RUNCIMAN CALLS FOR TRANSPARENT JUSTICE SYSTEM
(Toronto) Leeds-Grenville MPP Bob Runciman today joined with Progressive Conservative leader John Tory in calling on the McGuinty government to make Ontario’s justice system more transparent.
Speaking during debate on Tory’s Private Member’s bill “Truth and Transparency in the Justice System” the former Solicitor General described Ontario’s justice system as “a mess that’s hurting victims of crime, keeping police off the streets, wasting millions of taxpayer dollars and eroding public confidence in the system.”
Tory’s bill was defeated by the Liberal majority government.
Runciman’s comments are below.
Truth and Transparency in the Justice System Act, 2006
Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds–Grenville): I appreciate the opportunity to indicate my support for the bill and the Leader of the Official Opposition John Tory, and to commend him for introducing this legislation. I think it’s a strong indication to the people of Ontario what a John Tory government would look like, in terms of dealing with so many challenges in the justice system in the province of Ontario. Transparency and truth in the justice system would be something, I think, that virtually every Ontarian would welcome ...
1140
I could speak on this issue for hours. There is a certain degree of crisis in the justice system in Ontario. We’ve seen that with the Auditor General’s report last September, with the backlog of cases; we’ve seen it recently in a letter that both Mr. Tory and I received from the mayor of Mississauga with the challenges that the provincial offences court has, the lack of justices of the peace and the impact that’s going to have on Peel region and Mississauga specifically. I’ll get into that a little later.
One of the things that we always hear in this House when any of us on the opposition benches raise issues with respect to the operation of the courts or concerns surrounding the justice system—we get tossed back at us that somehow, by raising these issues and shining a light on some of the problems and challenges, we are jeopardizing this mysterious thing called “judicial independence.” The great unwashed, also known as hard-working taxpayers, who pay the salaries of judges, who pay the salaries of lawyers who are accessing the legal aid system in Ontario, apparently, under this interpretation, have no right to know what’s happening inside what some would describe as an elite circle, this incestuous little clique. I have to say that John Tory and the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario disagree, and strongly disagree.
I’d asked the question, why shouldn’t taxpayers know? Why shouldn’t they know the number of crimes committed while folks are on bail, on probation or conditional release, while subject to a criminal deportation order? Why shouldn’t we know that? Why shouldn’t we know the number of remands per case by court location and categorized by Criminal Code or provincial offences, pre or post trial date being set? The adjournment: whether it was requested by the crown, the defence or the court? The Liberal government says no. Having taxpayers know where the problems are and who’s causing them is somehow a threat to the independence of the judiciary.
A couple of weeks ago, you will recall Ontario appeal court Judge Michael Moldaver—I hope I’m pronouncing that correctly. He spoke out about the mess that is Ontario’s justice system. It was very refreshing to hear someone of his rank talking about these challenges. His perspective was essentially—some would interpret it as an assault on the defence bar, but he also acknowledged in his comments that his fellow judges are part of the problem. With respect to that, he was referencing that, in his view, they do not put a quick enough end to what he describes as frivolous motions and fishing expeditions by defence lawyers.
Predictably, the defence bar has reacted with indignation: “We’re not the problem; it’s somebody else.” It was an interesting article in today’s Toronto Star, co-drafted by the president and vice-president of the Criminal Lawyers’ Association; I recall Alan Gold’s name being mentioned. There was a very interesting quote in that. I’m going to quote directly from that article: “There are no reliable statistics available to connect defence lawyers to the systemic problems that plague the system.” That’s the defence bar’s response to Judge Moldaver’s concerns about the mess in the justice system. They’re saying, “There are no statistics to prove this. We’re not the problem because you don’t have any statistics to back up that allegation.” So round and round we go.
Clearly, we need those statistics. The defence bar is saying it, at least, in response to an assault from an appeal court judge. But when we get into discussing it in this place, even the defence bar or many of them may be on-side in saying, “No, we can’t have this kind of annual reporting so that people who draft the laws and the people who pay the bills should have a right to know what’s going on in the system, where the problems are. This whole issue of judicial independence—before I get into that, I want to talk about the problems in the courts just briefly. Our leader, Mr. Tory, talked about it.
There are so many implications to this. If you look at the victims of crime, they are on many occasions revictimized by the failure of our courts to deal in an adequate and timely manner with their challenge. Police overtime is an enormous cost burden: Police going to the courts, waiting around, and there’s another remand, another adjournment. That is so frequent. Talk to any police service in this province. It is a real, significant problem, not only in a cost sense, but you’re taking front-line officers off the front line, sitting around in courtrooms hour after hour, day after day, week after week. That’s a very, very serious problem.
I want to briefly talk about judicial independence. If we can’t talk—the speaker said we can’t have some form of accountability, this is jeopardizing judicial independence. I get worked up and irritated by this argument all the time. It’s exercised all the time; I have great problems. The judiciary has to show a commitment to greater efficiencies in the system dealing with costs, but frequently it’s not the case. When I was corrections minister, we had judges saying, “No, we can’t have any connection between remand, jails and the courts.” We can’t even have a tunnel, because somehow that jeopardizes judicial independence. Try and figure that one out. We’ve had judges arbitrarily saying, “I have to have six armed police officers in my court,” at $70,000 a year, “to provide security.” Talk to the chief in Owen Sound about the cost burden that’s placing on municipalities.
There has to be some kind of oversight applied, some kind of accountability. What we’re talking about here I think is very, very reasonable. The judges have independence. They have essentially lifetime appointments. They’re guaranteed a job until the age of 75. Try to remove a judge, try to fire an incompetent judge, a judge who has misstepped. It’s a very, very difficult process.
Knowing what they’re doing in their courts, keeping track of what’s happening, is in no way, shape or form jeopardizing judicial independence.
