Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate committee and colleagues for allowing me to bring this motion to the House. This debate occurred much before we are speaking to it today, so I appreciate bringing it here today.
This was by far the most contentious and most debated amendment to the proposed Legal Aid Act, and for good reason, as the premise of having the executive director being a non-lawyer has shaken the foundation of stagnant thinking. Many may ask, why should one care to challenge this concept? What is the point? The answer is simple: We are here to listen to the people and to create the most modern and useful legislation for the betterment of people and by the people. As the Minister indicated, we may not be revisiting this legislation for another 10 years.
During the public hearings on this act, the committee received a submission holding a lens to the concept that it was not necessary for the executive director to be a lawyer. Upon extensive review and with legal counsel the following advantages to this claim were substantiated.
The first observation with the position of the executive director in itself was a position of significant skill set and mastery of organizational excellence. In the broader sense, many potentially good managers would be screened out by the requirement of being a lawyer. I can assure
everyone here today that this troubled many committee members.
Second, this position could be tied to more of an administrative role and less confined to legalistic thinking as the act already makes provisions in paragraphs 6(3)(d) of Bill 5, which reads, “The Executive Director may (d) delegate any of his or her duties to a staff member.” This in itself would relieve the so-called requirement of the executive director to actually have to practice law, and thus further supports this premise.
Third, the legislation could be permissive, allowing but not restricting the executive director to be a lawyer. Again, the intention of the and/or clause is to modernize this act and accepting what we are seeing in other jurisdictions across Canada. I will note the Minister may try, in good measure, to give compelling arguments that the circumstances with other provinces cannot be compared due to the size and caseload difference, but in reality, many committee members believe these arguments to be mute.
Finally, the duties of the executive director requiring legal input could be delegated to a commission staff lawyer or legal advisor to the commission as is seen in other jurisdictions. Many committee members are satisfied with this statement and it has been confirmed by our legal counsel. Evidence is found throughout the act which this delegation authority would be of sound acceptance within the framework of the act.
Of course, you’re going to hear the Minister or his designate repudiate the concept of a non-lawyer executive director with the suggestion that this will require huge costs to legal aid to administer such change, that this expense will be taken away from clients’ needs, and that the executive director requires to be a lawyer to fulfill a myriad of other operational functions. Again, taken in the narrowest of context within the act, yes, the Minister may have limited merits, but we are talking about change and with change comes fear, and we should not fear and cloud our decision-making through fear.
Again, we are attempting to change the thinking that has been enshrined for over 33 years and, yes, change is difficult to swallow. However, we need to think about opening the doors of opportunity with the inclusion of this option and/or clause to allow inclusive behaviour to the act and not rubberstamp exclusive thinking. As a government, we need to lead by example, and by not allowing inclusion of a non-lawyer executive director clearly breeds contempt for the very concept we’re trying to uphold, which is openness and justice to the people.
I will be seeking, hopefully, Madam Chair, support from my fellow colleagues to this motion.