Consultation Reports

Honourable Jon Havelock
Minister of Justice and Attorney General
Room 320 Legislature Building
10800 – 97 Avenue
Edmonton, Alberta T5K 2B6

Dear Mr. Havelock:

Earlier this year you convened an all-party MLA public consultation committee to gather input from Albertans with respect to the justice system. We are pleased to present you with the committee's final report. This report consolidates the information that was presented to the committee either verbally during the scheduled public hearings or through written submission. The committee heard a diversity of opinions on many issues. We feel this report presents a balanced view of what we heard. The recommendations contained in the report have been unanimously agreed to by all committee members. We ask that this report be considered by the delegates at the Alberta Summit on Justice in January 1999.

INDEX
- The Committee
- The Process
- What We Heard
- Public Confidence in the Justice System
- Victims' Issues
- Restorative Justice
- First Nations and Metis Justice
- Crime Prevention
- Youth and the Justice System
- Access to Justice
- Family Law
- Other Issues
- Appendix A - Summary of Recommendations
- Appendix B - Organizations that made Submissions to the Committee
- Appendix C - Consultation Schedule

On January 30, 1998, the Honourable Jon Havelock, Q.C., Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Alberta, announced plans to convene a summit on justice. In making this announcement the Minister stated, "We must understand how the public perceives the system to be working and empower the public to assist us in changing the system to address the concerns regularly expressed."

To gather input from Albertans, the Minister convened an all-party MLA public consultation committee consisting of the following members:

Richard Magnus, MLA Calgary-North Hill (Chair)
Dave Coutts, MLA Livingstone-Macleod
LeRoy Johnson, MLA Wetaskiwin-Camrose
Sue Olsen, MLA Edmonton-Norwood
Mary O'Neill, MLA St. Albert
Raj Pannu, MLA Edmonton-Strathcona
Janis Tarchuk, MLA Banff-Cochrane

The all-party MLA public consultation committee held public hearings in 18 Alberta communities during the months of May, June and September 1998. Communities visited included Stand Off, Lethbridge, Medicine Hat, Lloydminster, St. Paul, Red Deer, Fort McMurray, Slave Lake, High Prairie, Grande Prairie, Peace River, High Level, Hobbema, Wetaskiwin, St. Albert, Edmonton (2 days), Siksika and Calgary (2 days). The public consultation meetings were advertised in advance in local newspapers and anyone with concerns or comments about the justice system was invited to make a presentation to the committee. It was necessary at some public hearings to limit the time for presentations to 10 minutes each given the number of scheduled presenters and the limited available time. Written submissions were also welcomed.

In total, the committee formally heard from 568 Albertans. Three hundred and eighteen people made oral presentations to the committee during the scheduled public hearings. Many of these people supplemented their oral presentations with written submissions. A further 250 written submissions were received by mail, fax or email. The deadline for submissions was September 30, 1998. In addition, the committee also held private consultation meetings with members of the Blood Tribe administration, the Treaty 8 Executive Board and the Metis Settlements General Council.

The information gathered via the consultations will be used, in part, to form the basis for discussion by the delegates at the Alberta Summit on Justice in January 1999.

It is important to note that throughout the consultation process the committee heard many positive comments about the justice system in general and about specific components of the system. Often these positive comments about the system were interspersed with comments containing concerns. For the committee, this means that while we are all very fortunate to have the good justice system that we do, there is always room for improvement. This report outlines the issues, concerns and ideas for change that were presented to the committee. Many of the recommendations contained in this report build upon what the committee heard were very positive elements of the system. These elements include restorative justice options, victims' services and crime prevention programs.

The committee believes it is necessary for the reader to place the information and recommendations in this report in proper context. The current Canadian justice system, like its counterparts in other modern world states, is an adversarial system that by its very nature produces, for lack of a better term, winners and losers. It must be noted that the majority of the individual Albertans who had personal experiences to share with the committee perceived that they had been negatively impacted by the system. In addition to hearing from individual Albertans, the committee also heard from a significant number of organizations and interest groups, some of which made more than one submission. Those organizations that made submissions are listed in Appendix B.

This report does not purport to reflect the views of all Albertans. Rather, it reflects the views of those individuals and organizations that made an oral or written submission to the committee. The committee heard a diversity of opinions on many issues. We have attempted, in this report, to provide a balanced view of what we heard. The recommendations that are provided are based on the patterns of opinions received. Recommendations have been made only where clear patterns of opinions emerged.

The focus of the submissions received are classified as follows:

• public confidence in the justice system;
• victims' issues;
• restorative justice;
• First Nations and Metis justice;
• crime prevention;
• youth and the justice system;
• access to justice; and
• family law.

Each of these themes is addressed separately in this report. There were also a number of specific individual issues, not included within these themes, that were also brought to the committee's attention. These individual issues are addressed in the "Other Issues" section of this report.

Meeting needs or expectations

Many individual Albertans expressed a lack of confidence in the justice system because the system did not meet their needs or expectations or because they did not have a clear expectation of what the system was supposed to deliver for them. For example, some people believe that the justice system can play a positive role in reducing disparities, improving human rights and protecting minorities. Others are angry at a system that provides what they perceive as little or no consequence for those who break the law. Some expressed the view that society is becoming more violent and the justice system is not able to protect them. Others expressed the view that the public is excluded from the justice system and that the system is about criminals, not about victims or safety.

Misunderstanding the role and purpose

Clearly, many people tend to perceive the role of the justice system in different ways, often misunderstanding the system's purpose and how it works. This misunderstanding applies to all facets of the system including law enforcement; correctional services; and the court process, including the role and conduct of lawyers, judges and prosecutors. This misunderstanding leads to frustration when individuals find themselves confronted with the system for whatever reason.

Justice System verses Legal System

It was said that we do not have a justice system but that rather we have a "legal system." In this regard, some people perceive the system to be more concerned about compliance with established bureaucratic rules than the pursuit of justice. For many, the system is confusing and complicated, making it both frustrating and intimidating. We heard that the system should be made more understandable, and that plain language should be used.

Accountability

Some people reported that the system, or components thereof, is not accountable to the citizens who it is supposed to serve. Concern was expressed that the courts have begun, via their decisions, to usurp the role of the legislative arm of government. There were calls to make the judiciary more accountable and recommendations that judges be elected or appointed for specific terms. Others, however, pointed to the need for a strong independent judiciary and bar. It was stated that if judges are elected, they will be tempted to please the electorate. The committee heard that judges are the arbiters of law and decisions can only be made on the rule of law, not public opinion. It was noted that if society perceives a problem, the concern should lie with the law itself, not with the interpretation of the law. It was also explained that the judiciary has always created new laws through precedent setting decisions. There are two sources of law: statutes and English Common Law - the law that exists because of precedents established by judicial decisions.

Lawyers and the Law Society of Alberta

Concerns were expressed about lawyers and the Law Society of Alberta, with calls for more accountability from both. The services of lawyers are seen as costly and, in some cases, unnecessary. The Law Society was seen by some as unresponsive to citizen complaints. Others questioned whether the legal profession should be self-regulating.

Public lack of understanding and media influence

A number of people blamed the media for what they see as a public lack of understanding of the justice system. The committee heard that the media and the influence of American television distort public opinion. The media are seen as often not providing the whole story, the result being that perceptions are based on the "30 second news clip." The media are also seen as presenting a sensationalized view of crime.

Costs and delays

Frustration and lack of confidence in the justice system is also based on concerns that are related to costs and delays. Both of these issues are also addressed in the "Access to Justice " section of this report. People want an expedited justice process. "Justice delayed is justice denied" was specifically stated in a number of submissions and implied in many, many more. We also heard that Albertans need a justice system that is affordable. The aforementioned delays increase an individual's costs in accessing the system. There is also a sense that those with money are much more likely to be successful in the present justice system. In this regard, there were some calls for greater access to legal aid. Suggestions made to help expedite justice process and reduce costs included greater use of diversion; imposed time limits to complete trials/litigation; greater use of paralegals; and an increased monetary limit for small claims court.

Insensitivity

Many victims find that the system is insensitive to their needs. The need for further education and training for those working within the system, particularly in relation to issues concerning victimization, multi-culturalism, domestic violence and bereavement, was also suggested.

Similarly, First Nations and Metis people expressed the view that the system does not recognize the unique needs of their respective communities.

Confused by the purpose of criminal justice

Some people seemed confused as to the purpose of the criminal justice side of the system. Some see the essential purpose of the criminal justice system as deterrence, punishment and retribution while others see it as restoration and rehabilitation. Others expressed a loss of confidence in a criminal justice system that they see as inconsistent, particularly in relation to the sentencing of offenders. They perceive a lack of consistency in sentencing both across jurisdictions and between individual judges.

Inconsistency in sentencing

One reason that was cited for this inconsistency in sentencing is the rotation of judges. The view was also expressed, however, that sentencing needs to reflect individual community standards. This being the case, variations in sentencing would no doubt result, at least between communities. The committee also heard calls for "truth in sentencing" meaning that offenders should serve their entire sentence in jail. Some stated that the system currently provides no real consequence for offenders. The early release of offenders from jail was also raised as an issue. Some people called for the elimination of the parole board while others advocated for better training for, and accountability of, parole board members.

Adversarial verses restorative

A loss of confidence also results from the basic adversarial nature of the justice system that, as noted earlier in this report, produces winners and losers. In this equation, one side is usually content with a system in which they have won their case while the other side expresses discontentment with a system that has failed to yield the results that they desired. The concept of restorative justice, which is discussed later in this report, was described as a complementary option to the adversarial system. Restorative justice was seen as increasing the satisfaction level of the participants through compromise and win-win results.

Recommendations to improve public confidence:

That Alberta Justice work cooperatively with the federal government, other provincial government departments and agencies, the media, schools and other appropriate organizations to ensure that information about the justice system and its various processes is available to all Albertans. This information should be presented in words that are easy to understand.

That all the major participants in the administration of the justice system take measures to better inform/educate those individuals who come into contact with the system about the different roles that each aspect of the system is designed to fulfill.

That the Law Society of Alberta review the concerns that have been expressed in relation to the Society during the public consultation process to determine what action, if any, should be taken to address these concerns.

Public misperceptions about the justice system exist regardless of whether individuals have had personal contact with the system or not. It is not unusual to fear or mistrust what we do not know and understand. If Albertans can be made more aware of the purpose and workings of the justice system, in both general and specific terms, their level of confidence in the system's ability to do its job will likely increase. The committee believes that, where it currently does not exist, it would be beneficial if basic education on the various components of the justice system was made available within the elementary and secondary schools systems.

That Restorative Justice be established as a complementary option to the adversarial system of justice. (Also see the Restorative Justice section.)

Restorative justice options have evolved because many people believe that the adversarial nature of the current system is not the most efficient or effective method of dealing with certain types of disputes. Further details in this regard are contained in the "Restorative Justice" section of this report. The committee believes that more movement in this regard will increase the level of public confidence and satisfaction with the system.

That Alberta Justice examine ways to expedite the current justice process and make it more affordable for all Albertans. (Also see the Access to Justice and Family Law sections.)

That Alberta Justice examine ways to simplify the present justice system so that it is more "user friendly" and less complicated and intimidating. (Also see the Access to Justice and Family Law sections.)

That Alberta Justice provide further education and training to those working within the system to make them more sensitive to issues relating to such things as victimization, multiculturalism, domestic violence and bereavement. (Also see the Access to Justice section.)

That the province actively promote and support adequate justice system funding and staffing (from the courts to the streets). (Also see the Access to Justice section.)

That resident prosecutors and judges be provided in communities where workloads warrant. (Also see the Access to Justice section.)

What we heard

Victims' issues were raised in almost all of the public hearings and in many of the written submissions. The committee heard from individual victims and victims' organizations such as the Alberta Police Based Victims Services Association, Citizens Against Violence Everywhere Advocating its Termination (CAVEAT), and a variety of local victim services units.

Definition of a victim

Many people who appeared before the committee also spoke of themselves as being "victims of the system" because the system did not, for whatever reason, dispense the "justice" that they expected. For the purpose of this section of the report, the committee has specifically defined a victim as a person to whom harm has been done or who suffers physical loss or emotional harm as the result of the commission of an offence. Included in this definition would be the extended families of victims who have died or who have suffered irreparable harm as a result of an offence.

Need for appropriate services

Clearly victims are frustrated. They perceive an inequitable justice system, one that is insensitive to their needs but rather focuses on the needs of offenders. While some submissions were more focused on offender retribution, notably most presenters were not against the provision of services to offenders to assist in their rehabilitation. However, they believe that the system should also provide appropriate services for victims.

Costs and delays

Many victims see themselves as being victimized twice, once by the offender and then again by the insensitivity and demands of the system. The delays inherent in the court process add to their frustration. The court process is seen as taking too long and the Crown prosecutor is perceived as being too busy with other work to spend time with victims to explain the process or to answer questions they may have. The committee also heard that the system does not reimburse or compensate victims for many of the costs they have incurred as a result of having being victimized. These costs can include such things as expenses to repair property damage; costs to attend court to observe the proceedings; expenses for counseling for offence related emotional trauma; and funeral expenses.

Victims' "rights"

Many expressed the view that perceived offender "rights" are protected while victims "have no rights." It was explained to the committee that while the Victims of Crime Act lists principles for the treatment of victims, it is not seen as including any remedies for victims if these principles are not followed. It was suggested that a victims' ombudsman be appointed to ensure that victims receive their entitlements and that a provincial victims' office be created to serve as a clearinghouse for information on victim services and programs. A limited number of submissions also suggested that victims' rights should be clarified in legislation. While there was an insufficient number of submissions in this regard to warrant a recommendation, the committee believes that this issue may be worthy of discussion by the delegates at the summit.

Victim Impact Statement

The Victim Impact Statement Program was described as being beneficial by some, and not beneficial by others. Even those who saw benefit in the program described it as being flawed. Concerns were expressed that victim impact statements are made available to the defence; that many victims do not want their personal comments read aloud in court; that sometimes the statements are not considered at all; and that, on occasion, victim impact statements have been found discarded in unsecured areas in courthouses.

Needs of child victims

The committee was also told of the specific needs of child victims and child witnesses and system stresses that negatively impact a child who must testify. These stresses include delays and adjournments; the changing of Crown prosecutors; the complexity of court procedures; public exposure to a room full of strangers and facing the accused.

Compensation

Concerns were also expressed about the need to ensure that there is adequate victim compensation.

Funding

The committee also heard a consistent message regarding the need for ongoing, stable and adequate base funding for victims' programs and services. Currently, funding is provided year to year on an application basis. A need for improved information sharing and education/training was also identified. Victims believe that staff within the justice system need to be educated as to the emotional and financial costs that victims experience. Victims themselves also need to be educated and informed about the services and programs that are available to them. The committee believes it is not surprising that victims become frustrated with a system that they do not understand and one that they perceive as not understanding them.

Restorative Justice

The committee heard a number of submissions regarding "restorative" approaches to justice. Details in this regard are outlined in the "Restorative Justice" section of this report. In summary, restorative justice involves the victim in the process in a more meaningful way by helping the victim recover from the losses or injuries that they have suffered. Restorative justice is seen by the committee as an effective complementary option to the formal "adversarial" system in situations where the victim voluntarily agrees to participate and the offender accepts responsibility for his or her misdeed(s).

Recommendations to address victims' issues:

That ongoing, stable and adequate base funding be provided to victims' services units and organizations.

These funds would be used to cover costs related to such things as administration and the training of volunteers. Currently, funding for victim service units and programs is provided on an annual basis, based on applications. There is no commitment to long term base funding. Consequently, victims' services providers do not know from one year to the next whether they will have funds to continue to operate. The committee was also told that, in the absence of adequate base funding, many victims' services unit volunteers are forced to spend time fund raising and this is time that could be much better spent on service delivery.

That the federal and provincial governments take steps to make the justice system more sensitive to the needs of child victims and child witnesses.

That Alberta Justice examine ways to expedite the justice process and make it more affordable for all Albertans. (Also see the Public Confidence, Access to Justice and Family Law sections.)

The committee heard consistently about the costs and delays inherent in the justice system. We also heard that these costs and delays are felt more specifically by victims. The committee was provided with an example of one case that took 22 months and 17 court appearances to conclude. Another example was provided of a case involving a child victim that took two years to come to court. The presenter explained that "In a child's life, two years is an eternity." An expedited justice process would help to address these issues and would assist victims in seeking the "closure" they desire.

That the Victim Impact Statement Program be reviewed, in consultation with victims' organizations, to ensure that the program is serving the interest of victims.

That Alberta Justice provide members of victims' services units with opportunities to communicate and share "best practices" information with members of other victims' services units in the province.

Many victims' services units are in their early stages of development and depend on volunteers to operate. As new victims' services units develop, it is important that effective communication mechanisms be in place to share information on volunteer training and service excellence strategies.

What we heard

A number of groups and individuals made presentations relating to what this committee has, for the purpose of this report, termed "restorative justice." Some of the organizations making submissions in this regard were Aboriginal organizations, the Alberta Arbitration and Mediation Society, the Alberta Government Dispute Resolution Network, the Edmonton Police Commission, the Edmonton Victim Offender Mediation Society, the John Howard Society, the Mennonite Central Committee, and various youth justice committees.

The committee has defined "Restorative Justice" in a broad sense to include both restorative criminal justice concepts as well as Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) for civil and quasi-judicial matters.

"We have a skilled judiciary who render well thought out decisions, but they are unable to address the healing of society"

It was submitted by some that the formal justice system is failing, in part because, as an adversarial system, it is not designed to achieve both victim satisfaction and offender rehabilitation/reintegration in criminal matters or the satisfaction of both litigants in civil disputes. One submission noted: "we have a skilled judiciary who render well thought out decisions, but they are unable to address the healing of society, the reconciliation between victim and offender, the reconciliation between parties in a civil action. We must enhance the justice system to allow our judges to do what they do best and at the same time complete the justice circle by striving to rebuild relationships and [heal the] community." Restorative justice was proposed as a complementary process to address this shortfall of the current system.

Key elements of restorative justice

The term "Restorative Justice" was new to some committee members but all became very familiar with this concept as the consultation process unfolded. Restorative justice was primarily referenced in relation to the criminal justice system and it was defined by various presenters in varying ways. However, the key focus of restorative justice was always the same. Rather than viewing crime as an act against the state, restorative justice focuses on understanding crime as an act against individuals and communities. Restorative justice increases the role of victims of crime and communities in the justice process and it makes offenders face the consequence of their actions and holds them more directly accountable, to the people they have harmed and to their own families and communities.

The committee heard from the Edmonton Victim Offender Mediation Society (EVOMS) that the contemporary form of restorative justice was born in Elmira, Ontario, 25 years ago, when a victim-offender mediation was first ordered by a judge. From there, victim-offender mediation programs spread to the United States and Europe. The EVOMS' submission described restorative justice as a comprehensive response to criminal harms involving "three equally important priorities as follows:

1) helping victims recover from the losses or injuries they have suffered;
2) holding offenders directly accountable, to the people they have harmed and to their families and communities; and
3) preventing future harms."

Another submission noted that restorative justice is fundamentally different from retributive justice. It is an approach similar to the traditional justice practised in Aboriginal cultures around the world and it can be achieved through the use of youth justice committees, Aboriginal sentencing/healing circles, family group conferencing or community conferencing.

The community conferencing process

The following summary of the community conferencing process is provided to give the reader a greater appreciation of how restorative justice can work in a criminal context. Participants in community conferencing are usually the victim, the offender, their families and supporters and police. A circular seating arrangement is used to allow for appropriate separation between the victim and offender and to allow for eye contact among all participants. A trained facilitator is used and a structured process followed. The offender explains the details of the crime and the reasons for his or her actions. The victim then describes the impact that offence has had, emotional, physical or otherwise. All other participants are also canvassed as to their views and an appropriate resolution to the issue. The final outcome of this process is the creation of a "restorative agreement" to be carried out by the offender, under the supervision of volunteers. The terms of the agreement are limited only by the ideas of the parties involved. Agreements can include such things as apologies, personal service to the victim and monetary restitution. The conference terminates with the sharing of food or refreshments, allowing for closure, communication and reintegration.

Submissions supporting restorative justice noted that this approach results in reduced recidivism rates, decreased numbers of court cases, high offender compliance rates, reduced fear of crime for participants and high levels of community satisfaction.

An alternative... or in conjunction with the formal court process

Restorative justice options can be used as an alternative to the formal court process or, for example in the case of sentencing circles and youth justice committees, in conjunction with the formal court process. It should be noted, however, that restorative justice options are not appropriate in all cases. For restorative justice to work, there must be an identifiable victim; the victim's participation must be voluntary; and the offender must accept responsibility for the wrong that was committed.

Alternative Dispute Resolution

The committee also heard about "Alternative Dispute Resolution" initiatives or "ADR." Primarily referenced in relation to civil matters, ADR is also a way of resolving disputes that is different from the traditional adversarial court process. As already noted, the adversarial nature of the current system is seen as one that produces winners and losers. It was described as being "provocative and destructive" as opposed to being "productive and constructive." ADR includes mechanisms such as negotiation, mediation and arbitration.

Mediation was viewed by some as being a superior process, particularly in the area of family law and custody and access, except in cases where family violence is involved. ADR was not cited as a panacea but rather as providing a valuable additional dimension. It was suggested that the use of ADR can reduce the time it takes to settle a case and thereby reduce the overall costs to both the individual and the state. These decreased costs and improved timeliness of the process also increase public access to the system.

Mediation and arbitration

The submission from the Coalition for Legal Reform states that "ADR offers an opportunity for parties to follow agreed upon rules and to accept a settlement fashioned by their own hand, or a decision that they had some say in constructing. With mediation, there is very little imposition on the clients; rather it is the clients who control the process. With arbitration, the clients can choose both the arbitrators and the rules that they wish to follow; as a result, even in arbitration, the parties are much more active in resolving their own dispute. The introduction of an ADR legal system moves responsibility from the state to the client. It moves our frame of mind from adversary to cooperative."

Recommendations for restorative justice:

That "Restorative Justice" be established as a complementary option to the adversarial system of justice and that, with the victim's informed consent, restorative justice be:
- a standard response to crimes in which an accused person(s) accepts responsibility for their criminal actions;
- used in the widest possible range of cases;
- cultivated in culturally appropriate ways across the full cross- section of a community.

That Alberta Justice provide direction and leadership in formalizing a restorative justice system in this province by:
- beginning collaborative discussions with restorative justice practitioners, professionals from related agencies, and interested community members to:

• explore how the restorative justice community, Alberta Justice, and the community at large can work together to make restorative justice a sound component of a fair and effective justice system;
  
• develop guiding principles for a comprehensive restorative justice policy; and
  
• set out a plan, based on those guiding principles, to design and implement restorative justice programs in Alberta; and

-providing funding to support restorative justice initiatives so that restorative justice can be given the profile that it warrants.

These recommendations have been made because the committee heard that restorative justice:

- addresses the questionable premise that crime is against the state (Crown) versus against an individual or community. Crime against the state appears faceless, especially in the mind of the victim;
- meets the needs of the victim, as well as the offender, and provides for possible healing, reconciliation and closure thereby increasing the level of public confidence and satisfaction in the justice system;
- allows for proper use of punishment leading to rehabilitation;
- addresses accountability and responsibility of offenders in a direct way;


- makes decisions close to the people/community. Community and cultural norms and values can be considered. Aboriginal community values can be reflected in a restorative justice approach;
- enhances community responsibility and involvement which instills a sense of local ownership and interest;
- enhances community awareness, knowledge and understanding of the justice process;
- reduces costs and delays thereby making the total justice system more affordable and accessible;
- promotes community partnerships;
- is an effective means of crime prevention, based on reported success rates;
- provides an opportunity for police to become more proactive in crime prevention; and
- is consistent with the principles we teach in our education system, i.e. thinking and problem solving.

What we heard

While some members of the non-Aboriginal community provided comments to the committee on Aboriginal justice issues, the most substantive submissions came from members of the First Nations and Metis communities or First Nations and Metis organizations such as the Aboriginal Law Students Association, the Edmonton Aboriginal Urban Affairs Committee, the Institute for the Advancement of Aboriginal Women, Poundmaker's Adolescent Treatment Centre and the St. Paul Native Friendship Centre.

Placing the information in context

For the purpose of this section of the report, the word "Aboriginal" is used when referring to both First Nations and Metis people. If the comments refer specifically to one group or the other, they are identified as such. The committee recognizes the respective uniqueness of these two cultures. It also recognizes that while many of the issues facing First Nations and Metis people are similar, others are distinct to one group or the other as are some of their envisioned solutions to address these issues. The committee also believes it is important to note that, for the most part, First Nations' submissions reflected the position of on-reserve as opposed to off-reserve First Nations' members. Also, it is important to note that members of land-based Metis settlements and those off-settlement Metis who are resident in various towns and cities throughout this province do not necessarily share all of the same concerns regarding the justice system or recommendations for change.

Previous reports and commissions

Most of the comments that the committee received regarding Aboriginal justice related to the criminal justice system. It was clearly stated, and the committee recognizes, that Aboriginal people are disproportionately represented within the criminal justice system as both victims and offenders. Consequently, over the past number of years, they have been the subject of a number of commissions and inquiries. Some Aboriginal presenters described themselves as having been "overstudied." It appears that the results of these various commissions and inquiries have, however, done little to increase the level of satisfaction with the justice system of many of those Aboriginal people who made submissions to the committee. Indeed, many were of the belief that the recommendations contained in the various reports that have been completed over the years, have gone largely unaddressed. The most commonly cited report, in this regard, was The Task Force on the Criminal Justice System and its Impact on the Indian and Metis People of Alberta, also known as the "Cawsey Report." The committee also heard skepticism that the recommendations arising from the summit would likely suffer a similar fate. Notwithstanding these views, the committee noted a September 21, 1998, article in the Wetaskiwin Times which quoted the author of the Cawsey Report, former Justice Robert Allan Cawsey, as estimating that as many as 80% of the report's recommendations have been implemented by government.

It is clear that there is no simple or easy solution to the problems faced by First Nations and Metis peoples/communities. Nonetheless a number of consistent messages were delivered to the committee by First Nations and Metis people as to how the justice system can be improved to better meet their needs.

Unique history, culture and traditions

Aboriginal people see the current justice system as not recognizing their unique history, culture and traditions. To many, the system is culturally alien. The current system was described by some as perpetuating helplessness and powerlessness for Aboriginal people.

There is fundamental agreement by the Aboriginal community that the basic principle of a justice system is the "rule of law." It was stressed by some that Aboriginal people are not looking for preferential treatment but rather a recognition, by the system, of their unique needs. What the Aboriginal community is asking is that the rule of law be implemented in a manner that is consistent with their cultural values. Restorative justice models, such as sentencing circles, were promoted as holding promise for the Aboriginal community and being consistent with the historical Aboriginal approach to crime, that being problem solving, restoration and harmony.

Responsibility, autonomy and jurisdiction

Both the First Nations and Metis communities expressed a desire to assume greater responsibility and autonomy in dealing with justice issues that affect their communities and community members. One First Nations' presenter stated: "The answer lies within. Let us deal with our people through the advice of our elders and our community leaders." Other First Nations' presenters spoke to the issue of jurisdiction more directly. Specific concerns were cited regarding the lack of enforcement of band bylaws and the inability of First Nations' police services to enforce the Highway Traffic Act on major highways crossing reserves. Concerns were also cited regarding the funding of First Nations' police services and the training of their members. The committee also heard calls for a separate First Nations' justice system. Chief Darlene Yellow Old Woman-Munro of the Siksika Nation advised that "we want Canada and Alberta to stop catching us in their jurisdictional dance." She stated that "the problem is that Alberta is still playing around the edges. It wants First Nations to administer programs and to join provincial bureaucracies. It does not want to take the next step. It does not want to transfer real responsibility and authority to First Nation governments." In this regard, First Nations see themselves as a separate order of government that should be recognized and dealt with as such. Another presenter stated that part of the problem has been a lack of communication between the province and First Nations because First Nations have been reluctant to meet with the province due to "jurisdictional issues."

Submissions from the Metis community were less specific in relation to control but nonetheless called for the increased representation of Metis people in all aspects of the administration of justice; the need for "home-grown" solutions; and the need for innovative and creative thinking to reduce the over representation of Metis people in the criminal justice system as both victims and offenders.

Crime prevention

The committee also heard that the focus of the justice system should be on prevention through an integrated community approach. Poverty, unemployment and substance abuse were seen as being at the root of crime in Aboriginal communities and it was noted that the justice system cannot be expected to solve problems of a societal nature. Some stressed the particular need to address issues related to Aboriginal youth who are being lost to "alcohol, drugs and suicide." More detailed information on crime prevention is contained in the "Crime Prevention" section of this report.

Discrimination

The issue of systemic discrimination of Aboriginal people in the criminal justice system was also raised. It was also submitted by some that historical stereotypes prevail and that Aboriginal people receive longer sentences and bigger fines.

In addition to the foregoing, First Nations and Metis people also expressed many of the same concerns as members of the non-Aboriginal community in relation to issues such as access to the justice system, youth justice, victims' rights and family law. These concerns are included in the other sections of this report that specifically deal with these issues.

Before proceeding with the recommendations, it must be noted that while the foregoing represents the majority of views presented to the committee, the committee also heard from a number of individuals who see a justice system that gives Aboriginal offenders preferred treatment.

Recommendations to address First Nations and Metis justice issues:

That Alberta Justice, in concert with representatives of the First Nations and Metis communities, undertake a complete review of the implementation status of the recommendations contained in the "Cawsey Report", with a view to implementing those recommendations that have not been implemented to date.

Many members of the Aboriginal community believe the recommendations contained in the Cawsey Report have gone largely unaddressed while a recent newspaper article has quoted the author of the report as estimating that as many as 80% of the report's recommendations have been implemented. The recommended review should clarify this difference in perception and establish what further action, if any, needs to be taken in implementing the report's recommendations.

That Alberta Justice examine the reported discrimination of Aboriginal people in the criminal justice system to determine the extent of this issue and any action that needs to be taken to address this issue.

Allegations of discrimination are of concern to this committee. The committee believes that there is no place for discrimination, systemic or otherwise, within the justice system and that a review should be conducted to address these allegations.

That the federal and provincial governments more clearly delineate their respective roles and responsibilities, as they relate to the administration of justice and Aboriginal people.

The committee heard that there is confusion within the Aboriginal community as to the roles and responsibilities of these two levels of government when it comes to the administration of justice and First Nations and Metis people.

That the Summit on Justice address the extent to which First Nations and Metis communities should be allowed to establish their own separate justice systems.

The committee heard that First Nations and Metis people would like to assume greater control of those areas of the justice system that impact upon them. The degree of control and the manner in which this control should be assumed varied depending on the submission. Some people called for increased Aboriginal community consultation on justice issues and others called for increased representation of Aboriginal people in all areas of the administration of the justice system. Some First Nations' members called for the establishment of a separate First Nations' justice system. The committee is unable to make a recommendation, based on the submissions received, as to the extent to which control of and responsibility for the administration of the justice system should be transferred to First Nations and Metis communities. The committee believes, however, that this is a very important issue and one that deserves the full attention of the delegates at the Summit on Justice.

That members of Aboriginal police services receive training on a par with that provided to members of non-Aboriginal police services.

The committee heard from the First Nations community that the training provided to members of First Nations police services is substandard to that provided to members of non-Aboriginal police services.

That the funding mechanism for First Nations' police services be examined to ensure that funding for First Nations' police services is comparable to that provided to non-Aboriginal police services, assuming both services are performing the same policing functions.

The committee heard from the First Nations community that First Nations' police services receive less funding than does the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, on a police officer per capita basis, even though it was reported that both police services are performing the same policing functions.

What we heard

Crime prevention was a theme that was woven, directly or indirectly, through many of the submissions from both individuals and organizations. Some organizations whose submissions addressed this issue in a substantive way included the Calgary Police Commission, the John Howard Society, the Edmonton Police Commission, and the Edmonton Police Services Youth Services Section.

Crime prevention through early intervention and sound social development programs

The committee heard a consistent message that if the role of the justice system is to protect the public, the best way to do so is to prevent crime. When one thinks of crime prevention, initiatives that quickly come to mind are programs such as Neighborhood Watch and Rural Crime Watch. While the committee did hear supportive comments about these types of programs and a call for greater automobile theft prevention initiatives, most submissions dealing with crime prevention addressed this issue from a much broader perspective. The crime prevention strategy that was most often promoted was that of crime prevention through early intervention initiatives and sound social development programs.

Addressing crime prevention through early intervention and social development is a long term, proactive approach. Crime prevention through early intervention and social development does not replace, but rather complements, other crime prevention strategies. This approach recognizes that prevention goes beyond enforcement by addressing the social and economic conditions that increase the risk of a person being involved in crime. Many submissions reported the root causes of crime as poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, the quality of early childhood care, family breakdown, peer influence and substance abuse. A number of submissions specifically focused on the negative effects of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) and Fetal Alcohol Effect (FAE) and the need for more resources to deal with children suffering from these effects.

Early intervention crime prevention strategies include providing for the health and well-being of unborn children; intervening at the preschool level by addressing the aggressive behavior of toddlers; promoting early childhood care and education with family involvement; and intervening at formal educational levels to improve school outcomes. These types of interventions result in the development of individuals with healthier and more productive lifestyles. In this regard, the committee consistently heard positive references made to the work of the National Crime Prevention Council. It was also reported that longitudinal studies indicate that such early intervention strategies work.

Community based policing

Community based policing was also referenced as an important component of a coordinated crime prevention strategy.

Funding

The aforementioned crime prevention initiatives are not without cost. The committee heard that additional financial and human resources are needed for crime prevention. For example, it was stated that community based policing costs more money and when there are fewer dollars for policing, police become more reactive than proactive. However, the committee was also told that evidence clearly indicates that early intervention initiatives and sound social development programs are not only socially effective, they are also cost effective. It was explained that one study showed that every dollar spent on early intervention saves seven dollars in subsequent social service and justice costs.

Recommendation for crime prevention:

That a task force be struck with representation from appropriate provincial, federal and municipal government departments and health, mental health, education, justice and social service agencies to develop an integrated crime prevention strategy for Alberta based on principles of crime prevention through early intervention initiatives and sound social development.

It is recognized that the provincial Department of Justice alone cannot implement crime prevention through early intervention and social development. Rather, this approach requires a coordinated and integrated response from all levels of government working in partnership with health, mental health, education, justice, social service and other appropriate agencies.

What we heard

As noted in the introduction to this report, the committee heard from individual Albertans and from those representing interest groups and organizations. While a number of organizations made submissions on youth justice issues, this was the topic that appeared to be most frequently addressed by individual Albertans.

Young offender accountability and resposibility

Young offender accountability and responsibility are two issues that were repeated throughout the consultation process. There is concern that the present system does not adequately provide realistic consequences that have meaning for youth. There is, however, a difference of opinion as to how youth should best be handled by the justice system.

There are those who believe that self discipline and respect for the system is lacking. They believe that tougher measures will instill these values in our youth. There is a significant element of both anger and fear linked to the idea that youth are out of control and that the present system is not protecting innocent citizens. Some people suggested reducing the young offender age. Others simply said that those who break the law should be held more accountable for their actions. "Do the crime, do the time" is an abbreviated expression of concern that youth are not held sufficiently accountable for their behavior. The committee was also told that youth who have committed violent crimes, as well as those who are chronic repeat offenders, should be sentenced in adult court.

A number of submissions also expressed the view that sentences for young offenders are too lenient. Concern was also expressed that the Young Offenders Act allows offenders to commit crimes with anonymity. Both of these issues are seen as engendering further young offender disrespect for the system.

Punitive verses restorative

On the other hand, the committee heard from a significant number of people who believe that punitive solutions alone do not serve the best interests of the community or the individual offender. These people see proactive, coordinated, restorative justice programs as a more effective option to simply placing young offenders in custody. They advocate early intervention programs designed to prevent youth from coming into contact with the justice system by addressing those factors that increase the likelihood of youths committing crimes. This approach involves community, family, and most especially parental involvement in dealing with issues of domestic violence, drug addiction, poverty, and other socio-economic factors affecting children. Details on crime prevention through early intervention initiatives and social development programs are addressed in the "Crime Prevention" section of this report.

Parental involvement

As noted above, the committee heard, from a restorative justice perspective, that parents should become more involved with their children's lives. In this regard, parental involvement is seen as essential in providing a nurturing environment for children. Those advocating a more punitive approach strongly promoted increased parental accountability for the financial consequences of their children's wrongdoings.

Youth Justice Committees

The committee heard a considerable amount about youth justice committees. Youth justice committees, made up of volunteers, operate in over 100 communities in the province. Some provide sentencing advice to the court, others administer alternative measures programs, and some do both. Alternative measures programs allow selected offenders to be diverted from the formal justice system, if they admit responsibility for their misdeed(s) and agree to the terms of an alternative measures agreement as imposed by the youth justice committee. These committees report positive outcomes including: a willingness of people to take action for both themselves and the community; having offending youth meet with victims and take responsibility; increasing victim involvement in the process by having them express how the crime has affected them; considering families' needs; and providing an expedient process and conclusion.

Funding

While members of youth justice committees consistently noted the benefits of their work, they also consistently explained that there is a need for financial support for these committees if they are to be sustained. It was not proposed that volunteer committee members be paid but rather that ongoing base funding be provided for the cost of administering and coordinating committee activities. It was also reported that there is a lack of communication between committees and that committees would benefit from greater provincial coordination and the sharing of "best practices" information.

Recommendations to address youth and the justice system:

That ongoing, stable and adequate base funding be provided to support the administration of restorative justice programs such as youth justice committees. (Also see the Restorative Justice section.)

That Alberta Justice provide members of youth justice committees with opportunities to communicate and share "best practices" information with members of other youth justice committees in the province.

That the provincial and federal governments undertake to effectively measure the rate of recidivism of those offenders who are dealt with by means of restorative justice programs.

For restorative justice options to be effective there needs to be a coordinated system of appropriately funded community and government programs that support restorative justice concepts. Youth justice committees are seen as one effective element of a restorative justice approach. Those youth justice committees making submissions to the committee reported extremely low levels of recidivism for those offenders who have been involved in their programs. While the committee is aware that no comprehensive recidivism studies using an appropriate "scientific" method have been completed with respect to offenders referred to youth justice committees, the anecdotal information provided by youth justice committees appears positive. A more scientific analysis of recidivism rates would, however, definitely be helpful in measuring their success.

That the Young Offenders Act be amended to:
- provide for easier transfer to adult court to address serious and chronic offending by youths;
- impose the presumption of adult court for youths 16 years of age and older who committed serious violent offences not currently addressed in the Act, and for those demonstrating a pattern of violence; and
- allow, upon conviction, the publication of the identity of chronic repeat offenders and those young offenders convicted of an offence involving serious violence.

While the committee is fully supportive of a restorative justice system, as referenced in the first recommendation in this section, the committee also recognizes that chronic young offenders and those who commit serious and violent offences present a significant concern to Albertans. The manner in which these types of offenders are dealt with by the system needs to reflect this concern. The amendments to the Young Offenders Act proposed in this recommendation are consistent with recommendations contained in the 1994 Alberta Task Force Report on the Administration of the Young Offenders Act.

What we heard

The committee heard that the justice system is difficult to access for a variety of reasons and that this difficulty in accessing the system works against the fundamental notion that the system should provide for equality and fairness for all Albertans.

Costs and delays

The two major concerns that the committee heard most often were cost and delays. The committee received a strong sense that the public believes that money determines success in the court system and ensures accessibility. Simply put, the person with the biggest pocket book wins.

Options to help expedite processes

The committee also clearly heard that the justice system is too slow. Delays in the system result from such things as witnesses, accused or litigants failing to appear in court; procedural complexities; and workloads and scheduling problems. These delays produce additional stress on all involved, including victims, the accused, litigants, those charged with administering the justice system and others working or volunteering within the system. Increased costs are also associated with these delays. There seems to be a point at which people can no longer afford to return to the justice system even though their sense of justice has not been fulfilled. Some suggestions to help expedite processes included the greater use of diversion; imposed time limits to complete trials/litigation; greater use of paralegals; and an increased monetary limit for small claims court.

Claims were also made by some that the system is being abused by lawyers for financial gain through the excessive use of procedural delays and appeals and by initiating frivolous lawsuits and motions. This view was applied to both civil and criminal matters and to both private and legal aid counsel.

Legal aid

Legal aid was identified as an area of concern by some in that it is seen as a direct form of access to the justice system. It is also perceived as being free although, in reality, the legal aid system does not function as a free system and it is committed to retrieving costs from clients to the best of its ability. The perception of "free" legal aid is seen by some as offering an unfair advantage to those who receive this assistance. On the other hand, there are those who feel that the restrictions on the legal aid system are too stringent. There are also those who believe that they do not receive the best counsel in a legal aid lawyer. Suggestions for changes to the legal aid system included alternative methods of calculating fees for legal aid work; establishing a legal aid clinic or staff counsel program; requiring more "pro bono" work from lawyers; encouraging the pursuit of the most expedient dispute remedy; providing better information on the legal aid program to the public; and increasing program accountability by establishing a more effective complaint resolution process.

Complicated, confusing and intimidating

The committee also heard that the justice system is too complicated. The very nature of the court process, including the terminology and procedures used, makes the justice system confusing and intimidating for the average person. The view was expressed that obtaining a lawyer is a pre-requisite to approaching the system and it became apparent to the committee that, once in the system, people often do not understand what is happening and for what reason. We heard that the system should become more understandable and that plain language should be used.

Funding

Lastly, concern was voiced that the system needs to be adequately funded and staffed so that necessary services are available for public access. Concern was expressed about a perceived shortage of Crown Prosecutors and the loss of prosecutors to the private sector due to pay and workload issues. We also heard that there is a need to ensure that judicial vacancies are immediately filled. Several communities spoke of the need for resident judges and Crown prosecutors, as opposed to those who fly or drive in to their communities. It is believed that by living in the community, these judges and prosecutors will become more aware of and sensitive to community issues and concerns. The committee also heard that the continued growth of Alberta's population has meant that police services have had to re-adjust their policing priorities in light of available resources. However, the ranking of these priorities does not always match public expectations. For example, a number of people stated that insufficient police attention is placed on matters related to automobile theft, vandalism, and other property crimes. We have also noted earlier in this report that the committee heard that there is a need for increased funding for crime prevention programs and a need for ongoing base funding for victims' service programs and programs, such as youth justice committees, that support a restorative justice option.

Recommendations to improve access to justice:

That Alberta Justice examine ways to expedite the current justice process and make it more affordable for all Albertans. (Also see the Public Confidence and Family Law sections.)

That Alberta Justice, in conjunction with the Law Society of Alberta and the Legal Aid Society of Alberta, examine the possibility of implementing options, such as establishing a staff counsel program, that were suggested as alternatives to the traditional means by which legal aid services are provided in Alberta.

That Alberta Justice examine ways to simplify the present justice system so that it is more "user friendly" and less complicated and intimidating. (Also see the Public Confidence and Family Law sections.)

That Alberta Justice provide further education and training to those working within the system to make them more sensitive to issues relating to such things as victimization, multiculturalism, domestic violence and bereavement. (Also see the Public Confidence and Family Law sections.)

That the province actively promote and support adequate justice system funding and staffing (from the courts to the streets). (Also see the Public Confidence section.)

That resident prosecutors and judges be provided in communities where workloads warrant. (Also see the Public Confidence section.)

What we heard

Family issues within the justice system affect a large number of Albertans. Many people who would otherwise have no direct contact with the justice system become involved in the system as a result of separation, divorce or other family related matters. The committee received a significant number of submissions regarding family law issues, most from individual Albertans. However, a number of submissions on family law issues were also received from groups and organizations such as the Family of Men Support Society, the Men's Educational Support Association, the St. Albert S.A.I.F. Society, the Equitable Child Maintenance and Access Society and the Canadian Grandparents' Rights Association (Alberta branch).

Many of the issues identified in relation to family law are consistent with issues and concerns raised regarding the justice system in general. These issues have been addressed in earlier sections of this report and relate to the delays that are inherent in the system; costs; legal aid; and a lack of understanding about how the system works. While these topics have been previously addressed, the committee believes it is important to restate these concerns in this section in the context of the family law process.

Family law is seen as confusing

The committee heard that legal rights and obligations related to family law are contained in a number of different statutes. Different levels of court have jurisdiction under different statutes and sometimes more than one level of court is designated within a statute. Consequently the family law system is seen by many as confusing. One solution that was proposed is to create a single court level for family law matters. It was also suggested that all family law legislation be reviewed and incorporated into one statute.

Accessibility

The committee was advised that currently most family law matters must be dealt with in Court of Queen's Bench. This court is not as accessible to rural Albertans as is Provincial Court. Because of more complex procedural rules, the Court of Queen's Bench is also difficult to access without the assistance of a lawyer, thus increasing the cost for those involved.

Legal aid

Also related to cost is the issue of legal aid. The committee heard concern that there are individuals who cannot exercise their rights because they can neither afford legal assistance nor do they qualify for legal aid. It was recommended that more money be made available for legal aid for family law matters.

Mediation for family law and child access matters

Issues relating to family law can be highly emotional due to their intimacy and the frequent involvement of children. The adversarial nature of the justice system is seen by many as exacerbating issues that are already emotionally charged, and increasing, rather than resolving, the hostility and acrimony that can exist in these matters. As noted earlier in this report, mediation was viewed by some as being a superior process in the area of family law and child custody and access matters. The exception to this approach would be in cases where family violence is involved, although the committee also heard the view that mediation could be considered, with caution, in such cases as well.

Perceived bias

Some men stated that the family law system favours women in custody and maintenance actions. Some also expressed the view that, with respect to custody and access issues, legal aid is easily available to women but not to men. We also heard from a grandparents' advocate that, in custody matters, the system is also biased in favour of the mother versus grandparents.

Use of false affidavits

A significant number of both men and women advised that the use of false affidavits is rampant in the family law system and that no action is taken against those who make such false statements. We consistently heard that there should be greater consequences for individuals who swear false affidavits or make false statements in court while under oath.

Maintenance and access

Maintenance and access issues also received considerable attention. The committee heard that the Maintenance Enforcement Program (MEP) does not have the power or resources to effectively enforce maintenance orders. The program was also criticized as lacking in empathy for both creditors and debtors. The committee also heard that child access orders are often ignored and that there is no mechanism in place to have these orders enforced. Suggestions for improvements included linking maintenance payments to access; greater education/training for police regarding the enforcement of access orders; and the creation of an access enforcement program similar to the MEP. It should be noted that Ms. Marlene Graham, MLA Calgary-Lougheed, recently chaired a committee that examined the issues of maintenance enforcement and child access in considerable detail. The resulting report, entitled "MLA Review of the Maintenance Enforcement Program and Child Access," was released in June 1998. Many of the issues raised in this report are similar to those cited here.

Domestic violence

With regard to domestic violence, the committee was advised that those working within the system do not understand the dynamics of abusive relationships. We heard that family violence goes beyond issues such as substance abuse and anger management and is really about "power and control." It was suggested that more understanding of these underlying issues, together with more support programs, is required in order to affect positive change. Also, tools of the court, such as restraining orders and peace bonds, are seen by many as ineffectual because they do not serve their intended purpose. The committee heard that a peace bond or restraining order is only effective if the individual to whom it applies has respect for the law. It was suggested that ways be found for the system to react more quickly when the terms of peace bonds and restraining orders are violated and that there be greater consequences for those who fail to abide by such court orders.

Recommendations to address family law issues:

That Alberta Justice examine ways to expedite the current justice process and make it more affordable for all Albertans. (Also see the Public Confidence and Access to Justice sections.)

That provincial family law legislation be reviewed and incorporated into one single statute.

In keeping with the review noted in the previous recommendation, consideration should also be given to the development of a single level of court for family law matters (ie. a "Unified Family Court").

That Alberta Justice examine ways to simplify the family law system so that it is more "user friendly" and less complicated and intimidating. (Also see the Public Confidence and Access to Justice sections.)

That Alberta Justice promote the use of restorative justice options, including such things as mediation, conciliation and arbitration as an effective means of dealing with many family law issues. (Also see the Restorative Justice section.)

That Alberta Justice examine the reported use of false affidavits to determine the extent of this issue and any action that needs to be taken to address the issue.

That Alberta Justice provide further education and training to those working within the system to make them more sensitive to issues relating to domestic violence. (Also see the Public Confidence section.)

That the government continue with the implementation of those approved recommendations arising from the MLA Review of the Maintenance Enforcement Program and Child Access report.

What we heard

As noted at the beginning of this report, a number of individual issues, not included within the previously outlined themes, were brought to the committee's attention during the consultation process. The need for brevity precludes the listing of all such issues in this report. There are, however, several specific issues that the committee believes important to bring to the attention of the summit delegates even though they did not generate sufficient overall attention during the consultations to justify recommendations within the body of this report. The committee is highlighting these issues because of the compelling nature of the submissions in which they were addressed. These issues are:

Drinking and Driving

The committee heard first hand of the devastating effects on several families caused by drinking and driving. It was suggested that greater public education is needed in this regard. It was recommended that a minimum punishment be imposed for those convicted of criminal negligence causing death due to drinking and driving.

Class Action Legislation

It was submitted that Alberta should institute class action legislation similar to that which exists in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia. Class action legislation allows groups of individuals to file a collective claim as opposed to having to pursue their claims individually. It was stated that this increases a person's ability to access the justice system by allowing them to pursue claims collectively that they would probably not have been able to afford to pursue individually.

Provocation as a Defence

The committee was advised that the Criminal Code of Canada contains a provision that allows persons charged with murder to argue "provocation" as a defence for having the severity of their charge reduced from murder to manslaughter. It was stated that this law is deeply offensive, especially to the victims' survivors, and it was recommended that the Alberta Government support the removal of this defence from the Criminal Code.

Mental Illness and the Criminal Justice System

The committee heard the concern that individuals are "falling through the cracks in the mental health system" and ending up in the criminal justice system. Often these individuals' mental health problems are not recognized by the justice system. It was suggested that criminal justice and mental health professionals need to cooperatively examine this issue.

The Dower Act

The committee was advised of a personal situation in which the application of the Dower Act had an extremely negative impact on the personal circumstances of a young girl, upon the death of her mother. The committee heard that the Dower Act provided the deceased woman's husband of four months with a life interest in her house, even though she had bequeathed the house to her four-year-old daughter from a previous marriage. It was recommended that the act be repealed or revised to specifically address situations such as this.

Secure Treatment Orders / Treatment Resources

It was stated that many children who are subject to "secure treatment orders" have problems relating to alcohol, drug or solvent abuse. It was further reported that these problems are not being addressed within secure treatment facilities, primarily because of a lack of treatment resources. The recommendation was made that the Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commisssion (AADAC) resources be made available to provide this treatment.

ORGANIZATIONS THAT MADE SUBMISSIONS TO THE COMMITTEE

A
Aboriginal Health Management Association
Aboriginal Law Students Association
Association in Defence of the Wrongfully Convicted
Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission (AADAC)
Alberta Arbitration and Mediation Society
Alberta Crown Attorneys' Association
Alberta Government Dispute Resolution Network
Alberta Mackenzie Catholic Women's League Council
Alberta Police Based Victims' Services Association
Alberta Seventh Step Society
Alberta Teachers' Association
Auto Theft Consulting Services
Auxiliary Group for the Protection of Persons in Care

B
Bigstone Cree Nation
Blood Tribe Administration
Blood Tribe Police Service
Bow Valley Victims' Services Association
Bridging the Gap

C
Calgary Chapter of the Schizophrenia Society of Alberta
Calgary John Howard Society
Calgary Motor Dealers Association
Calgary Police Commission
Calgary-Shaw Constituency Justice Mini-Summit
Calgary Youth Justice Society
Canadian Grandparents' Rights Association (Alberta branch)
Canadian Indigenous Women's Resource Institute
Canadian Mental Health Association
Canadian Society for the Investigation of Child Abuse
China Grove Church of Reformed Druids
Chris Braiden Consulting Inc.
City of Edmonton - Community Services Department
City of Edmonton - Senior Management Team
City of Grande Prairie
City of Fort Saskatchewan Policing Committee
Citizens Against Violence Everywhere Advocating its Termination (CAVEAT)
Citizens' Legal Reform Society
Coalition for Legal Reform
Cochrane and District Youth Justice Committee
Community Conferencing Association of Edmonton
County of Barrhead No. 11
County of Wetaskiwin
Cultural Brokers and Multiculural Community Health Developers
Cultural Brokers Network

E
Edmonton Aboriginal Urban Affairs Committee
Edmonton Community Services (Alternative Measures)
Edmonton John Howard Society
Edmonton Police Commission
Edmonton Police Service - Youth Services Section
Edmonton Police Service - Victims' Services Unit
Edmonton Quality of Life Commission
Edmonton Safer Cities Initiatives
Edmonton Seniors, One Voice Association
Edmonton Sexual Assault Centre
Edmonton Support and Advocacy Association for Abused Women
Edmonton Victim Offender Mediation Society
Edmonton Youth Justice Committee
Elizabeth Fry Society of Calgary
Equal Parents of Canada
Equitable Child Maintenance and Access Society (ECMAS)

F
Family of Men Support Society
Family Community Service
Family Violence Prevention
Foothills Regional Victim Services Association
Fort McMurray Family Crisis Society
Fort McMurray Victims' Services Unit

G
Grande Prairie John Howard Society
Grande Prairie Sexual Assault Centre
Grande Prairie Victims' Assistance Program
Grande Prairie Women's Shelter

H
High Prairie Family Service Agency
High Level Youth Justice Committee

I
Independent Lawyers Society of Alberta
Institute for the Advancement of Aboriginal Women

J
J. G. Moore and Associates Ltd.
John Howard Society of Alberta

K
Kainai Community Corrections Society
Kainaiwa Child Welfare Legislation Initiative
Knights of Columbus and Social Justice Commission - Archdiocese of Edmonton

L
Lethbridge John Howard Society
Lesser Slave Lake Indian Regional Council

M
Male Survivors of Child Abuse
Medicine Hat John Howard Society
Medicine Hat Youth Justice
Mennonite Central Committee
Mennonite Central Committee - Community Justice Ministries
Men's Educational Network
Men's Educational Support Association (MESA)
Metis Nation of Alberta
Metis Settlements General Council
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)

N
Native Counseling Services of Alberta

P
PACE - Providing Assistance, Counseling and Education
Parent Support Association
Peace River Bar Association
Perpetrator Monitoring Subcommittee of the Calgary Domestic Violence Committee
Poundmaker's Adolescent Treatment Centre
Protection and Restraining Order Project
Provincial Mental Health Advisory Board
Public Legal Education Network of Alberta (PLENA)

R
Red Deer John Howard Society
Rights Advocacy Group
Royal Canadian Mounted Police (various detachments)
Ruth Adria - Elder Advocate

S
Sandra Atkin - Victim Advocate
Schizophrenia Society of Alberta
Siksika First Nation
Siksika Justice Program
Slave Lake Youth Justice Committee
Stony Plain Community Justice Committee
Strathcona Youth Justice Committee
St. Albert and District Mediation Society
St. Albert Community Justice Committee
St. Albert S.A.I.F. Society
St. Paul Native Friendship Centre

T
The Orphaned Grandparents' Association
Town of High Prairie
Town of Slave Lake
Treaty 8 Executive Board
Turningpoint Program for Young Offenders (Alberta Hospital Edmonton Site)

U
United Church of Canada

V
Village of Waskatenau

W
Wabasca Youth Justice Committee
Wetaskiwin-Camrose Constituency Justice Mini-Summit
Wetaskiwin Motor Dealers Association
Wetaskiwin Victims' Services Unit

Date	Location	Time
May 20	Stand Off	9 - 11am
May 20	Lethbridge	2 - 5pm, 7 - 9pm
May 21	Medicine Hat	1 - 5pm, 7 - 9pm
May 26	Lloydminster	5 - 9pm
May 27	St. Paul	1 - 5pm
May 28	Red Deer	1 - 5pm, 7 - 9pm
June 8	Fort McMurray	1 - 5pm
June 9	Slave Lake	10am - noon, 1 - 3pm
June 9	High Prairie	7 - 9pm
June 22	Grande Prairie	1 - 5pm, 7 - 9pm
June 23	Peace River	1 - 5pm
June 24	High Level	9am - noon
Sept. 14	Hobbema	10am - noon
Sept. 14	Wetaskiwin	2 - 5pm
Sept. 15, 16	Edmonton	9am - noon, 1 - 5pm, 7 - 9pm
Sept. 21	Calgary	9am - noon, 1 - 5pm, 7 - 9pm
Sept. 22	Siksika First Nation	9 - 11am
Sept. 22	Calgary	2 - 5pm, 7 - 9pm
Sept. 24	Métis Settlements General Council (Edmonton)	2 - 4pm