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

May 20, 2004

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2004-May-20 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 20 May 2004 Jeudi 20 mai 2004

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT

LA LOI ÉLECTORALE

KEVIN'S LAW (CHILD AND FAMILY

SERVICES STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT), 2004 /

LOI KEVIN DE 2004 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES SERVICES

À L'ENFANCE ET À LA FAMILLE

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT

LA LOI ÉLECTORALE

KEVIN'S LAW (CHILD AND FAMILY

SERVICES STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT), 2004 /

LOI KEVIN DE 2004 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES SERVICES

À L'ENFANCE ET À LA FAMILLE

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT

LA LOI ÉLECTORALE

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO BUDGET

RUSSIAN-SPEAKING CONGRESS

OF CANADA

RURAL ONTARIO

CHILDREN'S IMMUNIZATION PROGRAM

ABORIGINAL HEALTH CARE

PRIMARY CARE

ONTARIO BUDGET

MEMBER'S CONDUCT

ONTARIO BUDGET

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO BUDGET

HEALTH PREMIUMS

TAXATION

NURSING EDUCATION

ONTARIO BUDGET

HEALTH CARE

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE

COURT BACKLOG

AGRICULTURE PROGRAMS

PETITIONS

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE

NATUROPATHIC MEDICINE

AJAX-PICKERING HOSPITAL

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

PRIMARY CARE

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

SMALL BUSINESS TAX RELIEF

GO TRANSIT

PROPERTY TAXATION

VISITOR

ORDERS OF THE DAY

2004 ONTARIO BUDGET

ROYAL ASSENT /

SANCTION ROYALE

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT

LA LOI ÉLECTORALE

Mr Patten moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 76,

An Act to amend the Election Act / Projet de loi 76, Loi modifiant la Loi électorale.

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

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I'm extremely pleased and honoured this morning to be able to bring forward my private member's Bill 76, An

Act to amend the Election Act. It is a very straightforward, simple piece of legislation.

The bill in front of us today amends the Election Act, and it does two things: First, it requires that a candidate's nomination paper be accompanied by the

endorsement of the registered party; and second, it provides for the inclusion of party affiliation on the ballot.

Many Ontarians have advocated for these changes over the years, including past and present members of the Ontario Legislature. In fact, the proposed changes

mirror closely the intent of a bill introduced June 11, 2003, by Sean Conway, the former member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke. Mr Conway's bill was not debated because of an election call, but it

was widely supported by the members of the last Parliament, and I'm hopeful that there will be support for this bill from all sides of the House today. Mr Conway has said that he believes this bill

will become an important part of the democratic reforms of our government and will champion these initiatives and help increase voting participation. I'm grateful for his support.

I also want to acknowledge and thank Mr Rossano Bernardi, a recent graduate of Algonquin College and Carleton University. He travelled by bus from Ottawa all

evening and has joined us in the gallery today. This young gentleman sent me a letter in which he proposed changes to the act to allow placing party affiliation on the ballot, so I'm grateful to

him. He spent a considerable amount of time and effort researching and writing his proposal because he firmly believes this change would benefit our democratic system in Ontario. It's important for

us, therefore, to move forward on behalf of Rossano and his generation.

This bill puts into action recommendations from the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, which approved placing political affiliation on the ballot as

far back as 1989, almost 15 years ago. The committee's report on election laws and process was tabled as a draft bill and was also not debated because of an election call. The Chief Election

Officer of Ontario has tabled numerous reports in the Legislative Assembly that have recommended the need to include the candidate's political affiliation on the ballot. These reports from the

Chief Election Officer have consistently said that placing political affiliation on the ballot aids electors in making an informed decision at the polls.

It was recommended that

section 27 of the Election Act be amended so that a candidate's political affiliation is designated on the ballot, and to review the

wording of

section 34 with regard to the form of the ballot. Today we have an opportunity to follow these recommendations in order to stop restricting the elector's access to basic information

about a candidate's political affiliation.

It should also be said that the electoral law of Canada and, in effect, every province, with the exception of Newfoundland and Ontario, provides for the

political affiliation of candidates to be listed on the ballot. Federally, amendments to the Canada Election Act in 1970 allowed the placing of political affiliations on the ballot for all

subsequent elections. The office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada has indicated to us that these amendments have worked well. In other provinces, such as BC and Alberta, where we've

contacted their offices recently, the chief electoral officers indicated that placing party affiliation on the ballot has improved clarity and choice for voters. So, in effect, Bill 76 will ensure

that Ontario is in step with electoral practice in Canada and our changing demographics and living patterns.

The bill is addressing many issues regarding elections in Ontario. Bill 76 addresses the issue of confusion in situations where candidates have a similar name or

the exact same name; placing party affiliation on the ballot solves this problem. It acknowledges today's reality of voter mobility. The rise of the mobile society has resulted in people moving

often and not necessarily residing in the same riding for too long. Mobility, however, does not change one's beliefs or one's values. Providing political affiliation on ballots will allow them to

identify with a candidate and associate themselves with the party that they feel may best represent their views. Finally, this bill will help recent immigrants, especially those who speak different

languages, to make a more informed choice at the ballot box.

I want to continue by recognizing the importance of democratic renewal in our province. As you know, our nation, a confederation, was born in 1867, based on the

democratic system of responsible government, which was adopted by all of our provinces. However, there have been few changes to our democratic system since then. Parliamentary rules and the

electoral system that elects the members still very much resemble those of the 19th century in Britain. Our government believes the time has come to bring these 19th-century traditions in line with

the 21st century in Ontario.

Today marks an important day in Ontario, one on which this democratic institution has an opportunity to improve the electoral system by ensuring that it is more

clear to the people in our province. This government will propose bold initiatives to strengthen our democracy so we can improve the way it serves its citizens. Bill 76 is one small step in this

process.

Let me say at this point that the minister responsible for democratic renewal, the Honourable Michael Bryant, will direct the newly created Democratic Renewal

Secretariat to bring some real change in proposals to this Parliament. His parliamentary assistant, Caroline Di Cocco, will work closely with the secretariat to achieve this goal, and she will

elaborate on that this morning when she speaks to this bill.

I stand today guided by the resolve of my party's commitment to improve democracy in Ontario and grateful for the unwavering leadership our Premier has shown in

supporting real democratic reform. The Premier has talked about the need for better accountability, for better dialogue with Ontarians and a more transparent delivery of government services. This

is democracy in action.

I will continue my remarks on a more personal basis. I know that the health of our democracy is an issue that is near and dear to the heart of each and every

member in this House. I recall writing, four years ago, about my concern for the state of democracy in this place, and I'd like to quote a passage of what I wrote at the time:

"It is perhaps a measure of the well-being of our democracy that we rarely, if ever, think of it as being in any peril. By and large, we think of the health of

our democratic institutions as stable and solid, if nothing else. On the rare occasions that our thoughts do such take a dark turn, we tend to imagine the loss of our democracy through a singular

but cataclysmic event that would shake us to our foundations, something that would overturn our world, like an invasion or an occupation by a hostile, undemocratic enemy or a radical military coup

from within. But what if our democracy started to slowly slip away in front of us and we did not even take notice?"

The reality is that the government of Ontario is less accessible and far less accountable than it was 10 years ago or than it has been since. I'm delighted to be

part of helping to propose changes. Honestly, I've been thoroughly disheartened by the reality of the state of our democracy in Ontario.

Early in my career, working with the international branch of the YMCA, I travelled and lived extensively in Africa, the Middle East, Asia, South America and the

West Indies. Those travels illustrated to me the meaning of having a thriving democracy, as well as the value of keeping it healthy and vital.

Today, while on the government side, the sanctity of the democratic process is further confirmed to me. Keeping democracy healthy is something that never happens

naturally or on its own. It must be nurtured and occasionally even fought for. Sometimes democracy can be seen to be slow, burdensome, a difficult exercise. Without doubt, it has its frustrations.

Be that as it may, if there is a clear, indisputable responsibility for those holding office, it is to fight for a healthier democracy.

In closing, I know there are some strong defenders of the status quo. I would of course defend their right to their position and their opinions, because we need

to have a full debate about democracy and its renewal. However, I hope they will eventually realize that Ontario politics, government and democracy are not working as well as they could or should

be, and need change. So I say to them that we truly have an opportunity to do something for the people we serve and that these amendments will be made in the name of a better democracy. That is why

I am asking all members to support this bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I'm pleased to rise to address Bill 76 in the name of the member for Ottawa Centre. I congratulate the member for

bringing this bill forward, because I think it will spur some interesting debate in the Legislature this morning.

I think we all support similar themes: strengthening our democracy and strengthening the participation of citizens at the ballot box and in the electoral

process. I take a different view of the means and methods of getting there, one quite contrary to the member for Ottawa Centre and the contents of Bill 76. I'll point to a couple of sections that I

take particular umbrage with.

I believe that what weakens our system of democracy in Ontario and Canada is the growing strength of the leader's office and the party apparatus at the expense

of the individual member. I hope that as the Attorney General moves forward on his democratic renewal process, he will choose to strengthen the role of individual MPPs and their ability to

represent the constituents of their ridings and to express a greater latitude in their views than what comes out of the Premier's office or out of cabinet, and that then, in turn, the Attorney

General would try to take steps away from the growing strength of the party apparatus in the leader's office.

I fear that Bill 76 takes us in the opposite direction, for a couple of reasons. First and foremost, the amended

section 27 of the Election Act, further amended

section 9.2 of Bill 76, would have the party's leader endorse a particular candidate. I think this is tremendously dangerous. We see it happening right now at the federal level, with Paul Martin

appointing a series of candidates or threatening to appoint candidates in various ridings. I don't think that plays well with the themes of democracy, and it has caused many problems.

There's an

article from British Columbia: "Grumbling grows for Martin's Recent Practice of Appointing Candidates in British Columbia." A Toronto Star editorial

of April 26 says, "The riding executive makes a legitimate point in describing the appointment as undemocratic. Citizens in any riding should have the right to choose their candidate. If

Cunningham" -- one of the leading Paul Martin acolytes in British Columbia who's been appointed to run by the Prime Minister -- "is the best person for the job, why is he shying away from competing

against Kuo and Lee on his own merits?" The Star goes on to say, "This process subverts grassroots democracy. It is, therefore, incumbent upon all parties to fix the flaws in the nomination

process."

So I strongly reject the notion of having the party leader sign off on individual candidates in the riding, which Bill 76, if I read it correctly, purports to

do.

There's a recent lesson too in Hamilton East. I expect there has been debate within the Liberal caucus office, after a couple of drinks in the evening, when

members can sometimes be a bit more honest with themselves. I was in that room myself not too long ago.

Interjection.

Mr Hudak: Sure. Sometimes we have those discussions late at night, and you say, "Did we make the right decision?" In Hamilton East, McGuinty and

the geniuses in the Premier's office appointed Mr Agostino despite the fact that there were other Liberals who were interested in running. You can't argue that he anointed the candidate, and that

was an issue in Hamilton East. I heard when I was knocking on doors, and you certainly saw in newspaper coverage, that there was some upset in Hamilton, on top of the Sheila Copps-Valeri debacle,

that they didn't like the way the candidate was appointed by the leader's office. I think it is tremendously dangerous, and a local candidate should be on the ballot by his or her own merits in

winning the party's nomination.

Of course there's the sad saga of Rob Foster in the town of Lincoln, a candidate who wanted to run for the provincial Liberals in 2003 in the riding of

Erie-Lincoln as my opponent and was basically told, if I recall the story correctly, either by the leader or the Liberal Party of Ontario, that they had another favoured candidate and threatened to

veto.

Hon John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): How do you know all this?

Mr Hudak: I am quite confident that my sources are correct. Rob Foster chose not to run, in favour of Vance Badawey, the eventual candidate. My

view is that the local Liberals should have chosen their candidate. That's why I have great concern about that particular section.

Hon Mr Gerretsen: How were you chosen? Tell us how you were chosen.

Mr Hudak: I ran a competitive race and was fortunate enough to win the nomination in 1995, and --

Interjection.

Mr Hudak: You're getting me off my script here. John Fairlie, an accountant in Wainfleet, was the individual in that nomination.

Do you know what? I think there's a lot more we can do to strengthen the role of MPPs. The American and British systems, warts and all, I think members would

agree, have a greater latitude for individual members to stray from the party line coming from the leader's office. Under the British system, with a larger number of members of Parliament and fewer

cabinet positions on a per capita basis, members have a greater individualist streak in Great Britain. I think that's healthy, and I hope that if we do make changes to our electoral process here in

Ontario, we'll do more to strengthen the individualism of MPPs of all three parties.

Hon Mr Gerretsen: Hear, hear.

Mr Hudak: There we go.

The notion, therefore, of having the leader of the party sign off on the ballot and then putting the party on the ballot as well, I think, takes us away from

grassroots democracy. The more we can do to strengthen the name and the role of an individual MPP so that when citizens are casting their ballots, whether it is in Beamsville or in Kingston and the

Islands, they'll be voting for Mr Gerretsen or his opponents as opposed to voting for a Liberal Party or a leader -- the more we can do to strengthen the local candidate's name and choice on the

ballot, the better it is for democracy in Ontario and in our country, Canada. That's why, while I commend the member for Ottawa Centre for bringing this forward, I strongly reject this notion of

strengthening the party and the leader's office at the expense of individual MPPs and individual choice for a candidate at the local level.

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): I am pleased to stand today to speak on Bill 76 that the member from Ottawa Centre, Richard Patten, has

brought forward. I have to say that that member has been, for the time I've known him in opposition, an incredible voice for the ideals of our parliamentary system and for democracy in Ontario. One

of the first discussions I had with Richard Patten had to do with democratic protection and enhancement of our system, and the ideas he brought forward in a paper I know, as parliamentary

assistant, certainly are in the mix of the progress we're going to be making to enhance this Parliament and this Legislature.

It is important that the voters have an opportunity to know the different aspects of the candidates when they go in to vote. I think that is what the intent here

is, that the voting public has the best information about the candidate when they go in to vote.

Our Election Act is 30 years old and needs a great deal of revamping. I believe that in the last election there was a list of candidates and the parties, but it

was put outside the voting booth; it wasn't on the ballot. So there is a need that we put on the ballot not only the name of the person but also what flag they are flying under when it comes to the

party. The philosophy of the party will also impact and give an indication to the voter of the views or the general philosophy they have.

I've heard many people say that parliamentary democracy is tremendously flawed, but then the other

part is "until we take a look at everything else that's out

there." Parliamentary democracy is an important part of what I call good government. That's what helps to develop good government.

Our government has, in this mandate, put together a secretariat. That secretariat is going to be an ongoing enhancer of our democratic system. Yes, we do need to

have a promoting of a stronger system here in Ontario. Again, it's ongoing. It is about more accountability. It is about the role we have as private members in this House, which is three-pronged:

It is about our role of representing our constituents, which is important to each member in this Legislature; it is about the legislative role we have to better promote the issues that are dear and

near to our hearts, such as the member from Ottawa Centre has done today; and then there is the scrutiny role on behalf of the people of Ontario, a scrutiny role that each one of us brings to bear

on the executive in government. That is how come our parliamentary democracy is held as one of the best democracies in the world.

In enhancing the role of the private member, it's important that we develop a standard in this House. I say this because I was probably at the depths of my

despair when I saw the budget being taken outside of this place. I felt it was undermining the whole understanding of what democracy is about, about the people's representatives being able to

scrutinize how the people's money is being spent. To me, that was another erosion of democracy, which we must protect at all cost.

One of the important parts of our role in this House is on committees. There's a lot of work that needs to be done to change the culture of sometimes very

parochial debate that I see, to be able to raise the standard of debate in this House so that we can actually discuss, with intelligence and substance, those things that are important to the

constituents we are here to serve. Too many times, we have had a culture that has probably undermined that process.

I would like to say that this bill is a step toward enhancing democracy, but we also need to do so much more. Speaker, how does one change a culture of how

things are done? You know, in your chair, that there are many times when there is disrespect for the work that's done here. The way we conduct ourselves in this House provides a view to the

citizens about the type of work we do. It also enhances or deteriorates the credibility of who we are as the people's representatives here.

In the time I have, I would like to talk about the bigger picture of what democratic renewal is about. It's about trying to restore a sense of trust, integrity

and ethics in how we conduct ourselves. Those are the altruistic reasons why we have to change the culture here. I would suggest we sometimes get involved in some inappropriate behaviour. I'm sure

that when the students come in here they say to themselves, "Is this how our representatives behave?"

In conclusion, I would like to say that I am really pleased to speak in favour of this bill. I do believe it will do a great deal to provide good information to

our voters.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased to join the debate today with respect to the member Mr Patten's bill to amend

the Election Act. Having run and been elected three times, I certainly know a little bit about how the ballot can be configured, if you wish, in terms of people coming in.

I remember running in 1999. An individual by the name of Tracogna came in at about the last minute, obviously supported by a union -- he was a union business

agent. I don't even believe he resided in the riding, but he came in, came up with some kind of address they accepted and ended up on the ballot. My name is Tascona and the other person's name was

Tracogna. I can tell you we weren't too happy about that, but there wasn't anything we could do about it. So I guess dealing with making the ballot fair is an issue, but there are people who can

come in. If you wanted Jim Gerretsen to run against John Gerretsen down in Kingston and the Islands, I guess that could happen. What's the solution?

I can tell you that this bill deals with much more than putting the party banner beside your name. This bill is an erosion of my rights as an MPP. It increases

the power of the leader. It smacks of the federal system. Quite frankly, I'm outraged because of what I've seen coming out of the federal Liberal party, with respect to their appointment of people

parachuted into ridings because the leader wants them.

What we have here, under

section 9, basically makes sure that's the system we're going to be inheriting. I'll read it for the listening public to see what kind

of democracy this is. This erodes the members' power and increases the power of the leader. It says:

"

(9.1) Where the candidate, with his or her consent, has received the endorsement of a registered party, the nomination paper shall be accompanied by a statement

certifying that the candidate has been endorsed by the party."

Fair enough. Fair enough that they know you're a member of a particular party.

It goes on to say:

"

(9.2) The statement referred to in subsection (9.1) must be signed by the party leader as registered under clause 10(3)(

c) of the Election Finances Act or by

his or her agent."

What that is leading to basically is that if you want to run for any party, you'd better have that signature of your leader. Right now, we don't have that, and I

don't support what is going on here.

Hon Mr Gerretsen: You don't have that?

Mr Tascona: The member from Kingston and the Islands is mouthing off on the other side as I'm trying to speak.

I think this is a fundamental issue of democracy in terms of the party process. It has nothing to do with this place; this has to do with nomination and fairness

with respect to the person who wants to run, regardless of what the party apparatus thinks of that individual. What happened to fairness in the nomination?

When I was studying politics at McMaster University for four years, we talked about the party elite -- this was back in the early 1970s -- how they take over the

nomination process and how it's an elitist system. An elitist system is basically created where the party apparatus says to people, "You're not going to be running. We don't care whether you're a

good Liberal or not; you're not going to be running here because we want Joe Blow to run. He has been doing things for us, and we think he's a better candidate than you. We've done polling and we

think that person should be there. We don't care what you've done in the riding. We don't even care whether you live in the riding or whether you've done anything for this riding. We're here in

Toronto, at Queen's Park, and because we're the power, we think Joe Blow should be running."

A classic situation -- and I have nothing against the man -- is Ken Dryden. He just got appointed to run in York Centre -- a good candidate. I know Art Eggleton

was running. He had the nomination and he decided to step aside. They just shoved someone in and appointed him. I don't know whether he even lives in the riding. I think fundamental politics and

democracy are that if you live in the riding, if you support that party, you should be allowed to run for that nomination -- no questions asked. What I see here -- and it should be under the title

"restriction," where it says "signed by the party leader."

I say to Mr Patten: Where are you getting this from? Why is this coming out? I don't see anything democratic about this. I think it's kowtowing to the leader.

I'll say this to my leader: If they think I need his signature to run, I'll run as an independent. I don't care. There are other people around here who would probably run as independents too, if

they say, "Oh, I have to have your signature to run." After having gotten the support of the nomination from the people within the riding in a fair, democratic process, they're saying, "We don't

want you to run. I'm not going to sign your papers if you run and win."

That's what happens out there. That's why you get people appointed. That's why people turn off the system at the local level. I can tell you, there are a lot

of greenhorns around here on the Liberal side. You just wait until they turn on you and say, "You should have voted on that bill, buddy. You should have been there for us on that. You lose your

PA." They don't want you to run next time. You can laugh all you want, but that's reality. That is the reality of how the party apparatus runs.

Hon Mr Gerretsen: Is that what happened?

Mr Tascona: Like the member for Kingston and the Islands -- he's just happy. I was with him when we used to go up north and do hearings, and

we were doing a lot more hearings than the members are doing now. But I can tell you I have real difficulties with that part of the bill.

The other part of it, in terms of putting down party affiliation -- I've run three times. I haven't run with any party affiliation. I've run on my own name and

whatever. People knew who I was running for. But the bottom line is, you can have some issues. There's no doubt, if someone puts another candidate there -- with the same name, certainly -- you may

want to look and say, "Maybe the party affiliation can be in there." But you could get games within the party affiliation. You could have the Liberal Party put down as a candidate for that, and

then you could have something that would maybe be mirroring close to that -- easier with respect to the Progressive Conservative Party, because you could have someone put down as the Conservative

Party, depending on what the name games become. That's what the nonsense becomes.

This doesn't enhance democracy. I don't know why Mr Patten is putting this forth. Quite frankly, the way I look at it, if you're running and your name is on

that ballot, that should be good enough. I've run municipally and I've run provincially. For him to say, "OK, we want to make sure you've got the party affiliation right beside there," to me smacks

of -- dealing with the Liberals these days, something's up here. Something is definitely up with respect to wanting to change the ballot system we've had for many years.

I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that there's something fundamentally wrong here with respect to democracy, where you can't run unless the leader signs your papers.

That's what I object to with respect to this bill. I also wonder why we now want to change the ballot that has always been in place. These are fundamental issues that have been going on. Anyone who

has been involved in party politics for years -- we're probably going to be put in a situation very shortly, if we decide to adopt the federal riding boundaries. I put that to the members right

now. If we adopt the federal riding boundaries, you're going see a number of individuals from within the same party facing off with each other because their boundaries cross. The most famous ones

who went at it were Sheila Copps and Tony Valeri. There was also John Bryden in Hamilton, in that particular area, and I think down in Niagara, and there are other areas that are going to cross

over. You're going to have situations where the leader says, "No, I'm not going to sign your papers. I want Gerretsen to run. You run somewhere else." That's the problem with respect to that

situation.

Maybe this is leading up to the changing of the boundaries. Maybe Mr Patten is ahead of us here. He's setting the table to make sure that the leader has have

the control over the system, with the blessing of the party.

I don't know why a private member is coming forth with this bill anyway. We've been promised a package of democratic renewal by the Attorney General for ages.

Where is it? It's not here. We've got a member coming forth here who I would say is walking in lockstep with the leadership, making sure that the leaders are even stronger than they need to be. God

knows, they're strong enough as it is in terms of determining all the policy within this place, but to say, "I can't run unless the party leader signs my nomination papers" -- I can't think of

anything that's more offensive to the democratic process and the nomination process that we have in this province. When those boundary changes come and you say, "Oh, jeez, now I'm into someone

else's area," don't feel so smug over there that you've got your seat, because you may not have your seat. You may be looking for another area. It may not be that easy in terms of making sure that

you can get that nomination, especially if the leader won't sign your papers and says, "You'd better get over to another area; otherwise, you're not running. Thanks for your service for the last

four years, and adios."

Mr Patten has put forth a bill here that I don't support. I hope nobody supports it. If you want your leader to determine your political future, you can't run

and speak your mind in this House without putting your future in jeopardy come ballot time, the next time you go for the normal nomination. With respect to the party affiliation on the ballot, that

has got to be looked at a lot closer, to make sure there is no gerrymandering, no situations where the public is misrepresented. The only way I can see that there's no misrepresentation is if they

know who's on the ballot and they know who they're voting for.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I come to this debate with very mixed feelings about this bill, I have to tell you. There is no question

that the voters have a right to know every aspect about the person who will represent them in this Legislature. They have a right to know where they live, they have a right to know their political

views, they have a right to hear them, they have a right to read the literature and they also, I would suggest, have a right to know which party they represent. In that regard, this is a good thing

that is being put on the ballot. It will also, I think, limit the confusion. The confusion almost always -- I can't even think of a case when it hasn't revolved around the Liberal Party, because

what you see is case after case of parachuted candidates who cause turmoil within the riding association, who then run as independent Liberals. I think the most clear one we saw in the last

provincial election happened in Scarborough Centre in the celebrated case of Mr Duguid versus Mr Manios, which, had it not been such an overwhelming Liberal majority elected, certainly would have

cost Mr Duguid and the Liberal Party that seat.

We also see that there is the problem of putting the onus on the party to act fairly, and I think this is probably the Achilles heel of this particular bill.

It will vest more power in the leader and more power in the party apparatus at the upper levels to determine who gets the nod and who does not get the nod; who gets their nomination form signed and

who does not. Quite frankly, I think it takes away democracy from the local riding associations.

So there are good aspects to the bill and bad aspects to the bill. I would suggest, though, that this bill isn't in fact -- and I know Mr Patten has been

wanting this bill for a long time. It is premature, given the commitment of the Premier and the Liberal Party in the last election to thoroughly look at how democracy takes place in this

Legislature and in this province. There is a promise here of democratic reform. There is a promise here that the Attorney General will be going out to the people and we'll be seeing mechanisms that

will help make this Legislature more democratic and give greater power to individual members and to the electorate that sends them here.

We need to see the entire package. This, in fact, may be one small part of the package, and, depending on how the package unfolds, it may be a good part. But

we need, first of all, to underline that we respect democracy in this province.

I want to tell you -- and I'm delighted that the Minister of Municipal Affairs is here today -- one of the saddest days I have experienced in this Legislature

was the day that the Minister of Municipal Affairs refused to recognize the democratic will of the people of Kawartha Lakes. Those people had gone through great and terrible expense and a lot of

time in order to exercise their rights as electors and their rights as free and democratic people in this province. They went to the Legislature and they got the approval of the Legislature and the

approval of the then Minister of Municipal Affairs to put a ministerial-sanctioned question on the municipal ballot. That question was approved, first of all, by the minister. Then it was vetted by

the "yes" and "no" sides, who agreed on the actual wording. It was put on the municipal ballot. There were monies allowed for both sides to get their message out. The people in Kawartha Lakes voted

in a democratic fashion, a great many turned out to vote, and the majority voted that they wanted to de-amalgamate their forced city.

After having gone through that entire process, they came to the minister with the results, only to have the minister say that it would cost too much money.

With the greatest of respect, if the democracy of the people of this province is not respected, I don't know how any other democratic reform that is being suggested can possibly hold any water.

I went down to meet some of those people in Kawartha Lakes who had come together with people from across Ontario, people from Ottawa and Sudbury, Toronto,

Flamborough, Dundas, Aldershot, and other locations as well, and there was a sense of frustration in the room. They felt that the people are not being listened to by their politicians when

initiatives are put forward, when they want to have referenda, when they want to be able to have a say on how they are governed or the forms in which they are governed at a municipal level. They

are simply roughshod told that it cannot happen. I hope that when the minister comes forward with his new bill that the actual democracy at the local level will be paramount.

Of course, this bill is here because there are problems with independent Liberals. I have already alluded to the great battle of Duguid versus Manios. But this

again was caused by the appointment of Mr Duguid over Mr Manios, who had for several years been signing up members, who had the support of his local riding association, who had been the previous

candidate, and who saw himself shunted aside. He was not willing to accept that.

The same thing happens in other ridings and quite conceivably could happen in almost any riding. We saw what happened in Hamilton East; that has already been

spoken to. There was no chance, quite literally, for people who were unhappy there to run as independent Liberals, because the nominations were closed and an hour later the by-election was called.

There was no chance for the dissidents to organize.

Now, we do know that the party name on the ballot, would solve the age-old problem that we see not so much in Ontario but in Quebec, and that is people running

with the same names. It is not and has not been unusual in Quebec to see people with identical names on the ballot, with nothing to differentiate, in the past, which party they belonged to or

whether one was an independent and one was running on behalf of a party. It was very common to find that someone with an identical name was brought in to run in those circumstances.

Also, in Toronto we saw an incumbent, Mr Peter Tabuns, who is presently the NDP representative federally in the riding that I represent, lose the municipal

election when a person was parachuted in with the name Larry Tabin and was able to garner off just the number of votes to make sure that he lost the seat. That's in the days when the top two were

elected. He came third, and Larry Tabin had more than sufficient votes to have made up the difference.

I have to go back to the problem here. The problem is that the leader's signature will give even more authority to the leader to parachute candidates, and we

have seen the Liberals very famous for that both federally and provincially. I might suggest, if this were to pass today, that you may want to amend it or have it amended in committee to include

the president of the local riding association "in conjunction with" -- and both signatures must be on there -- the leader or agent. Because if you leave it solely in the hands of the leader and/or

his or her agent, then you are going to set up a system that we are trying to get away from.

The real problems here, I would suggest, which must be dealt with by the Attorney General, are proportional representation and the freedom of members of this

House to vote however they wish except in matters of confidence and the budget, so that it doesn't matter if you vote against your party; the government would not fall, and you would see a great

many backbench government members not toeing the party line, especially on bad law. We need to give power to our committees, and most of all we need to give power to the democratic nomination

process that would render all of this somewhat moot.

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): C'est avec plaisir que je viens appuyer mon collègue d'Ottawa-Centre et un projet de

loi qui ne fait certainement pas sa première apparition dans cette assemblée.

Nous sommes maintenant plus de 12,5 millions de citoyens et citoyennes en Ontario. Nous avons beaucoup de nouveaux arrivés. Les nouveaux arrivés ne

connaissent pas toujours les candidats locaux, nouveaux arrivés, parfois, qui ne parlent que la langue russe, asiatique, arabe, qui ne peuvent pas lire notre langue canadienne.

Laissez-moi vous dire que j'ai vécu l'expérience personnellement dans le passé lorsque les mêmes noms ont apparu sur le bulletin. En 1999,

par exemple, mon opposant était un autre Lalonde, et on était censé avoir un troisième Lalonde sur le bulletin. Mais dans ce temps-là j'ai approché le directeur en

chef d'Élections Ontario pour regarder s'il n'y avait pas une possibilité de rajouter le nom du parti. Il m'a dit, « Monsieur Lalonde, ne procédez pas à changer votre

nom », parce que j'étais sur le point de faire changer mon nom à Jean-Marc Libéral Lalonde. Nous savons que chacun des partis politiques a un programme. Les nouveaux

arrivés en Ontario qui ne connaissent pas les candidats vont se baser sur le programme électoral du parti.

J'ai vécu de belles expériences aussi dans la dernière élection. Sur la frontière de deux circonscriptions, j'avais un Lalonde sur le

côté de Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh et j'avais un Lalonde sur l'autre côté de la rue, qui était moi. Je peux dire que, du fait qu'on n'avait pas le nom du parti sur le

bulletin, j'étais avantagé parfois, et c'était parfois désavantageux.

Laissez-moi vous dire que j'ai eu la chance de voyager à travers le monde comme observateur d'élections. La dernière observation pour laquelle

j'étais envoyé par les Nations Unies avec une équipe de résidents de différents pays, je me suis rendu au Cambodge. Au Cambodge, nous avions 43 partis politiques. Ce n'est

pas les noms des candidats qui apparaissent sur les bulletins, ce sont les noms des partis, puisque les gens ne peuvent pas connaître les candidats.

Mais nous ici, on devrait regarder peut-être un peu différemment.

J'ai de bons exemples ici qui démontrent que parfois nous ajoutons le logo du parti en plus du nom du parti, qui est en caractères gras, et le nom du

candidat, qui apparaît en caractères très petits. En plus de ça, nous rajoutons la photo du candidat, parce que parfois les candidats vont cogner de porte en porte et on ne peut

pas se rappeler le nom du parti. Mais encore une fois, la grande importance de ça, c'est la plateforme, les politiques du parti, qui compte.

En 1999, lorsqu'est survenue l'élection, on m'a dit, « Jean-Marc, tu vas faire face encore cette fois-ci à deux autres Lalonde. Il faudra

participer le plus tôt possible à apporter des changements à l'Assemblée législative. » Savez-vous, monsieur le Président, que nous sommes la seule province

au Canada où le nom du parti politique n'apparaît pas sur le bulletin? Aussi récemment qu'hier, nous avons fait des recherches. Nous sommes la seule province au Canada où le nom

du parti n'apparaît pas sur le bulletin.

Nous avons même la région du Yukon, qui n'est pas une province, mais un territoire: le nom du parti apparaît sur le bulletin. Les deux seuls

autres territoires qui n'ont pas le nom du parti, c'est parce que nous n'avons pas de parti politique à l'intérieur de ces deux territoires. Ce sont le territoire du Nord-Ouest et le

territoire du Nunavut. Ce sont les deux seuls dans le Canada actuellement qui n'ont pas le nom du parti sur le bulletin.

Mais j'ai été plus loin. Lorsque je me suis rendu au Vermont, aux États-Unis, on m'a démontré que oui, encore là, le nom du parti

apparaît très clairement sur le bulletin. J'ai regardé en Australie, par exemple : le nom du parti apparaît plus gras que le nom du candidat. Si je regarde un pays

asiatique, nous avons encore là le nom du parti qui apparaît.

Puis, pourquoi ici en Ontario ne pouvons-nous pas avoir le nom du parti?

J'ai été encore plus loin. Sur 62 pays que j'ai ici devant moi, tous les noms des partis apparaissent en premier lieu au lieu de celui du candidat,

ce qui démontre encore clairement l'importance que le citoyen, le votant, va aller appuyer la politique d'un parti. Si je regarde ici-même à Toronto, nous avons parfois quatre ou

cinq circonscriptions différentes qui font face à une autre circonscription. Je pourrais vous raconter très longuement de mon expérience dans le passé, mais je vais donner

la chance à d'autres de mes collègues.

Mr Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): I'm proud today to stand in support of Bill 76 and to support my colleague from Ottawa

Centre. A question was put forth in the House today as to why Mr Patten was putting forth this bill. Well, first of all, Mr Patten has a bright idea. He has a bright idea that builds on what we

campaigned on, that being democratic renewal.

He also presented something in the House today that builds on something that I, throughout my career in education, supported and encouraged in young people,

and especially students. When my colleague from Ottawa Centre today introduced Mr Bernardi to the House, it was exciting to see education in action, from a proposal that he put forth that the

member from Ottawa Centre could bring into the House. I saw exactly what I had encouraged my students to do.

Before I forget, I would like to say too that I am giving a minute of my time to my colleague opposite from Lanark-Carleton.

I would also like to say that the amendments to

section 27 in the bill seem to have created a little consternation and some problems across the House here. The

member from Erie-Lincoln mentioned that there's danger in this section. I see no danger at all. This bill has nothing to do with the nomination process, a process that I remember going through in

November 2001, when I would have been excited and proud to have had my leader's endorsement on the nomination paper. It's just asking for a signature on the paper. I don't see it as any more than

that. It endorses. It doesn't reflect in any way on a process to get there.

I also would like to say that with regard to this being premature -- this was a comment by the member for Beaches-East York -- I don't think it's premature at

all. We did announce in the election campaign that we wanted democratic renewal. It has already been mentioned in the House by the Honourable Michael Bryant and by his parliamentary assistant,

Caroline Di Cocco, from Sarnia-Lambton, and we will bring into this House the processes that will make it very clear how we want to reform democracy in this province.

If I have anything to say here, I'm proud of the fact that the member from Ottawa Centre has jumped the queue a bit, jumped into the process and given this

House the chance to vote and express their thoughts on a bill that's going to modernize democracy. It's going to give a chance to those people, for example, in Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, who had

confusion in the last election. We just had that mentioned here by the honourable member and my colleague from across the boundary, from Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh. There was confusion there,

and this will eliminate the confusion. With the name and the party on the ballot, it will eliminate that confusion.

I'm very happy to support this. I'm very happy that we had input from a constituent in this province who took the time, and I encourage other constituents to

take the time, to bring something positive before their member to have endorsed here in the House.

I would like to conclude by saying that I support this bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Just a tiny bit of housekeeping: Do we have unanimous consent for the member for Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh to give a

minute to the member from Lanark-Carleton? Agreed. Thank you.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): Thank you very much. I appreciate the bipartisan offer.

I want to indicate my support for Mr Patten's bill. This is not a new idea. This is an idea that has been around a long time. Face it, folks: People in this

province and in Canada vote first on the basis of a leader; second, on the basis of a party; and third, on the basis of the candidate. We'd all like to believe that they're voting for Norm

Sterling, Richard Patten or whoever.

The only way you can find out the party affiliation is to go and look at a list and then match the name with the list. This is about information, informing the

voter as to who he's electing and what party he's affiliated with. Therefore, I support the bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Mr Patten, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Patten: I want to thank everybody who participated in this debate this morning. I'd like to thank my colleagues for their support and for

the points that were raised.

There was a point raised relating to the authorization of the party leader, or his or her agent. This is already required under the Election Finances Act, so

it doesn't change anything.

What some members seem to be concerned about is when leaders have the opportunity to nominate members in their particular parties. Some parties have it; some

don't. We have a very limited access, where our leader has the opportunity to do that in five ridings only, and for other parties it's all ridings etc.

What this is attempting to do is that if we're going to have party affiliation on the ballot, we have that authorized by the party, by an authorized signatory.

It could be the leader or his or her agent. The member for Beaches-East York suggested that perhaps it should be the leader and the president of the party. I like that suggestion. I have no trouble

with that suggestion. That would be a very good suggestion that I would certainly entertain in committee that might deal with the worry or the fear.

However, having studied the bill, having looked at this, this does not add anything new to the act. It's just that when you put a party affiliation down, how

do you distinguish between people saying, "I'm running for the New Democrats," and "No, I'm running for the New Democrats"? Obviously, we need to have somebody with authority in the party as a

signatory and who can speak on behalf of the party, and that is the leader or his or her agent. That's all that really is. So some of the cynicism about this propagating some sense of strengthening

the leader's role really does not hold water upon examination.

I want to wind up by saying that for sure this is simply a small step along the bigger and longer road to democratic reform, but I hope the House might

consider this as a signal that we collectively support democratic reform, and one way in which we can do that is by supporting this bill today.

KEVIN'S LAW (CHILD AND FAMILY

SERVICES STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT), 2004 /

LOI KEVIN DE 2004 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES SERVICES

À L'ENFANCE ET À LA FAMILLE

Mr Jackson moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 78,

An Act to amend the Child and Family Services Act and the Coroners Act to better protect the children of Ontario / Projet de loi 78, Loi

modifiant la

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

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

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

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): Today is an important day. Private members' time is the time when we as MPPs have an opportunity to express

strong feelings about issues that are of concern to us and, in particular, of concern to our constituents. Members of the House will know that for my 20 years here, I've had occasion to sit in this

position and present bills of justice reform and victims' rights on at least 20 different occasions.

Today, I'm proud to present this amendment to the Child and Family Services Act and the Coroners Act. However, as in every other case, I wish I wasn't

presenting this bill. I wish Ontario was as safe as it could be for children and those in care in this province and that this bill was not necessary. However, the tragic events of earlier this year

and late last year have necessitated coming forward with this bill.

Members have a copy of the bill. It's on record. They will know that should this bill pass, there will be an automatic coroner's inquest when a child dies from

a Criminal Code offence while in the care of a parent who is or has been the subject of supervised access. The bill will also specifically permit the use of the victims' justice fund to cover the

costs of legal counsel for the crime victim's family at any one of these inquests.

Earlier today, the mother of Kevin Latimer, Jenny Latimer; her mother, Marjorie Latimer, Kevin's grandmother; and their spiritual counsel, Canon Michael Bird

of St Luke's Anglican Church, delivered a letter to the Premier's office expressing concerns and the importance of proceeding with this bill. They are present in the House today, for the members;

they wished to be here. Kevin's grandfather, Kevin Latimer, and his brother, Liam, are watching today's proceedings on television.

Kevin Latimer was just three days short of his second birthday when he died in his sleep on February 2, 2004. It was a quiet end to a troubled life. Five

months earlier, Kevin plunged out of a third-storey window of his father's apartment. He landed broken and crunched on a patch of earth below. His spinal cord was injured. The toddler would never

walk again. Only his spirits weren't broken as he clung on to life. His father is charged with criminal negligence causing bodily harm and will appear in Hamilton court on June 15.

During the spring of 2002, shortly after Kevin was born, Jenny Latimer took her sons, Liam and Kevin, to Halton Women's Shelter. According to Jenny, "We had

been living with constant verbal, emotional and physical abuse from the boys' father. He had even threatened my life and it was time to get the boys to safety." Kevin's father has also been charged

with four counts of assault and one count of uttering threats, and in July a judge in Halton will hear those charges.

When Jenny first made her application to the courts to protect her children and herself, the father was granted supervised access. Within a few months,

however, this order was changed to grant supervised access outside the jurisdiction where the mother and family live. The family has been devastated by the tragic loss of such an innocent and

loving child, and they are confused and angry at a court system and a child protection system that, in their opinion, did not protect them. They want answers to questions and, I stress, most of all

they do not want any other family to have to experience this pain and horror.

The purpose of a coroner's inquest is to give a voice to the departed. This bill will also give a voice to the family. I wish to put on the record some of the

comments of the impact statement from the family. Jenny Latimer wrote:

"My name is Jenny Latimer and I am a 24-year-old mom who gave birth to two beautiful and healthy boys. Last summer we had many laughs. We shared incredible

treasured memories: Kevin's first step, Liam's first time catching a fish...."

These were all important moments in this family, as they started.

"During the spring of 2002, shortly after Kevin was born, Liam and Kevin and I went to a shelter for abused mothers and their children. We had been living with

constant verbal, emotional and physical abuse from the boys' father. He had even threatened my life and it was time to get my boys to safety.

"A few months later, along with the Children's Aid Society recommendations, the father was granted an unsupervised visitation with the boys. He was to attend a

six-week men's group for anger management and have a psychiatric evaluation. It was alleged to have been completed mid-December 2002. January 2003, he started, slowly, having unsupervised

visits....

"Kevin fell out of his father's attic apartment window through a broken screen. We later learned that both my boys had been seen on numerous occasions throwing

clothing through the tattered screen, with no signs of their father. Neighbours had warned him of the danger. I had no knowledge of these events until after the accident occurred.... Liam saw Kevin

fall from the window. He laid on the gravel below, conscious and crying and Liam saw this. Liam, to this day, constantly speaks about Kevin falling out of the window. He has been traumatized by

what he has seen. This is too much for any child, let alone a four-year-old boy.

"Kevin fractured his neck in two place and he suffered a spinal cord injury. He was paralyzed from the neck down with some shoulder movement and elbow

movement, but had no feeling. We could not or did not want to believe that Kevin would never walk again," and the mother dedicated every hour to his rehabilitation. He remained in hospital until a

week before Christmas, when he finally was able to be brought home.

"Kevin touched many hearts. This law will continue to touch many more and continue to make his mommy proud.

"I love my children with all my heart. Unfortunately, nothing will bring my precious child back but Kevin's Law can stop the hurt from happening to other

children. We cannot allow innocent children to be hurt any more. Kevin's Law will save lives."

That was from Jenny Latimer, mother of Kevin Latimer.

The other thing this bill will do, besides addressing the issues of concern the family has raised, is that it will give those families standing, with funding

from the victims' justice fund, before a coroner's inquest, and this is very important. It is the spirit of this legislation that was brought in by our government, and which I first tabled in this

House back in 1988 when Ian Scott was our Attorney General of the day. Bill 78 would specifically permit the use of the victims' justice fund to ensure that families of victims with standing in an

inquest are able to have funded counsel.

We have a superb tradition in Ontario of inquests delving into systemic issues that contribute to the deaths of individuals, and consequential recommendations

coming from those inquests have helped make our province and country a safer place to live in. Too often in the past, while public agencies involved are present with publicly funded counsel,

victims' families are forced to scrape together money to participate effectively. It is a gross injustice to inflict such a burden on the people whose family member died and from whose death we

seek knowledge for the public good. Bill 78 will end that injustice once and for all.

I say with all sincerity to my friend the current Attorney General of Ontario, who himself has a deserved reputation as an advocate for victims of crime, to

put this money to the use that was intended, so it is helping crime victims and not sitting in a bank account while victims need help. So many times in the past, he and his party, and all members

of this House, have spoken of the need to improve support and assistance for victims in our province. I urge all members to support Bill 78, as this will ensure standing for these families. It will

allow the funds from the justice fund to be dedicated to their essential initial purposes as designed by legislators and approved in this House.

This is a very difficult issue in our community, because Kevin went through such tragedy for the four and a half months he clung to life. The family has been

through an awful lot, and there are many questions. This bill is not about a witch hunt of the children's aid society or any other group. Children's aid has struggled under budget constraints and

various other challenges, and we want to support our children's aids in Ontario. However, there are so many questions that remain unanswered in this case. We are hopeful that through this

legislation we will be able to have a coroner's inquest.

I look forward to the debate in the House this morning, and I encourage all members to open their hearts and support this bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I appreciate the opportunity to debate Bill 78. From the onset, I think it would be very appropriate to indicate my

support for the bill and make it very clear that the member's reputation is well known. I spoke with the member and was very glad to hear that it was a very specific and well-written bill that

speaks to the issue of child protection. I want to compliment the member on the fact that it is doing that.

The second thing I want to do -- actually I should have done it first -- is offer my sympathies and condolences to the Latimer family and those who are staying

around to help them through this period.

These are the times when we have an opportunity, as legislators, to put the signs away. We just heard about logos in elections. This is a time when we want to

remove those logos. Private members' time is specific. Private members' time is for us, as legislators, to look, listen and hear the ideas of members in this House and, indeed, things that affect

each other outside this House. I want to compliment the member for doing that, because that's exactly what this is supposed to be about: bringing forward legislation and ideas for legislation that

require us to put away those partisan signs and start dealing with the issues that are very important to the people of our communities.

I'm glad to hear the member say this is not a swipe at CAS's. I, for one, am very proud of the CAS in my riding, which, as a matter of fact, has set provincial

standards in terms of how they care for children, and yet they still have people questioning what they're doing. Why? Because they're dealing with children. That's the key here.

In my 25 years as an educator, I unfortunately had to deal with CAS cases; I had to deal with children being abused. That's why I stand in my place today and

look the member in the eye and say, "Good for you." I'm glad you're bringing forward the type of legislation that's necessary to look to the care, concern and love we need to show for our children.

That is the future; that is the present. We have to make sure we understand that we can't allow these things to continue. I applaud the bravery of the family for issuing in their statements that

they wish this not to happen to anyone else. That tells me about the type of people we're dealing with in terms of the actual loss of a family member, their own child, and they take the next step

immediately and say they don't want this to happen to anyone else. I'm truly moved, and I compliment the family for that ability. It's a very difficult thing to do.

In terms of the member's bill, I absolutely support it. I will work however I can alongside the member and do whatever I can to move that forward. He knows as

well as I do, probably better than I do, that in terms of how the process works, this needs to get to committee. We will be moving it to the justice and social policy committee, an appropriate

place to put this bill. As he knows, very few pieces of legislation in this place don't need tweaking or questions answered, and this is an appropriate place to put it, because we will then be able

to have more people spend their voices on it.

Private members' time is not enough. We don't have enough time to actually debate this type of legislation. I believe there are some things in the bill that

may parallel something that's already in existence. The one point the member taught me a little bit about, which I thought was a good idea, is that there are protections and reporting mechanisms

for the first 12 months before apprehension but nothing after apprehension. I think that's another area we can improve upon, and I like that's where the bill is going as well.

The good things about this bill far outweigh any kind of nuances that can be discovered in committee. The direction is pure, the direction is important, and

it's an important message that we send to the rest of the communities in Ontario, to the families out there who are still going through these types of things.

As I said earlier, I went through this process as a principal in an elementary school, and fortunately there wasn't this end result. But tragically, it has

happened in other places in this province, and we need the type of legislation that is being proposed by the honourable member to move forward and continue to ask the question: What else can we do

to protect our children? I challenge us all to put aside anything else and focus on the concept of what we can do to protect our children. If we keep that in our hearts and minds, the legislative

process can be overcome and we will produce legislation that's necessary for the protection of our children.

These are the types of things that some people will stand up and say, "You've regulated me out of existence; I can't take any more regulations." I would ask

you to consider this: I'll take whatever regulation is necessary to protect the life of a child. I challenge us all to keep that in our hearts and minds when we make that decision. I congratulate

the honourable member, and I support him in his attempt to get this bill passed.

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): It is with some degree of sadness that I join in this debate on Bill 78,

An Act to amend the Child and

Family Services Act and the Coroners Act to better protect the children of Ontario, but I want to commend the member for Burlington for bringing this forward. The

short title of the bill is Kevin's

Law, and based on the information I've seen, which was provided to me by the member, I want to extend my condolences to Kevin's entire family. Our hearts go out to them, and our thoughts and

prayers are with them.

The member for Burlington has written to all MPPs in the Legislature and outlined the purpose of Bill 78:

"The bill amends the Child and Family Services Act.

"If a children's aid society applies to a court for an order under the act respecting access to a child by a parent of the child and the court makes the order,

the court on making the order is required to specify the supervision to which the access is subject if the parent has been charged with or convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code (Canada)

involving

an act of violence against the child or the other parent of the child.

"A person or children's aid society that obtains information that a child has died shall report the information to the Minister of Children and Youth Services

if a court made an order under the act denying access to the child by a parent of the child or making the access subject to supervision, if, on the application of a children's aid society, a court

varied the order to grant the access or to make it no longer subject to supervision and if the child subsequently died as a result of a criminal act while in the custody or charge of the parent.

The minister shall report the information to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services who administers the Coroners Act. That minister shall direct a coroner to hold an inquest

into the death.

"If the coroner in an inquest into the death of a victim as defined in the Victims' Bill of Rights, 1995 designates a spouse, same-sex partner or parent of the

victim as a person with standing at the inquest, the person may apply to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services to have the costs that the person incurs for representation by

legal counsel in connection with the inquest paid from the victims' justice fund account."

At the outset of my remarks, I want to indicate to this House that I will be supporting this bill in principle. Again, I commend the member for Burlington for

bringing it forward. I know that in his letter to MPPs, the MPP for Burlington informed us that the official motto of the office of the chief coroner of Ontario is, "We speak for the dead to

protect the living."

The member for Burlington, who reminds us that he has raised the matter of victims' justice through private members' initiatives in the past -- and who

continues to do so compassionately, yet forcefully, here today -- should be commended for repeating the coroner's motto. I'd say he's right, in the sense that we, the living, need to be vigilant

and speak for children who have died, so that others may be protected from injustice and violence.

I believe we need to uphold the highest standards of justice, while our objectives as MPPs must be in the very best interest of children. So I'm grateful to be

able to speak to the principles that are inherent in this bill, and to do so as the Conservative spokesperson for children and youth services. I would be remiss, however, if I did not mention some

of the things we have done, and things we must do in other realms, in other spheres of our activity, to improve the lives of children in Ontario.

Recently, I spoke in this House about KidsAbility, formerly the Rotary Children's Centre, a children's treatment centre that provides services for children

with disabilities in my riding of Waterloo-Wellington. I spoke on behalf of other treatment centres like it across the province. In my statement to the Legislature and my follow-up to the minister,

I demanded that funding for KidsAbility, which serves children with cerebral palsy, spina bifida, muscular dystrophy, Down syndrome and communications disorders, be increased.

I should remind the House that I said at that time that if the budget didn't address the concerns that had been brought to my attention and, in turn, the

House's attention, this government would demonstrate not a compassionate heart but a heart as cold as ice. I also remind members that it was the Liberal Party, now in government, that during the

last election sold itself to the people of Ontario as the compassionate choice. While there was a fleeting reference to children's treatment centres in the budget, there apparently was no increased

operating funding announced in the budget for children's treatment centres, with the exception of some new funding for children's mental health programs.

I'll say again: Unless the funding crisis that KidsAbility is facing is addressed by the government, the number of children on the waiting list who need

treatment could increase to as many as 1,335, according to a recent report in the K-W Record. I'm sure all members of this House would consider that unacceptable.

I recall that the KidsAbility motto is "These kids can't wait." I agree; they shouldn't. I expect to hear something soon from the minister that are these kids

will be a priority for the provincial government.

I also need to mention my Bill 77, when I have the chance to do so again. I can't imagine why a government that obviously wants to protect children travelling

in motor vehicles would not want to at least be consistent and fair with parents and families. Why would they not provide the same provincial retail sales tax exemption for booster seats for older

children, which they are forcing tens of thousands of parents to buy -- the same retail sales tax exemption they provide on seats for younger children, whose car seats are exempt from the 8% retail

sales tax?

There is still hope that the appropriate funding will be forthcoming for KidsAbility. I would urge the government to treat parents fairly and equitably and not

tax booster seats they are compelling parents to buy.

The fact that I have to state these things again is somewhat frustrating in itself. The government made a promise not to cut taxes. Seven months later, they

are raising taxes. The same can be said for their promise not to run a deficit in government or add to the debt, both of which, unfortunately, they have indicated they will do right up until the

year 2008, adding to the debt every year.

As we debate Bill 78 today, I could go on and on about promises that have not been kept, like the broken promise to hundreds of autistic children and their

families to provide intensive behavioural intervention therapy beyond the age of six -- a commitment that the Premier made to a parent, in writing, just before the election.

I do want to allow other members time to add their voices to the debate Bill 78, so I will conclude my remarks. I will close by saying again, as I did just

after the budget, that I think the Liberal government has seriously damaged its credibility by breaking promises that it made during the election campaign. To be constructive, I hope that the

government will do the right thing for children and their families, to protect them and their rights and provide any assistance needed to reach their full potential in life. Once again, I encourage

all members of this House to support the member for Burlington's Bill 78.

Ms Laurel C. Broten (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): I'm pleased to speak to the bill. Obviously, as my friends before me have said, the aim of the

proposed bill is to enhance child protection, and I commend the member for his efforts in this regard.

I do want to comment that it is unfortunate that the member for Waterloo-Wellington debased the debate on this important piece of legislation by bringing in

partisan politics when private members' time is an opportunity for all of us to come together and meet some of the significant challenges that we face in this province.

As someone who has worked tirelessly for many years to better protect children from abuse, I know that there is much more we can do to protect children. This

proposed bill is in response to a specific tragedy, I understand, which is now before the courts. I don't want to speak to specifics to that case in any way to jeopardize it, but I do want to

express my deepest sympathies to the family, which, I understand, is in the Legislature today. I want to applaud them for their bravery in coming forward and talking publicly about a tragedy that

has occurred in their lives. Just to come out and speak publicly about these issues is very difficult, but it is by coming together and speaking publicly about these issues and working together,

without regard for partisan politics, that I think we can all be proud of the work we accomplish to protect children and their families in this province.

I want to speak for a moment about a similar family and circumstance in my own community, about a mother as brave as the one in this room today. My own

community of Etobicoke-Lakeshore was struck by the tragedy of the murder of Farah Khan a number of years ago. Our community came together, from all backgrounds, all types of people, to grieve for a

little girl -- at that time, we did not even know her name. We didn't know where she had come from, we didn't know why she had been murdered, and we had no understanding of the issues that were

before the community. We came together and we grieved with the police officers who had found Farah.

We came together at an organization that I've been involved with for a number of years called the Gatehouse, which also works for the protection of children to

ensure they're not revictimized in these tragic circumstances. The Gatehouse is a fantastic organization that helps children who have been abused by not further victimizing them when they're coming

forward and telling their stories. It's a gingerbread house on the Lakeshore. It's called the Gatehouse because it's the old psychiatric hospital gatehouse on the Lakeshore. It is an example of a

community coming together to deal with the issue of child abuse. The community joined together and renovated this wonderful old facility. It looks like you're entering your grandmother's house, but

in fact what you're doing is coming into a state-of-the-art videotape facility where the CAS and police interview children so they're able to tell their stories in a comfortable surrounding. At the

Gatehouse the social workers assist the family in dealing with tragic and difficult circumstances, such as those of this family.

The Gatehouse, being near where Farah's family came from, reached out at that time and recognized that we also had a role to play in the community. We also

needed to help families grieve. This past week, we joined together again at the Gatehouse, and I have to tell you, I met another very brave woman that day. The mother of Farah Khan joined us this

past weekend to put in Farah's garden. As someone who has been working in this field for many years, you don't become hardened, but you perhaps become a little less emotional. I can tell you, as I

spoke to Farah's mother across the garden that day and thanked her for coming forward and keeping the issue of keeping children safe in the front of all of our minds, I was very emotional. It was a

very overwhelming day to work with that family.

Needing this to be a public response and needing us to work together in community is an example of what we try to bring together in our own community at the

Gatehouse to support families who are coming forward, taking those brave acts and saying, "Let's talk publicly about this issue and let's work together."

Last evening I had another incredible and interesting opportunity as I joined with my community again in Etobicoke-Lakeshore to conduct a community safety

audit. We've had, unfortunately, some incidents of sexual assault in our community over the last year, and we selected one of the areas in the Mabelle-Cordova area in my riding, if you're familiar

-- the Islington-Dundas area. We joined with METRAC on the night they were launching their community safety audits. The message we were talking about in our community was, you need to look after

each other. You need to pay attention to what's happening to your neighbour, to your neighbour's children.

These are the very issues that I think this brave family is trying to bring forward and have us talk about in the Legislature today. If we could only have had

the information that was available, that other neighbours knew, that they had been cognizant of. We have to look out for our neighbours' children. We should not live insular lives.

In conducting our community safety audit last night, we walked about the community and talked to families. We said, "Do you feel safe here at night? Do you

feel that your neighbours are watching out for you?" I have to say, one of the most invigorating statements I heard from one of the mothers was, "It's unfortunate that these terrible incidents

happened in our community, but do you know what they did? They opened our eyes to the fact that we need to look out for one another. We need to pay attention to what's happening to our neighbour

and our neighbour's children." Speaking publicly and doing these things are ways that we will be able to better protect children and their families.

This government is working on the issue of protecting children. The creation of a new children's ministry and a minister who is compassionate and caring about

the well-being of children in our society is a good first step. The good work that the coroner has done in all sorts of areas can provide sound and good advice to the government.

In the area of domestic violence, we've taken a leadership role and started talking about children and how children are affected by domestic violence. Our

significant campaign that we will be undertaking is to focus on children. The funds that we've made available on second-stage housing will help children, because it is only by breaking the cycle of

violence that you can protect those children, and there is so much more to do.

Obviously, as my friends before me have said, there are some issues with this legislation and the format that it's proposed in, whether we need to acknowledge

that there may be some duplication, that we might be stepping on the toes of the coroner, who already does wonderful and great work. But at its heart we can all come together in the recognition

that we want to take this forward and move it, because we need to make sure that women and their children are safe and that our society responds to those needs.

I'm very pleased to have had a chance to speak to the issue. I thank the family for joining us here today, and I thank you for your bravery in continuing to

bring this issue forward to all of us.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm pleased to speak on the member from Burlington's bill this morning. This is a very tragic

and serious matter.

I'd just like to say, initially, that the member from Burlington, as we all know, has been a long-time advocate of crime victims in Ontario. He was the author

of the original Victims' Bill of Rights, which he presented three times to the Ontario Legislature before it was ultimately enacted by the Harris government in 1996.

The bill created a special victims' justice fund to provide assistance to crime victims, and was subsequently amended to create Canada's first office for

victims of crime. Bill 78 is a continuation of the member's commitment to helping victims of crime in this province. I've been pleased to serve with him since 1995.

Certainly, the issue today is gaining support for Bill 78. The intent of the member is for it to proceed to the standing committee on justice and social

policy. The intent of the bill, after that review by the committee -- I imagine it would be a very extensive review before it comes for third reading. Should the bill pass, there will be an

automatic coroner's inquest when a child dies from a Criminal Code offence while in the care of a parent who is or has been the subject of supervised parental access. The bill would also

specifically permit the use of the victim's justice fund to cover the costs of legal counsel for a crime victim's family at the inquest.

Being here today in the presence of the family, in this situation, I just hold out my respect for them. I'm the father of a six-year-old. I know that young

boys are very active, very special, and a situation for one to be snuffed out at the age of two is really a tragedy that no one can speak of, other than the family of a young child they had great

hopes for and loved very much.

Bill 78 is named in Kevin Latimer's memory. The call for an automatic coroner's inquest is a call for justice. It's a call for a voice for the person who has

died. It's a complex issue. The supervisory system we have with respect to family matters in this province needs review, coordination and support, not only from our court system but from the

support services that are out there with respect to dealing with children.

Unsupervised access: The purpose of it is to make sure the child is protected. That is the most important issue in terms of putting the child's rights first.

The nub of this bill, from what I think member Jackson has put forth, is the protection of the child. The child's rights have to be put first, without exception.

I can tell you that in the process of a private member's bill, it can go through the House very quickly if the will of the House is there, if there's

seriousness given to the particular issue. Coroners' inquests are very serious matters. The nice thing about this is that it's linked to the Victims' Bill of Rights and gives them some power, some

standing at the inquest. It gives them some fairness and gives victims the rights they deserve in connection with a matter such as this. I can say that very clearly.

I know that member Jackson has some further comments he wants to bring from the family. I'm giving my time in recognition of that, because I know that member

Jackson has done a great amount of work on this. This is a very tight bill. It's well drafted. There may or may not be amendments, depending on what the Attorney General's office or the minister of

public security have.

I will be voting in support of it.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): At the outset, I must state that we will be supporting this bill and I commend the member for Burlington

for his work on behalf of children everywhere.

This is a tough time, I am sure, for Kevin's mother, grandmother and extended family. The death of a child is one of the most difficult things we face as human

beings. Seeing the pain in their eyes, knowing the struggles they have gone through and will continue to go through, we must each one of us try to put ourselves in their position and try to say

what we would do or what we can do to make things better.

What this bill is attempting to do is very simple. There are two phases to it. The first is that there would be an automatic coroner's inquest whenever a child

died in such circumstances. At present there is not such an automatic coroner's inquest. It is discretionary and it is held when, according to the coroner, the facts might warrant it. I believe we

must adopt a higher standard, and I think the standard that Mr Jackson, the member for Burlington, has put forward is appropriate.

Every child's death must concern us. We must never accept that an accident might merely happen. Of course, they do happen. But when a child is in care, when a

child is under supervision, when a parent has been blocked access in the past or when there is potential criminal wrongdoing, we as a society have an obligation to make sure that every aspect is

looked at and that no stone is left unturned. If there are changes to be made, and that is the ultimate result of a coroner's inquest, then they should be made with a very fine eye and diligence to

make sure that what happens to one child never happens to any other.

The second aspect of the bill, which also must be commended, is the victim's justice fund, where the legal costs of the crime victims' family at inquest are

covered. These can be lengthy. The costs can be horrendous, especially in a family circumstance such as that of Kevin's mother, who was forced to leave home to go and live in a shelter and who was

at home caring for the remaining child. The costs may end up being prohibitive. This is true of many families in our province, not just this one. I would think that this aspect of the bill, which

assures a guaranteed fund for legal representation for the family so that they know justice is not only done, but is seen to be done, is of paramount importance.

As a society, we have for too long turned a blind eye to familial abuse. We have turned a blind eye when children have been abused by their parents or by those

in positions of respect or authority. We have pretended that it did not happen, and I think we ourselves are a little to blame. We know there is a great amount of spousal abuse, and we are starting

to learn more and more that there is also child abuse, which can be physical, mental, sexual and in any other psychological form.

In the past, prior to coming to this Legislature, I had the privilege and honour of serving with the Toronto Children's Aid Society for a number of years, both

as the mayor of East York and later as the representative from the new megacity of Toronto. I also had the honour, for some four years, of sitting as the city of Toronto representative on the board

of directors of the Toronto Child Abuse Centre.

To sit on those boards is to know how very precarious the lives of some children are, to see first-hand how children are abused by their parents, how children

are abused by people in positions of authority, how they are abused by those under whom they are put in care. It is trite to say that those organizations do the very best they can possibly do,

often with limited funds, often with insufficient staff and often having to weigh the needs of the child versus the needs of the parents versus the rights people have in our society. I cast no

umbrage on them or on anyone who works for them or on any society in Ontario. But mistakes do happen, and those institutions have often been at the forefront of helping us to understand how to make

sure that we can learn from those mistakes and that things can change.

We know in this society that people in positions of trust, like the father of Kevin and in fact many people who have access through court orders, can abuse

that trust, whether they abuse the trust by taking violence upon the spouse or child or whether they do it, as in this case, possibly by neglect. We know in our society that there have been many

institutions that have been put in positions of trust. We can think most clearly of the residential schools to which many of our native children were sent, to which many children were sent from

broken families, who would go there, hopefully, to get an education but who got far more than that. They have had a history and a lifetime of abuse. We also know that shrines like Maple Leaf

Gardens, where young men went to worship their hockey heroes, ended up in part, to some of them at least, being places of abuse over the years.

Mr Jackson has put forward a very important bill. What he is asking is that the bill be passed here today, and I am absolutely confident it will be. I hope it

is unanimous. But he has also suggested that it needs to go to the committee on justice and social policy, which is appropriate. That committee will have an opportunity to look at this well-drafted

bill and hopefully to make the necessary amendments and to give the necessary monies available to make sure the bill does what it is supposed to do.

It will also be an opportunity, and I think a first opportunity, for many people who are in positions with which this government entrusts them -- children's

aid societies and others -- to see the bill. We know this bill has not been widely circulated to them. We got an opportunity to speak to the executive director of the Sudbury-Manitoulin Children's

Aid Society, who had not had an opportunity until just this week to have a look at the bill. They are generally supportive of it, as you would expect them to be. They are asking that there be an

opportunity to read it further and to make any appropriate amendments to the bill at the time of committee. They are also suggesting that there needs to be clarification about particular sections

that would be amended. He is looking at pages two and three of the bill, around the Child and Family Services Act.

We welcome that opportunity. We support the bill today on second reading. We will continue to work with Mr Jackson and all those who are supportive of this

bill to make sure that what happened to Kevin, that what has happened to other children in Ontario, comes an end. The coroner has a responsibility to give us that advice. We thank Mr Jackson for

giving us the opportunity to debate the bill here today.

Mr Kevin Daniel Flynn (Oakville): Often when people rise in the House they say it's a pleasure. It certainly is no pleasure to rise today. I

think we all wish this debate was not taking place, but I do commend the member from Burlington for bringing the issue forward. It's an issue that I think needs our full attention.

I'd also at this time like to extend my personal thanks to Kevin's mother and grandmother for their courage in being able to be sit with us today as this bill

is debated.

Like the member for Beaches-East York, I was a board member of the children's aid society in Halton for 12 years and served for three years as president. In a

role such as that, you see the best and the worst of society. You see some of the things that people are capable of, you see some of the situations that young people and children in our province

are forced to live in and you wonder how that is still able to take place in our society today. But you also see some of the best parts of society. You see where people are prepared to step

forward. You see where people are prepared to fund organizations, to volunteer for organizations, to try to work on behalf of children in this province.

We try to give children's aid societies around the province the tools to do the job. We give them those tools in certain ways. Obviously, one of the ways we do

it is to fund those societies. Another way we do it is to employ forms of legislation that these societies must follow. Quite often we rely on the best judgement of the people employed by the

societies, who I think for the most part do a tremendous job on our behalf. The societies are constantly under stress. The societies are constantly dealing with situations of neglect that most of

us could not imagine.

Children's aid societies themselves, oddly enough, are a recent phenomenon in our society. What many people don't know is that their formation was actually

based on the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. We had institutions in place that protected animals before we had organizations to protect children in our society.

We talk about putting children first, and to me this is a perfect opportunity for us, as a Legislature, together in a unanimous fashion, falling behind the

primary work of the member from Burlington, to show that we truly do put children first, to show that we can remove discretion, to show that the inquest would become an automatic outfall of a

tragic situation such as this.

I certainly would ask you to support the bill moving forward. Some people have suggested improvements to the bill, ways it could perhaps be amended so that its

implementation would be easier. I'm positive the member from Burlington will support those amendments when they come. In fact, he has already welcomed them.

The fact that it would move to an automatic inquest is something we can learn from. It's something we're able to use to prevent the type of tragedy that befell

this family that has joined us here today from ever happening again. Inquests, as painful as they are to go through, are instructive. They tell you what to do in the future to avoid some of the

tragedies that have happened in our society in the past. It gives us hope for the future. It allows us to see, to ask, how could this situation have been avoided, how could this family not have had

to go through what they're going through today, and basically, how could Kevin still be alive today?

So I would ask that all members of the House support this bill. It's a worthy bill. It speaks to the best of our society. It may make a little good out of an

obvious tragedy that not one of us would want to go through or that anyone we love should have to go through.

Mr Jackson: I want to thank all my colleagues in the House today, the members for Brant, Waterloo-Wellington, Etobicoke-Lakeshore,

Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, Beaches-East York and my colleague from Oakville. I want to thank each and every one of you for your genuine and compassionate response. On behalf of the family, your words

of support and your commitment to children's safety in our province are deeply appreciated.

Coroners' inquests are a serious matter. In my community I asked for the very first coroner's inquest 18 years ago, when four senior citizens died in one of

our nursing homes. At first there wasn't going to be one. We pressured and lobbied. As a result, we found out that the legionnaires' disease they died from could have been prevented if we

super-conducted all the pipes in the building.

As a result of that coroner's inquest, we do that as a matter of form in our province. We've not had a single senior die of legionnaires' disease in our

institutions. By extension, we did it for all residential institutions. So the voice of the departed is a very powerful instrument for us, as legislators, as we improve the quality of life for our

province.

I don't believe that we, as politicians, have a role to always be asking for them. That's why it's more than appropriate at times, especially with children,

because the thing that overcame me with Kevin Latimer was that this child never had an opportunity to speak; he couldn't speak. His brother, who witnessed this horrible accident, could barely

speak. But he will be able to speak through a coroner's inquest, and we will be a better province for his short, fragile and wonderful life.

I want to specifically acknowledge the presence of Jenny and her mother, Marjorie. Marjorie came to see me some months ago. She brought with her a petition.

But I have to say, for those of us in public service, we create some empathy with our constituents and try to reach a common ground. I'd be remiss if I didn't admit that I grew up in a family where

my mother had to bury three of her children. As my colleague from Beaches-East York put on the record, this is probably one of the cruellest things that happens to us in life as parents, and no

amount of praying will ever explain how much strength we need from God when this happens. This is not unknown to a lot of families in this province. So I want to acknowledge the presence in the

House today of the family.

I'm not going to read a petition into the record that the family had circulated. It dealt with a whole series of issues. It wasn't done in the appropriate

form, but it captured the breadth of issues that were troubling to them as a family as they go through this horrible journey of dealing with the death of a child and determining the way in which

institutions in our society, whether they be the courts or the children's aid society, were able to be of support or assistance, or lacking clear direction in terms of an understanding on the part

of the family.

There are a lot of complexities in this issue, and that's why a coroner's inquest will look at the full breadth of the issues. We can look at reforms to the

Child and Family Services Act, to the Coroners Act and maybe to several other acts that deal with child protection in our province.

I know the government has indicated its willingness to look at this area specifically, and I know members of the Conservative caucus look forward to those

opportunities to debate that in the Legislature and participate on the justice and social policy committee of this Parliament to effect those changes.

Marjorie Latimer, the grandmother of this child, indicated in her statement -- I'll just read, in closing, her comments from a rather long victim's impact

statement:

"People who are abusive and neglectful come into our lives and gain control over the weak; our children are most at risk. These offenders need to know that

their actions and behaviour will no longer be tolerated. Prevention needs to be the forefront and enforcement needs to be the law."

We believe that Kevin's Law will result in opportunities for us to see ways in which we can create more reforms and will give a voice to the departed. On

behalf of the Latimer family, I respectfully request your support for Bill 78. I want to thank you for your support in sending it to the justice and social policy committee. Let Kevin Latimer speak

to our need to better protect other children in our province. Only then can we truly believe that the smile that was so constant on this young child's face will endure in our hearts forever.

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

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT

LA LOI ÉLECTORALE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): We shall first deal with ballot item number 21.

Mr Patten has moved second reading of Bill 76,

An Act to amend the Election Act.

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

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

KEVIN'S LAW (CHILD AND FAMILY

SERVICES STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT), 2004 /

LOI KEVIN DE 2004 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES SERVICES

À L'ENFANCE ET À LA FAMILLE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): We will now deal with ballot item number 22.

Mr Jackson has moved second reading of Bill 78,

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

Ontario.

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

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): Mr Speaker, I respectfully request that we refer Bill 78 to the standing committee on justice and social

policy.

The Deputy Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

The division bells rang from 1201 to 1206.

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT

LA LOI ÉLECTORALE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): All those in favour will stand and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Bartolucci, Rick

Broten, Laurel C.

Brownell, Jim

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Colle, Mike

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Di Cocco, Caroline

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, Dave

Matthews, Deborah

McNeely, Phil

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Qaadri, Shafiq

Sandals, Liz

Smith, Monique

Sterling, Norman W.

Van Bommel, Maria

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Yakabuski, John

Zimmer, David

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

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Hardeman, Ernie

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 30; the nays are 8.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): Mr Speaker, I respectfully suggest we refer the bill to the standing committee on the Legislative

Assembly.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour, please stand.

Take your seats, please.

All those opposed will please stand.

A majority is in favour. It will be referred to the committee.

All matters having to do with private members' public business having been dealt with, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at 1:30 of the

clock.

The House recessed from 1209 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): Dalton McGuinty and this government are not only breaking promises to Ontarians, the fact is they are also

breaking the law of this province. As members of this House, we have a responsibility to uphold the law of the province

In that regard, I want to put the House on notice that I have tabled a resolution today that reads as follows:

"Be it resolved that, in the opinion of this House,

1. The government of Ontario comply with

section 2 of the Taxpayer Protection Act, 1999, that requires a referendum to be held to authorize the following

provisions in a bill that receives first reading in 2004:

1. A provision that amends the Income Tax Act to establish a new tax called the Ontario health premium...."

It goes on to say that, "Despite

section 17 of Bill 83 ... the government of Ontario is in contravention of the Taxpayer Protection Act, 1999, if a bill

receives first reading that includes the provisions described in paragraph 1 before a referendum is held to authorize those provisions.

We are going to debate this resolution in this House. I would trust that all members of this Legislature see it as their responsibility to uphold the law of

the land. Dalton McGuinty may want to feel free to break his own promises, but surely, as members of the Legislature, we won't allow him to break the law of this province.

RUSSIAN-SPEAKING CONGRESS

OF CANADA

Mr David Zimmer (Willowdale): I rise today to draw this House's attention to a significant event that I had the privilege to attend on behalf

of Premier McGuinty in my riding on Sunday, May 16.

The Russian-speaking community of Canada gathered in my riding of Willowdale at the North York Civic Centre to celebrate a historic milestone: the creation and

inauguration session of the Russian-speaking Congress of Canada. This congress represents some 350,000 Russian-speaking Canadians across Canada. This special occasion marks for the first time in

its 100-year history the coming together of the Russian-speaking community to speak with a united voice.

It somehow seems fitting that this event took place in Canada and in Toronto. It reaffirms Toronto's position as the most multicultural city in this country.

The Russian-speaking community is poised to do great things with the creation of this new umbrella organization. In the GTA alone, there is already an extensive cultural network of Russian

not-for-profit organizations, media outlets, religious parishes and business leaders. This network includes five television programs, three radio programs, 10 weekly newspapers, four annual

cultural events and more than 1,000 Russian businesses.

The Russian-speaking Congress of Canada can serve as a model for us all, demonstrating the strength and stature of a collective united voice.

RURAL ONTARIO

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I rise today to express my concern with the government's lack of support for rural Ontario. After the election, I

was immediately uneasy when rural affairs disappeared from the radar screen only to reappear under the jurisdiction for the minister responsible for urban infrastructure. I have not been reassured

since. In fact, since the budget I have become alarmed. This budget consistently diverts dollars from rural to urban Ontario and sets in place programs that benefit large cities over small towns

and villages. One might be inclined to think this government doesn't know rural Ontario exists, or doesn't want to.

The government has not protected rural residents from unfair hydro rate increases, as promised. It has broken its promise of transition funding for tobacco

farmers. It has allocated $83 per farm for nutrient management funding this year -- hardly worthwhile. The two cents in gas tax that will be diverted to municipalities is dedicated to transit and

means that the majority of the money will flow to urban centres. Maybe someone should tell the government that rural areas generally don't have transit systems.

To completely ignore the people who feed this province would have been too obvious, so the budget speech reannounced a few small measures the government has

already taken in agriculture since the election. However, the Minister of Finance failed to mention the $128 million that has been cut from the budget of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

Recently this government received a report that suggested that rural Ontario was unsustainable and that program dollars should be funnelled from rural Ontario

to urban centres in the province. I'm afraid the budget presented yesterday shows the government wants to accept that premise and is headed in that direction.

I urge the Premier to break with tradition and keep the promise. I urge him to listen to the Minister of Agriculture, if indeed he is advocating on behalf of

rural Ontario, and if he has lost faith in his colleague, to replace the present minister with one he respects.

CHILDREN'S IMMUNIZATION PROGRAM

Mr John Milloy (Kitchener Centre): Ontario health care providers are finally receiving the tools they need to lead the fight against

chickenpox, bacterial meningitis and pneumonia. These diseases have threatened the health of our Ontario infants and children for far too long. Immunizations save lives, prevent serious illnesses

and are recognized as one of the most effective public health interventions.

This government is taking the steps required to protect our children against preventable diseases for which vaccines are readily available, something the

previous government put on the back burner for years. In the past 10 years, Ontario has held one of the worst records for immunization in Canada.

With this announcement, we have become only the second province to offer all necessary vaccinations for children. Adding these vaccines to the children's

immunization program will save Ontario parents up to $600 per child in a child's first year. The reaction to the announcement of these additions has been overwhelming. The Meningitis Research

Foundation of Canada has praised this government's action, proclaiming that the new vaccines "give parents and caregivers the peace of mind that their children have been protected to the fullest

extent of our health care ability."

The new vaccines will be added to the children's immunization program in the coming months and demonstrate this government's commitment to the health of

Ontario's youngest citizens.

Yesterday I visited an immunization program in the Cambridge area with the Minister of Health and the response was overwhelming.

ABORIGINAL HEALTH CARE

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I am saddened that I have to raise an issue like this in the Legislature today, but I want to relate

the experience of a young aboriginal woman from a remote First Nation in northwestern Ontario.

Her name is Corrine Jeremiah. She had to travel out of her community to Thunder Bay Regional Hospital earlier this year to give birth. Sadly, just before her

due date on March 30 she miscarried. In accordance with aboriginal tradition, she asked if the miscarried fetus could be returned to her community for the proper services. She went home to her

community. Five weeks later the fetus came to the community in a cardboard box by parcel post, and it was labelled "diagnostic specimen." Of course, the miscarried fetus was decomposing badly. She

is now undergoing counselling.

Imagine if someone came from Collingwood to Toronto to give birth and then miscarried and had to return home, and the fetus was mailed to them by parcel post,

decomposed. This is a symbol of what happens when federal and provincial governments play ping pong with aboriginal health care.

I ask the Minister of Health to look into this situation, to look at having a review so that it never happens again.

PRIMARY CARE

Mrs Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): My constituents are very pleased with the announcement of 150 family health teams that will work to improve

primary care for 2.5 million Ontarians. The Liberal plan for change calls for improvements to direct primary care, providing front-line care that will bring family health teams to parts of the

health system that have been neglected by the previous government. Family health teams will work to reduce wait times in hospitals and reduce doctor shortages in areas that are currently

underserviced. This is especially crucial in my rural riding, where constituents have been feeling the pressure of not having access to a family doctor.

Family health teams consist of doctors, nurses and nurse practitioners, working alongside other health care professionals to provide much-needed front-line

care, as well as providing consistent referrals to other community services like home care and nutrition counselling. Linda Haslam-Stroud, president of the Ontario Nurses' Association, responded,

proclaiming, "Today's budget announcements about health care are an indication that the Liberal government clearly understands the challenges front-line nurses are facing in Ontario."

The former government's slash-and-spend approach to health care funding has resulted in a family doctor shortage that is unacceptable to my constituents. The

creation of family health teams is representative of a new way to provide front-line health care. The Liberal plan for change will result in improved front-line care to millions of Ontarians.

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): In rural ridings such as Leeds-Grenville, a man's word is his bond. I come from an area where major

deals are often sealed with a handshake, so you can imagine my disgust with the McGuinty Liberals' first budget. Mr McGuinty's spin doctors and his media sycophants at the Globe and Star have tried

to portray the man as a saint. Some saint. Saints don't break solemn vows or the laws of the province.

During the election, McGuinty guaranteed voters he would not raise taxes, despite making a glut of expensive promises. He even signed an agreement with the

Canadian Taxpayers Federation, promising a balanced budget with no tax increases, in compliance with the Taxpayer Protection Act. He stood before television cameras, he addressed groups, from

prominent business leaders to schoolchildren, each time repeating the promise that his government would not increase taxes. He even offered proof, claiming an accounting firm had reviewed his

promises and had verified that no tax increases would be required.

I'm sure that millions of Ontarians join me in questioning the moral fibre of a man who, it appears, would promise anything to get elected, while at the same

time knowing in his own mind that he had no intention of following through with those promises.

I have to ask myself: What kind of man would do this? What example does this set for young people in Ontario? What answer can a parent give to a child who

asks, "When is it OK to break the law? When is it OK to mislead?" One thing is for sure: Anyone shaking hands with Premier McGuinty would be well advised to count their fingers afterwards.

MEMBER'S CONDUCT

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): On Tuesday, budget day, the government laid out a beautiful four-year plan. There will be shorter waiting times for

cardiac and cancer care. There will be expanded home care with 150 new family health teams. There will be free immunization for children and 8,000 new full-time -- full-time -- nursing positions.

In my riding, we're going to get brownfields taken care of. I want to tell you that people are very proud. Municipalities see the new deal.

The opposition has no plan. They're just taking whacks. They don't even have manners.

I want to bring to the House's attention an editorial today in the Ottawa Citizen, entitled "Baird's Boorish Behaviour."

According to the Citizen, the member "did the cause of civil political discourse in Ontario no favours with his behaviour in the legislature Tuesday....

"Screaming insults as he was escorted out of the chamber made Mr Baird appear out of control and foolish."

Reminding its readers of the infamous Magna budget -- we all know that one -- the Citizens said that the member's "unparliamentary language and his ejection

from the Legislature are just the latest acts of contempt the Conservatives have shown for the assembly....

"But dumb stunts like this diminish credibility.... We expect better."

I agree with the Citizen. The people want responsible debate about our budget.

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I'm pleased to continue my statement from yesterday about that Jim Carrey movie that sounds like "Fire Fire."

Dalton McGuinty can certainly star in the sequel. But it's not just me saying that. I want to read comments from average people across Ontario that are popping up on the Internet.

In the Toronto Star:

"Voices: Budget Fallout"

"It is one thing to tax tobacco, alcohol and luxuries. But to tax extra for health care after promising not to do such a thing, is so dishonest that no words

can describe it. If Mr McGuinty has any integrity he would resign immediately." A person from Whitby, Ontario.

"Wildly regressive health care taxes. How `liberal' is that?" A constituent from Ottawa.

"I am ashamed to say I voted for the Liberal Party in the last election. I thought it would be an improvement." A gentleman from Brantford.

The last one, from Toronto: "It is robbery. Rather than face the necessary challenge of stopping waste and duplication in the health care system, the Liberals

chose the easy way -- steal the money from taxpayers and throw it away."

I have two things to say to my colleagues on the government backbenches. The second thing is, remember that when you go to your ridings over the upcoming

Victoria Day holiday week, you'll definitely hear this from a large number of your constituents. And when you're asked to dutifully read your scripts prepared by the backroom spin doctors,

choreographers and puppet masters like Sheila James and Matt Maychak, remember that the geniuses in the Premier's office, safely ensconced in their offices, are figuring out which of the 16 seats

they can afford to lose and still keep their jobs after the next election.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): There's a pleasant part to this, but this is not it: Let me take a moment to indicate that today is the last

day for this group of pages. I know all members will want to join me in showing our appreciation for their hard work and assistance.

Here's the good news: I also know that members would want to congratulate this group for beating the previous speed record in delivering the budget documents

on Tuesday.

Thank you for a job well done. I know you're going to continue to do the honours by having a wonderful oral question period.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): My question is to the Minister of Finance. Before I place the question, I'd like to thank the literally

tens of thousands of Ontarians who are calling, writing, faxing all of us on the opposition side of the House to voice their disgust over this Liberal tax grab.

Minister, I've got your provincial budget in my hand, and on page 23 of your speech you have included revenues of $78.4 billion to the province of Ontario. But

there's an asterisk beside it which says "revenue ... $3.9 billion." Can you tell us how much of the $3.9 billion you're booking as revenue this year will actually flow into the province's bank

account this year?

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): I tell my friend from Nepean-Carleton that the $3.9 billion that is included in revenue this year is a

result of policy changes that we made relating particularly to non-utility generators that had entered into power purchase contracts with the old Ontario Hydro. The accounting treatment of that

policy change results in accountants telling us that we are to bring the recovery of those liabilities into our revenues this year if the policy is implemented this year. This gives us a revenue

gain of $3.9 billion in this fiscal year.

Mr Baird: I asked how many dollars would flow into the province's bank account that you claim, and you didn't give me a clear answer. I'll

tell you what we've discovered, Minister. Very little of that $3.9 billion will make it into the province's bank accounts this year. In fact, it could take our grandchildren until the year 2048

before all of that $3.9 billion makes it into the bank account of the government, while at the same time you're booking it as revenue and spending it this year.

This looks like an Enron-style accounting trick. I don't have to remind you that when Enron executives and financial officers broke the law and did this type

of sham accounting, they went to jail. Minister, will you now not admit that this is a massive accounting fraud, and will you change the budget to ensure that it accurately reflects the finances of

the province?

Hon Mr Sorbara: I say to my friend from Nepean-Carleton that his approach to this Legislature is an embarrassment to himself and his party. I

want to say to my friend from Nepean-Carleton that he had enough time in cabinet, as Minister of Energy, to understand that