CONTENTS
Tuesday 10 May 1994
Subcommittee report
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Chair / Président: Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)
Akande, Zanana L. (St Andrew-St Patrick 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:
Hope, Randy R. (Chatham-Kent ND) for Mr Malkowski
Clerk / Greffière: Bryce, Donna
Staff / Personnel: McNaught, Andrew, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1540 in room 228.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Vice-Chair (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): As you can see, you have before you the report of the subcommittee, which met yesterday, and I will read the agreement of the subcommittee into the record.
"Your subcommittee met on May 9, 1994, and recommends that:
"(1) The committee proceed with Bill 136, An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act and to make related amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Justices of the Peace Act; and that two days (possibly three) be allocated for public hearings and two days for clause-by-clause consideration.
"(2) Groups will be invited to appear to provide evidence as directed by the subcommittee members, including the names of groups who have previously contacted the clerk.
"(3) The committee will give groups the option of providing evidence in camera if desired.
"(4) The time slots for witnesses providing evidence will be for 30 minutes.
"(5) Should any other groups wish to be scheduled, they be put on a waiting list pending a cancellation; and they be invited to submit written briefs to the committee by May 30, 1994.
"(6) A technical briefing by the Ministry of the Attorney General not be requested by the committee."
Are there any questions or comments?
Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Just one question. We refer here to groups as opposed to individuals, and it may well be that, for instance, a judge may want to come and appear in camera as an individual.
The Vice-Chair: We could just insert "individuals or groups."
The other thing I want to point out is, at this point we have two people for Monday. If we do not get further people scheduled in on Monday, can you give us the option of cancelling on Monday and starting on Tuesday?
Constituency week is the 23rd and 24th, so we won't be there for that week. So we may be two days next week and then Monday the 30th and June 1, I guess.
Mr David Winninger (London South): One thing I was going to ask about, page 2 of the subcommittee report: I remember this list being discussed, but I'm wondering how General Division judges got on to that list. We talked about inviting the Chief Justice of Ontario, who has an interest in this, but I'm not quite sure what the thinking was in inviting General Division judges who aren't directly affected by this.
Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): We were going to ask the Chief Justice to indicate --
Mr Harnick: It was my understanding that --
The Vice-Chair: One person at a time. Mr Chiarelli.
Mr Chiarelli: My understanding is that we were going to ask the Chief Justice to indicate to any of the other judges that they could attend if they wanted.
Mr Winninger: But would they have an interest in this subject matter, other than the Chief Justice, who has a role to play under Bill 136?
Mr Chiarelli: It talks about their compensation. Of course they have an interest.
Mr Harnick: No, no. That's provincial court judges.
They may have some interest in dealing with the makeup of the various committees and subcommittees to sit in place of the Chief Justice. They also may be interested in the outcome of the Small Claims Court amendments which the Attorney General indicated she would be making. But I think Mr Chiarelli is quite right. It was merely an invitation going to any judges who wished to speak, with the invitation going to the Chief Justice.
Mr Winninger: I don't have a problem with it. I was just raising a question as to what their interest would be.
The Vice-Chair: We'll leave it on the list. Are there any further concerns?
I would ask for a vote to approve the report of the subcommittee.
Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I so move.
The Vice-Chair: Moved by Mr Hope, seconded by Mr Winninger.
All those in favour? Opposed? Agreed.
The committee adjourned at 1546.