CONTENTS
Monday 18 April 1994
Draft report: Victims of crime
Subcommittee report
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
*Chair / Président: Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)
Akande, Zanana L. (St Andrew-St Patrick ND)
Bisson, Gilles (Cochrane South/-Sud ND)
Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West/-Ouest L)
Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)
*Haeck, Christel (St Catharines-Brock ND)
Harnick, Charles (Willowdale PC)
*Malkowski, Gary (York East/-Est ND)
*Murphy, Tim (St George-St David L)
Tilson, David (Dufferin-Peel PC)
*Winninger, David (London South/-Sud ND)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present/ Membres remplaçants présents:
Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich ND) for Ms Harrington
Fletcher, Derek (Guelph ND) for Ms Akande
Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South/-Sud PC) for Mr Tilson
Klopp, Paul (Huron ND) for Mr Bisson
Clerk pro tem / Greffière par intérim: Mellor, Lynn
Staff / Personnel: McNaught, Andrew, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1553 in room 228.
DRAFT REPORT VICTIMS OF CRIME
The Chair (Mr Rosario Marchese): We have an hour and half remaining. I suggest that we go over this page by page again. Given that the subcommittee has gone through this, we've highlighted areas of agreement and areas of disagreement. I suggest that where there are areas of disagreement and that continues, you may decide to leave it that way and move on to the next item and, if there's time, come back to those areas of disagreement, to allow us to complete this report as best we can.
Once one hour and 15 minutes have elapsed, I will suggest that we recess in order to allow the committee time to think about what we want to do in the remaining time and then come back and finish it off. Is that okay?
Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): You say you will recess. Are we going to recess for the day or for a specific period of time?
The Chair: No, a recess for five or 10 minutes to talk about what the members want to do with that report and not take the time of the committee to do that.
Mr David Winninger (London South): If I could just raise a point of order, because I certainly think it may govern the direction we're going in from here on in, last week I was astounded and shocked to see in the paper a report that this particular draft report, which says "Confidential" at the top, had been leaked to the media. I can't imagine who would have had the motive, the opportunity, the access to this report and would leak it to the media, which in my opinion is contempt of the work of this committee.
We've attempted to take a very constructive approach to this section 125 referral. We've provided access to information, access to staff resources. I even set up a meeting between the opposition critics and the minister and the deputy minister to get some of their questions answered.
I'm completely baffled that your role as Chair of this committee and your prerogative to report this to the Legislature have been totally undermined and usurped by someone who has failed to comply with even the basic standards of decency in dealing with this matter.
I'm not so sure that anything we say today may not be reported verbatim to the media. It particularly concerned me that some sections of this report which we had discussed and amended, on consent, were reported by the media in their original form. Some of the very words that we excised from the draft report were reported.
It particularly concerned me also that the release of this report, the leaking of this report was contemporaneous with a press conference called by a mother of one of the victims of crime. I was particularly concerned that cheap partisan politics were being played with this report in a matter so serious that it involves murder and the taking of lives.
I thought the Chair might have some comments to make with regard to the leaking of a confidential report to the media. I was so concerned with the sensitivity of this report that at first I had some reservations as to who should see it besides myself. But to leak it to the media is completely offensive to the work of this committee. I think the Chair should have some comments so that as we proceed through the last hour and minutes of this report writing we can all expect that our input will be held in confidence until we have a final report we can all live with.
Mr Jackson: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: That was a valid point of order?
The Chair: It's not a point of order.
Mr Jackson: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I'd like to proceed with the report.
The Chair: I agree. I think he's made his point.
Mr Jackson: Mr Winninger has been playing politics with this report since day one.
The Chair: All right. Let's not waste too much --
Mr Jackson: No, you've asked me for a comment.
The Chair: All right.
Interjection: We didn't ask for a comment.
Mr Jackson: Let me just say that whether the minister who was, by her own admission, privy to this report and who runs around southern Ontario making policy announcements in the face of it -- we didn't debate that at length. Did I consider that cheap partisan politics? Yes, I did.
Did I complain when Susan Lee is brought here in committee of the whole to help write your report from your perspective? I didn't complain about that.
But you've got no position, Mr Winninger, to start talking about matters of confidentiality based on the way you've conducted yourself, period, end of sentence.
Mr Winninger: Just in addition, the minister had no access to this report at the time the announcements were made last year with regard to the victims' package. Quite frankly, there's a distinction between matters that are properly put to staff in the bureaucracy regarding specific information that the member requested and leaking reports to the media. I'm surprised that Mr Jackson would even respond, since I didn't point a finger of accusation at him, but maybe he feels a little sensitive on this point.
Mr Jackson: You were accusing Mrs de Villiers.
The Chair: If you want to continue with this, that's fine with me. We have an hour and a half. If you all want to respond to each other's points in that way, I'm willing to allow it, but you're wasting time, I suggest.
The point Mr Winninger makes is that if a report is confidential, then it's confidential. We don't know who leaked the report, but once the committee agrees, I would remind members that until this report is tabled it says "Confidential." Unless the committee changes its mind, which it could do, I remind all of you about that particular point. But your point has been noted.
1600
Mr Jackson: We're not in camera, are we?
The Chair: We're not in camera. The document specifically says "Confidential," however. If you want to change that, either as members individually or collectively as a committee, we can do that, but until that time, that's what this report says. I'd like to move on.
"Changes to which the subcommittee has agreed are highlighted with grey shading. Previous text has a line through it. Text over which there is disagreement is italicized and highlighted with grey shading. Where the substance of the disagreement was discussed..." Mr McNaught has made a note of that. I suggest we start immediately on page 1, the introduction.
Mr Jackson: Mr Chair, given the fact that there are elements of this report we've never discussed in the committee, would it not be wiser for us to complete the report, since what you're asking us to review now is matters that have been reviewed twice.
The Chair: This is true.
Mr Jackson: And there's a section here, from approximately page 10 on, which was partially reviewed in camera, and from page 18 on, I believe, they've never been examined by the committee.
The Chair: This is true.
Mr Jackson: Could we perhaps change the order so we can get a stronger sense --
The Chair: That's fine with me. We left, I think it was, page 9 or 10 the last time as a full committee. We could start at that page if that's what you all wish.
Mr Winninger: It was my understanding that we had completed page 9 and I believe the research officer does have some notes on what we had agreed to up to page 9.
Mr Andrew McNaught: I believe we finished page 11, the second recommendation.
The Chair: That's true. Okay.
Mr Winninger: We're up to which page now?
The Chair: Page 11, "The committee recommends."
Mr Jackson: Mr Chairman, I was quite hopeful that we would deal with the parts of this report that have never been examined by this committee.
The Chair: The subcommittee examined some pages here but the full committee left its work on page 11. What are you suggesting we do?
Mr Jackson: I find little difference between starting at page 1 and starting at page 9. I'm suggesting that we start with the material that has never been discussed in this report in committee or by anybody. We have now about an hour and 10 minutes left, or probably an hour and five minutes. That's my recommendation.
The Chair: Where do you want us to begin?
Mr Jackson: Our researcher will advise us where the committee in committee of the whole finished off its tertiary review.
Mr McNaught: We left some points undecided and we skipped around a bit, so it's a little difficult to say exactly where we left off. I would say page 19 then.
The Chair: The subcommittee went all over the map. It went to the very end as well.
Mr McNaught: That's where Mr Winninger started to identify recommendations he had difficulty with but we didn't have time to discuss the reasons behind that.
The Chair: Are you taking us to page 19 then?
Mr McNaught: Yes.
The Chair: Mr Jackson, is that okay with you?
Mr Jackson: I might have started one page earlier, but for purposes of proceeding, I'd like to get into this part of the report if we could.
Mr Winninger: Then maybe afterwards we can come back and deal with some matters that were stood down.
The Chair: If there's time. Page 19. Comments?
Mr Winninger: I think there was consensus around recommendation 8.
Mr McNaught: We actually discussed 9. Ms Lee from the ministry raised a point about recommendation 9 and then we left that undecided.
Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): What you've highlighted reflects the original wording, correct?
Mr McNaught: Yes. But I made a little note at the end of the recommendation that there was a concern raised by the ministry with the wording.
Mr Murphy: In my view, the current wording's fine.
Mr Winninger: There's one aspect, though, that needs to be addressed. There may be victims/witnesses who do not want to have contact with the crown for one reason or another, so there should properly be some words added to recommendation 9 that would qualify victims/witnesses who wish to maintain contact.
Mr Murphy: Sorry, I didn't follow that one.
The Chair: Again, Mr Winninger.
Mr Winninger: There will be victims/witnesses who would enjoy contact with the crown and the police from the time that charges are laid to --
Mr Murphy: Oh, but that's number 10.
Mr McNaught: Mr Winninger, I think you might have last week's draft. The recommendation numbers have changed by one because we've added a recommendation early on.
Mr Winninger: When was the new draft sent out?
Mr McNaught: Last week.
The Chair: It was Thursday or Friday.
Mr Winninger: Okay, so the same point would obtain with the new recommendation 9. That is to say, I would recommend that words be added after "victims/witnesses" to the effect that victims/witnesses who may wish information "are being fully informed about the judicial process."
Mr Jackson: Because we're calling for a review, we're not calling for amplification, I don't think the words are necessary. I think that would come out of the review. Basically, it's one of the weakest recommendations we have. We're going to study something here, so on that basis, I wouldn't want to define the study. I simply would like to say, let's look at how we get access to people, then we'll let whoever, the minister, in her study, determine that. I don't want to confine it.
If in fact the minister consults with victims, the crown etc, and they come to that conclusion, why should we put those parameters on it, since nobody suggested that parameter? It may be Mr Winninger's parameter, but I think it weakens an already weak recommendation. All we're talking about is reviewing the damn thing.
Mr Winninger: I don't care strongly one way or the other. Presumably these would be victims/witnesses who are wanting contact and who are wanting information.
Mr Jackson: There's no question it'll vary on the nature of the crime, but to try and write that into a recommendation I think is not really helpful.
Mr Murphy: I agree.
Mr Jackson: Somebody who has been physically abused or threatened is definitely going to want to, but we're trying not to define people by their crime here, or what's frivolous or what's unnecessary. I'd rather just leave that to the minister's discretion.
Mr Murphy: Just say yes, David. Marion will be happy.
Mr Winninger: Yes. Let's move on.
The Chair: Okay. Page 20, recommendation 10.
1610
Mr Winninger: Again, it's simply asking that the ministry consider ways in which contact can be maintained, so I suppose the same commentary would apply here too.
The Chair: But you can live with the wording?
Mr Winninger: I think so, yes.
Mr Jackson: It doesn't tell us the nature of the contact: if it's the police with respect to the charges being laid; if it's the crown with respect to how they will present themselves before the court; or if it's the victim's advocate who is to provide them updates for purposes of their counselling and so on.
I know there are a couple right now that I'm familiar with where they're in and out of psychiatric treatment and it's complicating when they can appear before the courts. That's certainly not something the police or the crown can really help them with, but a person with other duties -- it doesn't tell me what kind of contact. I'm concerned with what that means.
The Chair: Any suggestions for additions or changes?
Mr Jackson: How different is that from number 9, if you don't mind me asking? One is about the judicial process. That deals with plea bargaining and matters of that nature, of informing them if a deal has been made. That's obviously a major concern and that was what we heard before the committee. But we also heard cogent arguments about ongoing support in other areas, so I somehow feel a need that we should be saying more or not saying anything at all. If I were reading the report, I'd want to know what kind of contact.
Mr Murphy: One other comment I would make, and I can't remember whether we dealt with it elsewhere, but we did hear evidence on the point of people who were victims but they hadn't found the perpetrator yet, and the provision of services, contact, information to the victim as the investigation proceeds. The wording of this doesn't suggest that concept is included in either recommendation 9 or 10, because it's more charge-based language, so you've found somebody. I'm just wondering whether there might not be just a word or two we can add to capture that idea. I can't remember, somebody came in and gave evidence on that before us last summer.
Mr Winninger: Just in terms of 9 versus 10, I certainly see the distinction, because 9 deals with the victim/witness assistance program per se, and of course not all jurisdictions have this program. So I think 9 is a more specific case of 10, and I can see why we might want 10 as well as 9.
Mr Murphy: To the researcher, did we talk about the issue of someone where they hadn't laid a charge yet somewhere else?
Mr McNaught: Page 6, second paragraph.
Mr Jackson: Yes, it's talking about advising them of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. I think what's meant here is, the crown is going to interview you. A victim/witness program will assist in preparing you to be able to speak judicial language and to demystify the process you are about to go into. The crowns are not necessarily the best people to be doing that.
The other issue which was raised was the right of a person who is being used by the courts as a witness to testify and who is one and the same, the victim, to be informed where the crown has done plea bargaining and that they be advised of that and not have it unveiled in the presence of the courtroom in front of them, that type of thing. That's one area, and I certainly would recommend, "consider ways in which contact can be maintained with the victims/witnesses from the time charges are laid as they relate to the judicial process, and including plea bargaining."
Again, we're just asking the minister to consider ways, but it's not a routine requirement to let the victim know: "By the way, we dropped the charges to a lesser charge. We thought you'd like to know the charges against your assailant have been reduced to a lesser charge."
Mr Winninger: That's one of many different matters that victims/witnesses may have an interest in. Are you saying that should be set out here specifically?
Mr Jackson: I'm saying that this clause as it stands tells me nothing and I would prefer that we were either silent or clear, one or the other. But one asks, why is it in there? Contact with whom? I've offered one name, Mr Winninger, so you can come up with a couple more if you think there are more people you felt should be in there; or we can ask Andrew what he thought and if he says it wasn't all that compelling, we can drop it.
Mr McNaught: There were a couple of general recommendations made by witnesses. They felt they were out of touch with the process until it got to trial. There was nothing really specific in that regard.
Mr Jackson: I could take a literal -- one of the sections of the victims' bill of rights sets out clearly that contact should be made during this process. By whom and for what purpose? You can use that phrase, if you wish. After all, the minister's only considering ways in which it can be achieved.
Mr Winninger: Just to pick up on what Tim said, why not say, "from the time of the offence to the release of the offender" instead of "from the time charges are laid in a case to the time of trial"? Instead of saying "ministry," we have to say, "the ministries of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General and Correctional Services" in order to cover off --
Mr Jackson: Yes, and the federal departments as well. I have a series of recommendations that came from the public hearings with respect to requests by Ontario to the national parole system and amendments thereto, which puts the onus on them to report decisions of early release.
The Chair: Can someone summarize the agreement?
Mr Murphy: I like Mr Winninger's wording better. It is a fairly general, just "consider ways," but I think it is a direction to each of those ministries and perhaps the responsible federal agencies, and I think from the time of the offence to the release of the offender is the appropriate time frame. So it would be, "That the ministries of the Attorney General, Solicitor General and Correctional Services, as well as responsible federal or equivalent federal agencies, consider ways in which contact can be maintained with victims/witnesses from the time of the commission of the offence to the release of the offender."
Mr Jackson: Commission of the offence?
Mr Murphy: Yes.
Mr Jackson: That includes the police and investigations.
The Chair: Okay? Very well. Anything else on that page? No. Page 21 then.
Mr Winninger: Perhaps for the sake of clarity, at the bottom of the second paragraph where it says, "In Ottawa, closed-circuit television has been provided to allow children to testify outside a courtroom," added to that should be a statement that closed-circuit television has been used in other localities as well, because that would reflect the fact that even though the closed-circuit television is established in Ottawa, similar equipment has been used elsewhere.
1620
Mr Murphy: I don't have a problem with the concept. I guess the only distinction I would make is that we should say something about Ottawa having a permanent facility, and that closed-circuit television has been used in other courtrooms in the province.
Mr Winninger: On an ad hoc basis.
Mr Murphy: On an ad hoc basis. I think that's a fairly accurate description of the reality as we heard from Susan during our subcommittee. Sorry, Ms Lee.
The Chair: Okay. Anything further on that page? Can we move on? Page 22 then.
Mr Murphy: I have a slight problem with the wording of number 11, only to the extent that it says, "the use of closed-circuit television only be considered for those areas...where the number of cases warrants...."
As we heard from Ms Lee, for example, they have had opportunities to get them from Radio Shack or local agencies where they've been able to get the judge to agree to the order and it may not be an environment or a circumstance where numbers would otherwise warrant. This wording seems too restrictive. I think it's worthwhile considering it in other circumstances if you can find people who will give you the facilities to do it.
Mr Winninger: I have another problem as well, which goes to the root of this recommendation, I suppose. I go back to a conversation we had last week wherein I referred to the Criminal Code, which provides that judges may order the use of closed-circuit television. I've yet to hear of a case where a judge has ordered closed-circuit television and closed-circuit television hasn't been used.
To say that to expand the use of closed-circuit television should be made a priority of pilot project funding is, I think, going a little too far. To say that the ministry should make its best efforts to ensure that facilities are available for closed-circuit television in all courtrooms seems more appropriate.
But that doesn't require that permanent equipment be established in every courtroom or even in those courtrooms where the number of criminal cases warrants this service. As long as there's access to closed-circuit television to meet the requirements of the Criminal Code, then you're protecting the more vulnerable witnesses. I would say if this recommendation is going to remain, it needs to be fundamentally changed.
There are many things that could be made a priority of pilot project funding, for example, the extension of the victim/witness assistance program. All of these things require money. If it's not cost-effective to have a closed-circuit system in every jurisdiction, then there's no point recommending it. As long as the access is there, that's the important thing, not whether there's a permanent system in place.
Mr Jackson: Very briefly, I was going to recommend we get rid of this nonsense of a pilot project, just to make it a funding priority. Obviously I'm not going to get much support from the government.
I'd just like to point out that the case that I brought forward and that Louise Sas from the London child witness program investigated for me dealt around this whole issue of a four-year-old who had been sexually assaulted, so I feel very strongly. My recommendation would be to remove the notion of pilot funding, that in fact we should have a greater access to this service so more cases can be tried and heard.
My local CAS has about a 35% increase in abuse and about a 45% increase in child sexual abuse. You may have been right, Mr Winninger, five years ago, but I can't buy it today with the number of cases that are just not getting to trial, and that frightens me. So on my recommendation, Mr Chairman -- if Mr Winninger wants to gut this further, fine -- I'd like to delete "pilot project" to have it be made a funding priority.
The Chair: Okay. We have a problem, because there are three different views on the floor.
Mr Jackson: Whatever Mr Winninger does, he has the vote, so let's find out what he wants to do.
Mr Winninger: I'm comfortable with a recommendation that access to closed-circuit television be protected -- be encouraged more than protected -- for child witnesses, and also in some cases that can involve vulnerable witnesses; in any event, that access to closed-circuit television as a way of giving evidence in the courtroom be encouraged, but not that it be made a priority of pilot project funding or of funding.
I have some difficulty with the last two lines, that the use "only be considered for those areas of the province where the number of criminal cases warrants this service." Surely the use will be anywhere that a judge orders closed-circuit television evidence appropriate.
The Chair: If there's no agreement, we'll just have to leave it and come back to it.
Mr Jackson: Mr Chairman, we've invested a considerable amount of time, and I just want to be clear. Who are we telling that we should encourage more use of something that we're not going to make more available? Who are we giving this recommendation to? To tell the victims?
Mr Winninger: The evidence was the judges in some jurisdictions are reluctant --
Mr Jackson: I understand that. I just wanted you to tell me: Who, in your mind, are we recommending "encourage more use" of something? The judges of Ontario? I'm not arguing with you.
Mr Winninger: That's kind of begging the question, because the argument was that judges aren't ordering it because the facilities aren't there. I'm saying it's an access issue and we should reflect in our recommendation what we heard in terms of ensuring access to closed-circuit television where it's appropriate and the judge so orders. That's all. It's an affirmative statement that this is one way that children can give evidence without suffering undue trauma and may result in more convictions.
Mr Jackson: If I hear you correctly, what you're saying is that where a judge orders it, the government will fund it in order to provide it.
Mr Winninger: Well, I think so. I'm saying that where a judge orders it, there would have to be an extremely good reason why the facility isn't provided, and I've yet to hear of a case where a judge ordered it and it wasn't provided.
Mr Jackson: Perhaps when Mr Winninger knows the answer to that, he can inform the committee and we can complete this recommendation. I've raised questions of form for helping to write it, and as soon as you're clear on what you want to do, you let us know.
Mr Winninger: I have a suggestion that we may be able to come up with alternative wording that may be acceptable to the opposition critics. We can look at that.
The Chair: All right. As we move on to the other items, if others in the room who are here to assist, and Mr Winninger's about to talk too, come up with a wording that they can present and we can agree and there's time, we should do that. Okay? So we'll come back to this item if there's time.
Mr Jackson: I tried.
The Chair: Anything else on that page?
Mr Jackson: In the case of child victims, I would like to propose a motion that --
The Chair: Sorry. Refer us to the appropriate line.
1630
Mr Jackson: We're in the section on child victims, are we not?
The Chair: I was still asking whether there's any other further comment on page 22.
Mr Jackson: Yes. Before we leave the section on child victim services, I had two additional recommendations to make.
We heard from the Voices for Children's Rights organization on June 1, 1993, before the committee, and I'd like to read into the record a recommendation that:
"A victim of a sexual assault experiencing any post-traumatic stress disorder give testimony in the judge's chambers in the presence of the judge, crown attorney and defence counsel. Video and audio tape will be forwarded then to the accused."
I'd like to make that as a recommendation.
Mr Murphy: Sorry, I didn't quite get all of that.
The Chair: Do you want to repeat that again then?
Mr Jackson: "A victim of a sexual assault experiencing any post-traumatic stress disorder give testimony in judge's chambers in the presence of the judge, crown attorney and defence counsel. Video and audio tape will be forwarded then to the accused."
The accused has the right to hear what's being said. This ensures that it not be done and it avoids the issue of videotaping and everything else that's a huge expense. It's set up in the room, certified, and it can be done in the judge's chambers. That was a recommendation to alleviate some of these problems.
Mr Winninger: I don't think there's anything stopping the parties -- that would be the defence attorney and the prosecutor -- on consent to arrange to have evidence given in an other than standard way. However, for us to recommend this universally I think goes well beyond what's required.
We already have the protections that were built into the federal amendment to the Criminal Code, which were arrived at after considerable consultation, and what you're doing is in a sense providing and recommending a further amendment to the Criminal Code, which I think goes a little beyond the ambit of this report. In any event, you're suggesting that it be done on a universal basis. What I'm saying is, there's already provision in place that allows the giving of evidence in other than a standard way.
You may recall a recent case where a police officer involved in the investigation of a well-known murder was given an opportunity to give his evidence in a modified courtroom setting where the judge took off his gown, came down to the level of all the parties and witnesses in the court and wore a turtleneck and it was done in a way that would reduce the anxiety.
Mr Jackson: Really, you're getting a little far from the issue.
Mr Winninger: All I'm saying is, these things are done. They're done from time to time to reduce trauma.
Mr Jackson: I just want it clear for the record. This is for child sexual assault victims only, and it is a matter of a right for the crown attorney to request this on behalf of victim. That's all I'm proposing. We can dispose of it in a quick vote.
I have another one which has to do with the treatment of the screen, which has to be, as I understand, by mutual consent. I wish to allow the victim the right to be screened as a child, and the crown articulates that right on behalf of the child. As you know, children have no rights because we have no law governing their rights. However, the crown would be governed by that, and that would be another recommendation which comes from the rights.
Mr Winninger: What was your recommendation, just for the sake of fairness?
Mr Jackson: Let's deal with this one. It is tied to sexual assault of children, and the way this is written, the crown would proceed to the judge indicating that is in the best interests, and the assailant would not have the right to overrule that. The issue is --
Mr Winninger: Overrule what?
Mr Jackson: The decision by the judge to proceed in chambers. There's a mutuality, in my understanding, in accordance, by agreement, that they not be in the courtroom together. I'm simply saying that it be done this way, that the crown request that on behalf of the victim, as opposed to the crown and the defence saying, unless there's mutual agreement, it can't be done in judge's chambers. That occurs, I'm told, and the same with shielding the victim. Some of the accused want to confront the three-year-old to say, "I didn't do it." The crown should be able to proceed, in the best interests of the victim, to say, "We request screening."
This has nothing to do with whether screening's available; it exists in every courtroom. It is the notion of when the judge proceeds with screening and my understanding is the judge only does that if both parties agree to it. This would allow a fundamental shift to say that the crown, acting in the best interests of the victim, calls for the screening to occur.
Mr Winninger: When you say screening, you mean the use of a screen in court?
Mr Jackson: That is correct.
Mr Winninger: The judge makes that decision. The accused doesn't have to agree to it. That's because it's in the Criminal Code. The same with closed-circuit television. The judge can make that order, notwithstanding the agreement or disagreement of the accused.
Mr Jackson: That's not my understanding.
Mr Winninger: We can get an opinion on it, if you like, but that's the way it's drafted in the Criminal Code. The judge makes the order.
Mr Jackson: What we're saying is that the process be an option for the victim to alleviate any further trauma at the discretion of the crown attorney and the victim.
Mr Winninger: But that's how it is now.
Mr Jackson: No, it's not.
Mr Murphy: One quick comment, if I can. I think the recommendations are worthy of consideration. The one thing I'd like to find out is the degree to which either of them are within exclusive provincial jurisdiction or would require either Evidence Act or Criminal Code amendments to put into effect. I don't know the answer offhand.
Mr Jackson: If so, the recommendation would be that the Attorney General approach the federal government about amendments to the Criminal Code that will allow -- bang -- the wording I'm proposing. That's all.
Mr Winninger: Subject to any comments from my colleagues, I think there are protections for children built into the Criminal Code. They were recently arrived at in 1989. In one of the recommendations I don't see any change from the existing law, and in the prior one I think that it doesn't balance off the rights of the accused against the rights of the victim.
The Chair: I think we should move on. Do you agree -- there's no agreement.
Mr Jackson: So the government won't support those two amendments?
Mr Winninger: They're not even in writing.
Mr Jackson: They're contained in the report. I read them verbatim. The clerk will photocopy it and then you can vote on it. How's that?
The Chair: Let's photocopy them. If there's time, we'll come back to these. That'll give an opportunity for the members to see the wording and, if there's time, we'll deal with it again. Moving on then, page 23.
Mr Murphy: Mr Chair, on number 12, I recall the discussion and it doesn't appear to be reflected in this amendment that we seem to have set up Toronto's old city hall court as the model of how to do this. There are certainly aspects of it that are good, but I think, as we discussed, it's up on the third floor in that old city hall. It's not the best courtroom in the world. I think we should make some reference to the fact that some aspects of Toronto's old city hall -- not be quite so effusive in our praise of that existing facility.
The Chair: There were some changes in fact that were recommended in terms of wording, I think in the line that you're suggesting as well, Mr Murphy. Does anybody else recall?
Mr Winninger: I certainly don't recall, but I didn't regard this as being effusive with praise for old city hall. In fact it's quite a neutral account of what's provided there, if you read those lines again. I take it you're talking about the lines immediately under recommendation 11?
Mr Murphy: Actually I'm talking about the actual recommendation wording on page 23.
Mr Winninger: Yes. There are certainly features of the Toronto's old city hall that I would not want duplicated anywhere.
1640
The Chair: Mr Murphy, what did you suggest again by way of changes?
Mr Murphy: Off the top of my head, what I really want, and probably Andrew can come up with it, is that the bottom line is that we want it to say that the modifications that have been done to that courtroom to accommodate the fact that it's a special courtroom for children are the kinds of things we want to look at in other courtrooms. It's really just wording that portrays that message that I want more clearly put.
Mr Winninger: How would it be if we just went with the first sentence of number 12? It would say, "That existing courtrooms be modified to accommodate the trial of cases involving child victims." Then we don't have to extol the merits of Toronto's old city hall.
The Chair: Right. What about the last sentence?
Mr Winninger: Modifications can be done for purposes of a trial itself. They don't have to be permanent; they could be temporary. Some of these, like booster seats and microphones, are things that could be introduced, I suppose, at any trial. Every court doesn't necessarily have to have a private waiting area with toys. That would be a good idea, but certainly there are some basics that would put a child at ease and that would be more child-focused and that could be done in virtually any trial. Rather than limit it, we could have it as a general statement.
Mr Murphy: I think that waters it down too much. I understand what you're trying to do, but I think some of the specific kinds of things you can do to modify a courtroom are what you're trying to get at, those modifications like the ones that are in old city hall.
The Chair: So Mr Murphy would like --
Mr Murphy: Something like, "That existing courtrooms be modified to accommodate the trial of cases involving child victims."
Mr Winninger: My problem is if these are permanent changes, because the evidence is that Toronto, which is the busiest metropolis in Ontario, has only two cases, I think it said, a day in this courtroom. By the time you get to Kenora, who knows how many cases you're going to have in a year. Surely the modifications would have to be made on an ad hoc basis to accommodate children, and those might be encouraged.
Mr Murphy: I think that's reflected in the last sentence in the recommendation.
The Chair: Rather than trying to work out the wording, there's a sense, Mr Winninger, that you don't disagree with what Mr Murphy's saying. His wording suggests that we look at some features, some of the modifications that have been made at city hall, as being good ones. If we can come up with wording in between, we should look at that, rather trying to work out the wording here. But you don't disagree with that suggestion, right?
Mr Winninger: No. I'm just worried that the research officer may not have enough direction on this point.
Mr Murphy: I trust in his native intelligence.
The Chair: On that particular line, the second sentence, I think some wording can be worked out that's not too complicated. Basically, the idea is to look at the modifications that have been made at city hall as one example of the kinds of changes that have been made, but not as the example of the kinds of changes we want to see made in the courtroom.
Mr Winninger: Yes. For example, it might say, "Modifications" --
The Chair: -- "such as...."
Mr Winninger: -- "such as or including the kind that have been made at city hall."
The Chair: And we leave the third sentence in then.
Mr Murphy: Yes, the third sentence is fine.
The Chair: Mr Winninger, is that fine?
Mr Winninger: It's rather vague. It says "where the number of cases warrants such services."
The Chair: I agree; I think the third sentence is more general.
Mr Murphy: The government's is more vague; leave it.
The Chair: Mr Winninger, you were trying to be very helpful; I agree.
Mr Winninger: Let's rephrase it, let's redraft it and then, if we're all comfortable, fine.
The Chair: All right, item 13? Page 24.
Mr Winninger: That was just a change in wording?
The Chair: On the previous page, yes.
Mr Jackson: Are we on page 24?
The Chair: Page 24, yes, item 14.
Mr Jackson: Voices for Children's Rights made a presentation to us which indicated that we should have someone called a victim advocate. I'm concerned by what we mean by: "That court preparation services be made available to all children...." It is so vague, and yet when we look at the deputation from the London child witness program, they're indicating that specialized victim/witness services be expanded.
We should be saying that if that's in fact what we believe, or we should clarify "court preparation services." We'd better qualify that these are human resources, because we've already indicated that it's at the privy of the judge etc whether or not you're going to get video equipment and you get into the physical aspect. I'm assuming we're talking human resources here.
The Chair: On page 23, the last paragraph there speaks about, "Court preparation includes: education about court terminology and procedure; helping children cope with stress and anxieties relating to the incident and to testifying in court; helping them testify in court; and providing an advocacy role on their behalf."
Mr Jackson: Providing advocacy, very good.
The Chair: So the recommendation speaks to that.
Mr Murphy: To pick up on Mr Jackson's point, and I think it's an important one, that we be specific, I think we should say in the recommendation, "That court preparation services modelled on those provided by the London child witness program be made available to all children." That would be the change to reflect Mr Jackson's purpose, that it would be services modelled on what's provided in London, which I'm sure Mr Winninger would support, coming as he does, from London. That would be my recommendation for an amendment to 14.
Mr Winninger: I wouldn't acquiesce in that change of wording. I think the way the wording presently reads is sufficient. It may be that every community can't support a child witness project --
Mr Murphy: It says "modelled."
Mr Winninger: -- or that every community doesn't need a child witness project. What we have is a situation where the federal government established two child witness projects, funded them on a pilot project basis for, as I recall, three years, then dropped the funding and left it to the province to step in and pick up that funding.
Mr Murphy: If you had your provincial victims' fine surcharge in the House now, you might have some money.
Mr Winninger: I think we also have to distinguish between the victim/witness assistance program and the child witness program. London just happens to have a number of psychologists and other workers who have taken it upon themselves to study this particular issue of preparing child witnesses for court, counselling them and so on. It may be that in some communities the crown attorneys who are specially trained in matters involving child abuse may perform that service. I think that 14 as it presently reads captures that direction.
Mr Murphy: But David, you'll know that the recommendation focuses on the services and those services are those that are modelled upon those provided, which are listed, as the Chair quite rightly pointed out, on the bottom of page 23 and over at the top of 24. We're not saying by whom they should be necessarily supplied or that they were going to have as fulsome -- although we have a debate about what that means -- a range of services as London might have because of some of the valid points you've pointed out. None the less it says (a) it's the services that matter and (b) it's modelled upon those.
1650
The Chair: Mr Murphy, rather than saying "modelled after," which sort of boxes it in, what if you said "could include"? Use the same language we used around the features of the courtroom of Toronto's old city hall.
Mr Winninger: Why not just take what's above and include it in the recommendation as well -- when I say what's above, some of the wording that is at the bottom of page 23 and at the top of page 24 -- and say, if you think 14 isn't specific enough, "including education about court terminology and procedure, helping children cope and helping them testify in court"?
Mr Jackson: Mr Chairman, this is a very significant recommendation. This includes children's aid society workers being impelled to be there to assist. Who's paying for those costs for them to be there? They're not required necessarily to be there. In this restraint mode, they're having to drop several of these cases. That's what's going on out there. That does not happen in London. They make sure of that. What this recommendation tells me is that the service will be applied evenly across the province.
I can interpret the wording as it is; I'm comfortable with the wording as it is because, in my view, I've put my signature to an expanding of the London project in all corners of the province. That's what that says.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr Jackson: It has funding implications, but I don't need to gild it any more than it is because you rightly pointed out to me that it includes the London child witness project as the example leading up to what we're recommending should be applied evenly across the province.
When the children's aid society steps in, when it's involving a family member, as you well know, then that includes their services, making sure they're funded accordingly to be in court and to provide those services. I like the recommendation because it's one of the only expenditure ones that doesn't have a zillion government bells and whistles on it.
Mr Winninger: In terms of using wording like "modelled after," I would object to that. I might add that it's my understanding that the child witness project does have other sources of funding. We're the main funder, but there was a period of time, as I recall, when the federal funds dried up, while we were getting our own funding in place, that they continued. I believe that the $140,000 --
Mr Murphy: Are you talking about the current witness -- .
Mr Winninger: Yes.
The Chair: Okay. Can we move on?
Mr Jackson: Let's go. It's 154 courtrooms times $140,000.
The Chair: Here we go. Page 25.
Mr Jackson: No problem.
Mr Winninger: That was 14.
The Chair: We're keeping it as it is. Recommendation 15.
Mr Jackson: The issue of victim safety deals with the issue of notice. In other words, if threats are made against a child, to revisit the child upon early release or release for any reason, then all the recommendations before the committee were that there be notice. London said that; Voices for Children's Rights said that; CAVEAT said that; there's a whole series of them.
Frankly, to clarify this, we should be using language that parole boards be directed to notify, where possible, that someone has gained early release for whatever reason, otherwise what does the safety mean if the person's incarcerated or if the person's on bail, to let them know that they are -- "We thought we had better call you and let you know that so and so has applied for and received release pending -- what's the proper wording, Tim? -- after a bail hearing and before sentencing?
Mr Winninger: Doesn't that come in after recommendation 21? It's on page 32. Isn't that a notification issue?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Jackson: Yes, and that's what we're saying here. I want to make sure. If we're not going to support it in the other end, we've got a contradiction, because the notion of the safety of an individual from someone who is incarcerated is to let them know that they're no longer incarcerated or that they're heading your way, that they've been released.
Mr Winninger: Here, all 15 speaks to is "information about the corrections and parole systems," how they operate generally, not with regard to one specific offender.
Mr Jackson: "...or how to lodge a complaint if an offender violates parole." Are you reading that on page 25?
Mr Winninger: What number are you on?
Mr Jackson: Page 25. Leading up to recommendation 15, safety has to do with an offender being at large for whatever reason, okay? Information about who's on the parole board and how frequently they meet is of little consequence to a victim and their family. They want to know that their assailant who has been charged is on early release or is on medical leave or is working on day passes, "If anything extraordinary occurs, please let us know."
If a peace bond is served on an individual, how effective is it if the individual doesn't know that they should be watching for that other individual? If you know how peace bonds work, you know how terrible they are in terms of the onus on the person who's the victim to leave and notify the police, and they have to lay the charge and prove that the individual was there. That's another story. It's not in this report. But if that's all we're saying about the safety of a child victim or any --
Mr Winninger: I'm just a little concerned about the placement of this recommendation. Are we suggesting that there should be different after-court victim services for children --
Mr Jackson: That's the section we're on.
Mr Winninger: -- and other situations? Because 15 is still under "Child Victim Services."
Mr Jackson: I'm just dealing with the report as it is in front of me. All I'm saying is that notice of early or pending release surfaces in three places in this report: The victims' bill of rights, the issue of notice, and here. If we're going to be inconsistent, my job is to make sure that isn't brought to our attention after this is printed. Do you want to stand that section down until we get that clear?
The Chair: Yes, we could. Stand it down, then? Okay. Page 26. Any comments on recommendation 16? Is there agreement?
Mr Winninger: I think it's a motherhood issue.
The Chair: Yes, okay. Page 27.
Mr Jackson: We use the word police "departments." I think we use the phrase "police services" in Ontario. Even though "police departments" is well known, it's not the current language, like "police force"; we try not to use that word.
The appropriate reference within the Sol Gen's is "victim assistance program." That's set out in the police act. What we're saying perhaps here, I hope, is that victim assistance programs should be established within each police department. To simply establish an office, that's four walls and a desk and a phone perhaps. I think we're talking about the program, and that flows from the Police Act, that victims shall be treated in a certain fashion and that's what caused them to develop these.
It's more a language issue, and I raised that with the committee four weeks ago.
1700
Mr Winninger: Just by way of elucidation, I checked with the Ministry of the Solicitor General and was advised that there are already police-based victim assistance programs in Kingston, Sault Ste Marie and Brant-Haldimand, as well as some local police victims services.
Mr Jackson: Halton was one of the first.
Mr Winninger: Yes, that would be an example of a local victims services.
The Chair: I'm sorry. Are we agreeing to something?
Mr Jackson: I want to make sure we're using common language. If that's what we're being called by the Sol Gen's office, I think when the Sol Gen picks this up and reads it, we should be using that language. That's all I'm saying.
Interjection: Agreed.
Mr Jackson: Moving right along.
The Chair: Mr Winninger, a further response?
Mr Winninger: I'm not sure why it would have to say, "similar to the existing program in British Columbia." Surely it stands alone.
Mr Jackson: You're asking why we have that recommendation?
Mr Winninger: We're dealing with number 17, are we not?
Mr Jackson: Yes.
Mr Winninger: Okay. I'm not sure why the words at the end of it, "similar to the existing program in British Columbia," need to be there. As I said, there are already some pilot projects involving police-based victim assistance. Why even say "That the government examine the feasibility...."? Why not recognize that the police-based victim assistance program be expanded in Ontario?
Mr Murphy: I disagree.
The Chair: There's a bit of disagreement here.
Mr Jackson: I can't understand this. It's a damn good program.
The Chair: We can stand it down, obviously.
Mr Winninger: I don't know that there's any serious controversy here. You'd like to see the police-based program expanded, right?
Mr Jackson: Yes.
Mr Winninger: Okay. I'm comfortable with that. All I'm saying is, let's not tie our hands and make it "similar to the existing program in British Columbia." It may well turn out to be similar, but why, just because there's a program in British Columbia, are we supposed to implement it in Ottawa?
Mr Jackson: We're not saying to implement it here, unless my copy's different from yours. It is "examine the feasibility." These are weasel words of the first order in this building. So what we're saying is, could you please, just maybe give a little bit of a look at one of the best programs in all of Canada? The fact that the NDP government brought it in in BC is to their credit. The fact that in spite of all the cuts, it's still being maintained I think is to be celebrated. If you wish to suggest that BC's program isn't a good working model for citizens, tell me.
Mr Winninger: But why not modify it a little and say "that provides the kinds of services under the existing program in British Columbia"?
Mr Jackson: Because the people who came forward, to a person, on this subject said that BC had a wonderful model and they presented materials on it. I frankly think it's a good model. I think if you're going to ever convince your government to study it, it's a nice place to start.
The Chair: Is there agreement or disagreement? If there's disagreement, we'll move on.
Mr Winninger: I just don't see why it has to be similar to British Columbia.
Mr Jackson: Is that a yes or a no?
Mr Winninger: It's a no.
The Chair: Okay, move on. Page 28, item 18. Agreement? Disagreement?
Mr Jackson: On 17?
Mr Winninger: We have a problem with 18.
Mr Jackson: Or 18, I'm sorry. I'm on two drafts I'm working with.
Mr Murphy: I guess I have a problem with the "with sufficient resources to do so" line, because the obligation of the Police Services Act to provide services to the victim is a mandated obligation, not subject to a resource limitation. In essence, this recommends that fewer services be provided than is currently mandated and I can't support that.
Mr Jackson: I completely agree. I can't lend my name to a recommendation which says that, based on your availability of funds, you can close one eye to one of the sections of the police act.
Mr Winninger: Do we have the specific wording of the police act here?
Mr Jackson: Andrew found the section. Where is it Andrew?
Mr Murphy: Section 1 of the Police Services Act requires that police services be provided in a way that recognizes "the importance of respect for victims of crime and understanding of their needs."
Mr Winninger: We're not dealing with training programs there; we're dealing with a general principle that police be sensitized to these matters. So there's nothing inconsistent with the police act to include the phrase "with sufficient resources to do so." It doesn't mention training programs per se. It just says, "Get the message across."
Mr Murphy: The hair is well split; you have my position.
Mr Jackson: We say it should not have "with sufficient resources to do so" and we prefer the original wording.
The Chair: Can I ask a question? Was there a discussion in our subcommittee where people might have been concerned about the police department not having the money to do something, and as a result of that concern this wording might have come up?
Mr Murphy: It may have been.
Mr Winninger: For example, the Ontario Police College may offer training programs accessible to departments across the province that may not have sufficient resources to implement their own local programs. The goals and objectives of the police act will still be served, no matter where they're trained, but I don't think we should mandate every local police department to have a training program.
The Chair: So there's no agreement.
Mr Winninger: There may be three officers in a small police department. How do you set up a training program?
The Chair: You made your point, Mr Winninger, but there's no agreement.
Mr Jackson: This now moves into number 18. We've got to be careful now. We're saying that police shouldn't receive training on child abuse. We say in a previous section that they should and now we're saying, if resources are available, they'll get the training.
Either we lift this whole section and put it in with child victims so that -- it could have gone in either section, so that's not a problem for Andrew. But we're semicontradicting ourselves when we say that they should receive it and then we now have this recommendation two pages later which says "where resources are sufficient."
The Chair: I want to point out to the members we have about 14 minutes left.
Mr Winninger: I don't want to flog it, but the only issue is whether every single department in the province needs its own training program or whether the officers of every single department are trained somewhere, maybe locally, maybe elsewhere.
1710
Mr Jackson: I think that in each police services jurisdiction in Ontario, the training be initiated to give force and effect to the principle that a child sexually assaulted will be interviewed by an officer who is sensitive to the child's circumstances as a victim. That's all we're trying to say, and not to be as picayune as "every officer in a department," because I'm still objecting to the words "police departments." That, to me, is the drug department versus the morality department. I think they're police services or police boards.
I think number 18 is scary if you're going to leave it the way it is.
The Chair: Can I suggest we move on? Let's move on, please. There's no agreement on that. Item 19. Oh, I see, same problem.
Mr Murphy: It's the same thing.
Mr Jackson: I was overruled.
The Chair: The same questions are raised there. Item 20.
Mr Jackson: "Victims and crown attorneys" or "crown prosecutors"? We're staying with "crown prosecutors" to describe them?
Mr Winninger: We're on 20 now?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Jackson: Why are we saying "standardized victim impact statement program"? It's a standardized victim impact statement. We don't have standardized victim impact statements in Ontario.
The Chair: Mr Jackson, could you refer us again to the line or the paragraph?
Mr Jackson: Page 30, third paragraph.
The Chair: Oh, 30, I'm sorry --
Mr Jackson: Am I on the right page?
The Chair: On recommendation 20, page 29.
Mr Jackson: I'm sorry, I thought I heard you say, "Page 29, there was no problems."
The Chair: That's item 19. That was the same problem as item 18, so then we moved on to number 20.
Mr Jackson: Right, and you asked if there were any problems and there was nothing, so I turned the page.
The Chair: Oh, I see.
Mr Jackson: I didn't hear anything.
The Chair: Is that okay then? Okay, fine.
Mr Jackson: You told me we had 14 minutes. I'm trying to move as fast as I can.
The Chair: You're absolutely right.
Mr Jackson: "Standardized victim impact statement program." I thought she announced a standardized victim impact statement; in other words, the drafting of a victim impact statement. That's not a program; that's a form with common usage and language throughout the province. It's one too many words --
Mr Murphy: First sentence of the third paragraph, page 30.
Mr Jackson: -- unless she did mean a full-blown program of access. I'm not sure.
Mr Winninger: Let me just check the wording on that.
Mr Jackson: I know what the deputy told us. I'm going to insist that "announced her government's intention to introduce a standardized victim...." The reason I say that is --
Interjection.
Mr Jackson: No, that's fine. I want to say that on the victims' fine surcharge and the standardized victim impact statement, they were both announced with timetables by the previous Attorney General. I will accept that it's been announced, an intention, but I can't accept constantly making announcements as though they've happened, because that's clearly been demonstrated in one of the reports before us.
Mr Winninger: The word "program" was used because it went province-wide, but I'm told that the word "program" is neither here nor there. If you want to delete it, it won't make any difference.
Mr Murphy: So it's "standardized victim impact statement."
Mr Winninger: Right.
Mr Jackson: "A standardized victim impact statement will be introduced" --
Mr McNaught: "Form."
Mr Jackson: "...form will be introduced in Ontario." "The Attorney General announced her government's intention to introduce...."
Mr Winninger: Just to be accurate, you may have heard us say last week that it's now been introduced. At the time the announcement was made it hadn't yet been, so I think, not to mislead the readers of this report, it has been introduced.
Mr Jackson: I asked you to bring that in writing.
Mr Winninger: I think that was referred to Susan Lee that day.
Mr Jackson: Yes, because my call to the ministry was, "Who's working on it?" and they said, "We haven't begun it." I'm delighted that you've been able to get this done on short notice, but I'd like to see the standardized -- and the memo that this is to be implemented. Otherwise, it is her government's intention to introduce a standardized victim impact statement for introduction in Ontario.
The Chair: We have eight minutes left. We can get a sense of whether there's agreement on some of these and then recess to discuss how we deal with the remaining items. Can we quickly run through this on page 31? If there's disagreement, we'll just move on.
Mr Murphy: Let's go straight to the recommendation.
The Chair: Straight to the recommendation on page 32. There are only about seven minutes left.
Mr Winninger: I think we may find ourselves with substantial disagreement on this one. I raised last day the concern with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Any provision that we include in this recommendation has to be couched in that phraseology.
Also, we need to be clear that some victims don't want to hear anything more of the offender before, during or after trial if they can help it. There's no point imposing an obligation on the crown and later on the correctional facility to notify a victim unless they've indicated a desire to be contacted. It may also be too great a duty on the correctional service long after the trial to be able to hunt down and locate every single victim.
Mr Jackson: Mr Chairman, I thought we were going to get votes on these.
The Chair: Okay, fine.
Mr Jackson: What is the intention of the government on this?
The Chair: I think he's saying there's a lot of disagreement on this item.
Mr Jackson: Then how do you propose to deal with it? Are we going to vote on it?
The Chair: We move on to the other items to see if there's agreement, because I want to recess in a minute to discuss how we deal with the other items that have not been dealt with, and we only have six minutes.
Item 22, disagreement or agreement? Page 33. Is there disagreement on this item?
Mr Winninger: I think there is. I think that's within the discretion of the judge sentencing to determine whether there should be association or not pending trial.
The Chair: All right.
Mr Winninger: Sorry, not on sentencing at this point, it's just pending release.
The Chair: Let's not debate that. We're coming close to five minutes. Page 35, item 23.
Mr Jackson: Just a minute, Mr Chairman. I raised the issue that it's not the committee's view that the bill of rights has symbolic value. That has been -- no, I'm sorry. I know we're dealing with recommendations. This is a substantive indictment of the victims' bill of rights. If we're going to not make a recommendation, that in fact is the recommendation, not to have a bill of rights, and it's impugning a consensus of the committee, which is far from accurate. My position is that it is in fact a form of recommendation, to the negative.
Mr Winninger: Where are you now?
Mr Jackson: I'm on page 34. I had served notice that this was of such importance that it be dealt with by a vote and that the wording be changed. In the opinion of the government members it was not supportable, but I couldn't live with the notion that the committee held the view that these were of symbolic value.
The Chair: I'm sorry. There are only four minutes left. Can we recess for approximately 10 minutes?
Mr Jackson: I'm going to just table wording for consideration during the recess of the Coroners Act amendment as suggested by four of the deputants before the committee. I've written it for inclusion in the report. I did serve notice four weeks ago that I felt this should fall in the miscellaneous section.
The Chair: All right.
Mr Murphy: Briefly, I had made a recommendation which I thought had been agreed to to include wording making reference to Dianne Poole's bill relating to serial killer cards and other things, and that's not in here.
The Chair: In the same section?
Mr Jackson: Under miscellaneous.
Mr Murphy: Yes, under miscellaneous.
The Chair: We have three minutes. Let's recess for 10 minutes and discuss how we're going to deal with this report, all right?
Mr Murphy: Agreed.
The committee recessed from 1720 to 1747.
The Chair: There's been consensus by all members to refer this matter to the subcommittee for its consideration and finalization of the report and that it will come back to the committee for a final decision.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair: On another matter, with respect to the subcommittee that we've had, I'd like to simply approve this report. I think we're passing that around. Madam Clerk, should we just read this into the record?
Clerk Pro Tem (Ms Lynn Mellor): No, just ask for instruction.
Mr Murphy: Is this agreed?
The Chair: This has been agreed to by all parties.
Mr Murphy: By subcommittee?
The Chair: In subcommittee. Once you've looked at that, all I need is a motion to adopt the report. Mr Murphy? Motion to adopt the subcommittee report? All in favour? That carries. This committee is adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1748.