L045B - Mon 19 Oct 1998 / Lun 19 Oct 1998 1
LEGAL AID SERVICES ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES SERVICES D'AIDE JURIDIQUE
The House met at 1830.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
LEGAL AID SERVICES ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES SERVICES D'AIDE JURIDIQUE
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 68, An Act to incorporate Legal Aid Ontario and to create the framework for the provision of legal aid services in Ontario, to amend the Legal Aid Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 68, Loi constituant en personne morale Aide juridique Ontario, établissant le cadre de la prestation des services d'aide juridique en Ontario, modifiant la Loi sur l'aide juridique et apportant des modifications corrélatives à d'autres lois.
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I'm glad to have the opportunity to begin debate again this evening as we resume second reading debate of this fairly important bill, Bill 68. I just note for the record that our critic, Mr Kormos, the member for Welland-Thorold, the next time this bill comes up will have the opportunity to do the leadoff for our caucus as the critic.
In reviewing the Hansard from the previous discussion on this, I note with particular interest the presentation made by a former Attorney General, the member for London Centre, Ms Boyd, and certainly would concur with many of the comments she placed on the record. Like her, I believe this is fairly significant legislation, and I'm glad the government has brought it forward. I want to say to the government that we look forward very much, sincerely, to the discussion on this and to the work in committee on this. We come at this believing this is very much a good step being taken here in terms of the legislation reflected in Bill 68, in effect setting up a new framework for governing the legal aid system in this province, something which we know has been a few years in the making.
The legislation before us reflects, by and large, the report of Professor John McCamus of September 1997, in which he set out, after a good, lengthy study of over a year, a number of recommendations to revamp the legal aid system. People may know that some time ago the Law Society of Upper Canada, which has been responsible and which is still in effect responsible for running the legal aid plan, indicated its willingness to move away from that direct governance. This legislation would set the framework for a new system of governing the legal aid system.
As we see it, the essential difference that comes about as a result of this legislation is that it would take the current framework, which obviously has government funding as well as contributions made by lawyers through a levy that the law society imposes upon members, and would move the governance of that into an outside agency, a new agency to be created. That agency - and this is again a significant point - would be set up, according to the legislation in front of us, by a majority of people who are not lawyers.
That is something, again following the recommendations made by Professor McCamus, that we find supportable, the idea that you have a system like the legal aid plan set up under a governance structure that has, yes, lawyers involved, as people appointed in a combination of recommendations for the law society and others that the government through the Attorney General would appoint; but with the basic point being that the governance moves from one that is based largely in the legal profession to one that is based, by majority at least, in the public at large, because the government would retain the ability to influence that board of directors in terms of the membership, the people it would appoint.
The concept is certainly something we find supportable. I look forward, as I say, to the bill going to committee because there are some important issues that will have to be addressed. I come at this issue, first of all, from the perspective of believing very strongly as a member of this Legislature that having in our society a strong system of legal aid is vital for putting into practice the notion that justice has to be available to everyone. The essence of a legal aid plan is, in my view, exactly that: that people who are not able to afford a lawyer should not be precluded from having their rights protected and their rights defended by a lawyer of their choosing, that through the legal aid plan there is a mechanism for them to retain a lawyer and to know that their inability to pay legal fees does not prevent them from having good representation on whatever issue they are dealing with, whether that be in criminal proceedings or in any number of civil proceedings covered under the legal aid plan.
As a basic piece of our justice system, having an effective, real and working legal aid plan is crucial in ensuring that the notion of justice being available to all and everyone having equal access to justice and to representation is translated into something that is workable, practical and real. As a concept and as a principle, I believe very strongly that that is a fundamental basis of our legal system and, quite frankly, a fundamental basis of our society as a whole. I don't think you can have in place any kind of system that you can call just, that you can call representative in terms of the court system and the justice system as a whole if you are limited in when you can get representation, particularly in criminal proceedings, by not having the money to afford a lawyer. I think the basic concept is there.
Certainly the issue of how to fund legal aid has been facing governments now for some time. I was a member of a government that, while still wanting to maintain this very important and basic notion of providing representation to all who need it and deserve it, also recognized that there had to be an ability to try to look at the mushrooming costs of the legal aid plan. That was something that had to be addressed, so the New Democratic Party took some steps when we were in government to begin to try to contain some of those expenditures.
We got into a three-year funding agreement with the law society at that point, and then were supportive as a caucus when we saw that the government was beginning a fairly serious examination of the legal aid plan, something that, had we been returned to office, we would very likely also have had to undertake in the way it has been done, done, as I mentioned, through the person of Professor McCamus, resulting in the kind of recommendations that have come forward.
In the meantime, it was useful to have had the funding envelope maintained as per the agreement we reached with the law society when we were in government. Now that we're looking forward to what the next steps should be, we in our party obviously believe very strongly that the role of the government in terms of funding needs to continue to be there, as of course it needs to continue to be there as the overseer of the system and ensuring that continues.
On that score, while historically the government funding of the legal aid plan has been shared between the provincial and the federal governments, I note with some interest - and I want to again draw attention back to the comments of my colleague from London Centre. She pointed out that the federal government has had for some years a role in this as well, but the share of the federal funding has dropped in the last few years to the point where it is now only about 5% of the overall amount spent on legal aid in this province. That I find particularly troubling, given that we have the federal Liberal government in Ottawa which again in this area, as in many other areas, unfortunately, is reducing its responsibility and leaving to the provincial government the responsibility more and more for finding the money to pay for these -
Interjection.
Mr Silipo: Yes. The minister for women's issues says they're dealing with their deficit by - I don't want to put words in her mouth.
Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): Changing their definitions.
Mr Silipo: Changing their definitions for legal aid. That's the way they're doing it in this case, but we've seen many an example of the federal government, whether it was the previous Conservative government or, unfortunately, I have to say, the current Liberal government, simply shifting its problems on to the provincial level. Certainly we in Ontario feel this in a very big way in many other areas, and legal aid is no exception.
1840
I don't want to belabour that point, but it also should not go unnoticed that this is part of the reality. Governments - this government today and hopefully another government tomorrow - will have to deal with the continuing pressure of funding. This new board of directors that will be appointed will obviously have the day-to-day responsibility for managing, but the government of the day is going to continue to have the responsibility for the overall funding envelope. That is going to continue to be a challenge, because the real issue is: How do you continue to balance the need on the one hand for not limiting the kinds of situations in which people should have remedy and should have access to legal aid, with the need on the other hand to have a global amount of money spent that has some predictability to it? I say that with an understanding of the kinds of situations we had to deal with and address when we were a government. So I appreciate the difficulties this will entail.
When we talk about the legal aid plan, there is of course not only the aspect called the certificate process, which allows individuals, once they have been granted a certificate, the right to get a lawyer paid for through the legal aid plan; there is also another very important part of that system that I'd like to just touch on, and that is the whole legal clinic process. It's one that I'm happy to see reflected again in this legislation that restructures the plan. I have some questions about the three-year provisions in this legislation in terms of the funding commitment, and I'm sure that issue will be addressed in committee. I certainly know from the legal clinic communities that this is an issue they will want to address and to raise. I know it is something that the legal clinic that serves my own part of town, West Toronto Community Legal Services, will have something to say about.
I just want to underline again tonight my strong support and belief in the need to have that aspect of the legal aid plan not just continue but continue to grow as a vital part of how we deliver good legal services for people who can't afford to pay for a lawyer on their own. I don't mind giving you my complete bias on this in saying that I come at this not just as a parliamentarian, not just as someone who, as I said earlier, believes very much in the principles of justice having to be delivered by way of ensuring that all citizens of our province have access to legal aid, but also as someone who trained in the legal profession and in fact spent what I thought were probably the most useful four months of my three years in law school at Parkdale Community Legal Services, a legal clinic which has been at the forefront of the legal aid service system in the province and which continues to this day to serve the citizens of Parkdale and the whole west end of Toronto. I can tell you that the four months I spent in that clinic opened my eyes to the needs of the legal aid system and the legal aid plan and quite frankly the legal needs of many of our poorest citizens in the city.
I believed, and since that time believe even more strongly, in the need not just to use the legal clinic setting, as it happens in that case, as a way to give aspiring young lawyers an opportunity to actually do some real legal work in a real setting as opposed to the classroom, but more importantly and more fundamentally believe very much in the service that clinic provides, and many clinics like it across this metropolis and across the province, to the extent they exist.
I appreciate the difficulties the legal clinics have gone through in dealing with the growing pressure that has been put upon them as governments have been making decisions that have resulted in the rights of the poorest among our citizens having to be defended even more strongly. Certainly, if you look at the issue of the changes this government particularly has made in the area of social services, in the area particularly of social assistance - the role that legal clinics have played in bringing forward those cases, not just on an individual basis but in looking at similar case situations and in bringing forward cases that would exemplify the particular problem that was being put forward, and the very crucial role that those legal clinics have played in defending the rights of people who quite frankly without them would not have any legal defence, would not have had any legal recourse.
I believe very strongly that this area of the system needs to continue to be defended, needs to continue to be supported, needs to be further - and one of the things I'll be looking forward to in the discussion in committee is the extent to which there is the flexibility in this law for further clinics to be set up and for that to become even more, in my view, a greater part of the delivery of services under the whole legal aid plan.
Those are just some of my comments at this point in terms of this issue. When this goes forward to committee - I understand there has been some indication from the government that they are willing to let this bill go forward to committee; we will probably be dealing with this, I assume, during the recess in November. I'd just flag that for people out there who may be interested in coming forward and speaking. That doesn't leave a lot of time for them to prepare their thoughts or comments on this bill, because that will likely happen sometime in mid-November. But I would certainly encourage that discussion to happen, and I think that discussion in committee will tell us whether this law is ready to proceed as set out here, with hopefully some amendments that might address those very important points which have to do with some of the issues I've raised, and I'm sure many others that I won't have the time to raise this evening.
One of the issues that some people in the legal aid community have raised is the question of solicitor-client privilege. If there's one thing at the heart of a relationship between a lawyer and a client, the person the lawyer is working for, it is the sense of the need to maintain confidentiality, to maintain privilege. I know some concern has been expressed about a provision in section 91 of the act, which allows for the conduct of quality assurance audits of lawyers and service providers who provide legal aid services. The legislation, as I understand, provides for limited authority to enter the office of a lawyer or service provider in order to review records by the new governing body. Even though the legislation includes a requirement on the part of the corporation to keep confidential any information obtained in a quality assurance audit, there is still concern that this ability by the new board to enter and gain access to the records of the lawyer in a particular case might infringe on solicitor-client privilege. That's an issue that warrants some further examination, and I hope this is looked at quite seriously when this bill goes forward.
Again, there are a number of concerns that we have and that others have expressed. We have some concerns, for example, around the transition board. When you're making the kind of shift we are making in this legislation from one form of governance to a new and very different type of governance, we understand the need for some transition body to be responsible. There is some concern we would have, and that I know others share, about the extent to which that is so largely controlled by the appointments the Attorney General can make, and I think that area needs to be examined as well.
By and large, we believe the shift to this new structure for governing the legal aid system in this province is a good one. We agree with it; we support it. We look forward, however, to the discussion in committee, because many concerns have been brought to our attention to this point, only a few of which I have raised in my comments tonight, and others which I know we will be able to deal with in the course of comments we make here in terms of flagging what those are. But more importantly we will hear in greater detail from the people who actually work on a day-to-day basis in the field delivering the kinds of services that we, through this new piece of legislation, want to support and want to enshrine.
I look forward to that discussion in committee, to the process going through, and I hope, quite frankly and quite sincerely, that the interest and the genuine approach that we are trying to take on this legislation on this side of the House, certainly within our caucus, is reflected by the government side in terms of their willingness to listen seriously to the kinds of comments that will come forward and to make amendments to the bill, where necessary, to make it a better piece of legislation.
1850
The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Questions or comments?
Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East): I thank the member for Dovercourt for his comments tonight. This is a piece of legislation of which we're proud.
I'd like to outline some of the highlights of the legislation for those who may be wondering about that. The act establishes the mandate, governance, structure, accountability and services of a new organization called Legal Aid Ontario. Legal aid would be independent of government - I think that's important - and would be responsible for finding ways to better deliver legal aid services.
This legislation, as well, would ensure that Legal Aid Ontario operates on three principles: first, a principle that would include better service. It would include more accountability for use of public funds, and I don't think anybody would argue with that. More accountability for use of public funds is something I think anybody in this province would like to see. And of course it's important that it has independence, and this bill provides for that as well.
The act would reform legal aid services to better meet the needs of the people of Ontario. To outline the main elements of the proposed act, they include the creation of an independent statutory agency to manage legal aid. It would establish a modern, efficient framework for governance and service delivery. As well, it would ensure the new organization is managed in a more open and in a more accountable manner. Of course, accountability is something that people in this House would like to see more of.
Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): I think we can all agree in this House that some change is needed with respect to legal aid and the way that legal aid is administered in this province.
The member for Dovercourt has made some very good points about some of the difficulties that have been encountered by individuals trying to gain access to the justice system. It hasn't always been successful, particularly where women or children are concerned. We have copious evidence of that, where obviously women and children, who are by and large disadvantaged in some sections of our society, are disadvantaged even more because they are not able to get the kind of services they need in order to pursue their remedies in court when other remedies fail.
One thing I would say to the member for Dovercourt, as much as I appreciated some of the comments he made, is that we have to remember that it was an NDP government that brought in the memorandum of understanding and the five-year plan that actually saw the reduction of funding to legal aid. We can argue about the constrictions, the fiscal reality, all of that, but it doesn't take away from the fact that this government that we have before us did nothing more than continue on a path that was set by the previous government and the previous Attorney General when they negotiated a memorandum of understanding with the law society which saw a dramatic reduction in the amount of money that was available for legal aid.
So we have to put it in context. We can agree that it's important that we reform the system, but we must remember that the system does not depend on simply creating an agency at arm's length. It depends on adequate funding, and I would urge everyone in the House to give some real thought to that this evening.
Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): A renewed pleasure indeed to listen to the comments from the member for Dovercourt. When it comes to law, our deputy leader, soon to be Deputy Premier, knows what he is talking about.
The Law Society of Upper Canada has indeed managed the legal aid plan for more than 30 years. I trust they've done so since 1967. But as time went by, elapsed, they too felt that it was time for a change. You see, there was a perception of a conflict. You have a taxpayer-funded system administered by lawyers to give money to lawyers, and they felt sincerely that the perceived conflict was enough to start looking perhaps at another way to deliver and to manage the system.
So our party is in agreement with the Conservative government, but we have some doubts, by way of criticism, for we know too well that on the one hand legal aid helps the less fortunate, the people who cannot afford the full fare of representation. Alas, the track record of the Conservative government is dismal when it comes to the recognition of the rights of the less fortunate, of the marginalized, of those people who have less. So we will be the guardian and the conscience of this Parliament - we, the New Democrats - to ensure that people who need it the most indeed get the most protection.
Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph): It's my pleasure to rise in the House tonight to speak briefly about Bill 68.
I would like to turn my attention to the consultation that has occurred as this bill has been developed to present to the Legislature and to remind members and those listening tonight that the current legal aid plan was developed 30 years ago. This change is long overdue. It's very clear -
The Acting Speaker: It's questions and comments.
Mrs Elliott: Sorry. Comments, yes. All right.
This change is long overdue because the people of Ontario need access to legal aid. I would like to comment that the proposed reforms tonight build on the first comprehensive review of the Ontario legal aid plan in its 30-year history.
The government launched this review to ensure that legal aid's annual budget of $230 million delivers the maximum amount of high-quality services for those Ontarians who most need legal aid. Public hearings were held. More than 200 written submissions were received from a broad range of Ontarians, including members of the public, community groups, disadvantaged groups and the legal community. Dr McCamus was called on for his most professional advice on recommendations for reform, and after his presentation, consultations were extensively undertaken with the public, community groups, legal aid users, legal aid clinics and the legal community. Of course, legal aid consumers were also consulted, as were groups that worked with the disadvantaged.
It is time to reinvent legal aid. It's time that a new organization was undertaken to create a legal aid plan better able to deliver high-quality service.
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Time has expired.
Mr Silipo: I appreciate very much the comments made by the members for Wentworth East, Downsview, Lake Nipigon and Guelph, and would just say that it's always good to hear my friend from Lake Nipigon express his optimism. He tends to be not too far off the mark, so I look forward to his predictions turning out to be true.
I just want to say to the member for Wentworth East that again we agree very much that better service, more accountability and greater independence are all worthwhile and useful goals to achieve in this area of public policy. That's why we're expressing our support at this point, in principle, for the legislation and proceeding with it to go forward. We obviously want to make sure those nice and good and sound principles get translated into legislation that's good legislation, but also legislation that works at the end of the day for the interests of the people it's supposed to serve.
To my colleague and friend from Downsview, I just want to say it does not surprise me in the least - in fact, I would have been surprised if she had not mentioned that it was under the NDP government that we took some steps to try to contain the expenditure and, yes, that did cause some problems. I'm prepared to acknowledge that. I would just say that she should also take heed of the same words that she used in commenting on this when we are dealing with other areas of public policy, because if we did this in one area, there are many other policies in which I'm hearing the current Liberal leader say that in effect all he can do is to simply enshrine the cuts that Mike Harris has made in many areas of public policy, in health care and education and many other areas. That is something that would be interesting to see.
But in this particular area we are dealing with tonight, the legal aid plan, I do believe we can make some important improvements in the current system, and I think this legislation gives us the basis for that.
1900
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): It's my pleasure to participate in the second reading debate of the Legal Aid Services Act, Bill 68.
The changes outlined in the proposed act are good news for Ontario residents who need and use the services of the provincial legal aid system. We all know that the status quo isn't working; it hasn't worked effectively for a long time. Demand for legal aid has changed throughout the years, the people who need the services have changed and the system in which it is used has changed.
I believe that the changes proposed in this act will improve how those eligible for legal aid will access the system. It will also improve the operation of the legal aid plan, making it more accountable to those who use it as well as those who pay for it.
I think the purpose section of the act describes it best:
"The purpose of this act is to promote access to justice throughout Ontario for low-income individuals by means of,
"(a) providing consistently high quality legal aid services in a cost-effective and efficient manner to low-income individuals throughout Ontario;
"(b) encouraging and facilitating flexibility and innovation in the provision of legal aid services...;
"(c) identifying, assessing and recognizing the diverse legal needs of low-income individuals and of disadvantaged communities in Ontario; and
"(d) providing legal aid services to low-income individuals through a corporation that will operate independently from the government of Ontario but within a framework of accountability to the government of Ontario for the expenditure of public funds."
I believe that explains very well the purpose for the act and the program it will be providing.
As a government, we have done considerable consultation. We turned to Mr McCamus, who went to the public, to the organizations who help people access the system, to lawyers providing services and to those actually using the legal aid services. Some of the groups that work with low-income people that we talked to are the John Howard Society, the St Leonard's Society of Canada, Elizabeth Fry and the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses. We also consulted consumer groups, including the Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped, the National Council of Welfare, the Canadian Mental Health Association, as well as various lawyer groups.
From these consultations we heard the same message: People want a plan, independent of both government and the legal profession, which provides the services they want, an accountable and well-managed service, and they want a plan that is fiscally stable. Overall, the message certainly was that as users and as a society as whole, we need an improved legal aid system that would offer high-quality service. Armed with this knowledge, this government has now introduced an act that will not only improve the way the system operates but give it the flexibility to establish and develop new services which will better serve those eligible for legal aid.
It is one of the problems we run into from time to time as one interprets what another person is doing. I was reading a CP story on the changes being proposed to the Legal Aid Act, and it starts off by saying, "The Ontario government is seizing control of the legal aid system from the province's lawyers." I suppose it's a matter of how one interprets it, but I suggest that the word "seizing" implies that the Law Society of Upper Canada is not particularly supportive of the change being made. But in the same clipping it says:
"Legal aid has long been administered by the Law Society of Upper Canada, the profession's governing body.
"But after years of financial woes and controversial service cuts, the organization decided in February it wanted out of the business.
"A commission appointed by the province had made a similar recommendation."
I would point out that the process is definitely in line with what the public has been telling the government and what the Law Society of Upper Canada has been saying, that we want a private, independent organization to administer legal aid and also to operate legal aid in a businesslike fashion to make sure that the money goes towards providing legal aid services to the people who need it, not to administration; that it will be operated in a cost-effective and efficient manner and the money goes to the front-line services, as we have done with many other services the government provides.
To accomplish that, the act proposes to set up a corporation which, as has been mentioned by others, will be governed by an appointed board of directors, as is any other corporation. The maximum number of legal profession members on the board will be three of the 11-member board. The board will operate in a businesslike manner to benefit the people who use the services as opposed to the optics, at the very least, that the plan operates in the best interests of the people providing the services rather than of the people consuming them.
I would also like to point out the objects of the corporation. This will set the framework for how the new corporation will provide legal aid services in Ontario.
"The objects of the corporation are,
"(a) to establish and administer a cost-effective and efficient system for providing high quality legal aid services to low-income individuals in Ontario;
"(b) to establish policies and priorities for the provision of legal aid services based on its financial resources;
"(c) to facilitate coordination among the different methods by which legal aid services are provided;
"(d) to monitor and supervise legal aid services provided by clinics and other entities funded by the corporation;
"(e) to coordinate services with other aspects of the justice system and with community services;
"(f) to advise the Attorney General on all aspects of legal aid services in Ontario, including any features of the justice system that affect or may affect the demand for or quality of legal aid services."
I suggest that will go a long way to providing the type of service that the people requiring legal aid will need.
Again, it's very important to note that the board will not be operated by the legal profession, as it presently is, but will be operated by a community board appointed to provide that function.
Another important aspect of the bill is that it provides for very specific transition aspects of legal aid as it's presently set up. The bill outlines how the Law Society of Upper Canada shall maintain the legal aid services during the transition period so we won't end up with the law society stopping the provision of the service with the other corporation not yet set up to go into operation. The bill speaks to that and points out that the law society must stay in its present mode until the new organization is set up.
Another part of the bill that's very important to note is that it suggests that the new corporation must provide the services as they are presently being provided but can look at other ways of providing similar services to make it more effective and efficient, such as mediation processes and paralegal services and so forth, to provide better, more efficient and effective services for those needing it. It's very important to note that they will be obligated to stay in the services as they presently are, so no one will be left without services.
Although the new corporation would not take effect until mid-1999, the bill says that until the coming into effect of the new corporation, the law society must maintain the present services. I think that will guarantee the services.
It's very important that we recognize that the government did go through a considerable consultation process for this bill. We recognize that the present act has been in place for 30 years and that it's not functioning properly, that only those people who are involved both on the legal side and on the usage side know how the act should be changed to better serve the people who need it and put more emphasis on providing end-result services than on the administration of those services.
1910
I would point out that the government did considerable consultation with a great number of organizations. All the groups and individuals consistently stated that they wanted a legal aid plan that was independent of both government and service providers, accountable, well managed and fiscally stable. It's very important to mention here that this change is not intended and is not the by-product of reducing the cost of operating legal aid. I would point out that the minister has guaranteed $230 million in stable funding, which is the funding for 1998. He has guaranteed that stable funding for the coming three years, so the new corporation would be set up to reallocate that money into front-line services - not to find ways of reducing the total expenditures, but to put that money to more and better uses than is being done at the present time.
The other part that's worth mentioning is the issue of the makeup of the board. The board will be a private corporation with an 11-member board of directors. Five persons will be selected by the Attorney General from a list provided by the law society, five members will be appointed by the Attorney General and the chair of the board will be appointed by the Attorney General by mutual agreement of the law society and the Attorney General. Again, the majority of the board will be non-lawyers and the board is also obligated to provide and reflect the geographic diversity of Ontario.
Legal Aid Ontario will be responsible for providing high-quality legal services which meet the needs of Ontarians who require legal aid. The new organization would identify legal aid needs and provide more accessible and cost-effective services.
Legal aid could provide legal services in other areas of civil law subject to the Lieutenant Governor in Council's power to identify areas of civil law and types of civil cases or types of civil proceedings for which Legal Aid Ontario would not provide legal aid services. Legal Aid Ontario would be authorized to provide legal aid services by any method it considers appropriate. Again I point out that this will allow it to find new and more innovative ways of solving the problems and positions that people find themselves in, apart from having every case go before the judge and consuming a lot of time and energy on everyone's part. There may be other, more effective and efficient ways of providing that service.
It's also important to note that the new corporation will be accountable. Legal Aid Ontario would be made accountable to the provincial government for the expenditure of public funds. Though they are a completely independent board, they will not be allowed to tax for their own purposes; they will have to receive the money and be accountable for those monies to the provincial government.
Legal Aid Ontario would also enter into a memorandum of understanding with the Attorney General for five years, under which it would agree to provide the Attorney General with detailed information on its operation and plans, including its annual business plan and its policies and priorities in providing legal aid services. This is to protect and make sure that as we proceed, one would not find oneself in a position where the new corporation comes up with methods that work well for the corporation but do not serve the community well. This would provide the ability for the Attorney General to make sure all their new approaches meet the requirements of the public.
The provincial government has also committed to three-year stable funding for the agency, and the provincial government will contribute $230 million in legal aid. This will provide the proposed agency with the financial stability to accomplish the proposed changes. It's very important that as one of these corporations - not crown, but a regular corporation - sets up its structure, it has the wherewithal to provide the services it's being mandated to provide over at least the immediate future, so it does not find itself set up and then not able to provide those services.
To quickly go over it, I would just like to point out that the act really is based on transferring the operations of the legal aid plan and the design of new ways of providing legal aid to the residents of Ontario over to a private corporation as opposed to the Law Society of Upper Canada, who have said, according to the CP article, they no longer want to be in that business; not that they do not want to provide the legal aid, but they do not want to administer the plan. This corporation will do that. It will create that agency. It will provide more public participation and input into the process. It will ensure that the public agency is accountable. It will provide the statutory mandate, the board composition, organization structure and the funding mechanism for the agency and establish a modern, cost-effective governance and delivery framework and create a flexible framework for the service delivery.
I've gone over most of the structure of the board. Again, going back to the issue that the legal aid plan has been in existence in Ontario without change, or without significant change for 30 years, I think everyone realized that major change was needed. This bill goes a long way towards providing that change and looking after the legal aid needs of the people of Ontario and, again, dealing with some of the concerns that have been expressed by the residents who come into my constituency office in Woodstock to express their concerns about the present plan and how it is not working and how they think there should be some improvements and changes made so they can access the services they need.
I hope the bill will receive support from all sides of the House. I could do less than to read on from the CP clipping, which spoke about the seizing of control and other issues as they relate to the law society. At the bottom of it is an interesting comment. It says:
"The changes appear to be a positive move for legal aid, said New Democrat Marion Boyd, a former Attorney General.
"`The law society has not been known to be particularly businesslike in its management style,' she said."
I would assume from this that the members opposite realize that these changes are needed and that this act will go a long way towards correcting the shortcomings the present act has.
With that, I will conclude my comments and say we look forward to support from all sides of the House to get speedy passage of this bill.
The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?
M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott et Russell) : Tout d'abord, c'est avec plaisir que j'apporte mes commentaires et mes inquiétudes envers ce projet de loi.
Je peux dire qu'actuellement, si nous sommes dans une situation comme nous le sommes dans le moment, c'est que le gouvernement, depuis son élection de 1995, a causé beaucoup de maux de tête et de difficultés aux familles à faible revenu, surtout dans le secteur de prestations familiales. Nous connaissons qu'encore dans toutes les circonscriptions, nous avons beaucoup de difficultés, et souvent nous devons avoir recours aux services d'aide juridique. Mais aujourd'hui, on nous dit que ce projet de loi va permettre de transférer la responsabilité ou la gestion au secteur privé.
Laissez-moi vous dire que toujours le procureur général aura le plein contrôle, même si nous disons dans le projet de loi qu'il y aura un comité d'administration composé de 11 personnes. Mais sur 11 personnes, cinq seront choisies par le procureur général et les autres seront recommandées par le barreau. Actuellement, lorsque nous devons procéder, surtout dans les services familiaux, et aussi dans les services sociaux, souvent on doit avoir recours à un service d'avocat, d'aide juridique, mais il est tellement difficile par le temps qu'on puisse se rendre avoir l'approbation. C'est là que je me demande, avec le secteur privé, si on va attendre encore plus longtemps.
Le temps qu'on attend les gens et qu'ils viennent cogner à notre porte, il n'y a aucun moyen. On doit avoir recours à une maison pour les dames battues, à ce qu'on appelle par chez nous la Maison Interlude, mais dans tous les sens on doit toujours courir.
Aujourd'hui, avec ce projet de loi, j'ai encore de grands doutes : est-ce que ça va être plus facile ? Je crois que ce n'est pas clair dans le projet de loi.
Ce sont les points que je veux soulever ce soir.
1920
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I will say to the member opposite from Oxford, Mr Hardeman, that we on this side of the House, in this caucus, do find some things in this bill that are supportable and we feel that it moves us in a direction that may be helpful at the end of the day. However, there are, as is the job of this House, some concerns that we must raise and put on the record and will put on the record as the debate continues and as we go out to the public to hear from them around this piece of legislation.
One of the concerns that we have and that I don't believe the member raised is the question of who gets appointed to the controlling board. We have seen, by way of the record of this government over the last three years, the lengths they will go to in order to make sure that even when they do set up a body that is semi-autonomous or autonomous in some way, in fact at the end of the day they are still in control, they are still calling the shots, they are still deciding on decisions that are made that affect the lives of the people out there in the communities that we represent. We certainly want a board to be established, an operation of legal aid to be established that is accountable and responsible.
I will get into it a bit further, in a bit more depth, later tonight as I speak to this, but if you look at the control and the involvement of the Attorney General at every level of the appointments process, one can't help but be concerned that this board again will be politically tainted. In some instances very good boards and agencies out there try to do their work on behalf of the people of this province, simply to be told at the end of the day by this government that they can't.
Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough): I'd also like to take the opportunity to comment on the message from the member for Oxford. I think the biggest benefit of this bill, the Legal Aid Services Act, as he has already stated, is that it lays the groundwork for a new organization, Legal Aid Ontario. That's very important. I think we have all seen that there has been some concern about the former organization and the way it was dealt with. I think this act would ensure that the needs of Ontarians would be the primary focus of the board of directors.
The board would be independent of government and the legal profession. I think that's very important. The members, of course, as we all know, would be appointed for fixed terms of two to three years and could only be terminated for just cause. The independence is needed, in my opinion, to ensure that the new organization represents the public and avoids any perception of conflict of interest with the government.
It also, as we've suggested, is independent of the legal profession, which we all know is a supplier, naturally, of most legal aid services. I think that independence is as important there as it is with the government involvement.
Their mandate, of course, their governance, their accountability and the service they would provide would be clearly specified by this act. Priority setting would be at the direction of the board. This also helps to ensure the new agency's independence, and there's certainly no conflict.
Finally, I believe our approach is consistent with legal aid plans in many other provinces, certainly in England, Wales, Australia and New Zealand. That certainly lends to the credibility of this act, and I want to support it as well.
The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments? If not, the member for Oxford, you have two minutes.
Mr Hardeman: I'd like to thank the members for Prescott and Russell, Sault Ste Marie and Hastings-Peterborough for their, I think it's fair to say, somewhat positive comments from all three members. We very much appreciate that.
I would just very quickly like to address the question raised by the member for Sault Ste Marie as it relates to the appointment of the board. I think the bill is quite specific as to the appointments that will be on the board. It will be an 11-member board, five to be appointed from recommendations by the Law Society of Upper Canada, five to be appointed by the Attorney General, and one, the chair of the board, who would be appointed by mutual recommendations of both the law society and the Attorney General. I think that bodes very well for an independent board to govern this new corporation. As I think the member for Hastings-Peterborough mentioned, in fact they are fixed appointments to the board and could not be removed without cause. I think that would leave their decisions unquestionable and in the best interests of the legal aid corporation in Ontario as opposed to the appointing body. So I think that very much -
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): We're not like the federal Liberals.
Mr Hardeman: I think that's true, member from Ottawa. I think this will guarantee that the people will have an impartial party governing the board and looking after the needs of legal aid.
Again, I thank all three members for their comments and we look forward to further debate.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Ms Castrilli: I'll be splitting my time with the member for Kingston and The Islands.
I want to say at the outset to the Attorney General that I believe he and I share a similar goal. Justice, like many other fields, but perhaps even more than some other fields, requires some very careful thought. It requires an Attorney General prepared to bring forward legislation that is innovative and broad and that will meet the needs of citizens, and it requires an opposition that is willing to look at what's put before us.
It's not every piece of legislation that will attract the ire of the opposition, but every piece of legislation is required to be given careful scrutiny. This is one such piece of legislation. We agree that the end goal is to provide the best possible service to Ontarians. I think that is the purpose of the justice system, that all citizens be given equal access to the law and equal protection under the law. I hope that the House tonight will consider my comments within that context.
I think we all believe that that access and protection is afforded under our Constitution regardless of gender, age, race, ethnicity and religion or physical or mental disability. While it is nowhere mentioned, in order for justice to be truly done, there must be access and protection without reference to the size of one's wallet. Previous attorneys general have recognized this, and I would remind members of the House that it was in fact a previous Conservative government that brought in the first type of legal aid plan.
The Honourable Roy McMurtry, a former Attorney General, on the 10th anniversary of the Ontario legal aid plan, stated succinctly what legal aid is all about:
"The basic purpose of the legal aid plan is of course to serve the public, to serve the public by enabling each of its members to have access to the kind of legal assistance that is essential for the understanding and assertion of our individual rights, obligations and freedoms under the law."
A noble experiment was put in place by previous Tory governments, but the legal aid system that we now have, ladies and gentlemen, is in crisis. We know that the system is underfunded. We know that certificates are not issued. We know that when they are issued, they are issued only for certain kinds of actions. Women and children, in particular, we know are at risk without representation in the courts. We know that this leads to plea bargaining of sometimes very dangerous offences because there aren't the resources in our court system.
The government knows full well that there is a crisis. It has been severely reprimanded by both the Provincial Auditor in his last report and by judges, and itself has recognized this by commissioning not one but two reports on legal aid. So we know it's high time that something was done.
1930
This particular piece of legislation, as I've said at the outset, is not the kind of piece of legislation that will attract inordinate criticism from the opposition. Some of the things it contains are things that the profession and people in general have been asking for. There's no question that this bill establishes Legal Aid Ontario as a corporation responsible for the management of legal aid in a cost-effective and efficient manner, but I want to take issue with some of the speakers who have spoken before me to say it's not good enough to point fingers at the law society and say they mismanaged. That's not the job of people in government such as ourselves. It is our job to look for creative solutions. Finger-pointing does not assist us.
The corporation, as it stands, is something we can applaud. The fact that it's to have a board of directors that is to be chosen in a way that would appear to be objective is also a very laudable goal. One of the members opposite who seems to be heckling all the time might want to hear that I find some things that are good in this bill. Rather than heckling, he might want to just listen.
The board of directors of 11 members is a very worthy goal. I think the notion that it would be largely made up of the public, who are the primary consumers of legal aid, will give the system a great deal of confidence.
Let me say to those who have mentioned it before that there is some concern about the appointment process. The way it is set up now, with a majority of lay members, with some members being chosen by the Attorney General and others by the Attorney General and the law society, is a good model. The success of the corporation will depend on the quality of the people who are appointed. Even though your process may be fair, in the end we are a little worried about how the appointments will be made. I want to say that we will be paying particular attention to make sure that the diversity that is Ontario is reflected, the experience that is Ontario is reflected in the composition of this board. I would imagine the Attorney General wants no less.
The legal aid services as envisioned in this legislation will continue to be provided in criminal law, family law, clinic law and mental health law. I would remind members of this House, though, that in recent times even certificates in those areas have been either curtailed or eliminated outright. In certain areas of family law we know, for instance, that it hasn't been possible to get certificates. There are areas of the law as well that are not at all covered under this agreement. In particular, my office has been contacted by many people who do refugee law, for instance, by people who do poverty law, by people who are involved in property law, landlord and tenants. These are the kinds of issues that people at the lower end of the income scale have serious difficulties with. It is not always feasible for them to afford a high-paid lawyer.
I note that in the bill the paralegals and mediators will be recognized as legal service providers. I understand the Attorney General will bring forward a package later on with respect to those particular professionals. We'll look forward to discussing those sections at that time.
What concerns me about the bill is that it provides a shell. It's a very good shell; it's a shell that many people have suggested. But in the end it is just that. Until we understand how the shell is to be peopled, how the shell is to be funded, we have no real understanding of how it will work. We can have the best building in the world. If we don't have the money to run it, it will decay and it will fall apart. What this bill does not address is what has been told to the Attorney General and this House over and over again: that it's important to have stable funding with respect to justice - not extraordinary funding but stable funding. That is not anywhere in this legislation. I guess we'll just have to wait and see, if and when that funding formula is available, whether it will be adequate, because history has shown us that funding for justice has been on the decline and that funding for justice has eroded the quality of justice that Ontarians have been accustomed to having in this province. So funding is the key - accountability, yes, there must be accountability for that funding, but funding is the key to the success of this organization.
Legal aid in this province is a relatively new phenomenon, as many of you will know. In fact, there's been some form of legal aid since 1951. You could actually characterize the three stages of legal aid. Prior to 1951 it was largely a charitable thing that lawyers did. If you happened to find the right lawyer on the right day, they would assist you with your case. In 1951 there was some more involvement with the government, but the plan we have today really dates back to 1968, when it was formalized with an agreement between the government and the Law Society of Upper Canada, which for the first time saw the plan being administered by the law society.
In Ontario, those who qualify for legal aid certificates now have the opportunity to choose the lawyer they wish. That was always a central piece of our legal aid system, and then they would be reimbursed by the plan. That's how it worked. The judicare model is one that many practitioners in the profession at large have said is a good model and should remain. We hope that this legislation will see fit to ensure that that kind of model will remain for Ontarians.
The history of the legal aid plan here in Ontario changed dramatically again in 1994. At that time, the Rae NDP government entered into a memorandum of agreement with the Law Society of Upper Canada. It was to be a five-year agreement and that agreement would, for the first time, put a cap on the amount of spending that could be done under legal aid. That has proven to be not as good an exercise as envisioned by the creators of that memorandum of agreement because in fact the expenses of the plan have exceeded the amounts that were allotted over any one particular year. The plan has, therefore, had consistent overruns throughout that time. Just looking at 1996-97, we see that $l67 million was targeted under the memorandum of understanding but the public accounts books show us that the plan spent $226 million.
Interestingly enough, regardless of that overrun, that increase, the number of certificates that have been issued during that time, under the Mike Harris government, have been cut in half. As a result, what we have is a huge gap between the number of people able to access the legal aid certificates. Under the memorandum of understanding, 154,000 certificates were to be provided for the year 1996-97 and 1998-99, respectively, but only 80,000 certificates were allotted.
That was a new stage of the development of legal aid, but one that hasn't worked well for the people of Ontario. The original memorandum of understanding called for reduction in the funding of legal from a total of almost $195 million in 1994-95 to $167 million in 1998-99. Here's the worry: In your Common Sense Revolution that you're so very fond of quoting, you indicated that you would take another $130 million away. We know that legal aid is already in trouble, and all we've cut so far presumably under the memorandum of agreement is some $30 million. But if the plan at the back of your head is to cut a further $130 million, it won't matter what shell you put in place; you will have created havoc on the legal aid system. That is the concern that we have as we look at this legislation and as we look at the record and as we try to give constructive comments in order to have a more efficient, more effective, more fair justice system.
1940
You may remember that soon after you took office in 1995, the Attorney General began the first of his studies on legal aid. He appointed Stanley Beck, professor of law, to review the funding of legal aid and, in particular, to comment on the law society plan to scale back on the overruns. You may recall that the Law Society of Upper Canada had approved $40 million in annual cuts to the legal aid plan in order to address the deficit. That required a number of changes, such as ending payments for divorce and wrongful dismissal, capping the amount of annual billings per lawyer, eliminating some travel, mileage and accommodation payments for lawyers, establishing budgets for big criminal trials where costs were expected to exceed $20,000, and requiring applicants to pay a $25 fee.
There were proposals to have the law society stop issuing legal aid certificates and to limit the fees lawyers could collect in any one day. Those, as you may recall, were deferred.
The government's position was that the law society had to manage the deficit, and then they appointed Stanley Beck to comment on whether those decisions were doable.
The first of the reports on legal aid was issued at the end of 1995. Professor Beck indicated that the law society plan was doable, but that only dealt with some aspects of the funding. It left open the whole problem of what you do with legal aid, because there had been consistent complaints about how the system improved accessibility for ordinary people.
After much outcry from a whole host of quarters, including the opposition and including myself, the Attorney General appointed the McCamus commission to review all of legal aid and come back with a report. That was a very thorough study that was done by Professor McCamus and his group. They came up with some 92 recommendations on how you could make the system better. Only very few are embodied in this legislation. That's what gives us pause, because all you did was look at the sections of the report that dealt with governance. You didn't deal with the substance of what legal aid does, you didn't deal with how you're going to fund it, and you didn't deal in detail with the appointment process.
It's interesting that the McCamus report takes considerable pain to outline the principles upon which a good legal aid system should be founded. I'd like to read these into the record because I think they're instructive of what we're trying to do here.
The McCamus report states, at chapter 4, that the principles on which the design of a legal system must be based are:
"(1) The design of the legal aid system should be based on the assessment of the specific legal needs of low-income Ontarians;
"(2) The design of the legal aid system, while reflecting these needs, should also address the diversity of special needs presented by such groups as ethnic, racial, cultural, and linguistic minorities, persons with disabilities; aboriginal communities; women; children; youth; and the elderly," thus the disadvantaged.
"(3) The legal aid system should enhance its central and local capacity to gather and assess information regarding client needs.
"(4) The legal aid system should more effectively rely upon the clinic system, plan administrators, and other service providers as a means of systemically gathering information with respect to legal needs."
I think those are very instructive principles that are set out in this report and it will remain to be seen whether the legislation which has been presented today will in fact deliver on those fundamental principles that we need.
What did the McCamus report find out? It documents that the situation with respect to legal aid, just as I said at the beginning, is critical. It's in crisis. It found, for instance, that some 67% of people who appear in family court are unrepresented. Typically that happens to be women and children who can't afford to pay for a lawyer and typically those are people who get the short end of the stick as they try and muddle their actions through the system.
It's not a question that we don't have fair-minded judges or prosecutors who care. That's not the issue. The courts, we know, are overloaded, they're backlogged, and it is impossible to give each person appearing before the court their due without proper representation. One cannot expect the judges to do the work that should be done by the defendants or the plaintiffs themselves and their lawyers. It's for that reason that Professor McCamus concludes:
"The future legal aid system should rest on a new set of reciprocal commitments between the legal aid system and the government of the province. These should be premised on a shared view of the fundamental importance of legal aid in promoting equal access to justice."
Three volumes of recommendations from the McCamus report, three volumes that cite the difficulty that people encounter, whether it's in family law, criminal law, poverty law, landlord and tenant law or refugee law; three volumes of tables, of graphs, of endless accounts very meticulously put down on what's wrong with the justice system as it applies to legal aid and how to fix it.
It's instructive to read Professor McCamus's report. We have 92 recommendations that deal with a whole host of things because the system is in crisis, and yet this piece of legislation deals with one little corner of those recommendations. That's why it's difficult to have faith that the system will in fact be overhauled and made better. Yes, the shell is there. How will that shell be brought to life? That is the issue that remains for us to address.
What has this particular government's record to do with legal aid? We've been told by experts that there's a problem. We've been told by practitioners that there's a problem. We've been told by the law society that there's a problem. We've been told by people who can't get access to justice that there's a problem. So we now have a piece of legislation and we're being asked to trust that what will come after will make it a better system. But when we look at what this government has done with respect to legal aid, with respect to justice, it makes us wonder whether it is a government that can be trusted. We will hold you accountable for ensuring that the system is one that works for ordinary people.
When you look at the cuts in funding that this government has adopted - and you may say to me, "But the memorandum of understanding was an NDP document and we simply inherited it." You're right, it was, but need you perpetuate the mistake? Need you have to force practitioners to take the Attorney General to court to be able to provide simple justice to their clients? Need you go to such lengths that the law society is forced to cut certificates so that individuals can't get the access to justice that they need? I think it's quite instructive when you look at the record.
1950
It's interesting that it's not just us saying there's a problem. As I've indicated, there are a whole host of individuals who looked at the legal aid system and think there's a problem, but I think one of the reasons we have such a huge difficulty within the legal aid system is made very clear in the McCamus report, where the authors of the report mince absolutely no words: This government has made a very bad situation worse. I'd simply like to quote again from the report because I think it's extremely clear on that point.
"The cuts to legal aid in family law occurred at the same time that other services available to assist low-income litigants were also being cut because of budgetary pressures. These cuts, which intensified the impact of the legal aid cuts, include: services for abused women, the office of the children's lawyer, court intake workers, and programs providing service of family court documents."
They don't even get into the whole issue of crown attorneys and their particular difficulties in being able to provide the kind of justice that we need in this society.
You inherited a situation from the New Democratic government and you made it worse by applying a whole series of cuts in a whole series of areas which have affected individuals disproportionately and have made it impossible for the most vulnerable in our society to get the kind of justice they deserve. We have a chequebook society now where if you can pay, you get, and if you can't, you don't.
This has been documented over and over again over the last three years. The Provincial Auditor, the judges of this province, the crown attorneys' association, two commissions on legal aid, on and on there has been criticism about the cuts and what they're doing to the justice system. Of course, we come back to the point that this particular piece of legislation doesn't really address the majority of those issues. It simply sets up an arm's-length corporation. Whether that will be a fairer system remains to be seen.
You have been told over and over again by so many that these cuts are wrong and that we're in crisis. The president of the Criminal Lawyers' Association has been very clear to the point. Alan Gold said not too long ago: "Without reasonable funding for legal aid, the defence bar will not be able to meet the standards of competence necessary to defend their clients and the public will see more Morin inquiries and miscarriages of justice. Families will experience the horror of wrongful conviction and unjust imprisonment." Those are pretty heavy words when you consider what has happened with respect to Mr Morin and the inquiries that have taken place since then.
We've had occasion in this province over the last three years where we have seen individuals who have been accused of rape, accused of theft, accused of assault who have walked free because the courts have been so overburdened. We've seen it most recently in the case of a 23-year-old woman who was hit by a drunk driver. His case simply took too long to get to court and he was released. How many warning signs do we need to know that we have to do something, that what's really happening at the moment is a situation that requires a great deal of control and monitoring and funding?
I think the government has to take responsibility for what happened. I think this government has watched the system deteriorate to the point where a judge in Ottawa actually ruled that the criminal charges against an armed robbery suspect would be stayed until the Attorney General guaranteed that legal aid fees would be paid in time.
In another case in Sault Ste Marie a judge halted the trial of four men charge with cocaine trafficking until the Attorney General provided assurance that their legal aid lawyers would be paid.
In yet another case, a judge took the extraordinary step of ordering the Attorney General to appear in court to state whether his ministry would pay the legal aid bills of a lawyer involved in a murder trial.
This has nothing to do with Askov, for the members opposite. It has to do with the fact that the system is not funded, that the cuts have been so extreme that we cannot prosecute even very serious offences.
Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour): Liberals are good at spending money. Look at Airbus, the Pearson airport thing.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Order.
Ms Castrilli: The list of sins goes on. It seems to me I'm striking a nerve across the opposition. I'm glad you're listening, because this is an important debate, I would say to the minister across. The reality is that everyone is telling you that there is a problem.
Hon Mr Flaherty: Flying around seeking helicopters.
Mr Gerretsen: Speaker, do something.
Interjection.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. Would the minister from Durham Centre come to order, please?
The Chair recognizes the member for Downsview.
Ms Castrilli: Thank you, Speaker. I've been very careful tonight not to advance opinions that weren't warranted. What I've cited here tonight are the words of judges, the words of experts appointed by the Attorney General himself, the words of the Provincial Auditor. These are not inconsequential names that the members opposite can afford to dismiss. I'm glad they're listening, but you can't afford to dismiss them. This is not the opposition tackling the government gratuitously. These are very serious concerns of very serious people who have looked at this very serious matter and have very, very serious and grave things to say.
Let me say that this particular piece of legislation addresses some of the concerns that have been raised, and I said that at the outset. Of the 92 recommendations of the McCamus report, this addresses the issue that deals with governance and we're grateful for that. But there are so many more that need to be dealt with, and I challenge the Attorney General to bring forth the appropriate legislation, the appropriate regulations, the appropriate mechanism to make those very important concerns of the McCamus report a reality.
As we know, there have been two reports now commissioned by this government that indicate that serious shortcomings in the legal aid system remain. The other issues that remain are no less important. The inability of low-income earners to access legal aid has been intensified by the cuts. We've been told that. The lack of legal representation results in increased court appearances and adds more delays to the court system. Judges are put in a position of having to make decisions based on unreliable and possibility inaccurate information. That too we've been told. In fact a number of judges have spoken out on that topic, no less than our Chief Justice Roy McMurtry, but others as well.
2000
I could quote you pages and pages of comments by judges in court cases who have decried the state of the justice system, but I will focus on just one. It's a relatively recent comment by Judge Cole, who says, "If there is one thing we all agree on, it is that our court system is being inappropriately used as a dumping ground for social problems." The throttling of the provincial legal aid plan has been stated by others to have "made it impossible to spend adequate time on most cases unless a lawyer is willing to work for free."
One could go on. There are so many more pages of comments, some of them reported in newspapers, many more reported in conferences, letters that have been written by judges to the Attorney General. It is shameful that we have gotten to this point.
When we catalogue these issues, you wonder where we actually live. Is this Ontario, is this Canada or is this some republic somewhere that pays very little attention to its citizens? When a woman in September is killed as a result of a drunk driver and the case is thrown out because of administrative delays, you know there is something wrong.
When crown attorneys take a survey and that survey finds that they have less than five minutes to spend with their clients before a case, you know there's something wrong. I would recommend to the members of the House opposite that they read that survey of crown attorneys, of people in the system who have no time for preparation, who often have dozens and dozens of bail hearings, who are forced into plea bargaining very difficult cases because they simply don't have the resources.
That of course doesn't speak at all to the issue raised by one of my colleagues about the mess that has been created even in the family support plan and the notion that was advanced by a recent article in the Hamilton Spectator which estimates that two years after the government's changes, we still have $1.2 billion that are owing to women and children, and let those women and children try and go to the courts and get some justice.
Let me say that we support this bill in principle, as I indicated at the beginning; it should come as no surprise. We think that the bill in principle is a good start. How you actually fashion the system that you say you're reforming will be something we'll be watching and the people of Ontario will be watching very closely.
What's important is to see what you do with the bill, what kind of funding formula you will adopt, what kind of people you will appoint, what kind of certificate you will allow. Will the funding be stable? Will the people be fair or will they have an ideological bent? These are questions that are very important and questions that we'll be looking to get an answer on. You can trust that I and my colleagues will continue to press for a justice system that is equitable and not just for those who can afford it.
I would like to leave members of the House with the thoughts of Roy McMurtry because it was Roy McMurtry, as I said, who was responsible for some very enlightened legislation. I think it's important because he says so much about what we should be looking at and what we should be doing. In speaking to a conference on the 10th anniversary of legal aid, he said:
"Every great human endeavour that is worth perpetuating draws its strength from a set of basic principles. I therefore think that it is appropriate from time to time that institutions take a moment to reflect on the principles which brought them forth and the tenets which give them strength and sustain them in their task. In this context I can think of no better statement of the principles and goals of our legal aid system than that made by the Honourable Mr Justice Martin when he was at the bar shortly after the inception of our present plan.
"`We live in a society that is deeply committed to improving the material welfare of all, to providing essential medical services and to ensuring equal opportunity for education' - or so we believe, and that's my comment. `A society so committed will not tolerate the lack of adequate legal representation for those without the means to secure it for themselves. The fundamental postulate of the Ontario legal aid plan is that no person should be precluded by poverty from having necessary and adequate legal services. The Ontario legal aid plan was boldly and imaginatively conceived. While modifications made from time to time take place, it may be confidently asserted that it is capable of making a great contribution to the administration of justice and it may well be a landmark in man's never-ending search for justice.'
"As Ontario's Attorney General I had the historical and constitutional responsibility to ensure that civil liberties are protected in this province. Legal aid is perhaps the single most important mechanism we have to turn the dream of equal rights into a reality."
And that is really what it's all about: ensuring that every citizen of Ontario has the same rights, the same liberties, enjoys the same freedom, and that requires a strong and sound legal aid system. We will be looking for the Attorney General to provide just that.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for Kingston and The Islands.
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I would to compliment my colleague from Downsview for the excellent presentation that she made with respect to the importance of the legal aid plan.
I notice that a number of members on the government side seem to think that this is a rather funny kind of bill, or they think the situation is funny. I even heard some comments earlier about the necessity of lawyers in our system, which they seem to downplay continually. Let me just say that this party believes that people ought to be able to be represented in court. What's been happening under this government, as I will demonstrate and as has already been demonstrated by the member for Downsview, is that a number of individuals who should have been entitled to legal aid and to the certificate so they could get the proper representation in court and out of court have been severely hampered and damaged by this government.
Let me just start off with a quote from the Attorney General back in 1966, Arthur Wishart. He was a highly regarded individual. Let's just see what he said about the original legal aid bill and the principle that underlines legal aid. He said that what this bill does - and it's not just a step forward, it's a long march forward, it is a great reach in this field - is say that no person in this province of Ontario shall be denied the right of counsel, the right of legal aid by reason of his financial status.
That was the underlying principle of the legal aid plan when it was established in 1966, and it has been greatly undermined in this province over the last five years. I would suggest to the members across who seem to degrade lawyers or the legal aid system that they go into any criminal courthouse in Ontario or into any family courthouse and see the effect that your policies and lack of funding have had. Let me just quote from the law society's own report: 75% of all the women and children in family court are unrepresented nowadays. Think about that.
Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): Why not 100%?
Mr Gerretsen: "Why not 100%?" he says. I challenge the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale -
The Deputy Speaker: Order. Don't let our debate interrupt your conversations, please.
Mr Gerretsen: Speaker, I wish that you had put that another way. You said, "Don't let our debate interrupt your conversations." I sure hope that you don't mean that.
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): It's called "sarcasm."
Mr Gerretsen: Oh, it's called "sarcasm." It may be sarcasm, and maybe we've reached that end of the night when we could use a little bit of wit and humour in this place, but the issue that I'm talking about is a very serious issue. There are women and children, many of whom for the first time have had anything to do with the family court system, because of family breakdowns, who are totally unrepresented in family court.
2010
If you don't think that's an issue, then I would welcome to take any one of you members to a family court office in this province on a Friday afternoon, or any other afternoon, and have you see the effect that your lack of funding has had on people in this province. The decisions that are made are going to affect their lives, or are affecting their lives, for many years to come. I totally agree with former Attorney General Arthur Wishart that people ought to be represented. That's a hallmark of our society. It's a conclusion that we reached in 1966, that from now on in Ontario, no one should be unrepresented when they are involved in a court action.
Let me just say that over the last five years or so, regardless of who runs the system, whether it's the law society that runs the system or whether it's an independent agency or a board that you're talking about now, that principle has been greatly compromised. Even in your own memorandum of understanding, you agreed to issue up to 150,000 legal aid certificates per year. Since you've come into office, you've only issued 80,000 per year. This according to a report by the law society which so far has had the management of the legal aid system. In other words, you haven't even lived up to your own contractual obligations. You said to the law society, "We will allow you to issue 154,000 legal aid certificates per year." You've only come up to about 80,000 per year.
There seem to be all sorts of comments made about lawyers not being needed in our system and all that sort of thing. Yes, I realize that a significant number of people out there haven't got too many good things to say about a lawyer. But I know of very few people, when they're involved in a court action, other than maybe if they're involved in a small claims court action, which quite often they do themselves, who would rather go to court without a lawyer than with one, because people realize that the representation they get is greatly superior than what they themselves would bring to the situation without the representation.
What else does the law society say? It says that in some courts up to 80% of the people do not have lawyers.
Let's take a look at what has happened to the actual applications that have been made to the legal aid system. In 1996-97, which is the last year for which we have any statistics, 29% of all the applications were refused. That is a great deal more than in 1992-93, when this downward trend started, when 14% of the applications were refused.
The law society goes on to say that a very limited number of people who have been turned down for legal aid have been able to pay for a lawyer on their own. In other words, they just do it by themselves and try to do the best they can and, as has already been indicated by the member for Downsview, quite often put a judge in a position where it's very difficult for him or her to deal with the situation.
Again, the number of family law certificates has been cut by 75%. That's unacceptable. The point I'm trying to make is that no matter what kind of organization you set up, whether it's part of the law society or whether it's an independent agency, if you don't fund it properly, then the kinds of services that people have come to expect simply won't be there.
This is like many other situations as well. Let me just tell you about three cases that we heard about in our office today which are all as a result of government underfunding. These are not in the legal aid area, but these deal with community care agency centres. Let me just tell you about other lack-of-funding situations and how they are affecting the people of Ontario.
We heard today from a 90-year-old woman with osteoporosis and bad eyesight who had had two hours a week for personal care from a community care agency. She has been cut off as of last Friday. Why? Because of funding. Here we have a 90-year-old woman who for two hours a week has had care so that she can get on with her life the best way that she is able to, and she's been cut off because of lack of funding. This is the same basic principle that underlies the legal aid bill here: If there's no funding available, it doesn't matter what kind of framework you set up.
How about a lady with muscular dystrophy who has been receiving home care - think about this, Speaker - since 1996 on a continual basis? For three years this person has been able to make it at her home alone with a little bit of help from a community care agency. Now she finds, after two and a half years, that she has been disqualified.
How about the family with an 89-year-old woman who has Alzheimer's? They've kept her at home for seven years. She received three hours of care per week. You know what's happened to her? She's been cut back to three hours of care every two weeks.
A couple trying to keep their 79-year-old mother at home, who is legally blind, had their home care cut off within the last week.
The point I'm trying to make is that here we have a government that basically is trying to sell to the people of Ontario the notion of, "Well, we can get rid of the hospitals, or a good 35 of them, and we will take that money and put it into community care." We know that exactly for what it is. I won't use that word because it would be unparliamentary, but we know that kind of funding is not there for the community care agencies. Here are these people who used to have hospital care, an expensive amount of money, I realize; hospital care costs a lot on a per diem basis. All they were asking for was a little bit of community care that we told them we basically guaranteed them when we cut off their hospital, as they've done in Kingston as of today with the Hotel Dieu Hospital.
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): They're closing that?
Mr Gerretsen: They've closed the hospital. The court appeal apparently was unsuccessful. It's been finalized now as far as I know. They've closed that hospital. The money was supposed to go to community care and it didn't. I know you'd like me to get back to the topic at hand but, Speaker, it is all related. It is all a question of underfunding.
I was at the Premier's Conference on Jobs and Prosperity in Kingston today, a conference that the Minister of Labour was at as well. It was an interesting time. A lot of the reporters asked me, "Well, is this sort of a pre-election ploy by the government?" I said, "That's for you to say." I'm not a very cynical individual. I would really hope that this government is sincere about creating jobs and prosperity for people. The question could be asked: Why didn't they do it three years ago? Why did they wait for three and a half years? But I'm not a cynical individual. Everybody can draw their own conclusion about that.
But what was very interesting - I know this is an aside, and I'll come back to the topic in a minute - is that all of the people from the public sector, whether you're talking about people who headed the colleges or universities or who were involved in some imaginative ways to create jobs in the eastern Ontario area, basically looked for some sort of seed funding, money. We heard from one college president today who basically said: "The system is at risk. The infrastructure is deteriorating and unless we do something very quickly, it's going to disappear or it's going to be damaged beyond repair.
Interjection: Throw money at it.
Mr Gerretsen: They say, "Throw money at it." I'm just repeating what I heard today. That was one group of people. There was another group of people who said, "Give us more tax cuts." Of course the government basically said, "We're going to do both." It can't be done. It simply cannot be done.
2020
If we really care about the infrastructure in this province, whether we're talking about the infrastructure that's in the ground or on the ground, or whether we're talking about the hospital institutions or the colleges and universities in this province, or whether we care about a legal aid system that actually works and in which people can get represented who cannot afford to pay for a lawyer, then money has to be put aside for that. It's not happening, and it's not happening with this bill either.
We've had these kinds of discussions here over the last three years on numerous occasions, that this government basically believes in cutting everything down to its lowest common denominator, or maybe to no denominator at all. It just wants to cut, cut, cut, and hopes that somehow the people of Ontario will buy this.
I say to you and to the people of Ontario that if we really care about some of the basic rights and principles that we have established in this province, then we had better be prepared to make sure that the infrastructure of that system is in a good state of health.
It is not in a good state of health when 80% of the people who go to a family court - as I mentioned before, for many of these women it is the first time they have ever been involved with the legal system. They now want to make sure that their children are protected and that they get the proper kind of support from, in most cases, their husbands. These people are confused when they get there. Quite often it has been a very traumatic step before they even come there. The least we can do as a society is to make sure that these people within that system that is totally foreign to them, where they see judges in black robes and lawyers dashing around - I've seen it. I've been involved in that scene, not lately but many years ago, and people are confused. If we cannot even provide them in those cases with the ability to get proper and effective legal representation, then I think we have failed as a society.
It isn't just me saying that. It is the former Attorney General of this province, Roy McMurtry, the Chief Justice, who used to belong to a party they used to call the Progressive Conservative Party.
Hon Mr Flaherty: He still belongs to it. What are you talking about?
Mr Gerretsen: "He still belongs to it," they say. I say you're wrong in that. I've got a very high regard for Chief Justice McMurtry and I am sure he is not involved politically at all. I'm absolutely convinced of that. But that party he belonged to no longer exists. That was a party that for over 40 years in this province tried to build some sense of consensus and was quite effective at it.
What we have now is a Reform government - not Reform in the sense of a Liberal government, because you may recall Liberals used to be Reformers back in the 1830s and 1840s; that's how we started - Reform in the sense of being a right-wing party that basically says to people: "We made it on our own. Why the heck can't you?" That's their attitude, and never mind the people at the bottom third of the economic scale: "That's just their tough luck. We can't be bothered with them." That's the attitude of this government.
We've seen it with respect to health care. We've seen it with respect to education where everything points to a two-tier system. You can get the services if you've got enough money in your pocket, and if the other person doesn't, it's just too bad, because more and more of the basic rights and principles that this society has been based on for the last 30 or 40 years are being eroded.
I say to you, yes, maybe this legal aid bill, by setting up an independent agency, is a good way to go, but all we're talking about is the framework, and the framework means absolutely nothing if the program is underfunded. I know the positive spin you'll try to put on this, that this is a great bill. I'm saying to you that it may be as a framework, but if you don't fund it adequately then you have failed once again as you have failed so often in the last three and a half years. Thank you very much, Speaker, for your undivided attention.
The Deputy Speaker: Comments and questions?
Mr Silipo: I want to comment on the presentations by the members for Downsview and for Kingston and The Islands. I know that in their presentations at various points they both touched on the importance of people having access to the justice system and on the need for us to ensure through the legal aid plan that people of all means, in this case certainly the poorest of our citizens, have that same equality of access to the justice system to defend their rights that we want for all of our citizens. If that isn't there, then none of it means very much. If that isn't there, then there isn't any sense of equality. If that isn't there, then there isn't any sense of justice, to be true to that word and to all it means.
I know they also talked, and I appreciated their talking about the need for adequate funding to be provided in this area and indeed in other areas of public policy. This is something that while it isn't directly addressed by the legislation, it is obvious that the legislation forms the premise for the system that will follow. This is an issue that's going to have to be dealt with by this government and subsequent governments in ensuring that there is a good legislative framework, which I think this piece of legislation actually goes a long way towards providing, as I indicated earlier. I think it provides a good shift in terms of the new government's model with a majority of citizen members on the board of governors.
There are going to have to be some improvements made to the legislation. I look forward to the committee dealing with this, having some hearings and listening to people who work on a day-to-day basis in the legal aid community and the legal clinic community, because they will bring a particular focus to this that I hope the government will listen to.
Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I welcome the comments of the member for Downsview. They were most thoughtful. Perhaps I can assist her, however, in regard to the year 1997-98. If I'm not mistaken, she stated there was a cost overrun in the management of the plan by the law society and I believe that is incorrect. For the year 1997-98, $167 million was provided for certificates. They also allotted $30 million for administration and $32 million for clinics, a total of $230 million. That was the amount that was actually spent in the year 1997-98. As a matter of fact, in effect they had an underrun, not an overrun, because they were repaying a loan that was taken out in the 1995-96 year in order to pay for overruns in that year. In the current year the plan is running a surplus. This is allowing for enhanced services of the plan, increasing services especially in family law, criminal law and other high-demand areas.
I look forward to working with the member for Downsview in committee when we examine this bill. I also noted with interest the comments of the member for Kingston and The Islands and I thank him again for the comic relief he provides this chamber.
2030
Mr Michael Brown: I want to compliment the member for Downsview and the member for Kingston and The Islands on very informative presentations. I had, as most members probably did, some representations made to me about this bill. I think, for example, of Ken Bondy of the legal clinic in Elliot Lake who came to see me about it. The feedback I'm getting is that basically the principle of this bill is right. They are very concerned, however, with the appointment process and they're concerned that we get people who are truly independent. There is nothing in the bill that spells out how people will be appointed to the governance body. Given that, it's easy for many of us to be worried and concerned that they will not be independent.
In our constituency it would be fair to say that there are also some synergies that may be looked at down the road. It may be possible, for example, and Mr Bondy suggested this to me, that in the smaller communities of northern Ontario where legal aid clinics exist, there may be at least some opportunity to share some space with the people who come to issue legal aid certificates and some other administrative matters which may save everybody some money and provide better service. I think that's something we could look forward to happening.
I would say, however, that the lack of representation in family courts - I understand that 67% or about two thirds of women and children in family court are not represented - has caused great grief, especially if you're working on family responsibility cases where the money is supposed to be flowing. A lot of the problem often is at the court. This government has to address those issues.
Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): I too enjoyed the comments from both the members for Downsview and for Kingston and The Islands. Both are most honourable members and they're also lawyers, members of that other honourable profession.
Legal aid lawyers and service providers lobbied hard to have the board detailed in legislation. Let me share with you an outline of what they've said: ironically, perhaps, but the majority of the appointed board members must not be lawyers and must reflect the geographic diversity of the province - vast and magnificent - and as a whole the board should have knowledge, skills and experience in the areas the Attorney General considers appropriate, including business, finance, law, operation of courts and tribunals - well, why couldn't they be lawyers because they should have a good understanding of business and finance and it seems it goes hand in hand with the other parts of the mandate? - legal needs of low-income individuals and disadvantaged communities, operations of clinics, and social and economic circumstances associated with special legal needs of low-income individuals and disadvantaged communities.
This is a challenge to the Attorney General, a person I respect immensely, but sitting on committee, only too often we found that as a prerequisite to be appointed to a government board or agency, you had to be a card-carrying member of the Progressive Conservative Party. It's very difficult to be a card-carrying member in good standing and address the needs of the disadvantaged and the poor.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Downsview has two minutes to respond.
Ms Castrilli: I want to thank everyone who intervened and commented on my comments.
Let me say to the member for Cambridge, I think he and I were talking about different years, but there is also to say that there certainly was much more money required in the system and the system remains underfunded. On that we can agree, even using your 1997-98 figures.
Ladies and gentlemen, the situation is quite clear and quite simple. There is a crisis in legal aid. We all recognize it. The Attorney General has been the first to recognize it or he wouldn't have appointed two commissions to study it. I urge him to take to heart the recommendations that have been made by those commissions. It's not simply a question of setting up a framework for legal aid. You can create the best corporation in the world. If that corporation has no funds, no assets, no clout, no power, it is not going to be able to do the work it needs to do. The work it needs to do in this particular case is to ensure the rights of citizens, to ensure the equality of citizens, to ensure that everybody, regardless of how much money they make at the end of the day, has the same shot at having their rights observed in a court of law. That's what we're talking about. What we're really saying is that you're no better and no worse because you're poor or because you're rich.
Take heed. We will support this legislation because we think it's a good first step, but it is just that, a good first step. We will want to see that you make some significant steps forward to ensure there is a system that works, there is a system that represents the people, there is a system that respects individuals and their right to protect their own rights in this province.
The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Martin: Earlier today I was in Kingston, the hometown of one of the previous speakers, covering a conference, one in a series of conferences that's happening across this province over the next few weeks as this government goes about the task, the job of trying to paint a picture of themselves that is different from the picture that most of us who have lived and tried to work and operate in Ontario have experienced over the last two years. It's a feel-good; it's "Look what we've done," and, "Look what else we will do," and, "Give us another mandate and it will all be wonderful and everybody will be better served."
We know, those of us who are close to the ground, who are plugged into our communities and talk to our constituents, that in Ontario today there is a lot of difficulty, a lot of unease, a lot of disease among the populace out there as they look at their lives and how they will manage and whether they will have a job and whether their kids will have education or whether they will have health care when they get sick.
This piece of legislation that we have in front of us here tonight is very important in the context of all that. It's a piece of legislation that will take us forward as a civilized group of people in Ontario to make sure that there is in place adequate and sufficient legal representation for people who find themselves in contravention of the law or in a situation where they must challenge somebody else in light of the law as to their rights and what they have coming. I'm afraid that in the midst of the fact that this legislation is in principle good legislation, is progressive and will take us forward, we may lose sight of the damage that has been done to those people that this legislation will serve probably the most and be the most important to.
We must not forget for a second in this place, as we deal with pieces of legislation such as the one that's here, that many people across this province have had their rights taken away from them, have had their source of well-being taken away from them in such a significantly large amount that they find themselves sometimes disempowered, almost paralyzed, as they try to take advantage of the opportunities that are out there. A legal aid system that is at arm's length from government, that is run in a way that recognizes that the voice of those who use the system is probably the most important voice to be heard in the establishment of guidelines and processes - that when we do this kind of thing and put it in place we make sure that we do that.
We will see over the next, I would suggest, two or three months, five or six months, as we move from here to the ultimate calling of election by this government a series of pieces of legislation that they've had in their back pockets that other governments, our own included, have worked on very hard to put in place so that it is ready when a government with the moral fibre decides to take it forward and do the right thing with it and make it the order of the day.
2040
I'm sure we will see a number of those kinds of initiatives coming forward, and it will all be done in an exercise to try and distract us from the attack that's been perpetrated on those who are most unable to deal with that. It's in the context of all of this that I think we have to look at this piece of legislation here tonight.
One of the big questions I have in that context is, will there be ultimately, at the end of the day, enough money to go the distance, to do the job that is required? Will there be enough money to cover all the needs that will come forward that are out there? We've seen both sides of that coin over the last three years. We've seen in one instance, because this government I believe perpetrated a squeeze on the legal aid system to the point where those who were in charge of it began to anticipate that there would be a shortfall, that there wouldn't be enough money, where they began to tighten up the rules; they began to raise the bar and they began to change -
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): They had problems under your government. Tell the people that they had problems under your government.
Mr Martin: They had troubles under every government, but most particularly under your government, because you imposed a system of support to people that was lacking in so many substantial and essential and important ways that people in this province over the last three years have had a hard time just making ends meet.
We saw à la the legal aid system a lot of nervousness, a lot of anxiety, a lot of worry among everybody concerned: the clinics, the lawyers themselves and most particularly those who were in need of legal counsel in the situation that they found themselves in, that there wouldn't be enough money. Decisions were made that certain groups of people in certain circumstances would not be allowed any more to access legal aid.
I've had them into my office. I've had people sitting in front of me, after I went home to Sault Ste Marie on the weekend and talked to my constituents, who shared with me the challenges they face particularly in confrontation with this government, that they no longer could get the kind of legal aid they needed to help them work their way through the system that is becoming much more complicated as time moves on. The system was tightened up and people were denied access under this government.
Then we find a few months later that there was lots of money in the system but it wasn't being spent because of the control, both real and imagined, by this government on that system that stopped people from getting what they needed. We had a whole crowd of people who needed legal advice, who needed a lawyer, who needed somebody to go with them as they went before the courts or as they confronted their adversaries in the various ways that happen in the democracy we live in. They were told by the system that there wasn't enough money, when all the way along there was money if somebody had just looked hard enough for it. The reason they didn't was that they were being told both directly and indirectly by this government to be careful. This government was sending messages by the various things they had done, particularly to the poor in this province, particularly to the unemployed in this province, those who found themselves in need of assistance of some sort. They were told indirectly, by what was being done to those people, that they weren't important, that they weren't a priority and that people who had the resources were not to spend it on them.
I've said it here on a number of occasions in this House: What kind of a message are you sending to the people of Ontario and the people who run organizations such as the legal aid system in this province when you take, as your first act in government, 21.6% out of the income of those who are most in need in the communities we all live in? What kind of a message are you sending out to those people and to everybody else? What kind of a message does that send?
Not long after you took the 21.6% away from those who needed it most to feed their children, to put clothes on their backs, to pay the rent and make sure they had shelter in this very difficult climate that we have in Canada as winter comes at us, the next thing you did was you took away their services. You took away and you closed offices that provided services to those who were most in need among us. After that you closed down the advocacy offices. It became more and more important that we continue to have in place the legal clinics that we have seen across this province and that we continue to allow them to do the work they do and that we continue to have a legal aid system that provides access for people to the courts as they try to get their problems resolved.
The fear I have, as we all agree that this is a piece of legislation that we can support with some reservations - and I'll talk about them in just a couple of minutes - is that there won't be enough money at the end of the day. That would be consistent with what this government has done time and time again over the last three years to almost every organization and government operation that provided and continues to provide, to the degree they can, services to those in our province who are in need. There's this feeling, there's this sense that comes from the government that they put out there - because actually it starts with the Common Sense Revolution, wherein they very clearly speak of their view of what it is that the legal system should look like. As a matter of fact, those of us who read it with any seriousness, and some of us didn't before the last election because we didn't anticipate that this government would -
Interjection: Oops.
Mr Martin: Yes. Oops, exactly - that the Progressive Conservatives of 1995 would end up being the government in 1995, and now in 1998. In that document you state very clearly that legal aid is something that you see is on the periphery, something that's kind of nice if you can afford it but - pardon?
Mr Silipo: One of those fringe programs.
Mr Martin: One of those fringe programs, one of those programs that's nice if you can afford it, but if you can't, that's all right. Those people will find a way, pull themselves up by their bootstraps, cash in the bottles, go to mom and dad, whatever, wherever they can find a few bucks -
Mr Pouliot: Squeegee.
Mr Martin: Yes, squeegee kids - get yourself a few bucks and hire a lawyer and get out there doing, not understanding for a second the very complicated and difficult and sophisticated legal challenges that all of us, no matter what strata you exist on today in Ontario, from time to time get ourselves into, situations where very professional legal advice is required, particularly when you consider the fact that most times poor people, in trying to get their rights addressed, are up against organizations and institutions and corporations that have at their disposal unlimited amounts of money to hire the best of lawyers so that they can win their cases and have their rights protected, and what they need to have in place to make sure they keep up their standard of living and all that that entails.
It's really important, as we look at this piece of legislation and at some of the other pieces of legislation that will come forward in the next two, three, four, five weeks, and after Christmas when we come back to this place and they all present as motherhood and apple pie and everything good for all the people, that they are being passed in an environment of consistent and interminable attack on the common good in this province, on services that we all took for granted would be there and that governments would protect and actually build on and have evolve in a way that speaks to universal access and people being able to participate - this government has in fact taken us down a different road. For the first time in the history of this province we have, in many instances, whether it's how we deal with labour relations, how we deal with the environment, how we manage our natural resources or how we take care of our roads, taken a huge step backwards, taken a different tack, a different track.
2050
It could have been otherwise, absolutely, and it can be otherwise, because the very interesting and hopeful thing in the middle of all this is that within the next six months, certainly before the spring of 2000, there will be an election in this province. There will be a day of reckoning. There will be a time when you, in all your glory, will have to go before the public and present your track record, your story, your history, your three and a half years or whatever the duration of your stay in power ends up being, and ask the people to give you an endorsement and perhaps another chance.
This legislation seems to be something which, after we've discussed it for a bit and hopefully had a chance to present some amendments, had a chance to take it out so we can hear what the general public has to say about it, we'll probably support. But it has to be seen in the context of the downsizing that's happening and the taking away of dollars that are absolutely necessary if an organization such as this one is going to do its job, particularly when you consider the diminishing of the ability of so many groups that were established over the last 10 or 15 years in this province under various stripes of government, Conservative, Liberal, New Democrat, to carry out an advocacy role on behalf of people. When you wipe out that ability for groups to advocate, on behalf of either themselves or other people, you have to have something in place that will do that job.
The second point I want to make tonight is that my fear and hope all wrapped up in one is that this isn't just another exercise by this government for more control and more power. It presents well, as does everything the government does. Here's this arm's-length agency that's going to oversee this very important piece of work, to deliver a resource to people out there who need it. But will it, at the end of the day, simply be another vehicle that this government can control and tell what to do? I'll talk in a few minutes about the ability of the Attorney General to appoint members to the board, in particular to appoint the transition board which will set up the framework out of which this will flow. Will this be just another exercise, in the first instance, of control?
Then, in the second instance, as we've seen so often over the last couple of years as the government had downloaded responsibility, as the government has downloaded the cost of services on to other levels of government or agencies, when things go wrong, when things don't work out as they are painted, when people begin to complain about the fact that they're not getting the services they need, that a system is beginning to fall apart or break down, they can blame somebody else. They can put the blame on this so-called arm's-length, extra-parliamentary organization for that which they themselves imposed in the first place.
If you look at the legislation and read through the piece that talks about the appointment of the board, it says, "Five persons selected by the Attorney General from a list" provided by the Law Society of Upper Canada. The second part says, "Five persons recommended by the Attorney General" and "One person, who shall be the chair...selected by the Attorney General from a list" provided by a committee composed "of the Attorney General...the treasurer of the law society...and a third party agreed upon by the Attorney General and the treasurer of the law society."
That's one, two, three, four, five, six times the Attorney General is mentioned when it comes to the appointment of this board. That's not to speak at all of the fact that the transition board will be completely his appointment. The work of that transition board, of course, will be driven by the edict of this government, through the Attorney General, to make sure that at the end of the day they have indeed the ability to control, to have power over. Then ultimately, when things go wrong - and I think they will, because the money won't be there to deliver the service, because that has been the track record of this government - they can blame somebody else. They can shift it off of themselves and they can come out looking like the good guy: "Look, we've set up this arm's-length organization. It was supported by everybody. We've done the right thing. It isn't operating in a way that is in the best interests of those who are complaining, but we're not to blame." That's the track record of this government and, sad to say, it will continue to be.
The Deputy Speaker: Comments and questions?
Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I listened intently to the member for Sault Ste Marie and he briefly touched on the bill. I thought he might have also wanted to mention that between 1989 and 1994 legal aid spending in this province doubled, actually doubled, yet there were growing problems with the level of service and the quality of service.
With Bill 68, the Legal Aid Services Act, we're fixing the problem that previous governments left the people of Ontario with. During the last three years, this government has worked successfully with the Law Society of Upper Canada to bring legal aid spending under control. This government is committed to providing the proposed organization through Bill 68 with three years of stable funding at the 1998-99 level. This stable funding will enable the proposed organization to provide high-quality services, to develop flexible and innovative ways to deliver services, and to run private projects to test their new approaches across the entire province. These new alternative forms of delivery would complement legal aid clinics and certificates provided to legal aid clients to hire lawyers, which would continue as the foundation for the delivery of services in this province.
This new organization, Legal Aid Ontario, would be more open and accountable for the use of public funds. In other words, they would be more accountable to the taxpayers of this province, and this is a good thing. This would ensure that Legal Aid Ontario's annual budget of $230 million delivers the maximum amount of high-quality services for those Ontarians who need them the most.
The accountability through Bill 68, the Legal Aid Services Act, would be achieved through the following measures: public representation on the board of directors, an annual report to be tabled in this Legislature and an annual audit to be performed by the Provincial Auditor. These are all measures of accountability.
Other accountability measures would include a memorandum of understanding, in other words a contract between the organization and the Ministry of the Attorney General. The memorandum of understanding would require the new organization to submit the following items to the Ministry of the Attorney General: annual budgets, three-year funding projections, annual business plans and multi-year strategic plans.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The member for Sault Ste Marie recognizes that right around the province the need for legal aid is very pronounced because there are many people who have found themselves in dire circumstances as a result of many of the policies which have been implemented by this government, which tend to be more difficult for people of the lower-income bracket in the province.
These members have to recognize that if you're going to put these people down, if you are going to cut any benefits they might have and make it more difficult to qualify for benefits, at least you can allow them the opportunity to appeal when, for instance, they're hit with an unfair increase in their rent.
A lot of people in this province don't realize that you have made sure there's no rent control. A lot of people don't realize that yet because they haven't moved out of their rental dwelling. When they move out they'll find out that rent control is removed, and when they try to find a new place, it's likely, if it just opened up, that the cost of that is going to go up. They will not be able to appeal it in the courts. They'll need some advice and assistance from someone in the legal field, perhaps a legal assistance clinic, to provide that advice. They're going to be in very difficult straits. A lot of senior citizens in this province don't realize that the Harris government has ended rent control, has ended the protection these senior citizens have had. Students, who move very often and are already hit with huge increases in their tuition, are going to find that their rent has gone up considerably as well.
2100
Mr Silipo: I want to commend my colleague the member for Sault Ste Marie for his comments on this bill. Having listened to him numerous times here in the House, I can understand his sense of criticism towards the government, his sense of skepticism towards this particular piece of legislation. He notes, as I do, that the framework proposed by this legislation is useful, could actually lead to an improvement in the way in which the legal aid plan is governed and administered, but I think he's quite correct to be critical and skeptical about what this will mean if the appropriate funding isn't continued or isn't there, indeed improved where it needs to be improved. That is something that needs to be looked at very seriously.
As I said earlier, I look forward to this bill going to committee, to the discussion that will take place. I hope the government will take seriously the good criticism that no doubt will be there from people who work in the legal aid community, people who understand that while they may agree and will agree with a number of recommendations coming forward from the McCamus report, and reflected in this legislation, there are many improvements that can be made to this legislation to ensure it actually will work, and to also call upon the government to make sure the funding continues to be there to ensure that the services we want for all our citizens continue to be available.
If that isn't there, as the member for Sault Ste Marie has indicated, then this will simply be another slap in the face to the many Ontarians across the province whom this government has already hurt severely through the cuts to social assistance, through cuts to many other services. That is why, when he speaks about those issues and links them to what this government is doing in the area of legal aid, the link is very important and needs to be kept in mind.
Mr Gilchrist: I'm pleased to make a few comments on the presentation made by our colleague from Sault Ste Marie. There's no doubt, when he reflects on some of the cost pressures, that he's absolutely correct. There are any number of reasons why in the past perhaps there have not been the number of people dealt with that should have been, given the funding envelope that was there before.
Many of the members in this House have travelled on the legislative committees over the last three years. We were quite disturbed earlier this year when we had the second round of hearings on the Tenant Protection Act, and almost every second presentation was from a legal aid clinic and by their own admission 20% of the resources of the average legal aid clinic was spent on advocacy, not on dealing with the people who were coming in their door who needed help with the courts, who needed help with various tribunals. They instead decided to politic. You're right: If you want to take the pressures, add 20% to the amount of work they could have been processing before.
There's another issue the member should know about. Federal policy alone determines eligibility for immigration and refugee status. Between 1991 and 1997, federal funding dropped from $14.4 million to $3.8 million. Last year 6,000 legal aid certificates were issued in the course of pursuing immigration and refugee issues. But here's the zinger: Those certificates cost $15.1 million to process and Ontario paid three out of every four dollars.
You're right: There are cost pressures in the system and I hope you will join us in continuing the appeals to the federal government to pick up their cost under the law to fund legal aid for immigration or refugee cases.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Sault Ste Marie has two minutes to respond.
Mr Martin: I want, first of all, to thank the member for St Catharines for his appropriate comments, and he knows that what I'm talking about is the need to make sure we have in place the supports and resources to help those this government has hammered over the last three years; and the member for Dovercourt, who talks about, very rightly, the need to have adequate funding. That brings me to the member for Scarborough Centre, who talks about putting more money into the system but it's like everything else you've done: You make an announcement, you say there's more money going in, but the money never goes in and it never gets spent because you've raised the bar so high that nobody can qualify any more.
The example just recently: Last April you announced that you were going to put some $250 million into hospital care emergency service. It never got spent. Where is it? It's the same thing with the legal aid system. You announce that you're going to put the money in and then you raise the bar to a level so that nobody can qualify. You scare the dickens out of the people running the program, that if they spend too much, they won't get any more. At the end of the day the group that suffers the most are those who need it the most, and you hammer them.
Don't give me this line that you put more money in. We've head you over and over again over the last three years telling us how much money you're going to put into this pot, how much money you're going to put into that pot, and at the end of the day it's not spent. There's nothing there. Or if there is any money spent, the bar is raised so high that nobody can qualify any more. That's the way they operate. "What did we do? Nothing."
The member for Scarborough East talks about the 20% that legal clinics spend on advocacy. He obviously doesn't understand, and it doesn't surprise me that this government doesn't understand, the concept of prevention and promotion, which cuts back, ultimately, the need for legal aid for individuals.
The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): For those watching tonight who are interested, I'd like to point out that the member for Lambton and his son, Marc, are in the members' gallery. Thank you for joining us. It's good to see the youth of Ontario up at this time of night watching this rather important debate.
The member for Downsview I think has made the most appropriate and direct comments on the bill. I believe she's a lawyer, so respectfully - I know how much time the parliamentary assistant, Mr Martiniuk, the member for Cambridge sitting here in front of me, has put into this to get it right. I heard the member for Downsview say very clearly on three separate occasions during her almost one hour of discussion - I tell the members I've only got 20 minutes and I've no intention of sharing it - heard her clearly admit in the open, right here and for the record, that she was in support of this bill.
This brings a lot of hope to me, and I'm not a lawyer, that we're doing the right thing. But why are we doing this? I think you always have to understand the reason, the motive: Why are we doing all these changes? The people of Ontario are saying to us, "Tell us the motive." The motive here: Clearly what has happened, like everything else in the period between 1989 and 1994 - the member for Scarborough Centre has told us that they're spending double. The member for the rest of Scarborough, basically, has told us that there's too much money being spent on advocacy. But what did the government do? The government did the right thing. It's the right track, wrong track issue. We took the right track again: proposed changes of a comprehensive review of the Ontario legal aid plan, which is 30 years old, 30 years of neglect, technically, abuse perhaps by all partners, by people who perhaps didn't need a legal aid certificate and perhaps others involved.
A very well recognized legal scholar, Professor John McCamus, one of Canada's legal scholars, formed the blueprint for this document. I respectfully say that in my brief breeze through this bill, which is about 25 pages long and has 10 parts, this bill really deals with three primary factors. First, it brings some accountability into the legal aid system. That's very important for all the participants. No one here argues with the rights of individuals to have the dignity and the protection of the law. I certainly don't, and I don't think anyone watching here tonight or participating does either.
2110
Then it deals with the whole issue of governance: the separation of the governance model from either the law society or the Attorney General, which is very important and fundamental, that it's arm's-length; and the structure of that governance model, the membership so it's not monopolized by one group; and the independence, arm's-length from government - I think that's reviewed very thoroughly in the bill; then, of course, getting back to my initial point, is the whole issue of stable funding.
Those four planks in Bill 68 - it's quite a small bill we're dealing with - are a very important, solid foundation, for the very vulnerable people in society.
We've had memorandums of understanding and the law society has overrun those. Its system technically, it could be argued, has failed the people it was designed to serve.
What have we done? As a government, I believe we've done the right thing. We've brought forward legislation that some could indeed, given our extensive amount of legislation, argue that more changed. But really the intent here and the motive I've reviewed is absolutely critical. Before I go into any, all of the speakers here tonight have gone to some length - we all pretty well have the same briefing notes.
I found the most interesting part to be the preamble to the bill. It's very self-explanatory. You really don't need the formal briefing notes the ministry staff provide us with. You don't have to be a Rhodes scholar to be here. We're just average citizens who are trying to review what's really the legislation's intention.
If you look under the preamble, "The bill incorporates Legal Aid Ontario, a corporation without share capital, that is charged with the mandate of establishing and operating a system for providing legal aid services to low-income individuals in a cost-effective and efficient manner." How much clearer would you like it?
Then you have the corporation's mandate. Let's read that section. I'm reading, for the record, right from Bill 68, which was presented in this House on October 6. With the goodwill of all parties, we'll have this thing through to help the people it's intended to help.
"The corporation is required to provide legal aid services in the areas of criminal law, family law, clinic law and mental health law. The corporation may provide legal aid services in other areas of civil law, subject to the Lieutenant Governor in Council's power to identify areas of civil law, types of civil cases and types of civil proceedings for which the corporation shall not provide legal aid services. The bill also specifies proceedings for which legal aid services are not available."
For those people seeking to utilize this legal service, applying for a certificate, it's very clearly outlined in the schedules in this Bill 68.
I'd just like to clarify - I have limited time but I think it's important to go through this, as laborious as it is. It's a detailed bill.
"The board of directors" - this is the governance model we're talking about; this section is very important - "of the corporation will be composed of 11 persons selected as follows: five persons selected by the Attorney General from a list provided by the Law Society of Upper Canada" - clearly the law society still has their finger in this - "five persons recommended by the Attorney General and one person, who would be the chair of the board, selected by the Attorney General from a list provided by a committee composed of the Attorney General (or his or her designate), the treasurer of the law society (or his or her designate) and a third party agreed upon by the Attorney General and the treasurer of the law society (or their designates)."
It almost sounds sort of like the Constitution here. A lawyer probably wrote this.
"The president of the corporation is a non-voting member of the board," which is very good. Of course there's an administrative function in that role and they're non-voting; they're there to make sure the thing is managed properly.
"The majority of the appointed board members must not be lawyers."
Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): That's a good idea.
Mr O'Toole: I think that's a very practical idea.
We're not going to be co-opted. There may have been the argument that the law society just had a bit too much control of this. I clearly think that most lawyers, like most professions, really want this governance model to work. I may be naive there, but I think they've agreed to this. I understand there's been a tremendous amount of consultation which, in my limited time, I will review.
"As a whole, the board should have knowledge, skills and experience in the areas the Attorney General considers appropriate, including business, finance, law, the operation of the courts and tribunals, the legal needs of low-income individuals and disadvantaged communities, the operation of clinics and the social and economic circumstances associated with the legal needs of low-income individuals and disadvantaged communities. The board members are appointed for two- or three-year terms, and cannot be dismissed before the end of their appointed term without cause."
So we have an arm's-length governance model, we have a clarified mandate of the function of the service being provided and we've provided stable funding for a three-year period guaranteed at the rate that was expended in the 1997 budget year of some $230 million.
I think we really have a perfect model here, and clearly there's a transitional period, I may add, as well in this bill, that transitional period between where the law society ends and this new, non-share capital Legal Aid Ontario Corp commences operation. In fact, there is a schedule in here for transferring assets from the existing offices to the new organization.
But I go back again to the motive, the fact that we've had 30 years, it's been reviewed, this is a blueprint as outlined by law professor John McCamus, one of Canada's legal scholars. I've also reviewed what the services provided are for those vulnerable people in society, what services can be provided to ensure stability. I suspect there have been some overruns in the past and the memoranda of understanding were often not complied with, but what was the process even there?
In my notes that were provided here, I am glad to see this has happened. During the legal aid review, major legal community and user groups were involved in public hearings. The review received more than 200 written submissions. Following its release in September 1997, our government consulted widely with consumer groups like the Elizabeth Fry Society, the John Howard Society, the St Leonard's Society of Canada, the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses, consumer groups working with disadvantaged communities, the Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped, the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly, Aboriginal Legal Services, the National Council of Welfare, the Canadian Mental Health Association. So we have the vulnerable groups in society and, of course, as you might expect, the lawyers' groups, including the law society, the Canadian Bar Association, the Criminal Lawyers' Association, the family lawyers' association, the County and District Law Presidents' Association and the refugee lawyers' associations. Clearly, those break down the main areas where they would be practising law.
It's my understanding from the notes here that there were four observations that are consistent across the whole thing. First, the plan had to be, as I pointed out before, independent of both the government and the provider groups, and it also had to be accountable, well-managed and fiscally stable.
At the risk of repeating myself, for those who may be now going to tune in to The National - it's a little early for that, because I still have 10 minutes left. There are other shows on as well at this time of night, of course. But the bill here is important. I wouldn't for one moment - on all sides of the House here we recognize that we are trying to move forward. It's really a question of justice for all. That may be an overworked phrase, but this is justice for all in a stable kind of funding environment.
I'm just looking here at some of the other information I would like to share with the members. The main elements of the Legal Aid Services Act are that the act establishes the mandate for governance, structure and accountability for a new organization called legal aid. That's the whole bill in a nutshell. We've covered that to some extent. The governance - they aren't all lawyers. It defines for the client list what the available services are and stabilizes funding. I think we know now clearly where we're going with the legal aid plan in Ontario.
2120
What particularly appeals to me is that this government never fails to try to move forward. It tries to find balance and it tries to find fiscal accountability with the taxpaying public, my constituents and yours.
I've heard other speakers here tonight, and their solution to everything is to spend more money. If you think through and you've got the proper governance model, whether it's a school board governance model or it's a hospital - in the hospital sector in Durham region we've just gone from seven different governance models down to one board of governance for the Lakeridge Health Corp. I would expect to see fewer health care dollars being spent on administration. I think previous speakers have made the same point here. The less administrative burden we have on this $230 million, the more money will actually go to front-line services.
I believe the same argument could be made in many of the restructurings this government has taken upon itself in legislative and other initiatives. I commend the previous NDP government, under the John Sweeney commission. They looked at the school governance models, some 170 school boards in the province of Ontario. We've reduced that to some 63 or 67 boards. That means that money is going into services for students.
I believe we have a similar model here, on a little smaller scale than what I've referred to. But it's clarified the overlap that perhaps was there, and is providing a service for those vulnerable, low-income people who need this help.
Again, nothing is free - not legal aid. This idea that somehow these services are free - they are paid for by hard-working, taxpaying Ontarians and we must never forget that. Maybe it sounds a bit like a mantra, but I know that's one of the motives as well, as this government tries to do the right thing at the right time with the right kind of balance.
You can never satisfy all people. As the member for Downsview said, and I think I heard a couple of other members say the same thing: they support the bill, they're going to be vigilant, and who could ask for more? I know the member for Cambridge, who will obviously, if there are to be further committee meetings held on this - although there have been over 200 submissions and a long period of consultation with all the stakeholders, the committee is going to go out once more, I gather. I'd have to let the parliamentary assistant advise me on that. But in that case we'll certainly commit, both in the legislation with amendments and perhaps in the regulatory environment, to know exactly where we go from here.
For a little more technical kind of comment, the corporation is required to monitor and supervise the legal aid services provided by clients, student legal aid services, societies and other entities funded by it. So clearly there's going to be accountability in this as well, which really appeals to me and I'm sure to all members here. It's taxpayers' money and it's services for people. If we waste the money, then we can't provide the services, and there are people who need this service.
People accuse us of being all pro-business. We're just good managers. That's the bottom line.
Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): Try the emergency rooms.
Mr O'Toole: Mr Kennedy, you're a bank manager, OK? Keep it in mind.
Mr Kennedy: You're the guy we want running emergency rooms.
Mr O'Toole: We call you a commodities dealer, an ambulance chaser. I think you're a fearmonger.
Mr Kennedy: We saw that today, that good management stuff. That was well done. Which one of you is doing the announcing tonight? Come on, you couldn't run anything. You couldn't run a lemonade stand.
Mr O'Toole: The member for York South is saying a number of things that are reckless, as he always does, to scare people. Every time the member for York South is speaking to the very respectful Minister of Health, he is nasty, aggressive, critical. It's very bullying and it's absolutely false. There is no more respectful, dignified minister in this House. I think you should refer to the article in the Star and you would better know the person she is, a caring, compassionate Minister of Health.
This bill very much addresses a fair, balanced delivery of a service for the very vulnerable people in this great, wonderful province. But we're trying to rescue so many pieces that have been ruined over the last 10 years. That's why most of us came here, because it was being lost. Our future and our children's future was being literally frittered away.
The solution to every one of Mr Kennedy's problems is more money. And it's the same for Allan Rock. But when it comes to the very poor, Mr Rock will not help those with hepatitis C. You stand up here tonight and say you'll support those with hepatitis C and I'll sit down and listen to you. All I want you to do, Mr Kennedy, is stand up for the people of Ontario and work together, instead of criticizing our minister.
There isn't enough time really to allow the member for York South or anyone else to comment because there's only 16 seconds left. I apologize to those viewing if I did get off the bill a bit, but we've heard about three hours of debate here on a bill that does three things: It brings in a protective system for the vulnerable that's accountable, with a governance model, and the proper funding.
The Deputy Speaker: It being almost 9:30, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 2127.