CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD
CONTENTS
Tuesday 8 June 1993
Victims of crime
Ernest Tannis
Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
Wendy Calder, chair
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
*Chair / Président: Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)
*Akande, Zanana L. (St Andrew-St Patrick ND)
Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West/-Ouest L)
*Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)
*Duignan, Noel (Halton North/-Nord ND)
Harnick, Charles (Willowdale PC)
*Malkowski, Gary (York East/-Est ND)
*Mills, Gordon (Durham East/-Est ND)
*Murphy, Tim (St George-St David L)
Tilson, David (Dufferin-Peel PC)
*Winninger, David (London South/-Sud ND)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present/ Membres remplaçants présents:
Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands/Kingston et Les Îles ND) for Mr Malkowski
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South/-Sud PC)
Clerk / Greffière: Freedman, Lisa
Staff / Personnel: McNaught, Andrew, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1545 in committee room 2.
VICTIMS OF CRIME
Consideration of the designated matter pursuant to standing order 125, relating to victims of crime.
ERNEST TANNIS
The Chair (Mr Rosario Marchese): I call the meeting to order. I'd like to welcome Mr Tannis. Mr Tannis, we have half an hour. We usually leave 10 or 15 minutes at the end to allow members to ask some questions, okay? You can go ahead.
Mr Ernest Tannis: I would like to thank Mr Jackson and Mr Chiarelli, who I think were instrumental in inviting me here today.
Three years ago, I had the honour of being a public witness to the same committee on alternative dispute resolution when someone asked me, "Why is Ernie, the attorney, leaving his law practice in Ottawa to come to Toronto?" I remember that session and I remember how much I enjoyed it. I remember Mr McGuinty in particular, who shortly thereafter passed away. His comments in Hansard, which I got from his son's office today, really inspired me to continue to share the movement of alternative dispute resolution generally and in the province of Ontario.
I don't know if this is the Andy Warhol 15 minutes of fame that is going to happen in the next few minutes, but I do remember what Mr Nizer said, that if you can't strike oil in 15 minutes, stop boring. There's absolutely nothing boring about the topic of alternative dispute resolution. In fact, as I was saying to Mr Jackson just before the meeting, one thing I want to share with this committee in the next few minutes is the enthusiastic adoption of dispute resolution in criminal justice matters in the province of Ontario and elsewhere, some of which the committee members may be aware of.
I can also report to you that I've been on three international panels since that session three years ago, and it's with great pride that I talk about the efforts of the province of Ontario, which is becoming recognized in the western world as a leader in this field.
The three ways to approach this are to start out with an attitude that I come with, that's reflected in a well-known picture some of you may have seen that's been hanging in my office for 18 years. It's two farmers fighting over a cow. One farmer's pulling the head, the other farmer's pulling the tail, and right in the middle there are two lawyers milking it. I would say to my clients, if you want to litigate, be my guest.
What's exciting about dispute resolution at a grass-roots level is the understanding that in a criminal justice matter, it has equal application. What's even more exhilarating for this committee and for our province and for our society is that since this session three years ago, we now have in the province of Ontario some real, live applications of these things.
The literature from years ago, from Harvard University in the last 15 years, that predicted the value of alternative dispute resolution to improve the socioeconomic fabric of society is now taking shape. What I said in the committee meeting three years ago, and what I've learned from people who have studied social movements of the 20th century, is that just like we had to eventually build roads and highways for the vehicles which became accepted, it will take political leadership -- and hopefully, it is soon -- to start building the roads and highways for dispute resolution in our society.
I looked at this series of questions that the justice committee put forth to look at and, as a general framework, I was particularly interested in questions 3, 4 and 14. Perhaps question 14 could be the springboard for my brief comments: In the view of the witnesses, is there a balance between how the provincial justice system treats the victim of crime as opposed to the perpetrator of the crime? If not, how may a balance be established?
The first balance, in terms of the observations of people and the movement of our legislation and people's desire for justice, is to provide the balance of options for problem-solving approaches, one of them being, in the area of victims, VORP, victim-offender reconciliation programs. These programs are being used more widely throughout the continent and in Ontario. I can give some specific examples of their application in this province.
One book that's being handed out is this little pink book called A Tribute to Conflict Resolution Day of Ottawa-Carleton. You mentioned presenting a brief today, but I figured the last thing the world needs is another piece of paper from somebody. Instead of reinventing the wheel, I wanted to bring to this committee's attention an event that took place some years ago, in 1988, at the Canadian Government Conference Centre, thanks to Mr Ray Hnatyshyn, then Minister of Justice; this was the only non-government group to get the Canadian Government Conference Centre. We launched, with Woodroffe High School, Canada's first high school mediation program. When you look at this book -- as I understand social movements, it requires intellectual assent -- this was a litmus paper test that this is the urge of people throughout for these methods. Every level of government was represented.
One of the events that happened at Woodroffe High School which would be of particular interest to this committee, as an example, is that there was going to be a fight at Woodroffe High School. There were a number of students involved from two schools, about 40. There were police cars. There were going to be juvenile delinquents. There were going to be victims and offenders. There were going to be records. All 800 students knew there was going to be a fight, but fortunately Woodroffe had installed a mediation program and the students mediated their differences. That was the same week that Halifax had a problem which got national headlines about young people and the problems there.
The media did not report this event, and that used to frustrate me, but I realize that these things must be intelligent and long-lasting because they weren't being reported. But the young people said: "What is it about these things that don't get attention? Are they not important?"
What I suggest is that in this book -- and you'll see that at the time the government of Ontario was represented by two or three people, in addition to the national and local levels of government, with a declaration signed by all mayors -- is that there was a particular application of the mediation approaches in criminal justice being applied then, and it's now been growing since then.
A second example in terms of the balance is best evidenced in a program that's going on in Ottawa called the Dispute Resolution Centre of Ottawa-Carleton. At that session in 1990 before this committee, I reported that this program was getting off the ground. I am very pleased to report that the government of Ontario, in conjunction with the crown attorney and defence counsel, has been running that program now for two or three years.
There have been over 250 mediations done in the criminal justice system. As legislators, you would best know the value of these things, but it's hard to put a handle on things when you can't put money to it or you can't put a file number to it. But the literature in the field for 15 years has said to legislators that if you incorporate these concepts in legislation and provide these options to members of the public, you create conflict prevention attitudes and skills. The literature suggested that people who go through the mediation programs, including criminal justice, will be better equipped to deal with conflict in the future.
The evidence now in these reports is that eight out of 10 people, as I understand it, who went through the mediation program, with victims and offenders meeting in a mediation room with the support of counsel, would talk to each other again and said they would better handle conflict in the future. In cases that are clogging our court system, like assaults between two people in a traffic jam, they said they would handle it differently. These are things that I think the committee could look at, because the evidence is now coming in through these practical programs.
Another specific example which I'm very pleased to report on is the work of the Canadian Institute for Conflict Resolution. This year in three cities, Sault Ste Marie, Thunder Bay and Hamilton, the CICR, with the support of a ministry of the government of Ontario, is helping set up three community-based conflict resolution programs that bring in all the community.
I just spoke with Mr Raymond Leclair, with whom I'll be setting up a firm of solicitors this September which will have no litigation department. We'll work with outside litigators. Mr Leclair is a member of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services. He advised me that two weeks ago, at the National Conference of the 18th Symposium on Civilian Oversight Agencies, with representatives from the federal government, RCMP, Ontario, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Quebec and others, the theme -- he came to me and he said: "Ernie, I can't believe this, but I've been talking about this for years" -- the theme of that conference was conflict resolution as a necessary skill for police forces in this country.
In two weeks, the CICR is having a week-long set of courses, as a public service to our nation and to our province, and the seats are all filled. We will have there people from the commission in Ontario, police forces, police people, government agencies and community people, in terms of setting up these community-based conflict resolution programs.
I wonder in terms of dealing with the questions and the depth, the potential of these things, if this legislation that the committee is looking at could, as is similar legislation that's being adopted by the province of Ontario in many other areas, include a reference to alternative dispute resolution as an option. I think this government, with this Hansard report from 1990 and a number of other areas throughout the disciplines, and in particular in criminal justice, has enough studies and evidence before it to decide whether or not and how to include such a reference. I would highly recommend, if possible, that be the case.
I believe from the work that I've been exposed to, both in Ottawa-Carleton, Ontario and different parts of the world, that this is starting to capture the imagination of all peoples on a very grass-roots level and people are looking for the political leadership and legislative initiatives to start making this as part of our normal, everyday way of approaching things. The reduction of the human and economic costs for conflict could then be translated, I believe, into taxpayers' dollars being spent in more productive ways than they are now in terms of dealing with conflict.
Maybe as a closing comment -- which would make it almost exactly 15 minutes; I've learned from the last three years how to do these things -- I often wonder what urges a lot of us, including myself, to do these things. I spent two years in Akwesasne working in conflict resolution with the Mohawks, who set up a magnificent mediation program which has been reported in four or five international journals. I worked among 800 police officers from different jurisdictions and saw on the ground the value in real-life terms of these processes, and our province played an important role in that.
When you come out of those experiences and you see a healing and you see a dialogue going on and you see conflict prevention and you see people doing collaborative work, I think of a little boy who was delivering groceries, and when he finished delivering the groceries, he asked the person if he could call his boss. When he called his boss, he asked whether there was a job available for delivering groceries. The boss went on to say: "We don't need anybody. We already have somebody. He's doing a great job." He went on and on about that. When he got off the phone, the person said to the boy: "Why did you make that phone call? You have the job." The boy said, "I'm just checking up on myself."
I think that it's inspiring for me to be here to help check up on ourselves, that we take these few moments to do that. Mr Ivan Roy, who was the vice-principal of Woodroffe High School at the time of the mediation program, said he was a sceptic. He retired early to devote his life to this stuff. He goes across our nation and throughout the United States on these programs. He said that he's never seen, after 35 years, the course of students' lives change.
When I spoke with 110 native Indian educators in Quebec City, before I spoke, I saw a sign that said, "I hear a new generation coming." That new generation is calling for justice, which is the topic of this book, Justice...Is Just Us. What really urges me here today, which the native Indians teach -- because I have children and grandchildren -- is that we need to implement these things for our children and future generations. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Tannis. I have Mr Winninger on the list, so we'll begin questions with him.
Mr David Winninger (London South): Thank you for coming today, Mr Tannis. I certainly appreciate your support for alternative dispute resolution and, having read the report of the committee that was chaired by Mr Chiarelli, I see a lot of potential as well. I'm pleased that our government continues to support the Ottawa centre for dispute resolution and is also supporting the good work of the Canadian Institute for Conflict Resolution.
I'm reminded of a retired judge of the Supreme Court of Ontario who, by the way, was the judge who heard the LAC Minerals case and, if you'll recall that case, the evidence was voluminous. It had to be taken home every day in two cars, and the trial took, I think, probably close to a year. Well, he retired and he became, I guess, an arbitrator, and he said that had he heard that case as an arbitrator, it would have taken him two days to resolve.
I think there's a lot of hope for resolving issues that arise in a criminal context through ADR. I might add that this government continues to build on the work of those who have studied ADR. One of the most recent projects announced within the Ministry of the Attorney General was the Fram committee, which is looking into resolving disputes in the construction trade through alternative dispute resolution. I think that's a particularly apt context in which to measure its success.
1600
The Chair: I should point out we're also doing that in relation to the discussions with the OMB, where we're looking at alternative dispute mechanisms as well. Mr Tannis?
Mr Tannis: I wanted to thank you, Mr Winninger, for those joinder comments. They're very supportive. As my dean of law would have said, all these things hopefully at the end of the day are illuminating glimpses into the obvious.
You sparked me to remember something. Two or three weeks ago I had the privilege of being a keynote speaker at Sault Ste Marie with over 100 people who administer penitentiaries in Ontario, and I didn't know how it came out. I got a letter last week, it was a two-page letter and it was one of the most supportive letters back from people in this province in this system being very, very supportive of this thinking. So you sparked me to remember that experience.
The Chair: Any other questions from government members? Mr Curling.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I want to thank you for coming too, because you have somehow excited certain parts of my beliefs, in that justice should be done and it's not being really done, and if we can resolve it through the process as laid down.
You know, you said something that really drove it home to me. You said if we just could incorporate what people are saying into legislation -- and I'm paraphrasing what you were saying -- how effective it was. As soon as you said that, I was about to say, "Well, the enemy then would be lawyers," and I said, "No, I presume the enemy of all of this process would be those who are drawing up legal terms to make sure that people are protected."
In other words, the things that people are saying within our society that are happening to them and need to be addressed and to be resolved, by the time it gets into the courts and the legal phrases, it's not recognizable; therefore it starts all over again and they say, "That's not what I said."
This morning I was listening to the radio -- I think it was CFRB, which is not one of my customary places to listen -- and a very interesting native person was speaking -- no, I think it was the CBC -- and he said something like this: "In order to understand people, first we must know what they are saying, before we can disagree or agree. Then as soon as we understand what people are saying, we can even disagree." I thought it was rather simple that he said that, but it was rather profound too.
With this kind of diversity within our society that comes with different approaches to life or things that have impact on their lives, conflict resolution itself would have to have a lot more listening to understand what they are saying.
Here's my feeling about this, or a question to you: Do you feel that enough listening is being done in order to perceive, to understand what is being said, to proceed with conflict resolution, so we can perceive that? Are we on the right track? I heard a lot of praise around what we're doing, but not really being partisan, I'm just wondering if we are on the right track.
Mr Tannis: Thank you for that, Mr Curling. You made me think of a phrase that's being used philosophically worldwide in terms of the transformation of all disciplines, which is the humanization of processes. I think you're quite accurate in how, when processes belong to the professionals, it becomes dehumanizing. My feeling is that the professionals need to be humanized themselves.
I think also that your question is what I would call a bull's-eye question: It's right on target. If we had a VCR and we had two minutes, you would watch a tape that would send tingles down your spine about a young person who did the mediation. A fight was happening and he said: "I couldn't believe it. As soon as we learned how to listen, as soon as I said to the other person, `This is what you said,' and they said, `No, that's not what I said,' then everything got resolved." The conflict wasn't resolved; the conflict was dissolved. These young people saw that listening -- the philosopher Thoreau said, "It takes two to speak the truth: One to speak and one to listen." What's missing is the listening.
I'm helping some people who are doing mediation sessions with negotiators now, with native Indian claims, and it's just a matter of learning how to listen. I think these communications skills and these processes -- and you say it's simple, but it's empowering. You know that expression, "Why make things difficult, when with a little bit of effort we can make them impossible"? It's like, "How do we complicate things?" I think it's really important and as simple as that. It's listening skills.
If I could be so bold, as a citizen of this province, to go back to a comment I made three years ago when I think Mr Jackson and I were in dialogue in terms of being on the right track, I really believe Ontario is on the right track. I think my observation worldwide is that it is, but one thing I don't think it's doing enough is we've got to move from NIMBY -- not in my backyard -- to YIMBY -- yes, in my backyard.
I think it's got to start with the government. I think it's got to start with government departments. As persons privileged to do public service in this country, we made a list of recommendations three years ago. We all started with looking at our own house. I think it could start there, and there's lots there that can be done and built on.
Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Ernie, it's good to see you, good to see you in front of a committee and good to be in a committee with you in front of it.
Mr Tannis: Thank you very much.
Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): That's covered them all.
Mr Jackson: Yes, I think I've got them all covered.
I guess currently I must be the only member who's here today who participated in those rather lengthy public hearings and found them most enlightening. There was a whole section dealing with justice issues. I guess, Ernie, being familiar with your work -- and I know we don't always agree. I have concerns about family law mediation as it relates to the rights of children and their victimization, where there's even a hint of violence to the children or to one member of the family, to a spouse.
But putting that aside for the moment, there is a whole series of recommendations on ADR and its relationship to the justice system to reduce the amount of victimization in very much the mode that the minister, when she was before us, talked about -- prevention -- but also in an area where I'm trying to get this committee a little more focused -- restitution.
By virtue of the fact that there is a wide variance among provincial jurisdictions, that some provinces do a better job of, on a mutual agreement, bringing the criminal and the victim together and instead of taxpayers footing all the bill, we somehow allow our system to evolve in a fashion where restitution orders, criminal fine surcharges and these matters, put into a mediated form, opportunities for the victim to meet their assailant by agreement, to deal with the process of healing and expressing their anger and getting that part of the process not being denied to a victim, all of these things are part of the universe that you are currently operating in, in terms of reform and its application to justice.
I wonder if you could share with the committee a couple of examples of where those kinds of very focused reforms in our justice system might surface or where they have surfaced in other jurisdictions. It would be nice if they could surface some time here in Ontario soon.
Mr Tannis: I would be happy to do that. It's also a pleasure to be with you and this committee in a room, Mr Jackson.
Mr Jackson: You should tell them. We've known each other's families for 20 years, so we may as well get that on the record. We're good friends.
Mr Tannis: We're all one human family and obviously the only racism that should be acceptable is the human race.
The concept of restitution is one of the linchpin success stories of alternative dispute resolution. I can give you three examples. Mr Curling's comment also comes back to my mind in terms of answering your question, Mr Jackson, which is that Mr Daubney, when he was chairman of a justice committee for the federal government, did a report on this very topic -- it's referred to in the pink book -- when he was with Mr Hnatyshyn.
They found that part of restitution isn't always material. They found that in some of the mediation sessions between victim and offender, when the victims heard that the offender was listening to them and heard their pain, that was restitution. It does a lot. We've got to remember, there are a lot of value systems behind human conduct. These things, I think, need to be reintroduced. One of the things of restitution is just that. There are some remarkable stories about that and we can go on about that.
1610
Another is that there are a number of stories of, say, young people breaking windows or doing something. I've got cases that I'm looking at and I can't believe these cases are in the juvenile courts: theft, a babysitter stealing money and a kid breaking a sign.
As Mr Gordon Henderson, the lawyers' lawyer of Canada, said at this committee three years ago, these are not the things that should be in our system, but we've got some good examples of these young people sitting down and doing something to fix it up, a sense of accountability, a sense of citizenship, a sense of responsibility for your actions, not to learn how to play a game with a system about concepts of guilt or innocence.
That's another example of restitution that you're speaking to. It also speaks to a thought that Lord Waltraud said in 1927 in the House of Lords: that by the end of the century, if we don't get to the concept of obedience of the unenforceable, we're not going to have a system that works, and I think that these processes allow people to share those experiences.
A third aspect of restitution is what you were speaking to, and there are cases like this with the dispute resolution centre and many, many others, where the parties by agreement come to a financial settlement or something about damage and the courts don't have to be bothered with that. One of the features of the parties coming to the agreement themselves is compliance. They actually fulfil it. They keep their word. One of the big burdens on the courts is not just the judgements but the enforceability of judgements.
I think we have to look at the whole process, the post-judgement process. The enforceability of agreements arrived at by the parties' mutual consent, through restitution and an ADR process, I think, Mr Jackson, is a linchpin of the thinking.
Mr Jackson: Thank you very much, Mr Tannis. I'm content with getting those issues on the record. Hopefully, our report will address that, and if you have some additional information, you can make that available to our researcher by way of examples for our report; it would be very helpful to us. I appreciate your presence today and your contribution. Thank you, Ernie. Say hi to your mom and brother for me.
Mr Tannis: I will.
Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I'd just like to have a quick word. I'd like to thank you for coming here today too and I've been listening to you. I looked at this book. I spent nearly seven months of my life in Cyprus with the United Nations, so I can talk to conflict resolution on a firsthand basis, day to day, faced with conflict of many sorts: people getting to work, working things through, damage to property and resolving that. So I have a lot of empathy with what you're saying and I know it works, and I'd just like to put on the record my support for conflict resolution. Having had that experience in another country with different people who have religious -- the Turks and the Greeks are entirely different people and it was a challenge, to say the least.
But at the end of the day when you went home, and you were able to stop people from killing themselves, actually, and to resolve it, it gave you a happy feeling.
I was in the police force over there and I can remember that we had this conflict between the Turkish and the Greek police. At the end of my term -- I was in charge of a detachment over there -- I was able to organize a party, albeit that they came after dark, but they came there to enjoy one another. They wouldn't have probably come to this house where we lived in the daylight, but the fact that they came after dark was a real indication of how conflict resolution can work.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Mills.
Mr Tannis, thank you for the book and thank you for the presentation; it was very useful.
Mr Tannis: Thank you. Thank you, Mr Mills. Thank you to the committee.
CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD
The Chair: Do we have Wendy Calder here? Welcome, Wendy. You've seen the process and how it works. Please begin at any time you'd like.
Mrs Wendy Calder: Yes, thank you, Mr Chairman. I understand very well how it works. I'm very pleased that you have asked me to appear before this standing committee on justice to speak about something that I know fairly well, which is the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.
As you know, there have been many criticisms of the board in the past. We are not immune to those criticisms.
The board is a quasi-judicial, administrative tribunal composed of one full-time chair, which is myself, one part-time vice-chair and 14 part-time members, and an administrative staff of 32 people who administer the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act. This act came into being originally to look after the good Samaritan, the person who went to help the police officer. Over the years, it has broadened into being an act that compensates victims of violent crime under the Criminal Code.
Recently, the board has undergone several policy and administrative changes to improve the needs of victims in the province. We still have a long way to go, but, for example, the board now considers claims which are extensions from applicants for incidents of sexual assault, child abuse and domestic assault which occurred prior to 1968, before the act was in place. These victims no longer face time limitations in filling applications before the board.
The board has also changed its policy in response to victims who need immediate counselling prior to their case being heard. We have found that one of the good news items that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board provides for is counselling to very damaged victims. Even though our limit is $25,000 under the act, we still like to pay for counselling. By that, we may be able to do some good for the applicants and not need as large a pain and suffering award. So we are now looking at all people or victims who request counselling, and we consider the granting of interim awards for these counselling services for disempowered victims such as women, children and the elderly.
We had a reorganizational study done of the board by a member of our ministry, which was a little cheaper than getting in a consultant, because our board has always been constrained by direct operating expenses being fairly low and having a lot of problems caused by that. However, this year, we did have a little influx of money, thank goodness.
As a result of the reorganization of the board, a client services unit has been established. This is to provide a better service to victims. For example, client services staff now respond to all telephone inquiries within 24 hours and all applications received by the board are mailed a written acknowledgement within two business days. These are just two examples of customer service standards in place at the board which we hope are designed to enhance the communication between the victim and the board.
The board is currently reviewing and streamlining all processes and procedures with a view to enhancing operational efficiency and effectiveness. The board is also investing in technology to improve its existing case management system and to provide even better service to claimants and people who are interested in our board, including an improved board scheduling system for hearings.
Something that I understand from being here the other day is very important to a lot of people is that we need to improve the production of key statistical reports. As some people know, when you phone our board to get statistics, we have been very negligent in the past, because all the statistics that we seem to be able to have kept in the past were the type of injury and the percentage of those injuries. So with our new case management system, we hope to have far more statistics to be able to provide to people interested in our board.
1620
We are also working with the ministry's research branch to develop a series of workload indicators which will enable the board to better estimate its workload and improve its overall case flow management. My sense from board members, administrative staff and, most importantly, applicants is that the average length of time now spent processing an application at the board has decreased.
This does not mean that we do not have a backlog of cases waiting to be heard. That means that all the documentation is there, but we have not been able to hear these cases. That is for a couple of reasons, and I am working on that backlog at the moment. But the reason that backlog came about was that about two years ago we had to stop having hearings in February, because we did not have enough money to pay for per diems for board members and we did not have enough money in transfer payments to pay the victims. That has ceased. We now have enough money, but that created a backlog, along with not having enough board members. I now have five new board members. They will take about six months to train. We are working on that backlog.
One of the reasons that the time to process an application has decreased is partly due to the fact that the board has held more documentary hearings as opposed to oral hearings over the last few years, and also as a result of trying to improve administrative efficiency at the board.
All of these initiatives, along with the appointment of the five new board members, will assist us in expediting cases which are waiting to be heard.
At the board we deal with horrific cases, sad stories of what has happened to victims in our society. You could not sit in some of our oral hearings without coming away feeling that you want to do more for these people, for victims. I know this committee is hearing from a lot of different organizations how to improve the system. One of the areas we have always suggested to our ministry to enhance victim services would be to provide more money, which could only be done through collecting a surtax on provincial fines or something along that line.
I wanted to read you a letter, because at our oral hearings our board members are taught that it is very important to be compassionate and to understand each victim who comes before us. That can be anything, a cut on the face in a bar-room brawl that was not the person's fault who's come before our board; it can be a victim of incest; it can be a victim of sexual assault -- which, by the way, we are seeing more and more of. Our case load, from the extensions that are coming in, suggest that 90% of our cases are soon going to be all sexual assault, incest and institutional abuse. We have a special unit of two of the very most experienced board members working on the St John's and St Alfred's institutional abuse, in conjunction with the project manager. We have five people working solely on institutional abuse at the moment, as per the model agreement that was signed by the province, the church and the helpline people.
But this is typical of some of the letters we receive:
"Dear Mrs Calder:
"I have recently been present at a hearing by one of your board on April 7, 1993. I had a great deal of trepidation prior to receiving the date for my appearance, and I agonized over reliving the entire situation. However, this fine gentleman placed me at ease and I was able to explain my circumstances prior, during and after the assault and answer any questions necessary to complete my case.
"I had felt like a victim throughout my marriage and at the latter part of my years of trauma, so that my self-esteem and self-confidence in my ability to function as a person was lost." This is a story we hear over and over. "I have been going to a group for abused women and retold my excellent experience at the hearing and how my fears had been calmed, and I felt like I was talking to someone who was deeply understanding and compassionate.
"I wish to thank the board member again. Words cannot express my appreciation for the encouragement and understanding. I am working on rebuilding my self-esteem and not feeling like a victim any longer."
We get four or five letters such as that during a week. We also, as Mr Jackson knows, have our limitations as to how much we can do solely because of the act and because, as all organizations, we are only human and we sometimes, unfortunately, do not provide as good a service to some people as they would like.
Our phone lines are jammed. We are taking in about 500 applications a month at the present. With this new inquiries unit, we provide a first-line service of sympathy, telling them where they could get help if we can't provide them with help, and attempting to make this person feel that he or she, as a victim, is being looked after.
I didn't want to take up too much time on what we actually do, but I'm not sure just how much everybody knows about our board. I am certainly willing to answer any questions, and that's my presentation.
The Chair: Thank you, Mrs Calder. We'll begin with Mr Murphy.
Mr Murphy: What is the average time frame for a response to a request for compensation, between the initial contact and the hearing?
Mrs Calder: That, at the moment, would be anywhere from 12 months to 18 months. There are some cases where either the lawyer does not send in the material or the doctor does not send in the material, or we cannot get statements quickly from different organizations, maybe from Revenue Canada. It may be a complicated case where the person has been in hospital for over a year and a half, so they defer hearing it, and that could be two years then. We're working towards a goal of 12 months.
Mr Murphy: We've heard in this committee stories of people receiving letters, and were shown a copy of a letter from someone, saying: "We've received your application. Thank you very much. Don't call us for six months."
Mrs Calder: We've changed that letter. We were very disturbed about that when we started looking at it.
Mr Murphy: When did that happen?
Mrs Calder: That happened about three months ago, two months ago.
Mr Murphy: Has there been any attempt to recontact those people, to write back to them, to phone them, to say, "We've changed; we apologize"?
Mrs Calder: I would have to check that out; I do not know. We certainly did not like that letter. It was not user-friendly. It was not victim-centred. When we started going through all the letters we sent, we discovered that this was causing a great deal of trouble, and it was not very good so we did change it.
Mr Murphy: I don't think it's any surprise to you that one of the almost unanimous things in the deputations we've heard has been criticism of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.
Mrs Calder: I realize that.
Mr Murphy: One of the things we heard was that a lot of people did not get information about the existence of it, how to do it. What I want to know is, what are you doing now to make that information available to victims, to educate police forces, lawyers, others, about the availability and access to the injuries compensation board?
Mrs Calder: That's a good question. We have little cards that are sent out to police forces. We have asked the police forces -- we cannot force them to, but we have asked the police forces -- to please give these cards to victims. Sometimes in the throes of an emergency, police personnel forget to give those cards out. We have posters in hospitals. Most of the legal clinics throughout Ontario know about us. In fact, Simcoe Legal Services Clinic has put out a very good victims' advocate booklet that tells about our board. Now, we haven't done that; I realize that. Our funds have been limited. We go out and speak to different groups. I was out to a women's group at a hospital not too long ago, so it's on a personal basis.
We have tried to do as much as possible to let people know about our board with the small amount of money we have had. I'm not saying more cannot be done; it certainly can. More people do know about us. It's amazing, just in the last year, how it has picked up. We have no money for advertising.
1630
Mr Murphy: One of the other criticisms we heard was from one witness in particular about the issue of representation of victims by counsel at the board and having a difficult experience at the board, especially with reference to the fact that they felt there was certainly a variability in the quality and sensitivity of some of the board members.
I apologize; I heard some reference to training, but I'm wondering if you could outline for me what efforts have been made to train board members, to bring in new board members or even to specialize the board panels, as I assume that's the way you make a decision, particularly with regard to women victims or particular kinds of cases that come before the board, so that people build up a sensitivity and an understanding.
Mrs Calder: I certainly hear what you're saying. The board members, in the first instance, are chosen hopefully for their victim-centred approach. If they don't have that in some respect, we have five board meetings a year where we have different speakers come in and talk to issues that are current, I guess one would say, such as a nurse from the rape crisis unit at the women's hospital. We have a psychologist come in and talk about victims and how to handle them in a hearing. We have a training period of a week for new members and then we have another update of two days after that week of training.
I'm not trying to put it away from the board members, but in some instances our communication with the applicant may have been bad, to cause that person not to understand the process. As I say, I feel that the board members must be victim-centred and must continuously have training, and we do: We have different sorts of people come and talk to us.
Mr Murphy: Do you have sufficient funds for training?
Mrs Calder: We could always use more funds for training.
Mr Murphy: Have you given thought to specialized panels?
Mrs Calder: We have specialized panels working on the institutional abuse right now. In a lot of cases, women victims do not want to tell their story to a male; I have to be honest. So if it says that right on an application, I make sure I schedule two women or one woman. If a male does not want women, then I have specialized male panels too.
Mr Murphy: How many applications get decisions in the course of a year?
Mrs Calder: I don't know. Our new annual report, which is for three years, is out now. It was tabled, I believe, yesterday afternoon. I'm not sure whether this is here. In 1991-92, we heard only 1,857 applications.
Mr Murphy: Does that mean the decisions were rendered, or you heard the applications?
Mrs Calder: Decisions were rendered in that part.
Mr Murphy: I think I've run out of time.
Mr Jackson: I have so many questions, and I know I'm not going to get them all in, but let's start with the last comment. Why in God's name do you have an annual report three years late, when you're spending that kind of money?
Mrs Calder: It cost $30,000 and I did not have it until last year in ODOE, other direct operating expenses.
Mr Jackson: Who gave you permission to be three years late? When I requested them from the library, they gave me every report for all the years I wanted, then at 1988 it stopped, and our legislative researcher said, "We don't have a report." I refused to believe that. I just had never heard of it in all my nine years here. Did somebody give you permission or is this just a decision you made on your own not to report, that you were going to save money?
Mrs Calder: Save money? I didn't have the money.
The Chair: Mr Jackson, we assume that by "her," you're saying the board, as opposed to her as a chair. Is that what you were asking?
Mr Jackson: That's generally what the chair's responsible for: the board.
Mrs Calder: There was no money.
Mr Jackson: Okay. Did you provide an interim report to the minister? Did you not report in letter form, "This is what we spent; this is what we did"? I mean, I know the difference between glossy bilingual production versus your accountability and reporting to a minister to say, "Here are some problem areas."
Mrs Calder: We would always report any problem areas that we had.
Mr Jackson: Can you get back to this committee with those areas and the manner in which you reported to the ministers?
Mrs Calder: Sure, quite easily.
Mr Jackson: Let me get the proper name of this for Hansard: The advisory board on victims' issues reported in June 1991; it's really been the only group formally associated with activities of the government or this Legislature around victims' issues. That report contained several recommendations, and there were quite a few concerns and recommendations contained in that report about the processes and conduct of your board in a wide range of issues. Mr Murphy referred to several that we've already heard as a committee. There are issues around time limits, inconsistent treatment of women, strict application of in camera, the categorization of victims.
Mrs Calder: A lot of those have been changed.
Mr Jackson: Well, it strikes me as odd that if, in your mind, you've got such good news, you're not reporting that these changes are in fact occurring.
Mrs Calder: We're trying.
Mr Jackson: Okay. On the issue of institutional abuse, are the Grandview survivors eligible for criminal injuries compensation or does it require a separate intervention agreement between the parties and your board, as is the case you cited with St Alban's?
Mrs Calder: I don't know. Certainly there are applications before our board and they will be treated as applications. The model agreement was not signed by our board; we are only hearing the cases. So I do not know whether there will be a separate agreement with Grandview.
Mr Jackson: Have you removed the barrier to a group such as the advocates' group for Grandview survivors to be able to represent and assist the victim before your board?
Mrs Calder: I'm sorry; I'm not sure I understand your question, Mr Jackson.
Mr Jackson: There's been concern raised about the standing of advocate groups with the victim before your board for hearings. Are you allowing the Grandview Survivors' Support Group to present the case on behalf of the victim before your board? You just said that you are doing individual --
Mrs Calder: There are separate applications, individuals.
Mr Jackson: That's correct. And are you allowing for the Grandview survivors' organization -- I'm just using that as a specific example, because the issue of standing and access, recording and in camera have all been raised. You've said you've dealt with most of those; that's what you responded to those. I'm asking, as an example, will a Grandview survivor with an application before your board be allowed to be assisted by her counsel? In this case, the example I used was the Grandview survivors' group.
Mrs Calder: Definitely, if she wants to bring an advocate, of whatever education or profession.
Mr Jackson: Did you want a supplementary on that?
Mr Murphy: Yes, if I could.
The Chair: Is this the final question?
Mr Murphy: No, I don't want to do that, but let me ask a quick question, in any event. Will that group have separate standing outside of the interest of the victim? I understand the victim can come and have counsel, but will the group representing the Grandview survivors also be allowed to have standing to make presentations separate from the victim and her counsel?
1640
Mrs Calder: If you mean the same as the helpline group with St John's-St Alfred's, then I would think they would have standing if they wanted to come before us. Nobody is barred from coming before us. I'm just not sure whether this separate group is there to be an advocate or there to get compensation themselves. I'm just not sure where it follows, Mr Murphy.
Mr Murphy: As an advocate.
Mrs Calder: As an advocate, yes. We don't refuse advocates.
Mr Jackson: Mr Chairman?
The Chair: Two quick questions.
Mr Jackson: Two very quick ones. I was able to receive from your board in 1985, 1986 and 1987 the access rate for women to criminal injuries compensation and to compare that. I was able to determine that in those years, Ontario women had the lowest access rates nationally for compensation related to violence, sexual assault and domestic violence.
In a subsequent request for that kind of information, we were advised that you no longer keep stats by gender in order for us to determine as a comparative measurement how Ontario women are doing as victims elsewhere. Can you explain briefly why you no longer keep those stats? Then I have one final question.
Mrs Calder: I don't know why. I would have assumed that they were kept. I don't know except somebody must have stopped keeping them, and I have no idea why, Mr Jackson.
Mr Jackson: Finally, I'm sure all members get requests from time to time from constituents who are themselves victims, who have made application, some concerns about the letter. Many are concerned, to be fair, about the amount of time it takes to process.
Mrs Calder: I realize that.
Mr Jackson: I know you appreciate better than most that you're dealing with people who are suffering as a result of being victimized.
Mrs Calder: Definitely.
Mr Jackson: I have a case, and I want to give you the application if you'll allow me to do that today, for Mr David Dickson. David was an innocent bystander who was shot through the stomach. He has lost his business, he's about to lose his home, and I'm assisting him with social assistance. The case has been celebrated, or not celebrated rather, but it's been recorded extensively in the Hamilton Spectator. His concern is that when he called, he was informed that it's a year away, any kind of response to his file.
Mrs Calder: Any response? Not even that we received his file?
Mr Jackson: No, I'm giving you his file. He's basically saying, "How long does it take to process given the fact that I am suffering now?" He has an open wound. He cannot work.
Mr Winninger: On a point of order, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Yes. Mr Jackson, it would be useful perhaps to pass it on and then she can obviously comment to you in writing at another time, but if you have a specific question --
Mr Jackson: My question, as I was phrasing the question, was around the notion of applications that are received that address an immediate need, whether this be the trauma that a rape victim is going through, whether it is the pending legal expenses which are burdening absolutely their access to justice, which is separate from you, but you are an opportunity for them to gain the dollars in order to go and fight in court, those kinds of things.
Mrs Calder: We don't pay for that sort of thing, court cases.
Mr Jackson: No. People use the money they get from pain and suffering to pay legal bills. They pay to put groceries on the table. They pay to make their car payments. They pay to keep a roof over their heads, Mrs Calder. My whole point here is when they get it. They come to us because they need to go on welfare. I'm simply asking you, do you have some process that's sensitive to this general notion of the imminent need for compensation? That's all I'm asking.
Mrs Calder: That's what I'm talking about, interim awards. However, an interim award probably, under the act, is not going to help, unfortunately, that gentleman get whole again. He has been terribly wounded.
Mr Winninger: I'm really pleased that you changed that form letter regarding six months for people who apply to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board because I too shared Mr Murphy's concern around that.
I'm also aware that with the ever-increasing number of applications from abuse survivors, the board has had to withstand considerable pressures, and I suspect that many of the applications do indeed come from women who are having ever-increasing access to the board.
Mrs Calder: They are, very definitely.
Mr Winninger: I was really quite pleased to hear that you had established a client services unit, that you had implemented a system of workload indicators, that you had hired five additional board members and that in fact the waiting time for an application to be heard has decreased. So I think it needs to be stated for the record that a number of positive steps have been taken by the board to address some of the criticisms in the past and that those steps taken have shown some efficacy.
Mr Jackson: You must have read the annual report already. That's only a day old. I haven't read it.
The Chair: Continue, Mr Winninger.
Mr Winninger: Perhaps the chair of the board would like to respond. I know that other members too have questions and comments.
Mrs Calder: I'd just like to respond that this board is attempting to do some positive items that have been problems to applicants and victims in the past. We have over 6,000 applications at the moment. We have a backlog. We want to address those problems. We are very concerned that we didn't have a good inquiries unit and communications broke down. I do believe that this board is taking some positive steps towards alleviating some of the frustrations that your committee has heard about.
I do not believe -- and I want to leave this thought with you -- that the act can totally take care of the needs of a very injured person. It just isn't there; $25,000 a year is not going to do it. What it is intended to do and hopefully starts, as Mr Jackson says, is a process where you give a pain and suffering award and maybe the person pays some bills off. But we're not welfare and we're not -- we can't be everything to all victims, and that is not our fault.
Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): How long have you been on the board?
Mrs Calder: Four years.
Ms Harrington: And how long would you have been chair?
Mrs Calder: Four years.
Ms Harrington: Okay. When victims comes before your board, do they normally have a lawyer with them?
Mrs Calder: It is not needed. If they ask, we say it is their choice. They do not have to have a lawyer. In many cases, in a simple case, they're probably better off without one because their pain and suffering award is not that great and they would end up paying a fair amount to the lawyer. We do give a contribution to the cost of the lawyer, which is minimal, $400 or $500, so it is not absolutely necessary that a lawyer appear.
Ms Harrington: I would think most people would, at least in the past, have heard about your board through their lawyer, and therefore their lawyer would in fact earn something by going this route. Do the lawyers also get a percentage of the award?
Mrs Calder: That would be between the client and the lawyer. I would hope not. We will only send the award right to the applicant herself or himself. Sometimes the solicitor has asked us to pay it to him, and we will not do that.
1650
Ms Harrington: I understand also your frustration about not being able to satisfy these very real and heartfelt situations that are there. The previous presenter was talking about alternative dispute resolution.
Mrs Calder: Yes, I heard a bit of his.
Ms Harrington: It's obviously very difficult to change from one system to another, but one thing he mentioned was having the victim and the offender be face to face and somehow talk about what has happened. I guess that in some cases could be a healing process. I just wondered if in your view anything like that would be possible in the future.
Mrs Calder: It would depend on the applicant. In some cases, the applicant is terrified still of the offender. They do not want anything to do with the offender. What would be the use of bringing the offender and the applicant together if in fact the offender has no money and cannot help out this person? I'm not sure it's a healing process in every case. I don't think it is, from what I know, because in many cases women applicants ask us to have in camera hearings and say, "Please don't bring that offender anywhere near me," because they're frightened.
Ms Harrington: Mr Mills?
The Chair: I think Ms Akande has a question. Mr Mills doesn't.
Ms Zanana L. Akande (St Andrew-St Patrick): Many of the concerns and the limitations that you discussed here or that have been shown after questions are the result of very little money, as you put it. Do you present a budget? Is it the responsibility of the board to contribute to the development of a budget?
Mrs Calder: Yes, certainly we present a budget taking into account what we need. That budget in many cases was not met. It was this year.
Ms Akande: But in previous times it was not met. There were certain limitations that resulted, for example, the presentation of a formal report. Not to badger, but I too am interested. What was the alternative that you gave for a formal report? Was it an oral report? Was it, as was previously suggested, a letter? By what method did you --
Mrs Calder: It was a letter saying: "I am sorry; you have not given me enough money for an annual report. Therefore, I cannot give an annual report."
Ms Akande: In that were you asked, or later or at any time, to give certain basics -- the numbers of cases that you had handled, results, projections -- all of that information which is usually associated with a report?
Mrs Calder: Certainly projections; nothing else. Projections of what was needed for the next year, but no statistics.
Mr Jackson: She would have filed three budgets, you see, since 1989. She would have filed three times, three budgets, but not reported.
Ms Akande: I see. I'm sorry. I don't mean to badger. It just surprises me that they would have permitted the board to continue its function without any kind of official monitoring around how it did its business. That's why I'm asking you those questions.
Mrs Calder: I do not believe that exists today. I believe there's monitoring. I believe there's an understanding of the constraints this board has gone through. I believe there's an understanding of victims. As I say, we had some more operating dollars this year.
The Chair: Ms Akande, we have run out of time.
Ms Akande: I just have one other question, if I may.
The Chair: Okay, quickly then.
Ms Akande: Given the limitations in budget that you were under, was there still voiced to you in any way an expectation that you would continue to carry on the regular responsibilities of the board?
Mrs Calder: Yes.
Ms Akande: There was? Thank you.
Mrs Calder: Now -- well, I won't enlarge on it, but yes.
The Chair: Thank you, Mrs Calder, for coming today and providing us with this information. It was useful.
Mr Jackson is going to allow the time he normally would have spoken to speak on the report options.
Mr Jackson: Mr Chairman --
The Chair: I was going to outline the two options, but do you want to speak to it?
Mr Jackson: Well, I didn't know we had two options to outline.
The Chair: Okay. We could look at more, if there are more.
Mr Jackson: No, all I was wishing to say at this point is that I have indicated from the beginning that I wished to use my time to assist the Chair in completing our task and to ensure that those deputants who very much wanted to present to the committee, but for scheduling reasons needed to utilize their time -- I appreciate the committee's flexibility because I think it's in all our best interests to get to a good report.
I wish to inform the committee that Professor Irwin Waller, one of the deputants who is now back from his responsibilities worldwide, will be able to be with the committee next Tuesday. I was hopeful that we might be able to spend some time discussing the report since we're well along in the process.
It's not essential for this committee to hear my views on victims' rights and my background. I simply wanted to use that time to assist victims and other members if they had -- because there was the chance that a member would have been approached from someone in their community and this was an opportunity for them to get on through one of the members.
Having said that, I think it might be helpful if we as a committee could discuss briefly how we'd like to approach the report.
The Chair: Let me raise the question first because we have approximately four hours and a half, four hours and 40 minutes or so. Let me put the question first with respect to Irwin Waller. Mr Jackson has said who he is. Is the committee favourable to hearing this man on Tuesday? Do you have a quick yes or no?
Mr Murphy: Yes.
The Chair: The members here? Yes. All right. If that is the case, then my suggestion as the Chair would be that we discuss more or less the mechanics of the options of the report and not write the report until we've heard Mr Irwin Waller, but we do have time now to talk briefly about the way we would like to proceed on the writing of the report.
Can I propose two suggestions? You might have others, but the two are that the full committee write the report in public or in closed session, and the other one is to delegate authority for report writing to the subcommittee with or without the committee having final approval.
Mr Jackson: That's four options but --
The Chair: Do you go for the first?
Mr Jackson: -- two options with bells and whistles.
The Chair: Let's go through the suggestions, then if there are other options we can discuss them.
The first one: The full committee write the report in public or in closed session. Can we have some discussion on that?
Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): I was just wondering if you could go to the other option -- maybe we can do a combination of both -- that the subcommittee look at the report, come back with a draft to the committee and then the committee in full and open session, if we want to, look at the draft and consider the draft, and from the draft to a formal report.
Actually, what I would like is a copy of all the transcripts that have happened over the last eight hours so I have it all in front of me rather than the pile of papers.
The Chair: Essentially, you're speaking to option two, which says "authorize the subcommittee to do the report, and bring it back to the committee for discussion."
Mr Duignan: Draft report.
The Chair: Draft report, of course.
Mr Duignan: Right. I'm for that.
The Chair: Are there other speakers to this?
Mr Winninger: I may have missed this. I assume then we've already completed eight hours, or --
The Chair: There are four hours and a half left, more or less -- five hours? We have five hours left.
Mr Winninger: I understand Mr Waller is quite an expert in this area.
Mr Jackson: He's a world expert. He wrote the United Nations first victims' bill of rights proposal.
Mr Winninger: Right. So if we were able, with the consent of the committee, to devote an hour to Dr Waller, that would leave us four hours, and I guess my preference would be that we write this report as a committee during whatever it takes of the four hours remaining.
I'm just recalling the fact that when I served on the select committee on the future of Confederation, we were able to write a report as a full committee dealing with fairly complex issues. Surely, if as a full committee we could deal with those kinds of complex issues on Confederation, we can deal with victims' rights issues --
The Chair: Mr Winninger, let me ask you a question: Perhaps you're aware of it, but as a point of information, if the subcommittee's writing it, it doesn't take away the time we have remaining. If we do it in full committee, however, then we would be taking much of the time to be doing that.
1700
Mr Winninger: I see. I'm sorry. I thought we were just delegating our time to the subcommittee.
Mr Duignan: That was my point, because the subcommittee will come back --
The Chair: That's right.
Mr Duignan: -- with some options, some framework that we can discuss and we won't waste time.
The Chair: Mr Duignan, please speak into the mike.
Mr Duignan: Sorry.
Mr Winninger: Then, just to complete my train of thought, if we do in fact agree to delegate the initial task to the subcommittee, I would ask that the subcommittee's report come back to the committee for consent.
The Chair: That's what Mr Duignan was suggesting, to come back with a draft for the full committee to speak to it, obviously.
Mr Murphy: If I can just add, that seems to be a reasonable option and I'd support that, a draft by the subcommittee to report back to the committee.
Mr Jackson: I'm quite comfortable with that. I just wanted to remind committee that there are three deputants we have not as yet heard from. I'd have to ask the clerk if there are any others besides Waller and Breaugh on the list of original, approved deputants.
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Lisa Freedman): From the list that was submitted to me about a month ago, everybody who wanted to appear has appeared. There were some people who declined the invitation, some people who could not schedule the invitation, but there has been nobody who has been turned away from the set of hearings.
Mr Jackson: Okay, other than this wrinkle with Dr Waller, who's been working for some government somewhere and is just returning Monday and could be here as his first priority Tuesday.
Clerk of the Committee: Yes.
Mr Jackson: Okay. We probably don't need the full amount of time, and that's always helpful to the Chair. The subcommittee would meet to discuss some of the aspects of the report and the recommendations so that we have a fairly complete draft to present to the committee.
The Chair: That's right.
Mr Jackson: Okay, I think that works fine.
The Chair: My other suggestion would be that if there's an agreement, the subcommittee go off to do that. Then if there are suggestions that those of you who are not on the subcommittee want to make to the subcommittee members in the writing of the report, we could do that now, for example. Otherwise, we could allow the subcommittee members to simply go ahead and write a report.
Mr Jackson: Put some ideas together. Could I ask another technical question, and that is, whether this committee wishes to complete its work. I'm not a regular member of the committee. I'm here by virtue of my interest in having presented the 125 motion two years ago. Is it your intention to not begin your next item until you've completed this task? There's two committees right now that are operating with -- they've not completed their reports and have proceeded with other work.
I'll put it on the table: That can create some serious difficulties with the committee's agenda, that we can't get to a report-writing stage. That's not been suggested by anyone here but it's occurring in another committee, and I just want a clarification from the Chair. If that's the Chair's wish, then I'm delighted. I won't even mention that I was even looking that it might be a trend, because I'm glad it's not.
The Chair: I put it out obviously as a suggestion to the committee members that we hold off writing the report until we hear Mr Waller. Unless there are objections otherwise, that would be --
Mr Jackson: But the subcommittee could proceed to start --
The Chair: It could if it wants to, yes.
Mr Jackson: It's helpful to our research assistant who will be assisting us with the drafting that we can already start getting ideas together and share them.
Ms Akande: I do not quite understand that question the same way you responded to it. I understood -- please correct me if I'm wrong -- that Mr Jackson was wondering whether we were in fact going to, as a committee, start work or hearing or some work on some other topic on some other area before we had completed the writing of this report, and your answer was different from his question. What would you respond to that?
Clerk of the Committee: I can give a procedural answer to that. If the government public bill is referred to this committee, that would pre-empt the 12 hours. If there is no public bill referred to this committee, subject to the committee giving me instructions to schedule something else, we would just continue as far as we can with this matter.
Mr Jackson: Can I clarify this a little more? I think it's important we understand, and I'll name the committee. The public accounts committee undertook a review of social assistance, brought in the auditor. We have not written that report. We've done our public hearings. We've met with the auditor. We've not written the report.
The committee was doing simultaneous reviews and simultaneous reports. I was simply asking clarification from the Chair because I know there are two other items, private members' bills, that are on your agenda for you, as a committee, to deal with. I was just wondering, for example, if on Monday we're not going to meet to deal with the 125, was it your intention to call the meeting to begin the other two items that are on your agenda to do?
That was my question, and I got a sense from the Chair that he'd like to complete and then move to the next subject. I was simply saying that was good and I appreciated it, but I didn't want to bring more attention to it because --
The Chair: That was my intention.
Mr Duignan: Just briefly on the point you made, Mr Jackson made reference to the public accounts committee. The problem with the public accounts committee -- you mentioned one. There are five pages, if you've been keeping track of various things the public accounts committee has done and has not completed or is waiting for reports back from yet, so you kind of lose track of what's happening. I certainly wouldn't like, on such an important topic, to lose concentration.
Mr Murphy: That's because there's so much wrong to keep track of.
Mr Jackson: Now, now, Tim, you're too new to be --
Mr Duignan: Most of it actually goes back to the Liberal days, so I wouldn't push that point if I were you.
The Chair: Mr Winninger.
Mr Winninger: Oh, I pass.
Mr Duignan: I was just wondering, on Monday, for example -- it's quite obvious that the committee is not going to meet as a whole -- if the subcommittee could begin work on that.
The Chair: That was the point Mr Jackson raised. The subcommittee can meet at any time this week or early next week to begin talking about the shaping of that report and begin talking about what it would like to see included.
Much of the work can begin and in fact be near its completion before having listened to Mr Waller. I urge the subcommittee members to do that. Is that all right? The subcommittee can meet when it wants to, or do they need to be instructed to do that? We urge the subcommittee to meet on Monday. Perhaps the subcommittee members can agree on a time.
Mr Duignan: You can work that out between yourselves.
The Chair: There you are. There will not be a meeting on Monday. Are there any other matters to be discussed for the day? Seeing none, I call adjournment.
The committee adjourned at 1708.