CONTENTS
Tuesday 14 November 1995
Election of Chair
Election of Vice-Chair
Appointment of subcommittee
Briefing
Committee business
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
*Chair / Président: Martiniuk, Gerry (Cambridge PC)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Johnson, Ron (Brantford PC)
*Boyd, Marion (London Centre / -Centre ND)
*Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West / -Ouest L)
*Conway, Sean G. (Renfrew North / -Nord L)
*Doyle, Ed (Wentworth East / -Est PC)
*Guzzo, Garry J. (Ottawa-Rideau PC)
*Hampton, Howard (Rainy River ND)
*Hudak, Tim (Niagara South / -Sud PC)
*Klees, Frank (York-Mackenzie PC)
*Leadston, Gary L. (Kitchener-Wilmot PC)
*Parker, John L. (York East / -Est PC)
*Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L)
*Tilson, David (Dufferin-Peel PC)
*In attendance / présents
Clerk / Greffière: Bryce, Donna
Staff / Personnel: McNaught, Andrew, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1534 in room 228.
ELECTION OF CHAIR
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Donna Bryce): Honourable members, it is my duty to call upon you to elect a Chair. Are there any nominations?
Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I would like to nominate Gerry Martiniuk, the member for Cambridge.
Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East): I'll second that.
Clerk of the Committee: Are there any further nominations? There being no further nominations, I declare the nominations closed and Mr Martiniuk be elected Chair. Mr Martiniuk, if you would come and sit up at the front, please.
ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIR
The Chair (Mr Gerry Martiniuk): Ladies and gentlemen, it's my duty to call upon you to elect a Vice-Chair. Are there any nominations?
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I nominate Ron Johnson.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Klees. Are there any further nominations? If not, I'll move that nominations be closed and that Mr Johnson be elected Vice-Chair.
What are we doing now? Oh, a motion. I understand that I will accept a motion to appoint a subcommittee on committee business. Mr Ramsay.
APPOINTMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I move that a subcommittee on committee business be appointed to meet from time to time at the call of the Chair, or at the request of any member thereof, to consider and report to the committee on the business of the committee; that the presence of all members of the subcommittee is necessary to constitute a meeting; that the subcommittee be composed of the following members: Mr Martiniuk, Chair, Mr Tilson, Mr Chiarelli and Ms Boyd; and that any member may designate a substitute member on the subcommittee who is of the same recognized party.
The Chair: Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, I'll call the question. All those in favour of the motion? All those opposed? Carried.
The clerk will now give us a briefing on the organization meeting.
BRIEFING
Clerk of the Committee: I won't go into a lot of detail today regarding the committee because many of the new members got a lot of material at the new members' seminar and many experienced members will have knowledge from past experience.
The justice committee is one of four standing committees considered to be a policy field committee. As such, its mandate is to consider matters relating to the administration of justice in Ontario. The jurisdiction of this committee is over matters related to the following ministries: Attorney General, Solicitor General and Correctional Services, and Consumer and Commercial Relations.
Examples of legislation that the committee has dealt with in the past include the Substitute Decisions Act, the Human Rights Code Amendment Act, the Liquor Control Amendment Act, the Retail Business Holidays Amendment Act and the Police Services Act.
Along with considering legislation, this committee has written reports on issues such as conflict of interest, alternative dispute resolution, victims of crime, the control of ammunition and community-based crime prevention initiatives.
I point out that committees do not always deal with issues that are specific to their mandate. The House could choose to refer a bill or a matter to any committee for a number of reasons. You can't always predict which committees will consider which issues. For example, last year this committee spent a large amount of time dealing with the municipal planning reform act and the Employment Equity Act.
The scope of this committee's deliberations is defined by three areas:
The first is an order of the House referring a matter to the committee. This is usually a bill, either government or private member's, or a subject inquiry. The function of a committee on a bill is to go through the text clause by clause with a view to making amendments to render it more acceptable. A committee is, however, bound by the decision of the House given on second reading in favour of the principle of the bill and must not amend the bill in a manner destructive of that principle.
Committees will often hold public hearings on bills. This allows individuals or groups who have an interest in the bill to state their opinions and suggest changes to the bill. The consultations occur before the bill is reviewed clause by clause so that the committee can take these views into consideration.
1540
The process for considering any other matter that may be referred by the House is essentially the same as a bill except that instead of doing clause-by-clause, the committee may write a substantive report with recommendations.
The second area is standing order 108. This empowers the committee to study and report on all matters relating to the mandate, management, organization or operation of the ministries outlined above, as well as the agencies, boards and commissions reporting to such ministries and offices. As long as the subject matter relates to a ministry assigned to the committee, the details and the duration of study are left to the committee to decide. This standing order is usually used when the committee agrees on what it wishes to study. The results of a study under the standing order may result in the writing of a substantive report with recommendations.
Standing order 125 is the third area, and it provides that in any calendar year, each member, other than the Chair, of the subcommittee on committee business is entitled to designate a matter other than a bill that may have been referred. There are two restrictions: (1) that the matter must relate to the ministry assigned to the committee; and (2) that the matter may only be considered up to a maximum of 12 hours of committee time.
I'll discuss 125s in more detail with the subcommittee, as those are the members who are entitled to move these designations. There is an exception to the way in which the subcommittee operates with 125s. The reports are deemed to be adopted. Under any other circumstance, the subcommittee must report its decisions to the committee and its report is amendable before voted on.
In terms of attaching priority to the order in which the committee will consider items, the standing orders clearly provide that government legislation and items designated under standing order 125 take priority, and in that order.
Sitting to the right of the Chair is Andrew McNaught, the research officer assigned to this committee. Andrew will provide a number of services for the committee, including drafting interim and final reports, preparing summaries of recommendations made in submissions to the committee, and providing briefings on certain issues as required.
If there are any questions now on either the mandate of the committee or the services provided by Andrew, we can take them now. No? Okay.
COMMITTEE BUSINESS
The Chair: Our next meeting will be on Monday, November 20. The subcommittee that you have elected today will be meeting either today right after the meeting, if they so choose, or we will meet tomorrow and report back to you next Monday. The only matter the subcommittee has before it at this moment is private member's Bill 11, An Act to amend the Expropriations Act and the Human Rights Code with respect to property rights.
If there are no other matters that anyone would like to raise at this time --
Interjection.
The Chair: I have received a copy of a motion that Mr Chiarelli may be moving before this committee today.
Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): Yes, I will be. Is it appropriate for me to make that motion at the present time?
The Chair: I would imagine it should be considered by the subcommittee.
Mr Chiarelli: I would like the motion to be put and dealt with so that the subcommittee would have something live to deal with. If this committee approves the motion, then the subcommittee could deal with the details. In that case, I will move the motion, and I will read the motion as circulated by the clerk:
"Whereas the operation of the Ontario legal aid plan and the relationship of the Law Society of Upper Canada and the government of Ontario in relation to the plan have caused" --
Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): On a point of order, Mr Chair.
Mr Chiarelli: -- "(1) a crisis in the public confidence in the reliability and effectiveness of legal aid in Ontario" --
The Chair: We have a point of order. Yes, Mr Tilson?
Mr Tilson: My understanding is that notice would first be given before a motion such as this be made and that it might be appropriate to serve notice on the committee that the motion is going to be made, and that the motion would then be voted on at a later date, presumably at the next meeting. To simply come and -- on any committee that I've attended, on a motion such as this, of this magnitude, normally a notice of motion is made. With respect to Mr Chiarelli, I believe it would be more appropriate to serve notice on the committee that he intends to bring such a motion.
The Chair: I understand that the situation is that notice is not required for a motion of this kind. However, the committee can agree to have the matter deferred to some future time for consideration. It does not have to deal with it today.
Mr Chiarelli: I will read the motion, Chair.
"Whereas the operation of the Ontario legal aid plan and the relationship of the Law Society of Upper Canada and the government of Ontario in relation to the plan have caused:
"(1) a crisis in the public confidence in the reliability and effectiveness of legal aid in Ontario;
"(2) an Ontario judge to stay criminal proceedings against accused drug traffickers because of uncertainty of the legal aid plan;
"(3) `job action' in the courts by Ontario lawyers to take place with additional job actions threatened;
"(4) both the Law Society of Upper Canada and representative groups of Ontario lawyers to launch separate court challenges to government action and inaction regarding legal aid;
"It is therefore resolved that the standing committee on administration of justice schedule public hearings forthwith into the status and operations of legal aid services in the province of Ontario and to report to the Legislative Assembly on or before December 14, 1995, with recommendations to quell the legal aid crisis and improve the delivery of legal aid services in a manner which will maintain the `judicare model' of legal aid within a cooperative and workable financial and economic framework."
That's the motion, Mr Chairman. If I may make brief comments with respect to it, I will say that as justice critic, critic for the Ministry of the Attorney General for the official opposition, I received very significant representations from people interested in the administration of justice in the province, not the least of which is various groups of lawyers representing family law practitioners, criminal lawyers, legal aid clinics that are very concerned about the possibility of additional caseloads on the clinics without the resources to handle them, clinics which are already overburdened.
I believe it is in the public interest to have a forum for the public, and in particular these groups that are very, very concerned about the turmoil in the system at the present time, to be able to offer their advice, to be able to indicate what's happening on the ground with respect to legal aid.
I can only point out the recent circumstances where indeed we have judges in the Ontario courts who are now staying criminal procedure because of the uncertainty and the turmoil within the legal aid system, and I can only bring to everyone's attention the recent history of judges staying criminal procedures because of the court backlog because of the Askov case of not too long ago, and the sense of crisis that put in the system, indeed the number of criminal charges that in effect were stayed or permanently dismissed.
We see the seeds of this happening at the present time in criminal cases, and particularly when all parties and all governments are concerned about safety in the streets, we now have criminal trials being stayed because of government action or inaction, as it was indeed with the Askov case. That is completely unacceptable.
The other thing which is totally unacceptable in my mind, as a lawyer, as a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada at the present time, someone who practised for 18 years before I was elected to the provincial Legislature: There has been a traditional relationship of cooperation and understanding between the legal profession and the office of the Attorney General, and it would appear that at the present time that traditional partnership, that cooperation which has existed traditionally in Ontario, seems to be falling apart.
I think that we, as members of the provincial Legislature, have some obligation to try to quell the uncertainty, to try to calm the situation. I believe we need a forum for these lawyers, for the affected public to be able to come and express their point of view.
1550
I know that there's a sense of disenfranchisement among a lot of lawyers in the province, a lot of organized associations of lawyers, and I really do think that we have to try to provide that forum so that these people can express their opinions and give their advice to us as legislators, and that indeed we as legislators and MPPs would have some role to play in it.
That is the reason that I'm moving this particular motion. I believe that there is some public good to be served by having this committee have those public hearings, have the appropriate people invited to come before us. Indeed, we could therefore have some deliberations and make some recommendations to the Legislature on this very important issue.
Mr Tilson: This is an extensive motion, and of course I quite frankly have just had a short time to peruse it. As the member knows, there are a number of things going on with respect to legal aid at the present time. Mr Stanley Beck, as you know, is making an investigation with respect to the whole process of legal aid. There's some litigation going on; the law society has chosen to bring action against the government of Ontario. There are a number of complicated things with respect to this issue.
The Attorney General has made it quite clear to the legal profession and the people of Ontario that he will honour the memorandum of understanding that was entered into some time ago. That's not to say that there aren't problems with the legal aid plan. The fact of the matter is that it's got an overdraft of at least $60 million, and the law society at convocation has, through proposed cuts, agreed to cut only something like $7 million of that.
These are very complicated issues. There's litigation that's going on. I'm not so sure that this would be the appropriate time for this committee to deal with this motion, specifically with the litigation that's going on. I accordingly would move that this motion be deferred.
Mr Chiarelli: When I moved this motion, I didn't particularly think that the government majority on this committee would agree. I did it out of a sense of obligation to those people who feel disenfranchised on this particular issue.
There are large numbers of people who want to give advice to this Legislature. This is the people's place, particularly in committees, where people can come and have their say. It's all well and good for the government to say that it's a complicated issue and there's litigation pending and the Attorney General has agreed to honour a memorandum of understanding.
I'm prepared to go back to all these people, and there are many, and say, "I moved the motion and this government does not want to have you come here to speak to us in a formal setting," where their opinion will be recorded in public for everybody to see and hear, and for these individuals to see how we as elected representatives respond to them.
I can accept a majority decision not to have these public hearings, but I want on record that this government has said no to them, and I will tell them that this government has said no to them.
Mr Tilson: Mr Chairman, he's responding to comments that I made, and I didn't say that. I did not say that this government wasn't prepared to deal with this motion. You know perfectly well what you're trying to do. Don't hang the number on us that we're not prepared to listen and try to assist in a problem. There's a problem with respect to the providing of legal aid services in this province. Everyone in this room knows that. But don't come into this committee and start saying that we're not prepared to listen and try to deal with this issue.
The Attorney General has stood up in the House, has answered questions on this issue. He has made presentations to the Law Society of Upper Canada. He has done everything in his power at this particular stage to deal with this issue, and he is continuing to deal with this issue. But don't come here and try to tell us that this government isn't responsive to this issue.
Mr Klees: If I might, with respect to the mover of this motion, I take great exception to using this committee forum for political grandstanding, because I believe the member knows that's exactly what he's been doing. I'm hopeful that this isn't an indication of how business is intended to be conducted here.
This is our first meeting. I don't know. I see at the header of this that it was faxed at 2:05 this afternoon, to somewhere from somewhere. Surely the member had given much more thought to the structuring of this motion, unless it was quickly cobbled together some time today. The member knew this committee would be meeting today. I would at least have expected that we would have received notification that this motion would be tabled today, would be moved today.
I think out of respect for the process, if in fact the member has serious concerns that this is the people's place, then I think we should also honour it as that. I truly hope this is not indicative of what we're in for over the next number of months.
I would certainly concur that this be deferred to give us an opportunity to, first of all, consider it seriously, if the member wants us to consider it seriously.
In light of the initiative that this government has already taken, I see absolutely no reason why the member feels he should go back to his public, as he is referring to them, to say that this government is not willing to listen. We are, but not on the basis of political grandstanding, which is what this is.
Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot): I too would echo the same comments. You used two words in your remarks, "cooperation" and "understanding," and obviously that is not applying in your remarks or in your intent. I think the spirit of what you're saying -- and we're all representatives of the people, but I think there's no supporting documentation. You mention the numbers that you have dialogued with. I'm not privy to that information as a representative of this committee.
I too would support the deferral until such time as I personally have that supporting documentation.
I would hope that this isn't indicative of the framework and the spirit of this committee. If we truly are representing the people of Ontario, I think we have to work in that same spirit, as you say, of cooperation and understanding, and I hope this is not the tone that this particular committee's going to take in the ensuing months.
The Chair: We are presently considering the motion to defer, I take it.
Mr Ramsay: There was no such motion.
Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I wonder, Mr Chair, how can you have a motion to defer? It seems to me a motion was presented, and how then can you move on to a motion to defer?
As I read the motion, it's pretty clear. It says, "It is therefore resolved that the standing committee on the administration of justice schedule public hearings forthwith."
I just ask the clerk, how can we get then to a motion to defer? It seems to me a motion's been put. I don't know how you consider a motion to defer, even get a motion to defer on the table at this point in time.
Mr Leadston: Mr Chair, on a point of clarification: The motion to defer, in this forum, is it debatable?
The Chair: I'm advised by the clerk we're still dealing with the main motion.
Mr Tilson: Mr Chairman, I made a motion.
The Chair: Yes, I thought you did too.
Mr Leadston: There was a motion to defer.
Mr Tilson: As far as I'm concerned, notwithstanding what Mr Hampton's saying, I made a motion. It's on the floor and I expect it to be voted on. We've had debate going around the table before someone comes up with a bright idea that you can't make a motion to defer. I've never heard of such a thing. Of course you can make a motion to defer.
Mr Hampton: I guess we need a ruling from the Chair. Are you saying that a motion can be presented and then a motion to defer can be brought without consideration of the main motion? I just want to know what our procedural rules are going to be or what they have been.
The Chair: I see nothing improper with a motion to defer or table, whichever terminology the mover wants to make, and that's what I thought we were speaking to. The ruling will be then that there is a motion to defer on the floor which is to be spoken to along with the main motion. We will deal with Mr Tilson's motion first, before the main motion.
Mr Leadston: Mr Chairman, may I seek clarification?
Mr Chiarelli: That the motion is debatable. The motion to defer is debatable.
Mr Leadston: Mr Chairman, it is my understanding that a motion to defer is non-debatable. I believe it was a motion to defer; it was not to table. That's the difference. It's taken in a different context. If the clerk could advise us, am I correct that a motion to defer is non-debatable and that motion takes precedence over the motion as presented by the honourable member?
Clerk of the Committee: A motion to defer is normally not debatable; a motion to defer, with reasons, is debatable. I wasn't clear on what exactly Mr Tilson's motion -- were you giving a time frame to defer it?
Mr Tilson: No.
Clerk of the Committee: Just defer indefinitely?
Mr Tilson: Yes.
Clerk of the Committee: In that case then, it would be in order to go to that vote.
Mr Chiarelli: Can we have a recorded vote, please?
The Chair: We are now dealing with Mr Tilson's motion to defer. We will put the question.
Mr Doyle: I'll second that motion.
The Chair: We do not need a seconder. We're going to deal with Mr Tilson's motion to defer the main motion.
All those in favour of the motion to defer, raise your hands. A recorded vote has been requested.
Ayes
Doyle, Guzzo, Hudak, Johnson, Klees, Leadston, Parker, Tilson.
The Chair: All those opposed.
Nays
Boyd, Chiarelli, Conway, Hampton, Ramsay.
The Chair: The motion to defer carries.
Mr Chiarelli: I'm truly shocked that you guys wouldn't let us debate this motion.
The Chair: You did.
There being no other business before this committee, we are adjourning to November 20, and the subcommittee, if it wishes, could meet immediately afterwards.
The committee adjourned at 1604.