L049B - Mon 26 Oct 1998 / Lun 26 Oct 1998 1
The House met at 1830.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
COURTS OF JUSTICE AMENDMENT ACT (IMPROVED FAMILY COURT), 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES TRIBUNAUX JUDICIAIRES (AMÉLIORATION DE LA COUR DE LA FAMILLE)
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 48, An Act to Improve Court Services for Families by Facilitating Expansion of the Family Court and to make other amendments to the Courts of Justice Act / Projet de loi 48, Loi visant à améliorer les services fournis aux familles par les tribunaux en facilitant l'expansion de la Cour de la famille et apportant d'autres modifications à la Loi sur les tribunaux judiciaires.
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It is my privilege to be the lead speaker here this evening on the adjourned debate on Bill 48. For those viewing tonight, I hope I'm not interrupting your supper hour, and for those members who are still adjourned to have their dinner, I hope they pay very close attention to the comments I have to make. This is a very important opportunity to bring some layman's level of understanding of what I deem to be a very complicated little bill only in the languaging of it. I am just going to, for the record, try and bring a layman's interpretation of an important change that addresses the whole issue of the court system and family law.
It's long overdue. It is good to see that there's some harmony between the federal and provincial court systems. I think this is what we have been working towards.
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Point of order, Speaker: I'm not sure that there is a quorum.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Would you please check if we have quorum.
Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.
Clerk at the Table: Quorum is now present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Durham East.
Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have to thank the member for Welland-Thorold, who has now left the chamber. I really am interested in getting a larger audience to hear the comments I have to make. I'm joined by the member for Northumberland and also the member for Huron who are interested in this issue.
Most importantly I'm speaking directly to those viewers tonight, and it's from my heart, to say that in all of this debate tonight I want you to place very close attention on the issue of children and how perhaps the systems today have failed the children. The central ingredient in this whole issue, whether it's a custody or divorce battle, is that ultimately we keep our focus on the most fragile members of our society.
The province of Ontario is expanding the family court to provide better court services to Ontario families to better protect the interests of children.
Attorney General Charles Harnick introduced the Courts of Justice Amendment Act, Bill 48, on June 24 1998, which will pave the way to the upcoming expansion and reorganization of the court system. You may ask why family court. The issues that are being deliberated in family court are far more unique than civil litigation issues. Family court provides a single-window approach for family law matters by giving one court jurisdiction over both federal and provincial statutes. This is an important distinction here to deal with matters of family law arising.
Members may not know that the way the court system is structured there are certain matters. The provincial courts are able to deal with custody and support orders. However, that particular court - provincial court - is not able to deal with more complex issues, being those of property dispute matters and the divorce itself, which are federal decisional areas.
This clarification of a one-window approach is much in harmony with a lot of what this government is doing: trying to simplify the process and make it more accessible to people who need these services.
Family courts also will be able to provide access to mediation and alternative forms of court procedures. I think if we can solve these cases before the courts we're going to solve a lot of grief, a lot of anxiety, a lot of cost to the litigants. Additional information and education services are designed to help parents focus on the best interests of the children.
Compared to the traditional approach, family courts provide more choice for resolving disputes, therefore lessening the emotional turmoil on the children, and reducing the cost and complexity of cases. The issue here for those litigants, and most importantly the children, is reducing the cost and the emotional turmoil that could be evidenced in some of the court battles.
Family court is a branch of the Ontario Court (General Division) and the family court judges are federal appointments. This is the important issue here. This bill is in fact - I think my notes told me this; it's not anything I carry around in my mind - co-operation between the federal and provincial governments. I think there's a Bill C-37 which is before the federal Legislature. When that is passed they will be able to make appointments of judges into the family court area.
There has been a series of what I would call pilot activities going on since I believe 1977. In 1977 we had unified court. It was established in Hamilton for a one-year period at that time. As you can see, many governments had this opportunity to streamline family courts; it simply hasn't been done. But once again this government never backs away from doing the right thing.
If I was to be in the next period of time, the year 2000 and beyond - hopefully with the respect of my constituents I'll be here to argue for their rights - we'll still have the courage to make the changes necessary to make Ontario work for people. That's really the essence of my function here as well in this particular debate today: to bring some clarity to it.
A bit of the background, for the benefit of the record: In 1995 the unified court was continued as a family court branch in the Ontario Court (General Division). It was expanded, because of its successful Hamilton experience, to London, Barrie, Kingston and Napanee. The expansion has been termed a success by the bench, the bar, the community agencies helping these groups, the advocacy groups, the court administration staff and indeed the litigants.
Across Ontario, all family law is split into two levels, as I said, where there was overlap in jurisdiction in the courts in some jurisdictional matters, which I have mentioned. The General Division was able to deal with divorce and property issues whereas the provincial court was only able to deal with the custody and support allocations. I'm very pleased to recognize that this change is not a simple clarification; it's streamlining and making services work for people.
I could go on with the prepared text here but in respect to my constituents of Durham East, whether it's in Orono, whether it's in Blackstock or Tyrone or Port Perry, to name but four -
Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): Or Newcastle.
Mr O'Toole: Or Newcastle. Or, for that matter, all Ontarians.
Mr Ouellette: Newtonville. Downtown Newtonville.
Mr O'Toole: Newtonville as well.
I have to represent my constituents. Have I met people on this issue? I can tell you, I've met on several occasions with the non-custodial parent groups. This isn't just a gender issue. I would, for the record, like to clarify that this issue is not gender-biased or -specific. I've got non-custodial grandparents who are very interested in this issue who have no visitation rights to their grandchildren. It's almost tearful when you see them before you in my constituency office, which is in Bowmanville at 75 King Street.
I like to speak to real people. That's how you do a better job here. I've spoken to other constituents who have arranged non-custodial meetings where I've met people I know and people I didn't know until I met them. Of course, saying that sounds kind of redundant, but nonetheless it's just checking to see if you're paying attention.
The person who has put the most hard work into this that I've met in my riding is a fellow by the name of Steve Hyde. They've had some very, very large meetings - I can tell you they're quite vocal - where they challenged not just the provincial member, because we made it clear to them that much of these issues belong at the federal level as well. There's family law and that issue is a very - we're trying to streamline it. But other constituents with whom I've been involved and have worked with - not to say they are non-custodial but they're certainly interested in this issue - would be Gord Ballick, Mary Ann Proctor, a grandparent - I can see her sitting there now, it's just heartbreaking; it really is - and Ron Davey.
1840
There are key things here that I hear about from my constituents: the whole issue of custody, the whole issue of access and the whole issue of support. There isn't a member in this House who doesn't realize that the Family Responsibility Office occupies about half of the time in my constituency office. I won't be satisfied until whoever the delinquent parent is pays the bills. I don't see the taxpayers of Ontario responsible for this, and I think our Attorney General is working towards making the Family Responsibility Office much more accountable. I can tell you I'm going to hold him accountable. I don't know what you think of that, but I'm going to hold the Attorney General accountable. I want these problems solved. The parents, not the rest of Ontario, are supposed to support the children.
I may be getting a bit off topic on that, but I wanted to put it on the record.
I called my constituency office today just to see - and for the record I want you to know that in Durham East we answer probably 60 phone calls a day. The phone number is 697-1501 and we don't use voice mail. We're usually there till about 6 at night or later, or I'm here till later, but we do use voice mail in off-business hours. Let's respect the constituents. If you phone and you don't get an answer, it's because we're busy on the other line dealing personally with a constituent.
But I was asking them today, with the 60 phone calls - we had 241 calls and of that in one day we had 15 calls. On the high day for last week we had 26 calls dealing specifically with this whole issue of the Family Responsibility Office, which really has to deal with some of the decisions, the orders themselves, the administration of collecting and who paid what to whom.
I ask myself, what are we in this business for? It should be clear. The garnishment of the wages or whatever should be put in place and the government should be out of there. But you know what happens? The children are the vulnerable people whom we are there for and this is why I come back to government having a role in this: to make sure that the vulnerable children aren't left high and dry with perhaps parents who haven't matured.
I hate to generalize, and I didn't generalize in any kind of way that might reflect poorly on someone, but it seems like the family unit's under attack. That's the most troubling thing for me as a parent with five children. My wife, Peggy, and I have to make choices on a daily basis. We have three children in university. I'm almost starting to cry here. We can't have everything. We have to make choices. All parents in Ontario and all adults who've had children need to make some choices. They need to make some choices perhaps even before they have the children, because it isn't my responsibility to raise your children. As a government we have a role to make sure that the children don't fall through the cracks, but if I find a parent who's not paying their fair share, I'll be there with the tax collector, if you know what I mean.
But anyway, I've met with a number of other people. Today, I just met with some people - for the record I want to mention their names respectfully. I know they're probably watching this evening. Good evening. Mrs Sylvia Lasher is with Heritage of Children of Canada, as is Mr Abraham Silver. Verne Beck is with the Canadian Courtwatch program. Gene Colosimo is a father who's lost contact with his child for the last four years. I have great sympathy for those people and I think the system may have failed them.
The complexity and the cost are burdensome. At the end of the day, for two people who've had a serious quarrel or some kind of problem there must be some way of arbitrating a solution to this without wrecking the whole situation. What happens is that they end up going to the court system, they come out about two years later with about $100,000 to $200,000 worth of lawyers' bills and more problems, really at a very conflict-based set of communications and then they just want get back at each other. It's sad, technically.
I've also worked with Senator Anne Cools, who's a Liberal senator - you would know her, Mr Speaker - from Ottawa. I have a lot of time for her. She's worked very hard for the non-custodial parent group. I don't mean to be in any way critical of whether she's a Liberal or a Conservative. I'd have preferred if she was a Conservative, but nonetheless her values and morals are right. I say for the record that I support her hard work for the access-to-children issue. That's really what it is, access to children, whether it's grandparents or parents. We all have a role.
But just looking at one of the concepts that was brought to my attention by people I've met on this issue, shared parenting; shared parenting is the responsibility - because genetically the child has two parents, one male and one female usually, hopefully, and I think the child has some rights in knowing its parents. I think it would reduce the cost to the whole system of the litigation that occurs if we had some fundamental rules that said - I want to move that around just a little bit.
I want to make sure that a parent who's found to be an abusive parent - I would not treat that in the normal kind of context. I'd move that aside. There are procedural ways of dealing with an abusive parent, but parents who had reasons to differ on financial or other emotional grounds and still love their children should clearly not be denied access, provided they're complying with court decisions and orders. I can't see why this game-playing with the child being used as a kind of fulcrum on the teeter-totter is allowed to continue, whichever partner is the problem.
Shared parenting asks a number of questions. It also provides some suggestions. Single-parent families have difficulties, whatever the gender issue. It's not a male-female issue, it's not that simple. I would say that some of these statistics I've been provided are that 71% of high school dropouts are children of single parents. I wouldn't want to stigmatize any child of a single parent, but they're at risk. There's no question. Society has to step in. We have organizations like Big Brothers and that trying to step into the role, but no one can replace a parent. As the parent of five children, I feel I'm the first line of communication and the first line of responsibility with the children.
I've got a number that have been provided for me from the group called NAPPA, which is the National Association for Public and Private Accountability. What attracted me to reading this little brochure was public accountability. I think this government stands - we set some very clear principles for the election platform. The simplest one that would come to mind would be the balanced budget legislation. We will deliver on the promises. We've coined the phrase, "A promise made by our Premier Mike Harris, you can be assured it's a promise kept."
I'm telling you tonight, the Attorney General works for the same guy I do, Mike Harris, the Premier of this province. If we've committed to make this court system work more effectively, I'm sure that's exactly what's going to happen.
I just want to make sure that I have the Heritage of Children of Canada on the record. I know that Sylvia Lasher has helped a number of members here to bring forward private members' bills. I'm going to refer here to Bill 27, An Act to amend the Children's Law Reform Act, which is a redrafting of a previous bill when the NDP were in government. That act is another custodial issue. But that family's been working very hard, tirelessly I might add, for 12 years. I have a lot of sympathy for their concerns.
It's an issue of access, as you know. People are living longer and they're going to be grandparents longer. We talk about the nuclear family, but we've got to talk more about the extended family, the parents and the grandparents, the aunts and uncles. That's what's been missing. You can't raise children in front of a television. They've got to have human interaction with their own family, the extended family, which hopefully includes the grandparents on both sides. When there's such a high level of divorce, the children - I go back to my very first comment - are the real net losers. Then we look on the streets - and I hate to characterize our young people, but they haven't got the support that the older generation like myself had. I had both sets of grandparents who were there to take care of me in various situations. My mother worked. There were nine children in our family. When that support network isn't there for the urban family today, the child loses again. It can't all be solved by having formalized daycare. Informal daycare by the proper caregiver is often the solution.
1850
Mr Martiniuk will probably be speaking later this evening. As the parliamentary assistant, and a trained lawyer, I might add, he is far more qualified to comment on the technical aspects of this bill.
In the remaining moments that I have, I just thought that if you look at the preamble of this bill, you'll see very clearly that "The bill amends the Courts of Justice Act in order to restructure the Ontario Court (General Division) to accommodate a possible expanded family court as a branch of the Ontario Court (General Division)." Theoretically we're combining a couple of separate provincial and federal court systems to provide a streamlined approach.
What is it for? Ultimately I could make the argument that it's for the children of Ontario. Here we have the Attorney General dealing with all the high-powered people, the lawyers, the judges, blah, blah, blah, but really it's to help children. We're also working in co-operation with the federal government, despite Allan Rock and others whom I sometimes have difficulty with. If he'd only support the hepatitis C, I think we'd all move forward. He used to be the Attorney General and he isn't any more, thank God.
Schedule B will amend the Courts of Justice Act, and this thing is working with the federal act, Bill C-37, which when it's passed will be able to appoint federal judges to provincial courts. That's technically the issue.
"The bill also restores the regulatory-making authority for the setting" - this is a nice little schedule here - "of salaries and benefits for provincial judges" - and I wish I was one; there is no pension for Ontario MPPs, nor should there, that was our commitment, but we have to look at the broader sector, and this is perhaps one of them - "while clarifying that the framework agreement set out in the schedule to the act prevails over any regulation that conflicts with it."
My time has expired. Thank you very much.
The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The member would know that there has been a recent court case in which we have a circumstance where the government is being challenged in court, and I think successfully challenged, over the probate fees that people had to pay in regard to a will and the processing of a will. It reminds me that this government has raised taxes some 327 times if you want to count the fact that user fees are taxes. My friend from Simcoe will recall that the Premier, during his own leadership campaign and I think during the last election campaign, stated that a user fee is a tax. Mike Harris said this. When you increase a user fee, you increase a tax, because that's what he said is a tax.
I was surprised; I think it's because of the amount of time that's available for the member for Durham East - if he had had half an hour, he would have discussed this, I'm sure, instead of being confined to the 20 minutes. He would have talked about the user fees and the mass increases in these user fees that are taking place across the government. While the government cuts income tax, favouring the wealthiest people in our society, it increases other fees which in fact are taxes. I'm wondering what the member would have to say about all of these increases and fees, whether he thinks that's healthy, whether he thinks that's fair, whether he believes that perhaps wealthier people in our society would be able to pay these fees but people of modest means may not, and whether that jeopardizes a person's situation before the law.
Mr Kormos: It's interesting that the member for St Catharines raises the issue of user fees and the decision in the courts regarding the so-called probate fees, which really were interpreted as being probate profits for this government. You ain't seen nothing yet.
We were in the justice committee this afternoon dealing with Bill 25, a so-called red tape reduction bill, and one of the constant themes through that bill is that it transfers fee-setting power from the regulatory process to the minister and Premier themselves. They can do this in secret, in private, at their whim -
Mr Bradley: Behind closed doors.
Mr Kormos: - behind closed doors, without ever subjecting the process or the decision to any scrutiny by, for instance, the leg and regs committee. That was pretty scary stuff to witness in Bill 25.
I suppose it does eliminate red tape. When this government talks about eliminating red tape, they talk about eliminating Parliament. They think it's cumbersome to have to make democratic decisions; it's cumbersome to have to debate things; it's cumbersome - oh, it's red tape - to have an opposition. They think it's an excessive burden to have to be subjected to the testing by the opposition on a daily basis in question period or during the course of debate. What we're witnessing is an increase of the star chamber approach - that's not out of order, is it, Speaker? - where decisions are made behind closed doors, in the secrecy of the backrooms of the halls of power, with the influence of the Bay Street gang. That's what we should be frightened of.
Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the member for Durham East. He did just an excellent job on presentation on the particular bill, Bill 48, the Courts of Justice Statute Law Amendment Act. I thought it was interesting how he brought in an awful lot of things about the riding and about his own family. He also talked about the family under attack. I think that's really happening in our society today and it does take government and our courts to look after those awkward situations when that certainly happens.
He talked a lot about his wife, Peggy, their five kids and the responsibility that a family has, that parents have to look after their children, even though many times one of the parents will drop those responsibilities and disappear, and how the courts are necessary to bring that into line. When you talk about a single parent, that's almost an impossibility because, as he mentioned, it does take two parents to create a child and they both have an awful lot of responsibility for the raising of that individual.
He talked about accountability. Certainly this government has been exceptionally accountable to the taxpayers of Ontario. We came out with the Common Sense Revolution as our platform and we have a reputation for doing what we said we would do. Many people on the street tell me that this is the first party in government ever that's really followed through on the promises they made during their campaign.
I thought it was also interesting that the member for Durham East talked about the extended family and the responsibility of that extended family. It brought to mind the song that it takes a whole village to raise a child, a song that came from Africa and has often been used by people when they have been travelling around.
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I was quite taken by the comments from the member for Durham East. One thing I was missing, and I'm sure he will do that when he has a chance to respond to my comments, I missed your 1-900 number. I got all the rest but not the 1-900 number.
As I listened to his speech, though, I was really quite amazed. He talked an awful lot about the Family Responsibility Office. He said that half his calls coming in are in regard to the Family Responsibility Office. Well, I've been around this place now for a little more than a decade, and you know what? My experience is the same as yours. About half our calls or maybe even sometimes a little bit more than half are in regard to the Family Responsibility Office, because they're not doing their job. I'm getting far more calls than I ever did before this government came to power and centralized this office and has just frustrated the people I represent in terms of trying to have those payments made on time so they can look after their children.
It's amazing that he would admit during his speech that this is a problem that is not resolved and in fact has been made worse by this government.
1900
The second thing I want to say is that I'm not sure he read this bill. Explanatory note: What it says is, "The bill amends the Courts of Justice Act in order to restructure the Ontario Court (General Division) to accommodate a possible" - I repeat "possible" - "expanded family court as a branch of the Ontario Court...."
You are really excited about something that is only a possibility. If you read the explanatory notes a little bit more, you would be far less excited.
The Acting Speaker: Response?
Mr O'Toole: I respect the thoughtful comments by the members for St Catharines, Welland-Thorold, Northumberland and Algoma-Manitoulin. There are some missing pieces here and I will certainly fill the blanks in now.
He did ask a very important question, what my 1-900 number is. Actually, I don't have a 900 number, but we do have a 1-800: 1-800-661-2433. That's the constituency of Durham East, soon to be Durham.
The member for Algoma-Manitoulin - not because he spoke most recently do I remember his comments, but it's because he was last to speak that I will respond to him first - said that the Family Responsibility Office is a problem. Of course, the previous governments had an opportunity to fix this. We stepped in. Charles Harnick has made an attempt to make this thing work.
Clearly, we can't fix this in one term. Do you know what that says to me? The people of Ontario have a very real decision to make, that we need a second term to complete and fix 10 years of neglect - the last 10 years, the last decade. Give us a second mandate and you can see by the performance - five pillars? You'll see all of the promises made, the promises kept. The future looks bright because you know this is a government you can depend on to deliver the promises.
I made a another comment and I need to clarify the record. I said inadvertently that I worked for the Premier, Mike Harris, and Charles Harnick, the Attorney General. It has crossed my mind, and the real fact is, that we work for the people of Ontario, the hard-working taxpayers of Ontario. That's the point I want to make clear on the record. I think the Premier said it best when he said we're not government, we're here to fix government. It sounds like a phrase but really think about it. What it means is that once you become part of the inculcated value system, you're incapable of making change, and if you're here too long you become too much like it.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate.
Mr Bradley: Obviously, first we had Mulroney and now we have baloney. I have heard both in the last week. I don't necessarily equate the two; I just said first we had Mulroney and now we have baloney. Some of the stuff I've heard tonight is a stretch, to put it nicely. We have certain things we can't say in this House, so "a stretch" is as close as I come to making comment.
I can tell you, first of all, the government member's Conservative predecessor, Sam Cureatz, was a pretty independent-minded guy. He was so independent-minded - I should tell me friend what happens when you're independent-minded - that when he had the position that our present Speaker has, M. Morin, the member for Carleton East, he got fired from it by the Premier because back in those days the Premier picked who was the Speaker. Why? Because he was very independent of the Premier. So the lesson there is that you cannot buck the tide of the Premier without getting in trouble.
I thought you had an interesting admission earlier on when you said that you work for the Premier and the Attorney General. Somebody sent a note in, I guess. You told me you said that at one time in your speech. I thought it was a Freudian slip, but the more I think of it, the more I recognize over there that the real power is in the Office of the Premier. Certainly we know that this bill would have originated with the consent, at the very least, of the Premier's whiz kids, if nobody else.
I should mention - members of the House will want to know - that I am really excited about the launching of the new Conrad Black national paper. Is that tonight? I was reading today -
Applause.
Mr Bradley: The Tory members are clapping loudly because they know that Conrad will now have an even greater empire in which to purvey his right-wing views. You would know, Mr Speaker, from living in Ottawa, as you do, that when he took over the Ottawa Citizen and they were hiring editorialists, the qualifications seemed to be that you had to be in the research department of the Reform Party or the Conservative Party in Ontario, which of course is the same party, and you had to have some experience with the Fraser Institute.
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): And you object to that because for a generation -
Mr Bradley: I saw that we're not going to get balanced editorials. We're going to get that narrow, extreme right-wing viewpoint.
What is interesting, I say to my friend from Kitchener - he would find this interesting - is that now when the CBC is trying to balance things out and they want to get a right-winger on the program - like the one that Stephen Lewis's son, Avi Lewis, does - they get somebody from the Ottawa Citizen editorial board or from the Fraser Institute and they have about the same point of view.
Once in a while they will throw a bone to the opposition or something, but by and large they are ideologically right wing. Of course, with the launching of the new paper we will see even more of that being purveyed around this province and this country. I was reading today -
Mr Wettlaufer: You never said a thing for a generation when all the media were Liberal.
Mr Bradley: I remember the Toronto Telegram, and it certainly couldn't be accused of being neutral, nor could the Sun papers be accused of being neutral.
I have to say to the Conservative members who badger me at this time that you've got Conrad Black on your side. You need not fear, I assure you - if they decide that they're going to launch an advertising campaign on this bill - any editorial criticism from Conrad Black's newspapers because you will be handing the money out to them, so they appreciate those full-page ads with the Premier's photograph on them. The people of this province don't because they know they are reaching into their pocket for their hard-earned dollars to pay taxes to pay for Mike Harris to glorify himself with these ads.
They're on television. I understand there's been a big buy next month for television ads. I don't know if they have told the Tory caucus that yet. There are the radio ads that are on constantly, newspaper ads, and every time you open up your mailbox there's another propaganda piece complete with: "Would you like to reply? Send your name and address." Of course, that will be going to Tory headquarters eventually; that will make its way to Tory headquarters.
If you want to talk about justice tonight, here we have an abuse of public office as this government squanders millions upon millions of dollars on self-serving, clearly propagandistic material being presented to the taxpayers and having them pay. What's most galling, of course, is the fact that people who significantly disagree with this government have to pay for these ads.
If the Conservative members wish to put out their newsletter, that's fine with me. The Conservative caucus has a budget which it could use, and you're going to have more than the opposition because you have 82 members. I don't object to that. That's the rule of the House and I understand that. I may not like it but I understand it and that's within the rules. What I object to is the government using various ministries to purvey a propagandistic message to the people of this province - blatant political propaganda paid for by tax dollars.
Every time somebody opens up the paper and sees Mike Harris's photograph in an ad, they should be ringing up the cash register because it's costing them money for Mike Harris to advertise. That's why I'm hoping, with this bill, that we won't see that kind of advertising taking place.
We mentioned some tax increases. I want to go back to the fact, as I mentioned to the member for Durham East, that it was Mike Harris himself who said to all and sundry that a user fee is a tax. Sometimes I disagree with Mike Harris. There are occasions where I find myself in disagreement. One place where I understood what he was saying and he was upfront was when he said a user fee is a tax.
The member for Welland-Thorold is in committee today, the justice committee dealing with Bill 25, he mentioned, which is the so-called red tape bill. It's in committee, you should know, to block another reference to do with Ipperwash. That's why it's in the committee, I should say that.
1910
It talks about user fees, whether it's in the court system or anywhere else. The new way of raising these user fees is to do it not by legislation, which would come before the House, and not even by regulation, which is done behind closed doors, but at least there are some minutes kept and somebody might object somewhere along the way within the government; it's now being done administratively by the Premier and whatever minister is involved. That'll clear the red tape. That'll clear the decks for constant increases in user fees.
Who likes user fees? The people who can afford user fees, the wealthiest people in our society, the most powerful people, the people who attend the Conservative fundraisers on an ongoing basis and fill their coffers, those people are going to say: "We would agree with user fees, because if we have to access" - say it's the court system - "the judicial system at all, we can afford them. Let's charge everybody those user fees."
Of course user fees, like municipal property taxes, do not take into account an individual's ability to pay. So while Conrad Black may be able to pay a user fee that's rather substantial, a person of modest income or modest means or modest assets may find it a financial imposition to have to pay those same user fees.
If I could draw a parallel, hockey is said to be our national sport; it certainly is in the winter. You used to see kids who would be able to play hockey at various levels, because the price was relatively low. The cost for the rental of the arena for the hockey association was somewhat modest and usually biased towards young people in our society. So the registration fees tended to be less than $100. Today, even when you get into a House league, you'll see registration fees of $250 and $300. If you want to play for a travelling team, you put $1,000 on the table to start for the cost, and then of course there's equipment and other costs that come later.
What does that mean? That means that the children from families that have money have more access to those opportunities to play our national sport of hockey than children of modest means. In fact, there are children who cannot play hockey at all because their families simply cannot afford the registration fee.
That's Mike Harris's Ontario. That's what it's about. That's what you people are about: one rule for the rich and the privileged and one rule for the rest. The rich and the privileged love it because, by not having to pay through taxes, they don't have to assist in helping the people who have more modest means, for instance, helping their children to play hockey. They simply pay their money, because they can afford it, and the others are left behind. That's what happens when you have user fees, and that's what we're going to see in this bill. What you've seen in the ministry of justice, in fact, are user fees.
The Family Responsibility Office - we're talking about the Unified Family Court and so on and payments. There are still hundreds of thousands of dollars - I saw a figure just a little while ago, $1.2 billion. A recent article in the Hamilton Spectator estimated that two years after the government's changes to the Family Responsibility Office, $1.2 billion is still owing to women and children. What's interesting is that sometimes even non-custodial parents, who are trying to pay but whose files get bogged down at the government's revamped Family Responsibility Office, are complaining. So what's interesting is that sometimes we're getting calls from both of the spouses. In other words, they're separated and one wants to pay and the other says, "The money is not coming in," but it's not the other spouse's fault; it's caught up in the red tape somewhere.
Back when we had regional offices it certainly wasn't perfect but at least people had more access to the Family Responsibility Office. Now it's one big, huge monolith in Toronto. Yes, individual MPPs can get the service, but why should people have to go to the MPP to get service which normally should be given to people right across the province? Some very top-notch people have been assigned to handle those situations brought to the attention of the MPPs and have done a credible job in that. But there are thousands upon thousands of people out there who don't have that assistance.
When we talk about justice and what might be available for people, there's a punitive tune to this government. I wish this government were as punitive dealing with polluters in this province as they are dealing with other folks who are part of our society.
In St Catharines, I think of Women's Place, which is a shelter for women who are abused, have to flee an abusive spouse, often taking their children with them. This is a temporary shelter for them from the abusive husband, in most cases. The circumstance is that Women's Place now has to go out to fundraise. Some people say: "Isn't that good? These people have to do something to support themselves."
The people who are involved with Women's Place are preoccupied with providing services to people who have to depart from an abusive situation in their own home. They shouldn't have to hire fundraisers, as they do now. They shouldn't have to preoccupy their time, in many cases, with fundraising, though there's good support in the community when they do so. What should happen, of course, is that the government of Ontario should be providing the kind of assistance to those disadvantaged people which they deserve and which they need.
I see the crime commissioners; two of them are here tonight, anyway. I hope they take that into account. I should tell the crime commissioners, by the way, that your government has cut $1.5 million from legal services and victim support. I heard a lot of noise in this House from the Attorney General, the Solicitor General and some of the other members of this government about how they were concerned about victims' rights. Indeed, they stole the victims' rights bill from the member for Downsview, Ms Castrilli, who brought it in several times. The government finally said: "We're going to take that bill. We'll weaken it a bit, but we'll take that bill, and that bill will be passed." There was support in this House. But when it passed, many of us noted that the financial resources would not be there for its full implementation.
So there's a lot of noise. The commissioners have their conferences and conventions, and they bring in the big-timers from the US to say how you can bash all these people, and that plays with a certain crowd. I don't know if they have real answers.
I'm going to invite my friend, as I say, Downtown Brown - I don't say that in a disparaging way at all - to look at those options. He has heard some of them. When he went to St Catharines, he will know Jim Wells, a friend of Frank Sheehan, a campaign worker for Frank Sheehan, who works with people who have been on the wrong side of the law, gave him some good recommendations and wasn't particularly lauding some of the recommendations the crime commission was coming forward with.
Some $9.8 million has been taken since 1995-96 from the public guardian and trustee's office; $43,000 cut from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, which provides compensation and financial assistance to the families of victims of crime. Since 1995 this fund has been cut by $1.2 million.
I thought, again, these people were all about victims of crime. They talk a good game, but when it comes to shelling out, when it comes to investing in their rhetoric, they're nowhere to be found. They'll put out a pamphlet, I guess, or ads on the radio and television next month saying what they're doing. Think of where that money could be spent. The tens of millions of dollars that are being fired around as though they're coming from some tree, think of where that could be spent productively to help people in our society.
The member for Welland-Thorold and I will are confident that the taxpayers coalition in the Niagara Peninsula will be issuing a press release on this and demanding that the government refund the money to the taxpayers of this province and have the Conservative Party pay for all these partisan ads. I know the taxpayers' coalition. They are people who are not partisan. They care first and foremost about the squandering of tax dollars. So they will be demanding of Premier Harris that he refund this money to the taxpayers and that he use Conservative Party funds. I know they will.
1920
The National Citizens' Coalition, another group which has assiduously watched members of legislatures and the federal Parliament to see that they're not wasting money, will be conducting a national crusade, focusing primarily on Ontario, for all of the money being squandered.
Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): The Fraser Institute.
Mr Bradley: The member for Lake Nipigon mentions the Fraser Institute, another organization which sends us all kinds of material telling us how we can save money. All of those groups I know will be demanding this government quit squandering money on wasteful advertising.
This government, when it gets into the field of justice, talks a good game, but when it comes to investing the funds to ensure that the obligations within their legislation and regulations and policies are met, they are nowhere to be found on that occasion. The money is lost in the same place it was for the Minister of Health when she supposedly announced millions of dollars five months ago for emergency care in Ontario. Then the Premier got to the convention, got some heat and said, "Isn't it awful, Elizabeth Witmer isn't doing her job."
Interjection.
Mr Bradley: Well, I heard it. He said he was going to get after the Minister of Health. Then I guess she must have blown up because he became a pussycat again and said, "Oh no, it's those awful civil servants, they've held it up."
Then some people said: "It must be the heir apparent. It must be the member for Victoria-Haliburton, who had a considerable hospitality suite at the last Conservative convention in Ottawa. Perhaps he is to blame for it, because he's the Chair of Management Board."
Finally, we find out of course that ultimately the blockage is in the Premier's office. They wanted to save the money so they could flow it just before the election, so the Premier, like Santa Claus, could go around the province giving back money that he had slashed so joyously just a few months before. This may all apply to this bill. We will know as the debate continues.
The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?
Mr Kormos: The member for St Catharines, Jim Bradley, raises a number of issues. You heard him speak at the onset. I'm going to be speaking to this bill in a few minutes. I've got some things I want to say about it too. The member for St Catharines talked about Conrad Black, Tubby Black, who owns every daily newspaper in the Niagara region, all three of them - what Conrad Black says, that's what goes - but he also talked about the taxpayers' coalition and the concern that all of us ought to have about foolish expenditures of taxpayers' money.
Just the other day I got the pamphlet in the mail, the welfare pamphlet. Did you get the welfare pamphlet, the multi-page? There's a little tear-off in the back. They want you to report somebody who is ripping off taxpayers' dollars. I encourage people to fill it out. I want people to fill out that little mail-back that tells you to put in the name of somebody who is ripping off taxpayers' dollars. Start with Conrad Black, start with Frank Stronach, start with the whole bunch of the Bay Street gang, all of whom are getting big tax breaks and more than a few significant concessions from their friends in the Conservative caucus, at taxpayers' expense. Write in the names of companies like Rural/Metro who are going to rip off taxpayers as they privatize ambulance services and as they privatize firefighting services so that if you can afford to pay for it, you get to ride in the ambulance, if you can afford to pay for it, they'll put out your fire.
Write in the name of Corrections Corp of America, which is going to rip off taxpayers where they participate with this government's largesse, privatizing correctional facilities so they can run jails for a profit, ripping off the taxpayer. That's the real fraud, that's where the real rip-offs are taking place, that's where the real siphoning away of taxpayers' money is happening.
People, fill out those forms. Mail them in. We've got to get them in.
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I was very much appreciating listening to the member for St Catharines as he covered a range of issues directly or indirectly related to Bill 48, which is before us tonight. Anybody watching the debate this evening would enjoy, as I did, listening to the member for St Catharines discuss issues of considerable public interest.
I found myself wondering though as the member for St Catharines was speaking whether or not, as our House leader and a person long acquainted with the procedures of the Legislature, he wouldn't prefer to be debating this important bill in a more regular procedure, which would be during our afternoon sitting rather than in an evening sitting of the Legislature which traditionally in this place has been used at the end of the session to clear up what are basically housekeeping bills. I don't think the issue of access to justice, if that indeed is what the Courts of Justice Amendment Act is purporting to deal with, is something which can be considered a housekeeping matter. Access to justice is a very important public issue.
I'm sure the public found it of interest to listen to our House leader discuss that issue and issues related to it. They might have preferred to have had an opportunity to hear a greater breadth of issues if we had given them the opportunity to watch a replay question period this evening. The fact that we're sitting from Monday night through to Thursday night - and have been from the time this session resumed - has certainly had an impact on whether people are able to watch the exchange that takes place during the Legislature in the early part of the afternoon. Perhaps that serves the government's purposes very well.
I too will have an opportunity to speak to the substance of the Courts of Justice Amendment Act a little bit later on this evening. I was glad that the member for St Catharines talked about user fees and the fact that there is a significant increase in user fees under this government, which of course in itself is a barrier to access to justice. I was wishing he had taken a moment to discuss the fact that the probate fees - which were actually increased by the NDP government - were found by the courts last week to be a tax and as such should be subject to legislative change, not regulatory change.
Mr Pouliot: Before I respond to the member for St Catharines, I'm somewhat appalled and shocked and I would like answers to verify tout de suite the remarks from my colleague and friend from the great northwest taking an unusual swipe at the New Democratic Party's tenure during those great five years. I'm surprised. It's so unbecoming. In 14 years we had become close. I know that the person is most ethical, very capable of defending her ground. But why is it necessary for the Liberal Party at this time - six, seven months prior to an election - to aim at the New Democrats, the third party in this House as opposed to aiming straight at the enemy. They have found the enemy and it is themselves. I'm vexed, yes, I'm hurt. I will no doubt get over it. But it's most common. It came from nowhere that Madame McLeod would say something. We feel flattered in the NDP. Deserving of such a reaction means that we must be favoured in the polls.
The member for Welland-Thorold is absolutely right. He talks about the expansion of the family court when he tells you about accessibility. You know earlier on this afternoon we were debating legal aid. Chronologically, you don't have representation because you can ill afford it, but the government says: "We will change that. We'll have a new administration. We'll have a transition board." All good deeds and then you move closer. The question is: How long do we have to debate Bill 48? Will you pull the same thing, the same stunt that you did before? Will the opposition be silenced again to serve your agenda?
Mr Galt: I always enjoy the flair that the member for St Catharines has with his presentations. He always brings in Conrad Black. We discussed tonight the newspaper coming out tomorrow, his brand new newspaper. We're certainly all looking forward to that. This evening he left out the Albany Club. Usually in every speech he mentions the Albany Club. I don't know how he could have missed that this evening. I notice him making notes on his two-minute response. I'm sure he'll be wanting to cover the point that he missed on this round.
I notice he did cover the point on user fees; he usually gets in there digging away on that one. I thought it was interesting, but he seemed to miss the fact of the 30-plus tax increases they had during his government's period back in the late 1980s, part of the 65 or 66 tax increases that occurred during the lost decade of 1985 to 1995. It was quite a competition between the Liberals and the NDP as to who could raise taxes the most at that time, when in fact our government's been cutting taxes regularly.
He'd be interested to know, because he often talks about consultation - and I think it's kind of interesting - when you look at the statistics on the quantity of time that various governments have spent, the one that's really interesting is the time spent on third readings. In our first session, we spent two hours and 10 minutes on third reading. You might think that's kind of short, when in fact the NDP spent 48 minutes per bill and the Liberals spent a whole seven minutes per third reading on each bill. That gives you some indication of the kind of consultation and the kind of public interest that the liberals had during their time when they were here in government - all of seven minutes per third reading.
1930
The Acting Speaker: The member for St Catharines, two minutes.
Mr Bradley: I appreciate the opportunity to respond to each of my colleagues who have been kind enough to respond to my remarks.
I'm sorry I did not mention the Albany Club, which is of course a gathering place for wealthy Conservatives in downtown Toronto. In fact, I can actually hear the tinkling of the glasses together as they toast one another as they raise user fees that are most detrimental to the youngest people in the province.
I have counted now, because I was doing some more counting, 438 tax increases by the Conservative government. The member for Northumberland talked about 32 increases or something. I've counted 438 tax increases by this government, because of course Mike Harris said a user fee is a tax. Every time you turn around, behind closed doors these folks - not Harry Danford, but the others in the cabinet - are hiking all these increases. Your constituents, when they have to access government services, recognize it's coming then.
I'm glad that the member for Welland-Thorold mentioned the privatization of facilities. I know in Fonthill right now the government is trying to slip in a correctional services facility -
Mr Kormos: Jim, don't scoop me; that's my speech.
Mr Bradley: It will come up, no doubt.
It is a private company, of course, an American company, no doubt - some American connections - and they're trying to sneak that in quietly in Fonthill at this time, but many of us know about it and it won't go in there easily.
The member for Fort William, as always, was very helpful in her remarks on the procedures in this House. I know that Ipperwash, for instance, is something all of us would like to see as an inquiry. In asking about justice, people are saying, "Where is the public inquiry for Ipperwash?"
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Kormos: In view of what happened this afternoon in justice committee, I'm not sure that debating Bill 48 or any other piece of legislation is going to serve any significant purpose. Let me tell you why. Notwithstanding some very concentrated and thorough criticism of schedule C of Bill 25, the Tory majority on that committee passed it, notwithstanding the pleas of opposition members. Why is schedule C so significant and why do I raise it in the context of this debate around Bill 48? Let me tell you what schedule C does, and it's but two pages. Schedule C makes this Legislature redundant. It makes the process of serving as a member of this provincial Parliament or on a committee of no value whatsoever.
In an unprecedented way and in a style that I'm confident is unparalleled, schedule C - as I say, but two pages. It's called the Statute and Regulation Revision Act. Let me tell you what Schedule C says, because I'm confident that there are a large number of Ontarians, even Ontarians who have been active in the practice of law, who are unfamiliar with the existence of this particular law. Schedule C, and I'm reading directly from the Statute and Regulation Revision Act, says that the legislative counsel for the province of Ontario "may prepare a revision of any or all of the statutes of Ontario." This is a civil servant; this is a bureaucrat. This is not an elected member of the Parliament.
It indicates that legislative counsel can make changes that are necessary to clarify what is considered to be the intention of the Legislature, and that once those changes are made, they are deemed to have been enacted by the Legislature. This is very dangerous legislation. It's extremely dangerous legislation.
I want you to understand - and, Speaker, I believe you do, but I want others to understand - that on a 10-year basis there has been presented to this House, in the ninth year of the decade, a piece of legislation that's been the subject matter of debate and then a vote which authorizes the preparation of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, what are called the RSOs. These are the compilation of statutes, both the historical ones and the ones that were passed in the previous nine years.
These RSOs - RSO 1980, RSO 1990 - are prepared by legislative counsel. In the course of their preparation, the statute that has historically appeared before this assembly in the ninth year of every decade authorizes legislative counsel to renumber sections if there have been amendments made so that the numbering of the sections becomes fouled up. It permits legislative counsel to renumber sections, permits legislative counsel to correct grammatical errors or indeed even typographical errors. But it remains that it has been the subject matter of a bill before the House in the ninth year of each and every decade so that there is an opportunity for legislators, for members of this Parliament, to address the matter.
Bill 25 is an omnibus bill, and there is a schedule C, among others, which is worthy of great and serious concern. Why are we even bothering with Bill 48 when this government has transferred, by virtue of schedule C of Bill 25, to its bureaucrats the power to rewrite legislation without any public process whatsoever - never mind no public input, no input from the members of the Legislative Assembly - with not even a posting of a notice of its intention to address a particular bill for the purpose of rewriting it?
I want to tell you, as I told the committee this afternoon, that over the course of the last 10 years I've had and maintain the greatest of respect for the office of legislative counsel. I believe that legislative counsel and its office - and I speak of it as the office, not the personalities - is as integrus a group of civil servants as one could ever find. But let's be very conscious of the fact that governments have attempted, can attempt, and certain types of governments, I'm confident, will, and will in the future, attempt to subvert the independence of the civil service. A wink and a nod is all it takes.
Understand what this means. Once this bill is passed, it's forever. The matter will never be referred to the Legislature again. The office of legislative counsel is given the power to change legislation in any way it deems necessary so that it will better express the intention of the Legislature.
I ask you, as I asked the committee this afternoon, who does legislative counsel refer to? Do they refer to the introductory comments of the minister who's sponsoring the bill? Because even you have been around here long enough to know that there's often a great difference between what the minister says when she or he introduces a bill and what the bill actually does once it's presented to the Legislature.
1940
Just last week we heard the Treasurer, and I'm sure driving a whole gaggle of political staff into a frenzy, announce that there was going to be legislation capping business tax increases by 10%. I'm not sure, but I don't think that went through the cabinet process. Far be it from me to have the inside scoop on it, but I think it's a pretty safe inference to draw that the Treasurer, under the growing political pressure of the crisis this government has created in property taxes across this province - specifically in Niagara 18 million new dollars in property taxes downloaded onto the people of Niagara, residential taxes going up 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 80%, 90%, business taxes similarly, sometimes even higher.
You were here the other night, Speaker, when I talked about non-profit organizations, places like the Slovak Hall, places like the Croatian National Home, where I was on Saturday night at their annual dinner. These non-profit organizations are suffering exorbitant tax increases, are being taxed as commercial properties, as if somehow they were profit-making. These are primarily seniors, a whole lot of seniors, who struggle to run bingos when they can and to raise funds to keep these halls alive.
As I say, legislative counsel is being given the absolute power to change the legislation, not just correct the grammar, not just address the renumbering of sections as a result of amendments. Yes, I'm questioning how relevant it is to even bother debating Bill 48, because this government doesn't want a 10th yearly review of the revision of statutes in this province. This government very clearly, in a very dangerous way, an extremely dangerous way - dare I tell you what fair-minded, just-thinking people call governments that create legislation behind closed doors and that would create a scenario where the civil service could be coerced, co-opted, into doing their will through a statute like the Statute and Regulation Revision Act? You know what those kinds of governments are called. Those governments have no tolerance for democracy.
You see, it's red tape. This government thinks it's oh so burdensome to have to be confronted by an opposition. Oh, it's just so much hassle to bother having debates in the Legislature. It's such a waste of time to have committee hearings. These darned opposition members. It has addressed the issue in a very frightening way with schedule C.
I tell you, if you think, as you may, that I'm being partisan in my approach to this, I ask you to read the legislation.
Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): He is shaking his head. He thinks you are partisan.
Mr Kormos: Well, I've shared this legislation with a number of people, not all of whom share my political beliefs. Quite frankly, some are far more akin in their approach to things with this government. That's their prerogative. They're not huge in numbers where I come from, but I've found some. I tell you, their understanding of this bill and their response to it is as full of fear as mine is.
Here we are, Bill 48 and this government - and I've listened to the government speakers here tonight. Ms Boyd, our member from London, in a very thorough address on Thursday past addressed the issues that are of concern here. One, of course, is that most people's understanding or image of a unified court, especially as it expands, is the utilization of judges who acquire a specialty, a history of experience with and an ongoing participation in family law. Regrettably, this legislation permits the Chief Justice - as we call the senior judge - to rotate judges in and out of these Unified Family Court positions.
As Ms Boyd told you, she spoke with Mr Justice LeSage and he assured her that his interest would be to make sure that judges who had experience in family law and a background in it would be the ones he was going to appoint to these positions. I hope that is the case. I, as Ms Boyd did, regard that comment from the Justice as being etched in stone. Quite frankly, as Ms Boyd pointed out, it should've been written in the legislation.
The whole purpose in developing a Unified Family Court is so that family matters, litigation, all far too expensive as it is and far too time-consuming, especially when, as it is now in most parts of the province, participant litigants have to move from one court to another and wait their time in each - do we support the bill? I say to you yes, we are eager to see this process of the expansion of a Unified Family Court. There shouldn't be a bailiwick in this province, a county seat as they were known in the past, that doesn't have Unified Family Court. In Niagara - and I endorse entirely the proposal for a Unified Family Court in Niagara north in the St Catharines courthouse - there should and there has to be one in the Welland courthouse as well.
The situation is even more extreme, let's say, in the north. We don't have intercity bus service. We don't have public transit of that nature. Since this government has downloaded public transit to the municipality, we have less and less internal bus service so that poor people, seniors and young people can't travel about the way you can in downtown Toronto. We endorse the proposition of a Unified Family Court. We have some concerns - Ms Boyd expressed them - about young offenders - I'm talking about the lower level, the lower tier - and not using family court judges who have developed the expertise to deal with those young offender criminal cases.
You heard it. My colleague from St Catharines Jim Bradley began to mention, knowing that I was going to speak about this government - I'm conscious of the time, Speaker, and I wish I had more - what's happening, as you know, down on Weber Road. This government is funding a private operation to convert a building that was designed as a residence into a maximum security YO facility in the midst of a residential area. Nuts. By doing it, and to achieve that goal of privatizing that facility down on Weber Road - folks down there know exactly what I'm talking about. Wally Gabor and his neighbours have organized and are dealing with it with their Pelham town council and have had public meetings and are trying to address the issue at the OMB level by way of zoning difficulties. They hope there are zoning difficulties.
This government's shutting down Arrell observation centre in Hamilton -
Interjection.
1950
Mr Kormos: Bill 48 is about young offenders. You know it. Oh, yes, very much. It's about a Unified Family Court and whether or not young offenders are going to be appearing at the lower level, the tier one, whether they're going to be appearing in front of family court judges with specialized backgrounds or in front of the regular criminal courts. I've got to tell you I have confidence. Others may have more concern about that than I do.
Here's a government that says, "To heck with the years of expertise developed by professional skilled workers at the Arrell observation centre," a public facility, a publicly run facility with public accountability and with a track record that's matched by none. It's going to shut down Arrell so that it can facilitate the opening of a privatized YO maximum security facility - these are the most dangerous, most disturbed young people in the province - in the middle of a residential community and in a building that was never designed or built to be a maximum security facility.
The young offender wing at the Niagara Detention Centre has sat vacant for two years now, empty, with a capacity - yes, Bill 48 - to contain at least 20 youths. Sat empty. It's a publicly owned facility. The government wants to shut it down, but it wants to spend your taxpayers' dollars to allow a privatized facility to be built in a residential neighbourhood, entirely inappropriately, and to be run in a way that isn't accountable publicly the way the Arrell observation centre is.
You heard the story about William Hay up in Ottawa. You know what happened there. Some former staff who were well aware of the types of programming - once again, these are maximum security young offender facilities. These are the most dangerous, disturbed young people in our province. The community deserves to be protected from them. Quite frankly, we have an obligation to make sure that these very disturbed, dangerous young people are engaged in as intensive and thorough a rehabilitation and treatment process as possible.
The former staff at William Hay prepared at the onset to perhaps consider the tendering process - an RFP, a request for proposals, to run William Hay as a private centre with their own organization - and finally withdrew. We talked about in the Legislature about a week ago. They withdrew their bid, saying that with their experience, there's no possible way the programs that had existed there as a publicly run facility could be maintained when it's a privately run facility.
This government abandons those young people who need treatment and need it badly. It abandons those communities that have been put at risk by these same young offenders. It exposes communities like Pelham to even greater risk. This government, with its passion for privatization - oh yes, it talks a big game about law and order, but when it comes time to deliver, when it comes time for enough cops on the street, when it comes time for properly run correctional facilities, we see nothing.
The Acting Speaker: I'd just like to remind the members that the bill is Bill 48, for those who paid attention. The questions should be on Bill 48, not on the debate that just took place.
Questions or comments?
Mrs Johns: I was trying to make the link between Bill 48 and what the member was talking about. I will go back to Bill 48. It's important for us to recognize that the family court system in Ontario has not been working in the past. In constituency offices across the province of Ontario, such as we are fortunate enough to have, we've heard many times where parents have come in and have talked about the difficulties they've had with the family court system, whether it be that they've had to wait so long to be serviced by the family court system, whether they're talking about the efficiency of the family court system or whether they're just talking about how the system isn't helping them to deal with family problems. I think we have all heard that and I think it's important for us to say that it's just about time we looked at this extension of a Unified Family Court system in Ontario.
One of the things that struck me much earlier was when we were listening to one of the members, the member from Durham, speak. He talked about the number of grandparents who had been unable to get custody of their grandchildren or people who had had problems with custody issues in his riding. I think all of us who have had that experience as we've watched a family member from across our desks or around our desks talk about that and how sad it really is. We need to work at making the system more streamlined, and I think every member in the House would agree that that's an important goal we all have in trying to service the people of Ontario and trying to keep families together, or as a unit that works together even if they choose not to be together as a family.
I'm very proud of this bill and I think all the people who are watching tonight will be pleased that this bill is going through this House.
Mr Michael Brown: I'm always delighted to comment on the fine presentation of the member for Welland-Thorold. I'm surprised, though, that in his presentation there were a few items that he missed raising. One of those would be the absence of a crown attorney in the district of Manitoulin. The district of Manitoulin is the only judicial district in the province without a crown attorney. We had one until three or four years ago. Mr Allison has never been replaced. The community has been demanding that the government move on this issue, without any success. We are looking forward on Manitoulin to have a crown attorney. I know the member, if he'd had more time, no doubt would have mentioned that.
If he'd had the opportunity, he would have mentioned that access to justice is certainly not available the way it should be to the people of Elliot Lake, who have been for many years now, or a couple of years anyway, without the services of a justice of the peace. That makes it very difficult for the city of Elliot Lake police and the OPP to obtain the warrants they need to get and the other dealings the police would need to have with a justice of peace when there is no resident one in that fine city. It also surprisingly, or not surprisingly, makes it very difficult to get married in Elliot Lake if you want a ceremony that is provided by a justice of the peace rather than a clergy person, so that's a problem.
Recently we have seen provincial offences courts in Chapleau cancelled - cancelled, after people had come many miles, because the justice of the peace didn't appear. I know the member would have, if he'd had more time, included that.
Mr Pouliot: If you looked at our list in terms of attendees, people who must be here in attendance with their respective caucus, there is an omission. My name is not on the list, but since my friend and most distinguished colleague was speaking on a very important piece of legislation, I thought it was imperative that I be here to listen to our great advocate. You will attest, of course, that the member for Welland-Thorold, Mr Peter Kormos, is always meticulously prepared. He has researched, he is thorough and, above all, he is balanced in his approach.
Of course, there is a tinge of emotion when he brings us from the court system to the marketplace, to the street, to the situation in Welland-Thorold of not the best representatives of society, those of the Young Offenders Act. The member for Welland-Thorold says, "I support the local police." The member for Welland-Thorold says, "They talk the talk" - the government does - "but they're not with those men and women in blue." They're soft on crime. The member for Welland-Thorold comes back and says: "There is an alternative. Listen to what I have to say. Those are the people, the men, women and children, I represent in the great riding of Welland-Thorold."
I feel privileged to be here. I don't believe there is one member in this House who would not wish to have Mr Peter Kormos as their advocate. He is my legal adviser, but that's OK. I am his financial adviser.
2000
Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): As usual, I followed with close interest the comments of the member for Welland-Thorold. Unfortunately, he didn't talk about this bill that's before the House, Bill 48. It's a very important bill.
A pilot project was set up some 30 years ago with the co-operation of the federal and provincial governments for a Unified Family Court in the city of Hamilton, and it worked. For the first time in that municipality, couples who had problems could have their problems adjudicated at one location, at one place. It has worked quite effectively. Unfortunately, it has taken us 30 years to drop the second shoe, an unfortunate 30 years, in my opinion, because the present status is simply that we have two court systems which deal with marital problems, and they're serious problems, problems that have to be resolved, not only for the couple but more importantly for the children involved in a custody battle.
I have personal knowledge in the past of the problems between couples and the impact on their children. In many cases, it's quite severe and harmful to the future of the children. So I think this is an important piece of legislation, and we all have an obligation to address this legislation to make it just the best we can for the children of our province.
Mr Kormos: Do you know what really bugs me about this place? It's that so often people like the last member will stand up and say something about which he ought not to be speaking.
I spent a great deal of my mere 20 minutes talking about young offenders. If you don't think the bill has anything to do with young offenders, read it. In particular, read section 21.12, which specifically talks about how "The family court shall continue as a youth court for the purposes of the Young Offenders Act...with respect to all proceedings that were commenced in the Family Court...before the day the Courts of Justice Amendment Act...is proclaimed in force."
Don't you read the bills? Don't you understand what you're talking about before you start your debate? For Pete's sake, don't just read the cheat notes the government whip gives you. You're going to be misled every time. You're going to be conned, you're going to be scammed. That's the spin. You've got to read the bill, people, and sometimes you've got to read between the lines. You see, that's why I talked about young offenders, because this bill is about, as I indicated, the expansion of the Unified Family Court, and I indicated we support that. It's also very much about the role of family court as a youth court. It's in the bill. I appreciate it's section 21. Now, if you only read to section 3 or section 4, you're not going to get it. You've got to read all of the bill. You can't just read the first page and the cheat notes that Harris's office distributes so you can go out there and talk nice and warm and fluffy out there in your communities. You've got to read the legislation.
People in committee hadn't read Bill 25. That's why they didn't know about schedule C or schedule G, which we'll be talking about tomorrow. Please, my Conservative colleagues, read the legislation before you debate it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Gary Leadston): Further debate?
Mr Martiniuk: I'm pleased to speak on Bill 48, An Act to Improve Court Services for Families by Facilitating Expansion of the Family Court and to make other amendments to the Courts of Justice Act.
The Attorney General will soon be announcing a major expansion of the Unified Family Court in Ontario. The main purpose of this bill is to support this expansion by making minor adjustments to judicial administration.
The expansion of the Unified Family Court is an important goal, which I am confident has the backing of all three parties. I believe we all agree that the Unified Family Court model represents a better way of delivering family law services, finding solutions to family disputes and reducing the emotional turmoil on children.
The Unified Family Court now exists in five communities: Hamilton, London, Barrie, Kingston and Napanee. Further expansion of the court is overdue and is widely supported by the bench, the bar and social service groups. However, the pace of expansion is not within provincial control. Judges in the Unified Family Court are federally appointed. As the Attorney General explained in the House last week, the federal government has not provided Ontario with enough new judicial appointments to meet Ontario's needs.
The Ontario family law community was encouraged by the news in the spring of 1997 that the federal government was planning a new round of expansion of the Unified Family Court. The Ministry of the Attorney General submitted a proposal to the federal government outlining a plan for expansion of the Unified Family Court to reach more than 50% of Ontario's population. This coverage was based on receiving 22 new judicial appointments from the federal government.
In March of this year, however, we learned that the federal government would be appointing only 17 judges to Ontario's Unified Family Court bench. This is far short of what is required to meet the needs of Ontario families. Since only a few provinces were seeking new appointments, we had been counting on a much larger proportion of the 27 available appointments to bring the benefits of Unified Family Court to more families in Ontario.
With only 17 new judges, the province has had to re-examine plans for expanding the Unified Family Court. Our objective is to obtain the maximum benefit to Ontario families from the limited federal appointments. In making decisions about locations, the government will be guided by the principle that communities with the greatest need should receive services first.
This government is firmly committed to the goal of the province-wide Unified Family Court. The Attorney General has called on the federal government to make it a priority to provide more judges at the earliest possible opportunity so that the Unified Family Court can be extended to all Ontario communities.
In the meantime, we will proceed with the current phase of this expansion. We expect to be making final decisions about expansion locations soon. Our goal is to have the new courts operating in the spring of 1999.
Let me review some of the benefits of the Unified Family Court model for Ontario families.
In areas of the province without the Unified Family Court, family law cases are heard in both Provincial Division and General Division courts. Each court has exclusive jurisdiction over certain family law matters. This is confusing and most inconvenient to the public, who often must use both courts to resolve family disputes. The Unified Family Court, on the other hand, has jurisdiction to hear all family law matters and provide a much needed single window for the public.
In addition, Unified Family Courts provide mediation services to help families resolve disputes without resort to costly and time-consuming litigation. An impartial mediator helps parties find common ground and keeps the best interests of the children foremost in mind.
The government intends to make the Unified Family Court model even better. We plan to complement the mediation services offered at Unified Family Court sites by providing new public information services. Specifically, both the new and existing sites will offer information sessions on family law and on alternative methods of resolving disputes and educational sessions on the impact of parental separation on children. These services have been strongly recommended by the bench and the bar and will help families to resolve disputes with less acrimony and with greater focus on the interests of the children.
2010
To further strengthen the court, we intend to further streamline the procedures of the Unified Family Court. New family law rules were recently passed by the Family Rules Committee and will soon go forward for cabinet approval. These rules are designed to make the court process faster and simpler for the parties and to put an even stronger emphasis on the early resolution of cases. This is important both from a cost and emotional standpoint to the family unit. We anticipate that the new rules will come into force at the same time as the new court locations begin operating.
To support the expansion of the Unified Family Court, we also propose a number of improvements to judicial administration. These administrative changes are the subject of Bill 48. The proposed amendments have been requested by the judiciary, who are fully supportive of Unified Family Court expansion. The amendments are designed to ensure that the Unified Family Court operates as efficiently as possible. It further ensures that Ontario obtains the maximum benefit from the limited judicial resources available.
Specifically, the amendments will provide that regional senior judges have a clear authority to direct and supervise sittings of the Unified Family Court and assign judicial duties so that there is no doubt as to where the direction comes from. It will establish the office of the senior judge of the family court to provide advice to the Chief Justice on issues affecting the Unified Family Court from a provincial perspective. The amendments will further recognize the Chief Justice's constitutional authority to assign General Division judges into the Unified Family Court on a rotational basis.
Let me underline that the rotation of judges will make additional resources available and enable the court to be expanded to more communities. At the same time, a substantial core specialized bench will be preserved, as most judges hearing cases in Unified Family Court will be permanent appointees to that court. In addition, the proposed amendments would remove Young Offenders Act matters from the jurisdiction of the Unified Family Court. No doubt we will be debating that further, and hopefully have an opportunity to debate that matter at committee, because it is proposed that young offenders court matters be removed from the Unified Family Court so that it can deal with matters relating to family disputes and custody of children. The proposed amendments would accomplish that.
Judges who deal with young offender cases on a day-to-day basis are of the opinion that these matters should be dealt with in the Provincial Division. There has been widespread consultation on this matter with the judiciary, who, after all, are the persons who will have to sit on these particular cases. The offices of the chief judges and ministry support this assessment, given the proven expertise and extensive experience of the Provincial Division in hearing young offender cases. The elimination of the Unified Family Court jurisdiction in young offenders matters will also free up judicial resources for a wider expansion of the court and, I should say, will result in family court matters being expedited. One of the problems with courts in Canada, if not all over the world, is that delays in justice could result in justice not being done, especially when we're dealing with children of tender years who are involved in a very traumatic situation with their parents.
The Unified Family Court represents a better way of finding solutions to family disputes, one that puts the children first. This innovative approach reduces the cost and complexity of resolving family disagreements, as well as minimizing the emotional toll on the children.
Ontario is firmly committed to the goal of a province-wide Unified Family Court. The Attorney General and our government will work, with further lobbying of the federal government, for more judges, which would permit the extension of the Unified Family Court to all areas, to service 100% of the citizens of Ontario. The results of the pilots in various cities to date have proven most beneficial to all parties concerned.
The amendments before the House will create a solid administrative foundation not only for the current round of expansion, but for further expansion of this innovative and responsive family court model.
In the past, all parties in the House have supported the establishment of Unified Family Court sites. This bill will facilitate our efforts to expand access to this court to more communities. I am confident all members of the House will support this legislation, which will benefit Ontario's families.
Mrs McLeod: If I understood correctly what the member was saying at the beginning of his speech, he was suggesting that there could be an even broader expansion of the Unified Family Court had the federal government appointed 22 judges rather than 17 judges. I think that hearkens back to the introductory comments that the Attorney General made probably last June when this bill was first introduced. It seems to me to be a rather astounding statement, because we are talking about the appointment of 17 more judges; we are talking about a federal government action which supports access to the justice system and the expansion of the Unified Family Court.
Quite frankly, I don't think you're going to find many members of this House who are opposed to an expansion of the Unified Family Court. But what I find rather amazing is the suggestion that it could have been even broader if the federal government had appointed 22 judges instead of 17 judges. I think the operative word here is "more": more judges, more access to justice. That contrasts rather sharply - and I'll expand on the contrast when I have an opportunity to speak to the bill - with what the Harris government provincially has done in terms of access to justice.
The member opposite talked about delays in justice being a concern. They most certainly are a concern. I think greater delays to justice are the result of government cutbacks by the Harris government over the last years.
We're all concerned about the fact that Claudine Rodrigues was killed, by a driver charged with impaired driving, on June 23, 1996, a tragic incident. Equally tragic is the fact that just this September, just last month, the case was dismissed due to excessive delay in trying the case. The case is being appealed because of pressure that has been put on the government by the opposition, but that's one example where cutbacks have led to increased delays in access to justice.
2020
Mr Kormos: I find the comments of the member from the Conservative backbench from Cambridge drawing me into a response, because he talks about judges. Is he right about the federal government? Yes, the federal government should be putting more resources into federally appointed judges. But please, let's understand why the government rationalizes pulling YO criminal prosecutions out of the family court. They are acknowledging that there aren't enough family court judges, and those are provincial appointments. The family courts that I'm familiar with, the provincial court, family division, those judges find themselves with massive caseloads. Cases before them are constantly being adjourned until the judge can find adequate time to deal with hearings. Quite frankly, that has nothing to do with the expansion of the Unified Family Court. It has do with the status quo, the status quo that has prevailed for the last three years, since the summer of 1995.
Will the member please read the survey done of crown attorneys, who reported in that survey that because they were so understaffed, underresourced, they didn't have time to adequately interview victims and witnesses who were to participate in trial proceedings, who indicate to me that they are very much under pressure from this government to take pleas, to reduce charges so they can get an accused to cop a plea so they can clear the docket, because this government won't invest resources in crown attorneys, in policing, in provincial courts, both criminal and family divisions. This government has been responsible for the withdrawal of charges because of delays for which it is solely responsible.
Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): I'd like to compliment the member for Cambridge. He dealt specifically with the bill. He gave us some very good input that I'm sure was for the edification of all members of the House. I compliment him on that.
He made reference to the fact that we've had five pilots in the province for some years and so we know that the Unified Family Court system is a benefit, especially a benefit to the children.
The member from Port Arthur talked about tragedy. The tragedy of all of this is that we find ourselves in a position where we need 17 or 22 more judges to deal with family court issues, specifically to deal with the breakdown of the family environment. That in itself is reflective of the breakdown of family life in our province. It's a sad commentary that we need to put more and more resources into the courts to deal with the fact that families are struggling more and more to stay together, and of course the unintended victims of that breakdown in family life are the children, who are least well-equipped to deal with the issue. That certainly is an overriding concern for all of us.
The member for Cambridge spoke about mediation services. I think, if nothing else, we know that the use of mediation services can be effective. We know they are less expensive services, we know they produce better results with less confrontation, and they certainly have much less of an impact on the innocent victims of these family disputes, the children.
I commend the member for Cambridge on a great presentation on a piece of legislation that I'm sure, despite the opposition, will pass in the House and will be for the betterment of all the citizens of Ontario.
Mr Michael Brown: I enjoyed the extemporaneous and free-flowing remarks of the member for Cambridge. I would like to point out to him, though, that seeing an 80% increase over what the government had asked for in federal funding for judges is certainly something we on this side are pretty pleased about, particularly given your government's record in dealing with the justice system.
Since 1995, we've seen cuts to the special investigations unit; we've had the police complaints commission disbanded; we've had a cut of $43,000 this year in the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, which provides compensation and financial assistance to the families of victims of crime. Since 1995, the cut is $1.2 million.
We've seen $1.5 million cut from legal services and victims' support, and we've seen almost $10 million cut since this government came to power from the office of the public guardian and trustee. These are all important access-to-justice issues.
We've seen fees increase, divorce fees. Everything from filing a statement of claim to summoning a witness to your statement of defence now costs more money, which is fine if you happen to be from that segment of Ontario society that can pay for it. But if you're not, you're denying access to justice for a large group of Ontarians.
While we in the opposition would support an expansion of the Unified Family Court, this government has a pretty dismal record in terms of justice.
Mr Martiniuk: I'd like to thank all of those who spoke to my comments: the member for Fort William, whose views I always listen closely to, and I have worked with her on committees at various times and respect her views and comments; the member for Welland-Thorold, with whom I've also worked closely on committee, and I listened especially closely to his comments and was pleased to see that he did mention the bill before us; my colleague the member for Chatham-Kent, with whom I work closely, and I thank you for your comments; and last but not least, the member for Algoma-Manitoulin.
I think it's fair to say that the intent of this bill, as an administrative matter to enlarge the Unified Family Court system in Ontario, meets with a great deal of unanimity among all parties. There is some disagreement regarding certain parts of its application, but I'm sure we can explore these at length, and no doubt will, at committee.
I think it's fair to say, though, that all parties have one intent: that the extension of the Unified Family Court will benefit not the judges, not the lawyers, but the users of the Unified Family Court system, the parents of the family and, most important, the children. I'm sure we'll all work together to that end to improve the user system provided by the Unified Family Court.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate.
Mrs McLeod: I'm pleased to be able to participate in the debate tonight. I want to begin by referring very specifically to the bill before us, Bill 48, An Act to Improve Court Services for Families by Facilitating Expansion of the Family Court and to make other amendments to the Courts of Justice Act. The part of the title that I particularly want to focus on is that this is once again an act about, or at least it says it's about, improving services.
This is really a bill, as I look through the bill, that is entirely focused on a reorganization of the court, an expansion of the court, based on a model that was successfully implemented back in 1977 and that I think has proven itself over the course of those years. So it is high time that we see some expansion of the system. But it is nevertheless still dealing with organizational changes.
2030
It's important, as we debate whether this act is going to serve the purpose of improvement, that we recognize that this government is enamoured of reorganization, that most of the legislation we have before us deals with reorganization of some aspect of our public services, and that in every case those reorganizations are what the government offers up as its way of supposedly improving services. I think it's extremely important that we recognize how completely fixated this Harris government is on reorganization as a way of supposedly improving services.
My central contention this evening is that while reorganization in and of itself in this case may be desirable - in this case it's not so much a reorganization as an expansion of a reorganization - at no time can an administrative reorganization be considered synonymous with the improvement of services. The improvement of services actually takes a lot more than reorganization. In fact, the record of the Harris government over the last three years, and particularly over the last year and a half, has been to put forward reorganization after reorganization in the name of administrative efficiency, when it really is reorganization as a camouflage for cost-cutting.
Let me take two examples that aren't in the justice field before I turn specifically to the area of the administration of justice, which this Bill 48 is dealing with. I look at the health care system. Certainly we are seeing massive reorganization in the health care system, but the reorganization in the health care system began with this government's desire to take $800 million out of hospital budgets. From there, we had the setting up - after the cost-cutting, by the way - of the hospital restructuring commission, which has gone on to announce the closure of some 35 hospitals in the province, and tomorrow in the Niagara region is undoubtedly going to bring the hammer down on some additional hospitals in Ontario.
It's a little bit difficult to understand how this hospital restructuring is going to bring about the administrative efficiencies that are going to make up for the $800 million in cuts to hospital budgets. It's a little bit difficult to know, when the government is trying to put in place 1,700 temporary chronic care beds, how that is going to be made unnecessary after the government cuts out 50% of acute care beds and 42% of chronic care beds as a result of its reorganization and restructuring. It's difficult to see how they can then shut down the 1,700 chronic care beds which are needed to take pressure off acute care hospitals today.
The reorganization in the health care field, I would suggest, is becoming rather convoluted, rather difficult to understand, but still the government puts forward as a very basic tenet that we can reorganize, we can achieve administrative efficiencies, and then we can make some significant cuts in budgets, such as the $800 million cut out of the hospital budgets.
The second area in which we've had massive reorganization is in the field for which I am the critic, and that's education. The Harris government has reorganized everything in education. They've reorganized the school boards; they've reorganized the boundaries for the school boards; they've reorganized the funding. They've taken over 100% of the funding. They've reorganized to the point where we have absolutely massive chaos in our educational system.
Ostensibly in education the reason for reorganization is to bring about administrative efficiency, to get rid of administrative waste so that dollars can be saved. Why do dollars have to be saved? Because the Harris government wanted to cut $1 billion out of the education budget in order to help pay for its tax cut. They've actually reorganized to the point where they have redefined the classroom so that they can say they can take $1 billion out of education without hurting the classroom. So we've even reorganized the way in which a classroom is defined.
Of course, one of the results of reorganization that we're witnessing today is massive implications for school closures and the dislocation and movement of students. There are some real questions about whether there will be any financial efficiencies as a result of these school closures, but nevertheless, once again we have reorganiza-tion on a massive scale that the government puts forward in the name of administrative efficiency. Of course, in education as in health care, they talk about their ability, through this administrative efficiency and cost saving, to save money and at the same time to be able to improve services.
Here we have yet again, in the field of justice, a bill which says that it's going to improve court services for families by facilitating expansion of the family court, an expansion of a reorganization model, a bill that deals exclusively with reorganization.
I happen to think this particular expansion of a reorganization is a good idea. I've already said that tonight. But I don't want to see this bill, as in health care, as in education, be the basis on which the government can hold it up and say: "Look what we've done to improve access to justice in the province of Ontario. We've expanded the family court. We've improved access to justice by our administrative reorganization, our expansion of reorganization." That would be camouflage, as their claim to be improving public services in every other area is camouflage for what in fact is cost-cutting.
My colleague from Algoma-Manitoulin detailed some of the areas in which we have seen cost-cutting by the Harris government in the field of justice. He talked about the fact that there were cuts to the special investigations unit, that the police complaints commission was disbanded, that there was $43,000 cut from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, that since 1995 that fund has actually been cut by $1.2 million. My colleague spoke of the $1.5 million cut from legal services in victim support, and he talked about the $9.8 million cut since 1995-96 from the public guardian and trustee office.
I spoke a few minutes earlier about the concern we have that just last month a case was dismissed from court in a situation in which an individual was killed by a driver who was charged with impaired driving two years ago. That case was dismissed because of the delay in hearing the court. Cutbacks in funding delay access to justice. No bill that extends a reorganization can claim to be improving services if the government continues to cut back on its access to justice in a host of other ways.
The only thing that this government has actually increased in the field of justice is its fees for Small Claims Court. I have a number of other issues related to cutbacks in justice that I want to address, so I'm not going to take the time this evening to talk about the probate fee decision that came down from the Supreme Court of Canada last week other than just to recognize that this is an issue we have to return to. I don't know whether any of the small claims fee increases that have come from the Harris government might be deemed to be in excess of what's required to provide the service, but if that were the case and somebody chose to challenge that in a court of law, they might get a similar ruling that the Supreme Court gave last week.
I apologize to my colleague from Lake Nipigon who's offended when I mention that that probate fee increase did come from a New Democratic Party government. It did; that's simply a statement of fact. But that particular fee increase was found to constitute a tax because it was in excess of what was required to administer a service. Of course, the court went on to say that therefore it was not a legal fee increase because anything which is a tax must be subject to legislation.
It would be, of course, quite inappropriate of me to then get into a discussion about Bill 160 and the fact that there is legislative permission for this government, by regulation through cabinet, to set about $6 billion worth of property taxes, which, clearly, if I'm reading the Supreme Court of Canada's decision correctly, would be seen to be in violation of the Constitution. I wonder how many of the fee increases in the field of justice and other areas might be in violation of the Constitution because they are indeed tax grabs and not actual fee increases.
With limited time for debate I want to recognize a number of other areas in which there has been a reorganization carried out by the Harris government in the areas of justice because, again, we are dealing with a bill that aims to improve access to justice, and I think it's important that we talk about it in the context of access to the justice system. I know there was a reorganization of the courts' administration. This is an issue I feel very strongly about because when we were in government there was a unification of courts brought about, and one of the issues was access to the court administration.
This is very important to people who are members of the bar who are seeking to get speedy access to information that will allow them to get into court quickly and to carry forward their cases. There was an intention, sometime back, when those court administration offices were expanded across the province with that court unification, of only one zone for all of northern Ontario. We successfully fought against that and had two zones established, one in the northeast and one in the northwest, while this government's reorganization deprived us of the court administrative centre in Thunder Bay, which meant that there is no access to court administration documents in northwestern Ontario, which considerably slows down access to justice in the courts of northwestern Ontario. Let me hold that up as one reorganization in justice which has not improved access to legal services.
We are debating changes to legal aid. That bill had a time allocation motion brought in this afternoon, so we're not going to be able to debate it any longer. But once again we have this government offering a reorganization in a justice area, a reorganization that is supposed to deal with the major problem people have had in getting access to legal certificates so that they can afford to have representation before a court of law. What's this government's answer to this major problem? Their answer is to reorganize the legal aid system, but they're not talking about putting any additional money into it. If the central problem is that there isn't enough funding to provide funding to legal aid certificates so people can get representation so they can go to court, then the government's reorganization of the legal aid system is not going to serve the purpose of improving access to justice.
2040
I have a particular concern in this area as our caucus's critic for women's issues, because we know that those women who are seeking legal aid certificates in order to deal with domestic situations, child custody situations, are the group of people who are least able to get access to legal aid support. It's their cases that are not being heard in our courts, because women are not able to get legal representation.
I have a recent update on what has happened to support for women in the justice system. When it comes to legal aid, it makes it quite clear that there has been a reduction in the number of legal aid certificates granted, year over year, under the Harris government. There has been a 65% decrease from the 1992-93 total to what it is today, now down to 80,000 certificates issued in 1996-97. It's particularly a concern when it comes to family law matters. For family law matters, in 1996-97 there were 13,973 legal aid certificates issued. That's a decrease from 61,704 legal aid certificates for family law matters that were issued in 1993. Now here we have An Act to Improve Court Services for Families, but how are low-income families, single parents, going to get in to family court if there is not legal aid support available for them, if they are bearing the brunt of the problems in accessing legal aid certificates? Clearly, family law is bearing the brunt of the lack of funding for legal aid. This government's reorganization of the legal aid system is not going to solve the problem that there's not enough money to provide legal aid support in family law areas.
I wanted to speak again very briefly about a positive initiative I believe this government took, a new initiative, again related to justice and the courts and standing in the name of the expansion of access to justice in the area of family violence. This was the introduction of family violence courts, which are intended to expedite the hearing of family violence cases and also to provide a more sensitive and responsive justice system for people who are coming forward in situations of family violence. I believe this is a positive initiative. My quarrel with this particular initiative is that the government has refused to look at extending that access to family violence courts into northwestern Ontario. It's as if this government doesn't understand that providing a family violence court in Sudbury, for example, or North Bay provides no access at all for residents of northwestern Ontario.
I've not yet been able to get an answer from the government as to why they would not have placed one of their family violence courts in northwestern Ontario so that the greater access to justice that they claim to be providing, that they claim they want to provide, is equally extended to residents of northwestern Ontario. I hope that if the government is really committed to the expansion of access to justice, particularly in cases of family violence, they will revisit the decision to have their courts more heavily placed in areas of northeastern and southern Ontario so that there can be some extension of that particular court to northwestern Ontario.
I couldn't possibly talk about the whole issue of access to justice for families without addressing the issue of the family support offices. It would surprise me if any member of the opposition who spoke to the improvement of court services for families, the whole question of access to justice for family matters, did not address the other reorganization this government undertook: the reorganization of the family support offices.
This is one of those reorganizations which very clearly was a camouflage, and maybe not even a camouflage; it didn't even pretend to be a camouflage. It was a straight cost-cutting measure. They shut down all the regional offices that were providing support to families, and by far the greatest majority of them were families headed up by women who were seeking to get enforcement of the court-ordered support orders literally to provide food and clothing for their children. We know how significantly in arrears the enforcement of support orders is in the province.
Mr Michael Brown: Don't they owe $1.2 billion?
Mrs McLeod: I think it is $1.2 billion that is owing to individuals who have not had enforcement of their support orders from the courts.
The government had a problem - there's no question about that - because there was such demand for assistance from people in southern Ontario, particularly in the area around Toronto, around the GTA, where they were dealing with it only through telephone contact and didn't have across-the-counter contact. They decided that they had to expand their telephone services to people in southern Ontario and that they had better shut down all the regional support offices, where you could actually come in and talk to a person and get support, and use those dollars to expand their telephone support services. Of course, we know that simply hasn't worked.
We all have horror stories in our constituency offices of the long waiting times, of the fact that individuals have given up trying to use the 1-800 number. The family support offices centrally can really only be accessed by our constituency offices, which are now taking the place of the family support offices that used to exist out in the regions. We know the problem of arrears is increasing, particularly for those where the arrears are presenting significant problems that take a lot of extra work and that were being dealt with effectively in the regions by the regional family support offices and now are not getting attention at all.
That is one of the areas in which a reorganization has not provided support to justice. I've already spoken about the fact that access to family courts is limited because of the lack of access to legal aid certificates. Already, people who are looking to get support and custody orders, particularly if they're trying to get the financial support they need to be able to step out of a potentially abusive situation - these are urgent and immediate cases. We know that women are not getting access to legal aid certificates to be able to get into court with legal representation, because we've seen the limitation on the number of legal aid certificates they're getting. But for those who do finally get into court and get the custody order, get the support order, justice means there also has to be enforcement of the court order. That's not happening because this government, in its passion to solve problems with administrative reorganizations, shut down all the regional offices, put a phone number in its place and there is simply not the ability of staff at the other end of the phone to go out and actually bring about an effective enforcement of those court orders.
It's important that we extend access to the justice system, greater access to the justice system for families. This expansion of family courts can be a positive step in that direction, but it cannot be a sole solution that allows the government to claim that it has improved access to legal services for families, given all else that has happened.
The Acting Speaker: Comments?
2050
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I'm pleased to comment briefly on the presentation made by the member for Fort William. I appreciated very much listening to her remarks, to the thread that went through her comments as she talked, that the government should not, under the umbrella of reorganizing, simply be using that as a vehicle for cutting. She's quite right when she talks about what the Harris government's track record has been in the area of health care restructuring, in the area of education restructuring. Certainly we saw another example with the discussion we were having earlier this afternoon about the legal aid plan being restructured.
I would like to add to the comments and the approach she took that we've seen a situation in which the word "reform" as it was applied some years ago used to mean improving something for the better, that is, providing greater access, and unfortunately over the last little it's come to be used while more as a synonym for cutting.
I share her concern that this approach, reorganizing, in this case in the court system, can be a good thing and can actually lead to some useful things - I'll have an opportunity to talk a little more about that in a bit - but we also need to be wary that restructuring does not simply become another way for the government, as it likes to use the phrase, "to try to do more with less," because in this case you would be providing less justice to people, and in fact less justice to even fewer people.
That's a concern that I know the member for Fort William would share in terms; I've listened to her comments. It's something, I say to the government, that we need to be wary of. Their track record on other restructuring has not been the best. It has led to many cuts across the province. I don't think that's their intention here, but I think you can understand the kind of skepticism with which we come at this issue.
Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): I just want to take the time to add a few comments to this discussion this evening on Bill 48. It came to my attention several months ago when many of my constituents recognized the importance of the opportunity that a Unified Family Court would bring, particularly to an area such as Newmarket with high growth. They explained to me the kinds of problems they have typically encountered, the kinds of things that have meant that families have been dragged through very expensive and very time-consuming processes, ones that obviously put those who are involved at great emotional risk.
They also explained to me the kinds of problems people have in being able to make themselves available for two separate courts. It seems to me it is those kinds of issues that we are here to look at this evening. I certainly join with those who have expressed support for this bill, because very clearly it would have an improvement, an efficiency, and most important a benefit to those who are most emotionally at risk in these processes, and that is of course the children of the families that are involved.
I look forward to the passage of this bill and also I'm optimistic that an area such as mine will receive the attention it deserves, given that it is such a high-growth area. It also provides an opportunity to look at some kind of alternative dispute mechanisms, ones which everyone recognizes would be beneficial to all.
Mr Michael Brown: I appreciate very much the comments made by my colleague the member for Fort William. I think she canvassed the bill fairly well, from my point of view. It seems to me that one of the things that's lacking in this piece of legislation is an indication of where the government actually intends to broaden the Unified Family Court system. We don't know in which jurisdictions the government intends to provide these court services.
If the government would give us some indication, it would be much appreciated, because certainly in northeastern Ontario we would appreciate the services that are provided by the Unified Family Court. It seems, as an experiment that's been going on since 1977, that it is an experiment that has worked rather well and that the time has come now for those services to be available to all Ontarians, particularly those of us who live in the northern part of the province.
Having said that, obviously the Family Responsibility Office is having increasing difficulty enforcing orders, support orders in particular, and one of the things I was just wondering is: Is there some information the government could provide us with that would indicate to us the advantages of a Unified Family Court over the present system in terms of getting orders changed? Because that's one of the things that does at times slow down the effectiveness of enforcing the family responsibility act.
Mr Kormos: I found the comments of the member for Fort William particularly interesting, because the Tories have been trying to paint this bill as the greatest thing since buttered popcorn, as if somehow this is going to address all the ills that have been infecting our court system.
Mr Pouliot: It's a bagatelle.
Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough-Ellesmere): I'm glad you recognize it.
Mr Kormos: Well, I beg to differ. You folks ought to get out there and talk, for instance, to the Family Court support staff, who you put directly under attack when you decided to launch your barrage against the public sector, against civil servants, many of them those same court workers. Those court workers will tell you that family courts are understaffed, underresourced, underjudged. This government had an opportunity over the course of the last three years to appoint more judges to the provincial bench, judges who could accommodate the growing caseloads in family court.
Look, understand what has been happening. Litigants, women and men, have been appearing in family court, lining up; I spoke with one who spent a whole day, starting at 9:30 in the morning, and then finally at 4:30 in the afternoon that person's matter was adjourned yet two more weeks because the court had literally run out of time. These two persons, former partners dealing with issues of custody and access, spent a whole day in court with anticipation of having access to a judge to resolve their differences and found it kicked over yet two more weeks. What happened two weeks later? The very same thing. You people have gutted the support system in our courts. Now you try to pretend that your Bill 48 is some sort of panacea for all the ills you created. Nothing could be further from the truth; get with it.
Mrs McLeod: I appreciate the comments of my colleagues. The member for Dovercourt began by echoing our sentiments that in and of itself the expansion of the Unified Family Court may be a good thing, but there is a certain skepticism that members on this side of the House bring to any initiative of the government which purports to be an improvement to services when what we really see is yet another reorganization effort without any real funding behind it.
The member for Durham-York, in her comments, added to my sense of skepticism, because she addressed the issue that this is all about greater efficiencies. That's my whole concern: Everything the government does is about achieving cost-cutting through greater efficiencies; it's not actually about the improvement of services. Yet every act they bring forward tries to pretend that it's about the improvement of services. There's almost no act that this government has brought forward that doesn't claim to be an improvement of services.
The member for Durham-York touched on alternative dispute resolution. This is a very important, relatively new initiative in the justice system. But my goodness, it's supposed to be about finding more constructive, consensual ways of avoiding conflict in the justice system. It's particularly applicable in a field like divorce and separation proceedings, where if people can go into alternative dispute resolution, they may still separate but they may reach an agreement, particularly an agreement which is beneficial to any children involved in that.
Alternative dispute resolution is not about a way of saving money, and yet when this government talks about it, they want it yet again to be a source of efficiencies so that they can save some of the costs of the court. They absolutely refuse to look at problems that indeed are the result of lack of resources to meet a very real need. If this government is serious about improving access to justice, they'll look at real financial needs and how to respond with more than a reorganization.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate.
Mr Silipo: I'm pleased to have the chance to join in this debate and to say, as my colleague from Welland-Thorold said earlier, that when we look at this bill, generally we think there are some good things; we're supportive. We have, however, some important concerns that we've discussed a little bit here this evening that we need to be addressing.
2100
When we talk about the issue of the Unified Family Court, one of the points that has been going through this whole debate and that was part of the first day of discussion as well was very much the importance of this court as a part of our judicial system in the province and the fact that this model was established some 30 years ago by now Chief Justice McMurtry, the then Attorney General of the province.
We expanded this concept that was started, as you may well know, Speaker, in the Hamilton area. When I was part of the NDP government, our government expanded the concept and the locations to include the Kingston, Napanee, Barrie and London areas. We believed, as I think those with expertise in the system and people generally believed and saw with experience over time, that having a Unified Family Court made a lot of sense. It made a lot of practical sense in terms of people getting their family law issues dealt with in a much better way than they had before. But more importantly than the issue of speed and the issue of efficiency, people came to know the Unified Family Court, in those areas where they have been functioning, as a place where there was and has built up over the years a very good amount of judicial expertise, with all of the supports that are there in the court to help deal with and resolve the whole variety of family law issues, whether they are questions of custody and access or whether they deal with even more complex, in my view, issues of adoptions and access and what you do with those kinds of very delicate situations. Included in that was also the whole issue of how to deal with young offenders.
There has developed over the years that system of judicial decision-making which really has served the province well and has served the people of Ontario well. If what we are talking about through this legislation is expanding that concept, having in this bill enabling legislation that allows for that model to be provided in other places, as the government sees fit to provide both the money and the other resources that are necessary to expand these facilities and this approach throughout the province, then of course we would have nothing but good things to say about that.
We would certainly go on to say that it's important that those structures and those supports include not just the physical building and of course the judges, but the support system around the court system, because without that, the enforcement mechanisms disappear. Without the enforcement mechanisms, you can have all the expertise you want in terms of the decisions that are being made, but if they are not carried through, or if they are not able to be carried through, or if they are not able to be carried through in a way that supports people in that decision-making that's been reached, then quite frankly it doesn't work and it will break down.
I want to come back to one of the two basic points that we want to continue to make on this bill, which is the issue of the expertise that has developed. Part of why this Unified Family Court system has worked, in my view and in our view, as well as it has is because we have built this expertise within the judiciary over the years. So when we raise this issue and we say that we are concerned that the notion of efficiency that this government wants to push, which often, as it turns out, is not efficiency but simply another way of cutting - but even to grant it, the notion of efficiency that they want to push - while that has merit in terms of looking at restructuring the court system, in this case the Unified Family Court, and expanding that, our concern is that this not be used to dilute the level of expertise that we have built in this area of law and that we quite frankly believe is essential to continue.
I know my colleague from Welland-Thorold touched on this. I know my colleague from London Centre went on at some length about this in her statement to the House the other day, because she, like I and like those of us on this side, is concerned that this is something that is not lost in the mix and in the discussion. Why is it so important? It is important because, as I said, that level of expertise is what has made the Unified Family Court system work.
My colleague from London Centre put on the record the assurances she received from the Attorney General and Chief Justice LeSage indicating that there would not be an intent to dilute that expertise. When we look at the legislation and when it talks about the senior regional judges being in charge of appointing judges to the sittings - the member for Cambridge talked about this in his comments - and that also allowing for the rotation of judges within each of the regions from the other branches of the courts, that, you could see, causes us some concern. I was glad to hear from the comments of my colleague from London Centre that this was an issue she has received some assurances about, but I think that's something we need to continue to discuss. We need to perhaps look at some amendments that might ease not just our sense of comfort on that but indeed the sense of comfort of people who have come to know and use the Unified Family Court system over the years.
Even this evening, in the discussion and debate that we've had tonight, the member for Cambridge on this point said words to the effect that "most" judges hearing a case in the Unified Family Court would be people who are specialists in those areas. He talked about "most." That obviously means not all. The point I want to reiterate here tonight is that I think it should be all, because that, as I said, has been at the heart of what has made the Unified Family Court system work. That doesn't mean you cannot have other judges brought in as necessary, but I would say those judges, if they are going to be brought in, have to be there for a period of time sufficient that they themselves develop that expertise. They also have to come to that area with some significant background in the areas of family law and not simply because they happen to be the ones who can get slotted in for that day.
We are talking here not just about decisions that at the end of the day affect people's pocketbooks, as might be the case in many civil cases. We are talking here about decisions that will affect people's lives in terms of the relationships they have as former spouses vis-à-vis their children, in terms of custody and access situations as they deal with the very delicate issue of access and adoption. You have that whole array of issues that affect human relations and the day-to-day relations that, whether we like it or not, continue to break down in even greater numbers in the society we live in.
Therefore, they require that kind of level of understanding and expertise of judges who have spent a significant amount of time in the area as practising lawyers and, more significantly, once they get to the bench, decide to devote themselves to that particular area of law. That's the way in which they can build the understanding, they can build the sensitivity, and they can build up the kind of knowledge that's going to allow them to make decisions that will make sense for the individuals, that will continue to make the notion of the best interests of the child a real, living notion and a real, living practical tool to make decisions by, as opposed to the fact that they have to make a decision at the end of the day that may please one party more than the other.
I had the opportunity before coming to this chamber to spend a bit of time in practice, and a little bit of that primarily within the family law area. As any lawyer who has practised in this area, I came away continuing to scratch my head at the number of ways in which people, for whatever reasons, are able to use and abuse each other, the whole issue of custody and access when it comes to children. There are more examples than I would ever want to cite in terms of the kinds of experiences that I've seen, even in my short time practising, of people not necessarily approaching the issue of what happens after there has been a marital breakdown or a relationship breakdown in terms of how you deal with children and trying to make a distinction in the fact that whatever differences there have been between the partners should be separated from the approach to the children.
2110
Those kinds of things are very difficult, and they're even more difficult for the judiciary, which is given the very tough decision to try to sort those things out when all other avenues, including mediation, including all the other efforts the lawyers might be able to make to try to resolve those issues, when all those things have broken down and you get to the point where a judge is asked to make a decision about which parent will have custody, which parent will have access, to what degree that will be exercised and how it will be exercised. These are not easy things. Quite frankly, if there is one area of the law where we want to invest, and need to invest a lot of attention, it's certainly this one.
In another fairly delicate area I have seen the difference between - and again, I don't come at this as any kind of great expert, but if I can give you these simple anecdotes, then imagine how much more exists out there in terms of people who have actually spent many more years in the area than I had the opportunity or the choice to.
In terms of judges who have had to deal with the very delicate issue of what you do in dealing with adoption, when the laws of Ontario say you are supposed to cut off access to the birth parents in order to place children for adoption, what do you do when, as a judge, as you look at the best interests test and you apply that best interests test, your conclusion is that the best interests of the children would be served by, yes, placing the children for adoption, but at the same time not severing the relationship that still remains with the birth parents?
Not very easy decisions, but decisions which I have seen family court judges make, and I have also seen decisions like that overturned by other judges who, yes, were higher in the echelons of the structure of the court and so were fully within their rights and purview and privileges and jurisdiction to make those decisions, but also judges who were not as well in tune, in my humble opinion, with the notion of the best interests of the child test as it pertained to those situations.
I come at this with a view that says this is an area of the law, as I said before, where I want to see us not have it driven by what is the most efficient, if that means how we can spend less money, but by what is going to work the best, what is going to make more sense, what is going to make it easier for these very difficult human relationship questions to be judged, to be determined, to be weighed.
One of the major criteria for me is to have in that system, among the many things we need, a judiciary that's well versed, well prepared, well understanding of the very delicate issues they are dealing with. To me, the notion of saying most judges in this area are going to be people who are specialists is not quite good enough. So this is an issue I am going to follow, even though I may not be in committee when this bill goes through, but I will certainly want to see it resolved in a way that the legislation is actually addressing that in a more direct way.
There is another area we have some concerns about. I could go on about that first point at even greater length, but I want to touch on this other issue of the Young Offenders Act and the removal, by virtue of this bill, of the young offenders jurisdiction or area from the Unified Family Court.
I come at this with some concern. I am prepared to listen to the discussion. I haven't heard a lot tonight from the government side about the rationale for this in any great detail. It's something that I think we need to weigh fairly carefully, and need to have the kind of detailed discussion in committee that we can have of this, to hear from people who deal with this on more of a day-to-day basis.
I am concerned. I look at this whole issue of how we deal with young offenders and I am prepared - in fact I think we have to be prepared - to be fairly tough with people who offend in serious situations, who are serious offenders. I apply that rule whether they are young offenders or whether they are adults. But I believe it is also and primarily fundamental for us to know that the whole point and the whole premise of the young offenders approach, that is, of having them in this case part of the Unified Family Court, of having a separate approach, a separate way of dealing with young people who offend in one way or another, is because we believe there's got to be a way in which they can be helped to get out of that pattern of behaviour, or to get out of that behaviour before it becomes a pattern.
My concern here, as I watch this government act in this area and in other areas related to the whole criminal justice system, the young offenders system being just one part of that, is that they tend to want to put much more of a shift on punishment rather than on rehabilitation. I don't think the issue is that we need to choose one over the other. Obviously some form of punishment is appropriate, is necessary, but surely, if nowhere else then certainly when it comes to young offenders, we want to make sure that, at least for the majority of young offenders, when they end up being in trouble they do not get in trouble because of very serious offences, relatively speaking.
For those young people, the primary approach we take is yes, an appropriate form of punishment for the offence they have committed, but also rehabilitation, that is, getting them to understand that their behaviour is wrong and helping them through a process that will help them to change their behaviour so that they do not become repeat offenders. The earlier we do that, the better. The sooner we are able to intervene, the better our chances will be that those young people will not begin to see themselves back in the court system and back in the justice system as repeat offenders. That has got to be the way we deal with it.
Yes, it means having some clear rules, having some tough rules even, but it means then that the system has got to have as its primary approach one that says we're going to work with these young people to help them get out of this pattern. When I see this government moving towards boot camps, moving towards that kind of approach, I worry, because all that kind of stuff does is give an impression, give an image that maybe somebody is getting tough on crime, somebody is trying to do something. But at the end of the day it doesn't resolve the problem one iota; it doesn't do anything to help those young people understand that the behaviour is wrong and that the behaviour has to be changed. Again, not as the only answer but as part of the answer, what you need in that area is to have a judiciary that's well versed in how to deal with those kinds of situations. There I have a concern with moving the young offenders sections out of the Unified Family Court.
Those are just a couple of the concerns. Time allowing, we could get into greater detail. I understood when the member for Cambridge talked earlier about how part of the problem here is that of the 22 new judges Ontario requested of the federal government only 17 were appointed to the Unified Family Court here in Ontario. I have stood on my feet on more than one occasion and been critical of the Liberal federal government, as I have been critical of the provincial Liberal caucus when I felt it appropriate. I want to say in this case that may be a legitimate complaint on the part of the government, and I would share that, but I would not want to see the government use that as the reason for saying, "Therefore we have to move into this restructuring of the court system," because one does not really deal with the other.
Again, there is a good rationale for expanding the concept of the Unified Family Court. Yes, I am prepared to see the flexibility that the government seems to indicate they need to see here, but there have to be assurances much stronger than we have in the current bill that the level of expertise we have built up over the years in the judiciary as one main piece of providing this quality service and this quality decision-making in the unified family system is not lost and is maintained in whatever restructuring of this system, and this court system particularly, we do from here on in.
The Acting Speaker: Comments?
2120
Mr Galt: I enjoyed the presentation that was just made by the member for Dovercourt, a very impassioned presentation, and obviously he's one who's very concerned about this issue. I get the feeling he likes the idea in general but certainly identifies some problems in the bill.
The bill is there to improve court services and expand the family court. He talked about it working in the best possible way for all concerned but didn't seem to have quite the concern about the efficiency that maybe our government has. I don't think we can lose track and lose sight of the fact that it does have to be efficient as we go through our court system. We can't just let any particular issue or anything before the court occupy all the time or get totally carried away.
I noticed he talked quite a bit about young offenders. It's rather interesting at this point in time, when he's talking about young offenders, that they had a very extensive write-up in the recent media about some of the teenaged gangs - at least I would assume they're teenaged gangs; that was my understanding - here in the city of Toronto. There's an extremely large number of these gangs, young offenders who are doing various things to society and to themselves.
He worries a bit about boot camps, as he refers to the strict discipline facilities. At least it is one approach to try to do something about it. If we look at the behavioural problem that he made many references to, we're really not changing the direction. If anything, we're continuing to evolve with more and more of these behavioural problems of our young people. We have to have some different approach, look at it differently. Maybe this isn't the perfect one that this government is going about, but it is a change in direction, it is something that we're trying and I believe it's one that will work.
Mr Michael Brown: I appreciated very much the intervention made by the member for Dovercourt. I thought his practical experience in the courts added much to the debate.
I am, however, again concerned that as we talk about efficiencies, as we talk about making things work better, it's, "Work better for who?" Who it needs to work better for, obviously, are the families and the children in Ontario. Not always does spending less money and doing things more efficiently do more things for the children and the families of Ontario. It would be nice if we didn't need to have any of these courts, but the fact is that we have these matters to deal with, and society has to do it, focusing particularly on the children and the family in general.
It seems to me what is not talked about enough is the access to justice that's being denied. Again I have to bring to the government's attention the matter of having justices of the peace, for example, in places like Elliot Lake and Chapleau, places where the police and the community need a justice of the peace who is readily available on a 24-hour basis in these communities. It's not happening. It has caused great disruption. The efficiency of not having one has cost people literally hundreds of dollars as they tried to appear for courts that didn't happen because the justice of the peace didn't appear. Those sorts of issues, while they may be very efficient for the government, are very costly to the people of Ontario.
I would also like to reiterate the need for a crown attorney in the district of Manitoulin. We've been without one for almost four years.
Mr Kormos: Tony Silipo, the member for Dovercourt, said that this government wants to talk about efficiency, but really Tony Silipo has talked about how you generate efficiencies:
(1) You ensure that litigants have access to competent lawyers. I question what this government has done in that regard, especially as we fear their defunding of the legal aid plan.
(2) You need support staff in our courts so that the courts can function, receive the paperwork, process it and deal with the incredible number of litigants waiting for their day in court. This government hasn't done that. This government has cut the court staff available in family courts and other courts across this province.
(3) You need judges. You need judges who don't have dockets that are overflowing, don't have dockets that keep them in court until 5:30 or 6 at night so that they still have a remnant that has to be adjourned to some distant time in the future. You need sufficient judges so that they can hear arguments and entertain the debate over evidence that occurs in court and make decisions that are judicious and careful, as the vast majority of, if not all, judges want to.
This government hasn't done that either. The reality is that the Unified Family Court, a concept which doesn't have its origins with this government, which had its origins with the previous government, one which everybody endorses, isn't going to work without the support it needs. It'll be a Unified Family Court in name, but in reality there will be the same backlogs, there will be the same sausage factory justice, there will be the same frustration and anger and despair that flows.
If this government isn't going to fund legal aid so litigants can have adequate, competent counsel, and if it's not going to fund the court system with staffing and facilities, then Unified Family Court isn't going to create any efficiencies whatsoever.
The Acting Speaker: To finish questions and comments, the member for Dovercourt.
Mr Silipo: I appreciated the comments from members across. I think my colleague from Welland-Thorold really said it when he said this is not a choice between efficiency on the one hand and non-efficiency on the other. In order to have an efficient system, you need to have among other things - the point I expressed a lot during my comments - the expertise of a judiciary that's well versed in the issues of family law. Particularly when you're dealing with young offenders, what's one of the basic things you find that leads young offenders to the problems they find themselves in? It's usually some family-related problem. It's incumbent, therefore, that that expertise continues with the supports that are there, if the supports are there, because if those aren't there then even the best and most knowledgeable judicial expertise will not resolve the problems.
I look forward to the discussion on this bill as it goes through committee. Yes, we come at it saying there are some useful things here, because the concept of a Unified Family Court is something that not only have we supported, but in fact we were the government that expanded that. But we want to make sure that those concerns around maintaining that expertise remain in the system and remain certainly in this bill as it goes through.
The Acting Speaker: It being almost 9:30 of the clock, the House stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.
The House adjourned at 2128.