No. 53 No 53 ISSN 1180-2987 Legislative Assembly Assemblée législative of Ontario de l’Ontario First Session, 37th Parliament Première session, 37e législature Official Report Journal of Debates des débats (Hansard) (Hansard) Thursday 4 May 2000 Jeudi 4 mai 2000 Speaker Président Honourable Gary Carr L’honorable Gary Carr Clerk Greffier Claude L. DesRosiers Claude L. DesRosiers Hansard on the Internet Le Journal des débats sur Internet Hansard and other documents of the Legislative Assembly L’adresse pour faire paraître sur votre ordinateur personnel can be on your personal computer within hours after each le Journal et d’autres documents de l’Assemblée législative sitting. The address is: en quelques heures seulement après la séance est : http://www.ontla.on.ca/ Index inquiries Renseignements sur l’index Reference to a cumulative index of previous issues may be Adressez vos questions portant sur des numéros précédents obtained by calling the Hansard Reporting Service indexing du Journal des débats au personnel de l’index, qui vous staff at 416-325-7410 or 325-3708. fourniront des références aux pages dans l’index cumulatif, en composant le 416-325-7410 ou le 325-3708. Copies of Hansard Exemplaires du Journal Information regarding purchase of copies of Hansard may Pour des exemplaires, veuillez prendre contact avec be obtained from Publications Ontario, Management Board Publications Ontario, Secrétariat du Conseil de gestion, Secretariat, 50 Grosvenor Street, Toronto, Ontario, M7A 50 rue Grosvenor, Toronto (Ontario) M7A 1N8. Par 1N8. Phone 416-326-5310, 326-5311 or toll-free téléphone : 416-326-5310, 326-5311, ou sans frais : 1-800-668-9938. 1-800-668-9938. Hansard Reporting and Interpretation Services Service du Journal des débats et d’interprétation 3330 Whitney Block, 99 Wellesley St W 3330 Édifice Whitney ; 99, rue Wellesley ouest Toronto ON M7A 1A2 Toronto ON M7A 1A2 Telephone 416-325-7400; fax 416-325-7430 Téléphone, 416-325-7400 ; télécopieur, 416-325-7430 Published by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario Publié par l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario 2657 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE OF ONTARIO DE L’ONTARIO Thursday 4 May 2000 Jeudi 4 mai 2000 The House met at 1000. Our law enforcement officers have been vocal critics Prayers. of a soft court system. Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino has been actively pursuing the concepts of truth in sentencing and of placing policy-making powers back PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS in the hands of elected representatives. When I was reading the newspaper yesterday, I came across yet another illustration of what Chief Fantino has JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2000 been talking about. Sam Calladine was convicted of LOI DE 2000 SUR L’OBLIGATION manslaughter in the stabbing death of his wife. He was sentenced to 13 years in prison. Despite the fact that he DE RENDRE DES COMPTES had previous assault charges, jail escapes and weapons EN MATIÈRE DE JUSTICE offence charges, Calladine’s sentence was reduced to 10 Ms Mushinski moved second reading of the following years on appeal. Despite his criminal history and the fact bill: that he took the life of another human being, he was Bill 66, An Act to make Ontario judges more account- released on parole after serving two thirds of his sen- able and to provide for recommendations from the Legis- tence. Since his release earlier this year, he has already lative Assembly for appointments to the Supreme Court fled a halfway house, stolen a pickup truck and two rifles of Canada / Projet de loi 66, Loi visant à accroître and is on the run from authorities. This is the type of l’obligation de rendre des comptes des juges de l’Ontario preventable crime from which we expect our justice et prévoyant que l’Assemblée législative fasse des system to protect us. When the court system fails to recommandations de nominations à la Cour suprême du protect the interests of victims and law-abiding citizens, Canada. the public loses faith. Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): I Our court system has not only failed to use stiff sen- move second reading of Bill 66. tencing as a tool for protecting law-abiding citizens and I would first like to thank the members for Cambridge, punishing criminals, it has also created an environment Etobicoke North, Guelph-Wellington and Barrie-Simcoe- that makes it difficult for our police officers to perform Bradford, who will also be speaking on this bill this their duties effectively. Supreme Court decisions have morning. thrown obstacle after obstacle in front of our hard- It is my pleasure today to rise in the House to ask my working law enforcement agencies. The most minor colleagues on both sides of the House for their support violation of court-created criminal rights can result in a for my private member’s bill, the Judicial Accountability guilty person walking away from drug trafficking, sexual Act. There is no question that issues of crime and justice assault or even murder without having to face justice. are important to the people of Ontario. North or south, An inspector with a police division here in Toronto urban or rural, Conservative or Liberal, crime concerns recently shared this anecdote with me to illustrate the all of our constituents. Throughout the first term of this absurdity of some of these court decisions. Officers were government, and now in the second, improving safety in responding to a “shots fired” report. When they arrived our communities has been a priority for the Mike Harris on the scene, they began searching the street. Very near government. We have said before that we must ensure the shooting site, they found a car on the street. Through that law-abiding Ontarians feel safe in their neighbour- the car window the officers could see the handle of a hoods, on their streets and in their own homes. semi-automatic handgun sitting on the back seat of the Our government has taken many steps and introduced car. It took officers over six hours to follow the court- many new initiatives designed to strengthen our justice created procedures necessary to obtain a search warrant system. However, our constituents are still fearful. They for the vehicle. still have many concerns with a justice system that they Stories like this have created public distrust in the feel is failing to protect them. My colleagues and I heard court system. There is a widespread feeling that courts the issues during the election, ranging from the Young are no longer a place for justice. Instead, their purpose is Offenders Act and the parole system, to a court system to ensure that the rights of criminals are protected above that has completely failed law-abiding citizens. I heard it all else. personally at a town hall meeting less than a month ago: The Judicial Accountability Act begins to address Our courts are too lenient. No one in the room disagreed. some of these concerns. Bill 66 will create a public 2658 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO 4 MAY 2000 registry of sentences handed down in serious criminal In conclusion, our courts are public institutions. They cases. This is not unlike existing sunshine laws such as were created by the will of the people to serve the people. the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act. The registry will Their proceedings are open to the public. Results of those encompass each criminal case that goes to trial for a proceedings are public knowledge. It is time to make that crime that carries a maximum sentence of five years or information available for the public. I encourage all more in prison. The registry will be detailed with the members to support the Judicial Accountability Act for name of the judge, the maximum sentence for the crime, the protection of law-abiding Ontarians. the actual sentence the judge handed out and any reasons 1010 the judge gave for handing out a sentence less than the Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul’s): I rise today to speak maximum. Cases that have been plea bargained will be on this bill on behalf of the official opposition. We do not exempt from the registry, because judges have little if support this bill. This bill is an abomination. This bill is any influence over the length of sentence handed out in unprecedented in its attempt to bully the judiciary into many of those cases. It would be unfair to hold judges rendering judgments in a manner that is not offensive to accountable for those sentences. In addition, a provision the neo-conservative ideology of the government of the has been included in the bill to allow judges to explain day. This bill is offensive to our system of parliamentary why they gave out a sentence less than the maximum. democracy, although I suspect that this characteristic This acknowledges the fact that the circumstances of makes it a virtue in the eyes of its supporters. each case are different and therefore the sentences will be In the first century AD, a Byzantine emperor, Justinian different. I, established what we now refer to as Roman law in the The bill also allows the Legislative Assembly of Justinian tradition. Roman law system in the Justinian Ontario to recommend the appointment of future tradition worked pretty well for civil actions and for Supreme Court justices. Hopefully, this will force Jean ordinary criminal cases, but its downfall came with Chrétien to abandon his policy of appointing inter- respect to the judiciary. According to the legal scholar ventionist judges. The values of the Supreme Court must Norman Cantor, the judges’ “excessive ambition” was reflect those of average Canadians. “to climb higher in state or church by making decisions The bill will provide us with empirical evidence in the that would please those in authority, eroding the quality debate over sentencing.