to the fact that this is quite an expensive system, we say maybe there's some utility in looking at it, it's not a clear "This should be done" recommendation, it's a "This should be studied" recommendation. It's clear that the staffing of that department there has quite a lot to do.

Even if you say -- there's an argument that says the police should, in the context, give information to victims about the role in the process they have the most knowledge about, which is the status of an investigation and the court process. Beyond that, the police contact with the victim and services to the victim is less immediate.

However, victims need access to that from the word go. In fact, the status of the court case is initially probably less important, other than, "Did you arrest the person who did it?" to them than counselling or other kinds of issues. So this, on page 7, really deals with making sure that they have, at the earliest stage possible, access to information of that kind and in fact of all kinds.

If you want to know, "Is the person arrested?" or "When does it come to trial?" then this is who you ask. If you want to know, "How do I get compensation?" this is who you ask; if you want to know, "How can I get counselling and assistance?" or "If it's my child who has been victimized, what can I do to help?" you've got to provide the person with a source about where to look. I think it's a bit much to ask the police to be the source of that information and, as Mr Jackson said, the people who maintain it. But it makes sense to a certain extent for them to be the conduit because they're the initial contact, as the argument is made later on in the report and I think here.

I sort of get the sense we're talking all in the same direction. Your point about whether the AG's office should be the body that actually gives it to them might be appropriate. So there may be just a tiny wording amendment in recommendation 1a that would reflect that it's produced by the Attorney General's office, that it's their responsibility to maintain and update that pamphlet, just where do you go, but that it's the police that can have access to give it out or at least should be one of the places where it's appropriate to give out.

Then when you get to page 25, when you look at the range of things you ask the police to do, that's quite a bit more than just, "Here's a pamphlet." We have some things in the rest of the report that talk to some of those services and who should provide them. At this point it's really just that you have been victimized by crime: "I don't know anything. Where do I start?" That's really what this goes to. I think if we can take 1a and modify it slightly to make it clear that the police give them the information package prepared and paid for by the Ministry of the Attorney General, we're all singing out of the same hymn book.

Mr Winninger: I wouldn't be singing from the same hymn book, because I was actually suggesting 1 as opposed to 1a. I think we need to look again at page 26 and look at the language that's used in recommendation 16, "That the government examine the feasibility of establishing a police-based victim assistance program in Ontario, similar to the existing program in British Columbia," which might include the development of a comprehensive victim information package. But certainly I have some difficulty, since I don't believe we heard from the Solicitor General or the police directly on this issue, in being just too hard and fast on this particular recommendation. That's why the language in the later recommendation appeals more to me.

Mr Murphy: I have to say, if I can, that I was doing some recent review of heraldry, and in the Winninger family coat of arms it says in Latin, and I'll agree, "Leave no nit unpicked."

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): Can you write it in Latin?

Mr Murphy: No.

The Chair: You'd make a good lawyer, Mr Winninger; that's what I think he's saying.

Mr Jackson: When I listen to him, all I can think of is the nap.

The Chair: Were you going to respond to this?

Mr Jackson: I was just simply going to say that I thought we were in a section titled "Information About Victim Services and Compensation." The report, ably written to that point, states that when a victim's advisory group met to discuss it they felt that the information wasn't always forthcoming.

Our recommendation should state simply that some sort of comprehensive amalgam be put together by the Attorney General's office, because some ministry has to take responsibility for it. I can't support something that just leaves it out there in mid-air to be done. I think we should assign it to a ministry, and then if you want to state that the police implement it, fine.

My treatment is, don't even mention the police here; move to the recommendation that's been referred to by both you and Mr Murphy, Mr Winninger, where it refers back to "recommendation," if this is recommendation 1, that the police assist with the dissemination of this information.

1700

Again, I don't know why we deviate too far with the recommendation when it was "Information About Victim Services and Compensation." Nowhere is there something other than a basic little, wee pamphlet that CICB puts out. We're saying, based on deputation and the recommendations from the advisory board, that it should be more comprehensive. That's all.

You may want to pare down 1a, but I can't support 1 because it simply just offloads to the police departments something we haven't really described, and who is going to pay for it and who's going to develop it?

Mr Winninger: If you go back and look at the report of the advisory committee and the recommendations in particular which start at page 7 of that report, I think you'll find -- and I just glanced again quickly through it -- that the advisory committee doesn't call upon an assigned task to particular ministries. It talks about the government's responsibilities on the first page, and as we move through the recommendations, there's no reference that I can see to specific ministries.

If the recommendation were to say that the government should examine the feasibility of developing a comprehensive victim information package, that would seem quite reasonable, from my point of view, as opposed to saying the Attorney General must do it or the Solicitor General must do it or the women's directorate must do it or the police must do it. I think that would be a decision that would have to be taken by the government of the day.

Mr Jackson: What do you think we're doing here? We're recommending to the government of the day. Now, they can cast it aside. If you are going to act in the shoes of the government, we don't need to waste much more time with this report. What we were supposed to do was simply take recommendations -- to discuss the feasibility of whether or not we need an information system and who should disseminate it? Give me a break.

Mr Winninger: No, no.

Mr Jackson: Most provinces have it, Mr Winninger. The victims came forward and said: "It doesn't exist. Would you please get it for us." I think if you ask the minister privately and quietly in the halls, she'd say, "Of course, it's a great idea." Now, is it that she's planning to do one and you don't want it in the report so she can announce it?

Come on. This makes so much sense and we're not running up a huge expense here. We're simply saying to take Wendy Calder's little, wee pamphlet and make it a little bit bigger and a little bit better and get it done professionally and then we'll ask our police to disseminate it. What is the big problem here?

Mr Winninger: Fine. If you don't like the word "feasibility" there, strike the word "feasibility," but I'm saying it's not fair to call upon one particular ministry in this report when the advisory committee itself did not identify specific ministries. I agree it's a good thing to have a comprehensive victim information package. Who would quarrel with that? I agree that we --

Mr Jackson: Good. That's a start. Now, who do you think should develop that? Who do you think should develop that, based on the deputations?

Mr Winninger: If you want to call upon the government to do that, that seems, as I said earlier, quite reasonable.

Mr Jackson: We're making progress. Do you have an opinion on a ministry that would be appropriate?

Mr Winninger: My opinion on a ministry that might be appropriate isn't that relevant to the recommendation that's being made.

Mr Jackson: This is Andrew McNaught's recommendation based on what he heard. It's up to this as a committee to refine this and give it focus and direction. My Lord, what is the problem here? Wait till we get to the heavy meat and potatoes stuff. All this is -- could we please --

Mr Winninger: He's given us a menu of options, and I said my preference is for option 1.

Mr Jackson: I don't argue with my kids; I'm not going to argue with you. This is absurd. This is just absolutely absurd. I'm not going to recommend sticking the police with a document and we haven't told who's going to develop it, who's going to pay for it and what's in it.

Mr Winninger: Then why will you stick somebody else with it?

Mr Jackson: By your own words, it would be irresponsible to do that to the police. Now, that's your recommendation.

Mr Winninger: Then take out "police departments."

Mr Jackson: That's what I said 10 minutes ago.

The Chair: So, Mr Jackson, what are you recommending then, as part of --

Mr Jackson: I'd like to know what's wrong with number 2, other than the fact that it suggests that one ministry consider it.

Mr Winninger: What's wrong with number 1 if you take out reference to police departments?

Mr Jackson: Because it says nothing: a comprehensive victims' package be developed -- by whom?

Mr Winninger: It doesn't say --

Mr Jackson: I think the Attorney General is the spokesperson for justice issues in this province. I would not take that away from your justice minister or any future justice minister, point number one. Point number two, the expertise is within that ministry. I would not want 14 people on a committee trying to develop this. I think the minister has the capable staff in order to do it.

Now, if it's a funding issue, peel it off. But developing a pamphlet and printing it are two different issues. Develop it and let the police commissions pay for it, but say that. That's all I'm saying.

The Chair: Mr Winninger, just your final word, and then I think we'll --

Mr Winninger: Yes, my final word. Why don't you adopt this suggestion: We take the phraseology of number 1 and we say, "That a comprehensive victim information package, which would include information" -- and so on -- "be provided to victims of violent crime and their families." You just delete the reference to "by police departments." That we'll give the government some discretion as to how that should be prepared, published and distributed.

The Chair: Clearly, that's not enough for Mr Jackson, because he wants to say "police departments" but he also wants to say, "be provided by the Ministry of the Attorney General to victims of violent crime."

Mr Jackson: I'm simply reading what the victims told us to do. I think that was a given, and it was a given to the advisory group, who also said it. The advisory group said there should be a 1-800 number, which is the last part of 1a, "In addition, the police should provide victims with a telephone number to call the ministry," the Attorney General, the 1-800 number that's referred to on page 6, which you seem to feel is getting implemented, and it isn't.

I'm sorry. Why can't we agree on specific language as to what we're doing? If you don't feel that anybody should be responsible for funding it, then fine, say it, and we can get on to the next point. But I can't just say, "Do a report," and then someone's going to say, "Who the hell's going to pay for it?" I can't say, because nobody around this committee discussed it.

I can tell you what my view is. I think the Attorney General's the expert in this province and no one should take it away from them. If you want to separate it and make it a funding issue, do that.

The Chair: Mr Jackson, I think everybody understands there is no agreement, quite clearly. So --

Mr Jackson: So what? There's no recommendation, Mr Chairman?

The Chair: So we have to decide what people are going to move in this committee, given that there's no consensus, and then we'll just go with that.

Mr Jackson: Mr Winninger's position is that the Attorney General's office is not the appropriate ministry to be developing a comprehensive victims' package.

Mr Winninger: No, I didn't say that --

Mr Jackson: Well, then, tell me.

Mr Winninger: -- and please don't misquote me. I said that you can achieve your purpose --

Mr Jackson: You don't know.

The Chair: All right, Mr Jackson, it's not yes. Can I just ask you, Mr Winninger, perhaps you might want to propose a motion, then, in terms of the particular motion you want and then move that, if that's what you want to do.

Mr Jackson: Mr Chair, for the purposes of discussion, let me move 1a, and then that's the motion that's on the floor. I have the right to do that.

The Chair: All right, Mr Jackson's moving 1a.

Mr Jackson: If Mr Winninger wants to amend --

The Chair: Discussion? Mr Jackson has moved 1a.

Mr Winninger: As is.

The Chair: That's right.

Mr Jackson: Yes.

The Chair: Any discussion on that? All right. All in favour? Opposed? That's defeated. Mr Winninger?

Mr Jackson: Mr Chairman, did we actually vote?

The Chair: I'll call the question again. All in favour of Mr Jackson's motion?

Ms Haeck: For 1a?

The Chair: For 1a. He's just --

Mr Jackson: Yes.

The Chair: Mr Jackson has moved 1a, right?

Ms Haeck: Oh, I'm sorry --

The Chair: And he didn't see hands going up is what I think he's saying. Mr Jackson, we're going to vote on this then, is that it?

Mr Jackson: Ms Haeck voted with me, and then -- I don't want to name members.

Ms Haeck: No, no, and I have no problem in saying very publicly I misread that. I was thinking of 1, the first one on the page. I'm used to sort of numbering this a little differently, so I have voted on the wrong one.

The Chair: I see.

Ms Haeck: So, my mistake.

The Chair: I hadn't seen that. Mr Jackson, is that all right then? Do you want to have a revote, or is that quite clear? I didn't see what you were getting at, actually.

1710

Mr Jackson: I think I assisted the Chair, since the member's admitted her vote was counted incorrectly and this is an opportunity. Please just --

Mr Winninger: Just for clarification, I'm not sure what the aftermath of that exchange was.

The Chair: I thought the motion had been defeated. Mr Jackson corrected the whole situation because I hadn't seen Ms Haeck's hand go up in support of 1a. Then she clarified when I was about to take the vote again, because I had not seen that, what she was doing. So 1a is defeated, is what I'm saying. What I would ask you to do is, it's either 1, 1a, 1b. Recommendation 1a has been proposed and it's been defeated. Perhaps you might have another motion that may be different than what is there.

Mr Winninger: I would move 1 with the deletion of the words "by police departments."

The Chair: Discussion?

Mr Jackson: Could I ask Mr Winninger who would develop this package, in his mind?

Mr Winninger: That's not a question that I can answer.

Mr Jackson: After listening to all the deputants, and the ones with specific recommendations, you have no opinion?

Mr Winninger: No. I heard many deputants say that it would be really beneficial to have a victims' information package. Quite frankly, I can't recall whether any of them said who should prepare it. Maybe Mr McNaught recalls, but I can't recall anyone saying who should prepare it.

Mr Jackson: Do you have any opinion as to who should produce -- in other words, print -- this report?

Mr Winninger: The ministries. It may be more than one ministry. Frequently, more than one ministry collaborate in the preparation of a response.

Mr Jackson: One ministry wouldn't do red ink and another ministry do the blue ink and then leave the colour to Citizenship, for example.

Mr Winninger: Sure, but just for example, when we extended the funding for the child witness projects, three ministries contributed funding to that. Now I believe it's just the Attorney General who's funding those projects on a permanent basis.

Mr Jackson: You have no opinion as to who might pay for this?

Mr Winninger: I don't have an opinion, nor do I think if I did it would really be that relevant to this particular recommendation.

Mr Jackson: Who do you think should distribute this victims' package?

Mr Winninger: I suggested earlier, and it's suggested later in the report, that because the police are generally the initial point of contact with victims of crime, it would be entirely appropriate for the police to distribute that information. Whether it's information they themselves prepare or another ministry prepares remains to be seen.

Mr Jackson: Do you support the concept of a 1-800 number as recommended by the committee prior to this recommendation? On page 6 it's, "We support the recommendation of the advisory board." So you support the use of the 1-800 number?

Mr Winninger: I think that would be a good idea.

Mr Jackson: Do you support the 1-800 number for the Attorney General's office?

Mr Winninger: Where's that here?

Mr Jackson: We're dealing with information about the police, information about the courts and information about compensation. All three are contained in the concept of a comprehensive victims' information package. We have a 1-800 number we're recommending for CICB. Are we recommending a 1-800 number for SolGen so that we can get answers to the police and a 1-800 for the Attorney General for matters to do with the court, to be consistent?

Mr Winninger: The 1-800 number for victims' services information seems entirely appropriate for us to be recommending as a committee.

Mr Jackson: That gets me back to my point that we still don't specifically say that -- Mr Winninger's number one recommendation deals with a comprehensive victim information package that deals with victim support services and the right to compensation. We do not specifically make a recommendation that recommendation whatever number -- let's say it's number 6 -- of the advisory board report should be implemented. We say it in a narrative on six, but we don't make it a specific recommendation, and they're two separate issues.

The Chair: Mr Winninger, do you want to incorporate anything into your motion?

Mr Jackson: Or make it two recommendations.

The Chair: Certainly for the record, everything should be noted when it happens.

Mr Winninger: I don't have a motion on the 1-800 number. In the report itself is reflected the advisory board's recommendation about the 1-800 number. Clearly that might be part of a comprehensive victim information package, which also ties in with what's described on pages 25 and 26 that you alerted our attention to. I don't think we need a specific recommendation in our report simply parroting what's already in the advisory committee report. So I make no motion on that. I was simply responding to Mr Jackson's question.

The Chair: Very well. Then I think we're ready for the question. All in favour of Mr Winninger's motion?

Mr Winninger: Which motion?

The Chair: The motion which you've made, recommendation 1, and also deleting "by police departments." All in favour? Opposed. That motion on page 7 carries. Anything further on that page?

Mr Jackson: Then I propose a motion. Andrew's just provided me with a copy of the report so I can pull out the advisory "Accessibility of Victims' Services" recommendation, recommendation 8. Instead of the third paragraph on page 6, to make it as a matter of right, I think we should put that in the form of a recommendation, since we recommend that something be implemented. We've named the report; we can now refer to it. Recommendation 8.

The Chair: Mr Jackson, I'm sorry. You moved something, but I'm not quite clear.

Mr Jackson: I'm moving that instead of our committee making this statement in the third paragraph on page 6, it be placed as a recommendation and that this recommendation indicate the committee's support for recommendation 8, "Accessibility of Victims' Services," from the advisory committee report.

The Chair: That's Mr Jackson's motion. Any discussion on that?

Mr Winninger: I need some clarification. Could I hear again what it is you're proposing to change and the language you're going to use to change it in what's before us on page 6?

Mr Jackson: Page 6, in the second paragraph --

The Chair: The third.

Mr Jackson: The second paragraph. He's asking me what I propose to change on page 6. Oh, okay, the third paragraph states that we recommend something. It's a recommendation. I want it put as a form of a recommendation, not for it to be a simple sentence. It should stand alone as a recommendation of this committee, if we believe that. If we don't, then let's take it out.

What we're saying we recommend is everything that preceded that up to that point, which is contained in the second paragraph. That is a listing of items, most of which are contained in recommendation 8. It talks about "Outreach in areas such as culture, language, literacy skills"; it talks about "Coordination of information with other sources"; improving "public awareness and accessibility" to the CICB; implementing a 1-800 number; "update and simplify application forms and ensure wider distribution to the community, to shelters, to victim/witness assistance programs," to a variety of sources; and then it says "train referral sources such as police" etc.

1720

If we say we support the things listed that haven't been implemented, we should put it in the form of a recommendation. I was trying to incorporate that in your 1. We didn't do that. You just picked one small aspect of recommendation 8 of the report and put it in there, but we do say we support the recommendations of the advisory board.

We've got to be very careful, because that should be corrected. It indicates "the recommendations," which is the plural, which means it's more than recommendation 8. I know the government doesn't support all the recommendations of the advisory board, so we'd better be careful of what we say there. That was the point I was trying to make earlier, but I thought we might amend it with the 1 or 1a. Now that we're unable to do that, I'd better clarify that in the report, or we should say which recommendations of the report we recommend be implemented.

Do you want time to look at that? Andrew, do you want your copy back? I've liberated it from you.

The Chair: Mr Winninger, if you like, we could stand it down if you want to be able to read it, and move on to other pages.

Mr Winninger: I was just trying to scan the report on progress based on the recommendations of the advisory board. Yes, I think there would be some benefit to standing it down.

The Chair: Mr Jackson, is it helpful to stand it down?

Mr Jackson: Sure. Mr Winninger, you accept that we can't use the line, "The committee supports the recommendations" -- plural -- "of the advisory board"? We have to be careful with that line.

The Chair: He's asking, as you reflect on all of these things, to remember that.

We were on page 7. Anything further on page 7?

Mr Jackson: No. It looks okay to me.

The Chair: Page 8?

Mr Jackson: I briefly made reference to this to Andrew because it required some additional writing, but nowhere do we mention in here, under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board -- if we're going to give it its brief discussion, we should indicate that its unique feature is a subrogation of rights under the law; in other words, its ability. I think Andrew was working on some wording.

There is a statute of limitations on CICB, and I think in fairness we should indicate that, otherwise someone would read this and think, "Well, hell, I can apply any time," but one of the major complaints was, "My time ran out." Several deputants indicated that they talked to families this had happened to because they didn't know about it. The next bad news was, "You should have applied within the three-year time limit."

Mr McNaught: Section 6 of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act provides a one-year limitation period for making applications. If you want a reference to that, I can include that. The other issue was the subrogation rights, and your question there was whether the victim gives up the right to sue the criminal if the victim makes an application and receives compensation from the board.

My reading of section 26 is that the victim would give up the right to sue, although I'm told by the minister that there might be a couple of exceptions to that rule, and I'm waiting to hear back from them on that. But as written, it appears that the victims would give up the right to sue.

Mr Jackson: Since we were charged with the responsibility of looking at the CICB, which was our original mandate, one of the recommendations I want to make is that the one-year limitation be reviewed, and if you look at the advisory committee report, they felt a one-year time line should be reviewed. Now, do I know what I'd like it to be? If I guessed a number off the top of my head, I'd say two years' additional time. When we hear from out of the mouth of the chair of the board that there are over one-year delays for some of these people, it strikes me that the system could embrace a two-year waiting period. I realize this has implications for Askov, but since the CICB is only collecting a minor fraction of these awards back from the criminals, I don't think that's a matter of major concern to the board.

I wanted to pause and make a recommendation that we change the one-year limitation, and I wanted to make sure the subrogated rights were understood. I think the board would be better served if it gave larger awards under certain circumstances and went after the criminals involved.

The Chair: Do you want to move them as motions?

Mr Jackson: I'd like to get consensus that the report would be strengthened by adding that information, simply as information. That's not putting a value on it or taking it anywhere. That's the first point, and Andrew will come with concise language or information, which he can refine himself.

The Chair: All right. Comments on that?

Mr Winninger: It may be useful to remind the reader of what the limitation period is by using language taken right from the act, because there are cases where people apply to enlarge limitation periods based on the charter or based on other reasons. Sometimes they're successful; sometimes they're not. We can't really get into that in the scope of this report.

Mr Jackson: Yes, we can just say what the act says.

Mr Winninger: It's very difficult for us to replace a lawyer, in some respects, when you're dealing with limitation periods, because sometimes they are in fact set aside or enlarged, based on the circumstance of the case. Judges do have that discretion, although they use it quite sparingly.

Mr Jackson: People aren't calling their lawyer and suing the CICB.

Mr Winninger: No. I'm talking about the limitation period to bring your application for compensation.

Mr Jackson: That's in the act.

Mr Winninger: Right. Maybe Andrew could remind us what the wording of that section says, if you have it with you, because I believe there is some discretion within the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to allow an increased amount of time.

Mr McNaught: Section 6 reads: "An application for compensation shall be made within one year after the date of the injury or death, but the board, before or after the expiry of the one-year period, may extend the time for such further period as it considers warranted."

Mr Winninger: We need to reflect the language, I think, in the report.

Mr Jackson: I don't see anything wrong with the actual wording.

Mr Winninger: Nor do I.

Mr Jackson: So I guess there's consensus on that? Great.

Can we do a similar treatment, Madam Chair, with respect to informing the public in this report that suing an offender in civil court for damages resulting from commission of a crime has also been ineffective, since most are not in a position to satisfy judgements against them?

The comment that was made by Wendy Calder was that our average payout is under $1,000, so why would somebody hire a lawyer to spend a day in court and pay the legal fees -- in other words, why would even the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board waste money chasing that small amount of money? That's really one of the issues there. It's too offhanded to say that all criminals are poor, because we're talking about violent crime. All poor people aren't violent: Violent crime cuts across all income groups and all individuals in society. That's not the reason we have such a low recovery.

It's because our awards are low and therefore it makes no sense to send a lawyer, at his hourly rate, to sit in a courtroom to get even 50% of your case if it's won. It's not paying for itself. I had order paper questions going back to Ian Scott's days to corroborate that. We should be careful how we treat that. The level of the awards was also a contributing factor in the board's inability to seek, civilly, compensation from the criminals. That's defensible. Even I agree with that.

1730

As to the subrogation of their rights, I indicate it's similar to the WCB, where you give up your right to sue in most cases in order to get the compensation. It's the same principle in law which was applied in the infrastructure of this legislation, and we're silent on that. Somehow we've got to get across that "suing an offender in civil court for damages resulting from the commission of a crime" -- we should let them know that that's what the legislation says, but it says the victim subrogates that right to the CICB and the CICB has the right to go and claim that money.

When I asked Wendy about that, she indicated her subrogated rights income was extremely low, like $79,000 on a $12-million payout.

The Acting Chair (Ms Zanana L. Akande): You would ask for a similar treatment, similar to the one you'd just previously used. Is that agreeable, Mr Winninger?

Mr Winninger: One of the problems I have at this stage is that we were doing this page by page, and now it appears we've jumped around within that next section. First of all, we discussed the benefit of having a paragraph that would deal with the limitation period, just to alert people.

Mr Jackson: We got agreement on that.

Mr Winninger: Then we were talking about benefit levels, and recovery, subrogation. If we could stick to the page in the text, it would be a little easier for me to know exactly what changes are being recommended.

The Acting Chair: We are currently on page 8. We had moved to that after your previous discussion. Is that not where you are?

Mr Jackson: Yes, the second paragraph, "Suing an offender in civil court." My difficulty here is that we are discussing the general area of restitution orders and civil litigation for victims, in a general way. We're not tying it to criminal injuries compensation. It's a parallel comment.

What we've failed to do is indicate that civil litigation is a part of the CICB process, but you subrogate that right to the board. Now the board's in a position to sue. If I wanted to be mischievous, I would show a schedule that shows that Ontario has the lowest recovery rate in all of Canada, which is a fact, on these civil litigation recoveries.

What we've got here, in my view, is rather inappropriate language that basically all violent offenders in Ontario are poor, and I don't think that's right. That's not the reason people don't sue.

If you want to go to criminal injuries compensation to get your funeral expenses paid, the first thing you sign on that report, if you're familiar with it, is: "I give up my right to sue this person because I'm going to go to you, the state, and ask you for it. What I'm giving you is, you now have the right as the state to go sue this person." I'm not going to get into whether I think the CICB's done a terrible job not suing people. I'll leave that alone. We can't just leave that people don't sue because all violent criminals are poor people, because that's false and misleading. It is a subrogated right which you give up, and that's the first thing you're asked to do.

Can Mrs Mahaffy sue Mr Bernardo? The answer is no, because she's already signed a document saying, "If you give me a pittance of $800 to bury my daughter, you can go and sue Mr Bernardo," and the Attorney General can direct the CICB to sue Mr Bernardo upon conviction for the moneys they paid out on his behalf. That's the law in Ontario, and nowhere does that describe that scenario.

Mr Winninger: Well, if I may, Madam Chair --

Mr Jackson: And I'll just put a finer point on it. The reason that I want this in here is not only because it's an accurate reflection, but in my victims' bill of rights I incorporated some of the components of the Quebec legislation which allows for parallel civil litigation. In fact, there are some people in the Attorney General's office who have been intrigued by some of the references in my victims' bill of rights which allow for a parallel civil action. If Bernardo's going to make millions of dollars on his book rights, Mrs Mahaffy should have the right to proceed on a parallel civil action. That can occur in the province of Quebec; it can't occur in Ontario.

The Attorney General's saying it's complicated but it's doable. Maybe it shouldn't be contained in the victims' bill of rights, and I might agree with her on that, but the principle in law is such that victims have a minor door closed to them because they've applied to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for a modest amount of money. Somehow we have to allow our court system to be more fair, that the victim can be told: "Look, you may not want to come to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board because when you get through it all, you might get $1,000. But based on the nature of your crime, you may want civil litigation." Because, frankly, not all poor people are violent offenders. That's all I'm trying to say.

I don't want to get into who's failed; I'm simply trying to be clear in the report and if I wish to treat it somewhere else, fine. But it's a very important view, and it's not Andrew's fault he didn't deal with it in this detail. He dealt with what came out, but there was a lot of discussion around parallel civil litigation.

Mr Winninger: I'm not sure, Mr Jackson, that you're entirely correct in your approach, and I would defer to Mr McNaught or other legal advice we can get. But I'll tell you what my understanding of the situation is, and that is, anyone who's a victim may apply to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

Mr Jackson: Who fits their criteria.

Mr Winninger: Right. You will recover some modest compensation --

Mr Jackson: Within a scale; that's correct.

Mr Winninger: -- compared to what you could do perhaps in a civil court on a bigger scale with a defendant who's not judgement-proof, or even with one who is. You simply get a judgement for x hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The point about the subrogation, as I understand it, is this: If indeed the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board awards compensation for funeral costs, pain and suffering, loss of income, what have you, on a modest scale, then of course the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board is subrogated to those rights to in turn go after the offender and recover up to and including an equal amount.

What's new to me, and I don't necessarily agree with it, although you can correct me if I'm wrong, is that this isn't like the Workers' Compensation Act in that it's not exclusionary. I'd be very interested to hear opposite points of view, because let's say I'm a victim of a crime and I know I can get, well, it may not be funeral costs but pain and suffering, loss of income and so on to pay some of my bills, as the chair of the board put it. But six months after I get my award from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, I discover that the offender is out of jail and won a lottery prize of, say, $100,000. I'm not sure, and correct me if I'm wrong, that there's anything to stop me from going after other heads of damages from the offender now that it makes perfect economic sense to do so. That's where I think there is inherent distinction between this regime, criminal injuries compensation, and workers' compensation, which has a very definite exclusion.

I wonder if Mr McNaught has anything to add on that.

Mr McNaught: Just that I spoke with the ministry this morning and they said that they would get back to me later about some of these exceptions to the general rule that you give up your right to sue. So I'm waiting to hear on that.

Mr Winninger: When you say you're giving up your general right to sue, is that in the statute?

Mr McNaught: Well, it's a lengthy section.

Mr Winninger: Which section?

Mr McNaught: Section 26.

1740

Mr Winninger: What does that say?

Mr Murphy: Subsection 26(1) says, "Nothing in this act affects the right of any person to recover from any other person by civil proceedings damages in respect of the injury or death." Then subsection 26(2) deals with subrogation rights.

Mr Winninger: So that first subsection seems to verify what I just said.

Mr Murphy: Subject to subsection 26(2).

Mr Winninger: Which deals with subrogation rights.

Mr Murphy: The subrogation rights.

Mr Winninger: But surely subrogation rights are confined to what the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board awards.

Mr Murphy: Subsection 26(2) says, "The board is subrogated to all the rights of the person to whom payment is made under this act to recover damages by civil proceedings in respect of the injury or death and may maintain an action in the name of such person against any person against whom such action lies, and any amount recovered by the board...." -- I think, as you say, it applies to the amount actually paid out by the board.

Mr Winninger: But it would be interesting to have a more definitive answer on that. I think it's rather complicated, and that's why I was hedging a bit on that. But you have those two sections, each of which suggests something contrary. There may be some case law on that which would indicate what's been held in decisions that deal with that particular section. I'm sure if the legislative researcher had an opportunity to look in the legislative statute citator, it would have cases listed there that may pertain to that section.

Mr Jackson: I don't know that directing Andrew to do that kind of research --

Mr McNaught: That's why I consulted the ministry, because I wanted to speak to people who deal with this on a daily basis. A plain reading of the section is not going to answer all your questions.

Mr Jackson: I don't think Andrew's the appropriate person to be drafting this section. I think we need a little help. I just do not wish to have in a report that people don't sue violent criminals because they're basically poor and deadbeats. I can't just leave that there when it is a complex issue and people are giving up, partially or wholly, aspects of their civil litigate rights in order to receive compensation in this province. It affects compensation levels. Again, the committee's been charged with the responsibility of looking at this issue. To have the whole CICB aspect contained in two and a half pages and not being that clear, I think we can do better. That's all I was trying to say.

Mr Winninger: So if you do want to do better, it might be helpful to have a little additional information before we rephrase that so we at least can state something that won't mislead anyone who should read the report into thinking that they give up all their rights when they go to the CICB, because I don't think that's the case.

Mr Jackson: Okay, we'll stand down -- we really should --

The Chair: Mr McNaught is getting more information on some aspects here, right? Okay.

Mr Jackson: Given that this committee is time-sensitive, and given that we have happened upon a couple of areas that are needing to be stood down, I'm thinking perhaps we should attempt a brief subcommittee meeting so that we can bring all of these matters to Mr McNaught's attention. We are going to run out of time at about the halfway point. I'm not even into the substantive part of this report in terms of areas. It'll leave the committee, when we run out of time, with the difficult task of finalizing its report.

So I'd like to propose that. The other option I have, of course, is to cause a motion, and then call for my colleagues to save that 15 minutes. But I think, in the interest of time, we might agree to adjourn and then, if it's possible, I'd make myself available to get as much of this information shared.

I'm also sensitive to the fact that Mr Murphy had legislative responsibilities that took him from the committee for a while and I know he wants to make input in some of these sections.

The Chair: Okay. Do you want to move that as a motion, or are you suggesting that we do this, or what are you --

Mr Jackson: Get some feedback.

The Chair: Mr Winninger.

Mr Winninger: My understanding is we still haven't run out of time on the initial allocation of 12 hours.

Mr Jackson: The clerk may want to comment on how much time we now have left.

The Chair: About an hour and a half, more or less.

Mr Jackson: Of our three hours, and we're at page --

The Chair: We're just finished page 8. Well, we're standing down, for that matter.

Mr Jackson: -- page 8 of a 36-page report. I sense it's better if there's -- these are legal questions I'm raising and I'd --

The Chair: What Mr Jackson is saying is that we meet as a subcommittee to try to --

Mr Jackson: To share this in more detail with you.

The Chair: -- deal with some of this stuff.

Mr Winninger: That would make some sense to me.

Mr Jackson: Thank you.

The Chair: If everyone is in agreement, then we'll adjourn and convene a subcommittee at a time that's convenient to all of us, okay?

Mr Jackson: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

The Chair: This committee's adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1746.