1997 ANNUAL REPORT,
PROVINCIAL AUDITOR
MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CONTENTS
Wednesday 18 February 1998
1997 annual report, Provincial Auditor: Section 3.01, courts administration program
Ministry of the Attorney General
Ms Andromache Karakatsanis, Deputy Attorney General
Mr Murray Segal, assistant deputy attorney general, criminal law
STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Chair / Président
Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East / -Est L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L)
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton PC)
Mr Gary Fox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings / Prince Edward-Lennox-Hastings-Sud PC)
Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East / -Est L)
Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell / Prescott et Russell L)
Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East / -Est ND)
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L)
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand PC)
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre / -Centre PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Bert Johnson (Perth PC)
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes
Mr Erik Peters, Provincial Auditor
Clerk pro tem / Greffier par intérim
Mr Douglas Arnott
Staff / Personnel
Ms Elaine Campbell, research officer, Legislative Research Service
Ms Anne Marzalik, research officer, Legislative Research Service
Mr Viktor Kaczkowski, committee clerk
The committee met at 1037 in room 228 following a closed session.
1997
ANNUAL REPORT, PROVINCIAL AUDITOR
MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Consideration of section 3.01, courts administration program.
The Chair (Mr Bernard Grandmaître): Good morning, everyone, and welcome to our open session. This morning we'll be dealing with section 301 of the 1997 annual report of the Provincial Auditor, the courts administration program. This morning's witnesses from the Ministry of the Attorney General are Andromache Karakatsanis, Deputy Attorney General. How badly did I mess your name up?
Ms Andromache Karakatsanis: Not too badly.
The Chair: Not too badly. Now I invite you to pronounce my name correctly.
We have Heather Cooper, assistant deputy attorney general, courts administration; Angela Longo, assistant deputy attorney general, business improvement; Murray Segal, assistant deputy attorney general, criminal law; and Brent Gibbs, director, program development branch. Who will lead off?
Ms Karakatsanis: I will lead off with some comments.
The Chair: Would you repeat your name for me? I'm interested --
Ms Karakatsanis: Andromache Karakatsanis. I'm the new Deputy Attorney General.
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): It's those Anglo names I have trouble with.
Ms Karakatsanis: It's my pleasure to address this committee to respond to the observations by the Provincial Auditor on the administration of Ontario's courts. I know all the members of the committee agree that the justice system is fundamental to the quality of life we enjoy in this province. It's fundamental to the safety of our communities and to the competitiveness of our economy. It also embodies and anchors some of the most cherished values of our society. The government is working to build a modern, more accessible, more effective justice system, a system that will increase the security of Ontario communities and support the prosperity of the province.
The business of the Ministry of the Attorney General is multifaceted and complex, encompassing responsibility for the administration of justice as well as the provision of justice-related services. The ministry co-ordinates the operation of court services through a network of court offices around Ontario, including criminal, civil and family courts. The ministry also coordinates capital projects to modernize court facilities. Through crown attorneys across the province the ministry prosecutes cases under the Criminal Code, the Young Offenders Act and provincial statutes.
Due to our links to the courts and our legal expertise, the Ministry of the Attorney General has been given responsibility for a range of programs to assist victims of crime and protect the interests of vulnerable children and adults. In addition, we provide legal services to the government of Ontario and appear on behalf of the government in civil and constitutional litigation before tribunals and at all levels of court.
As the Provincial Auditor observed, the justice system is undergoing major restructuring and powerful trends are driving this process. Currently, the justice system is large and unwieldy. It hasn't significantly changed in the past century. In Ontario, eight in 10 people express at least some fear of becoming a victim of crime in their own community, and nearly one in four report actually being a victim of crime in the past two years.
Civil suits, in some cases, are not resolved for up to five years, delays that result in great financial and emotional costs to individuals and witnesses. Furthermore, the civil system is getting beyond the financial means of the average person and even small business, with a typical civil suit costing the plaintiff $38,000 in legal fees to recover, on average, a $55,000 judgement.
Public sector fiscal reality is also a driver of change. The deficit and debt, those facts of life, have forced all public institutions, including the justice system, to take a close look at our full range of activities to ensure that we are both doing the right things and doing them right. Many jurisdictions are facing similar imperatives to meet rising public expectations at an affordable cost, and like them, we are responding by making some real changes in the way the justice system does business. We're focusing resources on services that matter to most Ontarians, re-engineering operations to obtain the best value for every tax dollar and deploying technology to increase efficiency and improve customer service.
We are doing this in partnership with our vast array of stakeholders and partners -- the legal profession, the judiciary, the police, business, community groups, victims of crime, and the public. I might add that we're greatly encouraged by the strong support for change that exists among our partners in the system. Some recent steps we have taken to make the courts more responsive, more accessible and more efficient include the following:
Working with the judiciary and other partners, we have expanded the number of domestic violence courts in the province to improve the manner in which the justice system deals with domestic violence and to break the cycle of violence.
Five courts opened, modelled after the two specialized courts that existed in North York and Toronto, and a sixth will be opening shortly.
Since 1995 we have increased the number of victims receiving assistance as cases proceed through the court process by 43%. We've doubled the number of victim/witness assistance program offices from 13 to 26.
Last September we launched the telewarrant centre. Police officers anywhere in Ontario can now fax an application for a search warrant to the centre when it is not practical to appear personally before a justice of the peace.
We have undertaken the first comprehensive review of legal aid since its inception in the 1960s, leading to the McCamus report, released in September, and we have since then consulted with over 100 key stakeholders, including the Law Society of Upper Canada, which currently runs the program, on the recommendations in the report.
As well, we have committed nearly a quarter of a billion dollars to courthouse construction in Toronto, Hamilton, Brampton, Windsor, Cornwall, Welland and Pembroke and, as announced in January, in Brockville, Chatham and Owen Sound. The new facilities will provide faster and easier access to the justice system, improve public safety and security, and address some long-standing building deficiencies.
We've moved forward with civil justice reform in line with the recommendations in the Civil Justice Review, an in-depth study that was completed late in 1996 which involved extensive public consultation. For example, we've introduced case management for 25% of the cases in Toronto and 100% of cases in Ottawa to speed up the time it takes to resolve cases by shifting responsibility for the pace of litigation from the lawyers to the judiciary.
We have announced the implementation of mandatory referral to mediation of civil law and family cases across the province over a multi-year period. Mediation will provide litigants with a wider range of options for settling disputes earlier in the process as a quicker and most cost-effective alternative to court, and an opportunity, even where it doesn't finally resolve the case, to narrow the issue.
Finally, in partnership with the bench and bar, we've launched an electronic filing project in Toronto with 84 law firms participating. Electronic filing permits lawyers to file documents with the court without leaving their offices and that's expected to result in savings for litigants in civil matters.
A number of our change initiatives relate directly to the points raised by the Provincial Auditor in his report last November, if I can take a few moments to review the major findings of the auditor, together with the ministry's response.
The Provincial Auditor highlighted a long-standing issue with his comment that the justice system can no longer function effectively in Ontario unless and until clear lines of responsibility and accountability between the judiciary and the ministry are established to deal with all administrative, financial, budgetary, and operational matters relating to court administration in the province. This recommendation echoes the recommendation in the Civil Justice Review for the creation of a unified administrative management and budgetary structure, which we've taken to calling a court services agency.
Calls for the reform of courts administration have been heard for the past two decades or more. At the heart of the problem is that both judges and government play administrative roles in the system, and the judiciary is responsible for operational tasks bearing directly on their judicial functions, such as scheduling cases and assigning judges and courtrooms. The Supreme Court has held that these functions are necessary to preserve the independence of the judiciary. At the same time, the Ministry of the Attorney General is responsible for the infrastructure required for judges to do their job. Staffing, budgeting, physical facilities, support services are administered by the ministry.
The Civil Justice Review stressed that this dual structure is incompatible with sound management and the report observed that this problem reaches beyond the civil court to encompass the whole of the court system.
A little over a year ago the heads of court -- by that I mean the chief justices and chief judges -- and the Attorney General set up a working group to look into the feasibility of reforming the management structure for court services. The working group considered how an independent court services agency might work.
The group, and I co-chaired that group, developed a concept that included a board of directors representing the judiciary, the government, the bar and the public, and a professional staff reporting to the board through an executive director. The plan called for the creation of system goals and standards, together with a range of accountability mechanisms such as corporate and strategic plans and performance measures.
The group also suggested possible ways to protect judicial independence, such as a judicial veto in constitutionally protected areas.
The ministry was prepared to proceed to the planning stage for the model developed by the working group. The heads of court, however, expressed reservations about whether it would be appropriate for them to sit on the board or participate directly in the management of a court services agency.
We welcome the recent interest expressed by Chief Justice McMurtry at the opening-of-court ceremony in January to now pursue the development of a court services agency that in his words "would provide a stable, arm's-length foundation for the professional and independent administration of the courts."
We were encouraged that Chief Justice LeSage strongly supported those comments and the chief judge of the provincial court is also very enthusiastic about the initiative.
We are meeting with the heads of court soon to consider how to resume working on the creation of such an agency, but the bottom line must be, as the Provincial Auditor recommends, that there must be clear accountability and responsibility for the management of court services. We look forward to making some progress on this initiative in the coming year.
1050
Another concern expressed by the auditor was what he viewed as the potential for another Askov-type situation to develop in the criminal courts. I would like to make it very clear that Ontario's courts are not on the verge of an Askov crisis.
Much has changed in our criminal justice system since the early 1990s. Guided by the Martin report, which followed the Askov case, we now screen charges in advance, we hold pre-trials for charges, we have introduced new criminal court rules, and crowns are now much better at managing cases to ensure they move forward in a timely way. As a result, the vast majority of cases that exceed eight months today are there because the defence has waived the deadline and requested an extension. Therefore, they would not be in jeopardy of being stayed.
I agree with the auditor fully that it would be very useful to have case-specific information on the causes and lengths of delays. Such information would help to ensure accountability, would produce early warning signs of any risks that charges may be dropped, and would provide a basis for planning of strategies to eliminate any recurring sources of delays.
We have improved our tracking of cases in six of our courthouses in what we call our blitz locations and we're looking at expanding this to other sites. Ultimately, our information needs will be met by what we call the integrated justice project. It's a massive information technology program to bring the justice system into the computer age. I'll talk a little bit more about that in a moment.
I can assure you that the ministry keeps watch over the inventory of criminal cases. It is a high priority to continually improve the way cases are managed through the system to achieve swifter justice and to keep our communities safe.
It was just over a year ago that the Attorney General announced the backlog blitz. The ministry invested $2 million in our six most heavily burdened court locations to ensure that charges coming before the courts do so within a reasonable time.
Police, judges, defence lawyers and crown attorneys have worked together to open new courtrooms and redeploy our resources more strategically and to re-engineer some of the processes that were being used in the courtrooms by crowns and police.
Since November 1996 we've succeeded in reducing the total inventory of charges in those six busiest court locations by a total of 10,000 or 17%, the first reduction we have seen in nearly a decade, and the total number of charges before the court has declined 39% in Newmarket, 25% in Scarborough and 20% in Etobicoke. The time it takes to get to trial has also been reduced. For example, it has dropped from 10 months to three months in Newmarket, nine months to five months in Etobicoke, eight months to four months in Barrie and seven months to five months in Scarborough.
Brampton, as you know, is one of our busiest criminal jurisdictions. It was the home of the Askov case and provided a special challenge to us. We have implemented a custom-made strategy to deal with the unique challenges in Brampton. The local judiciary, crowns, police, defence lawyers and courts administration staff have agreed on a plan to streamline every stage of the criminal court process. We brought into Brampton one of the crown attorneys who had been particularly successful in the Scarborough location, John McMahon, to work with the local crown attorney, Paul Taylor, and develop a backlog reduction measure specific to Brampton's needs. They've had great success in tackling this problem.
In cooperation with the judiciary, new operating procedures have been introduced to increase efficiency in the use of existing resources. For example, a dedicated plea court was established in December to allow the accused to enter a guilty plea at the first appearance if they so chose. Full disclosure by the crown to an accused is now being made at first appearance in court, so that will cut six weeks off the time to trial. An expansion of the prisoner entrance at one court location will accommodate larger prisoner vans; it actually speeds up the transfer of prisoners into court. A new blitz court is starting up this month, to be joined by another in March. That strategy, working with the police and the judges and the crowns and the bar, is working.
In December 1997 the number of charges resolved was 24% more than in November 1996, when the original backlog blitz was launched. Time to trial has decreased dramatically. In January 1998 it was down to five to six months, from 11 months in November 1996. We're confident that this strategy will ensure that we're able to adequately deal with the caseload in Peel as we await the opening of the new consolidated courthouse slated for early 2000.
Building on the lessons we learned from the blitz, our criminal law division is standardizing crown practices in jurisdictions across the province. A best practices manual is now almost completed and we have special training planned for crown attorneys on these best practices.
Another conclusion we reached was the need for flexibility to move resources around -- judges, crowns and staff -- to move them where they're most needed. So we are working with the judiciary on new strategies to increase flexibility in the system, to ensure that we'll always have the ability to deal with the volume of cases that exist in our courts.
As we've made clear from the beginning, the blitz effort was designed as an interim measure. We have learned some valuable lessons, which we are in the process of deploying throughout the whole system.
To address some of the underlying causes of backlogs, Chief Justice LeSage, Chief Judge Linden and the Attorney General have created the Criminal Justice Review Committee. The Criminal Justice Review Committee is a group of judges, defence lawyers and crown attorneys working to find practical solutions for some of the deeply rooted problems in the criminal courts. It's considering such areas as the number of appearances required of an accused before trial, consolidating pretrial motions, issues related to disclosure and trial procedures. Through this review we're working to see how the trial process can be shortened, without sacrificing the quality of justice that Ontarians expect from their court.
A further issue that was raised by the Provincial Auditor concerns the collection of fines by the ministry. The auditor's report indicated outstanding fines were not subject to reasonable collection efforts, largely because for two years no accounts had been transferred for collection to the central collection service of Management Board Secretariat. This situation was attributable primarily to the incompatibility between the computer systems of the two ministries and the reduction in central collection service staff, which prevented the transfer of accounts. All of these overdue accounts have now been transferred to the central collection service, which has engaged private sector collection agencies to pursue these outstanding fines. The next step I believe is to give the private agencies time to do their job, and then down the road we can reassess the situation to determine if further enforcement tools are required.
The ministry is taking part in the government's corporate accounts receivable project launched by the Ministry of Finance to develop and implement policy in this area. We have also initiated a review of the memorandum of understanding which outlines the respective roles and responsibilities between our ministry and the central collection service, and that was one of the recommendations of the Provincial Auditor. We are pleased that the central collection service has made a commitment to provide better reporting on the results of collection efforts by the private collection agencies and we're confident that our participation in the corporate project and our close cooperation with Management Board will enable us to address the concerns the auditor has raised regarding the collection of fines.
1100
We agree with the auditor's impression that information technology in the justice system is behind the times. We are changing this through the integrated justice project, which is an initiative involving the Ministry of the Attorney General, the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services, and a consortium of private sector companies.
Over a five-year period we are developing a comprehensive system of information technology that will span the entire justice system, electronically linking courts, lawyers, prosecutors, police, and corrections staff. As part of this project, we will build an advanced information network that will link police to crowns and crowns to defence lawyers so that we don't have to duplicate paperwork every time a charge is laid. Currently, in your average drinking-and-driving charge, information has to be entered 13 times relating to the charge. With integrated justice, it will be entered once and then reused. That will avoid errors, it will avoid paperwork for police and the court, and it will just improve our ability to focus on the real issues that we need to deal with.
In civil courts we envisage comprehensive access to electronic filing. I mentioned the e-filing project. We envisage comprehensive access to electronic filing to eliminate the province's annual $9-million expense of storing justice system paper documents. The network will enable us to run a full-fledged case management system to keep track of every civil, family and criminal case. This will improve court scheduling and save time and money for everyone.
The system will also increase the safety of police officers on the front line by making available up-to-date information about offenders and it will give parole and probation officers ready access to the information they need to provide effective supervision.
We are working now with the judiciary and the bar to determine their needs so that the new systems we are developing will meet user requirements. Case management in the civil and family courts has been given a high priority and will be undertaken in the first phase of the integrated justice project. We have engaged some of the brightest minds in the information technology business and have brought the private sector to this to make the integrated justice project happen for Ontario. I believe this project will give the justice system the tools to deliver the kind of efficiency and service the public expects as we enter the 21st century.
The auditor's report also contains some interesting observations on performance measures in the justice system. Referring to points made by Chief Justice LeSage which I think are well taken, the Chief Justice underlined that the aims of the justice system are not easily stated or measurable and that the effectiveness of the system cannot be gauged simply against standard business criteria.
The civil justice review enumerated a list of benchmarks for the civil justice system. These were fairness, accessibility, affordability, timeliness, efficiency and cost-effectiveness, accountability, and a streamlined process in administration.
The first two indicators, fairness and accessibility, are especially hard to measure because they are relative concepts. That being said, the ministry has developed corporate performance measures, including standards and targets. For 1998-99 a number of these indicators focus on the courts, such as increased use of technology to streamline court processes, proportion of civil cases under case management, the waiting time for counter service at 393 University, the use of surveys to track customer satisfaction, reduction in the number of civil, non-family cases proceeding to trial, and client and lawyer satisfaction with mediation if mandatory referral is implemented. These are some of the measures that we are considering.
We're now working on program level measures to establish more specific performance indicators and targets against which the achievement of results can be evaluated. We expect to have these program measures in place by the beginning of the new fiscal year.
We use performance measures as a management tool to assess how well we are doing and to point the way to further improvements. In developing measures, we have consulted with our stakeholders -- the judiciary, members of the bar, community groups -- to determine if we're focused on the right outcomes, the right indicators for measuring results and the right standards and targets. We see these measures as works in progress. They're evolving as we gain experience in using them and as our business itself changes.
In the year ahead we will continue the vital mission of modernizing Ontario's justice system. We must and we will build a more effective, accessible and affordable system, one that delivers fair results in a reasonable time at a reasonable cost, one that preserves safe and secure communities and one that contributes to our province's social strength and competitive economic position. I'm looking forward to discussing these challenges with the members of the committee.
The Chair: Before we go on with questions, Madam Deputy, will you be the only spokesperson for the group?
Ms Karakatsanis: No.
The Chair: Have they prepared some kind of a document to present to us this morning?
Ms Karakatsanis: No. I'm the only person making introductory remarks. They will be available to answer questions as requested.
The Chair: Thank you. It's a matter of planning how long are we going to go on with the question period. Maybe we should start with 15 minutes per caucus. Mr Preston, you're on.
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): It's quite obvious from all levels of the judiciary and the government that backlog is one of our main problems. Some may think this is not the proper venue for this question, but I feel that if we cut off the young offenders, the younger kids, at the pass, they won't be part of the backlog in the future. My question is, what is this government doing to exert pressure on the federal government to change the Young Offenders Act?
Ms Karakatsanis: This has been raised by both the Attorney General and the Solicitor General at a number of federal-provincial-territorial forums, as well as directly with the Minister of Justice, and the province has been very clear in its request to the federal government to amend the Young Offenders Act.
Mr Preston: I understand that everybody is talking about it. My question is, what are we doing to make sure that this is done?
Ms Karakatsanis: As you know, it's the federal government that must ensure those changes are made.
Mr Preston: I understand that.
Ms Karakatsanis: It is certainly something that the Attorney General raises directly with the Minister of Justice. It is certainly something that I raise with my deputy colleagues. It is something that we raise forcefully every time we meet and every time we have occasion to discuss matters.
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I'd like to thank you for coming before us here this morning. I want to directly deal with the Askov decision. As you are aware, and I think you may agree, unreasonable delay determination is essentially a legal matter of the court, but the auditor has raised some issues with respect to the causes of the delay, which have been included in the report at page 3, and the suggestion that there should be better information-keeping etc. This is from the auditor: "According to the ministry and the judiciary, the causes of the delay included unreadiness of the parties, lack of available judges" etc. Did you break it down in terms of percentages? Do you know what percentages are attributable to these factors? That's my first question.
Ms Karakatsanis: I don't think we do know what percentages are attributable to those factors. As we mentioned at the time, and I think I mentioned earlier as well, the factors are just so diverse. They include the Criminal Code procedures, which are passed by and controlled by the federal government. It includes the behaviour of the parties. It includes the judiciary. The charter has provided increasing complexity and longer cases. It depends on the number of charges laid by police. So it is very difficult to isolate one particular factor as being the sole cause of a delay in a particular case.
1110
Mr Tascona: If that's the case then, from what I understand from page 4 of the report, the ministry response was that tracking and analysis of case flow would be improved. What do you mean by that?
Ms Karakatsanis: We are doing a better job, as I mentioned, in the blitz procedures. We are doing a better job of following the cases in those particular locations. I have to say that it's integrated justice that will allow us to get really the kind of detailed information that we'll need, that will permit us to have a better sense at least globally of what the particular elements are that we should be focused on.
As I indicated, we're trying to deal with it from all approaches. We're looking at the process that comes into play when the police lay the charge, when they provide the brief to the crown attorney. We are working with police to make sure the information we get is in the form that we need. We are working with the defence counsel to make sure that disclosure is made on first appearance. We are looking at all the processes in place and trying to see how we can improve those. At the same time, the committee that I spoke of, the criminal justice committee, is looking at some of the procedures, which hopefully will look at some practical ways to just reduce them.
I mentioned earlier that one of the problems in Brampton was that one of the transport areas wasn't big enough to bring in a larger secured van for transportation of prisoners. That was a factor that we perhaps wouldn't have thought of immediately if we hadn't actually got in and worked with the parties. By enlarging the sally-port, the police were able to bring in larger vans with more prisoners, so there was less time wasted in transporting prisoners.
So there are a number of factors, and I think what we have tried to do is look at really all of the approaches: How do we re-engineer the processes, how do we look at what the procedures are, and then, as well, how do we bring in resources when we need them to set up an extra court to take pleas?
Mr Tascona: But are you going to be able to put together, in the simplest of terms, record-keeping in terms of analysing the situation?
Ms Karakatsanis: Yes, we are. As we are developing integrated justice, we're looking at all the factors and all the indicators that we need that would allow us to track and make those kinds of decisions that we need to make about allocating resources effectively.
Mr Tascona: Because in the Askov petition, that's really to deal with uncomplicated cases. What is an uncomplicated case?
Ms Karakatsanis: Certainly, as you know, Mr Tascona, if the defence asks for an adjournment, then that is not counted as part of the eight months. There are a number of factors that the court would look at in determining whether the eight months is a reasonable standard to apply or not. One of them is the defence.
Mr Tascona: I understand that, but what really is an uncomplicated case? Have they come to grips with that?
Ms Karakatsanis: I'll ask Murray Segal to provide you with a more detailed answer to that.
Mr Murray Segal: Mr Tascona, we have a number of internal guidelines. In most areas of the province special attention is devoted by the judiciary and the bar to cases, for example, that might take half a day or longer in criminal courts. That's one bar that's used for establishing what may require more attention.
The courts have equally given guidance, as I'm sure you are aware, of some factors to take into account in assessing seriousness, which include the one I have referred to, how long the case will take once it's in court, the number of witnesses, the number of issues and so forth. We can all agree that a sexual assault or a murder would fall into that category and we can all agree that most mischiefs and many drinking-and-driving cases where there is no accident or injury fall into the other category, without doing a disservice to any category that I have addressed.
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): I agree with your statement when you mention that the system is multifaceted, complex, large, and unwieldy. I'm not a lawyer and I don't understand the legal system very well. However, if we go back to the Askov decision of 1990, I am sure the chronic problems that we are experiencing with the ministry today existed prior to 1990. The Askov decision in 1990 gave us a rude awakening.
In your presentation you seem to rely an awful lot on electronic data, that it's going to be the saviour of the ministry. In my experience in dealing with computers and electronic data, if you put garbage in you're going to get garbage out. I'm not totally convinced that because we're going to use electronic data we're going to resolve the problem you're experiencing at the ministry. Could you expand on that, how you feel that by using electronic technology that is available today you'll be able to become more efficient? How do you see this coming through the filter?
Ms Karakatsanis: I do agree with you, garbage in gets you garbage out. That's one of the reasons why we're being so careful in the planning stage to include all of the stakeholders in the process, so that we are clear about what the needs are and what the connections are between the various parts of the system, so that when we do have a system, it's designed to meet the actual needs.
We're taking a lot of care not only in doing the analysis with our private sector partners who have a very keen financial motive to make sure the system we install actually works to deliver the benefits -- because that's how they're going to be paid for their investment -- but by focusing on what the users, the stakeholders, need. By taking a lot of care and trouble to make sure we design the system right, we are confident that it won't be garbage in, and therefore the results that we get will be very effective.
I agree with you that technology alone is not going to transform the system, but I think it is absolutely fundamental to be an enabler, to be able to transform it. We cannot deal with the increasing complexity, we cannot deal with the variety of stakeholders and parties who are a part of the justice system with papers and pencils and a few very basic computer systems.
In order to be able to work towards the future, we are going to have to make sure that we're focusing on the work that people need to do, so that we're not re-entering 13 times information about one charge, and maybe making mistakes along the way, and wasting their time on paperwork, when, for example, police could be out on the streets, or when crowns, instead of coming for remand after remand, could be working on the substance of the cases or with victims and witnesses, instead of having to come to the courthouse during working hours to see when a case is scheduled and what stage it's at. They could call in electronically and that information would be available.
I see it as a real potential to improve the customer service dramatically. I see it as a real enabler to allow us to focus on what is the core business of the courts and the crowns and the whole justice system. I just don't believe we can do that unless we have the technology to support the proper infrastructure, to support an -increasingly complex system. By having a system that links all of the partners together, we'll start to work in better coordination and better cooperation. We'll be able to talk to each other. We won't be using different standards. I think that will help us to function as a system and eliminate some of the inconsistencies, the misunderstandings and some of the overlap that currently exists.
So yes, you're right, it's not in itself a magic solution. You certainly have to work very hard at involving everyone to make sure we get it right. But if we do get it right, and I'm confident we will get it right, then I think it will enable us to really build a modern system that works together as a whole and that can really help create confidence in the public that we have a justice system that works, that works efficiently, that works as quickly as it can and that works as cost-effectively as it can.
1120
The Chair: Mr Young, four minutes.
Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): I totally agree with you. I think the integrated justice project is one of the most important initiatives of our government. My concern is I don't want to come back here next year and the year after and the year after and hear that you're still working on it. I'd like to know what deadline you have to have it up and running and working. Do you have a deadline? I'm a little short on time, so I'm going to just ask you for a short answer, please.
Ms Karakatsanis: The short answer is that it's a five-year project. We do have phases. In the next 18 months we hope to have all of the case management in on the civil side; there will be technology in on much of the policing side; and criminal case management would be next on the agenda.
Mr Young: The Criminal Justice Review Committee has judges, lawyers, and who else is on it? I'll tell you what my concern is. My concern is that the people who make more money, who make more income when trials are delayed, are the ones you have on the committee. They have a vested interest in the system the way it is. I agree with you that we've been operating in an old-fashioned way, some of the methods from the time of Charles Dickens. We have to modernize.
Are we going to get any outside expertise? Are we going to other jurisdictions to see how they've made their courts more efficient? You talked about benchmarking our courts. Who are we benchmarking them against and what do you expect to come out of this Criminal Justice Review Committee?
Ms Karakatsanis: As I said, we're really expecting some practical suggestions on things such as pre-trial conferences, the movement of the accused through the system, some really practical, concrete advice on changing some of the processes. Some of them may be things we can do; some of them may be things that have to be changed by the federal government in the legislation. We are looking at other justice systems in other provinces. We have invited the public to make representations. When I say "we," the committee has, because it's a joint committee with the judiciary.
Mr Young: Are you looking at any European jurisdictions?
Ms Karakatsanis: Not to date, but we could take a look at that if you have any specific ideas.
Mr Young: I would recommend that. You see, what I'm thinking of is the idea of mediation. It holds tremendous potential, because of the number of cases that don't end up finally going to trial but clog the system in the meanwhile.
How many different ways do you measure the efficiency of the system? For instance, you talked about the length of a case, the time to trial. Do you measure number of remands and all those kinds of things, and is that what you benchmark against other jurisdictions?
Ms Karakatsanis: We do measure number of appearances; we measure time to trial; we measure the numbers of inventory. As I said earlier, this is developing. We don't have all the information we'd like, so we would like to fine-tune as we go along. But we do measure those.
Mr Young: I used to work for the telephone company, and we were measured against all other jurisdictions, worldwide in some cases, but certainly North America. We were measured 50 different ways and we knew how we measured against the other jurisdictions. We knew exactly how we were doing.
I'd like to ask you, was the criminal backlog caused by spending cuts?
Ms Karakatsanis: No, and I believe the Provincial Auditor would be of the same view. When we talked earlier about the causes of backlogs, much of it has to do with the complexity of the process; much of it has to do with the charter and the implications for longer trials. We have more crown attorneys in the system now than we have had for some time. It has been growing; it hasn't been cut. There are statutory rights for victims as well. Those are the factors that create the increasing complexity and backlog. I do not believe and, as I said, do not believe the Provincial Auditor would say the backlog has been caused by spending cuts.
The Chair: Mr Lalonde, 15 minutes.
Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): One of the main reasons we're here today is because of the auditor's report of 1997. What really concerns us is the backlog that occurred probably during the last three or four years. I just wonder, when we look at the accounts receivable -- I am sure you would be looking at this in your revenues -- do we count those backlogs as accounts receivable when we come out with the final report at the end of the year?
Ms Karakatsanis: You're talking about the overdue fines?
Mr Lalonde: That's right, yes. There is $316 million in there. Is it counted as accounts receivable?
Ms Karakatsanis: Yes.
Mr Lalonde: Because at the present time, we have a shortfall of $5 million already vis-à-vis the expenditure. When I looked at this in the auditor's background notes of February 11 that we have here: "Collection of fines.... Moreover, on average approximately $4 million in fines go into default each month." You just mentioned that the backlog is not caused by the reduction of staff. But why has the auditor found this?
"Moreover, on average approximately $4 million in fines go into default each month. Persons convicted can have their driver's licence suspended if fines are not paid. Fines are considered to be in default 45 days after conviction, at which point they are transferred to the government's central collection service. For the two years ending February 1997, no accounts have been transferred due to computer incompatibility and a reduction of staff at CCS."
We are referring to reduction of staff, that we cannot collect those fines. Looking at it in the auditor's report, also in the background note, there is a note that struck me in there too, that we have over $200 million in fines which are over two years old. We haven't been able to collect those. Do we have the staff in place to collect them?
Ms Karakatsanis: As I mentioned earlier, the fines that had not been transferred, which the Provincial Auditor commented on, have now been transferred. They had not been transferred at the time, as you mentioned, primarily because of incompatibility in the systems. That has now been fixed and they were transferred.
The reduction in staff referred to was the reduction in staff at the central collection service, at Management Board Secretariat. I know they have looked at ways to improve the collection of fines in Management Board. They are using private collection agencies to collect fines. That process is being used.
As well, you refer to driver's licence suspension. That is something that is done by the Ministry of Transportation, not only suspending licences but refusing to renew plates, and that is being done. It is just not always the deterrent we would like it to be.
Mr Lalonde: To tell you the truth, I don't know if it is working well in some regions and not in others. I was saying before you came in that I just can't see how we could have an outstanding number of fines like we have at the present time. I only had an $18 parking ticket and I couldn't renew my licence plate because I hadn't paid that, which I didn't know of all along. I had to pay it right away.
Ms Karakatsanis: I wish everyone was like you.
Mr Lalonde: Anyway, I know the majority is from highway traffic fines, but I'm looking at -- one of the collection agencies told us that at the Ministry of Environment and Energy, for example, we had a company that was fined $35,000 two years ago. It was never collected and they said they will never collect it because of reduction of staff. This group was fined another $9,000 just a couple of months ago, but never paid the $35,000 they were previously fined.
I wonder what type of system we have in place at the present time to correct those situations, because it is causing a real headache for the people in the area. The case came to court and the company just didn't care about the environment, didn't care about the surrounding residential people. They're going ahead and the ministry doesn't have the staff to collect those fines, and they were forgotten.
1130
Just to go a little further, on page 5 of the notes that I referred to: "The...IJTP, currently under way, was formed by the ministry, along with the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services, to develop technological solutions." Mind you, I believe a lot in new technology, but if you don't have the proper resources to put this technology in place, it will never work. The computer doesn't make mistakes. It's the people who enter the information in the computer who make the mistakes.
At the present time I just wonder if the resources we have in place to have this new technology in place, were they properly trained before we got the equipment? I could refer to another sector of your ministry where we have a lot of problems. In the past, we know there were some court cases rejected because of that. I just wonder if we are not going ahead too fast to implement the system prior to having all of the information entered in the new computerized system. Do you make sure your staff is properly trained before we transfer everything?
Ms Karakatsanis: Yes, I think that's a key component of implementing any information management or technology program. You raised the issue about paying for it and are we sure it's going to work. The way the initiative is structured is we have a private sector partner which will be making investments in the technology and will only be repaid from the benefits that arise as a result of technology. They have an interest to make sure that it works. As we are working with them, it is in their interests and it is in our interests to make sure that any technology that is implemented is implemented properly, that we get the right information into it, that we train people properly to use it in order that we actually achieve the benefits we have identified. Does that answer your question?
Mr Lalonde: To a certain point, yes.
Ms Karakatsanis: Training is key.
Mr Lalonde: As long as it is put in place properly. The company that will sell this new computer system, I am sure they know what they are doing; I'm positive. But it's to get the people really trained properly to enter the information in the computerized system.
Ms Karakatsanis: Yes, you are absolutely right.
Mr Lalonde: We have seen in the past that we did not have the necessary resources to enter the information, which has caused many, many headaches, especially to young families.
In regard to your working group that you referred to, do they meet regularly or once a year or twice a year?
Ms Karakatsanis: You're referring now to the court services agency project. The process we put in place was this. We reached an agreement with the judiciary, with the heads of court, that we would put in place a process to examine the feasibility of a court services agency. As part of that process, the chief justices and the attorneys set up a working group to do some thinking and provide some thoughts to them that they could consider about how such an agency could be structured.
It met for about two months at the beginning of 1997 and presented a draft report to the chief justices and to the Attorney General. The working group's job at that point was to present the report to the Attorney General and to the chief justices. It has not been meeting regularly. It had a specific job. It produced the draft report which was to assist the judiciary and the ministry to assess the feasibility and it, as I said, completed a draft report for their consideration.
Mr Lalonde: I think that's probably where the problem is. I just refer to what Mr Young said a little while ago. You have 84 law firms in Toronto looking at the actual system, and I'm pretty sure those law firms don't want to lose any business. We should have independent people as part of this committee or this working group that would meet regularly. You said they met at the beginning of 1997. That's probably a year ago.
Ms Karakatsanis: Are you referring to the Criminal Justice Review Committee?
Mr Lalonde: There are two groups. You've got the working group and the criminal committee.
Ms Karakatsanis: I may have told you about the other group. I was referring to the working group that met to develop some ideas for a court services agency. I think you were asking about the Criminal Justice Review Committee.
Mr Lalonde: To continue on that answer you gave me, this group hasn't met since the beginning of 1997 to review their report again and to see what the government's position is on the recommendations they came up with.
Ms Karakatsanis: It was not intended that working group would be a standing working group or committee. It was brought together for the purpose of putting together a draft report for the consideration of the chief justices and the Attorney General. It was only brought together for a short time to do the work, and it did it.
I co-chaired the committee with the Chief Judge of the provincial court. On it we had some members of the bar, a member from a financial institution, a former secretary of cabinet, and a person who considered themselves quite a layperson in the sense that they didn't understand the court system at all, to give us that perspective. It did have a variety of perspectives, but it was created only for a specific task and it completed that task. It wasn't intended to continue. If in future we find that the judiciary is interested in looking at some other structures of creating a unified management structure, we may call on that working group or another group to help with some of the thinking again.
Mr Lalonde: To refer to one of the comments, the request for extensions by defence lawyers -- at present we're trying to reduce the backlog. You've mentioned that very often the defence lawyer would ask for an extension. This would all depend on the criteria that are established by the courts, and probably this working group should be looking at this too to try to resolve some of the problems we have in the backlog. I don't think much has been done up to the present time to recoup part of that $316.5 million in the backlog at present. If we were faced once again with what happened in 1990, when any cases that had waited more than eight months were cancelled, we'd be in deep trouble. Of that $316 million, $200 million would disappear just like that.
Ms Karakatsanis: There are two backlogs, if you like. There are the ones where we're talking about cases in progress in the courts and then there were the outstanding fines that had not been transferred to management board for collection.
With respect to the backlogs in the courts -- actually, I prefer not to use the word "backlog." I prefer to use the terms "charges in progress" or "inventory." "Backlog" suggests that somehow they're overdue and that's not necessarily the case. In the vast majority of cases it's not so. If you think about it as charges in progress, you're right, there are ways in which we can improve, and the committee that is looking at that particular issue has been formed with the chief judges and involves the bar and has called for some public input. They are meeting now and will continue to meet, and they are looking for some very practical solutions that will help improve the process, which will allow those cases to move forward to trial more quickly.
1140
Mr Preston: On a point of order, Mr Chair. I don't want to infringe on Peter Kormos' time. It's really a point of clarification. There was a reference made to the backlog earlier in Mr Lalonde's statement, the backlog of the last three or four years, when in fact we all know that the backlog went back to the Askov case and before, which was 1990. So it's not the last three or four years; it's probably the last three or four decades.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Preston. Maybe I can ask the auditor to give us his thoughts.
Mr Erik Peters: I just have a very quick point of clarification. Unfortunately, we used the word "backlog" twice; in one case it's cases pending trial, and in the other it's the backlog of collecting fines after the decision has been rendered and made that somebody has to pay a fine -- part of it anyway; others are fines from the tickets. I just wanted to make that as a point of clarification.
The Chair: Mr Kormos, the floor is yours.
Mr Kormos: I listened carefully to your opening comments, and my sense is that you're here on behalf of the ministry talking very much about justice. You talked about accessibility. I'm sure I recall. I made a note about you using the word "accessibility."
Ms Karakatsanis: I did.
Mr Kormos: Bear with me for just a minute. I've got a constituent named Doris G. I'll just use her last initial for the moment. Doris is married. She's got three children, 18, 16 and 13. Her husband is a low-income worker. She works part-time. I first met her when she started working at the Becker's over by my house. I'd go in there at 7 in the morning to get my coffee and the newspapers and she'd be there for the 7 am shift or wrapping up working from midnight. She works part-time now, around 20 hours a week. She and her husband and three kids live in their own home. They have two mortgages on it, though, and because of the nature of the economic climate in the region, uncertainty about the future of many factories, property values have either remained stable or in many cases dropped over the last 10 years, so I suspect they have no equity whatsoever in their home.
All of that isn't the problem. Doris has a niece whose body was found in Lake Erie last fall. The niece left behind a one-year-old and a three-year-old child. The niece's own mother has passed away. The niece's estranged spouse and purported father of the two children was charged with second-degree murder and is in the Niagara Detention Centre waiting for the resolution of those charges.
I don't think there's anybody in this room who at some point in their own family history doesn't understand that back in less formal days, when something like that happened to your family you just took those kids in; they became part of your family. The problem is, Doris has been trying to use the court to obtain an order for custody of these two little children. It's feared that the three-year-old witnessed the death of his mother. Strangely, the father -- or perhaps not so strangely -- is contesting the application for custody while being held in detention awaiting trial on second-degree murder charges.
Doris called me because she knew me. She was told she might get legal aid, but if she did get legal aid they'd put a lien on the house. I canvassed several family law practitioners in Welland who simply won't do family law cases on legal aid any more. They simply can't do it. The resources aren't there. I tried to prevail on some of these same lawyers to do pro bono work. I figure I did as good a selling job as I possibly could and I leaned pretty heavy on some of them and tried to call in some chits of my own, but they explained to me, and I have to believe them, that conditions are such that they can't afford to do pro bono, especially in a case like this, because you've got all sorts of potential overheads: the office staff, as well as obtaining psychological reports etc.
Having said all that -- and I don't expect you to have anything other than sympathy for this woman and the plight she's in. And please, I have the highest regard for you. I hope you understand that. You're the messenger here. But what, if anything, in what you've told us today will give Doris G. and those two kids access to justice? I'm not fabricating this; this is the real world. What have you told us that's going to give Doris G. access to the justice system so that she could fulfil what she feels are her moral and family responsibilities to two kids?
Ms Karakatsanis: You're right, there's certainly a lot of sympathy, but I think there are some solutions as well. Legal aid, we all know, isn't providing the kind of access that it could provide and that we'd like it to provide. The review that was initiated resulting in the McCamus report has certainly made recommendations to improve the level of support that legal aid can provide to low-income Ontarians. I think that's particularly true in the family area.
As you know, Mr Kormos, it's the law society that currently administers the legal aid plan. With respect to current eligibility for legal aid, that's something I can't comment on. I know that as we're looking to see how the legal aid system should be reformed, and as we're talking to our stakeholders, and as we consider the McCamus recommendations, improving access to legal aid for women and kids, for families in distress and who need that kind of support and cannot afford that kind of representation, it has to be a priority.
The reform of legal aid is something I hope will result in providing some support for the legal representation or the legal support that Doris and many others like her will need.
Once Doris, or whoever, gets to court, I would admit there are many ways in which we can improve, through case management, how quickly she can get through the process so that she could, having had some access to legal advice and support, be able to actually get a decision more quickly. I think even the initiatives we talked about in case management will help provide a faster resolution for her.
As a victim, or as a potential victim or witness for the children in the criminal case, we are providing much better support for victims of crime. We've doubled the number of victim/witness -- we are being much more supportive of victims. So I would say, yes, there are a lot of people who need to have better access to the justice system, but there are a number of areas where we are working hard to increase accessibility and where I think we will have results that will help someone like her to get access to the justice system.
Mr Kormos: Far be it from me to want to blindside the Attorney General -- why would I want to? -- but I will be writing to him about this case.
For a minute, please, if we can get to the YOA issue, the young offender issue, and this furore. You were very careful; the ministry's being very clever. When the Attorney General was here in estimates, he was very specific to talk about the perception of the increase in crime, right? Because he had to acknowledge that statistically incidents of crime have reduced, not significantly, but marginally. So the AG was very careful and the people on the crime control commission are careful to use the word "perception." When you say one in eight have a fear of being victimized -- I have no reason to question the validity or accuracy of that stat; that's done by polling people and one in eight people suspect they're going to be a victim of crime. I assume it's as simple as that. But let's get down to the YO issue. What exactly is it that the Ministry of the Attorney General is seeking by way of changes via the federal Parliament with respect to the Young Offenders Act?
Ms Karakatsanis: I don't have with me the list, Mr Kormos. I know that the Attorney General in estimates, I think in response to your question, did provide the specific request that is being made and I'd be happy to get that information to you. I just don't have a list with me.
Mr Kormos: Mr Segal might.
Mr Segal: I have a few of them off the top of my head.
Mr Kormos: Fair enough.
Mr Segal: One of them is to revisit the transfer provisions, a second is to look at the age of responsibility, a third is to revisit the issue of publication or non-publication, and there are some others, Mr Kormos, but those are the ones I have off the top of my head.
1150
Mr Kormos: Fair enough. Now, I've talked to crown attorneys from various parts of the province and that's why I'm putting this to you, because I've got no reason to disbelieve them. These are hardworking women and men, very committed, who feel under pressure to effectively produce quotas when it comes to clearing cases. They tell me that they're being monitored and they're being expected -- because you talked, Ms Karakatsanis, earlier about the increase in cases cleared, which means guilty pleas or withdrawals, with YOs, I presume, alternative measures. The crowns are feeling pressured to meet the quota to clear cases, which results in plea bargaining, which leaves victims feeling that justice hasn't been served. In other words, let's say a robbery, a woman having her purse snatched with violence or threats -- as far as I can recall properly that's a robbery -- being knocked down to an assault and/or a theft. That's what crown attorneys are telling me is happening. Can you comment on that?
Ms Karakatsanis: I'm going to start and then I'll let Murray provide some more detail, but after the Askov case, as you know, Justice Martin was asked and produced what we call the Martin report, which examined the way in which criminal cases were managed through the courts, and made some recommendations. Justice Martin recommended globally that there be a resolution rate that made sense in terms of the kinds of cases going through the courts that ought to be resolved prior to trial.
When you're looking at benchmarks across the system, you have to look at how the system is performing against those benchmarks. There's no question when it comes to individual matters or individual crowns the criteria you apply are not related to that benchmark. You look at the case in front of you, you look at the evidence in front of you, you look at the witnesses, you look at all of those other criteria. That is what governs the decision on what's the most appropriate way in which to handle the case. System-wide you can make some predictions about what the resolution rate ought to be and you should measure to see how that's working, but the crown attorneys make their determinations in specific cases based on the factors before them that are particular to that case and they are supported by their senior management in that.
Mr Segal: Mr Kormos, I think that very accurately captures it. We are not at all in the business of having anything that would resemble a quota system. Flowing from the Martin report, as the deputy minister has indicated, we do use some broad measurement sticks, and I'm sure there are ones you may agree with. One of them is an early resolution rate. The way the system used to work, and maybe that got us in trouble some years ago, was many more matters were settled on the eve of trial, where they could have been resolved to everyone's satisfaction, including the victim input, at an earlier point in time and thereby the valuable court time would be preserved.
The second broad measure is the number of cases that actually go to trial. It's not something that's looked at specifically. As the deputy minister has underscored, justice has to be done in every case, but at the same time appropriate resolutions, with appropriate input from everyone, should be something that is a goal.
Mr Kormos: I understand, but let's talk real world, okay? Let's talk Welland, let's talk Sudbury. If I'm an accused, just hypothetically, and I'm charged with robbery, I'm not going to cop a plea unless I get something. I either want a reduced crime, an included offence, or I want a deal to a lighter sentence and what might be the tariff. That's how crowns clear cases. Quite frankly, other than the dump trucks, who con their own clients, no defence lawyer is going to do that for their client either; there's no percentage. When you're clearing cases that way, you've got to give the accused either a deal in terms of a lesser sentence than what is appropriate or what is the tariff or you've got to give the accused a deal in terms of dropping charges or charging an included offence. This is only what crowns tell me, but it's pretty consistent all over Ontario. That how, crowns tell me, they're clearing cases. I can't fault them, because they're under pressure to do it.
Ms Karakatsanis: When we talked about what the resolution rate is across the system, we have a rate that we set and it's one that remains more or less constant. When we look at, for example, some of the measures I talked about in reducing backlog or getting the cases resolved earlier, often it's just a question of making sure that any potential resolution of the case occurs at the front end, not at the back end, so that you've reduced the number of times you go to court. Nobody is suggesting to crowns that they need to resolve more cases. When it's done effectively, when we've worked at it in the blitz locations, it's done at an earlier stage, so that people are informed, and there's a senior crown who is available to review the case rather than having remand after remand.
Mr Kormos: Now, my final question: Recently the Attorney General -- not so recently; a little while ago last year the Attorney General announced basically a new class of charges which would be considered for diversion. In many people's views, he lowered the bar because he included among those offences ones that others historically didn't perceive as that low.
You know about the government's embrace of the broken windows theory, the one that the crime control commission is pursuing: If you don't go after the people who urinate on the sidewalk, before you know it they become Alan Eagleson. That's the broken windows theory: If you don't go after Alan Eagleson, who urinated -- see, that was the problem. He should have been busted for urinating on the sidewalk and he never would have done the big scam.
Mr Young: That's not quite the theory.
Mr Kormos: I was at the conference. That could be the first Alan Eagleson quip in this committee since his going to jail.
Mr Young: You were almost there with him.
Mr Kormos: I don't get that kind of treatment. He's in the four-star cell, Terence.
How does that coincide with the broken windows approach and the embrace of that by this government, this lowering the bar or lowering the threshold for crimes that are going to be considered -- and if I'd been guilty, I would be in with him. How does that coincide with the broken windows theory?
Ms Karakatsanis: I don't believe that we are lowering the bar or lowering the threshold. There are some local committees in some areas where the community has got together and proposed some more effective solutions to crimes that have been committed in the community. If you want some more detail about those local committees, which have been in existence for some time, Murray can speak to them, but I don't believe we have lowered the threshold.
The Chair: Thank you, and now I'll lower the boom, I guess, it being close to 12 o'clock. Mr Kormos, while you were questioning our witnesses, I conducted a straw poll. Members of the government and also the opposition are telling me there's no need to invite these people back at 1:30 for more questions. Are you in favour of this? I'm not asking you to give these people the afternoon off.
Mr Kormos: I'll concur with that, no problem.
The Chair: Thank you. Thank you very much for appearing before us this morning. This committee is in recess until 1:30 this afternoon.
The committee recessed at 1200 and continued in closed session at 1330.