role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

April 20, 2006

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2006-Apr-20 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 20 April 2006 Jeudi 20 avril 2006

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

CHRISTOPHER'S LAW

(SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT

LA LOI CHRISTOPHER

SUR LE REGISTRE

DES DÉLINQUANTS SEXUELS

KEVIN AND JARED'S LAW

(CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT), 2006 /

LOI KEVIN ET JARED DE 2006 MODIFIANT

DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LES SERVICES À L'ENFANCE

ET À LA FAMILLE

CHRISTOPHER'S LAW

(SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT

LA LOI CHRISTOPHER

SUR LE REGISTRE

DES DÉLINQUANTS SEXUELS

KEVIN AND JARED'S LAW

(CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT), 2006 /

LOI KEVIN ET JARED DE 2006 MODIFIANT

DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LES SERVICES À L'ENFANCE

ET À LA FAMILLE

CHRISTOPHER'S LAW

(SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT

LA LOI CHRISTOPHER

SUR LE REGISTRE

DES DÉLINQUANTS SEXUELS

KEVIN AND JARED'S LAW

(CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT), 2006 /

LOI KEVIN ET JARED DE 2006 MODIFIANT

DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LES SERVICES À L'ENFANCE

ET À LA FAMILLE

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LOWELL GREEN

QUEEN'S BIRTHDAY

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

IMMIGRATION POLICY

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

POVERTY

HOWARD WU

REPUBLIC OF CROATIA

TRILLIUM HEALTH CENTER

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

EARTH DAY /

JOUR DE LA TERRE

CHILD PROTECTION

EARTH DAY

CHILD PROTECTION

ORAL QUESTIONS

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

NUCLEAR ENERGY

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

ENERGY CONSERVATION

EDUCATION FUNDING

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

DRUG SYSTEM REFORM

GASOLINE PRICES

HEALTH CARE

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

SUBVENTIONS CULTURELLES

BORDER SECURITY

PETITIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

COMMUNITY MEDIATION

GASOLINE PRICES

IDENTITY THEFT

SUPPORTIVE HOUSING

BORDER SECURITY

ORGAN DONATION

CHILD CARE

CONVENIENCE STORES

SOCIAL SERVICES FUNDING

LONG-TERM CARE

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE

VISITORS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TRANSPARENT DRUG SYSTEM

FOR PATIENTS ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR UN RÉGIME

DE MÉDICAMENTS TRANSPARENT

POUR LES PATIENTS

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

CHRISTOPHER'S LAW

(SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT

LA LOI CHRISTOPHER

SUR LE REGISTRE

DES DÉLINQUANTS SEXUELS

Mr. Martiniuk moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 73,

An Act to protect our children from sexual predators by amending Christopher's Law (Sex Offender Registry), 2000 / Projet de loi 73, Loi visant

à protéger nos enfants des prédateurs sexuels en modifiant la Loi Christopher de 2000 sur le registre des délinquants sexuels.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 96, Mr. Martiniuk, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I'm here to debate second reading of my private member's bill, Bill 73,

An Act to protect our children from

sexual predators by amending Christopher's Law, 2000.

I'd like to begin by recognizing and expressing my condolences to the families of all persons who died in the violence in the state of Maine this week. This

terrible incident was tragic but isolated.

The bill I'm proposing allows the innovation and open debate on the type of information that should be disclosed to the public to ensure safety for all. This

information should not just be another government secret. The purpose of this bill is to protect Ontario families from sexual predators. My private member's bill amends Christopher's Law to give

residents in Ontario greater access to information on convicted offenders in their community by opening the Ontario sex offender registry to the public. It is increasingly important in the year

2006 that we give parents the tools necessary to protect their children from child molesters.

Another element of my bill is to include persons convicted of sex offences outside of Canada. Under our current registry, this is not the case. To ensure public

safety, we need to be aware of who is coming in and out of our province. Our neighbouring states, Michigan, Ohio and New York, have opened their sex offender registry to the public, and this makes

Ontario a safe haven for sex offenders from those locations. In the US, you can view online where sex offenders live, what they look like and what offences they have committed. Most states have

very user-friendly websites. Ontario and the rest of Canada are on the brink of becoming a place of refuge for these predators and molesters, as Ontario jurisdictions introduce more public access

to protect their neighbourhoods while Ontario's registry remains a secret.

My riding of Cambridge had an incident recently where a child molester moved into the community unnoticed. This particular sexual predator had served 14 years in

an Ohio prison for rape and gross sexual imposition that he committed on two young brothers. The sex offender lived in Cambridge unobserved until he breached his probation twice. Needless to say,

he has returned to jail to serve an additional 18-month sentence. It should be noted that Ohio's sex offender registry is open to the public and is not a secret as in Ontario at present. This

experience caused great distress to many of my constituents, who were outraged that they were not made aware that he was living in their community. If a parent knows a sexual predator is living

down the street, they can better protect their children.

It is important to know that some US registries also have a search by name as well as neighbourhood. If your child is traveling with a person, or a person is

going out on a date, they can take a few minutes to do a name search to determine their safety.

The safety of Ontario's families is first and foremost in this bill. We are presently surrendering our children's right to safety by protecting the identity of

sexual predators. I'm standing up for those who cannot speak for themselves. Child molesters steal the purity and innocence of the children they prey on. Those children who have been violated will

never be the same. Parents of those children who have been victimized will never be the same. I believe the rights of the children and their protection is paramount.

As our registry stands today, police can issue community notification for high-risk offenders. They have done an admirable job, but the system is simply not good

enough. Our police officers are already overworked, the force is understaffed, and whether the information is issued to the public depends on an opinion and a prediction. There are unfortunately no

guarantees in this important matter of public safety.

Since I introduced my private member's bill I have received many e-mails, phone calls and letters regarding the current sex offender registry and the amendments

proposed. I would like to quote a couple of my constituents: "As a mother of two young children, I cannot express to you how important it is to be armed with this information. I have never

understood why this information is not available to parents in Canada when it is so readily available in the United States. It has been so frustrating to continually see the Liberal government

protecting the rights of criminals and neglecting the basic safety and security of law-abiding citizens." Another constituent said, "I have never really understood the benefit of having a sex

registry for police etc. and not accessible by the public. Nor do I understand the fight for rights of convicted sex offenders. My parents moved to the US 12 years ago and I have thought the sex

offender registry is a great tool after seeing the US website. This would protect citizens and sex offenders from themselves as repeat offending is quite common."

As elected officials, we have a duty to protect our constituents and the residents of Ontario by giving them the resources and the tools necessary to protect

their family. We post people's names in the paper if they're bankrupt and also have public access to credit and financial information, but not information on sexual offenders. At present, all

courthouse records are open to the public and the names of the accused and convicted are in the media each day. The information is public already and removing the secrecy around the sex registry

won't really change that. I was on a website today which promises to provide Canadian police reports, jail and prison records and criminal records for a fee, so it isn't even much of a secret.

In 2002, there were 27,000 sex offences reported to the police in Canada. The government has to recognize sex offenders as a problem, not as victims. We can no

longer ignore this problem. Of the 27,000 sex offences reported in Canada, almost 9,000 were in Ontario. With an open registry, predators will know that if they commit a sex crime against children,

they will be on the sex offender registry. Furthermore, this public sex offender registry will deter convicted sex offenders from re-offending.

My bill would give parents peace of mind to know that they can access the registry to find out if there are offenders in their neighbourhood or possibly involved

in the everyday lives of family members.

The format and scope of information available regarding sex offenders, including the level of conviction and access, are matters that we can deal with at

committee if this bill is passed. The debate for this private member's bill should be about the best way to give the public access to the registry, not whether or not it should be done.

We must get the public more involved in their responsibility for their family's safety. There is a disconcerting and dangerous trend of disconnect between the

public and the police. Crimes are committed and no one comes forth with information. Crimes without witnesses, though hundreds of people are present, should give us all reason for concern. As the

founder of modern policing, Sir Robert Peel, said, "The police are the public and the public are the police." The system doesn't work if that link is broken.

I hope all members will support this initiative to place more responsibility with the members of the public in Ontario so that they can protect themselves and

their families. Thank you very much.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): I'm pleased to join the debate on Bill 73 put forward by the MPP for Cambridge, Gerry Martiniuk, An

Act to protect our children from sexual predators by amending Christopher's Law, which of course is the sex offender registry of 2000.

We've just heard the comments made by the member for Cambridge and certainly he feels very passionately about the need to do everything we possibly can in this

province in order to protect the safety of our children. If we take a look at Christopher's Law, which this is going to amend, I think we can all remember that that initiative was a very bold

measure in community safety. It had been sparked by the very brutal 1988 murder of 11-year-old Christopher Stephenson at the hands of a convicted pedophile on federal statutory release. It was at

the inquest into Christopher's death in 1993 that the coroner's jury at that time recommended creating a national registry for convicted sex offenders, requiring them to register with the local

police service. Christopher's death highlighted the need to provide police services with greater ability to monitor sex offenders in our communities.

Our government at the time agreed with the jury's recommendations. Our government moved forward and took the initiative and we introduced legislation which is

seeking to be amended today, which created Canada's first provincial registry of convicted sex offenders. Obviously it was done with the support and the encouragement of the Stephenson family,

victims' groups and law enforcement organizations. Christopher's law was proclaimed on April 23, 2001, making the Ontario sex offender registry a reality. It has provided a vital step in fighting

crime and protecting vulnerable children and adults and certainly acting as a safeguard to our communities.

What we have today is a request for an amendment that has been put forward in a way that the sex offender registry would now be made available to the public and

it would also extend the registry to include persons convicted of sex offences outside of Canada. Again, this is an issue which obviously needs to receive some public debate and people need to have

the opportunity to discuss their support or their concerns regarding the proposal here. The proposal would include making available to the public the name, the address, the photograph and the sex

offence for which the offender is responsible. Obviously, these are all issues that are vitally important to the protection of our children from sexual predators, and it is important that the

public have an opportunity, if this bill were to be passed and go to committee, to give their input. We need to do whatever we can in this province to ensure that our children are protected.

Certainly, the example of what happened to Christopher Stephenson should remind us all of the consequences.

I took a look, and the Washington state sex offender information does allow public access to the sex offender registry; the New York state sex offender registry

does, as does Michigan state; the province of Manitoba has public notification of high-risk offenders; and in terms of sexual offenders, the Florida sex offender registry allows for community

notification, an on-line searchable sexual offender database and an on-line browsable directory of sex offenders.

We have before us at this time in the province of Ontario this amendment to Christopher's Law. Again, it is asking this province to take another bold measure in

community safety. Obviously, it will be up to the public to provide input and make a decision as to how they see us being able to move forward in a way that is going to best protect our vulnerable

children from the sexual predators who live in our midst. It is an issue that is going to warrant some very serious discussion, and I am pleased to put these comments on the record today.

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I'm pleased to be able to speak to the bill today. I'm going to indicate at the onset that I'm quite eager to

support it here and now today, at second reading. I think it's an incredibly important proposition that it go to committee. I think it warrants thorough consideration and debate, and debate with

the participation of expertise, of the experiences of people in other jurisdictions.

I want to put my reasons for supporting it. I speak primarily to what I suspect is the most contentious part of the bill, and that is the publishing of the names

of sex offenders as defined in the legislation. Look, I come from smaller-town Ontario -- you know that -- and I'm blessed. I live in an incredible neighbourhood: Bald Street, Maple Street. It's

one of the older parts of the city. It's a mixed neighbourhood in terms of the ages of the residents. There are at least three generations: There's senior citizens, retirees; there are people like

Mr. Martiniuk and myself, middle-aged men, and our households, as they be; and then there's young families. You see, when you have an old neighbourhood like that, there's turnover. You know what I

mean. People move out of their homes, young couples move into more modestly priced homes, like they are in the neighbourhood, with their kids.

We interact a lot in our neighbourhood. It really is very old-fashioned. When there have been families with young kids, the kids wander from yard to yard, from

veranda to veranda, from patio to patio. If my neighbours, the Wightmans, and I happen to be barbecuing some hot dogs and drinking some grape juice, the neighbourhood kids think nothing of dropping

by to get a hot dog and, "Here's a hot dog." I think that's good. That's a healthy neighbourhood. People look out for each other. Seniors who are retired have thought and think nothing of keeping

an eye on a neighbour kid who's wandering around or roller skating on the sidewalk, what have you.

But, as I say, there's turnover. I think we want to encourage healthy communities and healthy living. I don't think some of my colleagues who perhaps live in

those more sterile, newer subdivision types of places, where the trees have only just barely been planted and where community hasn't begun to grow, enjoy the same old-fashioned lifestyle that I'm

blessed with down on Bald Street, Maple Street, Hooker Street -- yes, it's called Hooker Street, from the old Hooker Brick factory, please -- which was where most of the bricks came from for our

older, 90- and 100-year-old homes; the Hooker Brick factory, just two blocks over on Hooker Street.

I'm sensitive to the charge of the prospect of vigilantism. I'm a little less sensitive to the privacy issue, because let's understand this: A conviction for a

sexual offence is a matter of public record. Thank goodness. Our criminal justice system requires that it be very, very public. There is literally nothing stopping people from canvassing their

local newspapers and scanning newspaper articles about persons convicted for anything, for that matter, and publishing it on a website. Sorry, that's one of the tragic outcomes of a criminal

conviction. Be forewarned.

The court record itself is public. The courtroom is accessible to the public. A person can sit there and make notes all he or she wants, as long as they're not

sitting in the jury box. The newspapers can go there and report, and those newspaper reports remain alive in newspaper archives or on film in the local library.

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): Microfiche.

Mr. Kormos: Microfiche, Ms. Horwath reminds me. As I say, the court records themselves can be accessed. This can be published without any fear

of libel, attack, or without any repercussions, without any restrictions.

I believe families have a right to protect their children from predators. That's the bottom line. And if and when there are conflicting rights, like the right of

a person who has done his or her time to move on with their life, I think the right of a child to be protected from predators prevails.

I think we have to be very careful. When the Conservative government was developing the sex offender registry, I participated on behalf of New Democrats in the

committee process. All of us participated here in the chamber in terms of debate. I was concerned about the limited scope of persons on the registry. Nobody who had been convicted prior to the

enactment of the legislation is included in the registry, so there's a false sense of security. It's not accurate. We wanted that information to be there. We wanted to see some means, some way of

at least addressing, from the point of view of the federal government, the need to have at least a senior tier of young offenders, those 16- and 17-year-olds who are convicted of these offences and

are protected by the Young Offender's Act in terms of not publicizing their names. For the life of me, why a person who commits an offence which demonstrates them to be a danger to the general

public, who is at least 16, wouldn't have their names published just boggles the mind. I find no rationale for it. We're not talking about a shoplifting charge, which kids do, or puffing on

marijuana from time to time, as kids do, and I suspect maybe one or two members of this assembly have done in their youth. We're talking about people who do serious crimes that demonstrate and

prove them -- it's no longer speculation -- to constitute a real risk to children.

The reason we take extraordinary steps is because you, Mr. Hoy, myself, Mr. Leal, Ms. Horwath -- we're adults, and in most circumstances we can defend ourselves.

I'm not talking about a brutal physical attack necessarily, but in terms of being lured or conned, being seduced. Kids can't, which is why kids are preyed upon and why pedophiles, as we know

increasingly when we read about tragically notorious cases and we read the academic literature, are incredibly skilful manipulators. They not only manipulate the kids they target as victims, they

manipulate their parents, as often as not, as well. Of course, they manipulate themselves into organizations, groups, activities that actively involve children, like Boy Scouts and similar sorts of

things. I want to be very careful. I have the highest regard for Boy Scouts, Big Brothers, Big Sisters, but those organizations themselves have become increasingly aware and cautious about the fact

that -- it's like asking why robbers rob banks. Because that's where the money is. Why do pedophiles join these organizations? Because that's where the kids are.

So I say, yes, a community has a right to protect itself. A community has no right to engage in vigilantism. The rule of law must prevail. But I ask any of you,

as a parent or a grandparent or an aunt or an uncle or simply somebody who treasures and values the young people in our province and in our country, and the great potential that they have to take

this country further and make it greater, do you not believe that you should have the right to know enough about a new neighbour that you tell your kid, "No, you will not accept Mr. Doe's or Ms.

Doe's invitation to come into their House," end of story? Don't you have that right? I think you do.

Again, when there are conflicting rights -- there may well be. We'll hear that argument from the opponents of the bill who are squeamish about the publication of

names. I say that someone who has committed a sufficiently serious offence to demonstrate themselves to be a danger to the public, especially children, forfeits, from a pragmatic point of view,

from a day-to-day-living point of view, some of the rights that other people in this society have.

I know that from a hard and fast civil libertarian

interpretation of the law, that may not be the case. Mr. Tascona may well chastise me for having suggested it.

But at the end of the day, when you have to balance interests, surely the interests that we have in ensuring kids are not viciously, brutally attacked, and I say to you that -- dare we grade sexual

assaults on children? -- even the most passing of sexual assaults can be as violent -- and, I say to you, is as violent. Not to diminish the incredibly tragic and horrific crimes against children,

but to try to grade them is a no-win situation. The scar of that victimization -- a scar is a scar is a scar and operates as adding an incredible impediment.

Do we become obsessed with one journalized incident, which still has more questions than answers, to somehow suggest that the proposition around publication of

names is inappropriate? One of the things I say we've got to do is ensure that any sex offender registry, whether it's a private one for the police only or a public one, has to be scrupulously

accurate.

Interjection.

Mr. Kormos: Think about it, Mr. Leal. If there's anything more harrowing than knowing that a child has been victimized by a sexual offender, by

a pedophile, it's knowing that an innocent person has been labelled a pedophile. We raised this during the initial discussion, the initial debate around the creation of a sex offender registry. I

say that procedures -- and that's why this bill should go to committee.

Think about this, Mr. Martiniuk. When a person is going to be put on the public sex offender registry, perhaps there should be forenotice so that person has an

opportunity to challenge their name being placed on the registry. I think that would protect people who have names that are similar or identical to actual convicted persons -- a requirement for a

notice prior to the public publication. There are other variations that can be used. Various police services use their discretion, especially after the Jane Doe case here in Toronto. Remember that,

Ms. Horwath? Metro police acknowledged their liability and paid out an incredible amount of money for being less than bang-on when it came to notifying the public about a danger to women -- a

serial rapist. Jane Doe, of course, since then has revealed her own identity, very bravely, very courageously. So again, if there is sufficient evidence to rebut the proposition here of a wide-open

publication, then surely to goodness, if there is only to be a private police-accessible registry, we need clear and consistent guidelines about when the police have a responsibility to notify

people in a community of the presence of a dangerous sex offender in their midst.

I would regret it very much if this bill were not allowed to go to committee. I'm not talking about some brief half-day session where it's then sent off into

legislative orbit and put into the big legislative black hole by the government. Let's make one thing very clear: Should this bill pass today -- and I fervently hope it does -- it then in effect

becomes the government's bill. Mr. Martiniuk, the author of the bill, no longer has any control over its progress. It's the government; it's Dalton McGuinty and the Premier's office that decide its

future. Don't be calling and bothering Mr. Martiniuk about why his bill isn't being called for committee hearings or for third reading; call the Premier's office. I'm serious. It's Dalton McGuinty

and his office that will decide the future of this proposition. And should this get quashed, should this get buried in that legislative black hole by Mr. McGuinty and the Premier's office, I say

shame on them, because it's too sound a proposal that begs too much debate and too much public consideration for it to be shelved by a Premier's office that's more focused on pit bulls and pot than

it is on some of the real dangers that lurk out there in communities across Ontario, and in the context of this consideration, the incredible danger and threat to young kids by predatory

pedophiles.

Mr. Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): I'm pleased to join the debate on Bill 73, Christopher's Law (Sex Offender Registry). I was listening

carefully to the member from Cambridge when he was introducing this bill. There's no doubt about it, it's our duty as a government, as elected officials, to protect our children and to create a

mechanism to protect them. I believe the member from Cambridge has a good and great intention to protect our youngsters.

I was listening also to the member from Niagara Centre when he said that the ultimate and final decision is for the Premier of this province. I agree with him.

We are privileged and honoured in this province to have a Premier like Dalton McGuinty who believes in children and youth, who believes strongly in protecting our children and youth in this

province. That's why we have so many programs across Ontario to protect our youth -- youth at risk, children. We've invested more money for child care spaces than the past three or four

governments. That's why it's our Premier, as the member from Niagara Centre mentioned, who is responsible for protecting our youngsters in this province, and I believe him. I strongly believe it's

our duty as a government, as elected officials, to protect them.

I want to commend the member from Cambridge for bringing this bill and opening the debate and creating awareness about very important issues. But the bill,

established and published in 2001, I think, gives the police the authority and the right, if they think it's important, to publish and to put on the website a picture of the sex offender in order

to protect the community where he lives or where he is going to be living. From that time, what we noticed is that 95% compliance --

Mr. Kormos: All it takes is 5%, Khalil. It takes 1%.

Mr. Ramal: I agree with the member from Niagara Centre. But I want to tell him that I was listening to him carefully when he was talking about

older neighbourhoods where the community lives together, generation after generation, and the kids move from neighbour's house to neighbour's house to eat barbecue in this house or go to play in a

different backyard without even paying attention or without thinking about a sexual offender living next door to them, because they've lived as a community for years and years and years, and they

enjoy the atmosphere. I want to tell the member from Niagara Centre too that sexual offenders travel from place to place. Some of them live in cities where we have no idea who lives on the second

floor or the fifth floor or who lives next door to us, or who is going to come from neighbour to neighbour.

I'm not saying that's not an important issue. It should be debated openly. It should be talked about. It's very important to all of us to protect our youth in

this province, because our youth are our future. I think it's our responsibility in the end to find a way to protect them.

We look at the bills, whatever bill is in front of us or that we've passed in the past. If they don't protect the kids, we should open them up and talk about

them. We should create a new mechanism in order to protect our youth.

When we go back to Bill 73, Christopher's bill, from our records from the past, we see a compliance of 95%. When we compare it to the jurisdiction of the United

States, where they are publishing all the records of the names and they disclose to everyone, in the United States we see the compliance rate way below the rate we have in Ontario.

I also believe it's not just publishing the names; we have to create a task force. We have to invest in a special task force to protect the youth and to protect

the children. That's what we need in the province of Ontario. Our government gave $700,000 to the police force in Toronto in order to enhance their ability to protect our youth in this province. We

also invested $1 million in the OPP to look after the sexual offenders who are trying to use kids for sexual exploitation and as people they can make money from or who can be abused.

That's why I think it's important to us, before we talk about issues, that we have to create a way to protect them and to follow it, to implement it. That's what

we're doing in the province of Ontario. I'm very honoured and pleased to see our government taking all the measures in order to invest in this area by hiring 46 police officers to look after this

file, to continue to look after this file. It's not just about talking, not just about passing laws, not just about passing bills, but also about following those bills and thinking how we can

implement it by professionals and in a professional way.

I listened to all the speakers in this House. I think it's important to open it up and talk about this issue. But I'm not sure that by changing it or amending

it, it's going to solve the sexual offender situation in the province of Ontario.

As the member from Niagara Centre mentioned, those people tend to develop very high skills to move from one area to another area and to manipulate not just the

youth but also the parents. I think it's very important not just to study it, to pass bills, to open up the discussion, but also to create a mechanism, to create a way, some kind of task force, to

follow it all the way to the end: to study why that happens, how we can solve it, and, if that happens, what we're supposed to do as a government, as a community. Since the police in this province

have a right to publish and notify the public about the serious sex offenders, I think the bill, the past bill, is very flexible and gives the right to the police to act if they want to act. If

they see it's important to publish a name, if they see it's important to publish a picture, they have a right to do it. I've seen it. Where I live beside the water here, just in downtown Toronto,

the police published and put a poster and a picture of a sexual offender in the neighbourhood.

Mr. Kormos: Are you over at Harbour Castle?

Mr. Ramal: No, Harbourfront, down at the other side -- not Harbour Castle.

I want to mention this because I think the police are playing a pivotal role in this area, in telling people that we have a serious criminal among us here. We

should get some help from all the neighbours for the people, and that's why I think this past bill gives the flexibility to the police to protect the youth and protect the community where the

sexual offender might be living, or might be passing or might be visiting.

But in the end, I want to commend the member from Cambridge for bringing forward such an important issue, to create awareness, to give us the chance and the time

to debate this issue in order to find a solution, if that solution in the past didn't work. I was very pleased to listen to many speakers in this House talking about this issue. I think it's

important, but I'm not sure that we'll solve the problem by changing or amending the bill. Anyway, thank you again for allowing me to speak.

Mr. Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased to join in the debate to support my colleague the member from Cambridge, Mr.

Martiniuk, with respect to his bill. Mr. Martiniuk is demanding safety for children against pedophiles. I think the two principles of what we're dealing with here are very simple. The first

principle is that the public has a right to know, a right to know what's going on within their community, of any dangers or risks, so they'll have knowledge and they can deal with the situation --

the public's right to know. The second is the principle of children's safety and how that's balanced against the rights of individuals to be in a community, but to balance that against whether the

children are at risk in terms of the individuals who do have some history with respect to dealing with children in a way that has breached the criminal law.

I think this is a serious bill. Certainly it would be viewed more seriously by the government if the Attorney General and the parliamentary assistant was here,

but I know they're listening. I just want to say that we take it seriously here on the Conservative side. I know my good friend from Niagara Centre has spoken about this. We want this to go to

committee.

It's nice for the members opposite, who will talk and say, "Oh, we've done this, we've spent money on this." What does that mean? You're spending money. We've

got a problem here. We've got a problem with respect to community safety, and Mr. Martiniuk has got a solution here that can be looked at to deal with protecting the community, and children and

enhancing the public's right to know.

To be clear, there already is a current sex offender registry in Ontario. It was brought forth by the Progressive Conservative Party. It's currently being looked

at, I understand, at the federal level by the Conservative Party in terms of extending all across Canada, which would be positive in terms of coming up with a system across the country. I know Mr.

Martiniuk has put into his bill measures that will deal with individuals who come into the province, who have committed sex offender crimes, and they would be put into the registry. I think that's

important from our point of view, because we need to have a seamless system. We need to have a relevant system. We have to have a system that actually does something, actually functions, as in

other jurisdictions that they're looking at in terms of making sure this works. It's in Michigan right now, and it's in Washington state. My colleague has done a lot of research in terms of other

jurisdictions. They've basically put up a sex offender registry for public access, for the public right to know.

I don't think that's too much to ask of this Legislature, to support Mr. Martiniuk's bill, to put it in committee. I'm positive it's going to receive second

reading here today as a private member's bill. What I'm less confident of is the government's will, based on what the member from London-Fanshawe has talked about in terms of what he sees as what's

important here. This is not a symbolic gesture by Mr. Martiniuk. This is a real-time solution to dealing with a serious problem, and it's going to be followed up in terms of issues that the member

from Burlington has with respect to his private member's bill, which is going to be happening a little bit later today.

We have some problems in our community. People want to know that their communities are safe. People want to know that their children are safe. People have a

right to know what's going on in their community. It cannot be a situation where people -- the police make a decision. Everybody knows of the case in Toronto where there was a rapist in the

community and the police decided in the public interest that nobody should know. Yet the rapes continued, and unfortunately there were more victims because the public didn't know what was going on

in their community in terms of risk, and the public didn't know how to take action to protect themselves.

This is all that this bill is about: the right of the public to know, the right of the public to protect itself, the right of parents and families to protect

their children. I would think it's incumbent upon the government to take this bill seriously and to make sure the Attorney General and the parliamentary assistant are aware that this is a serious

issue and send a message to the government that we want some action.

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): I'm pleased to have an opportunity to get a few remarks on the record today with regard to Bill 73,

Christopher's Law, an amendment to the sexual offender act in the province of Ontario.

I come from a perspective that the most precious thing that I share with my wife is, God blessed us with two small children. My son is eight years old and my

daughter is six years old. To me there's no more heinous a crime than people who have played upon children and exploited them in a sexual fashion. I mean, it's beyond description when those kinds

of crimes take place. I think I have a responsibility not only as a parent, a father, but the responsibility that I have now as a legislator to make sure we do everything we can to put in place

legislation to protect our folks who are most vulnerable in our communities.

The member from Niagara Centre touched upon how communities and neighbourhoods functioned many years ago. You know, as a seven-, eight- or nine-year-old, I

never thought much about it, because I experienced a similar situation to that of the member from Niagara Centre. I grew up in the south end of Peterborough, where there were no fences and you

would just go through the neighbourhood and you were on everybody else's property and that's the way one experienced one's childhood.

But today I think my perspective has changed somewhat. As I said, being a father of a young son and a young daughter, I'm much more protective and much more

observant of what is going on in one's community and where you take your kids -- the hockey arena and other areas of recreation, and other involvements that you have with your children.

Last night I happened to catch the Fifth Estate. There was a program on the Fifth Estate last night that looked at kind of an interesting relationship between

a hockey coach and hockey players. It certainly brought to the forefront some interesting issues with regard to possible exploitation of young people and how somewhat maybe questionable

relationships do come about.

I also had the opportunity some years ago to meet with a father whose son had been a victim of sexual exploitation. The father shared with me details that were

revealed to him by his son, who went through a situation that is very hard to describe. Certainly, that experience left me with the need to address this particular situation.

I do commend the former government of Ontario under the leadership of Mr. Harris, who in 2001 brought in the first sex offender registry in Ontario.

I think it's important that this bill get the opportunity to go to committee, to have hearings. Obviously, there will be people who come forward to provide

both pros and cons with regard to this amendment. I know there may be some issues, if this particular legislation goes forward, that may bring about some charter challenges, and I think it would be

an opportunity to go to committee to hear legal opinions of experts who are familiar with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and how this bill might fit in with regard to that.

The other issue I'd like to talk about for a moment -- I think it's certainly related -- is the issue of initiatives and how we approach that curse in society

called child pornography. The exploitation of children by whatever means is certainly appalling and unconscionable. Collectively, this government and other governments have gone to some lengths to

try to address that very serious problem. Through the initiative of hiring 1,000 additional officers in the province of Ontario -- I know some of them, particularly in the GTA area, are dedicated

solely to address the issue of child pornography.

Mr. Speaker, I know you've taken the opportunity to visit classrooms in your riding, and you know how proficient children are today in grades 1, 2 and 3 when

it comes to embracing computer technology and how familiar they are with using it, certainly more familiar than my generation. So we have an opportunity to make sure we provide funding to reduce

the potential exploitation that can occur through computer technology.

I know that in 2005 we had the introduction of CyberCops, a new software package that was targeted towards grades 7 and 8 students in the province of Ontario

to be safe online and protect themselves from Internet stalkers. I know that our colleague the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, along with my colleague the member from

Scarborough-Agincourt, is having an event today to talk about software in classrooms in order to protect children.

So I'm prepared to support this bill, move it on to committee and have some in-depth discussions on this very serious matter.

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): I'm pleased to participate in this debate. I want to commend my colleague from Cambridge for bringing this

important piece of legislation forward. Certainly, I will be supporting it. I agree with other members who have spoken who suggest that it should have the appropriate time of hearing in a standing

committee, and I look forward to the government giving much more than empty rhetoric to the principle of ensuring that our children are safe, that our communities are safe. We only do that by

ensuring there is proactive legislation in place that helps us achieve that end.

I am participating in this debate from the standpoint certainly as a member of this Legislature, but also as a parent, and to allow my discussion to be

informed by my role as the education critic in this Legislature. To that end, I want to point out to the Legislature that we have a significant problem in terms of allowing the issue of sexual

abuse to simply not be given the attention that it should be.

I want to refer, for example, to decisions that have recently been made by the College of Teachers' disciplinary committee. I want to read into the record some

of these decisions, because I'm sure that it will be shocking to many members of the Legislature and perhaps encourage them to support Mr. Martiniuk's bill, because these are issues that not only

do not get public exposure, and I believe they should; in fact, it is issues such as these that should be added to that registry. Let me give you an example.

In the case of Julia Ann Webb, a teacher, 34 years of age, she admitted sexual relations with an 18-year-old student who had been in her class, and here were

her consequences: The college asked for a revocation of her licence, and the panel suspended her for one year. That was her consequence.

Dale Fisher, a teacher and former Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation activist, was found guilty of possessing child pornography, and here were the

consequences: The college asked for a revocation, and the panel suspended him for 22 months -- 22 months and he's back in the school system.

A-Miron Kurczak, teacher, pleaded guilty to uttering threats and assault against a police officer and physical assault of a 13-year-old male student: suspended

for 18 months.

John Domenic Di Pasquale, coach of a 14-year-old girls' soccer team, held question-and-answer sessions on sexual matters and his preferences in hotel rooms at

away games. The result was a reprimand. That's it.

Kenneth Hammond, boundary violations with two female students under 14, received a reprimand; very few details in the decision.

We have another circumstance of a Philip Louis Roy, also known as Philip Louis King. He pleaded not guilty to the allegations but the panel found King's

arguments to be without substance and indeed found him guilty in January 2003. This is an individual who faced seven allegations of professional misconduct related to accessing and viewing websites

containing child and adult pornography on computers on school property. This is an individual who is now in a position of being reinstated into our school system. That's what's happening in our

school system.

It's simply because society is taking the position that we can't be too hard on these people. There's so much discussion about the rights of the criminals in

our society today that we forget the rights of the victims. We forget the responsibility we have as legislators to ensure that the rights of our law-abiding citizens are upheld and that our

communities are ensured to be safe. So anything we can do to send the message to those who would abuse that freedom that there is a risk to doing that, I support, and I support Mr. Martiniuk's bill

for that reason.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Martiniuk, you have two minutes to respond.

Mr. Martiniuk: I'd like to thank everyone who spoke to this matter: my good friend Elizabeth Witmer, the member from Waterloo, who has worked

tirelessly with children and the education system in Waterloo and in this House; Joe Tascona, the member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, who brought his thoughtful and legal background to bear in

regard to this issue; Frank Klees, the member for Oak Ridges and our education critic; Khalil Ramal, the member for London-Fanshawe; Jeff Leal, the member for Peterborough; and of course Peter

Kormos, the member for Niagara Centre.

I believe that my Bill 73 is a safety issue. If we, as legislators, can save one life by altering and expanding the scope of this bill, then we have done our

job in protecting our children. It also would extend the registry to those convicted outside of Canada. I am concerned, because of the openness of the registries in the United States and the closed

registries in Ontario and other provinces in Canada, we might become a safe haven, where sexual predators would be coming to this jurisdiction to escape what they see as the onerous registries in

theirs.

I would ask you to consider supporting my bill, and we'll have it referred to committee. Thank you.

KEVIN AND JARED'S LAW

(CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT), 2006 /

LOI KEVIN ET JARED DE 2006 MODIFIANT

DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LES SERVICES À L'ENFANCE

ET À LA FAMILLE

Mr. Jackson moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 89,

An Act to amend the Child and Family Services Act and the Coroners Act to better protect the children of Ontario / Projet de loi 89, Loi

modifiant la

Loi sur les services à l'enfance et à la famille et la

Loi sur les coroners pour mieux protéger les enfants de l'Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 96, Mr. Jackson, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr. Cameron Jackson (Burlington): In 2002, Jenny Latimer of Burlington fled with her sons Kevin and Liam to Halton Women's Shelter after

suffering constant verbal, emotional and physical abuse. When Jenny first made application to the courts to protect herself and her children, the father was granted supervised access. Within a few

months, however, this order was changed to grant unsupervised access outside of the jurisdiction where the mother and the children lived. Kevin Latimer-Campbell died just three days short of his

second birthday, five months after he plunged from a three-storey window in his father's apartment. According to the media, his father was completely unaware that Kevin was missing. He was charged

with criminal negligence causing bodily harm.

This is the second time that I have read that testimonial into the record of this Parliament and it is also the second time that I have tabled this particular

piece of legislation. It was exactly two years ago next month that this House unanimously passed legislation in those days known as Kevin's Law. There are several members in the House with us today

who participated in that debate, and I know they're going to participate again. At that time, we said that we really needed to proceed to make this a law because then and only then will we have the

knowledge as legislators as to how we can ensure that these kinds of tragic deaths do not repeat themselves. That bill did get passed, but it died on the order paper. Here we are today,

reintroducing this bill.

It's a very simple bill. It basically says that when a child in the province of Ontario dies while in the supervised or unsupervised access of a parent who has

demonstrated violence -- and it's been documented -- to the family, and that child dies, then there should be an automatic coroner's inquest in this province. During that inquest, the victimized

family should have standing so they can cross-examine the system, the very system which, in their opinion and the corner's and the coroner's jury inquest's, may have contributed to the death of

their child.

The purpose of a coroner's inquest is to give the departed a voice. The motto for the coroner's office, as we all know, is, "We speak for the dead to protect

the living." That's what we were trying to achieve two years ago.

In the last two years, a lot of tragedies have occurred. On March 18 in Brantford, Ontario, eight-year-old Jared Osidacz died at the hands of his father,

Andrew Osidacz, who died a few hours later. On that day, three other individuals, by a miracle, did not surrender their lives. The lives of Paula Ferrell and Sarah Ferrell were spared because of

Jared's courage. Julie Craven, who sat with her husband with a knife to her throat, endured 40 minutes, pleading, "Will someone please find out if my son Jared is alive? Will someone please phone

the police? Will someone please phone the paramedics to save his life?" No call was made. And we will never know the degree of the distress that Jared, in his last hour, his last minutes, endured

and whether we could have saved his life. The only way we will know is through a coroner's inquest.

Two weeks later in this province, outside of Ottawa, the entire Mailly family was killed under almost exactly the same circumstances: Jessica, 12; Brandon, 9;

Kevin, 6; and their mother, Francine, all died at the hands of an abusive father and husband, and the father, Frank, lost his life as well that day.

Now, what's significant about these tragic deaths is that we will never know if they could have been avoided, because we have no road map to determine just

exactly how these incidents occur and why they occur. But to listen to the families who are here in the House today -- the Craven family is here and the Latimer family is here; the Latimer family

is here for the second time to listen to this debate. They are here to appeal to the Parliament of Ontario not just to pass this in second reading, something that you did two years ago and will

undoubtedly do again today, but that you understand what these families have gone through and determine that it is essential that we empower the coroner to automatically call for these coroners'

inquests.

There are a lot of things that need to be dealt with and changed. If I had more time -- and if this bill goes forward, as I hope it will, to the justice

committee, we'll have time to look at the issues. This is not about being critical of the children's aid society. There are several elements common to each of these stories which require review.

The whole issue around supervised access in this province -- we have two separate forms of supervised access: one is court-ordered through the Attorney General's office, where there is violence;

and there is a second stream involving the children's aid societies. They are funded differently; they are regulated differently. One has specific guidelines; another one has no guidelines

whatsoever. The CASs indicate they don't really get paid by the government to do that, and we need to fix that. I have been standing in this spot for over 21 years fighting for changes to the two

pieces of legislation which I think cause difficulty for women and children who are the victims of abuse: the Support and Custody Orders Enforcement Act and the Children's Law Reform Act.

Basically, I argued 20 years ago in this Legislature that our courts should make their decisions when it comes to supervised access for children who are the

victims of abuse, and should rule in the best interests of the child. What the law says is that it's in the best interests of the child to have access to both parents. Those do not reconcile

themselves when you're dealing with violent and abusive partners. Those are the stories that, if Jared were alive today, if Kevin were alive today, if the Mailly children were alive today, they

would be able to tell you about how the system failed them.

So we need to look at that. But a police report will never deal with supervised access. A coroner's report, which is separate from a coroner's inquest, which

will be handed to the Latimer family for Kevin, which will be handed to the Craven family because of Jared, does not include any information about the issues that they face going forward in court.

And we know that history will repeat itself if we're not careful here.

Jenny Latimer is in the House with us today. Not only has she lost her youngest son, Kevin, but her surviving son, Liam, is now in a supervised access program

with the man who, in her opinion, is responsible for the death of her child. She has to participate and do that supervision, and yet his rights are upheld to access his child, even though he's not

current with his support payments for Liam.

The system's wrong. The system is wrong. That story repeats itself. Andrew Osidacz was behind in his support payments, but he certainly wasn't behind in

getting access to his child, whom he murdered. When the courts determine that a child shall be sent to a parent with a known history of abuse and that child dies at the hands of that parent in this

province, there should be an automatic coroner's inquest.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate.

Mrs. Christine Elliott (Whitby-Ajax): I'm honoured to have the opportunity to speak to private member's Bill 89, Kevin and Jared's Law,

An Act

to amend the Child and Family Services Act and the Coroners Act to better protect the children of Ontario, for several reasons.

First of all, I'm honoured to speak to a private member's bill in the Legislature for the very first time as an elected representative. I'm also honoured

because the protection of and advocacy for children and vulnerable people have always been important to me, both in my professional career before I was elected and also in my personal life.

I've been fortunate to have grown up in Durham region, specifically in Whitby, and to witness what can be done when private citizens work together to make

better lives for their most vulnerable community members. The Grandview Children's Centre is an amazing facility for children with special needs, offering physio and occupational and therapy,

speech therapy and psycho-educational assessments. The centre is generously supported by communities throughout the region, as is Durham Mental Health Services, which is another community agency

serving people with chronic mental health problems. The Carly Centre for Grieving Children has recently been started in Whitby for children dealing with the death of a parent. So you can see that

the people in Whitby and Ajax have demonstrated a commitment to helping children and vulnerable people. I'm honoured that they've placed their trust in me to represent them at Queen's Park and to

continue that commitment. I want to thank the people of Whitby-Ajax for giving me this opportunity and wish to assure them that I will work hard to bring their concerns forward and to advocate on

their behalf.

Finally, I'm also honoured to be able to speak to this bill on behalf of my colleague the member for Burlington, who's advocated for many years for victims'

rights. He's worked very hard on this bill and deserves to be commended for his integrity and dedication to these issues.

At the outset, let me express my deepest condolences to the Latimer, Craven and Osidacz families. Your losses are unimaginable to us. All we can do is try to

prevent other families from having to suffer the grief and loss that you have, and that is what Kevin and Jared's Law is intended to do.

I know that we share this common purpose and, if I may, I would like to read a statement from Mrs. Marjorie Latimer, Kevin's grandmother, who has stated:

"The past two years, since my grandson Kevin's death, have been a series of emotions during our time of grief. We deal with grief on different levels, and

often it is difficult to understand one another's feelings. We try to smile and we try to carry on with our lives, but there will always be someone missing from the family gathering and we can't

bring him back. What we must do is move forward and be an advocate for the safety of women and children who live with abuse and violence and neglect."

Jenny Latimer, Kevin's mother, has also said, "Kevin and Jared's Law will help protect many vulnerable children, and hopefully will provide security to the

abused parent who has custody of the children."

We owe a duty to these families, to honour and respect their children by supporting this bill. To not do so would be doing them an injustice after they have

shown such incredible courage and resolve in the face of their grief and loss.

As you know, the bill provides for an automatic inquest when a child dies from a Criminal Code offence while in the care of a parent who is or has been subject

to supervised access. The bill will also specifically permit the use of the victim's justice fund to cover the cost of legal counsel for the crime victim's family at the inquest.

This bill is elegant in its simplicity and resolves the specific issues that we're faced with today succinctly. I support this bill wholeheartedly and urge my

colleagues in the Legislature to do likewise.

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): It's my pleasure to join in this debate on Bill 89. I have to say, unfortunately, I wasn't here when the

member first brought this issue to the Legislature back in 2004. In fact, I was in the process of getting here, I think, when that debate was happening. It's really, truly tragic that the bill had

gotten to such an extent in the process, only to die on the order paper and have to be once again raised. In the interim, there have been a number of other tragedies in the province of Ontario. So

I certainly am supportive of this bill. I'll be voting in favour of this bill. I think that it's absolutely incumbent upon us to make sure that, when circumstances like this arise, a coroner's

inquest is an automatic thing that is undertaken, that the questions are appropriately asked, and that family members have an opportunity to participate in the process that will shed light on why

these tragedies occur.

The children that the member has mentioned in his preparation of the bill will never be brought back to us, but their memories can be honoured through our

doing the right thing and moving forward with this legislation. The tragic losses that the family members have undergone in the process of these unspeakable tragedies are something that none of us,

I don't think, will ever be able to understand: their anguish, their devastation. So again, it's incumbent upon us to make sure that we do the right thing and move forward with legislation that

will address the frustration and the anger that I'm sure they all feel in the way the system has failed them and their loved ones.

I want to thank the member for providing some information to the rest of us in the preparation of his bill so that we could also understand all of the details

that he thought were necessary for us to have direct access to. In reading through some of those materials, I thought it was appropriate to quote back some of the correspondence that the member for

Burlington has provided to the Attorney General's office and to others who he thought were responsible for seeing these issues move forward. I wanted to quote in particular a couple of sentences,

because I think they encapsulate very well the motivation and the reasons why the member is moving forward with Bill 89.

He says: "Through an inquest, we can determine why the courts routinely grant unsupervised access to violent, abusive parents and have in place no program to

monitor and follow up on these cases. An inquest will lead to a review of how supervised access programs funded by the Ministry of the Attorney General are resourced and enforced differently than

access programs supervised by the children's aid societies.

"Through an inquest, we can determine why no one monitors compliance with court-ordered anger management programs. Through an inquest, we can determine why

children's aid services are routinely willing to monitor the in-home safety of a mother who is herself a victim of abuse yet fails to inspect and monitor the safety of any child who would be under

the sole supervision of a violent parent who has been charged and convicted of assault against his wife and children."

I thought it was important to also bring voice in this Legislature to a quote that I read from Jared's grandfather, John Craven. So I'm going to do that,

because I think one of the things I would like to discuss in my remarks today is where I see other issues needing to be addressed that will perhaps prevent these deaths from taking place in our

communities. So it's not a matter of only the inquest and the aftermath, but it's preventive, proactive measures.

Coincidentally enough, Bill 88 is a bill that I brought forward that would ask that the Ombudsman be responsible and be given the authority to have oversight

into children's aid society complaints. Interestingly enough, Bill 89, the very next bill, is this bill that we're debating today, which addresses similar issues but from a different

perspective.

Before I do that, though, I want to raise this issue in the words of Jared's grandfather. He's speaking about the person who murdered his grandson:

"This man violently and viciously beat my granddaughter, broke his probation and walked out of a court-ordered anger management program. All of the signs were

there. This abusive man should not have been allowed unsupervised access every weekend with my grandson. I blame the system that paid no attention to my daughter's safety concerns. If they had, I

believe that my dear grandson Jared would be alive today. Someone needs to hold them accountable."

That's what we we're trying to do in regard to this particular bill brought forward by the member from Burlington. But I have to say the experiences of the

mother of Jared are also a failure of the system. Unfortunately, they're a failure of the inquest system, because there have been many coroner's recommendations coming from inquests into violence

against women that have not been acted upon by all governments. Yes, inquests are important, but so is the implementation of the recommendations that come from those inquests. So I thought it

appropriate to raise the comments of Mr. Craven, because I think that while we need to do the right thing by these children who have been murdered, we also have to acknowledge that inquest

recommendations sitting on shelves gathering dust will never solve the problems that we see in our communities and in these families. We have to redouble our efforts to make sure that when these

recommendations come forward, they are acted upon, and that we do everything we can do to make sure those recommendations are acted upon so that the system no longer fails.

I spent some time looking at the coroner's role and found a document called Aid to Ontario Inquests. It's a document that's available; it was published in

2005. It basically goes through the process of what needs to happen in the undertaking of an inquest, what are the processes and the reasons behind the various stages that are undertaken. I found a

very interesting thing on page 3, after the cover page and the contents page. It says:

"History

"The inquest has its origins in 11th-century England. When a body was found, a representative of the crown had to decide five things:

"Who was the deceased?

"Where did he or she die?

"When did he or she die?

"How did he or she die?

"Who was to blame?"

Then there's something I've highlighted with my highlighter because it says "(NOTE: blame can no longer be assigned by inquest)." That caused me some concern

because it seems to me that one of the things we're trying to get at with this bill is exactly those issues. It's not necessarily blame for the sake of blame, but identifying what went wrong and

which system or which part of the system was to blame for the result that eventually occurred.

Interestingly enough -- and I think the member mentioned this, if not in his remarks, certainly in some of the information he provided -- it's frustrating that

in Ontario right now, mandatory inquests are conducted into deaths arising from accidents, particularly in construction, mining, pit or quarry sites, and occurring when someone who has been

detained dies in custody. Automatically there's an inquest into those situations. I think it's really obvious to all of us here why it's important to add the situation that the member brings

forward today to the list of automatic inquests that occur in Ontario.

I have to say that there is work that needs to be done in advance of getting to the stage where there is an inquest required. In other words, there are things

we need to change with the systems before we get to an inquest. We need to do some preventive work. We need to change the systems. We need to provide opportunities for change to take place,

particularly within the child protection system, particularly within the oversight of children's aid societies being provided by the Ombudsman. I raise this because I think that not only do we need

to do the inquest work, but we need to do the work that prevents us from being in a situation where inquests are required. We need to make sure that we're doing everything we can to protect

children before they're in a situation of being in harm's reach.

It's difficult to believe that the coroner doesn't have more powers to determine what led to these deaths and why these deaths took place. I found that out

myself in a situation in Hamilton when I asked the coroner to review some deaths that occurred after the transfer of patients from a facility called Chedoke continuing care centre. Interestingly

enough, the coroner at that time told me that his particular scope, his focus, was too narrow to be able to determine whether, in fact, all of the issues that we thought were important and that

family members thought were important surrounding these moves in any way could be related to the fact that deaths occurred. That, to me, sent out warning signals that said there need to be other

ways of looking at systems and looking at decision-making processes where we can get at some of these issues outside of the inquest process; and that, in the case of children, is giving the

Ombudsman oversight into children's aid societies. Again, it's not an issue of blame, but it's an issue of having an opportunity for systemic review, for proactive activity, for proactive

recommendations to come forward to prevent children's deaths from happening.

In fact, I took an opportunity to look at the outstanding list of the chief coroner's

schedule of inquests for April of this year. There are two pages of

inquests that are outstanding where recommendations still have not come forward. Any time that lapses between the beginning of the process and the end, more children are put at risk. That is why I

think it's important to acknowledge that we need to do some other work in these systems.

The Ombudsman, André Marin, said this in a letter that he sent in the debate around Bill 210, the amendments to the Child and Family Services Act, which

we recently passed in this Legislature. He sent it to the minister and he sent it to a coroner's office. He said:

"During the public dialogue over the lack of oversight of the children's aid societies, my position has been consistent and shared throughout the last 30 years

with all six Ombudsmen since the tenure of Ontario's first Ombudsman, the late Arthur Maloney, QC.

Whereas various bodies, including the office of the chief coroner, contribute through the exercise

of their function to having the CASs revisit from time to time established practices or approaches to their work, sadly, there does not exist in Ontario a general oversight function vested in an

independent, impartial investigative body tasked with taking complaints from citizens. For a province which prides itself on the importance of accountability in the exercise of public functions,

this gap is glaring, especially since the CASs are entirely funded with public funds to the tune of $1.5 billion a year."

He goes on to state his case again, and again, much of this was brought to light around the Jeffrey Baldwin case. He goes on to say, near the end of the

letter: "The horrific death suffered by Jeffrey Baldwin after two murderers were handed his custody aided by the CCAS should make us all explore ways to make the system proactive" -- proactive --

"in investigating complaints instead of reactive once a death has occurred."

I absolutely support the member from Burlington. I think that his bill is long past due. I think taking the action that he describes in regard to the situation

where we have lost young lives in our province at the hands of people who were entrusted with their care is extremely important and needs to be done absolutely. So Bill 89 is certainly something

that I will be supporting, not only now, but as it goes through the process and hopefully becomes legislation.

I hope the members in this chamber also acknowledge that Bill 88, the one prior to that in this book of bills before the House, is also taken with serious

consideration. We not only want to investigate and bring recommendations on the death of a child, but we want to act proactively. We want to change the systems to be sure that children are not put

in situations where their purported loved ones, the people who are supposed to be caring for them, are in fact doing the opposite and putting them in harm's way, and in these tragic situations,

taking their lives.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): Thank you for giving me the chance to speak on a second bill, Bill 89, brought by the member for

Burlington. I want to commend the member for bringing such an important issue. I believe strongly that the death of a child under any circumstances is tragic. It's our duty, as people who get

elected to this position, to protect children and bring bills and talk about these issues and try to implement whatever will be passed in this House in order to protect our young ones.

When I look at Bill 89, I see he's talking about two sections. One

section is about the Child and Family Services Act and the other is the Coroners Act; two

different ministries.

I will start with the Child and Family Services Act. I believe strongly -- I listened to many speakers, I listened to the member who brought this bill. I think

it's very important to create some kind of mechanism to protect our young ones who are considered vulnerable, especially young persons or children being placed in a place that abuses them and, in

the end, those children die as a result of the abuse of their parents or someone in whom the children's aid society placed trust and put them in an environment that cost their lives.

I think it's important to study this issue. That's why our Minister of Children and Youth in this House, Minister Chambers, has brought many different bills in

order to reform the child act in this province. One of the most important ones was Bill 210, which talks about the role of the Ombudsman, the role of children's aid societies, the role of kin,

family etc. to protect youth and make sure, when we place any loved one, we're going to place them in a safe environment. It's very important to recognize the importance of our young ones in order

to create an environment for them to live safely and be productive in the future, because we depend on them in the future.

That's why I believe strongly that the best start for kids is when we place them in a loving environment, an environment that nurtures them to be good citizens

in the future. So it's important to open this topic, it's important to talk about it, but it's most important, as the member for Hamilton East says, to not just talk about the issues; we have to

implement them.

In the case of the coroner, the coroner's work is arm's length from the ministry and I think, as a government, we cannot interfere in this issue. The member

for Burlington, who was a minister in the past, knows very well we cannot force or put our wish and will and order the coroner to do whatever. I think it's against the law. We have to respect his

jurisdiction, his ability and his or her judgment when they ask for an inquest or do not ask for an inquest. It's an inquest. I think the coroner and his or her staff have the ability to ask for

inquests.

But the most important thing, and I want to go back to it, is not after the person dies but before; what we have to do to protect our children before they die;

how we can create an environment for them to live and be protected. This is very important to us. I think this bill should focus on how we create and clean up the act and the agencies and boards

which govern this issue, to be more sensitive, more flexible, more open to protecting the children, not just give them out because we have to dump the responsibility on other agencies or other

boards.

I think it's important, and I want to thank the member from Burlington for bringing this issue forward. Hopefully, we can see some kind of resolution as a

result of it.

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): I'll take this opportunity to say a few words this morning on Bill 89. There's nothing that shakes the

foundations of a community, of a neighbourhood more than the death of a child. Lord Balfour once remarked that those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. One of the

objectives of this bill is, through a coroner's inquest, to look at the tragic circumstances that surround a death, particularly the death of a child, and use that information to provide a

framework for the future, an opportunity to change government policy.

I note this morning the late Dr. Morton Shulman, who in the 1960s was a renowned chief coroner here in Toronto. One of the reasons he sought and was elected to

become an MPP of this body was that he was always concerned that the government of the day did not listen to his recommendations when he would review cases in his role then as the chief coroner for

Toronto. When he got to this august place, one of his main focuses was to make sure recommendations that were made by coroners were implemented in government policy.

I did learn that in Ontario, the Coroners Act requires an inquest when death results from an accident on a construction project, a mining plant or a mine,

including a pit or quarry, while detained by or in the actual custody of a peace officer or while an inmate on the premises of a correctional institution or lock-up in the province of Ontario.

We did learn in the past few days that the Office of the Chief Coroner advised on April 7, 2006, that the pediatric death review committee, the PDRC, will

review all deaths involving children who were under the supervision of children's aid societies in the province of Ontario. The committee will also produce an annual report detailing the findings

and recommendations of the reviews. Previously, only those deaths that were considered suspicious were reviewed. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance in determining the cause, the

manner of death, provide recommendations or other investigative initiatives or to make recommendations for systemic changes. This committee is chaired by the deputy chief coroner, Dr. Jim Cairns.

The PDRC examines child deaths and makes recommendations in preventing future deaths.

I do believe that is a positive initiative and, coupled with the objectives through Mr. Jackson's bill this morning, will lift the veil, shed light on

circumstances and provide a pathway for the future of how these are to be handled. Indeed, it will be my pleasure to support Bill 89.

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I certainly would like to confirm my support for Bill 89, Kevin and Jared's Law. First and

foremost, I extend my sincerest sympathies to the Craven, the Latimer and the Mailly families, and all families who have endured such tragic events.

As we know, in 2004, Mr. Jackson's bill, Bill 78 at the time, did receive unanimous support in the Legislature. It was a setback when Kevin's Law died on the

order paper. Fortunately, my colleague from Burlington has reintroduced the legislation, Bill 89, Kevin and Jared's Law,

An Act to amend the Child and Family Services Act and the Coroners Act.

Like its predecessor, this legislation calls for an automatic coroner's inquest when a child dies in the care of a parent or a family member who has been the

subject of court-ordered supervised or unsupervised access. As we know, the Coroners Act already extends an automatic inquest when a worker dies in, for example, a mining accident or a construction

accident, and we also know that this is also extended when a prisoner dies in custody. So by passing this law, we have the opportunity to give our most vulnerable children a right that we already

give to criminals.

I have recently learned that John Craven, grandfather of Jared, is circulating a petition in the Brantford area. I'm pretty sad to see the necessity for that,

and I look forward to the opportunity to help distribute that petition and continue to rally support for this initiative.

Really, what this law comes down to is accountability. How can we, as legislators, continue to accept the status quo that gives, in a sense, prisoners more

rights than our most vulnerable children? In this case, making reference to one victim, a victim who was a hero and at eight years old, Jared died defending two other people. We know that he died

at the hands of a violent man, and we know that he died at the hands of a criminal. We also know that he died while on an unsupervised parental visit, despite his father's parole violations and

refusal to attend court-ordered anger management classes. Now, if this man had died in jail, there would have been an automatic inquest. Indeed, an automatic inquest would help us to better

understand the shortcomings in the system, equipping us to make any revisions that would be necessary.

The law will not bring back people like Jared or Kevin, but it will tell us where the system goes wrong and why it went wrong and how we can better prevent

these kinds of tragedies. I personally will be supporting this legislation, and I again look forward to unanimous consent among members present.

Mr. Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm pleased to join in the debate with respect to Bill 89, Kevin and Jared's Law,

An Act to

amend the Child and Family Services Act and the Coroners Act, which I had already debated in a more limited form when it was brought forth two years ago by the member from Burlington.

There's no doubt that -- and I share the comments from the member from Hamilton East -- I have a great respect for the office of the Ombudsman and the current

Ombudsman and what he put forth in terms of dealing with oversight powers with respect to the children's aid societies. That's something that I think the government has made a big mistake on with

respect to not following his recommendations to deal with this particular area.

Obviously, there's a shortfall with respect to how children's aid societies are dealing with these types of situations, and the proof is, unfortunately, we

have family members today of children who have been killed. What we're looking for here in this bill is something that is the end of a tragic situation, a coroner's inquest where what we should be

looking at -- not only in addition to this -- is the Ombudsman's powers in terms of making sure something like this does not happen. But the government decided that they knew better, and they went

forth with their bill. That's where we are today. I know that the members here who really feel for this issue are not going to stop pushing with respect to the Ombudsman having an oversight

role.

The other part of what we're dealing with here today is the coroner's inquest. As the members correctly pointed out, the Coroners Act already provides

automatic inquests with respect to deaths on construction sites, with respect to mining and deaths of prisoners in institutions. What we're asking for here today is very simple: that there be a

coroner's inquest in situations where there's court-ordered and supervised, directed access by the children's aid society who have the responsibility for the safekeeping of these children.

I'm going to share my time with my other colleagues. I support this bill and I commend the member for bringing it forth once again. I hope the government

decides to act on this bill and not put it into cold storage, which it did two years ago.

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): I usually express my appreciation for being able, and my desire, to positively speak about something. In this case, I

have to say from the outset that this is one of the toughest moments of my life, talking about this particular bill and the associated tragedies that are attached to it.

I will start by offering my sincere sympathies and my heartfelt prayers to the families, as I have done in the past. I will continue to support the member's

bill, as I did two years ago, and explain that as an educator for 25 years I was exposed to some horrific abuse and find it to this day unacceptable that we abuse our children. I would challenge

all of us out there to keep in mind that a coroner's inquest is to start something positive after, and unfortunately, we're talking about it as if it were after the fact.

What a coroner's inquest does is make those recommendations for the future. I would suggest respectfully that the government did not fail the last time the

bill was introduced. The House prorogued, and that's what happens with all bills unless governments carry them forward. So it's very delicate for me to say that we need not to talk politics, but we

need to talk about correction and doing what's right. I will stand before you to tell you clearly that I support the bill. I support the member's intention. I support the member's desire to see an

injustice turned into justice.

There are times when we have opportunities in this place called private members' time to step forward as a collective group of legislators who have the

authority and the ability to suggest bills that governments, throughout history, have not set as a priority or have not picked up on or not recognized as issues. So we take these very sincerely

from our constituency. I would suggest and recommend very respectfully that we've now seen what communities in our province have to suffer. I can't put into words the pain and suffering that these

parents have gone through. We can't put it into words. We don't understand their anger. We don't understand their distrust. We don't understand their passion. But we can take action about it. I

respectfully suggest that all members in this House will be supporting the bill to get it to committee.

I would also suggest to you that there are times in which we need to hear our constituents. I would say respectfully again that, in an

article that was printed

in the press, John Craven collected over 20,000 signatures and growing, and had plenty of disturbing stories that were relayed to him about domestic violence just in a week. Here is his quote:

"`You wouldn't believe the horror stories I've been hearing,' Craven said. `I haven't heard anything that compares to what we've experienced, but still there

are a lot of stories of abuse out there.'

"`I really had no idea how rampant it was until I started with this petition. There are so many women out there in similar situations.'

"Craven is the grandfather of Jared...," an eight-year-old boy "who was killed by his father, Andrew, in a domestic dispute on March 18.

"Jared died defending two other people, Paula Ferrell and her eight-year-old daughter, Sarah. Both suffered stab wounds and were hospitalized following the

attack....

"Julie" -- the mom -- "was the custodial parent of Jared but her estranged husband had some weekend access to their son....

"Craven has been surprised by the reaction to the petition.

"`The support we've been getting from people has been terrific,' Craven said. `The number of people who have signed ... it's astronomical.

"`I really didn't know what to expect when we started this. I've never been involved in something like this before.' ...

"`We need to get some changes,' Craven said. `This isn't something that will help us but it might help other families.

"`No family should ever have to go through something like this.'"

That's what I want to talk about. That shows me the "bravery" word that's been bandied about, the amazing bravery of this family to step forward and talk to

many members, including the member from Burlington, myself and others, to bring their story forward and ask us, "Don't let this happen to somebody else."

That's why I'm challenging us to support the bill -- not because it's political, not because it's government versus the opposition. That's not what we're doing

here this morning. What we're doing this morning, and every Thursday morning in private members' business, is to bring those kinds of issues forward and ask us all collectively to change some

things that would make it better for our children, in this case.

I'm proud of the moments we have like this, where collectively we all stand up and have our say, with no shackles. The member from Burlington wasn't told by

his opposition leader, "Tackle this one." We weren't told by the Premier, "Reject this one" or "Pick this one up." This is private members' business. This is members' business that is coming to us

from the opposition. In my mind, I'm not talking to a member from the opposition. I'm talking to an honourable member who has brought us this issue and wants us to deal with it. That's the

challenge.

We should remember that this is not about politics, believe it or not. I've been chastised once already in this place for saying it shouldn't be like that. I

say to all of us, forget those shackles. This is the time to shine, to listen to the 20-some-odd thousand people who have signed those petitions, to the family members who have offered us an

opportunity to do something. I still have a hard time understanding how they find the strength to do this, which is to leave their own personal grief aside and ask us to do something so that it

doesn't happen again to somebody else's baby.

I say to the member from Burlington, as I did two years ago, I thank you for bringing this forward. I fully support what you're asking us to do. I challenge us

all to set aside any shackles you may have been given or want to use and to say, "Let's just do the right thing."

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I'm most honoured to be able to support my good friend the member from Burlington in his continuing efforts

to represent victims and families in our society.

I met the member from Burlington 12 years ago, I think, for the first time. I was not a member then. He was at that time advocating on behalf of French and

Mahaffy through that tragedy. As a lawyer, even though I did not do criminal work, for the first time I had an inkling that our adversarial, common-law system, as it presently stood, really had no

place for victims or their families. We had the Queen or the state on one side, we had the accused on the other side, and lawyers, judges and crowns talked about the rights and obligations of the

accused. I can't remember in the little criminal work I did 30 years ago any discussion, ever, of "How about the victim?" or "How about their family?" There were no impact statements from families;

there was none of that. Through the efforts of my good friend the member from Burlington, among others, we are coming to realize more and more the deficiencies in our court system in not

recognizing the rights and obligations of our society to not only the victim but their families.

My condolences to the families who are present in the House. I believe that this bill will give us the very important answers that will in the future prevent

tragedies of this kind.

Really, the bill asks for very little. We already have an automatic coroner's inquest in the case of construction accidents, and so we should. We already have

an automatic inquest where a prisoner dies in custody, and so we should. And here we're asking for an automatic coroner's inquest where a child dies in the custody of a person who was or had been

under supervision. It's a simple request and it's not an expensive matter. More important, just think of the lives that we can save.

I was most pleased to hear the comments of the government whip. I think he showed a great deal of understanding and became an advocate for victims too in his

comments that this is not a matter of partisan politics; this is a matter of recognizing that the victims and their families must be recognized by our society as having certain inalienable rights.

We have an opportunity here to prevent a repetition of these tragedies.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Jackson, you have up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. Jackson: First of all, I want to thank all the members of the House for their heartfelt condolences to the families and for their

contribution, as I did two years ago. Today, we have more families here, tragically and unfortunately.

To the families: As has been said earlier, I've been advocating for victims' rights in this province for over 21 years. In fact, I've been defeated three times

on the floor of this Legislature to bring in Ontario's first Victims' Bill of Rights. But I was successful and we now do have an Office for Victims of Crime; we do have a victims' justice fund; we

have criminal compensation, victims' impact statements. All of those flowed from those rights.

But we still do not give victims a voice when it comes to a coroner's inquest. When the murderers of these children died, the book closed. They didn't have the

opportunity to go to court and reveal all that happened. Our only court of public concern is a coroner's inquest. That's the message the families are trying to give us today.

We admire their courage. We admire their strength. One can only imagine their grief. I come from a family where my mother has buried three of her children, and

I only was alive for the loss of one brother. I've seen first-hand what it does to families, and I've spent countless hours with these families. They are pleading with this government, not to pass

this bill today -- we've been here. They want this government to refer it to the justice committee, to take a week of public hearings so that Jenny Latimer and Julie Craven can come forward and

talk to you today and pass this bill in a day and make it a law in Ontario, make it safer for our children. They deserve it. This is Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

CHRISTOPHER'S LAW

(SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT

LA LOI CHRISTOPHER

SUR LE REGISTRE

DES DÉLINQUANTS SEXUELS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We'll first deal with ballot item number 29, standing in the name of Mr. Martiniuk.

Mr. Martiniuk has moved second reading of Bill 73,

An Act to protect our children from sexual predators by amending Christopher's Law (Sex Offender Registry),

2000. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We will, after dealing with the next order of business, call in the members for the vote.

KEVIN AND JARED'S LAW

(CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT), 2006 /

LOI KEVIN ET JARED DE 2006 MODIFIANT

DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LES SERVICES À L'ENFANCE

ET À LA FAMILLE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We'll now deal with ballot item number 30, standing in the name of Mr. Jackson.

Mr. Jackson has moved second reading of Bill 89,

An Act to amend the Child and Family Services Act and the Coroners Act to better protect the children of

Ontario. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We will now call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1200 to 1205.

CHRISTOPHER'S LAW

(SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT

LA LOI CHRISTOPHER

SUR LE REGISTRE

DES DÉLINQUANTS SEXUELS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mr. Martiniuk has moved second reading of Bill 73. All those in favour, please stand and be recognized

by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Brownell, Jim

Dhillon, Vic

Horwath, Andrea

Hoy, Pat

Jackson, Cameron

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marchese, Rosario

Martiniuk, Gerry

Mitchell, Carol

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Tascona, Joseph N.

Van Bommel, Maria

Wilson, Jim

Yakabuski, John

Zimmer, David

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please stand and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Patten, Richard

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 21; the nays are 1.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): Could I request that the bill be referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills?

The Deputy Speaker: Shall the bill be referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills? Agreed.

The doors will now be opened for 30 seconds before the next vote.

KEVIN AND JARED'S LAW

(CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT), 2006 /

LOI KEVIN ET JARED DE 2006 MODIFIANT

DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LES SERVICES À L'ENFANCE

ET À LA FAMILLE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mr. Jackson has moved second reading of Bill 89. All those in favour, please stand and be recognized

by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Barrett, Toby

Brownell, Jim

Dhillon, Vic

Elliott, Christine

Horwath, Andrea

Hoy, Pat

Jackson, Cameron

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

MacLeod, Lisa

Marchese, Rosario

Martiniuk, Gerry

Mitchell, Carol

Munro, Julia

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Patten, Richard

Ramal, Khalil

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Tascona, Joseph N.

Van Bommel, Maria

Wilson, Jim

Yakabuski, John

Zimmer, David

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please stand and be recognized by the Clerk.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 27; the nays are 0.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Mr. Cameron Jackson (Burlington): I would respectfully request that this bill be referred to the justice policy committee.

The Deputy Speaker: Shall the bill be referred to the standing committee on justice policy? Agreed.

All matters relating to private members' public business having been completed, I do now leave the chair.

The House will resume at 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1210 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LOWELL GREEN

Ms. Lisa MacLeod (Nepean-Carleton): Tonight, the unofficial leader of the opposition -- to all levels of government -- will be roasted, after

50 years of broadcasting.

Like him or lump him, Lowell Green is a staple in Ottawa politics. His talk radio program, the Lowell Green Show, is listened to by everyone political. His

show is provocative. Elected officials who represent ridings in the Lowell nation know he has single-handedly been able to reshape public policy -- and public perception -- at times by using the

power of the people.

Lowell has been a great Canadian and has been recognized with the Royal Canadian Legion's Friendship Award, the Chief of Defence staff medallion and the

Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal.

As a former commentator on CFRA, I have worked with Lowell and with his wife, Deborah, from my days at the Canadian Cancer Society. They're ordinary people,

but Lowell manages to do extraordinary things. He has played a significant role in the nation's capital. He's a founder of the Help Santa Claus Parade and the Big Brothers of Ottawa and, thanks to

the Save Centennial Flame campaign, that flame is still blazing on Parliament Hill.

Lowell is an international award-winning journalist and best-selling author, and tonight, from all walks of life, friends will roast this gentle talk show

giant. And like most things Lowell does, proceeds will go to benefit charity: Food Aid 2006, to help the Ottawa Food Bank and the struggling beef industry.

On behalf of this Legislature, I would like to wish Lowell Green, the man with tough-mindedness, humanity and an unusual sense of justice, and his wife,

Deborah, best wishes for 50 more years in broadcasting.

QUEEN'S BIRTHDAY

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): I rise today in the House to mark a momentous occasion. Tomorrow, Her Majesty Queen

Elizabeth II will celebrate her 80th birthday.

Since assuming the crown in 1952, the queen has served the people of Canada and the whole Commonwealth with an unwavering sense of duty and grace. At an age

when most have long since retired, Her Majesty continues to perform her duties with the vigour and enthusiasm of someone half her age.

During her reign, she has presided over major events in the history of this country, from the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway in 1959 -- attended by my

seatmate, a young Jim Brownell -- to the celebrations of Canada's 100th birthday in 1967. Most recently, she was here for the 100th anniversaries of the entries of Saskatchewan and Alberta into

Confederation.

In the 80 years since the Queen's birth, we have witnessed dramatic changes around the globe. An individual who lived at the turn of the last century would

surely find this one unrecognizeable. Through all these changes, the Queen has been a source of stability and comfort to many. Her presence has connected us to the heritage of our past, and her

decades of knowledge and experience have served all the countries of the Commonwealth well.

Throughout her reign, Her Majesty has lived a life of discipline and dedication to public service. The Queen's focus has never been personal; rather, it has

been one of tolerance of the needs and interests of others. Queen Elizabeth II has served as an example and an inspiration for us all.

I join all Ontarians, Canadians and people around the world when I wish Her Majesty good health, a happy birthday and best wishes for many more years to

come.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I wish to express my concern with health care cutbacks and the lack of governmental support for the

operation of diagnostic equipment at the Brockville General Hospital.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government's decision to break their key campaign promise on taxes by bringing in the largest tax increase in the

province's history was justified as being necessary to improve health care. Shortly after that tax increase, chiropractic care, eye exams and physiotherapy were removed from the public system.

Ontarians were confronted with the "pay more, get less" health care policy of the Liberal government. In Brockville, we saw the physiotherapy clinic close, and recently the hospital announced staff

layoffs and a number of cutbacks, including the closure of its outpatient lab in Prescott. The Prescott community is justifiably upset by this closure, pointing out that it will create undue

hardship on the ill, seniors and their families.

The Prescott lab and other health services could be saved if the Liberal government would do the right thing and fund the operation of the Brockville

hospital's CT scan. The CT scan's $400,000 annual operating costs are now picked up completely by the hospital. This is an important service, relieving wait time pressures in larger centres, and

the province should be funding it. If this occurred, Brockville General would be in a position to continue operating its Prescott lab and retain other important services that are now on the

chopping block. I urge the Minister of Health to ensure operational funding for the Brockville CT scan.

IMMIGRATION POLICY

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I rise to discuss the status of undocumented workers in the province of Ontario, many of whom work in the

construction industry in the riding of Davenport, which I'm very proud to represent.

Members of this House are aware that the status of undocumented workers has garnered significant media attention in the last two months. While the federal

government is ultimately responsible for deciding who stays in Ontario and who goes, the McGuinty government and Ontario's Minister of Citizenship and Immigration have been proactive in their

approach. Our government has recognized that undocumented workers are a manifestation of a federal immigration selection system which fails to address labour market realities in the province of

Ontario. This disconnect resulted in a backdoor immigration system which has been ignored for too long.

This immigration selection system is broken and needs fixing, and for this reason I was delighted to see the signing of the first ever Canada-Ontario

immigration agreement last November. This historic agreement will provide $920 million in new federal money for Ontario's newcomers over five years, and for the first time, Ontario will have the

opportunity to be at the table to offer constructive suggestions to the ongoing issues related to immigration.

Finally, we are willing as a province to ensure that the federal government works with us. There's a real demand for people with all kinds of skills in cities

and towns across Ontario, and we need to make the immigration system work for the social and economic --

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Thank you.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): Recently, the Minister of Energy has been out making a plethora of wind farm announcements, a

total, in her calculations, of 201 megawatts. However, let's bring that into perspective. According to the IESO, using the 10% reliability factor that they say has to be used, that totals 20

megawatts. To bring that into perspective, you would have to repeat those announcements 25 times in order to replace just one operating unit at Lambton -- just one operating unit.

What I'm trying to say is, what a disjointed, incoherent energy policy. They're jumping up and down about these announcements, which are not amounting to

anything when it comes to replacing and bringing on new supply in the province of Ontario. What about the transmission situation in this province? Nothing has been said about that and the

challenges you have there. What about the OPA report that the minister promised an answer to in 60 days? It is now 132 days.

They don't have a plan. They don't have any idea where we're going in energy. They're digging us into a bigger and bigger hole. It is time to admit that you

have mismanaged and brought disaster upon this file. Step out of the way and let somebody run this file who can.

POVERTY

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): I rise today to pay tribute to an exceptional individual who's doing Hamilton proud with his extremely

important work on poverty issues. Craig Foye is a young lawyer from McQuesten Legal and Community Services, an organization that I used to work for at one time, in fact. It exists in Hamilton East,

actually. He is heading to Switzerland shortly. There he will address a key United Nations committee on Canada's failure to live up to its obligation to provide an adequate standard of living for

all. With the support of Hamilton city council and the board of directors of McQuesten Legal Clinic, Craig will be presenting his research to the UN committee on economic, social and cultural

rights on behalf of the income security working group in Hamilton.

Thirty years ago, Canada committed to end poverty -- Craig's report tells us how -- but today, there's more poverty than ever and it targets women, seniors,

newcomers, aboriginal persons, people with disabilities and racialized groups. In Hamilton, over 20% of people live in poverty, but 44% of people with aboriginal status and 52% of recent immigrants

are living in poverty in that city.

Craig's report proves that the right to an adequate standard of living is not being acknowledged or protected by either the provincial or federal governments.

In Ontario, despite promising to end it, the McGuinty Liberal government continues to claw back the national child benefit supplement for the lowest-income families in this province. This has to

stop.

My deepest hope and the hope of all New Democrats is that the UN visit will spur real action from the McGuinty government to end the punishing policies like

the clawback that keep people in poverty in this province.

HOWARD WU

Mr. Tony C. Wong (Markham): This morning I had the great pleasure of welcoming Minister of Health Promotion Jim Watson to my riding of Markham

to present the Heather Crowe Award to one of this year's recipients: a long-time local tobacco control advocate, Dr. Howard Wu. The Heather Crowe Award recognizes the efforts of individuals and

organizations in promoting a smoke-free Ontario by eliminating second-hand smoke in the workplace and in enclosed public places. A champion in educating Ontarians on the harmful effects of smoking

and second-hand smoke, Dr. Howard Wu exemplifies how one individual can make a profound difference in a community.

Last year, Dr. Wu opened the first smoking cessation clinic in York region to help determined smokers quit the habit and help promote a smoke-free environment

in the community. Through his volunteer work at the Heart and Stroke Foundation and his own vocation, Dr. Wu has helped prevent youth from starting to smoke and helped smokers quit.

Smoking is the leading cause of preventable disease and death in Ontario, causing 16,000 deaths a year. I'm proud of the McGuinty government's Smoke-Free

Ontario strategy and our efforts to recognize the hard work and dedication of people like Heather Crowe and Dr. Howard Wu. I wish to thank Dr. Wu for his accomplishments towards making our

Smoke-Free Ontario strategy a reality.

REPUBLIC OF CROATIA

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): Of Canada's 97,000 citizens of Croatian descent, some 62,000 live here in Ontario. Sitting on the eastern

Adriatic Sea, where western and eastern Europe meet, the still-young Republic of Croatia is open for business to Ontario.

I would like members to join me in welcoming Croatia's ambassador to Canada, Mrs. Vesela Mrden Korac, who is in the west members' gallery. She is joined by Mr.

Mario Livaja, Croatian Consul General in Toronto; Mr. Ivan Grbesic and Mr. Mike Yelavich, members of the board of directors of the Canadian-Croatian Chamber of Commerce.

In 2005, Canadians exported some $25.7 million of goods and services to Croatia, mainly telecommunications, pharmaceutical products, metal and electrical

products. In 2005, Canada imported $11.4 million worth of product, principally food, textile products and pharmaceuticals.

Some 19,500 Canadians visited Croatia on vacation in 2005, seeing some of the most stunningly beautiful scenery in Europe. Croatia needs Ontario investment,

and Croatia makes it easy for Ontarians to do business there. Croatia is growing its business sector and infrastructure even as it protects the environment and uses it natural resources

sustainably.

Croatia needs what Ontarians do well in infrastructure. Croatia hopes to join the European Union before 2009 and to host Ontario businesses, for whom Croatia

will be one of their gateways in eastern Europe.

TRILLIUM HEALTH CENTER

Mr. Tim Peterson (Mississauga South): I am pleased to rise today to inform the House of an award given to the Trillium Health Centre. Earlier

this morning, the Trillium Health Centre received Ontario's first Innovation Award for Improving Quality and Patient Safety. This award was given by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. They

won over 620 other submissions.

Trillium won the Innovation Award for its breakthrough work with the Trillium order sets system. Order sets are used by physicians to order medications,

treatments, procedures and consultations for each patient; in effect, the detailed instructions for today's complex treatments. With the Trillium order sets system, the physician uses a

sophisticated checklist that is adjusted to the patient's medical history and diagnosed condition. The system maximizes efficiency, improves safety and enhances quality of care.

The Trillium order sets system is a component of Trillium's groundbreaking THINK initiative. THINK, which stands for "transforming health care into integrated

networks of knowledge," is the technological enabler that will allow Trillium to fulfill its mission of transforming the health care experience.

Today's award honours Trillium's commitment to innovation and to THINK.

On behalf of myself and the other members in Mississauga and Etobicoke -- Minister Broten, Minister Takhar, Peter Fonseca and Bob Delaney -- we are pleased to

acknowledge Katherine Decaire, a nurse practitioner, Zelia Campos, a registered nurse, and Dr. Chris O'Connor from the Trillium Health Centre. They were supposed to be in the gallery today, but

unfortunately the logistics didn't work, so I would just ask the House to give a nice round of applause in recognition of their terrific work.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): I would like to ask all members to assist me in thanking the good hard work of our pages, who have served

us admirably and with great aplomb during the last few weeks.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): I seek unanimous consent to put

forward a motion without notice regarding private members' public business.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Agreed? Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I move that, notwithstanding standing order 96(d), the following change be made to the ballot list of private members'

public business: Mr. Miller and Ms. McLeod exchange places in order of precedence such that Ms. McLeod assumes ballot item 38 and Mr. Miller assumes ballot item 77.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

EARTH DAY /

JOUR DE LA TERRE

Hon. Laurel C. Broten (Minister of the Environment): As environment minister for this great province, it is my privilege to draw the attention

of this Legislature today to Earth Day, this Saturday, April 22.

For 36 years, Earth Day has catalyzed people around the globe to be more aware, to care and to act more consciously to protect our environment, but as we all

know, the environment needs much more than a day.

Awareness about environmental protection has been growing steadily since the inception of Earth Day.

No single action captured our imagination more than in September 1971, when a small group of men started to sail from Vancouver to Amchitka Island in Alaska on

a fishing trawler that they had just rechristened the Greenpeace. The late, great Bob Hunter was on that boat. With his actions and writings over the ensuing 35 years, he was a catalyst and a

symbol of a globe-spanning environmental awakening.

The first voyage of Greenpeace, then known as the Don't Make a Wave Committee, revealed that there was much more public concern about environmental issues than

anyone had realized.

This week, we're not just marking Earth Day; we've declared it a week in which to focus our attention on our planet and our environment.

Earth Week 2006 is the first without Bob Hunter, though. He passed away late last May. This week, we remember and celebrate the courage of a man who was guided

by his conscience and who did everything in his ability to leave the world a better place than he found it.

While most of us may never take the type of action that Bob did to fight for his principles, we do have the potential to effect real change for the better.

Twelve million Ontarians look to us to protect their health and quality of life and to preserve our province's enormous resources.

Douze millions d'Ontariens et d'Ontariennes nous font confiance pour protéger leur santé et leur qualité de vie, et pour préserver les

ressources et le potentiel énormes de notre province.

I am proud to say that this government can stand proudly on its environmental record. We can say to the public, yes, we meet our promises; yes, we are tackling

the environmental threats to your health and the health of your families. We've imposed tougher standards on industry. We have clear new water rules for municipalities. We have engaged communities,

businesses and other levels of government in innovative new partnerships for action. And there is new funding for scientific research on environmental issues.

Is Ontario on course to be healthier and better positioned for prosperity? We believe wholeheartedly that this is the case. Is our work completed? Of course

not.

We have accomplished a great deal. We've made the commitment to clean drinking water because there is nothing more fundamental to our health or our communities

than a supply of safe water.

Nous avons pris l'engagement d'assainir l'eau potable parce que rien n'est plus important pour notre santé ou celle de nos collectivités qu'un

approvisionnement en eau sûre.

Today in Ontario there are more drinking water inspectors. There are rules for drinking water systems in our communities that make sense for their needs and

their budgets. There are new training requirements for the professionals who treat our drinking water, and our communities have already received millions of dollars in funding as part of our

$67-million commitment to scientific research on water protection.

Right now, our most significant step forward for safe water is being considered by this House. We intend to give Ontario what it has needed for so long: a

Clean Water Act, a bill that will let our communities prevent water contamination before it happens.

Nous entendons donner à l'Ontario ce dont il a besoin depuis si longtemps : le projet de

loi sur l'eau saine, un projet de loi qui permettra à

nos collectivités de prévenir la contamination de l'eau avant qu'elle ne se produise.

We can't go a day without clean water, and we can't go a single minute without clean, breathable air. The challenges we face to protect our air quality are

tremendous and they extend beyond Ontario's borders. This Earth Week, I am proud to say that we are making real and tangible progress on this front. Poor air quality is hurting Ontarians right now.

Our own studies and those of the Ontario Medical Association tell us that air pollution is responsible for up to 5,800 deaths a year and almost $10 billion in health and related costs.

But the numbers don't tell the whole story. We need to look at air pollution's impact on people. More children are developing asthma. Thousands of vulnerable

seniors and people with heart conditions are losing their freedom of mobility on smog days. As summer approaches, and with it the increased risk of poor air, all of us need to remember our

responsibility to the health of the people of Ontario.

Our government has updated or set new standards for 40 air pollutants, including carcinogens and toxic chemicals like chlorine, ammonia and vinyl chloride. We

have regulated seven large industrial sectors to lower their emissions in a series of increasingly stringent steps. We have tightened standards to cut pollution from cars and trucks and refocused

the program on the vehicles most likely to pollute. To protect our children, we have set high standards for school buses. By investing in transit, we are giving people greener options. By adding

ethanol to gasoline, we are cutting emissions and supporting a new source of fuel that is cleaner, domestic and renewable. And of course, we are closing our province's coal-fired electricity

generators.

No other government in the history of this province has ever contributed as much to cleaner air as we will with this single action. We will cut pollution and

greenhouse gas emissions by up to 30 million tonnes a year. The Greenbelt Act, Places to Grow, and the creation of the Bob Hunter Memorial Park are helping to preserve green space and slow down

urban sprawl so we can spend less time in our cars and more in our communities.

Another step in clearing Ontario's air is the challenge of transboundary air pollution. We're delivering on our promise to take on the pollution crossing our

borders. In February, Ontario lent its voice to the growing chorus of jurisdictions that oppose changes to US air regulations -- rules that would negatively affect our air here north of the border.

We will continue to work with our neighbours to fight transboundary air pollution.

Every year during Earth Week, it is important to make our voices heard, to mobilize Ontar