Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

CONTENTS

Tuesday 9 September 1997

Ministry of the Attorney General

Hon Charles Harnick, minister

Ms Susan Himel, assistant Deputy Attorney General, social justice services

Ms Andromache Karakatsanis, assistant Deputy Attorney General,

Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat

Mr Graham Reynolds, assistant Deputy Attorney General, criminal law

Ms Lynn Binette, director, Family Responsibility Office

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Chair / Président

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South / -Sud L)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury L)

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury L)

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton PC)

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin L)

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall L)

Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East / -Est PC)

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

Mr Morley Kells (Etobicoke-Lakeshore PC)

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South / -Sud L)

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine ND)

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain PC)

Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln PC)

Mr Bill Vankoughnet (Frontenac-Addington PC)

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener PC)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold ND)

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview L)

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East / -Est ND)

Clerk / Greffière

Ms Rosemarie Singh

Staff / Personnel

Ms Alison Drummond, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1600 in committee room 2.

MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

The Vice-Chair (Mr Rick Bartolucci): May I have everyone's attention, please? First of all, thank you for attending. It seems that we have unanimous consent from all three parties that the government side will relinquish its time, which means that each of the two opposition parties has one hour left. It has been decided that the blocks will be 30-minutes blocks and that we will be able to vote on this at the end of this evening. Do we have unanimous consent? Thank you very much.

We'll start with the official opposition. You will have 30 minutes, Mr Cleary.

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): One thing I'd like to talk a little about is the appointment of the official guardian. Some lawyers have complained to me that some of the solicitors are appointed to the official guardian again and again. This means other solicitors who are interested in lawyering for children with the official guardian are excluded. Minister, what would you say to these complaints? Have you heard this before, and are you be concerned about their concerns?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I have not heard that. The official guardian is now more formally referred to as the children's lawyer. They run a department that has lawyers contained in it, but in addition, I believe the children's lawyer retains lawyers around the province periodically. The assistant deputy minister in charge of this ministry is here. Perhaps she can tell us a little bit about how the lawyers are chosen. We look for lawyers who are experienced in the field, who understand the nature of the problems they're dealing with. I guess they're primarily lawyers who work in family court situations, although there could be other areas of expertise that occasionally would be called for. But Susan is here and she can advise you about what that process entails.

Ms Susan Himel: My name is Susan Himel, and I'm the public guardian and trustee and the assistant Deputy Attorney General. I'm responsible for the social justice services division of the ministry, and within this division is the office of the children's lawyer.

As the minister indicated, this was formerly known as the official guardian's office. The children's lawyer is the office responsible for representing children in a variety of legal proceedings, primarily in the family law area in very difficult custody, access, child protection matters, and in certain civil litigation matters where the rights of children need to be protected independently.

As the minister indicated, the services are provided through in-house counsel, but also using a panel of private practitioners. There are over 300 lawyers across the province who apply to be on this panel, and they are selected because of their experience in the family law area and because of the expertise they bring to representing children.

They also are asked to apply every two years to the panel. It's a very open process. Every two years, they are asked to train again to be on this panel. They're required to attend training sessions which are very extensive and learn about skills in representing children before the courts.

It's quite a detailed process for retaining those counsels. They represent the child in proceedings before the courts and operate under the auspices of that office. I'd be happy to answer any other questions about it, if you have them.

Mr Cleary: Thank you. Minister, you've never been asked to meet with any of these lawyers who tried to get on this panel?

Hon Mr Harnick: Not that I can recollect.

Mr Cleary: Okay. The next issue is accounts not being paid by the Attorney General. A lawyer has told me that a number of accounts have not been paid because they were not submitted within the six months to complete the file. This lawyer says that he was never informed of the six-month limitation for submitted accounts. Although ministry officials replied that all lawyers were informed, your official could not apparently provide complete proof on how or when the notification may have been provided.

Hon Mr Harnick: Could you provide me with some details? Is this is a lawyer retained by the ministry to do work, or somebody maybe submitting accounts to legal aid? I don't know what the nature of the complaints is, but we'd be prepared to get you an answer. I don't know anything about it, Mr Cleary. I apologize for that.

Mr Cleary: This all came to me at second hand. I will get you the information.

Hon Mr Harnick: If you could get me the details, I'd be happy to find out about it and at least provide clarification. If lawyers are retained by the ministry and do work for the ministry, we certainly, as far as I'm aware, make it a point to pay our lawyers. I don't know whether these are maybe stale-dated legal aid accounts, administered by the Law Society of Upper Canada, because they have time limits in terms of how long you have to submit a bill following the completion of the work. If you can get me that material, I'd endeavour to find you an answer.

Mr Cleary: We'll try to get that and pass it along.

I wanted to talk about Bill 108, the Streamlining of Administration of Provincial Offences Act. Several local lawyers, including the president of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Law Association, Pierre Guindon, has contacted me about Bill 108. Mr Guindon and others are concerned that Bill 108, when introduced, did not include provisions that would make it subject to the French Language Services Act or the Courts of Justice Act. This bill, after second reading in February, was referred to the general government committee earlier this summer, so I was wondering if you could confirm that the language rights concerns about Bill 108 have been addressed. I would also like to inquire when you expect Bill 108 to receive third and final reading.

Hon Mr Harnick: Bill 108 is an important bill for municipalities because it provides them with a source of revenue they don't have and at the same time really streamlines the administration of justice in so far as provincial offences prosecutions are concerned. It brings the balance, all but part III Provincial Offences Act prosecutions, into the municipal realm. It's very important that we clarify that no longer will the province be doing some and the municipality be doing some, except for the ones under part III of the Provincial Offences Act.

The Courts of Justice Act protects trials in French and will continue to apply in all areas of the province. Trials will still be offered in French. There's nothing in the legislation which would lessen the provisions of the French language services.

1610

What we are envisioning is that each municipality that wants to become involved with the Provincial Offences Act will enter into a memorandum of understanding with the ministry. One of the things the ministry will be looking at is a way to ensure that the level of service will be no less than the level of service at the time the provincial offences prosecutions are devolved to the individual municipality.

We want to reach transfer agreements reflecting communities' needs. We want to maintain existing levels of service. We believe municipal governments are capable and responsive to the needs of the citizens in their communities, and we're confident that will ensure the successful transfer of the administration and prosecution of provincial offences.

Mr Cleary: And the final reading?

Hon Mr Harnick: I hope that'll be called very shortly and that we can deal with and pass Bill 108, because I think it's a very good thing for municipalities. It's also a very good thing for the public to know that there's one level of government dealing with provincial offences so that they understand the system, and that it's not a split jurisdiction system. At the same time, we want to use memoranda of understanding with each jurisdiction that agrees to become involved in the prosecution of provincial offences; we think that will guarantee the existing levels of service.

Mr Cleary: Another issue concerns the involvement your ministry has with Bill 61, specifically the portion of Bill 61 that restores lien rights to architects. A representative from the Ontario Association of Architects has informed me that Bill 61 is a step in the right direction because it allows architects to claim liens on a project or clients who fail to pay after architect services have been provided.

It is my understanding that your ministry brought this legislation forward in June 1996 and that it had second reading within three weeks. However, Bill 61 has not proceeded since then. I would like to inquire what your intentions are for the lien rights for architects.

Hon Mr Harnick: We've indicated in that bill what our intentions are, and I think the architects are pleased with the direction we're moving in, as you've indicated. I think you were quite accurate in reciting those facts. We want to see that bill passed. It's one of what we call our red-tape bills. We think a great many things in that bill and the balance of the red-tape bills will make the administration, particularly on justice issues, much more streamlined.

We're anxious to pass those bills. I believe the House leader is dealing with the timing and scheduling of all the red-tape bills. I think there are two justice bills in the red-tape package, and there are a number of things that would streamline, from our perspective, areas of the justice system. I hope that will be law very shortly as well, and I think the architects will then have their lien rights restored.

It was regrettable that at one point the architects thought they may not need those lien rights. They've waited a long time, but we are answering their concerns and restoring those lien rights in Bill 61.

Mr Cleary: Do you think that'll be this fall?

Hon Mr Harnick: I would hope it would be. The House leader will decide when the red-tape bills can proceed, but we're all very anxious for that to happen, because they're important bills. I'm happy that you're supporting me.

Mr Cleary: Another area of concern brought to my attention by a constituent on August 22 involves your ministry's Limitations Act. As you know, the Attorney General under the previous administration introduced a bill in November 1992 that called for a two-year limitation period for most causes of action, with an ultimate limitation period of 30 years. Also, there was a special ultimate limitation period of 10 years for hospitals, health care professionals, building designers and contractors. It is the last provision which interests my constituent. He indicated that the 10-year limitation for claims against building designers and contractors was a good initiative because it reduced financial liability insurance and the record-keeping burden for architects and engineering firms. Any comments on the bill or similar legislation?

Hon Mr Harnick: I was supportive of the last government and the limitation bill they didn't proceed with. I understand as well why they didn't proceed with it. It was because a number of the different aspects of the limitation bill and how that bill affects different ministries has not found general consensus in terms of the needed amendments.

I think it's an important area of law reform. Certainly it's something I would like to proceed with. I can tell you we are looking for the consensus among ministries, because there are a number of aspects of that bill that affect different ministries. We are trying to canvass the ministries to find what is going to be acceptable for them so we can make long overdue changes to the Limitations Act.

Issues pertaining to limitations have been debated probably for about 20 years. I know former Attorney General and now Chief Justice, Mr McMurtry, dealt with a major project when he was the Attorney General, looking at the reform of limitations. It's long-overdue. I agree with you.

Mr Cleary: Does that cross the bounds of more than three ministries?

Hon Mr Harnick: It does. It crosses the bounds of almost every ministry in the government in one way or another. I don't think there has to be agreement between ministries, but there is concern among individual ministries about the impact of changes to limitation periods; for instance, on hospitals, on architects, on engineers, on accountants, on environmental concerns, on some of the ultimate limitation periods that were suggested in the draft bill that the former government presented. We are trying to take a look at making some changes that would be acceptable so we could bring in a new Limitations Act.

Mr Cleary: Another thing is in my riding in eastern Ontario, the provincial courthouse, all the problems we had with the subcontractors and everything. I'm sure you've heard about that before. Is everything completed now? Are the contracts all signed and the deals all made and it is all set to proceed?

Hon Mr Harnick: To the best of my knowledge, the courthouse construction has begun in Cornwall. In designing courthouses, we work with users committees, which are made up of representatives of the bench and the bar and the public. Users committees agree on the plan of the interior of the building before the plans are finalized. Once that agreement has been reached, the tenders are sought and then the building can proceed. That's my understanding of what has happened in Cornwall. The assistant deputy minister responsible for courts is here. I don't know if she has any more information.

1620

I can tell you that your colleague in eastern Ontario, Mr Villeneuve, was very excited about the fact that the building was starting to be built. He was very excited about the fact that several governments had talked about building a new courthouse for Cornwall and we have finally been able to deliver on a promise of very long standing, because the facilities were very inadequate in Cornwall. People are very excited about having a new courthouse in Cornwall. We're anxious to see that project move along. I don't know if Heather Cooper wants to add anything to that.

Mr Cleary: I'm going to take you up on your offer; you said there's a possibility that you might meet with some of the people who were on that committee. They said they had been insulted by your project manager and want to meet with you. I spoke to you back a few weeks ago, and I think they're going to take you up on that offer.

Hon Mr Harnick: I'd be delighted to meet with them. People are very anxious to see that courthouse built.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Cleary, we're going to alter the timetable slightly. The minister has been called to a P and P meeting in 19 minutes. What I suggest we do is allow Mr Kormos 10 minutes of questioning, if that's okay with Mr Kormos.

Hon Mr Harnick: No, it has actually been called for now, but Mr Flaherty is here, and I know he'd be delighted to answer your questions. I will be back in 10 minutes.

The Vice-Chair: You'll only be 10 minutes?

Hon Mr Harnick: I hope so. I will be back as fast as I can.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Flaherty, we have 10 minutes left with Mr Cleary, and then we'll go to the NDP for their 30 minutes. Is that all right with you?

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): If I may, Chair, I have no quarrel with the minister being required to attend a cabinet subcommittee, no quarrel whatsoever, and I am prepared to do anything we have to do to accommodate him. However, I find it peculiar that midway through estimates and discussion with the Attorney General the minister finds himself going to P and P and, rather than merely asking for a recess for the time he's in P and P, substitutes his parliamentary assistant.

Mr Cleary and Mr Brown, on behalf of the official opposition, have developed a series of questions and done so in a very logical way. Ms Martel and I, perhaps not quite as logical as my colleagues in the Liberal caucus in terms of our organization, have attempted to develop a theme or a series of questions. I don't think it's appropriate that -- if Mr Cleary wants to pose questions, I don't speak for Mr Cleary in this regard; I suspect he'll speak for himself to Mr Flaherty. But I say to you, sir, to find ourselves without an exact time frame for the Attorney General, and with the parliamentary assistant being basically interjected without any forenotice, I'm not agreeing or consenting to that.

The Vice-Chair: Actually, if I can clarify just slightly, we were given a little bit of advance notice that the minister was being called to a P and P and that the parliamentary assistant would be assuming his position for the short time the meeting took place. That is why I asked the clerk to tell you we would be having this, just so we can be fair to everyone and that we maximize the effectiveness of the time we have together. We have two ways of going. We can ask for an adjournment, and if we don't get all-party consent, we continue with the parliamentary assistant. Is that the way you'd like to proceed?

Mr Kormos: Chair, I am suggesting to you that you have some very strong powers to recess.

The Vice-Chair: Well --

Mr Kormos: I'm suggesting to you that you do. You have some strong powers to recess this committee to accommodate the Attorney General. I would certainly not object in any way, shape or form to you exercising that power. We're approaching the end of these and things have gone along quite well so far. I've been very pleased with the course of these estimates hearings. I'm suggesting to you that you have the capacity to recess the matters until the Attorney General can return.

The Vice-Chair: Without getting into a legal debate with a very good lawyer whom I respect, I believe the clerk has said that it's the committee that has the right to do that. Is it the request of the committee that we adjourn until the minister comes back or do we continue?

Mr Kormos: If it's in order, I would move that we adjourn awaiting the return of the Attorney General.

The Vice-Chair: There's a motion that we adjourn.

Mr Kormos: Recorded vote, please.

Ayes

Cleary, Kormos.

Nays

Beaubien, Doyle, Grimmett, Pettit, Wettlaufer.

The Vice-Chair: We will continue. You have nine minutes left, Mr Cleary.

Mr Cleary: As we've got the parliamentary assistant, I'll go to a lighter issue, the topless issue.

Parliamentary Assistant, as you well know, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled this summer that women in Ontario have the right to go topless in public. This decision has caused a little bit of an uproar in a few communities; in our particular area there have been four or five incidents. Many people expect you and the ministry you represent would perhaps appeal the ruling. I know this issue isn't as big as it was a few weeks ago and it'll be less important as the weather gets colder, but it's still there.

In many communities, as I said, this has caused an uproar. While I've certainly heard from people in favour of the ruling, I would also like to say that a large majority is opposed. Just last week I presented a petition in the Legislature that was organized by Richard and Elaine Leger of the Cornwall area, with over 1,000 signatures. Another community petition signed by 3,800 was forwarded to the House of Commons on the same issue.

What are your views on the topless issue? Do you see the minister appealing the court ruling that has a major impact on Ontario men, women and children?

Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): The issue, as you know, Mr Cleary, is an issue that many of us have heard about from our constituents concerned about the issue of toplessness and appropriate public behaviour. The court decisions of course were dealing with the federal criminal law; it is that criminal law that deals with the issues of indecent acts and public nudity.

The Attorney General wrote to the federal Attorney General earlier this year and asked the Attorney General to look into the matter further. There is a working group with representatives from across Canada that has been set up to review the issue of toplessness and report back to the Federal Uniform Law Conference, which is a federal-provincial law commission. They're to report back as soon as possible with respect to regulation. In the meantime, from a municipal point of view, the municipalities have bylaw powers that individual communities may choose to exercise.

It is a matter of federal criminal law with respect to setting the standard, and that is the federal criminal law that the judges have been interpreting.

Mr Cleary: Thank you. I got the answer I knew I was going to get.

As things have changed so much today and our critic is away at a meeting right now and wanted more time, could I stand down the rest of my time for her? If not, I could carry on for the next three or four minutes, whatever it is.

The Vice-Chair: The clerk tells me -- thank God for the clerk -- if the committee agrees, he can stand down his time.

Mr Kormos: Can I have one moment, please?

The Vice-Chair: Absolutely. There will be a caucus of the two opposition parties.

Do we have agreement? All right.

Mr Cleary: How long is it?

The Vice-Chair: You have four minutes.

Mr Cleary: Okay. That'll help.

1630

Mr Kormos: What I'm prepared to do is to relinquish that four minutes, not out of my time, but promptly when that critic arrives. Obviously, I've been interested in waiting for the Attorney General.

Bill 82 passed in the early part of 1997. The Attorney General spoke of it on December 3, 1996, as containing 10 tough tools. One of them was pursuant to section 47, reporting to credit agencies, to credit bureaus. Has that been utilized yet?

Ms Andromache Karakatsanis: I think it may be helpful for Lynn Binette, who is the director of the Family Responsibility Office, to outline what improvements have been made in technology to answer your question and talk about service improvements.

The Vice-Chair: Would you identify yourself for Hansard, please.

Ms Lynn Binette: Lynn Binette, director of the Family Responsibility Office.

Mr Kormos: What about section 47 and credit bureau reporting? Has that been implemented yet?

Ms Binette: Yes, it has.

Mr Kormos: Has it been utilized yet?

Ms Binette: Yes, it has. We started reporting defaulting payors in June 1997. We do that on a monthly basis. We're reporting 63,000 payors.

Mr Kormos: Has it resulted in any payors clearing their names with the credit bureau, so to speak, by paying the arrears?

Ms Binette: Not to this point in time that we can directly relate to the credit bureau reporting. This is a tool that may take some time before we see the effects.

Mr Kormos: Fair enough. Now section 43, the PPSA provisions --

Ms Binette: No, that hasn't been proclaimed yet.

Mr Kormos: Why not?

Ms Binette: We're doing some preparatory work with another ministry. We expect proclamation in the winter, in a few months' time.

Mr Kormos: I'm not really familiar with the PPSA, but as I understand it, it's a relatively straightforward procedure.

Ms Binette: We have to do some technology changes because we want to submit the information electronically.

Mr Kormos: When do you anticipate those technology changes will be achieved?

Ms Binette: In the winter of 1997-98.

Mr Kormos: Who's participating in those technology changes currently?

Ms Binette: It's the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and the Family Responsibility Office.

Mr Kormos: The Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations has to introduce new technology to accommodate the Family Responsibility Office?

Ms Binette: No. We have to do computer programming changes in order to be able to electronically transmit the information to consumer and commercial relations.

Mr Kormos: Is that being done now or is the Family Responsibility Office waiting for that work to begin?

Ms Binette: We haven't begun that work of the reprogramming yet. We have other technology changes we're doing first. We have a long list of technology changes we're working on.

Mr Kormos: Is that going to be contracted out or done internally?

Ms Binette: It's going to be done internally. The programming will be done by our programmers.

Mr Kormos: Section 66 dealt with the amendments to the Creditors' Relief Act. Has that been given effect to?

Ms Binette: No, it hasn't been yet.

Mr Kormos: What's the reason for the delay in proclaiming section 66?

Ms Binette: It will be included in a future part of the proclamation.

Mr Kormos: Are there problems there with technology?

Ms Binette: Not that I'm aware of. Not that I can think of at the moment.

Mr Kormos: Is there anything that the minister relies upon to justify delaying the implementation of that to coincide with the implementation of other amendments which require technological enhancement?

Ms Binette:. I didn't quite follow that question.

Mr Kormos: Neither did I. Is there any good reason for delaying that?

Ms Binette: We took all the legislative initiatives and have taken some of them that we're able to do now -- it's been a matter of workload. We can't do all of them at the same time. Rather than waiting until all of them are finished, we got a package of legislative initiatives ready and proclaimed those. That included voluntary opting out and the credit bureau reporting, as you said, and a lot of the other administrative things around the name change of the program and what not. We've now been focusing our attention on driver's licence suspension. That's been a major piece of work for us, with extensive testing and preparation for that, so we are ready for proclamation later this fall. Then, with some of the other legislative initiatives we're starting to work on now, it will be a few months before they're ready.

Mr Kormos: On April 24, 1997, the Attorney General was reported as saying that it's hiring 25 people to crack down on deadbeat parents. Has it hired any of those people?

Ms Binette: We hired 34 client service associates. They began their training on June 16. They have now completed their core training and they're on the telephones and they're starting to do their enforcement work. We have a competition under way to hire some additional staff.

Mr Kormos: So these people's sole purpose is to engage in collections?

Ms Binette: They do the full gamut of enforcement work and client service associate work.

Mr Kormos: Is there anything special about section 66 that makes it difficult to submit it for proclamation?

Ms Binette: The creditors' relief?

Mr Kormos: Yes.

Ms Binette: Nothing particularly difficult. It's a matter that we're just starting to work on it now because we've been working on the other.

Mr Kormos: I understand. It's a simple matter of paperwork.

Ms Binette: Nothing is ever so simple as just paperwork.

Mr Kormos: Well, the bill has received third reading and it's to be submitted for proclamation. Is that correct?

Ms Binette: Yes.

Mr Kormos: What does that involve?

Ms Binette: That involves us getting policies and procedures ready and working with whatever stakeholder groups we have to work with to make sure that everybody is on board and ready to implement this. We're not the only people affected. It's a matter of registering this as well.

Mr Kormos: Why would that involve registering if it's a simple matter of giving priority to arrears over other creditors?

Ms Binette: It takes training of other people in other parts of the ministry and in terms of receiving that information from it and acting on it correctly.

Mr Kormos: Sheriffs enforce collection of exigibles. Correct?

Ms Binette: Yes.

Mr Kormos: Do you think sheriffs would have that much difficulty understanding that if section 66 were given effect to, payments to the Family Responsibility Office have priority over other creditors?

Ms Binette: I can only go back to saying there were a lot of initiatives in that piece of legislation. We are working away at them. We have proclaimed some, we are working on some that are ready for proclamation soon and there are others that will be proclaimed later.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Kormos, could you speak up just a bit? We're having a little bit of difficulty hearing you.

Mr Kormos: Gosh, I'm sorry, Chair.

The Vice-Chair: Thanks so much.

Mr Kormos: What about section 41? Has that been proclaimed?

Ms Binette: What is that section related to?

Mr Kormos: Third-party enforcement.

Ms Binette: No, that hasn't been proclaimed yet.

Mr Kormos: What are the difficulties there? Do you require any technological upgrading, computer programming to give effect to that?

Ms Binette: That involves work with the judiciary. It involves work with the banks as well. We're talking about seizing joint bank accounts. There is a lot of work to be done in getting that one ready for implementation.

Mr Kormos: What stage is that work at?

Ms Binette: We've had a number of meetings with the bankers' association. We have forms drafted. We're discussing those forms that will be used for doing some of this third-party work. It also has to go to the rules committee around how the banks will handle some of that information. It's well in progress, but it's a few months away before we will be ready to proclaim it.

Mr Kormos: So section 45 and section 41 are basically in the same boat? One is joint bank accounts; the other is third-party?

Ms Binette: Yes.

Mr Kormos: What about section 46, the Ontario Lottery Corp?

Ms Binette: We have done some testing with them. We have a tape of information. They will be taking information from us about the payors. We are in the testing phase of that and we should be ready to implement that in a few months' time.

Mr Kormos: I don't understand what testing is involved.

Ms Binette: This is technology. Once again, the information will be available technologically, so we've had to do computer work on our part. That's what we're testing, to make sure it's accurately giving that information for the lottery corporation to read.

Mr Kormos: What's the anticipation on the part of the Family Responsibility Office that the lottery corporation will check with FRO records before it disburses any prizes in excess of $1,000?

Ms Binette: The lottery corporation is aware of our legislation and will be adhering to it.

1640

Mr Kormos: How many lottery winners have been payors in default?

Ms Binette: I don't know.

Mr Kormos: So there could have been any number since the passage of Bill 82 that have escaped the impact of section 46.

Ms Binette: If you check with the lottery corporation, I don't think you'll find that there are that many winners each week, and for them to then happen to be part of our program, I don't know what that number would be.

Mr Kormos: Are you suggesting that it's not really a very important tool in the toolbox for enforcement of those in default?

Ms Binette: No, it's another tool we have, but we can't stand on one tool alone. It's the combination of all the tools together that will make us more effective in our enforcement, and that will certainly be one of them.

Mr Kormos: What about the screening of appointments to ABCs? Has that been done?

Ms Binette: We have been working with the office to set up the procedures for that to happen. My staff has had a number of meetings with the provincial appointments secretariat, and we should be ready to proceed with that soon -- a few months' time, I should say. I don't want Sue to think --

Mr Kormos: I understand that. How many appointments are there on a monthly basis? Does the FRO know?

Ms Binette: My staff was told, and I don't remember that number off the top of my head.

Mr Kormos: Does that involve technology as well?

Ms Binette: We will be giving them read access to some of our information, but yes, there is a technology component to it. But there are also procedures that have to be written for how the two offices will relate and make sure we have the correct person. We don't want to give incorrect information about someone.

Mr Kormos: I understand, but I'm from a small town. Isn't it a matter of getting a list of the people who are intended to be appointed and checking them against the list of persons in default?

Ms Binette: We can't go by name alone, because you have people with similar names or you can have more than one person with the same name. A number of pieces of information are needed.

Mr Kormos: An address would be relevant, and a date of birth --

Ms Binette: Yes.

Mr Kormos: -- and I suppose some general idea about their background.

Ms Binette: No, not general idea about their background, as I'm understanding your question. It's factual information that will allow us to identify the person.

Mr Kormos: Have you ever seen the curriculum vitae that are submitted by applicants to ABCs?

Ms Binette: No, I haven't.

Mr Kormos: You've got a pretty good idea that they contain a whole lot of identifying information, though, don't you?

Ms Binette: Yes.

Mr Kormos: You're not going to fingerprint these people, are you, because you don't have fingerprints of defaulters anyway.

Ms Binette: No.

Mr Kormos: It strikes me as strange. Lord knows how many people the government has appointed to ABCs who have been in default. There could have been hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of arrears slip through.

Tell us about the driver's licence suspensions. Many people think that's the single most powerful enforcement tool. You understand that.

Ms Binette: Yes. That has proven to be a very effective enforcement tool in other jurisdictions.

Mr Kormos: Even in Ontario. I don't even know if it still happens -- the PA might want to respond -- but when people get judgements against them as a result of motor vehicle accidents, is it still the law that a plaintiff can register that judgement unpaid with the ministry and that a licence will be suspended until the judgement is paid?

Mr Flaherty: The last time I was involved in something like that it still was the law, but that was some time ago.

Mr Kormos: Yes. I think it is. I'm not sure.

Mr Flaherty: I think it is also, but I'm not sure.

Mr Kormos: That was a matter of registering the judgement with the Ministry of Transportation. Am I correct in that regard?

Mr Flaherty: Yes.

Ms Binette: In terms of the driver's licence suspension, we had to do reprogramming of our own computer system, because once again we plan to transmit the information electronically from the Family Responsibility Office to the Ministry of Transportation. It also meant that the Ministry of Transportation had to do some reprogramming of their driver's licence computer system. The reprogramming has been done by both parties, we have tested that, and we know the information is being transmitted correctly. We are now testing the second leg of that. The Ministry of Transportation then transmits that information electronically to the OPP, where the actual suspension is done and noted in the CPIC system. That is being tested. We have all our policies and procedures in place, and we have trained the staff. We've selected the first hundred files ready for suspension. We've done the computer printout of all the cases that are in arrears and would probably be good candidates for this. So we have been actively working to get ready for this enforcement tool this fall.

Mr Kormos: That's good news. Are you ready for it now?

Ms Binette: Yes, we are.

Mr Kormos: So it's a simple matter of getting that section proclaimed?

Ms Binette: We're just about ready for proclamation.

Mr Kormos: Is there anything I can do to help? Can I go pick something up in Downsview and deliver it, perhaps, to a -- honest, if there's anything I can do to help, I would sincerely be pleased to. What can any of us --

Ms Binette: I do appreciate your offer.

Mr Kormos: Ma'am, you've got thousands upon thousands of women out there who -- you know this; I don't have to tell you. I agree that the driver's licence suspension is probably the single most powerful tool of getting deadbeats to pay up, especially those who don't have traditional employer-employee jobs. What can any of us do, and I'm deadly serious, to speed up the process? If you tell us everything is ready to go, what can any of us do to help?

Ms Binette: We're in the last stages of testing. We met last week again with the Ministry of Transportation and the Solicitor General, the OPP part. That is the last part that is being tested out and that should be happening shortly.

Mr Kormos: Can you give us -- I know how you guys work. You've got time frames. You do, don't you?

Ms Binette: I'm not going to comment on the time frames of MTO and the OPP.

Mr Kormos: You do have time frames, but you're just not going to -- I appreciate why you wouldn't want to tell me what they are, because you might have passed them already.

Ms Binette: No. As I said, we had our meeting last week and we are doing more testing over the next week or two. We're making sure that everything is ready to go.

Mr Kormos: Your title again is --

Ms Binette: Director of the Family Responsibility Office.

Mr Kormos: Has there been a single division that has been responsible for the implementation of the 10 enforcement tools in Bill 82?

Ms Binette: Is there a single division?

Mr Kormos: Yes. Is it, for instance, you, as director of FRO?

Ms Binette: I have a number of staff who have been working on the implementation.

Mr Kormos: But it's FRO's responsibility, structurally?

Ms Binette: Yes.

Mr Kormos: You report to whom?

Ms Binette: I report to Susan Himel, the assistant Deputy Attorney General for social justice services.

Mr Kormos: Right. She was just here. That means advising her on the progress of these things?

Ms Binette: Yes.

Mr Kormos: Do you happen to know who she reports to?

Ms Binette: She reports to the deputy minister, the acting deputy being Ms Karakatsanis.

Mr Kormos: I know her well. I think, quite frankly, she's an excellent ADM. At the end of the day, who oversees all this development? Is it the Attorney General?

Ms Binette: The Attorney General is the minister responsible for this, yes, and he has returned just in time.

Can I correct something? I misunderstood one of your earlier questions. I got joint bank accounts, I think, mixed up with credit relief.

Mr Kormos: Quite right.

Ms Binette: The Creditors' Relief Act change was proclaimed. The joint bank account has not been proclaimed, or the PPSA, and I think I got --

Mr Kormos: All right. Section 66 of the bill was the Creditors' Relief Act and that has been proclaimed?

Ms Binette: Yes. It's the PPSA part that has not been proclaimed yet. I'm sorry. I got them confused.

Mr Kormos: No problem. Thank you kindly. I'm glad the AG is back too.

Ms Binette: Yes. He has overall responsibility for the legislation.

Mr Kormos: I know that. Thank you kindly, ma'am.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Kormos, you have 11 minutes left.

Mr Kormos: The parliamentary assistant confirms my belief that the Ministry of Transportation has been suspending the driver's licence of judgement debtors in the incidents of judgements arrived at as a result of motor vehicle accidents when those debtors have been in default for a number of years, well within many of our lifetimes. Is that your information as well?

Hon Mr Harnick: Yes.

Mr Kormos: What's the difficulty, then, in having the Ministry of Transportation suspend the driver's licences of people who are in default under the family support plan/FRO?

Hon Mr Harnick: I don't know. You'll have to ask them.

Mr Kormos: Unfortunately, your senior staff just identified you as the person ultimately responsible for the implementation of Bill 82.

Hon Mr Harnick: My understanding is that she explained the technicalities of that issue to you.

Mr Kormos: She explained to me that it has taken a great deal of time. I'm asking you what the obstacles have been.

Hon Mr Harnick: The first obstacle was that your government rejected this issue about seven years ago, or this would have been up and running long before that. It's quite clear that your government has been opposed to this idea. I regret that very much, because what has happened as a result of rejecting pleas from MAFIA and FAD -- Mothers Against Fathers in Arrears and Families Against Deadbeats -- is that there has been a huge escalation in uncollected family support benefits.

1650

The family support plan, as it was constituted, had very little by way of ability to make collection other than a formal writ of fi fa, and you would be aware that that is a very passive way to collect money from a debtor; you wait until they dispose of an asset and you get the money. The fact is that we are now taking a look at moving the plan to a much more active and aggressive means of collecting debts.

Mr Kormos: We're well beyond that, sir, because Bill 82 passed in the very early part of 1997. The person in charge of the FRO has been very fair and, quite frankly, protective of you, not inappropriately, in discussing the course of implementation of Bill 82. She also -- it was rhetorical -- identified you as the person ultimately responsible. I want to know what the problems have been with implementing the driver's licence suspension, which I think everyone agrees, yourself and myself included, is probably the single most powerful tool in enforcement. What were the problems?

Hon Mr Harnick: I'm delighted to hear that you're supporting the initiative, because it was your party who brought an opposition day asking to kill the bill. I'm really glad that you've seen the light, because it is a very --

Mr Kormos: I don't know what happened to you at P and P, Mr Harnick, but please don't carry your problems with P and P over into this committee.

Hon Mr Harnick: P and P went superbly, but I appreciate your concern about that as well.

Mr Kormos: I've gotten that distinct impression from your demeanour since you arrived back in this room.

Now, the bill was passed in the very early part of 1997. Please, what were the problems with the implementation of the mechanics to suspend driver's licences?

Hon Mr Harnick: There are no problems with the implementation. You describe it as if there must be a problem. There is work being done. My understanding is that there is some reprogramming involved, some electronic testing that goes on, a review of files to determine the most appropriate files to start with, because after all, you left us with a plan where 75% of the people in it were getting nothing. We found, when we closed regional offices, files that hadn't been opened for five years. We found 90,000 pieces of work that hadn't been completed and that were involved in a backlog. As a result of that and as a result of the chaos you left the plan in and totally neglected, as a result of the fact that you wasted years and years in terms of implementing aggressive ways to collect money, this has taken a considerable amount of time. As you were told, we hope that very shortly, this month, maybe by the middle of this month, we will be in a position to proclaim those sections.

Mr Kormos: When did the work start on the provisions of part V of the bill that would permit the MTO to suspend driver's licences of defaulting payors?

Hon Mr Harnick: I don't know when MTO started their work.

Mr Kormos: I understand that the work necessary to permit the utilization of part V of Bill 82 was done under the direction of the Family Responsibility Office.

Hon Mr Harnick: That's right.

Mr Kormos: When did that work start on the relationship with the Ministry of Transportation?

Hon Mr Harnick: I believe it would have been shortly after the bill was passed, maybe before. I don't know.

Mr Kormos: What type of work had to be done with the Ministry of Transportation?

Hon Mr Harnick: There had to be issues that involved -- and I've answered this already -- computer programming, electronic transferring. I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of that to be more precise, but that's my understanding.

Mr Kormos: Was this work prioritized by you?

Hon Mr Harnick: I relied on the experts who told us what had to be done in terms of information technology and those issues.

Mr Kormos: But I'm asking you, sir, was the work prioritized by you, as the person ultimately responsible for the implementation of Bill 82?

Hon Mr Harnick: Are you asking me whether I drew up a list and said, "You're going to do this first and this second and this third and this fourth"? The answer is no, because I don't have the technical ability to do that work. I relied on experts who existed in both ministries to perform the work to make this system go.

Mr Kormos: You recall that earlier in 1997 you predicted a much earlier implementation date for part V of Bill 82 that effected the suspension of driver's licences.

Hon Mr Harnick: I was hopeful that the work would be done faster than it has been, but this is a very significant step we're taking -- it has never been done before -- and people were proceeding cautiously.

Mr Kormos: Was it in-house work that was utilized for the computer technology?

Hon Mr Harnick: I believe so, but I don't know that I can say it was 100% that. I don't know what the Ministry of Transportation's advice was.

Mr Kormos: Was the problem that resulted in the delay as a result of MTO not being capable of accommodating?

Hon Mr Harnick: No, I don't think that was the problem. I think the problem was that there was a significant amount of work that had to be done dealing with information technology and electronic work, and it took some time.

Mr Kormos: When you initiated this process -- and I trust from what you say that you initiated it promptly after third reading of Bill 82 or, as you suggested, perhaps even before -- did you inquire as to how long it would take to give effect to part V of the bill?

Hon Mr Harnick: There was a great deal of work to be done that had to involve two ministries' information technology. A lot of the work that had to be done to permit us to properly implement the driver's licence suspension involved reducing the backlog we found in the regional offices. Certainly the phone capacity we had with the plan was not great enough, because we had 90,000 people calling us to say, "The regional office was looking after our cost-of-living allowance adjustment and it hasn't been done and that was three years ago."

Part of our ability to implement the driver's licence suspension involved the technical work between two ministries, identification of files that had been long-neglected in many cases, and also involved the ability to deal with the backlog before we undertook further work and added it to what was on our plate.

Mr Kormos: But when you failed to meet your first time frame, was that as a result of the failure of the Ministry of Transportation to fulfil its commitment within the time frame or to staff within the FRO?

Hon Mr Harnick: I don't think it was the fault of anyone. I think it was the fault of the fact that we inherited a plan that was a disaster, and that we didn't have the capacity --

Mr Kormos: How did you arrive at your first time frame?

Hon Mr Harnick: Why don't you let me finish, Mr Kormos? Let me finish my answer. We inherited a plan that was a disaster --

Mr Kormos: So you said. How did you arrive at the first time frame?

Hon Mr Harnick: Well, let me finish my answer.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Kormos, would you allow the minister to finish his response? Then he can answer your second question. Thank you.

1700

Hon Mr Harnick: We inherited a plan that was a disaster. We inherited a plan that had a client service component to it that was virtually non-existent. We wanted to clear the backlog so that the staff working at the plan would have a chance to properly be able to deal with the implementation of driver's licence suspension. We trained new staff for this. That took time. If you want to point fingers and say, "Whose fault was it?" I don't know the answer. I don't think it was anybody's fault. I think it was work had to be done and it had to be done properly.

Mr Kormos: Are you suggesting that you deferred the work required to give effect to part V, as you just suggested, by virtue of waiting to start that until you cleaned up what you saw as other problems?

Hon Mr Harnick: We had to clean up the inability of the plan to deal with its day-to-day workload. The state the plan was in, when we found from the regional offices 90,000 items that had been backlogged, was pretty abysmal. That may be fine for you and that may be your justification to keep the regional offices open. But the money that had been wasted, for instance, on lawyers going to court to get cost-of-living allowances adjusted that never found their way into orders, that never found their way into the paycheques that women and children received, I think was totally inappropriate.

The Vice-Chair: Minister, if I can interrupt, your time is up, Mr Kormos. However, the critic is not here from the official opposition. If you would like to continue this line of questioning until she arrives, we'll take it off your last half-hour.

Mr Kormos: If I have to, I will, Chair.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much Mr Kormos.

Mr Kormos: I'm still interested in whether the implementation of part V, the suspension of the driver's license, was deferred until other work was done or whether it was begun promptly, with priority.

Hon Mr Harnick: It was done promptly in terms of the preparatory work. But our ability to implement and proclaim that section was not something we wanted to do while there was 90,000 pieces of work in a backlog. Yes, we continued the work of dealing with the implementation, but we also had to deal with the backlog.

Mr Kormos: You were aware, though, of the status of files in FSP/FRO in the very early part of 1997 when Bill 82 received third reading.

Hon Mr Harnick: Those 90,000 items, significant items to those who depended on the corrections to be made, involved an awful lot of work. Those items which you think mysteriously should have jumped on to the plate had been sitting around in regional offices for three years, with nobody looking at them. It's not something that happened suddenly. It was a backlog that had to be dealt with, and we have about 38,000 items still to be dealt with.

Mr Kormos: What does that mean in terms of the implementation in terms of Bill 82 and the tools for enforcement that are there? Most of those aren't in effect yet.

Hon Mr Harnick: We have implemented phases of the bill. We're phasing it in over time. It's very important that our people at the family support plan can handle this extra workload. I know your plan would have been just to leave 90,000 pieces in the backlog and spend a lot more money on a plan that wasn't working. What we have done is fundamentally change the way the plan works.

Mr Kormos: Section 46 was a relatively modest proposal, won't you agree?

Hon Mr Harnick: Tell me what section 46 is. I didn't memorize the bill.

Mr Kormos: It's your bill. It gave the Ontario Lottery Corp the authority to deduct support arrears if a defaulting payor wins a prize of $1,000 or more. What difficulties are there in giving effect to section 46?

Hon Mr Harnick: I don't know. I know there have been discussions between ministries and that will be implemented. I don't think that's particularly a big area in which money can be collected for those who need it. I don't think it's one of those everyday things, but you're probably right. That could have been implemented.

Mr Kormos: Why wasn't it?

Hon Mr Harnick: I think the priorities were to deal with the driver's license suspension, to clear the backlog, to get the credit bureau reporting up and running, to deal with developing the request for proposal that we will be sending out shortly which is being prepared now, to get the private sector involved with the plan so we can get real professionals to collect debts rather than just leave the files in the bottom drawer because they're difficult. There was lots of work being done.

Mr Kormos: Or files in any number of places, in cartons and what have you.

I'm told there aren't that many winners of $1,000 or more a month. It just strikes me as strange why OLC couldn't be required to check with FRO to see whether any of those people were defaulting payors.

What about the screening of appointments to the boards, agencies and commissions? I understand that hasn't been given effect to either.

Hon Mr Harnick: Discussions are proceeding in that regard. It's part and parcel of a review of agencies, boards and commissions that is now ongoing. I think that process will be going shortly. It's important, but in the grand scheme of things, I think that particular issue is not an issue that enhances collection.

Mr Kormos: That's strange, because in your speech to the Legislature on December 3, 1996, you said, "We are introducing 10 tough tools." You led off, of course, with driver's licence suspensions, but among your tough tools was the screening of appointments to boards, agencies and commissions, page J-1519 of the Hansard transcript. Among your tough tools was the screening of lottery winners in excess of $1,000. They're either one or two of the tough tools or they're not. You're saying they are not part of the 10 tough tools any more.

Hon Mr Harnick: They're all, in combination, very important items. The ability to deal with people who shelter is a very important item. The ability to deal with access to joint bank accounts is a very important item. But they're also very complicated items. In terms of the work being done, there is an attempt to implement these areas so that we will have the enforcement capacity that the plan should have had many years ago. Your government didn't do anything.

Mr Kormos: But the Ontario Lottery Corp, section 46 provision, is a very easy one to --

Hon Mr Harnick: I've already agreed with you on that.

Mr Kormos: Okay. And the screening of appointments to boards, agencies and commissions is a very easy one to --

Hon Mr Harnick: I don't disagree with you.

Mr Kormos: You tell me that these are all equally important. Why wouldn't you have allowed them to give effect to the easy ones?

Hon Mr Harnick: The fact is that we have taken a look at those items and we've said it is important to deal with the issues that are collection-directed. That's the way we've proceeded. But I don't disagree with you.

Mr Kormos: On April 24, 1997, on Sudbury radio, CBCS-FM, at 7:33 in the morning, you were quoted as saying that 25 so-called collectors are going to be hired who will have the power to suspend drivers' licences, lower credit rating, garnish wages and register claims against assets. That was on April 24, 1997. Have those collectors been hired?

Hon Mr Harnick: I don't know if you're talking about hiring more client services associates, but I think we hired 34 of them in April 1997. I'm a little confused, because I don't know the context in which you're speaking. I know we also have a request for proposal we're preparing, that is about to go out to the private sector, to engage private sector collection agencies to help us collect long-standing debt.

Mr Kormos: This is the total of the news report: "The Harris government says it's hiring 25 people to crack down on deadbeat parents. They racked up a billion dollars in overdue support payments to ex-spouses. Some of the payments go back seven years. Attorney General Charles Harnick guesses that half the money owed may have to be written off as uncollectible. Harnick says the 25 so-called collectors that are going to be hired will have the power to suspend drivers' licences, lower credit ratings, garnishee wages and register claims against assets."

Hon Mr Harnick: That is obviously not a quote from me but someone's interpretation of what I said. I can't comment on it. I don't how accurate it is. If you give me a transcript of what I actually said in an interview, that might be helpful, but that's obviously somebody's interpretation of what I've said. I can't comment on that.

1710

Mr Kormos: As an interpretation, is it accurate?

Hon Mr Harnick: I don't know. I'd have to see what I said. I don't know who interpreted it. I'd have to see the transcript of the interview. If you have it, I'll be happy to look at it.

Mr Kormos: In April 1997, did you believe that by way of a guess half the money owed may have to be written off as uncollectible?

Hon Mr Harnick: You'd have to show me the transcript, but realistically -- and you'd probably agree -- collecting old debt is very difficult. I would not be giving guarantees that we would be able to collect debt that might be several years old. It's not our plan, nor has it ever been, to write off debt. With the help, in some situations, of the private sector, we want to see how much of that debt is collectible. It stands to reason that the older debt gets, the harder it becomes to collect it. I did say, "I guess." The reason I said "I guess" is because I don't know the answer.

Mr Kormos: When you shut down the regional offices and there was a plan for the Downsview office, the centralized office, who was the hands-on person responsible for developing that FSP/FRO office at Downsview?

Hon Mr Harnick: Susan Himel would probably be able to give you those answers.

Mr Kormos: You don't know.

Hon Mr Harnick: I think there were a number of people. As far as I was concerned, the assistant deputy minister was the one who was in charge and had people working and reporting to her on the project.

Mr Kormos: Fair enough. My recollection is that some 289 workers in the various regional offices were terminated as a result of the decision to shut down the regional offices.

Hon Mr Harnick: They resigned, I suppose. Notices were given and they had an option as to whether to stay.

Mr Kormos: I don't think they resigned.

Hon Mr Harnick: They were given notice and they had an option.

Mr Kormos: Perhaps seniority rights or something to that effect. I have no quarrel with that.

How many people are working for the FSP/FRO now in a front-line service type of position? How many workers are there for the FSP/FRO?

Ms Binette: We have 121 client service associates today and we're recruiting for another 18.

Mr Kormos: Fair enough; 121, plus 18 to come.

Ms Binette: It will be 139 as our approved complement of client service associates.

Mr Kormos: That's client service associates. What else do we have in terms of the staff makeup?

Ms Binette: We have financial reconciliation officers.

Mr Kormos: How many of those are there? Do you know?

Ms Binette: There are about 35 of them; it might be 37.

Mr Kormos: What do they do?

Ms Binette: They are the people who work with the trust fund and handle all the adjustments that have to be done to the arrears and ensure the integrity of the trust fund and that the money is getting out to the correct people. If there's a problem in terms of processing a cheque that has come in, they are the people who identify to whom that payment should be going.

Mr Kormos: How many of those are there?

Ms Binette: It's 35 to 37 positions. We've just done some recruitment; the new ones start next week.

Mr Kormos: The other positions of people working for the FRO?

Ms Binette: We have legal services.

Mr Kormos: Is that right at the FRO office?

Ms Binette: Yes, it is.

Mr Kormos: How many of them are there?

Ms Binette: We have a complement of about 14 counsel. We also have intake officers, about 47 of them.

Mr Kormos: Okay. Let's keep going.

Ms Binette: We have some management staff. There are about 19 or 20 management staff. We have some planning and support staff, six. We have information technology staff.

Mr Kormos: Those are computer kinds of people, right?

Ms Binette: That's right. We have some vacancies there that we are recruiting for and some new positions we've created. When we get all of those positions filled there will be about 20 of them.

Mr Kormos: Twenty --

Ms Binette: Systems officers, information technology staff.

Mr Kormos: I'm writing "computer people," because that's what I call them. What else have you got?

Ms Binette: We have some project staff who have been seconded to the program to help us with the program.

Mr Kormos: Those are secondments.

Ms Binette: We have in total 274 full-time positions. I don't know if that adds to exactly 274, but that's what our ongoing complement will be.

Mr Kormos: Fair enough. That's going to be a give or take.

Attorney General, why is the 1-800 line not being answered?

Hon Mr Harnick: Lynn Binette would probably be the best person to answer that question, because I don't know the answer.

Mr Kormos: You don't know the answer. Did you know that it wasn't being answered?

Hon Mr Harnick: My understanding was that it was being answered and that the automated phone system took thousands of calls every day. You might want to ask her.

Mr Kormos: I'm going to. Why isn't the 1-800 line being answered? We've received reports that it's not being answered and some of our staff have --

Ms Binette: We have a number of 1-800 lines. Are you talking about the lines to our live agent, the client service associate number?

Mr Kormos: Client services.

Ms Binette: It is being answered. We have been steadily increasing the number of calls that we can handle, and as recently as yesterday we were handling almost 2,000 calls.

Mr Kormos: What about the MPP line, the number that MPPs' constit offices were given to facilitate MPP inquiries, of all stripes. I know that people from all sides of the House are using it. My staff tell me that they can't get through on that line. They've called Bell, and Bell said everything is okay. What's the problem with that line?

Hon Mr Harnick: I'm not aware that there is a problem, but maybe Lynn can answer that as well.

Ms Binette: I'm not aware that there's a problem either. Usually, you can get through. There's very seldom a busy signal on that line.

Mr Kormos: You've got 274 staff at the Attorney General working for the FRO. How many of those staff had previously worked for the family support plan, that is to say, were experienced in the operations of the family support plan?

Hon Mr Harnick: Again, you'd have to ask Lynn. I don't know the answer.

Ms Binette: It's between 50 to 60 staff.

Mr Kormos: So 50 to 60 of your staff have experience in FSP/FRO.

Ms Binette: Have been with the old program, yes.

Mr Kormos: So 50 to 60 out of 274.

Ms Binette: Yes.

Mr Kormos: Attorney General, you indicate that your staff has been preoccupied with dealing with backlogs, with implementing Bill 82. How many staff do you anticipate you'll have once the FRO in Downsview is fully operational, handling the admittedly heavy load of work it handles?

Hon Mr Harnick: Lynn can best answer that.

Ms Binette: It's 274.

Mr Kormos: So you're fully staffed now.

Ms Binette: Yes.

Mr Kormos: You're not going to hire any more staff there?

Ms Binette: We have recruited over that 274; 274 is our permanent staff that we expect to have on an ongoing basis. We have brought on some additional temporary staff to help us deal with the backlog and to deal with some our projects. When those backlogs are finished, those staff will no longer be required. They're just temporary staff.

Mr Kormos: That's temporary in addition to the 274.

Ms Binette: That's right.

Mr Kormos: The Attorney General suggested to me -- and maybe I'm wrong in my interpretation -- that the staff were preoccupied with the backlog, which is why they couldn't devote as much time, effort and energy as one would want to Bill 82.

Ms Binette: On the backlog, we have a combination of both our permanent staff and temporary staff working on it, so it's a mix of both. We originally tried to have just our own permanent staff working on the backlog and it was taking too long to get the backlog done with that approach. We just recently brought on a number of temporary staff to assist. We brought on 40 additional staff to help with the financial adjustments and the COLA adjustments to which the minister was referring.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Kormos and Lynn, thank you very much. Mr Kormos, you have 10 minutes left in your last half-hour because you have been so compliant in allowing us to alter --

Mr Kormos: That's just the kind of guy I am, Chair.

The Vice-Chair: Would you like to continue your 10 minutes or would you like --

Mr Kormos: No, sir, we'll defer. We'll let Ms Castrilli pick up and then Ms Martel.

1720

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): I apologize for my delay and indeed for not being here for the beginning of the session. As you know, I have not been in the Legislature.

I confess, not having had the benefit of Hansard, I hope the minister will excuse if there's any repetition in the questions I'm about to ask. We tried earnestly to get a copy of Hansard so we wouldn't put you through the difficulty of having to go over past questions, but we were unable to get it. There's a backlog there too.

Let me start with that, with the court backlogs. As you know, that's been a question of some difficulty. There has been, over the course of the past year and a half, severe criticism of your ministry, not just by the users of the service, the clients, but indeed the judiciary has been very concerned that there were cases that were being not attended to because there was not enough personnel, not enough bodies to deal with it.

I'm told by the crown attorneys association that the number of crown attorneys in this province have to deal with something like 250,000 cases, and there are 400-and-some crown attorneys to deal with what is an inordinately high number of cases. We've all read the reports of what that means, that there have been alleged accused of various crimes who end up not being able to be dealt with in court because their cases did not come up swiftly enough.

I'd like to hear from you how we're dealing with that, because it is an issue of public confidence. We both agree that the public must be well served, and we both agree, I'm sure, that it's not just a question of justice being done but it seeming to be done. At the moment I'm not entirely sure that the public would agree that justice is being well served in this particular area. I'd like to hear your views on that.

Hon Mr Harnick: It's an important question and I appreciate it. I handed out -- I don't know whether we have another copy for Ms Castrilli. As a result of questioning the other day, we provided an indication of the number of crown attorneys we have in the system.

Today we have 535. We had 522 in 1996, 502 in 1995 when we took over the government. I think the most crown attorneys in the system during the NDP years was 504. During the Liberal years, we had, in 1988, which is as far back as the records go, 354 crowns, raising to 387 in 1990 when the Askov crisis occurred, and it was only after that that we began to see an increase in crown attorneys.

In addition to the 535, that does not include 13 new positions to be filled as a result of the new funding for domestic violence courts and illegal gaming. You can see quite clearly that the number of crown attorneys has gone up since we became the government and is going up further as a result of the specialized courts we have opened dealing with domestic violence and as a result of a desire on the part of the Solicitor General to take a look at and crack down on illegal gaming.

It's also important to know that we are doing something that the previous government didn't do, and I can understand why they didn't do it. They hired a significant number of crown attorneys to deal with the implementation of the investment strategy, and some of those crown attorneys have now been in the system for about five years. I guess there are 60 who were originally hired as investment strategy assistant crowns. We are now taking a look at a mechanism to start to make some of those crown attorneys permanent assistant crowns, not on contract, and we are looking at developing a competitive process to create the way we make those conversions.

I think you can see that by comparison with the government that was in power from 1985 to 1990, we have increased levels of crown service so we don't have an Askov crisis as occurred when the government changed, in September or October of 1990.

We as well have taken a look and look on a regular basis at the numbers in each of the areas, particularly with a view to the provincial courts.

I might say one little amount about the general division. The general division referral of indictments are down 40% across the province. In terms of criminal cases at the general division, there really are no backlogs. There has been a dramatic drop in cases being referred to the general division because of changes made in the Criminal Code and the reclassification of offences.

In terms of our backlog situation in the six most built-up locations, we have now -- if I can find the statistics on these -- effectively made headway in every single jurisdiction and have held our own in Brampton, which still remains the busiest court jurisdiction in the country.

You know that we are in the month of October breaking ground on a new courthouse for Brampton, a courthouse that was promised by your government and never delivered and by the previous government and never delivered. We are about to break ground on that courthouse in October. I think Ellis Don has won the contract. We are building a courthouse that will have 29 new courts and five existing courts in an adjacent building, with room to expand for five more courts. We're going to be ending up with more courts in Brampton than the original plans had called for, so we're very pleased about that.

But in the six most heavily built-up areas, we have reduced -- I wish I had the material here. Graham, do you have some of those raw numbers I was looking at last week? We have been able to raise the early resolution rate of cases in provincial courts to about 73%. The trial rate is about 8%. Those numbers have continued to come down. Trial dates in the six most heavily backlogged areas, save and except for Brampton, in the five other areas -- for instance, in Newmarket we've gone from 10 months to two months to get a trial. Scarborough is the same. It has come down well within the eight months. I don't think North York was part of the blitz, but it's continually been within that range. No, North York was part of the blitz. Etobicoke and Barrie also were in a position where trial dates were not being obtained within the eight-month period. You're now able to get a trial date in those jurisdictions in a matter of a few months.

All in all, we've seen about a 13% reduction of cases in the inventory that are awaiting trial. It's the first time in about a decade, save and except for the Askov cases, where 50,000 or 60,000 were jettisoned from the court system at one time. We have seen a receding of the backlog waters.

I can tell you that since November 1996 we've reduced the number of charges in progress in the six court locations by 13.2%. In Scarborough, charges in progress have been reduced by 28%; in Newmarket 27%. The numbers in Etobicoke are around the double-digit figures, and North York as well. For the first time in a decade, we have made a considerable inroad into reducing backlog pressures.

I can tell you that I meet regularly with Chief Judge Linden, who has been more than cooperative in assisting the work we're trying to do. His judges have been going overboard to help us fight this backlog problem. We are implementing new crown practices that we're seeing very good results with, that we will as well start to use in other jurisdictions.

1730

Ms Castrilli: Let me ask you a little bit about that, if I may. I want to say at the outset, Minister, that I am not interested in partisan politics. This may seem very strange to you coming from a member of the opposition, but I'm not interested in getting into the whole history of who did what, when. The reality is that we have a public that requires all of us to deliver a quality of justice and a system of justice that is fair, that is accessible and that people can afford.

Hon Mr Harnick: I agree.

Ms Castrilli: My questions are designed to deal with that. Who delivered what courthouse when, to me is irrelevant.

Let me just ask you a few questions about the crown attorney issue, because it is a burning issue. I think the figures you've cited of the increases over the years are really not total numbers, because it doesn't tell us what the charges pending were, how many cases were in the system at the time. But let me ask you about the current practice, because you say you've gone from a low of 433 to 535. How many of those are full-time?

Hon Mr Harnick: I believe that almost all of those are full-time numbers. Some of them, though, about 60, are contract crowns. Of 101 unclassified, 60 are investment.

Ms Castrilli: What does that mean? Does that mean that they are part of the blitz and therefore won't be there afterwards, and so we're back down to 433?

Hon Mr Harnick: No. My understanding is that's not so. The number of crowns active in the field are 535, plus the 13 new crowns that are being hired.

Ms Castrilli: Why aren't they full-time?

Hon Mr Harnick: You'll have to ask Graham Reynolds, who is the assistant deputy minister responsible for criminal law. He can answer those questions.

Ms Castrilli: Let me tell you where I'm going with this as Mr Graham comes up. If these are part-time and subject to termination -- they are contract positions, so they are certainly not in the system and wouldn't have necessarily the same guarantees -- we really are applying a Band-Aid solution to the problem of backlogs. I want to tell you in advance where I'm coming from because I want a full answer from the deputy.

Hon Mr Harnick: I understand. Sixty people were hired on contract when the investment strategy was implemented by the previous government, in accordance with the recommendations of the Martin report. Those 60 crowns are still in the system working on contract. We are now moving to make those crown attorneys, through a competition process, permanent assistant crown attorneys.

Ms Castrilli: Can those contract crowns apply for those positions?

Hon Mr Harnick: Absolutely, and that's what is going to happen. Quite frankly, I have been disturbed about this for a long time, because when they were hired, they were hired to do I guess what you'd describe as prosecutions of minor crime. By getting young crown attorneys on contract to do that, you were freeing up the time of more experienced crown attorneys to implement the investment strategy.

Ms Castrilli: And paying those crown attorneys peanuts.

Hon Mr Harnick: Well, no. You're wrong about that, because my understanding --

Ms Castrilli: I've talked to a lot of them, and that's why I want to hear your view of this.

Hon Mr Harnick: My understanding is that a crown attorney on contract is paid approximately the same as a crown attorney within those same year ranges or experience ratings, and they're given a premium on top of what they're paid because they're not receiving benefits. I will grant you that for the kind of work they're doing, we have to take a look at making them permanent assistant crown status. I'm not going to talk about the negotiation process and the salary process, but --

Ms Castrilli: I urge you to look at that, Minister, because typically these are women and typically "on contract" means they are not working full-time and they are not being compensated --

Hon Mr Harnick: No, all the contract crowns pretty much are -- there's a big difference between a per diem crown and a contract crown. These contract crowns are full-time people who receive a premium to make up for the fact that because they're not full-time employees, because they're on contract, they don't get benefits. They're paid a premium to make up for roughly the value of the benefits.

Ms Castrilli: Let me ask you what you think will be the total number of crowns after you've been through this process. We now have 535, according to what you've just given me. What are we looking at?

Hon Mr Harnick: We're looking at this 535, plus an additional 13.

Ms Castrilli: So we are going to have 548 permanent crowns.

Hon Mr Harnick: That's right. You're going to have 548 crowns, and of that there will be some who will be on contract. There will be a conversion process taking place to take some who are on contract and make them permanent, but there will always, I suspect, be some contract crowns. Contract crowns are not per diem crowns; they get a premium for the benefits they're not getting as a result of the fact that they're on contract.

Ms Castrilli: Explain to me why in your estimates we're looking at what appears to me, on page 88 -- I want to try and understand. There appears to be a 6.5% reduction overall and you've got what appears to be a dramatic increase in the crowns. It's a pretty dramatic reduction, it seems to me, that you've got there: 6.5% of the total operating budget is being deleted.

Hon Mr Harnick: Yes, but that's for the administration issues. It doesn't have anything to do with the cost of crown attorneys.

Ms Castrilli: Would you refer me to the section that does deal with crown attorneys and how much we're actually spending?

Hon Mr Harnick: I don't know if I can, but I know somebody in this room can.

Ms Castrilli: I'd be interested in knowing exactly what the expenditure is.

The Vice-Chair: Graham, do you have that information handy? Could you identify yourself, please?

Mr Graham Reynolds: For the record, I'm Graham Reynolds. I'm the assistant Deputy Attorney General of the criminal law division. I'm advised that that material can be found at page 71a of the briefing materials and the budget material.

The Vice-Chair: We don't have 71a, we only have 71.

Ms Castrilli: No, I don't have 71a either. That's the problem.

Hon Mr Harnick: That's our cheat sheet to tell us how this works.

Ms Castrilli: I would be delighted to hear what the figures are on your cheat sheet, if you could share those with us.

Ms Karakatsanis: Perhaps I can speak to this. The estimates for 1997-98 for the criminal law division are $80.2 million. That reflects an increase of $2.9 million over the estimates for last year. That includes some pension funding that was re-established, as well as some other business plan initiatives.

With respect to the salaries, the actual numbers -- I can tell you that they're not reduced.

1740

Hon Mr Harnick: Salaries and wages: The estimates on page 71 indicate it is $61.8918 million.

Ms Karakatsanis: Which represents a 0.4% increase over last year's.

Ms Castrilli: A 0.4% increase over last year, and how many crowns are we talking about?

Ms Karakatsanis: We have in addition, though, as the minister indicated, 13 new positions which would be filled as a result of new funding for domestic violence courts and illegal gaming.

Ms Castrilli: That's somewhere else or is that in these figures?

Ms Karakatsanis: That would be in addition to these figures.

Ms Castrilli: Those are 30 positions?

Hon Mr Harnick: No, 13.

Ms Castrilli: Oh, those are the 13 we talked about.

Well, you see the concern. It doesn't look like there's a whole lot of money there to fix what is a very huge problem. It's an issue that I don't want to beat to death, but it's an issue we're all going to be held accountable for and we certainly are going to be watching to ensure that we don't go through blitz after blitz after blitz when what we really need is a systematic solution to this problem every day of the year.

Hon Mr Harnick: There's no question that in terms of the way our criminal justice system works -- and I don't say this for political reasons, but if you go back to the days 1990 and previous, there was no system in place to case manage criminal cases going through the provincial court system. As a result, you got into the Askov situation that occurred in September or October 1990. Today we have that system that quite properly was begun by the last government as a result of the recommendations in the Martin report, and every day the system needs to be managed. Case management is something we can never let up on. The blitz has been very successful in reducing --

Ms Castrilli: We've had a number of them. That's exactly the concern.

Hon Mr Harnick: I haven't seen any that have had nearly the results this blitz has had. We're going to continue doing what we're doing in those six most heavily built-up or busiest areas. The other aspect is that as a result of input from Justice LeSage, we're going to start a process that will be known as the criminal justice review to take a look at some of the systemic problems within the criminal area that cause cases to be more complicated today, how best to deal with them, how to deal with some issues like experts' reports, how to deal with trials are taking so much longer today.

Ms Castrilli: I really regret we don't have a lot of time, and I pledge to you that next time I will be here for the entire session that's allotted to me. I imagine family support has been equitably canvassed by my colleagues. Let me just ask two questions which won't require, I hope, too lengthy an answer.

The first is legal aid. You know the memorandum of understanding expires next year. I wonder if you might comment briefly as to what the government's intentions are with respect to the future of legal aid.

Let me put both questions to you, because the Chair is going to say I'm out of time. The other issue is one that you know is near and dear to my heart, and that is the future of plea bargaining in this province and whether we're going to have any kind of guidelines.

Hon Mr Harnick: Let me deal with legal aid. As you're aware, Professor McCamus is preparing a report. That report will be made public I expect very shortly. After that report is made public, I will embark upon a period of consultation with those who need and depend on legal aid, those who are service providers, members of the judiciary and the different specialities where legal aid is used, for instance in family and criminal law, to get their reaction to the contents of the professor's report. We will then begin a process of discussions as to where we move in terms of looking at making changes to the Legal Aid Act, and to the structure of legal aid, if indeed that's what Professor McCamus is going to recommend.

Ms Castrilli: Are you leaning towards privatization?

Hon Mr Harnick: In terms of the way the work is done, it's done by the private bar and it's run by an independent body that has to be separate from government. Are we looking to farm it out to a corporation to run the legal aid plan? I don't think so. I don't think that's ever been contemplated. I don't know if anybody has even suggested that proposal to Professor McCamus, but we're awaiting his report.

The Vice-Chair: Thanks very much, Minister. We'll now return --

Ms Castrilli: Could you just answer the plea bargain for Hansard?

Hon Mr Harnick: Plea negotiations are part of the criminal justice process. I don't know that there's anything sinister in plea negotiations. Plea negotiations are a reflection for the most part, I hope entirely, of counsels' review of their case and the need to see if there's an agreed-to solution. I suspect there's a recognition that no one's case is ever perfect.

Ms Castrilli: I understand the principle. My question is, are we going to get guidelines?

The Vice-Chair: We'll move to the third party now for their final 10 minutes.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Minister, is your driver's licence suspension enforcement tool up and running now?

Hon Mr Harnick: We canvassed that earlier.

Ms Martel: I wasn't here earlier.

Hon Mr Harnick: Well, you should have been.

The Vice-Chair: Could you answer her question, please?

Ms Martel: I'm sorry, I am also busy, Minister. I was in another committee so I'd appreciate an answer.

The Vice-Chair: Let's not exhaust time. Minister, she deserves an answer, in all fairness.

Hon Mr Harnick: No, she knows the answer to that.

The Vice-Chair: Please answer the question.

Hon Mr Harnick: She knows it is not up and running yet.

Ms Martel: I have a press release here dated May 9 in which you said, under your name, "The government will begin testing the suspension of defaulters' drivers' licences for full implementation of phase 2 of Bill 82. This phase will be proclaimed by September 1997."

That went out under your name. Can I ask why it's not up and running?

Hon Mr Harnick: The testing process has begun. That's something the ministry did in terms of evaluating cases and determining how cases would go through the process. There has been a considerable amount of time spent with that testing process. As you're aware, you can't test that process through the system and start advising people that their licences are going to be suspended until you proclaim the act, so we couldn't do that. But essentially the testing process has been ongoing.

Ms Martel: But Minister, the press release says it's going to be proclaimed by September 1997. If it wasn't going to be, why did you make that announcement on May 9?

Hon Mr Harnick: The press release says it's going to be proclaimed by September 1997?

Ms Martel: Yes.

Hon Mr Harnick: I hope it will be.

Ms Martel: Okay, we'll watch. You've got a couple of weeks more.

Can you tell the committee how much money has been collected in terms of arrears from any enforcement measure under Bill 82?

Hon Mr Harnick: I don't know that I can tell you that. I don't know that that record is available. I can tell you that we could fill the SkyDome about one and a half times with people reported to credit bureaus, people who have not paid their support or who are in arrears. Effectively, we're dealing with the issue of their ability to obtain credit. Hopefully that will have some effect, but I can't tell you the answer to that.

Ms Martel: That's one of the 10 tools you implemented under Bill 82. You will recall that we passed Bill 82 before Christmas because you needed it passed and you wanted it passed and we did short committee hearings to get that passed. It took until May before the bill was actually proclaimed and now we're in September. Of any of the 10, any of them, it doesn't matter which one, can you tell me how much money has come in from any of those 10 new enforcement tools you had to have by the end of December?

Hon Mr Harnick: No, I can't tell you that. Are you now, by the premise of your question, saying that I shouldn't have wanted to have those enforcement tools?

Ms Martel: No. I think that because of what happened at Downsview, you had to get the bill passed and you weren't ready.

Hon Mr Harnick: No, that's not --

Ms Martel: My next question would be, do you have all of the technology purchased now to put in place the new enforcement tools?

Hon Mr Harnick: Absolutely. We do.

Ms Martel: Do you have the staff trained?

Hon Mr Harnick: We do.

Ms Martel: So when is the money going to start coming in, if that's all in place?

Hon Mr Harnick: I don't know the answer to that. The experience has been that when drivers' licences were suspended in other provinces, a significant number of people came forward and money began flowing. We hope that will be the experience in Ontario. We may have known that if you had implemented this when you had the opportunity while you were in government, but you rejected this proposal.

1750

Ms Martel: Minister, we've been here nine months now. You were the one who sent out a press release under your name that said drivers' licences were going to be ready by September, not me. You did that. Here we are in September --

Hon Mr Harnick: It's September now.

Ms Martel: All right. You've got a couple of weeks.

Hon Mr Harnick: We'll see.

Ms Martel: We'll be asking the question again, I'm sure.

I'd like to know, and if you don't know the answer, I'd like for you to table it with this committee, whether from any of the 10 tools one cent has come into the family support plan.

Hon Mr Harnick: I don't believe we have any information that can provide us with that answer at this time.

Ms Martel: You're not monitoring how the new enforcement tools are working?

Hon Mr Harnick: When people start to send their money in, they don't say, "I'm sending in my money because you reported me to a credit bureau," so it's hard to be able to answer that question. It will be easier to do if we see money start to flow out of a licence suspension. We will be able to draw those conclusions. So far, based on the limited implementation to date, we have not been able to develop that information.

Ms Martel: Minister, you're the one who says there's $1 billion in arrears owing, so I'm sure there's got to be some connection to the arrears and then those enforcement measures being applied to those cases that have arrears.

Hon Mr Harnick: I hope that over the next several years we'll see the $1 billion either stop escalating and maybe even start reducing. I also hope that when we employ private sector collection agencies and some of the other tools we will be able to start collecting moneys that we've never had an opportunity to collect before.

Mr Kormos: Does your reportage of defaulters to the Ministry of Transportation for the purpose of suspending drivers' licences include notification of insurers that their insured has had his or her driver's licence suspended?

Hon Mr Harnick: I don't know that it does. I'm not sure of that answer. I think that once your licence is suspended you're not allowed to drive, so the responsible person would cancel their insurance.

Mr Kormos: The responsible person wouldn't be in arrears.

Hon Mr Harnick: That's right, but I don't know that insurance is something we have an obligation to deal with.

Ms Martel: Do you have dedicated staff working on the Bill 82 implementation, and how many?

Hon Mr Harnick: We do, and Lynn Binette can tell you that.

Ms Binette: We have a combination of dedicated full-time staff working on it, as well as a large number of staff who work on it on a part-time basis.

Ms Martel: Can you tell me of the dedicated full-time staff what the number would be out of the 274 permanent staff you have? Is that a fair question?

Ms Binette: Most of our full-time project staff are above that 274. We have probably five or six staff who are working full-time beyond that 274. At least 10 to 15 of our permanent staff are working on a part-time basis. Sometimes that might be a whole week they devote to it, depending upon the task. Other times it might be a few hours a week.

Ms Martel: If you have any other changes, can you table those with the committee? I'd appreciate that.

Ms Binette: I'll check on those numbers.

Ms Martel: Thank you.

Minister, can I ask you about the bail verification and supervision program, please. You reinstated some of these programs in southern Ontario, but not one in the Sault, Sudbury or Thunder Bay were reinstated. Can I ask what criteria you used to reinstate these programs?

Hon Mr Harnick: You should appreciate that the bail verification program was not a program run by the Ministry of the Attorney General. Decisions had been made with respect to the bail verification program that caused, over a period of time, some of the areas to have their programs stop running. I personally felt very strongly that the bail verification program was a positive program. I wanted to try to keep that program alive, and I was given authorization to do that and funding to continue the locations that were still open.

As a result of that, we are now re-evaluating the whole program. Unfortunately, even though the program has been running since the late 1970s, I believe, no data have been kept that told us how effective the program really was. I believe it was effective, but I certainly can't point to any statistics to tell me how effective it was.

We are now embarking upon a study that will compare locations where programs have closed and programs have been kept open so we can retool the bail verification project, assuming I can prove it has positive benefits.

Ms Martel: Minister, I was given the understanding --

Hon Mr Harnick: Do you want me to finish?

Ms Martel: No. I just want to ask some questions about Sudbury, because I'm really concerned about Sudbury.

The Vice-Chair: This will be your final question, as well, Ms Martel.

Ms Martel: I understood that Waterloo was closed, the program was closed.

Hon Mr Harnick: My understanding is -- and I don't know how contemporaneous it was from the date it closed to the date we indicated or that I was able to get funding to keep existing programs going -- but certainly we didn't take a look and say we're going to close up all the ones in northern Ontario and keep the ones in southern Ontario going. That wasn't the case.

I was pretty intent on trying to save this program generally and to do an evaluation of it so that we can run a bail program, if I can prove that this is an effective program.

Ms Martel: You understand that's what the perception was, though, Minister.

Hon Mr Harnick: I understand that.

Ms Martel: The information I got was that Waterloo was closed too, so it was given funding and reopened. The Sudbury program and the others were closed but were not given funding, so that's a problem.

Second, I've been trying for some time now to get some information from Elizabeth Gerrits about what process she's going to undertake, because she has to give recommendations back to you by January. Two calls were placed to her and then Carrie Fine from your office called and said she would get back to us about some information, because the people in Sudbury want to be able to participate. That was September 3, so I would really appreciate some kind of return phone call.

Hon Mr Harnick: It was at the end of last week that your calls came and we --

Ms Martel: No. The first calls started August 12.

Hon Mr Harnick: September 3 was last week. But I agree with you. I suppose I could have not gotten involved and seen the program die, but I'm trying to keep the program alive. I'm trying to evaluate how it can be run in a cost-effective way and have a positive impact on the justice system.

Ms Martel: I'd like to keep it alive in northern Ontario too, not just in southern Ontario.

Hon Mr Harnick: Any help you can provide in the study we're undertaking, I'd be grateful.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Ms Martel. Minister, thank you very much.

We'll now move to the vote for the estimates, the Ministry of the Attorney General.

Shall vote 301 through and including 305 carry? All in favour? All opposed? Okay.

Shall the estimates of the Ministry of the Attorney General carry? All in favour? Opposed? Okay.

Mr Kormos: Recorded vote, please.

The Vice-Chair: Shall I report the estimates of the Ministry of the Attorney General to the House?

Ayes

Beaubien, Doyle, Grandmaître, Pettit, Wettlaufer.

Nays

Cleary, Kormos.

The Vice-Chair: Carried.

In conclusion, I'd like to thank everyone for their diligence, patience and understanding. Minister and staff, thank you very much. As always, the Legislative Assembly staff deserves a great deal of credit for the hard work they do: Rosemarie Singh, Alison Drummond and Maureen Murphy. Thanks very much. We stand adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1758.