Legislative Assembly of Ontario

MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

CONTENTS

Tuesday 2 September 1997

Ministry of the Attorney General

Hon Charles Harnick, Attorney General

Mr Graham Reynolds, Assistant Deputy Attorney General, criminal law

Ms Andromache Karakatsanis, Acting Deputy Attorney General

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Chair / Président

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South / -Sud L)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury L)

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury L)

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton PC)

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin L)

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall L)

Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East / -Est PC)

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay / Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne PC)

Mr Morley Kells (Etobicoke-Lakeshore PC)

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South / -Sud L)

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine ND)

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain PC)

Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln PC)

Mr Bill Vankoughnet (Frontenac-Addington PC)

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener PC)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold ND)

Mr John R. O'Toole (Durham East / -Est PC)

Clerk / Greffière

Ms Rosemarie Singh

Staff / Personnel

Ms Alison Drummond, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1531 in committee room 2.

MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

The Vice-Chair (Mr Rick Bartolucci): I call this meeting to order. I thank everyone for showing up, especially the minister. Minister, I want you to know that I've been chairing estimates now for several months, and you're the first minister to show up on time. I think we'll return the courtesy by starting as quickly as we can.

Today is the first day of estimates for the Attorney General's department. As is customary, we will allow the minister to make an opening statement of half an hour. Then the official opposition will have half an hour, the third party will have half an hour, and the right of reply can be used by either the government members or by the minister.

We'll turn it right over. Welcome, Minister, and welcome, people, to estimates.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. It is a pleasure to present the estimates for the Ministry of the Attorney General for the 1997-98 fiscal year.

I am sure all members of the committee agree that the justice system is fundamental to the quality of life we enjoy in this province. It is fundamental to the safety of our communities and the competitiveness of our economy. The justice system is also the embodiment of some of the most cherished values of our civilization.

This government is working to build a modern, more accessible and more effective justice system, a system that will increase the safety of Ontario communities and support the prosperity of the province.

Ontarians have a right to feel safe in their homes, neighbourhoods and communities. A May 1997 Angus Reid poll for CTV News, however, showed that 57% of Ontarians currently believe crime has increased over the past five years, eight in 10 Ontarians have at least some fear of becoming a crime victim in their own community, and nearly one in four report actually being the victim of a crime in the past two years.

Clearly, the time has come to get tough on crime, and that is exactly what this government is doing. By placing law-and-order issues high on the provincial agenda, we are building a justice system that will do a better job of holding offenders accountable, keeping dangerous criminals off the streets, deterring crime and respecting the rights of victims -- in short, a justice system that meets the expectations of the public.

A modern, accessible justice system plays an important role in creating a climate for job creation, which is clearly the number one priority of the people of this province. An effective justice system contributes to safe communities, places where people want to live, work and do business. It also facilitates commercial dealings by ensuring that disputes can be resolved quickly and at reasonable cost. An effective justice system acts as a magnet for the investment needed to create jobs. As the World Economic Forum in Geneva recently pointed out, the functioning of institutions such as police and the courts is one of the key measures of a nation's competitive edge.

Yet our justice system has been widely criticized for its slow pace, cumbersome procedures and high costs. It is an antiquated, paper-driven system that spends vast resources storing, handling and filing thousands of documents that no one ever reads, a system better suited to the needs of the 19th century than the 21st.

It is a system that is beyond the financial means of the average person and even small businesses, with a typical civil suit taking years to settle and costing the plaintiff $38,000 in legal fees to recover $55,000 on average.

It is a system in which public confidence has been shaken by the infamous Askov case in 1990 that led to thousands of cases being dismissed because of delays in prosecuting them.

It is a system that too often seems to care more about protecting the rights of the accused than responding to the needs of the victims of crime.

Previous governments tried to solve these problems by throwing money at them instead of making changes to the way the system operated. As a result, the problems just got bigger.

Now we have a different government, a government that listens to the people of Ontario and is committed to getting the best value for taxpayers' dollars. As I will explain, we have changed direction and we are making strong headway towards the modern, accessible and effective system Ontario requires to enter the new millennium. Like all government activities, the Ontario justice system of the future must be built on fiscal reality, and not pie in the sky.

In the 1995 election, Ontarians sent a new government to Queen's Park with instructions to control spiralling deficits by getting a handle on spending and to cut taxes to create jobs.

We have delivered. As Finance Minister Ernie Eves declared in presenting the 1997 provincial budget, "The endless cycle of tax, spend and borrow is over." We are on track towards eliminating the deficit by the year 2000-01. The budget also delivered on the next two instalments of the tax cut, one effective July 1 and another January 1.

Ontario's economy is responding with jobs and growth and, perhaps most important, with renewed confidence and optimism. Ontario has gained 124,000 net new jobs in the past five months. More people are working in this province than ever before.

The key to sustained prosperity is to let people keep more of their hard-earned money, and to do that, the government must live within its means. Instead of trying to be all things to all people, our government is concentrating on those services that people value most, one of which is the administration of justice. Instead of mindless expansion to meet growing needs, we are restructuring public services, including the justice system, to provide the best value for every tax dollar.

Despite the fiscal pressures, I want to underline that the government has preserved funding for the justice system at a high level. This year, the ministry's business plan initiatives to cut expenditures amount to a 4.25% reduction in our overall budget.

In 1997-98 the ministry plans to spend about $734 million, equivalent to $2 million every day in the year. Within this substantial allocation, we are protecting and will continue to protect key front-line services. For example, we have preserved and are indeed increasing the number of crown attorney positions, and we have maintained funding for both social work and legal representation by the children's lawyer. Our mission now is to adopt new ways of thinking and new procedures to create a better justice system with the ample funds at our disposal.

We are doing this in partnership with our vast array of stakeholders: the legal profession, the judiciary, the police, business, community groups in areas from family services to crime prevention, and the public. Last year the deputy minister and I met with more than 220 stakeholder groups in 34 different locations, and I am keeping up an extensive schedule of meetings this year. I am greatly encouraged by the vast support for change that exists among our partners in the system. Stakeholders not only advocate change but are eager to participate in making it happen.

We all understand the challenges involved in turning around a system as complex as the justice system. Together, we are moving forward, and we are determined to continue on the path towards a modern, more accessible and more effective system. I would like to discuss the highlights of our activities under four themes: improving safety in our communities; supporting victims of crime; making our courts more responsive, accessible and efficient; and, finally, adopting new ways of doing business.

Improving community safety: I believe the most important thing we can do to make our communities safer is to ensure that criminals are held accountable for their actions. That is why last November I announced a blitz strategy in our six most heavily backlogged criminal court locations: Scarborough, North York, Etobicoke, Newmarket, Brampton and Barrie. The judiciary, the police, the bar and ministry staff worked together to open new courts, redeploy resources and change the way we process cases. These efforts have definitely paid off. Overall, for the six locations, there has been a 13.2% decrease in the number of pending charges since November, the first significant decrease we have seen in years. We have taken action to prevent another Askov-type crisis.

The blitz, however, is only an interim measure. It must be followed up by lasting solutions. You may be aware that in 1993 the Martin report led the ministry to implement an investment strategy calling for new crown practices in the areas of screening, disclosure and pre-trial resolution of issues. The strategy is to invest more resources in the front end of the criminal justice process so resources at the trial end can focus on cases that pose the greatest threat to community safety. I am pleased that the ministry's budget this year, for the first time, includes $6 million for the investment strategy as a permanent part of our base funding rather than a temporary allocation, as in past years.

Soon we will begin to take the next steps to build on the Martin report to keep backlogs from redeveloping. I will be announcing the creation of a criminal justice review committee, composed of high-level representatives of the judiciary, the bar and the ministry, to propose long-term, practical solutions to the persistent problem of criminal court backlogs in Ontario. We must, and we will, put an end to the risk of criminals escaping justice due to delays caused by the high volume and increasing complexity of criminal cases.

1540

The federal government also has a role to play in getting to the root of the backlog problem. I am encouraged that, at their conference last month, the premiers agreed to press the federal government to make the modernization of criminal procedure a legislative priority for the next Parliament.

The provinces and territories unanimously support a package of criminal procedure reforms that will streamline the system and make the prosecution of criminal charges more efficient and effective. The changes we are calling for will reduce procedural delays and facilitate the use of electronic technology to speed up the criminal justice process. Victims and witnesses in particular will benefit from having to make fewer court appearances.

To implement this package, the federal government needs to amend archaic sections of the Criminal Code that are more than 100 years old. The federal government promised to introduce the necessary amendments by the end of 1996, but it didn't happen. It is time for action on this reform package, which everyone agrees is imperative to bring the criminal justice system into the 21st century.

I have attended public crime forums across the province, and one message that comes across loud and clear is the feeling that too often the punishment does not fit the crime. I have created a sentencing committee, made up of crown attorneys, to develop guiding principles to assist prosecutors in seeking stiffer sentences from the courts where appropriate in individual cases. This group is also working on recommendations we can take to Ottawa for Criminal Code amendments to allow judges to impose longer sentences for given crimes. I can assure you the Ministry of the Attorney General will do all it can to ensure an appropriate sentence is handed down in every case.

The public cannot help but become cynical when a law like section 745 of the Criminal Code remains on the books. This so-called "faint hope" clause, which allows convicted murderers to seek early release before completing their prison terms, offends the sense of justice of most Canadians. Most of us believe sentences should mean what they say, that 25 years without parole should mean 25 years. Furthermore, I believe it is unconscionable and totally unacceptable to put the families of murder victims through the ordeal of an early hearing on the criminal's release. This clause should be repealed.

Youth crime is a growing problem. According to Canadian Centre for Justice statistics, the rate of youths charged with violent crimes has more than doubled since 1986. I am pleased that the government's crime control commission, which is seeking creative solutions to support safe communities, is making youth issues its first priority for public consultation.

Clearly, the federal Young Offenders Act, which took effect in the mid-1980s, is a failed experiment. It should come as no surprise that the recent Angus Reid poll I mentioned found that 78% of Ontarians have little or no confidence in this piece of federal legislation.

A little over a year ago, the Solicitor General and I appeared before the parliamentary committee in Ottawa that was reviewing the Young Offenders Act. We stressed that this legislation required a complete rethinking to reflect the views of Ontarians. We called for a series of major amendments to the act, including the following: Change the definition of young offender so that 16- and 17-year-old offenders are prosecuted as adults; at least require automatic transfer to adult court of 16- and 17-year-olds charged with violent offences; allow for the prosecution of young people under 12 who are charged with serious violent crimes; allow publication of names of youths convicted of violent offences; and permit access to legal aid only if the youth's parents cannot afford to pay for legal services.

It was encouraging to hear the new federal Minister of Justice say the other day that the main goal of the act must be to protect society and that this must be taken into account in dealing with such issues as the definition of "young offender," the sentences available, and whether offenders' names are published.

The present act has failed to deter youth crime and failed to protect the safety of communities. I urge the federal minister to deliver on her pledge to address these issues and to listen to the concerns of Ontarians and other Canadians who are fed up with a system that shields young offenders from the consequences of their own actions.

Quite frequently, the success of a criminal investigation hinges on police being able to get a search warrant quickly. In Ontario we will soon introduce a telewarrant service that will allow police officers to obtain a search warrant by fax when a justice of the peace is not available in person. Our telewarrant centre will be staffed by a justice of the peace 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and will be available to all police officers in the province. Telewarrants will be one more weapon in the arsenal against criminal activity.

Turning to our next theme, this government is wholeheartedly committed to correcting an imbalance that has occurred for too long in our justice system, where the rights of the accused are put in the spotlight and the needs of victims stay in the shadows. We will not tolerate a system that allows victims of crime to suffer twice, first at the hands of the criminal, and second at the hands of a legal system that does not respect, understand or respond to their needs.

On June 11, we observed the first Annual Day of Commemoration for Victims of Crime, a day chosen to coincide with the anniversary of the proclamation into law of the Victims' Bill of Rights. This legislation, among the most comprehensive in Canada, brings about long overdue changes to the way victims of crime are treated.

Among its various provisions, the bill of rights enshrines the victims' justice fund to ensure that money collected from fines imposed by the courts on offenders will always be available for services to victims. The government allocated more than $10.2 million from the fund to strengthen victims' services across Ontario over the first two years. Approximately $5.9 million was spent in 1996-97 by the Ministry of the Attorney General and the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services, and we will invest additional funds for victims' services this year and in the future.

The Ministry of the Attorney General has dedicated money from the fund to double the number of services available to victims of crime as their cases proceed through the courts and to enhance existing services. Victims in 20 communities now have the support of victim/witness assistance programs, and six more communities will be added by the end of the fiscal year. This program helps people who are already traumatized by crime to get through the various stages in the court process, which can often seem confusing and intimidating. Staff explain how the system works, provide information about the victim's specific case, assist in completing victim impact statements and refer people to community agencies if needed.

In 1996-97, more than 11,000 victims of crime received these services, people who are highly vulnerable. More than 80% of the people receiving this support are victims of wife assault, sexual assault or child abuse, while families of homicide victims and families of people killed by impaired drivers comprise the remaining individuals who receive these services.

Domestic violence is a crime and will not be tolerated in Ontario. To seek new solutions, this government took definitive action to establish specialized domestic violence court projects at Toronto's old city hall and in North York. Launched in cooperation with judges, police, crown attorneys and victim/witness assistance programs, these new court projects have tested two different approaches to prosecuting individuals who assaulted their spouses.

In North York, the focus is on breaking the cycle of violence. In assault cases that do not involve serious injury or use of a weapon, first-time offenders plead guilty and participate in an intensive batterers' counselling program. The downtown Toronto court focuses on prosecution, employing improved investigation techniques such as use of 911 tapes to obtain better evidence and increase the chances of obtaining a conviction. Both projects provide support for the victim before, during and after court proceedings. As the coordinator of the Metro Woman Abuse Council has observed, "Both courts are vigorously prosecuting woman abuse cases by using hard evidence and providing more support to women victims."

The success of these projects has led the government to expand these concepts to six additional locations across the province as part of the government's Strategic Framework and Action Plan for the Prevention of Violence against Women, coordinated by my colleague the minister responsible for women's issues. The new court projects will be based in North Bay, Brampton, Oshawa, Ottawa, London and Hamilton. They will send a message that abusers will have to pay for their crime, and that every resident of Ontario has the right to live without the fear of physical abuse.

Let me move to our third theme: making our courts more responsive, more accessible and more efficient. This government is making unprecedented capital investments to bring the justice system into the 21st century. Since taking office, we have committed some $215 million towards the construction of new court facilities across the province to provide faster and easier access to the justice system, improve security for court participants and streamline operations.

In Toronto we have built 32 new modern courtrooms at 393 University Avenue and we have upgraded facilities at 361 University. In Brampton we are building a new courthouse that will meet the needs of this growing area and consolidate court services now housed in seven locations. In Welland we are modernizing the historic courthouse to consolidate scattered facilities and resolve long-standing security concerns. We are also building court facilities in Windsor, Hamilton, Cornwall and Pembroke, and I expect more investments to be announced very shortly.

1550

This government will ensure that Ontario has the physical plant necessary to provide an accessible and efficient justice system in the future. No other government in Canada is making an investment of this magnitude in its justice system. We are making that commitment in Ontario.

We are reforming the civil justice system in line with the recommendations of the Civil Justice Review, an in-depth two-year study undertaken by a task force representing the bench, the bar and the ministry, with extensive public consultation. Ontario's civil justice system will now provide more accessible, effective and economical service to its users.

This initiative corresponds to the public concerns expressed, for example, in letters I have received from taxpayers frustrated with the inaccessibility of the civil justice system. As one writer from Thunder Bay commented, "For the typical everyday citizen to file a civil action in Ontario, they do not only require a substantially high IQ, but also a very large bank account. Finally, they need plenty of time as it will take forever to see an end -- if one is ever seen."

One key step we are taking is to expand case management, a process of managing the flow of cases through the system. Case management sets deadlines and puts responsibility for the progress of a case in the hands of judges rather than lawyers. This will help ensure that cases are not delayed indefinitely and will move through the system, avoiding backlogs and unnecessary costs to the parties.

In January 1997 we implemented case management fully in Ottawa, and in July 1997 we expanded case management in Toronto to cover 25% of all cases. Our long-term goal is to bring most civil cases in the province under case management within four years.

To ensure that case management succeeds, we have brought back the office of the master. I have appointed case management masters in Toronto, Ottawa and Windsor, and will be appointing more in the future. Having masters available to deal with procedural issues helps free up judicial time for substantive matters. As well, case management masters provide the necessary support to ensure that timelines are honoured and cases proceed more quickly.

The next key step in the transformation of the civil justice system is to introduce automatic referral to mediation for civil, non-family cases. Again, Ontario is leading the way among Canadian provinces. In the mediation process, a neutral person facilitates negotiations among the parties and assists them to arrive at their own mutually acceptable solutions.

Why are we moving to mandatory referral to mediation? The answer is because it works. A two-and-a-half year pilot project in Toronto found that 40% of all cases that were referred to mediation settled within 90 days. Typically, cases referred to mediation settled in half the time of cases that were not referred.

Under our new system, cases will be referred to mediation early in the litigation process. In cases that are not appropriate for mediation, parties will be permitted to opt out of mediation with leave of the master or judge. Mediator services will be provided by a list of private sector mediators. The parties will need the court's permission if they want to choose a mediator who is not on the list.

Local mediation committees will be formed to administer the program within their judicial districts. These committees will include volunteer representatives of the mediation community, the bar, the public and the ministry. Their role will be to compile and manage the list of mediators, set tariffs, monitor mediator performance, and respond to public complaints. The Ministry of the Attorney General will approve selection guidelines for mediators, and the local mediation committees will apply these guidelines.

A rule of civil procedure is being developed to establish the mediation program. Implementation of this model has already begun in Ottawa on a pilot project basis. The program will begin in Toronto later this year and will then be phased in province-wide over the next few years. Cases where mediation does not lead to a settlement will of course continue down the traditional litigation path.

Mediation does not have to produce a settlement to be useful. It can help to narrow down the issues or resolve procedural questions -- when to exchange documents, for example -- and therefore speed up the process.

The Toronto pilot found that both lawyers and their clients welcomed the referral to mediation. More than 95% of the lawyers involved said they would participate in the program again, and 62% said they would not have done better at trial than they did through mediation. In addition, almost three quarters of the lawyers and clients thought costs of reaching a settlement would have been higher without the referral to mediation.

By promoting mediation early in the litigation process, we are saving the parties time and money. This initiative means more accessible, more efficient and more effective justice. The time has come to make this alternative form of dispute resolution available to all who use the civil justice system.

A development that affects our courts is the introduction of child support guidelines by the federal government, effective May 1, 1997, together with changes to the income tax treatment of child support payments. We in the provincial government are doing all we can to minimize the difficulties and uncertainty Ontario families will face as a result of this federal initiative.

I now have legislation before the House that will bring Ontario's Family Law Act into line with the federal guidelines. Bringing in parallel provincial legislation is something family law experts told us is the right thing to do, and we are doing it. When the bill is passed, the same rules will apply whether child support is payable under the federal Divorce Act or the provincial Family Law Act. All Ontario families will be treated equally.

The ministry is also providing information services to help parents understand the guidelines and, ideally, to reach agreements before deciding to go to court. We have set up a toll-free information line, prepared an information kit and placed trained support staff to provide information in every Ontario family court location. In addition, we are working with lawyers' groups across the province to offer community information sessions, which will be held in 43 locations in October and repeated over the next few months as demand warrants.

At the Ministry of the Attorney General, we are continually reassessing what we are doing and how we are doing it. In consultation with our stakeholders, we have reviewed every aspect of our programs, services and organizational structure, and have identified activities and services that can and should be operated more effectively and efficiently. Internally, we have eliminated management layers and reduced the number of regions in our two largest divisions, courts administration and criminal law, by one quarter. This leaner ministry structure will lead to a more efficient organization and greater accountability, and will save taxpayers money.

Last year the ministry began major changes to the family support plan. The plan we inherited in June 1995 was broken. Under that plan, arrears in support payments owing to children and women in Ontario were growing by more than $100 million a year, a truly incredible amount. Cumulatively, those arrears now total more than $1 billion. This is money families have had to do without, so children are not sharing fairly in their non-custodial parent's resources and are not getting as good a start in life as they deserve. In some cases the lack of this money has forced parents on to social assistance to cover the necessities of life.

When I arrived in this portfolio, it was clear the plan needed a complete overhaul. While the transition has been difficult, this overhaul had to be done. My predecessors just let the arrears climb and climb. They claim to care about people, but what about the people who depended on the hundreds of millions of dollars that went uncollected year after year?

The Family Responsibility Office is the new name for the family support program. It reflects the transformation of the program from an agency that merely processed cheques to one that now aggressively pursues delinquent payors to get the children of Ontario the money to which they are legally entitled.

As you know, the Legislature has enacted the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, which provides the enforcement tools necessary to track down parents who do not support their families. In May 1997 the government proclaimed part of the act which, among other measures, allows us to report payors in default to credit bureaus. To date, some 63,000 deadbeat parents have been reported to credit bureaus, and their delinquency will now show up on their credit record.

Soon we will be arranging for private collection agencies to pursue long-standing delinquent accounts, and in the fall we intend to introduce driver's licence suspension as an enforcement tool. People who have not met their family support responsibilities for long periods and have not made repayment arrangements will find themselves unable to drive on Ontario's roads.

The provincial budget this spring provided $5 million in annual funding to implement these new, proactive enforcement measures. Specially trained client service associates are now focusing on enforcement. They are being equipped with the latest technology, such as automated file retrieval systems, to work efficiently.

I am also pleased that cabinet has recently approved a further $2.2 million for customer service enhancement funding. This will allow us to assign staff to deal with routine inquiries so client service associates can focus on assisting clients and enforcing support orders. This funding will also accelerate the pace of clearing the backlog of paperwork found when the regional offices closed in the fall of 1996.

1600

The Vice-Chair: Minister, could you stop there for a second? Your 30-minute time limit is up. However, with all-party support and agreement, we can allow you to finish. I would say the minister has about another five minutes to go. Is that agreeable to the committee members? Thank you. Continue, Minister.

Hon Mr Harnick: Thank you.

The backlog from the old plan consisted of more than 90,000 pieces of unanswered correspondence, court orders, financial adjustments and cost-of-living changes, further evidence that the plan was in disarray. We have now reduced the backlog by more than half, to less than 38,000 items, and we are assigning staff to step up the attack.

As I've stressed, we have shifted emphasis from processing cheques to collecting arrears. One reason we are able to do this is that the cheque-handling function is operating efficiently. Support payments are now processed in partnership with a private sector financial institution. In 95% of cases, the time to get cheques to recipients has been speeded up to one to two days, compared with a norm of up to a week in previous years and compared with up to 10 working days in two other provincial enforcement plans with less than a third of Ontario's caseload.

Customer service is also improving. About 65% of callers now get through to the office, compared with just 6% before the plan was restructured. Of course 65% is not enough, and we will continue to increase our telephone response rate. To enable us to do this, we are adding new client service associates and intensively training those who recently started. We have set up a mini call centre to handle payment inquiries and are routing appropriate calls to this service through the automated phone system. This fall we will introduce new technology such as document scanning and imaging, which will save time by bringing the document immediately to the computer screen while the caller is on the line. Since many phone calls concern items in the backlog, we expect the number of calls to decline as the backlog is cleared.

It is worth noting that the Family Responsibility Office has more than three times as many front-line staff dealing directly with clients as the family support plan did. These front-line staff have the skills and authority to resolve clients' problems directly and promptly, instead of having them go through as many as 13 different employees, as was the case before.

Another provision of the new legislation proclaimed in May keeps our election promise to give parents the choice of opting out of the program. Including responsible parents in the program in the first place is an example of how Ontario was over-governed between 1985 and 1995. Now responsible parents can avoid unnecessary government interference.

In short, we are rebuilding this program from top to bottom to focus on getting more money to children and women. We are transforming the office from a paper-driven cheque-processing operation into a proactive, aggressive enforcement agency committed to ensuring that delinquent payors meet their responsibilities.

Let me turn to some further initiatives that represent new ways of doing business in the justice system.

Justice is very much a local issue. This fact is recognized in the Who Does What initiative to eliminate government waste and duplication. In line with the Crombie task force recommendations, we intend to transfer to municipalities all the remaining administrative functions and some of the prosecutorial functions under the Provincial Offences Act. Along with the new responsibilities will go the associated fine revenues, creating a new revenue source for municipalities. This initiative builds on the successful transfer to municipalities, four years ago, of responsibility for administering their own parking tickets.

The changes mean that all administrative functions and prosecution of ticketable offences under part I of the act, as well as administrative functions for part III offences, will be transferred to the municipal level. The province will continue to prosecute part III offences, which are more complex, concern community safety and can result in jail sentences, and will continue to set and monitor standards for the administration of justice across Ontario. The enabling legislation, as you know, is before the House, and we plan to phase in the transfer over the next two years.

The previous government negotiated a four-year memorandum of understanding on the Ontario legal aid plan, but failed to follow up with leadership to ensure that the plan operated within the agreed-upon budget. It was left to this government to put an end to the days of issuing a blank cheque for legal aid. We made a commitment to honour the funding levels guaranteed by the previous government, but we also insisted on financial stability.

With the finances on track, we are now turning to more fundamental questions. Last December, I commissioned the first comprehensive review this plan has undergone in its 30-year history. Our goal is to ensure that we are providing the maximum amount of quality legal aid services to those in need, within our budget of more than $200 million annually.

The report of the legal aid review panel, chaired by Professor John McCamus, will soon be released. I understand that the panel met with major legal and judicial groups, conducted public hearings in seven locations around the province and received nearly 170 written submissions. The ministry will carefully analyse the panel's findings and then make recommendations to the government on how to proceed in designing a legal aid plan that will meet Ontario's needs into the next century.

I want to discuss another initiative in which we are involved that has been described as one of the biggest justice modernization projects in the world today. It is one of the most exciting information technology projects to be undertaken by any government anywhere.

By working with a private sector partner, we will use information technology to integrate and electronically link all parts of the justice system, including the courts, prosecutors, police, judges and corrections.

We will build an advanced information network that will link police to crowns and crowns to defence lawyers so we don't have to duplicate paperwork every time a charge is laid. In civil suits, our new system will allow lawyers to electronically file a statement of claim or defence from their own offices, drastically reducing the need to file and store paper documentation.

The network will enable us to run a full-fledged case management system to keep track of every civil and criminal case. This will improve court scheduling and save time and money for everyone.

The system will also increase the safety of police officers on the front line by making available up-to-date information about offenders, and it will give parole and probation officers ready access to the information they need to provide effective supervision.

In short, the integrated justice system will get us out of the paper era and into the computer era.

Let me add that what we will call the integrated justice project actually includes a series of projects, some of which have already begun, such as the civil case management initiative I mentioned and the electronic filing pilot project that is getting under way in Toronto. In the latter project, 95 law firms will participate in a system of electronic filing of civil court documents, operating 22 hours a day, seven days a week.

This integrated justice project will lead to the investment of millions of dollars in computer hardware, software and training. To finance the project in the current fiscal climate, we are turning to the private sector for innovative solutions. We are negotiating with a partner who will provide the new technology and who will be paid out of the efficiencies the new technology brings to the justice system. We expect the project to begin soon, with most of the work taking place over approximately five years.

As an OPP sergeant assigned to the project has remarked, "Officer safety, and public safety, are increased by sharing the most accurate data available between police and the whole justice community." By adopting 21st-century technology and processes, we will truly be able to get the most from our resources.

Our agenda for the justice system is the most proactive and forward-looking in years. I want to stress that it is an agenda we are carrying out in partnership with the people who make the system work. Together, we have contained the backlog pressures in our criminal courts and we are turning our attention to long-term solutions. We have begun to restore balance in the justice system, with due emphasis on victims' rights. We are expanding domestic violence court projects to hold abusers accountable and protect and support their victims. To protect children, we are aggressively targeting $1 billion in support arrears. We are streamlining the civil justice system, reviewing legal aid and building new courthouses. And, through investment in new technology, we are moving the justice system into the information age.

In the year ahead, we will continue the vital mission of modernizing Ontario's justice system. We must, and we will, build a more effective, accessible and affordable system, one that delivers fair results in a reasonable time at a reasonable cost, one that preserves safe and secure communities and one that contributes to our province's social strength and competitive economic position.

I'm looking forward to discussing these issues with this committee over the next few days.

1610

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Minister. You've used 12 minutes of your right to rebuttal, so you'll have 18 minutes left at the end of the half-hours for the official opposition and the third party.

Before we move to the official opposition, the minister has informed me that he has a meeting; he has to leave at 5:30. Could we get all-party consensus that this meeting will adjourn at 5:30 today? Agreed. Thank you.

We'll move to the official opposition.

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Thank you, Minister. We generally get a copy of those notes that we can highlight as we're going through.

Hon Mr Harnick: Do you want me to make copies of this and get them to you for tomorrow, or do you want us to have them delivered to your office for tomorrow morning?

Mr Cleary: We can pick them up tomorrow. It would be nice to have them.

Hon Mr Harnick: My apologies.

Mr Cleary: The first thing is you had spoken about all the things you're doing in the justice system for young offenders. I am not hearing that there's been much of an improvement since this government took over; at least, that's not what the police and the lawyers are telling me in my area. I'd just like to know, what are you doing?

Hon Mr Harnick: In the area of young offenders -- and I'm only dealing with the issue from the side of the Ministry of the Attorney General -- we have consistently and continually urged the federal government, your federal cousins, to take steps to reform the Young Offenders Act in a way that goes beyond tinkering.

I have been to two federal-provincial justice ministers' meetings now and we have urged the minister -- and now we have a new minister -- to deal with looking at 16- and 17-year-olds as adults for the purpose of prosecutions. We've talked about the legal aid issue, where it is now possible for any young offender, in spite of the fact that his or her parents may want to provide legal services for them, to appear before a judge and request legal aid. We don't think that promotes a close family relationship, nor is it a responsible way for the justice system to proceed with these cases.

We have talked to the federal minister about certain areas where we think publication of a name might be realistic, rather than always dealing with young offender matters in anonymity.

I can tell you that we have urged the federal Minister of Justice -- and I wish you'd speak to her as well -- to talk about how difficult the provisions are for police officers to take statements from young offenders and how technical the provisions are in taking a statement from a young offender, because quite simply those overly great technical requirements are preventing realistic and necessary prosecutions on the merits. I think that's very significant.

It's no secret -- I've said this -- that young offenders who are violent offenders and repeat offenders have to be sentenced upon conviction in a pretty severe and sharp way. As well, we have to take a look at doing a better job with the Young Offenders Act at the front end of the system, where young offenders who commit minor crimes are made to pay back the community by way of community service, by way of apologizing to the victims of the crime, perhaps in some cases looking at innovative solutions dealing with some of the techniques of mediation, ADR-type solutions.

One of the things that happens today is that because of the way we've dealt with these cases, young offenders are given immediate discharges and the system doesn't mean anything to them, and they become repeat offenders. I would very much like to take a look at a wide array of those kinds of programs. It's been impossible to do that because the federal Minister of Justice has indicated that he is going to be reducing funding.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): She.

Hon Mr Harnick: She, I'm sorry. I keep thinking of Mr Rock, because he's the one who told us this personally. It was the former Minister of Justice's direction to reduce funding to the provinces, particularly to Ontario and a couple of other provinces, that is used in the area of corrections. Without that funding, we would be compromising our ability to impose the kinds of sentences that are needed for violent offenders.

Mr Michael Brown: So the problem is there isn't enough money?

Hon Mr Harnick: No, the problem is that we've been told the existing money is going to be reduced. If you could tell --

Mr Michael Brown: So there isn't enough money, or there won't be?

Hon Mr Harnick: No, the best we can do is maintain the status quo in the area of corrections that we now have. But I'd like you to --

Mr Michael Brown: But you're cutting $5 billion from your own revenues, so how could it be a money problem?

Hon Mr Harnick: In terms of our own revenues, there are no cuts being made to front-line services, certainly in the area of young offenders. This is more in the area of the SolGen's purview --

Mr Michael Brown: Oh, yeah.

Hon Mr Harnick: If you'd let me finish instead of interrupting --

Mr Michael Brown: I'm sorry.

Hon Mr Harnick: If you don't want to hear the answer, I won't give it to you.

The Vice-Chair: Okay, Minister. Let's hear the answer.

Hon Mr Harnick: Certainly, the indication given by the federal government is that they are going to reduce moneys being transferred to Ontario for young offender purposes. If you're concerned about issues of money, you should go and speak to your federal cousins and tell them not to do that, so we can implement more innovative ways to deal with young offenders.

Mr Cleary: I get lots of complaints about break-ins and everything else that goes along with it -- cars. Police catch them redhanded, waltz them into court on the weekends or on the Monday morning, and the most important thing seems to be -- they're caught redhanded -- that they all have legal representation. That's the most important thing there, even though they're caught right in the act. Before that day is over, they're probably gone again, after they've put people through all kinds of inconvenience and everything. You think it's a federal problem.

Hon Mr Harnick: You're kind of losing me with your question, because what you've indicated is that because all these young offenders have legal advice, even though they were caught redhanded, they get off. I don't know that I particularly follow or agree with that argument. I think accused people are in many cases entitled to legal representation and I don't think there's anything wrong with having it. That's a difference of opinion between you and me, I guess.

Mr Cleary: If I said they got off, I apologize for that. I'm not saying that. When they appear in court, that seems to be the most important thing, no matter what they put anyone else through.

The victims' rights, would that be young offenders, this $1 billion you say you're putting into that, victims' rights?

Hon Mr Harnick: I didn't say we were putting $1 billion into victims' rights, but we have within the Victims' Bill of Rights enshrined the victims' justice fund. Every time there is a fine collected, there's a surcharge on the fine. That money goes into the victims' justice fund and we have used that fund to increase the victim-witness assistance program, which is going from 13 locations to 26. We've also enhanced a number of those original 13 locations with extra people to meet the demand of victims who are accessing the victim-witness assistance program in those jurisdictions.

1620

Mr Cleary: You mentioned the faint hope clause there. Are you joining with the other provinces? Is there an agreement among the other provinces?

Hon Mr Harnick: I don't know that there's an agreement with the other provinces. I attended before the Senate when they were reviewing the faint hope clause. I urged them to recommend that the faint hope clause be repealed. Unfortunately it wasn't, and you had the fiasco of putting all the victims through the Clifford Olson hearing. I know they've made some changes to the faint hope clause so serial killers won't have that opportunity again, but I don't think it's enough; I think the faint hope clause should be repealed. I hope you tell your cousin the Minister of Justice to do that.

Mr Cleary: That's the province of Ontario's position, then.

Hon Mr Harnick: That is.

Mr Cleary: Fine.

Do you think domestic violence is better than it was two years ago?

Hon Mr Harnick: I don't know the answer to that. Domestic violence is bad now and it was bad two years ago, and any domestic violence is bad in the future. We are developing responses within the justice system that permit us to deal more effectively with issues of domestic violence and abuse. We have opened two pilot projects in Toronto. They've been anecdotally very successful projects, and that's why we announced very recently that we're expanding that project to six more sites.

The anecdotal evidence, the information being obtained from crown attorneys, has indicated that the response the justice system is now making to issues of domestic violence and abuse is a better and more appropriate response.

Mr Michael Brown: I'd like to thank the minister and his staff for appearing this afternoon.

The first question would be the same question I asked your colleague the Minister of Natural Resources, or a similar question. As you know, the provincial park at Ipperwash is closed, has been closed now for almost two years. As a matter of fact, it closed on Labour Day of 1995. Who gave you the instruction, "Get those effing Indians out of the park"?

Hon Mr Harnick: I've never heard that, other than that comment being contained in questions in the Legislature, so I can only say I don't know the answer to that question. I don't know how accurate the question is. I have no idea.

Mr Michael Brown: Can you give me an indication of when the Ministry of Natural Resources indicated to the Ministry of the Attorney General that they wished the Ministry of the Attorney General to take legal action to remove the Indians from the park at Ipperwash?

Hon Mr Harnick: I can't tell you when that took place. I don't know.

Mr Michael Brown: Is there no record of that?

Hon Mr Harnick: I'm not aware of when the Ministry of Natural Resources asked for that. I am aware that within a period shortly after the occupation, a day or two -- I can't recall -- a decision was made.

Mr Michael Brown: Could the minister undertake to look at his files and provide that information?

Hon Mr Harnick: It was within a day or two. That's the answer.

Mr Michael Brown: That's not a very precise answer.

Hon Mr Harnick: That's the answer.

Mr Michael Brown: Can the minister indicate to us what is the status? The ministry went to court to seek an injunction to remove the first nations people from Ipperwash Provincial Park. What is the status of the injunction you sought?

Hon Mr Harnick: I believe the injunction application was withdrawn, and I believe the withdrawal of that application was on the date it was returnable. I think that was what happened.

Mr Michael Brown: I'm just trying to sort this out. So the application has been withdrawn.

Hon Mr Harnick: The application for the injunction was withdrawn.

Mr Michael Brown: We were told by the Minister of Natural Resources that once the park was occupied, they made the decision that they wanted the park unoccupied, even though it was closed. They just went through the legal process and the Ministry of the Attorney General then sought an injunction, but they just turned it over to your ministry.

Had the Ministry of Natural Resources then indicated to you that it is not a problem that there are Indians in the park? If you don't have an application any more to remove them, then it must be the government's position that it's fine for them to be there. Is that the position, given that we know there's a burial ground -- I guess we don't know there's a burial ground, but we suspect there's a burial ground -- in the park?

Hon Mr Harnick: I don't think what the ministry ultimately did on the recommendation of the lawyer who was handling the injunction application can lead you to the conclusion you're making, but if you want to make it, be my guest.

Mr Michael Brown: Who represented the ministry on the blockade committee?

Hon Mr Harnick: I'm not sure who was there for the Ministry of the Attorney General.

Mr Michael Brown: Was there a person?

Hon Mr Harnick: I assume there was, but I'm not sure who it was.

Mr Michael Brown: Would it be a political person, ie, someone on your staff, or would it be a bureaucrat?

Hon Mr Harnick: It would be a bureaucrat, to the best of my knowledge.

Mr Michael Brown: Was there any political representation from your staff on the blockade committee?

Hon Mr Harnick: I don't know that there was any political person on the committee.

Mr Michael Brown: "We've heard about your vast improvements to the justice system," he said cynically. What I would like to do is talk a little bit about my own constituency for a moment, where you have removed the crown attorney from the district of Manitoulin. We no longer have a crown attorney in one of the judicial districts. The incumbent is on a leave of absence and I believe has been gone now for at least 18 months. The ministry will not, in the interim, replace him.

We no longer have a crown attorney. It is being served, I'm told, by members of the local bar out of the Sudbury office, but in a less than stellar fashion, in other words, the crown attorneys, because there isn't even one dedicated to the district of Manitoulin from the Sudbury office. I'm not blaming the crown attorneys. I think it's very difficult for them to be up to speed when they need to drive 200 kilometres and arrive in court, often under very difficult circumstances. My constituents happen to think that's less service, not better. Could I have a commitment from you that we will have the crown attorney back in the district of Manitoulin to serve the people in the district?

Hon Mr Harnick: Certainly, I'm concerned about what you're telling me. I will look into it. I'm not sure when the full-time crown attorney stopped being present on a full-time basis in Gore Bay, but I'll check that.

Mr Michael Brown: I can give you that. It's somewhere between 18 months and two years.

1630

Hon Mr Harnick: I have a sneaking suspicion, although I'm not sure, that that may have been a decision made under the last government. I'm not sure about that, but I'm more concerned not with which government made the decision, but with anything you could tell me about -- you say the performance of the crowns is "less than stellar." I think those are the words you used.

I'd be very interested in receiving some concrete examples of that, because if that is the case, I want to know about it so we can make the necessary correction. I'd appreciate it if you could give me some examples of that. Obviously, you've been speaking very extensively with your constituents, so I wonder if you could provide me with some information about the different cases that haven't been well handled. If I know that's the case, I'm quite prepared to take a look at our ability to provide better service, which is something we want to do.

I know you've been speaking to your constituents. You have a big advantage over me because you're right next door. I'd be interested in meeting with you and finding out from you at first hand what kinds of problems your constituents have had, the dates of the cases that have been a problem, so we can check records. If we're able to do a better job, that's what we want to do. But do let me know, because I am concerned about that.

Mr Michael Brown: I'll give you one right off the top. It's a case having to do with Bayward Martin. The gentleman had been convicted and sentenced to nine years in federal penitentiary, I believe, and there was an appeal process that, at least from the view of the local bar and my constituents, was not handled, at least initially, very appropriately. That's one example, but there are many others.

Hon Mr Harnick: Let me respond to that. In any case, when there's a conviction and an appeal, the appeal wouldn't take place out of the Gore Bay courthouse. The appeal would take place at the Court of Appeal at Osgoode Hall. The crown law office at 720 Bay Street would look after the processing of those appeals no matter where in the province it happened.

Mr Michael Brown: But in order to do that, the crowns here need appropriate information coming from the local crown attorneys.

Hon Mr Harnick: I'm not aware --

Mr Michael Brown: Anyway, there are --

Hon Mr Harnick: No, let's finish this, because it's very important. I will check with 720 Bay Street and the crown law office, criminal, to find out if indeed in the case you mentioned the lawyers at 720 Bay Street who had to prepare the appeal had any difficulty accessing information from the prosecutor who was involved in that case. I'd do that.

My understanding is that shouldn't have been something that had a negative impact on our serving the public. That would be a problem, as you've described it, that would inconvenience a lawyer at the crown law office, criminal, at 720 Bay Street. That's something I'd like to know about as well. So we'll check that.

Mr Michael Brown: We would appreciate that, but the bottom line is, we believe, certainly my constituents believe, that until Mr Allison, the present incumbent, returns, there should be a crown attorney in the district of Manitoulin to deal with district cases. That's the bottom line.

Hon Mr Harnick: I await an opportunity at your convenience to get together with you to find out about the nature of some of the problems. I hope you'll take me up on that.

Mr Michael Brown: I certainly will.

Hon Mr Harnick: I'd like to hear about the problems your constituents are having so that we can provide better service, and indeed evaluate whether we should have a full-time crown attorney there. I'd like to see the information you have that's brought you to that conclusion so I can come to the same conclusion and then ask that the service be returned.

Mr Michael Brown: It is my information that the problem is there's a leave of absence of the incumbent, but the position is still there. It's just that there is nobody there to do it.

Hon Mr Harnick: I understand that, but I'd like to know what your information is about where the system is falling down. That would be very helpful. It's one thing to come in and say, "I've heard this, this and this." Lots of people can say that. But I know you've spoken to your constituents, because you've told me that, and I know if you told me that indeed it's true. I want to know what some of the problems are and get some of those minute details that I know you have. Then we can evaluate where we're falling down so that we can provide you with better service. That's what we want to do.

Mr Michael Brown: I appreciate that, Minister. We'll have that discussion.

I also want to talk about justices of the peace in general. As you know, in northern Ontario particularly this can be a difficult problem. We've been waiting for a justice of the peace appointment for the Elliott Lake area for quite some time. This is a community of 14,000 people that does not have a justice of the peace at the present time, since the retirement of the previous justice of the peace.

I've written to you on a number of occasions, I have lobbied you and the community has no doubt lobbied you also. One of the difficulties is that Elliott Lake is almost at the edge of the judicial district of Algoma. It is a problem and has been a problem. I'm not sure that faxing for warrants is necessarily going to be the answer.

Hon Mr Harnick: I'm concerned about that. As a result of a conversion process begun under the last government, we have now taken a look and are evaluating the results of that conversion process. In some locations the results have been very good; in some they haven't been very good. We're taking a look at where the system needs more justices of the peace and where we are having some pressures. I have heard that the Elliott Lake area has been a problem, and I understand there has been a sharing with a couple neighbouring jurisdictions of justice of the peace services.

The other thing we're taking a look at is the idea of the telewarrant service, which I believe is going into effect right about now or within days -- September 15. I think that will relieve a lot of the pressure so we can then make a final determination of where there are weaknesses in the system so we can provide more justices of the peace. We'll do that with the Elliott Lake area; I've got a number of other areas that we're having some problems in. We're going to take a look at how those areas are impacted by telewarrants, to then determine how great the pressures will still be so we can then decide where we want to make appointments for justice of the peace services. I understand your concern and we are looking at it.

Mr Michael Brown: I'm not a lawyer -- I'll say that up front, waiting for the next lawyer to speak to you, but I'm a little concerned with these telewarrants. Obviously, the reason for warrants is to protect people from what might be intrusion by the state. Generally speaking, when a police officer is seeking a warrant he has to come before a justice of the peace and explain why he has reasonable belief that this may be necessary. The justice of the peace then decides yes or no. I'm just wondering how a telewarrant does that. The police officer is not present directly in front of the justice of the peace. Are you concerned about the quality of the judgement of the justice of the peace because he doesn't have the officer directly in front of him or her to make a judgement, that our protection as citizens of this great province and country may be impaired by that?

1640

Hon Mr Harnick: The assistant deputy minister responsible for criminal law is here, and he can tell you exactly how the system will work. My understanding is that affidavits will be before the justice of the peace. The affidavit will be a sworn document so that the same material will be in front of the justice of the peace as otherwise would be. Maybe if Graham Reynolds could --

The Vice-Chair: Could you put your name on the record, please.

Mr Graham Reynolds: My name is Graham Reynolds and I'm the assistant deputy attorney general in the criminal law division.

To answer the member's question, I would certainly agree with the minister that in no way is the decision-making capacity of the justice of the peace affected by the new procedures. The Criminal Code was recently amended to allow the electronic transmission of these kinds of documents so they can get into the hands of the JP without the actual physical presence of the officer.

However, the nature of the decision to be made by the justice of the peace remains exactly the same. I think the citizens of Ontario can be assured, as are the rest of the citizens of Canada, that the actual decision-making ability of the JP is not impaired by not having the officer physically present. The nature of the process is exactly the same. The only difference is the amendment which permits the electronic transmission of materials.

The Vice-Chair: Thanks, Graham, and thanks, Mr Brown. You can follow up in your next round.

We'll now turn to the third party. Mr Kormos, you have half an hour.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): There are so many areas here, but one response of the Attorney General that interested me was to Mr Cleary when Mr Cleary was putting to the Attorney General whether it was the preponderance of lawyers who were creating problems in the young offender system. The Attorney General responded that he didn't want to be associated with that suggestion. I wrote the words down, part of the Attorney General's response, "in many cases entitled to legal representation."

The Attorney General was referring, of course, to people who were arrested for young offender offences. That was in response to Mr Cleary's suggestion that maybe it was the lawyers getting these people off. Is that what the Attorney General recalls having said?

Hon Mr Harnick: I'm not 100% sure I understood Mr Cleary's question. I think anyone who is charged with an offence is entitled to be represented and should be represented. Sometimes that is impossible while other times it may not be. Legal aid provides representation for those who need it. Legal aid is run, as you're aware, by the law society, who prioritize cases and determine when legal representation should be provided. That's something the law society decides in terms of the way they run the legal aid plan.

Mr Kormos: I'm confident that the Attorney General accepts the proposition that every person arrested or detained has the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay.

Hon Mr Harnick: I agree with that 100%.

Mr Kormos: Every single young offender ever arrested or detained has that right.

Hon Mr Harnick: I wasn't sure what Mr Cleary's question was related to, so I apologize if my answer was not clear about that, but I don't disagree with you, Mr Kormos.

Mr Kormos: The Attorney General also expressed concern from this government's point of view about the technical requirements preventing realistic prosecutions on the merits of young offenders vis-à-vis the standard required in the courts of obtaining statements. Perhaps the Attorney General could be more specific about that.

Hon Mr Harnick: While I don't have the legislation in front of me, police officers and other legal observers have noted that the technical requirements of taking a statement from a young offender are very onerous. Again, Graham Reynolds is here and he may want to comment on that, but it is an area that has been looked at in terms of reform of the Young Offenders Act. It has been expressed by peace officers how difficult it is to take a statement and comply with all the technical requirements at times when to miss some of those technicalities is not prejudicial to a young offender. Nevertheless, cases are not proceeding on the merits because of that. The assistant deputy minister might be able to give you some of the requirements that appear in that act.

Mr Kormos: I can understand how, early in the game, if you will, of the Young Offenders Act police were uncertain as to what particular provisions meant and what the application involved. There were numerous decisions that flowed in the early years of the Young Offenders Act.

My experience with police officers in the province is that they understand full well the requirements. There's no longer ambiguity. I'm wondering if the Attorney General would comment on whether the obligation to inform the young offender of their right to retain and instruct counsel without delay is one of the technicalities.

Hon Mr Harnick: No, I don't think that is one of the areas, but there are a number of other technical requirements. I don't have the act in front of me, so I can't go through them step by step.

Mr Kormos: I'll put to the Attorney General, is it the obligation to advise the young offender that he or she has the right to have a parent or other adult present? Is that the type of thing?

Hon Mr Harnick: I'm not sure of that. But again, the assistant deputy minister is here, so he can advise you of some of those technical requirements.

Mr Kormos: You will in a minute.

I don't think anybody here disputes the need to have debate about the adequacy or inadequacy of the Young Offenders Act. But I think some people are concerned about the nurturing of mythology to bolster a particular point of view. The Attorney General speaks of the prosecutions having been prevented as a result of this difficulty in obtaining statements from young offenders. Anecdotally, I understand that was the case early on, when people in the system didn't have judicial interpretation of the act. Could he give us some idea about the number or percentage of cases that have been inhibited by virtue of prosecution as a result of the failure to comply with the standards required for the taking of a statement?

Hon Mr Harnick: No.

Mr Kormos: How can you speak of there having been a prevention of realistic prosecution on the merits as a result of those standards? Are you speaking of that merely anecdotally?

Hon Mr Harnick: It has been expressed; it has been the subject of significant study and discussion at federal-provincial meetings. I know there have been federal-provincial working groups at the bureaucratic level that have looked at it, have made those recommendations and have asked for some of those changes to be made.

Mr Kormos: The Attorney General speaks of there having been prosecutions that were prevented as a result of the statement-taking requirements. Has he then had expressed to him some data concerning the number that were involved?

Hon Mr Harnick: At one time I assume I have been, but I don't know the numbers, and I don't know whether it's going up or going down, so I can't tell you.

Mr Kormos: You also speak of young offenders getting discharges and then being sent off and left with the impression that the system is easy to beat.

Hon Mr Harnick: No, I didn't say that.

Mr Kormos: No, I said that. Are you suggesting that our provincial judges are inappropriately giving discharges?

Hon Mr Harnick: No, I didn't say that either, Mr Kormos.

Mr Kormos: That's why I asked you the question. Are you suggesting that the discharges that are being given are contrary to the Young Offenders Act?

Hon Mr Harnick: No, I didn't say that. I said I believe in a great many very minor cases judges are giving discharges because that's what they have in front of them that they're able to give that is realistic in the circumstance. What we have to do as an administration of justice is what they've done in some of the other provinces, where they've set up youth justice committees that become responsible for implementing sentences that are more community-based. We haven't done that in Ontario. I think we should be taking a look at it, and indeed we will be. We have to take a look at the range of those alternatives and make them available to our judiciary so they have a wider discretion in the kinds of remedial justice opportunities. That's something other provinces have done. I know they've done it in Manitoba and Alberta very successfully.

1650

Mr Kormos: What part of the powers given to a judge to impose a term of probation under the Young Offenders Act would prevent that judge from imposing the types of conditions you speak of: an apology to the victim, community work?

Hon Mr Harnick: We don't have the array of programs to provide community work or those kinds of diversion programs, so a judge is limited. Probation is not always the best way to deal with those kinds of restorative justice options. We've had a system of probation in Ontario from time immemorial, but I don't think some of the innovative opportunities that have been taken in other provinces have been taken here. To do that would be in line with greater restorative justice opportunities.

Mr Kormos: This has nothing to do with the Young Offenders Act, but it has everything to do with the province providing the resources to enable these alternative modes of disposition to be engaged in.

Hon Mr Harnick: It also means taking a look at the existing resources and maybe finding further resources. But as it's now constituted, my understanding is that the federal government is going to reduce the moneys they contribute towards the corrections side of young offenders, and that makes it more difficult to deal with looking at new restorative justice opportunities.

Mr Kormos: You also spoke -- and I don't dispute this -- about a belief among Ontarians that crime has increased. That was in the early part of your comments. I agree with you; my sense is, there is a belief that crime has risen. You were very careful in expressing it that way. Do your data demonstrate an increase in crime?

Hon Mr Harnick: No, the data indicate that in the last few years there has been a decrease in crime. What concerns us is that people don't notice that. I don't know whether it's because the reporting of crime issues is better today, maybe there's a greater emphasis on reporting that, but as I indicated, people's perception is quite the contrary.

Mr Kormos: And people's perception doesn't jibe with the hard data you have available to you.

Hon Mr Harnick: There has been a slight reduction in crime, as I understand it, over the last several years.

Mr Kormos: As compared to the popular belief that there's been an increase.

Hon Mr Harnick: I think that's correct.

Mr Kormos: You prefaced your statement by expressing an observation about the belief in the increase in crime and your proposals being a response to that. Rather than responding to the myth, why wouldn't your ministry attempt to dispel the myth that crime has risen?

Hon Mr Harnick: We're trying to do that. One of the ways we're doing that is by trying to take a look at reducing backlogs, because that gives people the impression that we have a justice system that can't keep up with the demand. We're implementing better procedures to do that. As you're aware, we've made the funding for the investment strategy a permanent part of our budget. We're taking a look at a phase 2 of the Martin criminal justice review. All that, at least from the point of view of the Attorney General's ministry, is being done to streamline the justice system and make it operate in a more efficient way, not to jeopardize prosecutions.

Mr Kormos: You spoke of creating the modern, accessible, effective system that Ontario needs. You also said, and I recorded this as you said it, you're "frustrated with the inaccessibility of the civil justice system." How, then, do your new fees in the Small Claims Court system jibe with your desire for a more accessible system?

Hon Mr Harnick: About 70% of the users of the Small Claims Court system are institutional users who use the court as a facility to enhance debt collection. Those include to a very large degree banks, collection agencies, those kinds of institutional businesses. What we have done is taken a look at implementing a higher level of fees for multiple users of the system.

In addition, we've taken a look at some increases for users of the system who are not multiple users, so fees could be brought into line with ensuring that the government is not subsidizing a court system for institutional users of that system and so the court operates in a way that covers its costs without needing to be subsidized. We've taken a look at that; we've taken a look at a number of options in terms of ensuring that our Small Claims Court remains a viable institution. I have determined that the traditional availability of Small Claims Court as it's now constituted is important to the public. We looked at alternatives that would have radically changed the nature of the court.

Mr Kormos: I don't like banks either, and I hear -- was it 70%?

Hon Mr Harnick: No, Mr Kormos, I didn't say I didn't like banks. I said very carefully that I don't think the province should be subsidizing multiple institutional users of the court.

Mr Kormos: You spoke of some 70% -- I hope that was the number -- who are institutional plaintiffs, people using the Small Claims Court system to collect moneys and debts. Was 70% the number?

Hon Mr Harnick: That's it, yes.

Mr Kormos: You're obviously addressing the frequent-user fee, the little surcharge for people who use a Small Claims Court more than 10 times a year.

Hon Mr Harnick: Yes.

Mr Kormos: But is anything you've said a justification for a brand-new fee of $25 for the poor defendant who wants to defend an allegation made against him in Small Claims Court?

Hon Mr Harnick: If the plaintiff has to pay to initiate a claim, why can't the defendant pay if he wishes to defend, particularly in a system where a judge at the end has discretion to order costs that might reimburse a defendant who was improperly brought into an action? That's the beauty of our system. We have a costs system. The person who really loses the action bears the costs. In our Small Claims Court, that is very much confined to disbursement costs.

Mr Kormos: You have no concern about a $25 fee for filing a statement of defence inhibiting the ability of impecunious people to defend themselves against unwarranted claims?

Hon Mr Harnick: We have not seen an indication that this will inhibit people. We will watch that very closely because we have changed the system. We believe the issue of costs is the great equalizer in terms of reimbursing someone who shouldn't have been brought into the system. But again, we will look at that very carefully.

Mr Kormos: We're not talking about increasing a fee here, we're talking about a brand-new fee that never before existed in the Small Claims Court system. Are you suggesting the historical absence of a fee to file a statement of defence was an injustice for defendants in the past?

Hon Mr Harnick: What I can tell you is that the vast majority of cases, particularly collection cases, involve a default judgement. That's very much the case even where there was no fee. That's been the experience within the Small Claims Court. Again, I appreciate what you've indicated. We will watch that very closely. It has not been the case in the General Division that disbursements have been something that prevents access to justice.

1700

Mr Kormos: Except one of the rationales for Small Claims Court is that it's a people's court. It's designed to be utilized by people without involving high-priced Toronto lawyers.

Hon Mr Harnick: I agree with you. I don't think the changes to disbursements are in any way going to mean that a party in a Small Claims Court is going to need high-priced counsel.

Mr Kormos: Are you suggesting that a Small Claims Court judge has an inherent jurisdiction to hear an application from a defendant for leave to file a statement of defence without paying a $25 fee?

Hon Mr Harnick: That may be the case. I don't know the answer to that.

Mr Kormos: Would you encourage impecunious defendants to appear before Small Claims Court judges seeking leave to file a defence without paying a fee, in view of what you've said about the scenario?

Hon Mr Harnick: Certainly, if there is a problem with access to justice in those cases, that is something that maybe should happen.

Mr Kormos: I understand that you can't direct the hand of judges, nor would you want to. Would you encourage Small Claims Court judges to accept the inherent jurisdiction they have to hear such an application?

Hon Mr Harnick: My understanding of the Small Claims Court is that it's a court of equity. That would be a remedy that would be available. But judges don't need encouragement from me, nor should they have it.

Mr Kormos: You say you're seeking longer sentences for given crimes, in your discussions with the federal government.

Hon Mr Harnick: No. I think what I said is we've set up among crown attorneys a review of sentencing procedures to ensure that appropriate sentences are being sought for different convictions under the Criminal Code. If I've said anything other than that, I want that to correct the record.

Mr Kormos: Perhaps you'd take a look at your written notes, because you spoke of that in the context of the reform package of amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada, facilitating longer sentences for given crimes.

Hon Mr Harnick: If that's the conclusion that a committee of practising crown attorneys came to, it would be something that would be brought to the attention of the Minister of Justice so that changes could be made.

Mr Kormos: I may have misinterpreted it when you said it, because of course, like Mr Cleary, I was just listening to you; we didn't have your notes. You talk about reducing procedural delays in criminal prosecution and seeking Criminal Code amendments in that regard. Exactly what kinds of things are you talking about?

Hon Mr Harnick: Mr Reynolds is here, but certainly we know that as the process now exists -- and you would probably know this better than I, because you were once a criminal lawyer -- there are a number of appearances that have to be made by an accused person, particularly if that accused person is incarcerated. We are taking a look at modern technology to allow video remands and some of these electronic means to provide someone with the ability to make their appearance at the least cost and inconvenience but yet have that opportunity in a more modern way.

Mr Kormos: What does that have to do with reducing the delay, however?

Hon Mr Harnick: In Scarborough we took a look at how crown procedures were delaying the process. The crown attorney in Scarborough made some significant changes to the process he follows so that the number of appearances by an individual has been reduced and disclosure to an accused has been enhanced. As a result of some of those internal procedural changes, we are now getting accused people a trial date faster than we were able to before.

Mr Kormos: I understand that disclosure was enhanced as a result of an Ontario Court of Appeal decision.

Hon Mr Harnick: Our ability to work with police officers, for instance, to ensure that we get disclosure on an even faster basis provides us with an opportunity to streamline the system. For instance, in Newmarket, where changes have been made, we were giving out trial dates at the beginning of the blitz process that were 10 months away. We weren't complying with the Askov rule of eight months. Today we're giving trial dates in Newmarket within two months of an appearance, because we've been able to reduce the number of times a person has to come to court. We've been able to provide faster disclosure by working with police, thus streamlining the system.

Mr Kormos: How many crown attorneys are employed in the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Harnick: I think we now have 500 and some crown attorneys, and we've enhanced the numbers over the last year by about 10. I think that's the number we now have.

Mr Kormos: I have no idea what the previous numbers were. How does that compare to, let's say, the last 10 years?

Hon Mr Harnick: I suspect those numbers are up over the last 10 years. Certainly they're up over the last year. They're up over the number of crown attorneys there were when I became the Attorney General.

Mr Kormos: I don't think that would be hard data to determine. Perhaps we could have a profile of the number of crown attorneys for, I'd say the last 10 years would be an interesting observation.

Ms Andromache Karakatsanis: Certainly, we could obtain that.

Mr Kormos: How many of these crown attorneys are mere contract employees?

Hon Mr Harnick: I'm glad you asked that question, because we are in the --

Mr Kormos: You and I had spoken before and you asked me to ask you. I'm sure people around here will believe that.

Hon Mr Harnick: We are now embarked on a process of converting contract crown attorneys to becoming full-time crown attorneys, with the benefits package that comes with that. One of the things that happened when your government began to deal with the Askov issue was that they went out and hired a significant number of crown attorneys to deal with the backlog and to deal with the Askov crisis. They hired those crown attorneys on contract and left them on contract for several years.

I have had the opportunity to review and understand the work those crown attorneys do. Initially, they were brought in to prosecute minor cases, to free up more senior crowns to be engaged in the screening process. That was the initial work they were doing, but after a few years in the system these crown attorneys have obviously graduated to doing much more complex work. I didn't think it was right that they be left indefinitely as contract crowns, so we are now taking steps within the criminal division to transfer a number of them to full-time assistant crown attorney status.

Mr Kormos: How many are contract right now, of the 500-plus?

Hon Mr Harnick: I'm guessing. I think it's around 35 or 45 who would be eligible for the transfer. I could be out in that number, but I think --

Mr Kormos: The increase by 10 that you speak of, that you indicate is as a result of your hiring, were these contract crown attorneys that you hired?

Hon Mr Harnick: They probably were, because it would be --

Mr Kormos: Wait a minute, your staff --

Hon Mr Harnick: No, I think Graham Reynolds is nodding affirmatively.

Mr Kormos: Your staff beside you is shaking her head.

Ms Karakatsanis: I was trying to determine if it was a nod or a shake.

Mr Kormos: In some parts of the world, in some ethnicities, in some language cultures, this means yes and that means no.

Ms Karakatsanis: In the Greek culture, Mr Kormos.

The Vice-Chair: Continue, Mr Kormos. You have another two minutes.

Mr Kormos: What was it, and in which language?

Hon Mr Harnick: Do you want me to answer the question? The answer is that they would be hired on contract because I think it would be inappropriate to provide assistant crown attorney status on a full-time basis or a non-contract basis while we have contract crowns.

1710

Mr Kormos: Are people being taken off contract and on to assistant crown attorney status by virtue of seniority?

Hon Mr Harnick: That is presently being worked out, so I can't answer that question.

Mr Kormos: The Ontario Crown Attorneys Association has been consulted and is being dealt with in this area?

Hon Mr Harnick: We are working with Sarah Welch, who is the president of the crown attorneys association. They are very pleased that we're taking this step. We are working with them in determining how we want to do it so it can be properly effected, hopefully as soon as possible.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos.

Mr Kormos: Thank you, Chair, until tomorrow.

The Vice-Chair: Attorney General, you have the right of reply. You have 18 minutes left. You can do one of two things, with unanimous consent. You can use the 18 minutes to make a statement, for which you don't need unanimous consent, but if you want to entertain questions from the government members, then we need unanimous consent. What would you like to do?

Hon Mr Harnick: If I don't wish to do anything, do we all get to go home?

The Vice-Chair: No, that's not one of the choices.

Hon Mr Harnick: I'd be delighted if my colleagues want to ask some questions.

The Vice-Chair: Do we have all-party agreement? Agreed.

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): Thank you, Minister, for coming today. I'd like to ask you what the government's doing regarding court-ordered custody agreements. I hope my terminology is correct on some of these. I've heard from numerous constituents that there are some terrible situations out there where these agreements are blatantly being ignored and the police in most cases, as I understand it, are reluctant to get involved. The frustration as a result of that leads to violence in a lot of cases. In the end, the real losers are the kids. What is the government doing to rectify these situations?

Hon Mr Harnick: We're obviously well aware of that. We're taking a look at what kinds of alternatives may be available to us. The former Liberal government had a bill that was supposedly designed to deal with that. It received three readings and was passed; it has never been proclaimed because of the public feeling in opposition to that bill. We're taking a look at the history of that particular debate.

We also are aware that the federal government, as a result of the passage of their federal child support guidelines, is implementing a study to deal with some of the issues surrounding custody and non-compliance with custody orders. We've indicated to the federal government that we want to be part of that study, participate in it and see if there are any solutions that can come of that.

I am looking to bring together people within the Ontario experience who can take a look at this issue, because it is a big problem and, as you say, the losers are children. It concerns us a great deal that these situations often lead to violence. I'm very concerned about these kinds of things, and unfortunately there are no simple solutions.

Mr Pettit: You mentioned the YOA and various recommendations you've made to your federal counterparts. There are a lot of people in my riding, and based on the feedback I get, virtually the entire riding or the majority of the populace want to see stronger penalties for youth and want to see an earlier eligibility age for adult court. What response have you had from Ottawa to your recommendations?

Hon Mr Harnick: The previous minister made some changes to the Young Offenders Act. They involved reversing the onus of adult versus youth court. The minister didn't go beyond that, which disappointed both me and the Solicitor General a great deal. The new minister recently, at the Canadian Bar Association meeting in Ottawa about two weeks ago, made her first public speech as minister, which indicated she wished to take a much harder line in terms of dealing with youth crime and young offenders. I hope she will take a look at some of the things we've been saying. I hope to be meeting with her very shortly and maybe get a sense of the direction she's moving in.

It's significant to know that although crime is reducing, the incidence of violent youth crime has increased in the last several years. Since 1986, as I referred to, the level of youth crime has increased dramatically. Even though in some areas there may be reductions, the numbers of people charged with youth crime are considerable. They're almost staggering. One of the problems we have in youth crime is that the system itself is not providing a level of deterrence. If we can't build into the system a level of deterrence, then I don't think we can change the direction those numbers are going in. That will be very important.

As I said to Mr Kormos, it's not just in the area of violent crime that we have to be building deterrence into the system. We have to be doing it in the area of minor crime as well, and providing more sentencing alternatives so that we can have at the level of the first offender, minor offender, a system of restorative justice as they've developed in Manitoba and as they've developed in Alberta, where youth justice committees who are members of the community deal with imposing and supervising the kinds of sentences that are necessary for young offenders who commit minor crime.

We have experimental projects now in Metropolitan Toronto in a high school where we're talking about a form of youth justice committee, a committee of peers who deal with some of the situations that exist. I think we have to seriously look at moving in that direction.

Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln): I have a couple questions, Minister. If you're getting the backlog in the criminal justice system under control and you're moving forward and making a lot of progress, why would you want to take these contract crowns off contract and start making them part of overhead?

Hon Mr Harnick: It's important to note a few things. We're still dealing with 600,000 charges that are coming before the provincial courts annually. It's a huge volume of work. By and large, when you take a look at those numbers, we do a pretty good job in dealing with it. I don't think there's any indication that those numbers are going to change dramatically over the next several years. I think it's important that crown attorneys who are doing very senior work receive the kind of job security one would expect in that situation.

It's also important to note that there has been a dramatic shift in the amount of work that stays within the provincial court today -- that's where the vast majority of crown attorneys are working -- because there have been significant changes to the Criminal Code, making offences that otherwise would have had to be heard in a higher court able to be heard in the lower court, the provincial court, causing a tremendous increase in the work there and a decrease by about 40% of indictments being referred to the general division. So there is now becoming a significant concentration of work in the provincial courts.

The other thing that's very important is that for the system to work properly, as I've indicated in the speech, we spend now a considerable amount of money at the front end of the system, ensuring that disclosure is made quickly, ensuring that guilty pleas can be obtained by making disclosure at an earlier stage, by reducing the number of trials that take place in the system. I think we're now up to about 73% of cases being resolved early.

When cases are going through the system, we need significant manpower and womanpower to deal with screening of cases so the issues can be narrowed and we don't spend a lot of time arguing about issues that can be admitted. It's very important to be able to do that and streamline the system.

When the Askov crisis occurred, none of this front-end expenditure was taking place. These were all expenditures that were recommended in the Martin report so we could deal with the volume of cases that come through our court system appropriately. I don't believe, although I suspect there are some who might disagree with me, that we can be taking a look at any significant reduction in the number of crown attorneys in the system for a long time, if ever.

1720

Mr Sheehan: Is there any difference in the performance of a contract crown as opposed to one who's on staff?

Hon Mr Harnick: As the contract crowns became more senior, the answer to that is no. In fact, contract crowns are routinely doing murder cases, complicated sexual assault cases; sometimes they're dealing with complicated cases involving white-collar crime. I think it's appropriate to make the transition to assistant crown attorney status. I believe very strongly in that. In fact, we are working, as I indicated to Mr Kormos, with the crown attorneys association to find a way to do that but also to maintain a level of flexibility within the system to meet the concerns you have and as well to understand that there has to be a level of merit associated with these transitions.

Mr Sheehan: Is it your intention to bring in new crowns on a contract basis and let them kind of earn their spurs? I get concerned that you're institutionalizing an institution that I as a layman think is long overdue in looking at its practices and the way it employs people and the way it assesses their value and their performance. I think once you give these people permanent status as an employee, you're losing that, because it's a hell of a lot harder to can somebody than it is to just not renew a contract. I'm really curious about why you would not take this opportunity to continue looking at a new way of doing things.

Hon Mr Harnick: We're working with the crown attorneys association to develop that methodology, and we want that level of flexibility. Any crowns coming into the system in the last number of years have entered the system, except in probably very unusual circumstances, as contract crown attorneys who earn their spurs. The level of the work they're doing is indicative of whether they have earned their spurs or not.

Mr Sheehan: I'm more concerned about the taxpayer. I'm not really concerned about the sensitivities of the judicial system. I'd like to know what you're doing to protect the taxpayers from further locking in of these entitlements.

Hon Mr Harnick: People are hired on the basis of merit. The conversion to assistant crown attorney status is based on merit. Our pay structure at the lower levels does not change drastically and one has to work one's way up through the system. A crown who starts on a contract basis or even at the bottom end of being an assistant crown has a salary of around $50,000, which is more than within reason of what lawyers earn in the private sector.

Mr Sheehan: Another way of looking at it is, what processes are in place for evaluating performances of crowns and how often are they applied and how often -- you've got a time problem.

Hon Mr Harnick: Can I let Graham Reynolds answer? They're involved in a process of evaluation that you should hear about.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Reynolds, welcome back. Your time is extremely limited.

Mr Reynolds: I'll be quick if I can. Just to answer the member, the criminal law division has a system of performance appraisal in each individual office, in which the crown attorneys examine the performance of their assistant crowns and their contract crowns routinely. They are measured against certain performance objectives that we want to achieve. I won't say it's uniformly applied in all offices, but we are working towards making sure there will be uniform application of those standards throughout the system.

Something I can say to perhaps supplement what the minister said is that when the division got the approval to have the investment strategy funding made permanent in its budget, there was a recognition that what the criminal law division had been doing as a part of this investment strategy was now a permanent part of its business, in that if you took away the crowns who were doing this investment strategy work, the contract work, we would lose a very valuable part of the activities of my division in terms of getting cases out of the criminal justice system that should be out of the system in terms of taking them and resolving them before they get to trial, and to help this government achieve management of the judicial resources and the court resources to concentrate on serious matters. There was a recognition that not only are the contract crowns performing a valuable service, but this is a permanent part of the ministry's business and it really does assist the government in its objectives.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Reynolds and Mr Attorney General.

Two things before we adjourn. I believe tomorrow the Attorney General will table a copy of his remarks for each member, and second, a profile of the number of crown attorneys during the last 10 years, along with the number who are on contract and who are on a permanent basis. I think that was agreed upon.

Lastly, before we adjourn I'd just like to thank the Legislative Assembly staff -- Rosemarie Singh, the committee clerk; Alison Drummond, the research officer; and Beth Grahame, from Hansard -- for their excellent work. Thank you all for your involvement. This meeting is adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1729.