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

May 28, 1998

36th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L017 - Thu 28 May 1998 / Jeu 28 Mai 1998 1

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN INVOLVED IN PROSTITUTION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA PROTECTION DES ENFANTS QUI SE LIVRENT À LA PROSTITUTION

CRIME AGAINST SENIORS

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN INVOLVED IN PROSTITUTION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA PROTECTION DES ENFANTS QUI SE LIVRENT À LA PROSTITUTION

CRIME AGAINST SENIORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

EDUCATION FUNDING

GO TRANSIT

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

BOROUGH OF EAST YORK.

BRAMPTON MINOR BASEBALL ASSOCIATION

ROAD SAFETY

PROPERTY TAXATION

VISITORS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CHILDREN'S LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA LOI PORTANT RÉFORME DU DROIT DE L'ENFANCE

MOTIONS

APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

ICE STORM

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM

MINISTERIAL RESPONSE

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

PETITIONS

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

ROAD SAFETY

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

GASOLINE PRICES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

ABORTION

NURSES' BILL OF RIGHTS

UNITED EMPIRE LOYALISTS

PIT BULL REGULATION

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PREVENTION OF UNIONIZATION ACT (ONTARIO WORKS), 1998 / LOI DE 1998 VISANT À EMPÊCHER LA SYNDICALISATION (PROGRAMME ONTARIO AU TRAVAIL)

The House met at 1001.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN INVOLVED IN PROSTITUTION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA PROTECTION DES ENFANTS QUI SE LIVRENT À LA PROSTITUTION

Mr Bartolucci moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 18,

An Act to protect Children involved in Prostitution / Projet de loi 18, Loi visant à protéger les enfants qui se livrent à la prostitution.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 95(c), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): In the foreword to the 1997 The Progress of Nations, Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations, wrote in part, "The day will come when nations will be judged not by their military or economic strength, nor by the splendour of their capital cities and public buildings but...by the provision that is made for those who are vulnerable and disadvantaged; and by the protection that is afforded to the growing minds and bodies of our children." It is in that context that I would like to begin our debate today.

Why, might you ask, would I propose such legislation? During the Christmas shopping season this past year, I was hurriedly buying presents for my family at Sudbury City Centre when an everyday, average father approached me and said, "I wish you could give me the present my family most wants." Knowing him I asked, "Alan, what would that be?" He said with all the love, courage and hope a father could muster, "Legislation which would protect my child from prostitution which she is involved in now."

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a real-life example of why I bring forth this legislation today. This is a real father, a caring father, a loving father, with a real daughter involved in a real problem. My fellow colleagues, this is not only a Sudbury problem, nor is it a Toronto, Windsor or Timmins problem. This is not only a big-city problem, nor is it a small-city problem. This is a concern for all Ontarians. Sadly, it is a problem which spans borders larger than Ontario. But today we in this Legislature have an opportunity to make a real difference in and for Ontario, a real difference for Alan and for his daughter.

The purpose of the bill is to protect children under 18 who are involved in prostitution. The bill gives police officers the power, with a warrant, to apprehend a child involved in prostitution and return the child to his or her family or to place the child in a protective safe house. The police officer may also apprehend a child without a warrant where the child's life or safety is seriously and imminently endangered.

If a child is brought to a protective safe house under this act, a child protection worker shall be responsible for the child and for determining whether to return the child to his or her parent, to a person who had care and control of the child before the child was apprehended or to another adult who is capable of providing for the child's needs. The child protection worker may also decide to apply to court for an order under

section 57 of the Child and Family Services Act.

This bill would allow a child, his or her parent or a child protection worker to apply to a court for a restraining order against a person who has abused the child or who will have encouraged the child or is likely to encourage the child to engage in prostitution. The bill makes it an offence for a person to encourage a child to engage in prostitution. The penalty for the offence is a fine of up to $25,000, imprisonment of up to 24 months or both a fine and imprisonment.

As you can see, my fellow members, this bill works in tandem or in conjunction with the Child and Family Services Act, but let me be clear: It is

an act that deals solely with sexual exploitation and child abuse through prostitution. It does not conflict with but rather enhances other pieces of provincial legislation to ensure that these vulnerable and exploited children are protected.

At the March 12, 1998, International Summit of Sexually Exploited Youth held in Victoria, BC, which was called Out from the Shadows, a declaration and agenda for action of sexually exploited children and youth was drafted. The conference's co-chairs Senator Landon Pearson from Ottawa, and Cherry Kingsley from Victoria, BC, a former teen prostitute who now advocates for their protection, along with the participants, concluded that not only was the realization of this problem important, but an agenda for action was necessary as well.

Their agenda was based on certain beliefs. Two of their beliefs are as follows: (1) that our laws must protect children who are sexually exploited or abused through prostitution; and (2) that we are all responsible for our children and youth, yet the issue is not ours alone. Governments, communities and society as a whole must be held accountable for the sexual exploitation of youth.

That's why it is imperative that today we act in a caring, responsible way.

Frankly, Speaker, I am quite enthused by the strong support this bill has been shown by a cross-section of the population of Ontario. Police services across the province - to date, 21 - have sent letters of support. Let me quote from only a few.

From Chief Julian Fantino of the London Police Service:

"I have reviewed the legislation and wish to commend you for your initiative in this regard and your efforts to enhance protection for our children who are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation.... Recent high-profile cases, including our project `Guardian,' have brought this issue to the forefront. It is imperative that those who are capable of effecting positive change, especially our political leaders, appreciate and act on the critical need to improve the quality of life for one of the most vulnerable segments of our society....

"If I can be of any assistance...please contact me."

The chief from the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service, Brian Ford, writes:

"Sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children is all too common in our society and there is a lack in legislation for authorities to take necessary action which would be in the best interest of the child.... This legislative void has been well covered in your bill."

William Closs, the Chief of Police in Kingston, writes:

"Speaking as a parent and as a police professional, I have become saddened and shocked as to what is happening with children in our society. Child prostitution cannot be tolerated, and every effort must be made to eradicate it."

These are only a few of the many letters.

Social service groups as well as church groups throughout the province have also sent me letters of support. Let me quote from only a few.

The executive officer, Ontario Provincial Synod, the Anglican Church of Canada, the Rev Harry Huskins, writes:

"I wanted to drop you a note to thank you for your initiative...and to encourage you in pursuing this issue...this is a very difficult and complex problem....

"Please continue your initiative because it is an important one."

I have letters from the Council of Elizabeth Fry Societies of Ontario and the John Howard Society. Bishop Bernard Pappin, Auxiliary Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Sault Ste Marie, writes:

"I am sure that Bishop Jean-Louis Plouffe, (who is presently in Rome), bishop of this diocese...would join me in support of your efforts to more effectively address this evil in our society."

There has been support from towns, cities and regions across Ontario for this legislation. Let me name only a few: Regional Chair Bob Chiarelli from the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, and over the course of the last few days the city of Sudbury council and the regional municipality of Sudbury council passed resolutions in support.

Finally, is this perfect legislation? Probably not. Does it need committee work? Yes, it does. Are there flaws in it? Probably. Is it fundamentally flawed in direction or in purpose or intent? Absolutely not.

If you believe in the

preamble of the legislation; if you believe that the safety, security and wellbeing of children and families is of paramount concern to all residents of Ontario; if you believe children engaged in prostitution are victims of sexual abuse and require protection; if you believe it is the responsibility of families and communities to provide that protection; if you believe it is the duty of the province to assist families and communities in providing that protection; if you believe that legislation is required to ensure the safety of all children and to assist children in ending their involvement with prostitution; if you believe that fathers like Alan and their daughters are important - and the fathers are not only in Sudbury and the daughters are not only in Toronto but they are all over this province; if you believe that we can effect change today, if you believe, I implore you to support this legislation.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I am pleased to be able to speak to the bill this morning. I am going to be joined later in this hour by Wayne Lessard, the member for Windsor-Riverside, who will be speaking to it as well.

I've got to tell you and the member, Mr Bartolucci, that his having raised this issue, his having spoken to the desperation of a family that loses a son or a daughter to the streets is certainly a legitimate and real one. It's a very visceral one. It's one, as Mr Bartolucci indicates, that isn't unique to Sudbury, isn't unique to Toronto but indeed has become increasingly pandemic.

Mr Bartolucci is quite generous in his comments that this may well be flawed. I fear that in many respects it is, and Mr Lessard is going to speak to that more precisely. I agree this is perhaps the lawyer in me coming to the surface, not necessarily a pleasant experience all the time, but one takes a look at the Criminal Code and the intrusion of this legislation as it currently stands on what is basically federal jurisdiction. Mr Bartolucci, as I say, has conceded that there may well be issues that have to be ironed out.

Let's talk about a few other things, though, to broaden this a little bit. Once again I want to make it clear that I'm commending Mr Bartolucci for bringing this matter forward, not only on behalf of his own constituents but on behalf of families in similar plights all over this province, all over this country; indeed, as we've become so sadly aware, internationally.

Again, I understand that the thrust of this legislation is to find a away of intervening and apprehending the abused. I can see once again that it isn't intended to address the issue of the abusers.

Let's make this observation: I'll tell you that prior to my election 10 years ago, in my practice of law, my clientele consisted primarily of a number of women who were charged under the Criminal Code with soliciting. Also, in my experience in the courts I was able to observe the court's treatment of the exploiter and the exploited. What's fascinating is that we've got john schools for guys who would want to go out and pick up women or young men, I suppose, or men. Prostitutes aren't given the same options.

Our criminal justice system is one which - and I speak to women, although it's women and men as well - turns a blind eye to the scenarios and the circumstances wherein women, young women and more mature women, are drawn into the sex trade, refuses to look at the plight of those women, the despair that they face. It's not a pretty picture. You've got to understand that, and I think most people do.

But somehow the pattern when it comes to the penalties imposed upon johns is one where they're treated far more generously than the sad, desperate women engaged in a very desperate, for most of us perhaps even unthinkable, way of earning income, for any number of reasons, who find themselves inevitably with no option, no john school for women, but with increasing fines and ultimately jail sentences.

I would welcome this going to committee so there could be a broader discussion about this whole phenomenon, the phenomenon of the street sex trade - who's in it, why they're in it and the difficulties and despair that they face. We have to of course incorporate recent news coverage of the good efforts on the part of police to bust up basically sex slave rings where women are brought into this country from out of the country.

Their passports are held by pimps - there's no other, polite way to refer to it - and these women are forced to earn their way out of that indenture or out of that slavery before their passports are returned to them and before they're entitled or enabled to return to their own country.

When Mr Bartolucci raises this matter he also forces us to reflect on the pathetic underfunding of family and children's services. He proposes in his bill the intervention by, obviously, family and children's services and I put it to the government members, who I presume are going to be participating in this debate, to talk about - because I'm confident that they're going to support the premise here - the inadequacy of funding of family and children's services, this government's abandonment of those agencies, FACS among them, whose mandate is to protect children, to protect our youngest people, our most vulnerable people.

I suppose it also - not "suppose" - I tell you it does beg the question about the whole issue of policing. We know how the police are required to engage in apprehension of this sort of activity. It's a rather complex, labour-intensive, costly sort of exercise. When they do a sting in a particular neighbourhood or a particular area, you need a number of police officers working over a protracted period of time if they're really going to deal with this issue.

Again, the grossly inadequate funding, the underfunding that this government has imposed upon police forces across this province leaves police officers and police services boards with their hands tied when it comes to doing that very labour-intensive and protracted sort of investigation that's necessary.

I'm going to support this bill. Mr Lessard is going to speak to some problems, very obvious problems, in terms of the legalities. If this gets to committee, and I hope it does, we'd better have some clear responses from the government about some adequate resources for those institutions like FACS that are committed and that are mandated to protect children and that will be called upon in the exercise of the application of this legislation. We'd better have some answers from this government about the gross underfunding of police services across this province, where the cops simply don't have the resources and the personnel to go out there and do the job that they very much want to do.

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): It's my pleasure to participate this morning in some small way in the debate on the member for Sudbury's bill for the protection of children involved in prostitution. There's no question that the concept Mr Bartolucci is putting forward is one that we all feel very strongly about and all can support, and certainly I will be supporting his bill.

However, I would like to point out a couple of practical issues that I think are worthy of discussion here. I am not so sure that more legislation is in fact going to help solve this problem. We already have a situation where to take a young person who is living off the avails of prostitution and put them back in their home - they've already left that environment for some reason.

These folks need some help and they probably need the help long before they get to the point where they leave their home and go on the street. It's a societal issue. We can make all the rules and regulations we want, but if society's standards and society's norms don't change somewhat, we will continue to deal with this issue.

We currently have the Child and Family Services Act that deals with the abuse of children. Under that act the age is under 16, and under that act police have the ability to report to the children's aid societies if a child under 16 is involved in prostitution and needs protection. That act already exists.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of children out there under 16 who are working as prostitutes and being abused by their pimps and by those who would use their services. The bill is there, the act is there, the powers are already there and it's a question of enforcement.

Under the Criminal Code, if somebody is suspected of abusing a child under 14 in a sexual way, there is a restraining order. Interestingly enough, only a restraining order can be sought. We do have several mechanisms available to us now to deal with this issue. To add another piece of legislation on top of what we have I'm not so sure is the answer.

Mr Kormos, the member for Welland-Thorold, made reference to the fact that we need more money spent. The third party's answer to every problem is to spend more money on it. We tried some of their solutions and they didn't quite work over the period from 1990 to 1995.

We have announced in the last budget $170 million extra for children's aid societies and we have announced $150 million for new policing initiatives, so we are putting some more money into the system. But creating some new laws to deal with this I'm not sure is the answer.

Then of course we come up with the old chestnut of the Charter of Rights challenges. Under this particular piece of legislation there would be several, because what Mr Bartolucci speaks to is protecting children from the abuse of prostitution, but from no other abuse. Quite frankly, if we deem it necessary to protect children up to age 18 from the abuses of prostitution, then we should see fit to protect them from all the other abuses that could be out there too. There's an inconsistency there that I think would not survive any kind of a charter challenge.

He also talks about detaining them against their will. Of course, we've been down this road several times, both on the mental health issue and so on and it's another one where the proverbial charter challenge would probably not put us in very good stead.

In

summary, as a father and a grandfather, I am absolutely totally supportive of the concept of protecting not only children from prostitution, but those people over 18 who find themselves stuck in that lifestyle and taken advantage of by their pimps and by their customers. I think we should figure out some ways to protect all of those people. But it is a societal issue. It has to do with our standards and our norms. Another piece of legislation added on top of what's already there, I'm not so sure is the right approach.

I commend Mr Bartolucci, the member for Sudbury, for his thoughtful presentation and the fact that he believes something should be done. I certainly support him in that respect and I will be supporting his bill. Maybe a discussion at committee is what we need, but I do think we need to look at something other than a new piece of legislation that probably can't be enforced.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I am pleased to be part of the debate and, first of all, to commend my colleague from Sudbury, Mr Bartolucci, for the bill that he has put together, the effort he has put into this. I know how deeply committed he is to the elimination of this problem and to looking at some ways that we as a government can have the ability to deal with what is a very serious threat, a threat to kids, a threat to our community, a threat to our province.

I appreciate the tone of discussion of the government and the opposition in dealing with this piece of legislation. I think we all understand the problem with the issue of prostitution, the impact it has on people's lives and often the reasons why people are involved in prostitution.

It's easy for us to look at people on the street and pass judgement and see them in a different light because of the trade they're involved in. We also have to understand that often there's a history there. There is often a history of sexual abuse, there is often a history of drugs, there is often a history of family problems that leads people into the field of prostitution. That's an area we've got to work on. Beyond simply looking at the solution, how do people get in those situations and what we can do to help them before it happens?

When it involves kids, I think it's a much greater problem. I don't think there is anything more vile or anything more disgusting than individuals encouraging young people - kids, 11-, 12-, 13-year-old girls - to work the streets as prostitutes. I think exploitation by these individuals, who in my view are nothing more than scumbags, forcing young people into doing this is disgraceful. These individuals who force kids and live off the avails of kids prostituting themselves should be dealt with, in my view, much more harshly than they are by the courts today. It is disgraceful.

They are slime who frankly do not deserve the ability to freely walk the streets and should be put away for a long time when they're caught in this.

We also have to ensure that we give the authorities - the children's aid societies, the police - the powers to take extraordinary measures at times in these extraordinary circumstances. Often the hands of the police are tied when it comes to dealing with young kids, particularly when you get to the grey area of 16- to 18-year-olds, as to how to deal with the problem when they can get the kids off the street one day and they're back out hooking on the same corner the next night. Children's aid societies are somewhat tied in how they can deal with this problem.

Again, this is not a problem that can be dealt with in the normal legal circumstances we have today within the laws of this province and this country.

I think this bill will give that extra power that is necessary. Often, in order to protect those young people, we have to take that extra step. We've got to give the police and the children's aid societies the resources to be able to take some measures to ensure that whatever action is necessary to ensure the best interests and the safety of the young person comes first. This bill gives us some of the tools to do that.

As expressed by some concerns of my colleagues across the floor, it is not a perfect bill. I think changes can be made; improvements can be made to the bill. I think committee would be the opportunity to make those refinements. But I think all of us in this Legislature certainly can agree with the concept, with the general overall direction and with the theme of this bill because very clearly it is meant to protect young people. We've seen many pieces of legislation that have been introduced in this House, particularly in private members' hour, with that intent of protecting young people. This fits right into that.

I think this will be widely accepted by the community as a whole. I think it has been well received, as my colleague has said, by police departments across this province, it has been well received by child advocates and it will be well received by organizations and individuals who work with children on the streets and who often are frustrated by their inability to take some action to take these kids off the streets and put them in a safe environment.

I urge this House to support this bill. I urge the government to allow this bill, with the refinements that are necessary in committee, to go through the House. I think it is clearly a step in the right direction. I also hope that following this bill going through, we will also look, through our efforts or the federal government's, at some very, very serious efforts to go after those individuals, those evil people who believe it is in their best interests to exploit and use young kids for financial purposes, for benefits, and to put the kids on the street for a life of crime, drugs and prostitution.

We've got to nail those individuals early. We've got to nail those people to help take care of the problem of young kids.

I support this bill and commend my member. I hope the House as a whole will support the bill that is in front of us today.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I want to commend the member for Sudbury for taking the initiative that he has. We have seen the Tory Crime Control Commission travel around this province trying to heighten people's fear of crime to justify some of their ideas, but they have never introduced legislation like the protection of children involved in prostitution acts that the member for Sudbury has introduced. So I applaud him for beating the Crime Control Commission to the punch.

We in the NDP share his concerns with respect to the welfare of children. In fact, that's the reason that Frances Lankin travelled around the province about a year and a half ago and after that and prepared this report, Putting Children First, a report that's available to anyone who is interested by contacting the NDP caucus office. In that report, a number of criticisms of the current government's cuts to programs that provide for the improvement of children's welfare are outlined, with some of the suggestions that we would make to improve the welfare of children.

But I want to speak generally about what I support in the bill that Mr Bartolucci has introduced and to bring some criticisms as well. I hope the member takes them as constructive criticisms, because that's how they're meant to be.

First of all, I think we all agree with what's set out in the

preamble in that "children engaged in prostitution are victims of sexual abuse and require protection." I don't believe anybody can disagree with that. I also strongly agree that it is the duty of the province to assist families and communities in providing protection to persons who find themselves in that position. I want to comment on that a little bit later, if I have the opportunity.

It also expands the definition of a child who is in need of protection, and that is a child who is "engaging in prostitution or attempting to engage in prostitution." Once again, I think that's something we can all agree to. The member from Chatham says there are many other situations where children may be deemed to be in need of protection as well, and I agree with that, but that's not the thrust of the legislation that's before us.

I don't have any concern about children being arrested with a warrant after a judge has been apprised of all of the facts, but I do have a concern with respect to the apprehension of a child without a warrant. Although the wording seems to provide protection to police officers in that they can do that if a child's life or safety is seriously or imminently endangered, it goes on after that to place some pretty onerous requirements on child protection workers to follow up after the police.

We know that the police have wide powers of arrest without warrants, but what happens after a policeman or a police services person arrests a child whom they find engaged or attempting to engage in prostitution is they're required to notify a child protection worker immediately that a child has been apprehended. They can deliver or convey that child to a protective safe house, and a child can be confined for up to three days in the child safe house. Then it places this onus on the child protection worker to show cause why the confinement was necessary.

The member for Chatham-Kent mentioned his concerns with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and this is something we really would need to look at closely at committee, because what this does is set up the confinement without a warrant of persons who may or may not have been involved in a criminal offence and puts the onus on the child protection worker to justify why that confinement was necessary. That's something that I think we have to have a close look at because, as we all know,

section 9 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms indicates that, "Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned."

section 10, it says that everyone has the right, on arrest or detention, to be informed of the reasons and to retain and instruct counsel. I know that my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold would be very interested to ensure that right to counsel continues to be maintained and respected.

Also in

section 10 they have the validity of that detention to be determined. It needs to be determined forthwith, in my submission. It can't wait for up to three days for a child protection worker to make that application before a court.

That is one of my major concerns with respect to the legislation. It doesn't take away from what I'll be supporting here today, however.

There are some other good things in here as well, and that is that there's a break to children who are participating voluntarily in programs that will assist them in getting out of the business of prostitution. It also provides an opportunity for the minister to establish programs that are necessary to assist children in ending their involvement in prostitution and also to designate protective safe houses under the act. Those are all very good intentions and they are ones of course that we concede will require the allocation of resources.

The member for Chatham-Kent has expressed his concerns with respect to that and we have seen this government's approach to increasing the welfare of children over the past few years. We know that one of the most disastrous things has been the cut in social services benefits by up to 22% for children, families, and young mothers as well, the $37 for pregnant women, that they were somehow going to be spending this money on beer, for example. That fails to take into consideration the needs of young women in many cases.

We've seen the absolute mess that's been made in the family support plan. Once again it's mostly women who are being deprived of their resources because of the disastrous situation in the family support plan.

Let's face it: Women don't get involved in prostitution because that's their choice of occupation. They get there because often they're in desperate situations. They're not getting the support they need. They're not getting the support from the community, they're not getting the support from the government, and they are forced to take desperate measures. That's how they end up in these situations. That's something we need to address, and I hope the government has some suggestions with respect to that.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I'm pleased to rise to speak to this bill this morning. At the outset, I'd like to say to the member for Sudbury that I will be voting in support of this bill because I do agree strongly with the intent. I think it's the kind of legislation that we should be seeing more of in this House because it goes to the heart of our communities; it goes to the heart of our society. Certainly regardless of how successful we might be in this province in returning economic strength, if we don't address the strength of our family and of our community and our society, we, as legislators, will have failed. So I commend the member for bringing this forward.

I would like to confirm as well that I particularly like the fact that in the

preamble, clause (c), the member has articulated that:

"The people of Ontario believe that,

"(

c) it is the responsibility of families and communities to provide that protection."

This is a fundamental principle that deserves focus and attention. I think in the past all too often the focus has been on government or government agencies or on the police force. I think this returns, rightfully so, the focus on the family and on communities. I want to commend the member for giving this House that focus, and I would like to see us have more discussion around that principle. Clearly, the province has the duty to assist families in doing that, another reason why I will be supporting this.

In the

definitions, I want to draw attention to the fact that this legislation defines "child" as "a person under the age of 18 years." This is on the one hand being represented as perhaps a problematic issue for this legislation because it finds itself in conflict with other pieces of legislation in existence in the province that define the child as 16 years of age or under the age of 16.

I would like to say that if this is in conflict with other pieces of legislation, it isn't a reason to set this aside. I believe it perhaps gives the Legislature the focus to reassess whether we should be looking at the other pieces of legislation, the framework, and redefining in the Child and Family Services Act the age at which children are children and deserve the protection of families, and not only of families but of agencies within the province. I think that is a good reason for us to perhaps take this bill into committee and have that discussion.

I would like to take this opportunity to suggest, as reference has been made previously by, I believe, Mr Bartolucci as he read into the record comments from police officers and police chiefs in terms of their lacking the authority to deal with these issues, that not only do police not have the necessary authority they should have and which we as a Legislature have a responsibility to give, but I believe that parents have been eroded of that authority as well. Other governments in this province have introduced legislation in this place that has taken authority away from parents that I believe should be restored to parents.

The member opposite will remember a piece of legislation I introduced into this House in 1996 called the Parental Consultation Act. I am sorry that the member at that time chose not to support me in that, because it goes to the heart of this very principle of involving parents in discussions around issues of importance to their children. I will be supporting this legislation and I hope to be working with Mr Bartolucci and other members of this House to bring this matter forward in a way that it can be constructive, that it can support children in our province and strengthen families and strengthen our society.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I am pleased to join the debate today on the bill of my colleague the member for Sudbury,

An Act to protect Children involved in Prostitution. Let me state at the outset, I believe that all members of this House are concerned about an issue of this nature and want to advance the province's, our police officers' and our municipalities' ability to deal with this problem, a problem that, as our member has pointed out, is not only prevalent in large cities but is prevalent in small cities. Indeed, it's prevalent right across Ontario.

The bill attempts, in my view, to codify and then expand our police services' ability to deal with difficult circumstances. The member for York-Mackenzie spoke too of subsection (

c) under the

preamble which talks about families' responsibilities. I share in that comment because all of our families have a responsibility to their children and people ought to be involved in looking after these issues.

I want to take a few minutes to address some of the issues that I know have been addressed particularly by the member for York-Mackenzie; first of all, the definition of "child." The member for York-Mackenzie is quite correct. The various provincial statutes and regulations define children differently. Some define children as those under 16, others under 18. Indeed, between the ministries of Health and Community and Social Services there are often terrible difficulties in terms of applying funding to programs and in terms of applying regulations, particularly with the grey area of 16 to `18.

I think the member for Sudbury has made a very definitive statement about what this Legislature views as being a child. It would be my hope that if the House sees fit to adopt this legislation, we will look further at that whole definition of what a child is in terms of our ability to deal with a number of different circumstances, particularly in the health care and social services field.

The bill takes great care, in my view, to protect the interests of individuals as defined in sections 9 and 10 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, what I think makes this bill particularly appealing as a piece of legislation is that in a responsible fashion it takes us further in terms of what our police officers can do in a situation where a child is in imminent danger. It very carefully sets out the circumstances under which a police officer can take action.

While I certainly recognize that those issues are pushing the frontier of law, I believe we ought to be pushing that frontier in order to give our police officers and our peace officers the opportunity to deal in circumstances that are at the very best difficult. I applaud the member for Sudbury for that particular effort.

The bill contemplates a couple of other things, starting in

section 6, where it deals with safe houses. What the bill contemplates but doesn't give explicit definition to is what our responsibility is once we've apprehended a child, that it's simply not enough to apprehend a child involved in prostitution or, for that matter, in any other crime and then somehow deal with it.

We have an obligation as a society to go beyond that. Where a child is involved in prostitution, we have an obligation to get that child out of prostitution, and yes, families do as well. But our experience and our view is that children who are involved in this type of activity generally don't have those supports.

I applaud the member (

a) for responding to an obvious need in terms of expanding the law; (

b) for pushing the law to a point to give our peace officers and our police officers new but well-controlled rights with respect to dealing with this; and finally, I applaud the member for Sudbury for recognizing that our obligation to society does not stop when a child is arrested. It doesn't stop until that child is rehabilitated and taken out of a very dangerous industry.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I am quite happy to join with my colleagues this morning to focus on the member for Sudbury's bill dealing with keeping and protecting kids who get involved in this nasty proposition about prostitution. I'd like to congratulate him with laudable intent. I will be supporting the bill.

This bill needs to go to committee and it needs an awful lot of work. If you are going to make this bill workable, I would make the following suggestions to the member, or if it gets to committee, that one of the areas of focus ought to be the following: In Alberta a piece of legislation has been passed that is somewhat similar, but what seems to have happened in that particular bill is that there was a greater consistency as to the definition of children in terms of age.

I think it included up to age 18, so that kids who are in their most vulnerable years of 16 to 18 also continued the protection we have in Ontario under the Child and Family Services Act. I think that's one of the major remedies. We have to bring into harmonization or concert those particular provisions, because you already have in other pieces of legisalation in Ontario that children 16 to 18 get access to driving on our highways. They get other opportunities, to get a health care card, in certain instances. I think that's one of the areas we need to look at.

The second fundamental area that concerns me, and I think the committee could do an awful lot of work in this particular area, is that instead of loading up the courts, which requires more resources, we be a little more creative or innovative, perhaps, in seeking another remedy. I would suggest to the member for Sudbury that one of the places the committee could look at is that we could do some interesting experimentation in seeking civil remedies to this particular situation, particularly where the abuser was involved in a first-time incident; or, if not the civil courts, that at least we try a mediation approach before we ramp it up into the provincial courts completely.

In those instances we may not only save resources but we may be more preventive than the traditionalist legal approach that is in this bill. That does not take away from the principle the member for Sudbury has put forth, which is an effective one, I believe. It's the implementation issues I'm primarily concerned about.

The third thing I would like to see fashioned in terms of penalties where you end up having to go to court, the traditional fine for the desperate souls, if you will, who are pimps or however they end up engaging in this business, and there are a lot of pimps out there - a $25,000 fine doesn't even start to touch the damage they have done to young people.

I think the fine not only needs to be ramped up probably to $100,000 minimum, but I would also propose and advocate very vigorously with the member for Sudbury that we ought to have some kind of lifelong mandatory commitment, a court order, even if it's in the civil courts, or the criminal courts, and that is that this particular example of a human being, if you could use that term, would have to not only pay money but be involved in community service for her or his term of existence on this planet.

They need to remember forever the serious damage they are rendering when you bring children into this kind of situation.

Finally, I think if you kept this bill within provincial purview in terms of seeking civil remedies, which is one of the things the Crime Control Commission - the member for Cambridge isn't here, but the member for Scarborough East and the member for London South have gone and listened in at least 20 community forums dealing with not a fear of crime, as the member from Windsor has suggested, but the actual reality when you get out there.

Those are some of the suggestions that I think might help to improve the bill. Its principle is not only laudable but we need to get on with dealing with it.

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): Let me first pay tribute to my colleague the member for Sudbury. I think today he reminded us all once again why we're here. I think his passionate speech, his concern for his community and the sensitivity he brought to this issue remind us that we are here and that there is no greater issue than the protection and advancement of our children.

Prostitution is a problem everywhere in Ontario, but it is particularly heinous and difficult when it comes to children, and it is abuse. It is abuse of the worst kind which preys on the weak, which preys on the inexperienced. It is a problem not only of the inner cities but also throughout.

Much has been made today of some of the imperfections with this bill. It is true that there are issues with respect to age that need to be thought through, it is true there are issues with respect to compliance which require some additional discussion, but it is not true that there are jurisdictional conflicts. It is not true that there is duplication, as the member for Chatham-Kent would have us believe.

Quite frankly, even if that were the case, if there were duplication, if there were an overstatement of legislation, the message we would be sending out with this legislation is that child prostitution is not acceptable under any circumstance, and that's the value of this bill. But there's also a substance to this bill which is very important.

It is not a bill which is fatally flawed by the imperfections that have been pointed out here, nor is it a bill that recreates legislation that exists everywhere. In fact, it enhances current legislation and gives authorities the tools they need to apprehend children in need to ensure that children do not remain the victims of sexual predators, which so often is the case in our society.

It's a caring and useful bill. I do not believe that the charter challenges that have been advanced here today in fact exist. We heard the member for Chatham-Kent say that this legislation would be open to challenge because it only deals with abuse of prostitution, not other types of abuses. What poppycock. We always have legislation that is specific to particular needs, and we don't advance the idea that that would be against the charter because it doesn't deal with absolutely everything.

Let's be clear. This is a bill that says: "We will not tolerate child prostitution and those who seek to abuse children in that way will be dealt with harshly. They will be fined. They can be imprisoned." But more importantly, there is a constructive element to this bill which says: "We will, as a society, as a government, take care of these children. We will remove them from that situation. We will put them in safe houses. We will return them to their parents. We will do whatever it takes to ensure that these children do not continue to live in those kinds of situations."

I will remind you that some two weeks ago the child advocate told us that problems with children start very early and they are perpetuated. The children who are not given guidance, who are shuffled around from one place to another, end up in our criminal system and stay in our criminal system. This bill is an attempt to reach children at the beginning, so we don't perpetuate the kind of circumstances that see them fall prey to even greater dangers.

Ultimately, for all of us, it's incumbent that we support this legislation. I will tell you why I'm supporting it. As a legislator, I believe that this is the reason we're here. Our job is to protect and to advance children, and I know that there's a need for this legislation. As a mother, I can imagine no worse deed than subjecting children to this kind of abuse, and I know there's a need for this legislation. Frankly, as a lawyer, I see the flaws, but I also see that it can be dealt with constructively in committee and I know that we can do it. I know there's a need for this legislation.

There is one final thing I'd like to say to the government: Today I hear members of the government saying you will support this legislation in principle. Beware that you don't bury it in committee. Beware that you don't defeat it on third reading, because we will hold you accountable, the people of Ontario will hold you accountable, but more importantly, the children of this province will hold you accountable.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Sudbury, you have two minutes.

Mr Bartolucci: I would like to thank all my colleagues who participated in the discussion. I take all their comments as constructive and very good ideas that should be carried through at committee. I do hope that this gets to committee for full discussion.

Just before my time is up, I'd like thank a few people. Certainly I would like to thank the members in the House for their very mature and meaningful debate today.

I would also like to thank Chief Alex McCauley and his police services in Sudbury for their very proactive approach to this particular problem, and former Deputy Chief Denis O'Neil from the regional municipality of Sudbury for his direction and advice.

I would like to thank the people of my city and my region, my fellow Sudburians, for their ongoing support and commitment in ensuring that this problem is not a lasting one.

I would also like to thank the father I referred to in my earlier presentation: I would like to thank Alan. Thank you for reminding me about how sensitive we have to be when it comes to children, and how focused we must be and how daring we have to be to ensure that what we do is always in the best interests of children.

Finally, I implore the members of the House, if you believe, as the

preamble states, that children are sexually exploited and abused through prostitution, if you believe that we collectively can make a change, if you believe that this type of legislation, although not perfect now needs committee to ensure that we do reach perfection, if you believe, I ask you for your support.

The Acting Speaker: The time for the first ballot item has expired.

CRIME AGAINST SENIORS

Mr Gary Fox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I move that, in the opinion of this House, because the seniors of this province are one of the most susceptible groups to criminal activities and because of an increasing number of crimes being perpetrated on this generation, that the Attorney General give instructions to all prosecutors to seek increased sentences for those convicted of all violent crimes, abuse of trust or fraud against seniors. And furthermore that the Attorney General lobby the federal Minister of Justice to create mandatory sentencing guidelines for crimes against our vulnerable.

And that all police service boards in the province develop preventive programs and assure that witness protection and victim assistance programs are made available to seniors victimized by said crimes.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 95(c)(

i) the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Fox: I rise in the House today on this issue that I feel concerns most of our colleagues, crimes against our seniors. I am sure that this issue has affected each one of you either directly or indirectly. After all, we're talking about our mothers and fathers and our grandparents.

Each day we open up the newspaper or turn on our television sets, it seems we are repulsed by yet another violent attack or breach-of-trust scam perpetrated on one of the generations most susceptible to criminal activities in our society. This should be a time in life for this generation to relax and reap the benefits of their hard work and to proudly enjoy the rewards of not only meeting, but in most cases, surpassing their family responsibilities. Instead, many live in fear of their lives, their life's savings and what the next telephone call or knock on the door will have in store for them.

I rise today in the House to tell you that we as a generation are failing them. While our government has developed some worthwhile programs such as Project Phonebusters and SeniorBusters, there is still no national or provincial strategy in place to protect seniors against crime. As well, our sentences on these crimes have been so lenient that it has impeded our law enforcement agencies' abilities to squash out targeted seniors crime, such as phone fraud and other white-collar offences.

We as a province, in the past, have not been tough enough on those predators and in turn have failed to protect one of the most valued assets. Overall, in the last 10 years, crimes against our senior population have risen by a whopping 40%. That in itself is an accurate indicator that not enough is being done. Please remember, as any law enforcement or seniors' organization will tell you, many more of these crimes are never even reported because of embarrassment, humiliation or fear of retribution.

Seniors are targeted for many reasons, which include loneliness, vulnerability and health-related reasons such as Alzheimer's. Seniors are particularly vulnerable to telephone and home renovation fraud because their generation tends to be more trusting and less likely to hang up the phone on someone who appears to be very friendly. The results of these types of brutal and unscrupulous crimes have resulted in ruined family lives, great financial losses and even suicides.

Telephone fraud alone has cost seniors $200 million over the last five years in Canada. In 1997 telemarketing fraud cost Ontario seniors more than $3.5 million. Over 60% of the total number of prize pitch victims are over the age of 60, with average dollar loss for multiple victims being more than $12,000 per victim. Some of these crimes perpetrated on our seniors are not only shocking, they are atrocious and so are the sentences that have been handed down by our courts.

As an example, there's the case of an Ontario man with a record of violent crimes as long as your arm who perpetrated a phone fraud scam on seniors for two and a half years. According to police, in some cases he would convince women to come to Montreal to pick up the prize and then lure them to his room and assault them. There were over 400 victims involved in this phone fraud plot and half of them were from Ontario.

He pleaded guilty to the crime and was sentenced to one year in jail, which he served at home. Detective Sergeant Barry Elliott, coordinator for Phonebusters and a 22-year member of the Ontario Provincial Police in his eighth year with the anti-rackets branch, called it "nothing but a pretend jail." What do you think that criminal was doing the next day? That's right, exactly the same thing.

Then there is the incident of an 82-year-old Niagara Falls woman who was dragged down a flight of stairs during a purse-snatching incident in Niagara Falls earlier this year. The man involved admitted in court to a string of violent attacks against seniors, all within a few days of one another.

In this particular incident, the man grabbed the woman's purse as she exited a taxi with her 87-year-old companion. However the purse would not come loose because the woman had the straps of the purse wrapped tightly around her shoulder. This didn't deter this predator, however. He held on to the purse and started running, dragging the woman along behind him and pulling her down eight concrete steps into a parking lot. The woman's forehead hit the pavement and she was knocked unconscious, and the man - I use this term loosely - stripped the handbag and made off with the $200 inside.

This senior received multiple fractures, a concussion and a swollen left eye socket. The woman's shoulder joint was so thoroughly smashed and shattered that surgeons had to install an artificial joint. This woman later told police officers who visited her to take a statement, and I quote: "I don't think I will ever come back from this. He has ruined my life."

The total sentence for this man's string of crimes, which included six victims, was two years - two years for a lifetime of pain and multiple victims.

According to the Better Business Bureau, these fly-by-night scam artists use any means necessary to victimize seniors, including becoming very physically intimidating. They go into their homes and threaten them, and seniors can't get rid of them.

I say enough, enough of the fear, enough of the pain, enough of the humiliation. Let's make the sentences equal to the physical, financial and emotional trauma caused by this crime. It is time for us as a province to get tough on these types of crimes and the element in our society which is committing them.

Therefore, I am asking my esteemed colleague the Attorney General to instruct his prosecutors to seek increased sentences for those criminals convicted of violent crimes, breach of trust and fraud against our seniors.

I am asking this province to lobby the federal government to create mandatory sentence guidelines when these appalling crimes are committed against our most vulnerable.

I am asking both our government and the federal government to study a proposed amendment to the US law currently before Congress. Under this proposed amendment to their sentencing guidelines, an individual convicted of a fraudulent scheme would face a two-level enhancement in sentencing. This amendment would be based upon a level or point system similar to our demerit licensing system, with the severity, criminal record and nature of the crime, combined with the physical, financial and emotional damage caused to the victim being the dictating factors in the length of the sentence.

As well, I am asking this province to make it mandatory for police services boards to develop preventive programs in their communities to protect our seniors. I am asking the police services boards to ensure that witness protective programs and victim assistance programs are made available to our seniors who fall victim to crime.

I am asking this House to help me to protect our seniors, and I would appreciate further comments from the rest. Thank you very kindly.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I am pleased to stand this morning as the advocate for seniors' issues in the Liberal caucus and on the eve of Seniors' Month in Ontario, to join my colleague from Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings and support his resolution to have the government of the day take some action on the issues as they have been outlined. Certainly, any effort made to move this issue on at the federal level I would be pleased to join in on and support.

The resolution is focused on three main areas: violent crimes against seniors, abuse of trust of seniors and fraud against seniors. We know that at this time there are no specific criminal laws at the federal level. That's why we need the cooperation of the federal government.

The resolution also calls for police services boards to "develop preventive programs and assure witness protection and victim assistance programs." I join the member in encouraging this government to provide the resources for this type of initiative. We all know that a great deal has gone on in the area of budgets of police services in Ontario, and to do what this resolution says I suspect various police services will need support in funding. I know that when the government supports this resolution, that will be one of the things they consider.

As an example, just in the news of the past day or so, the city of Toronto, because the police services board is strapped for money, is suggesting that the complaints board be disbanded. It's those kinds of things that have been downloaded on police services that we are going to apparently have to do without.

To support this resolution and to put the effort where our intent is, I encourage the member to go to his government and say, "Once this resolution is passed" - I'm sure it will be - "give us the support that is needed."

I'm pleased to see that a resolution such as this is brought forward so the Legislature can concretely say that we don't want only to send out words to our seniors that we are concerned about them. I received a leaked draft of a Mike Harris communication in January of this year that said he wants to filter special messages for seniors and fool people into believing that nothing bad is going on. As the member has pointed out, some bad things are going on, and we want more than messages; we want some action. That's another reason I can support this.

We have to go further than this. Not only are we concerned about fraud and breach of trust against seniors and street crimes and in-home crimes against seniors from third parties, but the whole question of elder abuse in this province has been undiscovered for too long. There are more and more statistics pointing out that the elderly are suffering abuse from their partners, from their families because of the stress on families due to the pressing issues of the day. In addition to these three very significant problems that the minister - that's a Freudian slip - the member has pointed out, we must also look at abuse by family members as well.

I can say to the member I wholeheartedly support his resolution. From our point of view, we'll do everything we can to assist you in seeing that these issues are carried forward both to your government and to the federal government.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I can readily indicate to the member that I'm going to be supporting the resolution. Of course. Politically, you'd be a damned fool not to.

Laughter.

Mr Kormos: Well, that's the truth, and that's what part of this is all about.

Mr Fox is, quite frankly, a benign and likeable person. That perhaps causes me to be less critical than I would otherwise be, because I believe that Mr Fox approaches this issue with all sincerity and isn't merely exploiting that current fear of crime that prevails, and I acknowledge it prevails, in our community.

I'm pleased that Mr Fox has addressed both the issue of violent crime - because he's quite right: Seniors, because of their age, the declining physical strength that can accompany senior years, are eyed by some of the most despicable in our community as potential victims, as victims more easily overcome.

I similarly concur with Mr Fox when he identifies seniors as a particular targeted group for, as he calls it, white-collar crime; that's the nomenclature that's tossed around. We're talking about the telephone fraud, the scams, these wacko lotteries where you have to dial a 1-900 number and spend 15 minutes on the phone to win a $1 prize, and spend $45, $50, $60 on the phone call.

I should note that our courts have, for a significant period of time, viewed the fact that a victim is a senior as an aggravating factor. I don't suggest that Mr Fox is denying that.

But we've got some real problems here in talking about this issue. Mr Crozier has already raised the issue of resources to police services boards. Let me also speak to the news item that occurred this morning that revealed the results of a survey of Ontario crown attorneys, prosecutors in our criminal courts. The news item related to this information being entered into the inquest into the tragic death of one Arlene May. The survey revealed that 56% of crown attorneys are rarely able to interview victims of crime. That is a shocking bit of data.

This was a survey of crown attorneys, and I know many of them. Some I've known for a long time; some I only met last year. Let's take a look at what 42% said. They feel pressed to consider expediency in the course of plea bargaining about 75% of the time. They express frustration, 36%, about there not being enough judges.

I'm going to qualify the language here, because the language says 36% of crown attorneys express frustration and concern about what's called in the press report "inadequate police work." I'm confident that they weren't speaking to the matter of incompetence, not by any stretch of the imagination. Our police forces are trained and competent and capable and sophisticated in their level of operation, more so than they've ever been in the history of policing in this province and, I'm confident, anywhere else in the world.

But there's a real problem out there, Mr Fox. Crown attorneys would dearly love to prosecute and hammer the daylights out of the perpetrators you're speaking about, the criminals who would prey on the most vulnerable in our community: seniors, in the instance of this resolution. They'd dearly love to. The sad reality is that crown attorneys have told me that they very much are under a quota system, that they have expectations imposed on them by the Ministry of the Attorney General to resolve X per cent of the charges before them. Do you understand what I'm saying, sir? Crown attorneys are pressured to meet that quota of guilty pleas.

When the crown attorneys talk about being pressed to consider expediency in the course of plea bargaining about 75% of the time, what that means is that crown attorneys are acknowledging that they're accepting pleas or making deals vis-à-vis joint submissions to sentence that they know are inadequate, that they know don't reflect the real interests of justice, but because they've got to meet that quota - and there are reasons for that, and they again relate to some of the other considerations in that survey, that there are an inadequate number of judges in courtrooms. I believe that. I believe that very, very firmly, that crown attorneys don't have the time.

We've got a Victims' Bill of Rights, and you know that the Victims' Bill of Rights in this province has been referred to more often for the violation of it than for the abiding by it. Crown attorneys acknowledge that. Look at the data: 56% are rarely able to interview victims of crime. Their prep time on bail hearings, they indicate as a result of this survey, amounts to some five minutes per file when considering the release of a person arrested back into the community awaiting trial or other disposition.

Those facts, those data, should be of real concern to all of us, because I believe they address very specifically the concerns that you very legitimately raise. We've got some real problems out there.

I have every confidence in our judiciary. I know that from within your caucus, out of this Crime Control Commission, there has been this not-so-indirect attack on the competence of our judges. Let me tell you, the judiciary in this province has never been as skilled, competent and well trained ever before in our history. I believe that sincerely. I'll say the same as I did a few moments ago about our police and our crown attorneys, that these people simply aren't being given the tools, Mr Fox.

I wouldn't hesitate for a minute to suggest that you go out and speak with some of these people, and I suspect you already have. I'm not going to suggest that you've isolated yourself and haven't consulted the real people doing this real work out there in your community, in my community, in communities across this province. But there are some real serious problems out there: the whole phenomenon of plea bargains and the pressure on crown attorneys to meet what they've expressed to me as quotas in terms of ensuring that matters are resolved with a guilty plea rather than by trial.

Understand what a disservice that does to the victim. You've undoubtedly had some of the same phone calls in your constituency office as I've had in mine, and that is that a victim of a serious crime shows up in court and, lo and behold, without them being made aware of it, there's a guilty plea to a reduced offence, with a joint submission to a sentence that they consider grossly inappropriate and that most of the community considers grossly inappropriate. I think that's a real problem.

Some of your colleagues will stand up and say: "There we go again. Throw more money at it." The bottom line is that if you don't adequately finance or fund the judicial system, the criminal justice system, you're going to start to find bigger and bigger holes there and more and more people, inevitably victims, falling through those holes.

Before I close, because my colleague Mr Lessard is going to speak to this as well, let me talk about the fallacy - and again, I don't doubt your sincerity. But the fallacy of this whole approach is that it's after the fact. I know you began to address that when you talked about preventive programs. But the fact remains, at the end of the day, that once some senior's home has been burgled and trashed and ripped off for - and never mind the TV and the VCR; insurance may well cover that. But you know what happens: They lose the mementoes that are irreplaceable and that no dollar cost can be attached to.

That senior spends the rest of his or her life, I acknowledge and I understand in a very visceral way - or any victim, as far as that goes, but more acutely and more tragically, I'm sure, with seniors - living in fear that nobody in our society should have to endure.

I agree with tough sentences. I have no qualms about that. Let's be tough on crime. But let's be even tougher on the causes of crime, because once the dirty deed has been committed you've already got the victim, and no amount of jail time for the perpetrator is going to restore that victim to the position they would have been in before the crime. So I agree with you entirely about preventive programs.

I called the Niagara Regional Police this morning in anticipation of this debate. They'd love to have community policing officers out there dealing very directly with seniors, as well as other members of the community, talking about home security, home safety, some very simple techniques that you can use to enhance the security of your home against a break and enter or a robbery, these damned home invasions that have become quite prevalent. But they don't have the police officers to do it, Mr Fox.

You're touting this $150-million plan. That's over five years at $30 million a year, it requires matching funds by the municipality, and it only pays one year of police officers' salaries. The municipalities are strapped. They know they can't even come up with the 50%, and they're concerned about how, if they do, they'll maintain that over the course of the second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth years.

Mr Fox, you asked for our help; I'm prepared to give it. I'm asking for yours: Lean on your Solicitor General, your Attorney General and your Premier to direct more funds to policing here in Ontario.

Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): I'm very pleased to rise in the House and address this resolution introduced by my friend and colleague the representative from Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings.

In my riding, I have a large number of senior citizens. Therefore, the senior citizens' crime problem is of concern to me. To see these unscrupulous characters scoop up the nest-eggs of senior citizens who have spent a lifetime putting them aside, some to live on and some to add possibly a little extra flavour to their life - to see that scooped up by telephone scams and white-collar crime is just abhorrent to me.

I am in a rural area. Rural people by nature are very hardworking and very trustworthy. It's not correct to say that these seniors are gullible, incompetent or senile, because they're not. All of us can be taken in by these schemes. But because they're so honest and trustworthy, they tend to trust others, especially others who will spend the time passing pleasantries back and forth with them. When someone calls and tells us they'll give us some value for money, the hardworking, trustworthy seniors tend to believe them.

When younger people are defrauded, they have time to make back that money. The senior has worked all his or her life to set aside this money, and once it's gone it's not recoverable. We can all be taken in by these schemes, but it's most tragic when it happens to a senior.

While I've been talking of fraud and breach of trust, it's one thing for the rural community. But in the urban population, the invasion of the security of the home, a home that seniors have worked their whole lifetime to put together, a home they consider to be safe - it's violated by somebody who comes in there and steals whatever to support their drug habit or whatever other heinous situations they want to support. They violate the sanctity of the senior's home. It's terror that lasts a lifetime. If the senior happens to be there, it leads to loss of life.

As stated before, the knocking down of a senior citizen, resulting in life-threatening fractures, to steal a purse that may contain $5 or $10 must be dealt with most severely. The urban problem of thieves breaking into homes has to be dealt with and cannot be condoned with a slap on the wrist and, "Go ahead, be a good boy and don't do it again." Overcrowded courts are not an excuse. It doesn't take any longer to give a 10-year sentence than a 10-day sentence.

What about the cost? One per cent of society are the people who continually reoffend. Take the cost of the police, the cost of the investigations, the court costs, the cost of life or the cost of keeping somebody in the hospital comatose, and I don't think it takes a mathematician to see which side the scales are going to tip on.

This government has arranged for 1,000 new police officers to patrol our streets. These police officers will become jaded and frustrated if they have to continually put up with the revolving doors in our courts and jails. We must put teeth into our laws, the feds must come to the table and put teeth into their laws, and we have to have sentences that fit the crime.

Rehabilitation? Yes, I believe in rehabilitation. I'm in the business. But try to rehabilitate a dead grandmother or grandfather.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I'm also delighted to add to the two resolutions. I have to say I think today is one of those days that the House will find itself in the position of supporting not one but two resolutions presented in this House.

I have to compliment both members, the member for Sudbury for bringing a resolution on protecting children from crimes such as prostitution, and the member with the longest riding name, that is, Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings, with respect to protecting seniors against a number of crimes.

When we talk about crimes, especially against the most vulnerable group, our seniors, we don't say only crimes perpetrated by criminals. Often our seniors are being abused by crimes of fraud and mental, physical and verbal abuse, and that comes from a number of sources, including the public and sometimes family members, especially today because of the stress brought on by the changes of the government. Yes, seniors do resent that.

If I may remind the members of this House, we not only must protect the seniors from all those outside forces; it is another story when we have to protect seniors from the actions of their own government. I'm saying that to the members of the House not in any particular political way but just to stress the fact that, yes, we have to do it. We must listen and we must act. It's another story when we have to have seniors come to their place of legislation, Queen's Park, and tell the government that what they are doing against the seniors is wrong.

I want to address myself to last year, having had the seniors in this place saying: "You have been charging us $100 for a user's fee. On top of that, you are curtailing our period of benefits from 12 months to eight months." Do you know how much stress, how much abuse we, as their own government, have imposed on those seniors, especially those who can't afford that $100? I know there are a lot of members on the government side who feel very uncomfortable with many of the actions taken by the government.

I laud the intent of the resolution, because seniors often are called the most wonderful resource we have, but very often we tend to forget that. It's even worse when we have to defend the seniors from their own government.

I hope we're not only saying it, but we must do those things so indeed our seniors feel protected. I agree with the intent of the resolution, with the content of the resolution, that we need sentences and penalties, but I think we have to go a little further than that. Perhaps we need an awareness program for seniors, programs in various agencies and groups to make sure that seniors feel protected if and when they come out.

Whatever the percentage of seniors is who come out and let us hear about some of the abuses they go through, there are a number of other seniors who, because of fear of reprisal or inability in languages or because they live in many different places under different circumstances, we don't hear from. On a daily basis they live through anguish, and that's most unfortunate. I think we should find the ways to seek out those seniors who live under those particular circumstances.

I'm delighted to have had the opportunity to address these resolutions by the members for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings and for Sudbury. I think both of them deserve the support of this House. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to add my voice to the issues.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I want to bring to this debate some of my experience up until 1990 as an assistant crown attorney in Windsor and Essex county and say to the member for Brant-Haldimand that I disagree with his opinion that it takes the same length of time to impose a 10-year sentence as it does to impose a 10-day sentence. That may be the case at the end of a trial, but the fact is that most of the time, if a person thinks they're going to end up with a 10-day sentence, they would plead guilty, and they're not going to plead guilty if they thought they were going to get a 10-year sentence.

The length of time it takes to have trials and the resources required to conduct those trials is something that has to be taken into consideration.

We all support the concept that vulnerable seniors are in need of protection. That's something the member's own Attorney General can direct crown attorneys to take into consideration when they are prosecuting their cases, when they're agreeing to sentences on guilty pleas. I would ask the member to ask the Attorney General to send out those policy directions to crown attorneys throughout Ontario in the way they treat persons convicted of crimes against seniors.

We can compare this initiative to what we've seen take place with respect to impaired driving. The change in behaviour of the public with respect to impaired driving has been dramatic over the years because of policy directions and initiatives taken by governments. That's also true in how we approach domestic assaults, that no longer are abused spouses able to come into court and ask the crown attorney to please withdraw the case against their spouse. Crown attorneys don't agree to that. They insist on going through trials in every case of domestic assault because of directions that have been provided by the Attorney General.

So those directions can be provided, and I think they should be provided to help provide protection to vulnerable seniors. I would rather see that than mandatory sentencing guidelines being imposed to tie the hands of crown attorneys, to go the route they've gone down in the United States which has really led to increased incarceration of people and has done little to protect seniors and make the streets safer in the United States. All it has led to is an increased population in the jails in America, and I don't think that's the direction we want to go.

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): I enjoyed listening to the remarks of the member from Welland. Being a former crown attorney myself, I can indicate that I agree with many of his comments. In particular, the Globe and Mail

article is exactly the situation in the crown attorney system that existed when I left there in 1995. I always felt very privileged and it was a great honour to work there. They were a great group of professionals. Many times we would work weekends, evenings. When I did it, I was never alone. There were large groups of us working there. I remember one time when I was working on a fraud, I worked Christmas Eve till 3 am. As I indicated, that was not just me; that's our prosecutors in general. They're doing a great job under a lot of stress.

One of the differences I've found between being in this House and being in court is that because you can't get sued in here, facts often become irrelevant and rhetoric carries the day. I thought I would take a different approach to the motion in front of us and actually try to indicate to the public watching and to the members here what the sentences are that are being handed out in Ontario at present.

There's a book that's in all law libraries and in this library called Ontario Decisions: Criminal Cases. By going through it, you can find out what the sentences are that are being meted out in Ontario, and they go back for many years. I decided to go through 1995 to 1998, the years I've been absent from the system and have been in here, and nothing much has changed. I'll just go through some actual cases to indicate what sentences are being meted out.

A case called R. v Cipollone: This is a case where the accused attacked his wife's parents, killing his father-in-law with a hammer, causing several serious wounds to his head, and attacked his mother-in-law as well, severely injuring her. He was convicted of murder. The parole eligibility - you have to serve a certain minimum, anywhere between 10 and 25 years. He received a 12-year minimum parole. That means he could be out on parole in 12 years. That's half the maximum. He was no stranger to violence and in fact had been violent to his wife on past occasions. He got half of the maximum that was available to him, and that's just not an unusual sentence.

Dealing with manslaughter, it was my experience that the upper end of a sentence for killing a senior would be in the area of 10 to 15 years, 15 being a very rare upper-end sentence, and that appears not to have changed.

For example, there's a case called R. v Smith, 1995. This accused met an elderly woman in her seventies and somehow enticed her to his apartment. He lost control and beat her severely about the head. She was gravely injured. He left his apartment and 12 hours later reported that there might be a corpse in his room. She wasn't a corpse yet, but she died a few days later. The court indicated it was egregious and mindless violence visited upon a harmless, physically disadvantaged person 70 years of age.

This accused had a criminal record, starting in 1979, so that's 16 years, including narcotics, crimes against property, disobedience of court orders, assault and robbery - clearly not a nice person, basically a career criminal.

What happened? The maximum sentence could be life. The accused got 10 years' imprisonment. The trial judge has the discretion under the Criminal Code to make sure that he spends at least half of that in parole. The trial judge decided not to exercise that power, so this person got 10 years for killing a defenceless, innocent victim. Under our parole system, he could be out in three and a half years, clearly an inappropriate sentence for this type of random violence.

I only have another minute or so. When you go into that kind of violence, where often the sentences are inadequate, they really become inadequate when you talk about property offences. Most of them are not pursued, and when you do get convicted of property offences, involving seniors or anyone else, the sentences are quite niggardly.

In the 30 seconds left to me, I could perhaps refer to one other case, R. v Bolton. This person was a career criminal, was convicted of 48 offences, including eight convictions for break and enter, which has a life maximum. He was convicted of numerous other property offences. He had a number of weapons, firearms that were loaded and so on and so forth. It was discovered that he came from England and had five cases of burglary outstanding against him in England. He has a long, long criminal record. He was a career criminal. In fact, this is organized crime. He stole $200,000.

If there ever was an individual who should get life imprisonment for break and enter, this was him. What did he get? Six years. Under our parole system, he could be out in two.

These are very typical of the sentences in our courts. Nothing has changed much, and there is clearly a need for increased sentencing involving seniors and in fact in all areas of crime.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I'm delighted to participate in this debate and to congratulate the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings for this resolution and for his serious initiative.

We cannot disagree. We want to seek maximum sentences for those convicted of violent crimes, abuse of trust or fraud against seniors. Who can disagree?

"That all police services boards in the province develop preventive programs and assure that witness protection and victim assistance programs are made available to seniors victimized by said crimes." Again, we cannot disagree. We will agree with this. There's no doubt about it. It comes home to anyone who's lucky enough to have a senior as a parent. In my own case, my mother was once mugged when she had just come out of the grocery store. The person was pulling on her purse.

She wouldn't let go because she had some important papers in the purse - as we know, seniors don't think to let go unless they are forced to do so - and she was thrown on the ground. Luckily, nothing serious happened, but the consequent aftermath of this tragic event affected her for a very, very long time.

Indeed, as was mentioned earlier by some members, home invasions, break and enter - we younger folks, who are also approaching senior years, may be affected totally differently, but to a senior it's an invasion of privacy, an invasion of their lives, and they indeed take it very seriously.

Should there be maximum sentences? Of course there should. But, my friends, I would also recommend that we should include another

section of the vulnerable population, and that is those who are disabled. Why not include the disabled, who are just as vulnerable as seniors? Some of them cannot see, some have a physical problem, some are in wheelchairs. They too are just as much subject to this kind of criminal behaviour to take advantage them as seniors. I recommend that once it gets into the social development committee, and I hope it doesn't die there, we also include certain sections that will be addressed specifically to those who are of the vulnerable population.

Here is a classic case of government cuts. I'm not surprised about what the outcome of this is, and neither is the government member who makes this resolution. He supported government cuts right across the board to police services, including police services boards. Of course now, when he sees the devastation being caused by this kind of action, that the police officers are unable to maintain security on the streets, we're saying, "What we should be doing is providing more services," and that the federal Minister of Justice should also cooperate and include increased sentence calculations involving crimes against seniors.

We should do all that, but you can't have it both ways. Now you come crying, saying: "Give more power to police officers. Let's increase sentences." We all know the outcome once the cuts start hitting home. On the other hand, it is maintenance of police boards, maintenance of police officers. You don't start cutting them and then ask for programs at the same time. Something has to give. I only suppose that when it gets to the social development committee you will also include a

section that will say, "Let's not cut any more police officers and let's give more power to police services boards to include these sections." It is obvious what is taking place here: a classic case of Conservative politics.

To include this section, just increasing sentences cannot be very effective unless you start planning and start creating a whole series of brochures, an advertising campaign, so that those who are even tempted to commit crimes against seniors will know that the law is tougher than it was. It is of no use whatsoever to create these laws and to create tougher sentencing unless the general public, and especially targeting those who might be tempted to commit the act, would know what the consequences of these acts are.

What you almost have to do is create an advertising campaign and create brochures and leaflets. In my own community we have a number of leaflets we have done and we have created and they were fairly successful. I only wish that could continue.

Mr Morley Kells (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): It's a pleasure to rise today and join with my colleagues in support of my friend Gary Fox's resolution. This government is making good on its promise to do something about violent crimes in this province, and the previous speakers have mentioned there is $150 million in new funding for crime prevention announced in the most recent budget. That drew some derision from the opposition, but at least it's a very positive, major step; 1,000 new police officers on our streets and in our communities, another extremely positive step.

Now here we are presenting a resolution to help defend some of the most vulnerable among us. Our elders are our mentors. Indeed we owe them for our existence, our happiness and our quality of life. We are all taught as children to treat our elders with the utmost dignity and respect, yet too many people have not learned that lesson. Instead, they act to exploit and abuse our senior citizens. Extortion, mental cruelty and physical abuse are the weapons of the criminal mind in this regard.

We note the problem of elder abuse is much larger than is documented. Some studies suggest that the vast majority of the crimes go unreported. In Ontario there are about 1.4 million people over the age of 65, and as the baby boom generation matures, that number will continue to expand. A study by the National Forum on Health found that each year one in 25 seniors is the victim of some form of abuse or neglect. American studies have shown that 10% of elders suffer from some form of abuse. Using these figures in Ontario, it means that there are 140,000 victims every year. Two thirds of the victims are women, often widows.

This is truly a crime that preys on the most helpless in society, and my colleagues and I believe that these offenders should be punished to the greatest extent of the law. We should follow the lead of the state of California, which just recently amended their criminal code to get tough on people who commit crimes against the elderly.

The new law brings down proportionately tougher punishments on criminals who make seniors their victims. The law directs the state sentencing commission to go after these offenders with harsh punishments to adequately reflect the heinous nature of these crimes.

It suggests the following, and I'm paraphrasing here: The guidelines provide for increasingly severe punishment for a defendant equivalent with the degree of physical harm caused to the elderly victim; the guidelines take appropriate account of the vulnerability of the victim; and the guidelines provide enhanced punishment for a defendant convicted of a crime of violence against an elderly victim who has previously been convicted of a crime of violence against an elderly victim. The law goes even further, with jail terms of up to 10 years for some criminals who target people over the age of 55.

California sent a clear message that it's cracking down on criminals who target older, more defenceless victims.

I'm proud to say that here in Ontario we are also going to send a message to those ruthless individuals. This resolution is a step in the right direction. We need to let these criminals know that we are going to punish them to the full extent of the law.

I might have time for a very short anecdote. My own dear late father lived alone in the country, and above his door he had a golf club. So I said to him one day, "Why do you have that golf club there, father?" He said, "In case anybody breaks and enters in here, I'll have some way to defend myself." It was a nice story, but it's a sad commentary on society when people like my father, in an area where he never used to lock his doors for years and years, feel obliged to have their doors locked and indeed to have a golf club for defence.

Today this resolution is more than appropriate; it's timely, and I know from the messages in the House today that all the colleagues will join in support of this resolution.

Mr Fox: I would first like to thank those who have stood in the House to support my resolution this morning. They obviously agree it's time that we as a province started to address this serious problem, especially when you consider that Ontario's senior population has increased by 38% over the past eight years. What better time than now, with Seniors' Month coming up in the next few days.

I'm also pleased to see this resolution come forward. There are other supporters, other organizations and individuals directly involved in this issue.

Lillian Morgenthau, president of the 375,000-member Canadian Association of Retired Persons, called this resolution "long overdue." Queen's University law professor Ron Delisle remarked that the resolution was "admirable."

OPP veteran officer Barry Elliott noted, "The resolution is a very positive step in the right direction." He, like most police enforcement individuals and agencies, is extremely frustrated by the lack of increased sentencing and the lack of sentencing guidelines for these types of crimes against seniors. To quote the detective: "It is the system and the victim which currently end up paying the most. White-collar crime against seniors is almost to the point now where why bother laying the charge? There is no deterrent for criminals." Elliott is an honoured and seasoned member of our police forces who works every day trying to combat fraudulent crimes against seniors.

If this is his opinion, you can only imagine the opinion of those criminals who prey on the vulnerable. It has become a joke to them. It's a way to make an easy buck on the backs of our seniors.

It's time to get tough. It's time for us as a province and as a country to give individuals like Barry Elliott a new weapon to fight these horrendous crimes. This weapon is called detolerance. It is time to protect the people who have protected us for all these years. It's time to stand up and say, "No more."

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN INVOLVED IN PROSTITUTION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA PROTECTION DES ENFANTS QUI SE LIVRENT À LA PROSTITUTION

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The time provided for private members' public business has expired. We will deal first with ballot item number 11 standing in the name of Mr Bartolucci.

Mr Bartolucci has moved second reading of Bill 18. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Pursuant to standing order 95 -

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Mr Speaker, I'd like to ask that this bill go to the standing committee on social development.

The Acting Speaker: Does the majority of the House agree that it should be sent to the social development committee? Agreed.

CRIME AGAINST SENIORS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 12 standing in the name of Mr Fox.

Mr Fox has moved private member's notice of motion number 9. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

All matters related to private members' public business having been debated, I will now leave the chair. The House will resume at 1:30 this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1159 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I rise today to pay tribute to the work of Amnesty International on the 37th anniversary of their work internationally and on the 25th anniversary of their operation in Canada.

Amnesty International was a simple idea that worked: taking action to protect human rights one person at a time. Their work is funded entirely by contributions from the public, without any assistance from governments.

Amnesty International has become a worldwide movement to defend human rights. There are now almost one million members and supporters in more than 160 countries.

At the core of Amnesty's work is action on behalf of prisoners of conscience, those who have been imprisoned because of their beliefs and who have not used or advocated violence themselves. Over the years, thousands of prisoners of conscience have been freed. Amnesty International members have had an impact by writing letters, either alone or in groups.

Amnesty International members do not work in cases in their own country, nor do they focus on one region or political orientation.

I would like to congratulate Amnesty International for all their work. I salute their legacy and I encourage their continued work.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Publicly funded education in Niagara is taking one real beating from Mike Harris's government here at Queen's Park.

Let me tell you what's happened so far. Already, as of last night, Niagara Falls collegiate gone, shut down, one of the largest and most senior high schools in all of Niagara region. Welland high and vocational school, gone, shut down, written off the educational map. Some 152 teachers in Niagara region getting their pink slips - gone, out on the streets, no longer in the classroom, and that's in addition to some 155 more who are retiring, yet not to be replaced. We're going to lose at least 10% of our component of teachers in Niagara region.

I tell you, public education is suffering, and suffering big time. This government is engaged in a frontal attack on our youth and their futures and the future of this province. This government talked a big game when it said that their new funding model, their Bill 160, wasn't going to affect what happens in the classroom. Well, poppycock. It's affected it big time.

People in Niagara region and their kids are going to suffer. Adult education has virtually disappeared because of this government's abandonment of those people for whom re-education and upgrading is critical to their success in our new and very bizarre high unemployment economy. This government should be ashamed of itself. I tell you, the people in Niagara region aren't going to tolerate these sort of attacks on the things they've worked so hard to build.

GO TRANSIT

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): The people of Scarborough East are being railroaded. There are posters in the GO stations at Rouge Hill and Guildwood telling commuters that GO is providing "more express service" and that "more seats will be available." They fail to point out that their idea of more express service on the Lakeshore East line is five fewer trains going to the Rouge Hill station.

The issue is not funding. The amount of funding that GO Transit has today is the same as it had six months ago, the same as it had a year ago. These cuts are not being made because of any change in revenue.

If these cuts are made, then quite frankly GO Transit is cutting off their engine to spite their caboose. GO Transit passenger fare revenue will drop because many people in my community will be forced to drive to work instead of taking inconveniently timed trains.

The issue is not funding; it's service. Without any consultation in our communities, without any advance warning to the people who use Rouge Hill and Guildwood stations, GO Transit unilaterally announced these changes. Hundreds of people have taken the time to write letters to the general manager of GO Transit, and all they receive back are form letters telling them it's a done deal.

In one hour yesterday at one station, I collected 250 signatures, people who call on the GO Transit board of directors to cancel the proposed elimination of service, consult with riders before making any changes, and ensure that GO Transit services reflect the needs of all the communities it serves.

Mayor Lastman and the members of the GO board have the opportunity to do the right thing: cancel these cuts and maintain services in the east end of Toronto. I join the hundreds and hundreds of area commuters who say, "Stop railroading us."

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I rise today to speak in regard to the ongoing efforts of restructuring in Hamilton-Wentworth. We have gone through three or four years now of ongoing debate in regard to the future of our region and the shape it should take.

I was disappointed yesterday to hear the Minister of Municipal Affairs suggest that he has no plans to get involved in helping bring along a deal. The minister said, "We've been consistent, we want a local decision." That has been inconsistent, frankly, as to what has happened in other jurisdictions. That has been inconsistent with the policy of this government.

The minister also challenged me to bring in a private member's bill that would in effect give the region of Hamilton-Wentworth three months with a mediator to try to come up with a local restructuring plan, and failing that, the province would appoint a commissioner who would make recommendations to this government.

I plan to bring this bill into the Legislature next week. I am asking the minister to support this bill. If the minister is serious about restructuring in Hamilton-Wentworth and if the minister is serious about the fact that a restructuring in our region will save the taxpayers $37 million a year, the minister will support this bill in the Legislature so we can get on with it.

It is essential to our region, it is essential to the future growth of Hamilton-Wentworth, it is essential to our ability to compete in Ontario and across the world that we have a restructuring plan in place that makes sense. I urge this government and this minister to support the bill this week if they're serious and if they're not intent on playing political games with this.

BOROUGH OF EAST YORK.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Mr Speaker, you know it's not often in the Legislature that a member of the opposition can get up and say something positive about the government, and members opposite will know that whenever there is an opportunity, they can count on me to do just that.

I want at this point in time to compliment the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the staff in his office. Members of the Legislature will know that I and Marilyn Churley from Riverdale have been working for close to a year now on the issue of a third councillor for the community of East York. This is a really important issue of democratic representation. The minister has pledged his commitment to move forward with the piece of legislation I have introduced.

I want to say the level of cooperation has been extraordinary. Legal staff within the ministry have been looking at the bill. There are some concerns they've raised. We're working to have the bill redrafted. It is the way in which, on important issues where there can be compromise and consensus, the Legislative Assembly should work.

I applaud the response of the minister and particularly the minister's staff who have been so willing to be open with myself and Ms Churley and to work with us in achieving this. I am hopeful that by the end of the month of June, actually June 25, we will be debating my bill in this House. I look forward to that and I look forward to all-party support at that time.

BRAMPTON MINOR BASEBALL ASSOCIATION

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): Unlike some of the people playing politics in this Legislature - notwithstanding the previous member; I appreciate her comments - I rise today to commemorate a very happy occasion, the 50th anniversary of the Brampton Minor Baseball Association.

The first official season in 1948 consisted of four teams under the leadership of the president, Hal Brown. The league continued to grow and by 1965 they had rep teams and house league teams in all age groups.

In 1970 the annual peewee rep tournament was born with teams travelling from as far away as Montreal and Windsor to compete. In 1974 a team from Brantford participated with the star pitcher, Wayne Gretzky. Since then the association has gone on to host rep and select tournaments in all age groups, bringing over 200 teams into our city each year.

In 1974 the associations in Brampton and Bramalea joined and registration skyrocketed to 700 boys in 1977. It peaked in 1994 at 4,800. Throughout this time to the present, Brampton's organization was the largest in Ontario and in Canada.

In 1990 we began sending reps to the Ontario elimination tournament. In the first five years, we won two gold, two silver and a bronze medal at the national championships.

An organization like this compliments the parents, coaches, executive members and the city -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

ROAD SAFETY

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): my statement is directed at the government's announcement on community safety zones. You just don't get it, do you? I have been telling you for three years what is needed to protect children. It's vehicle liability.

The police can't follow 16,000 school buses. You had the opportunity with my school bus bill to create 16,000 safety zones to protect every bus in Ontario on every mile of their route and all 810,000 children who ride those buses. But you killed my bill on the order paper. In the words of Colleen Marcuzzi, "You chose to do the political thing, not the right thing." You can raise fines all you want, but without a conviction mechanism there is no fine.

You say you want to target the actions of dangerous drivers. So do I. If a vehicle is correctly identified, the owner should not be allowed to protect the lawbreaker who endangers the lives of children. This month, police in Chatham-Kent issued a warning in the press about blatant examples of illegal passing. Increased fines are not helping. It's an epidemic. Lawbreakers know the Harris government will not take the only actions that will produce conviction: vehicle liability. You are shielding lawbreakers who continue to pass school buses recklessly. Introduce vehicle liability to protect innocent children. Do it now.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): The Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario have joined the chorus of groups and organizations in Ontario criticizing the Harris government for its sheer incompetence. This is what they said in response to Bill 16, the new property tax bill: "This bill is complicated, cumbersome, confusing and, too often, badly drafted. It serves to perpetuate the bad system that the government was so bent on eliminating. The end product is a political and administrative nightmare."

This is what the Minister of Municipal Affairs said in response to questions about this. He said: "The bill is going to protect the taxpayer. It allows for caps. It gives municipalities all the options and all the ability they need to deal with matters of municipal concern. I am fully supportive of the bill and I honestly believe the opposition should also be supporting this bill." Who do you believe here?

I want to thank the minister very much for listening to the grave concerns expressed by this group of people, who deal with this issue on a day-to-day basis. I understand he has finally, after urging from our NDP caucus to hold hearings on this bill, urging by the Citizens for Local Democracy to hold hearings on this bill, urging from AMO and now from this group - I want to thank the minister for finally listening. He's clearly not any longer 100% behind this bill, and we look forward to the hearings.

VISITORS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I'm pleased to rise today in the House to welcome an OAC class visiting the Legislature from my riding of Durham East. Mr Michael Aggett's political science class from Port Perry High School is visiting Queen's Park to learn more about the political process and get a firsthand look at politics. I am sure that Port Perry High School will enjoy question period today. It is clear that Mr Aggett recognizes that the world indeed is a classroom today.

Angela Crawford initiated this forum by writing a letter to my constituency office. Mr Phillips, the Liberal opposition and finance critic and member for Scarborough-Agincourt, and the Honourable Janet Ecker, Minister of Community and Social Services and member for Durham West, as well as John Ibbitson, Queen's Park correspondent for Southam News, and my intern student, Laurie Leduc, all commented to the students, giving them a firsthand report of their duties. This was an excellent cross-section of individuals. I'm certain they benefited the students from my riding. The students were able to learn the duties of the member and the press.

I'd like to thank Mr Phillips and Minister Ecker, as well as Mr Ibbitson and Laurie, for agreeing to participate with my constituents from Durham East.

I'd also like to recognize a class from Markham District High School, Vince Dannetta's OAC class, from Minister Tsubouchi's riding, who are here today to observe question period. Indeed, the students of Ontario are -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Pursuant to standing order 60(a), I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on estimates, on the estimates selected and not selected by the standing committee for consideration.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Mr Bartolucci from the standing committee on estimates presents the committee's report as follows:

Pursuant to standing order 59, your committee has selected the estimates 1998-99 of the following ministries and offices for consideration -

Mr Bartolucci: Dispense.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I heard "dispense." Dispense? Carried.

Pursuant to standing order 60(b), the report of the committee is deemed to be received and the estimates of the ministries and offices named therein as not being selected for consideration by the committee are deemed to be concurred in.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CHILDREN'S LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA LOI PORTANT RÉFORME DU DROIT DE L'ENFANCE

Mr Hastings moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 27,

An Act to amend the Children's Law Reform Act / Projet de loi 27, Loi modifiant la Loi portant réforme du droit de l'enfance.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): The bill amends the Children's Law Reform Act to emphasize the importance of children's relationships with their parents and grandparents. There's a whole

section of subsections - I'll forgo that - in terms of the essence of the bill.

MOTIONS

APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I seek unanimous consent to introduce a motion respecting the Information and Privacy Commissioner for the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Sterling: I move that an humble address be presented to the Lieutenant Governor in Council as follows:

"To the Lieutenant Governor in Council:

"We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, now assembled, request the appointment of Ann Cavoukian, current interim Information and Privacy Commissioner, to act as interim Information and Privacy Commissioner until November 30, 1998,

"And that the address be engrossed and presented to the Lieutenant Governor in Council by the Speaker."

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

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: With respect to correcting the record of Hansard, a statement that was made here yesterday in which the minister of -

The Speaker: Member for Kingston and The Islands, you can't correct someone else's record. You can only correct your own record.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: An assurance was given by the government yesterday you would be interested in that a meeting was taking place between the clerks and treasurers and the Minister of Municipal Affairs. It did not happen.

The Speaker: Member for St Catharines, I know nothing of this and it's not a point of order.

Mr Bradley: Can you not help us out with this?

The Speaker: I can't help you out. I'm sorry.

Mr Gerretsen: My first point of order -

The Speaker: You didn't have a first point of order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Hold it, member for Kingston and The Islands. It's fine to hear a point of order if you just state what your point of order is before getting into it.

Mr Gerretsen: My first point of order is that the record, as shown in Hansard on page 798 in an answer that was given to a question, is totally incorrect.

The Speaker: Member for Kinston and The Islands, it's still not a point of order.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to ask for unanimous consent for the Minister of Municipal Affairs to make a statement to this House about the meeting that he said yesterday was going to take place, which apparently did not take place. So my request is for unanimous consent for the minister to make a statement.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to clarify the situation that's been brought up.

The Speaker: I've got to clear up this point of order. The point of order is for unanimous consent. Agreed? No.

Hon Mr Leach: I'll speak to it myself on a point of order.

The Speaker: Minister.

Interjections.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): He said no.

The Speaker: Member for Algoma.

Please, just take your seat for a moment.

It's academic. You asked for unanimous consent. It didn't carry.

Interjections.

Mr Wildman: He said no.

The Speaker: It doesn't matter who said no. There are many who said no. The Minister of Municipal Affairs is asking for a point of order, and I'm going to give him his point of order.

Hon Mr Leach: I want to point out that yesterday I indicated to the House that I believed there was a meeting to take place at 3 o'clock with the clerks and treasurers.

The Speaker: This is not a point of order, either. Unless you're correcting your record, there's not a point of order here. There was not a point of order for the member for Kingston and The Islands and there's not a point of order -

Interjections.

Mr Gerretsen: Why don't you correct the record? It's your record. He can correct the record.

The Speaker: Anyone may be allowed to correct the record. I didn't hear the minister rise and say he was correcting his record. If it's the same point of order that you were standing on, it's not a point of order. Let's continue.

Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Surely the minister was confused. We asked for unanimous consent to revert to ministerial statements so he can make a statement.

The Speaker: It hasn't got to ministerial statements yet.

Interjections.

The Speaker: We haven't got there yet, so just hold on and maybe he will have a statement. I don't know. Ministerial statements.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Now you have a point of order, member for Algoma.

Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We are in ministerial statements. We ask for unanimous consent to have the minister make a statement.

The Speaker: Unanimous consent for the Minister of Municipal Affairs to make a statement. Agreed? I heard a no.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Members, can you come to order, please.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I want to take this opportunity at this time to tell you that this is the last day for the legislative pages. I want to thank them for their hard work, diligence and good service.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): In the Speaker's gallery of the Legislative Assembly, we have a parliamentary delegation led by the Honourable Ludwig Bieringer, president of the Federal Council of Austria, accompanied by His Excellency Walther Lichem, Ambassador of the Republic of Austria. Please join me in welcoming them here today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Education. I want you to address today the most significant and dramatic impact of your cuts to education and your funding formula, and that is the pending closure of schools, in fact hundreds of schools, throughout this province.

To be specific, I want to talk about what's happening right now at the Lambton Kent District School Board. Right now they're considering the closure of three schools. They don't want to close them. You're forcing that decision. Here is what the chair of the advisory council for Romney Central school had to say when asked why that school was going to be closed. He said: "It's because we're a small rural school and the bureaucrats and politicians in Toronto don't care what's important to us. The only thing they care about is saving money." There's another school being considered for closure and that's the Tanser school in Chatham. That's a school for children with special needs.

Minister, my question is very simple: Why is it in the interests of students and parents in those communities that their schools be closed by you?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I have some correspondence as well. I have correspondence from the leader of the official opposition, Dalton McGuinty, addressed to the Premier of Ontario. It says: "The Ottawa-Carleton District School Board announced recently that your funding formula is forcing it to close 20 schools." That's what you say in your letter. That's dated May 13, by the way. I have correspondence from the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board itself, dated the day before, May 12, which says, "We will not close any schools in 1998-99."

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer, please.

Hon David Johnson: Here's the problem we have with the official opposition, that they're speculating, that they develop facts out of thin air. We are providing adequate moneys through the funding formula to boards for -

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr McGuinty: Just so we're clear, I want you now to provide the Ontario public with every assurance that no schools will be closed in Ontario. Provide us with that assurance that no schools will be closed. To be specific, what about the three they're talking about right now in Lambton? Tell us that there will be no need to close any of those schools and that there will be no schools that have to be closed anywhere in the province as a result of your cuts to funding and as a result of your new funding formula. Just provide us with that assurance and then I won't have to ask any more questions.

Hon David Johnson: The member surely knows it's not practical to make such a statement. Schools closed when the Liberals were in power; every year that the Liberals were in power some schools closed in the province of Ontario. When the NDP were in power, schools closed. Schools open and close on the decisions of local school boards. School boards make these decisions based on where students have needs. I will guarantee you that through the