CONTENTS
Monday 26 October 1998
Protection of Children involved in Prostitution Act, Bill 18, Mr Bartolucci /
Loi de 1998 sur la protection des enfants qui se livrent à la prostitution,
projet de loi 18, M. Bartolucci
STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Chair / Présidente
Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville L)
Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre / -Centre ND)
Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent PC)
Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview L)
Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville L)
Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South / -Sud PC)
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie PC)
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William L)
Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West / -Ouest PC)
Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury L)
Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West / -Ouest PC)
Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East / -Est PC)
Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland PC)
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand PC)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Tonia Grannum
Staff / Personnel
Ms Sibylle Filion, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1533 in room 151.
PROTECTION OF CHILDREN INVOLVED IN PROSTITUTION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA PROTECTION DES ENFANTS QUI SE LIVRENT À LA PROSTITUTION
Consideration of Bill 18, An Act to protect Children involved in Prostitution / Projet de loi 18, Loi visant à protéger les enfants qui se livrent à la prostitution.
The Chair (Ms Annamarie Castrilli): Ladies and gentlemen, we're reconvening to consider clause-by-clause of Bill 18.
Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): In the package we have in front of us, there are two amendments that we had proposed that have been stated wrongly, on page 7 and page 18. They are listed as information for the committee, that we recommend voting against them. That was not what was to be done. We were to move the deletion of those sections.
The Chair: Could I ask you at the appropriate time to state that? Thanks very much, I appreciate it.
Very well. We'll start with the preamble. Any comments or questions?
Mrs Boyd: I move that clauses (c) and (d) to the preamble to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"(c) while the primary responsibility for protecting children lies with families and communities, it is the responsibility of the Minister of Community and Social Services, through the provision of appropriate legislation, to act on behalf of children when they are in need of protection because of involvement in prostitution or other forms of commercialized sexual abuse;
"(d) it is the duty of the province to assist families and communities in providing that protection through mandatory prevention programs designed to support children to resist sexual abuse and exploitation of any kind, including prostitution."
I understand very clearly what the member was wanting to do, to reinforce this act, that obviously the primary responsibility lies with families and communities. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. The whole purpose of the previous item, (b), that "children engaged in prostitution are victims of sexual abuse and require protection," means protection under the child protection legislation. The Minister of Community and Social Services is the minister who has been assigned responsibility for the protection of children. To basically say, on the one hand, that children who engage in prostitution require protection and then on the other hand to assign that responsibility only to families and communities is a conflict within the bill. The whole purpose of this bill is to bring these children under the protection of the province when they are in need of protection. I believe very strongly that while we want to maintain the clear notion that the primary responsibility is that of families and communities, and no one disputes that, when in fact children are in need of protection because of child prostitution, then the minister who has been assigned responsibility for child protection becomes the one who is responsible for ensuring that they get that protection.
In section (d) it is quite clear that I agree with the member that, "it is the duty of the province to assist...in providing that protection." But how? In a preamble one of the things you try to do is give some guidance as to what the intention would be. I believe that providing that protection through prevention programs that are required to be there and that are designed to support children is the obvious way to provide that kind of protection. It really makes it very clear that the province does have some responsibilities around child protection from this particular issue.
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Mrs Boyd's comments are certainly valid, but I think it's all in interpretation. I suggest that the preamble of the bill is the foreshadowing of what is to come in the bill, and I would suggest that this is issue-specific. The amendments may very well fit the mould of the Child and Family Services Act when you say, "resist sexual abuse and exploitation of any kind, including prostitution." I guess that's what I have a little bit of concern with. We're talking about a very specific form of sexual abuse and sexual exploitation. The bill is about prostitution, and that's why I would suggest that our intention is the same; I think it's the wording that we're having difficulty with. I make no apologies for the bill being very issue-specific. That's the whole intent, that's why it's called An Act to protect Children involved in Prostitution.
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I don't disagree with the fact that specific initiatives should be outlined in terms of what we expect the province to do. But I think Mr Bartolucci has covered that off in clause (e), because what he states very clearly is that legislation is required to ensure the safety of these children, and then he goes on in the rest of the bill to articulate what specific things should be done. Again, I understand the intent of this amendment, but I do think that the preamble as it sits now covers off all of those general references.
Mrs Boyd: I would certainly be willing to entertain a friendly amendment to my suggested amendment to (d) to make that more specific to prostitution if that would assist Mr Bartolucci in supporting these amendments.
Mr Bartolucci: I don't know that it's necessary. I guess that's the problem I have with it. I don't think it's necessary, and so if the amendment isn't necessary, a friendly amendment isn't necessary as well.
1540
Mrs Boyd: That interests me, because in fact we heard many of the speakers who came before the committee saying that there needed to be mandatory programs, that programming was an essential part of this. The member from Sudbury agreed with them and indicated that he also believed that programming was necessary. Therefore, I suggest that it would strengthen the intent and the actual effectiveness of the bill to specify in (d) that "assist families and communities" means that the province is agreeing to provide programming.
The Chair: Mrs Boyd, why don't you put the amendment to the amendment that you want on the floor, and we'll deal with it.
Mrs Boyd: I don't believe it needs to be amended. I understood from his initial speech that the member from Sudbury would have supported it had it been prostitution-specific. If he felt that, I would regard that as a friendly amendment. While I could accept his amendment, since it is his bill and his concern was that it wasn't prostitution-specific, I myself think we need to have these kinds of mandatory programs for all forms of sexual abuse.
The Chair: I don't hear Mr Bartolucci making a friendly amendment, so I'm assuming that we're going to vote -- Mr Brown?
Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): I would just like to add a couple of comments. I think Mr Bartolucci's bill is issue-specific and should stand as issue-specific. I think it's fine as it stands.
The Chair: All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.
We now turn to section 1.
Mrs Boyd: I move that the definition of "protective safe house" in subsection 1(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"'place of safety' means a place of safety as defined under the Child and Family Services Act that is prescribed by regulation under this act."
Mr Bartolucci: I believe that the "protective safe house" is a key component to reaching our common goals with regard to this bill, and I would suggest that changing it to "place of safety" would require that throughout the legislation, and there would have to be some redefining. That's why in my motion, which is found on page 14, I tried to zero in more closely, "that every protective safe house is operated so as to provide each child who is confined there under this act with the protection and security that are necessary to that child and with programs that are suitable to the child's needs."
There is no question that we heard there had to be some clarification with regard to what happens at a protective safe house and what a protective safe house is in fact, that it's not a prison or a jail. We've tried to do that.
I suggest that with "a place of safety," if this Liberal motion on page 14 is adopted, we've taken care of that, so I don't see any need to remove "protective safe house" from the legislation.
Mrs Boyd: The reason for doing so is that, again, speaker after speaker came forward and said that it is by no means clear who or what would constitute this protective safe house. It was very clear, particularly if we come along to where the regulation-making power is, that it is not a regulated protective safe house; this is any place that the minister may designate under section 11. The minister may designate any place as a protective safe house.
The whole issue, for those who came in front of us, was that if we are going to take the very serious position that children who do engage in prostitution are not criminals but are victims, and that they need to be in a protective safe house, then we need to know very clearly what that means. Frankly, if we define it as it is defined under the Child and Family Services Act, if we maintain the language of "protective safe house" but at least ensure by regulation that people will know what the requirements are, that may make it possible to reassure those who, clearly when they came and spoke to us, were very worried about what it would actually mean to have any number of places designated this way without any kind of regulation around the qualifications.
I'm very pleased with the Liberal motion to amend section 11, adding the duty of the minister. I think that's very good, and I'm certainly prepared to assure the member from Sudbury that I would support that, but I think it's an added protection. We heard from many people that they wanted the added protection of ensuring that these could only be designated as they are in the Child and Family Services Act.
The Chair: All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.
Is that the end of section 1? OK. Shall section 1 of the bill carry? Section 1 is carried.
We move to section 2.
Mr Bartolucci: I think we heard from everyone, including those members who sat on the committee at different cities, that there were concerns that the child would be returned to an environment that wasn't safe. We don't ever want to put a child back with parents who cannot protect the child, and that's simply what this amendment states.
The Chair: Any comments?
Mrs Boyd: I wonder if Mr Bartolucci could read out how the section would actually read with his amendment.
Mr Bartolucci: If a judge believes there are reasonable and probable grounds --
The Chair: Could I ask you to read the entire amendment into the record.
Mr Bartolucci: I move that subclause 2(2)(b)(i) of the bill be amended by adding "if in the opinion of the judge that parent or adult is capable of providing a safe, secure environment to the child" at the end.
The subclause would read, "return the child to the child's parent or to an adult if in the opinion of the judge that parent or adult is capable of providing a safe, secure environment to the child."
Mrs Boyd: Then, as a friendly amendment to the amendment, the amendment actually should read that you move deletion after "who in the opinion of the," so after "the" you mean "judge that parent or adult is capable of providing a safe, secure environment to the child," do you not?
Mr Bartolucci: Yes.
Mrs Boyd: Thank you.
The Chair: Your amendment to the amendment is what, Mrs Boyd?
Mrs Boyd: Section 2(2)(b)(i) would then read, "return the child to the child's parent or to an adult who in the opinion of the judge that parent or adult is capable of providing a safe, secure environment to the child."
The Chair: Is that clear?
1550
Mr Klees: I have a question here. This puts a very different view on this part of the bill, totally, because you're really now substituting "judge" for "police officer" and you're into a very different process. I'd like to get clarification from Mr Bartolucci on how he sees this working practically. What happens on the street here? Do you envision that there is an additional process? Who comes before the judge after some period of time to make this representation?
Mr Bartolucci: What we're trying to do is ensure that the child doesn't go back to a place where that child is at risk. I think that's a concern we heard from a variety of people: "Return the child to the child's parent or to an adult who in the opinion of the police officer is a responsible adult and who has care and control of the child." Give me a second to think about it.
Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East): There may be a problem, because you're dealing with a warrant stage where often police officers can get it over the phone. It may be very difficult to have a judge arrive at an opinion as to who is capable or responsible to protect that child. So there is that problem. It's not a hearing; it's a warrant stage.
Mrs Boyd: What the mover of the amendment is trying to do is to meet the very clear objections that we heard again and again from people before the committee, that police officers shouldn't be in the position of determining, in the process of carrying out a warrant, whether or not it is safe to return a child to a home, particularly given the overwhelming evidence we got that many children who engage in prostitution have come out of homes, or out of places where adults are caring for them, that are not safe.
Police officers in the process of apprehending a child who is being accused of engaging in prostitution have no means of knowing if the child is prepared to give the address of the parent or adult who's in charge of them and whether or not that person is a fit parent. It's going to be impossible for a police officer to even contact the children's aid society to see whether the particular adult who's supposed to be protecting them may even be on the child abuse registry. There may be charges pending against somebody. The police officer is not the person who should make that determination. Those determinations ought to be made with due process.
I certainly agree with Mr DeFaria that this is one of the fundamental problems with this bill. At the warrant stage, you're asking a judge to give a warrant to a police officer, telling that police officer that it's his or her discretion as to whether or not that child is going to be safe at home or in the care of an adult. While we quite appropriately give a good deal of discretion to police officers in carrying out their work, I think it would be an extremely unusual thing for us to do, in an act that purports to protect children, to put that kind of burden on a police officer when we know that the police officer, at the moment of serving that warrant is not going to have the kind of expert advice and help that the police officer needs.
I think of the liability -- and I was a little surprised that there was no comment from the police personnel who appeared in front of the committee -- that would be there for a police department if a police officer made a determination that a child who that police officer had apprehended was going to be safe and then that child was further harmed, further abused or, heaven forbid, killed, as is only too likely from the discussion we had of the kind of behaviour of pimps. It becomes a really serious problem. I would have thought police departments would be saying that they did not believe that was an appropriate risk for a police department to take, that it is not the job of the police to make that kind of determination. This is the job of the children's aid society. It is not an appropriate task to give a police officer.
Mr Bartolucci: Let's not act in haste, because Mrs Boyd makes a good point here. I'm looking at the NDP motion on the next page. Is it possible to incorporate your subsection 2(2) amendment into that, Mrs Boyd?
Mrs Boyd: I believe it is.
Mr Bartolucci: Then if it's the committee's wish, I would withdraw, because of what Mr Klees said. It makes an abundant amount of sense here. We may be unknowingly entering a field we do not want to enter. In wanting to protect the child, we may be opening up another problem for the bill. So I will withdraw this Liberal motion.
The Chair: Before you do that, we have to withdraw the amendment to the amendment first. Is that your pleasure, Mrs Boyd?
Mrs Boyd: I withdraw.
The Chair: Mr Bartolucci, you withdraw your amendment?
Mr Bartolucci: Yes.
The Chair: Very well. Then we'll go to Mrs Boyd.
Mrs Boyd: I move that subsection 2(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Warrant
"(2) if a judge believes on reasonable and probable grounds that a person is a child and is in need of protection, the judge may issue a warrant,
"(a) authorizing the police officer to apprehend the child;
"(b) authorizing the police officer to deliver the child to the care of a child protection worker; and
"(c) if the judge is satisfied that the child may be found in a place or premises, authorizing the police officer to enter, by force if necessary, the place or premises to search for and apprehend the child and to deliver the child to the care of a child protection worker.
"Assessment
"(3) If a child is delivered to the care of a child protection worker under clause (2)(b) or (c), the child protection worker shall conduct a preliminary assessment to determine whether or not the child is in need of a protective safe house" -- and I'm putting in "a protective safe house" since my former amendment was not accepted -- "and may,
"(a) if it is determined that the child is in need of a protective safe house, convey the child to a protective safe house determined appropriate by the child protection worker;
"(b) if it is determined that the child is not in need of a protective safe house, return the child to the child's parent or to an adult who, in the opinion of the child protection worker, based on the assessment performed, is a responsible adult who has care and control of the child.
"Consent of child over 16
"(4) Despite clause (3)(b), a child who is 16 years of age or older shall not be returned to the child's parent or to a responsible adult unless the child consents to go. If the child refuses to consent, he or she shall be conveyed to a protective safe house determined appropriate by the child protection worker."
I wonder if it would be appropriate for me to go through just explaining what the changes are and what the effect is.
The Chair: Please do.
Mrs Boyd: Basically, under the warrant section, it removes the issue of the police officer making the determination. It means if the police officer gets a warrant to apprehend, that warrant requires the police officer to take the child before a child protection officer. And of course (c) then authorizes a judge if the child may be found in a premises where it's necessary for the police officers to exercise whatever force is necessary. It simply removes that issue of the police officer having to make the determination. The police officer gets a warrant that enables the police officer to take the child before a child protection officer.
1600
Under "assessment," if a child is delivered to a child protection officer, then that child protection worker shall conduct the preliminary assessment which will determine whether or not the child can be returned to the home or whether the child is in need of a protective safe place.
Subsection 4, which is an addition, consent over age 16, is in response to the concerns of the privacy commissioner. The privacy commissioner was very clear that it was a real problem if we were trying to have a child returned when they are over the age of consent, and that there needed to be some mechanism in this bill where you could still maintain the ability -- because we are changing the age to 18 -- to take this child to a protective safe house, which is obviously something we all think would be an important support.
But if the child were refusing to go home, as they're entitled to do as an adult, then they would, as an alternative, be taken to the protective safe house. They wouldn't be let go; they would be returned to the protective safe house and they would be kept out of danger there.
Mr Jim Brown: I respect what the member is saying, but I believe that we're adding complexities here that we don't need to add. I go back to what Mr Bartolucci said in the beginning. If we want to be effective and efficient and look after the child quickly, I don't see anything wrong with what Mr Bartolucci has in his bill.
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): That's primarily what I was going to say.
Mr Jim Brown: If I may, we can get overencumbered by bureaucracy at the expense of children. I think too often we spend more time and money on bureaucracy and avoid looking at the client or the poor kid who's got a problem. It's not a problem with the bureaucracy, it's a problem with the kid. Let's look after the kids, not the bureaucracy.
Mrs Boyd: One of the realities is that you never protect anybody if you have a law that is set up and is going to fail if it's challenged in court. One of the things I'm trying to do here is to be really helpful to the intent of the member's bill.
We heard a lot of evidence in front of the committee that if we were going to succeed in changing that age to 18 under this bill -- if it is not being changed under the Child and Family Services Act, if it's only being changed under this bill -- then you have to be sure to protect that new change, because quite frankly a court challenge would probably be successful.
If you put in the provision in subsection 4, for example, you're acknowledging the rights of the child but still very clearly stating the necessity for the community to act in this way to protect the child. That's one issue.
I also believe, and I made the argument before, that as soon as you have police officers who are not trained to determine whether or not a home is a safe place -- otherwise we wouldn't have child protection officers; the police would be doing all that work. Your bill will fail if you don't find some way to deal with this through the expertise that's necessary. A challenge might destroy all of the hopes that have been raised by this bill.
What I'm trying to do is to find a way that this could be a workable bill, that we can still move very decisively to protect children who are in need of protection because of prostitution, but that we're protecting that action from court challenge by building in the safeguards that the court is going to find necessary to ensure that the child's rights aren't being violated.
Mr Bartolucci: We're at the point in this committee where you find my weakness. I've honestly devoted my life to making things happen for kids and not getting bogged down in words. I don't know who to ask here, because I'm not a lawyer and I don't have extensive experience such as being a minister involved in this. All I want to know is, do we have to make any changes to make sure that these kids are protected?
I hope there's not a challenge to the bill, because if there is and we lose, then the bill wasn't worth it anyway. I won't agree with it, but it wasn't worth it anyway. I still think it's worth it. What I want to know is that we at least have a piece of legislation that works and that protects kids. That's all I want. When we start getting involved in legalese, I have to admit I have a weakness here. So could somebody tell me, the way it's written, this amendment or part of this amendment or all of this amendment, are we protecting kids? That's all that's important to me.
The Chair: I'm not sure who can answer that question, Mr Bartolucci.
Mr Jim Brown: I have a basic problem here. I think I have an innate sense of common sense. I do know that in my experiences with lawyers in the AG, of which you were the former minister, I honestly believe sometimes they have rubber stamps that say "Unconstitutional" and they stamp everything.
You say that it will be challenged in court. Thank goodness we have the court. Let it be challenged in court. I've heard that so many times. It would paralyze you from doing anything. Here we've got kids at risk. Who cares if the AG's department has a rubber stamp that says "Unconstitutional?" Who cares? Let the court decide whether it's constitutional or unconstitutional. I think that common sense prevails. We've got kids at risk. I agree with Mr Bartolucci: Let's get on with it.
Mrs Boyd: First of all, I always regret it when a member of provincial Parliament makes a gratuitous attack on civil servants. I think the reality is, in a post-charter age -- and we're now 15 years into this new experience for us -- of dealing with this, there are many precedents. There's case law there that tells us what is going to be challenged and what is not.
We have to have a very clear belief that it's worth taking the risk of a challenge, to go ahead with legislation when we've had a clear message that it will be challenged. We heard that from Justice for Children and Youth, which is the legal clinic that's responsible for enforcing children's rights. We know there are ways in which this bill, in its entirety, could be challenged. There's no question about that. The change of age to 18, for example, is a risky thing. We've all agreed here. We all said, and many of the people who came in front of us said, that risk is worth it to try and get that protection up to age 18. But there are other risks that we can make sure aren't there in the bill in a very easy way.
If we are asking non-experts in child protection -- and the police are not experts in child protection. That is not part of their task. Their requirement is to contact the children's aid. If a police officer is given a report of suspected child abuse, that police officer's first task, as it is for any professional, is to contact the children's aid society. A child protection officer then makes that determination and then, frankly, becomes responsible for the decisions that are made from that point on. If the child protection officer makes a determination that that child is safe to go home and that child ends up abused or dead, the child protection officer is the one who's responsible. It is not the police, who may carry this out under the warrant, but it is the child protection officer who takes that responsibility. That's the way we've set it up. It's very clear from the discussions that were held on the changes to the Child and Family Services Act that what people wanted was to ensure that there was accountability for those child protection workers, more accountability than ever before.
To be looking at a new regime under the Child and Family Services Act that makes more accountability for child protection officers, but then to say to police officers, who will be the first to tell you, "Yes, I want to rescue these kids from the streets, I want to get them out of prostitution" -- the police officer will be the first one to tell you they don't have the time or the expertise or the resources, in the short period of time they have control of that child, to make a determination of whether they're being returned to a safe house. Quite frankly, I would think that anybody acting on behalf of a police department, of police services, would say: "No, we can't take this liability on. This is not our job, and we've been explicitly told it's not our job by other legislation in the province."
When you really look at that sort of thing, all I'm trying to do is come up with some way that this could actually work to protect kids without being so wide open that it's likely to fail.
1610
Mr Klees: I have another problem that I hope someone has an explanation for; I suppose perhaps the mover of the motion will comment. It relates to the consent of the child over 16. I understand why the consent clause is here. Clearly we have the CFSA, which deals with children at different ages. My problem is that, on the one hand, we're asking for consent, requiring consent of a child over the age of 16 before being returned to the parent, but then we go on to say that if the child refuses to consent, he or she shall be "conveyed to a place of safety." That appears to me to be a conflict because if you require consent to be returned to the parent, why wouldn't you require consent to be referred to a safe house?
I think we have an underlying problem here in that a good portion of this bill, in fact most of the amendments that I'm faced with here, present the same problem, that we have a conflict with other acts, particularly the CFSA. Speaking from a community and social services perspective, it's difficult for me to agree to an amendment that is in conflict with other sections of legislation that we have in the province. What it highlights for us is the need to bring all of those pieces of legislation into conformity, and if nothing else comes out of this initiative of Mr Bartolucci, I would say that it would spur us all to address that very issue.
I'm left with a real problem. There's no doubt that I support wholeheartedly the intent of this bill. I don't believe there's anyone around the table who has a problem with it. What we're wrestling with here is the complexity of the various pieces of legislation that we have that are intertwined. We can spend a great deal of time here going through this bill and refining it. At the end of the day, however, we have a major problem because of the conflict with other pieces of legislation. I dare say that until that's dealt with, this goes nowhere. We know that from a practical perspective.
I don't want it to be interpreted that if I vote against this amendment or other amendments as we go through the next hour or so, it reflects on what I want as an intention for youth of Ontario. We as a committee are tied by other pieces of legislation as to how we deal with this.
Mr Preston: If the child refuses to consent, he or she should be conveyed to "a place of safety determined appropriate by the child protection worker." Who's going to say the kid wants to go with a child protection worker? Absolutely nothing and there's nothing to compel them, so now we're back at the police department, I believe -- I would hope.
Mrs Boyd: You're quite right, that's where the problem comes in. That's what I say, that the age of 18, which we all agree would be a good thing here, is always going to be challengable because of those others acts -- exactly what Mr Klees suggested. If we are to decide that it is worth risking a challenge because we think it should be 18, then you try and protect yourself one way or the other. They're being compelled. There's no nice way to say this. Several of the people who came in front of us said, "You're saying you're decriminalizing child prostitution for the child prostitute, but in fact you're going to confine them in a protective safe house against their will." That's just the way it is, and that is the intent of this act. Let's be really clear.
If there is a parent available and the child is willing to go, if they're over age 16, or even if they're unwilling to go, if they're not, then the bill provides that you can take them to the parent, provided the parent is able to protect them. That's the dicey part of this legislation. It's very easy to say simplistically, "Hey, this is a bad, serious problem and we want to protect these kids, so let's just go out and scoop them and put them in protective safe houses." We all recognize that there are some real problems with that.
I would echo what Mr Klees says. I have said all along that this bill ought not to be passed by this committee. Our recommendation to the Legislature should be that the very good work that this member has done, and it is wonderful work and it has opened the discussion to this whole issue in a way that hasn't happened before, and that's been very valuable, but the recommendation should be to the Ministry of Community and Social Services, "How can you protect these children under the existing act? Will you consider the increase of age that's necessary in order to protect a large proportion of these young people?" and do it that way.
That's why you will see that I will vote consistently against every single section because, although I absolutely agree with the member, the reality is that this bill, as Mr Klees pointed out, can get passed with or without amendments by this committee but it will never see the light of day again because it conflicts with so much other legislation. We may leave here thinking that we've done something good, but we will have done nothing for those young people who are out there and who, in my very strong belief, are in need of protection.
Mr Preston: I have a terrible problem with these ages. A kid 12 years old can decide on medical help, taking medicine to keep them from being raging maniacs. They can decide not to because they are of an age where they can make their own decisions. Then we come along and say a person 16 years of age, or now we're going to make it 18 years of age, is still a child because they're not making the proper decisions. Where is the line? Where's the line? A kid 12 years old can axe-murder three people, then refuse to take treatment at the psychiatric hospital and walk out the damn door. The judge and jury or whatever can say he's crazy, he needs treatment. He can walk in the door, say, "I don't like this," and walk out again.
I'm faced with it -- not now that I'm here, but I used to be faced with it daily. Now I'm faced with it Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays, kids who just refuse to take medicines that actually keep them sane. Without it, they're -- whatever they are. Where's the line where you say, "OK, you're an adult, you make your own decisions," or, "You're still a child, we'll take care of you"? There's got to be one age, 13, 14, 15 or something. You can't have a disparity like 12 to 18, where if you're 18 years old or a day shy of 18 we've got to take care of you because you're a child who doesn't know what you're doing, but if you're over 12 you can make all your own decisions.
You're right about other legislation. I think this is some of the legislation that has to be checked here, has to be checked federally and some kind of line met where we decide that today you're a child, tomorrow you're not.
1620
Mr Bartolucci: There's no question that we're all fighting over -- not fighting, because we're not. We're all concerned about the age. I'm a firm believer, having worked with kids for a long time, that 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds should be included. There's no doubt in my mind that they should be included. If the Child and Family Services Act was up to 18, then this --
Interjection: Wouldn't be necessary.
Mr Bartolucci: -- stuff would stand on its own because it would be in harmony with other legislation. If we could form a premise here, the premise should be -- and I'm trying to find a middle ground where we can move on and try to get all of our goals, because I think they're all the same. If we go on the premise that at some point in time the Child and Family Services Act is going to be increased to include 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds, then this legislation is good. If no one ever takes the lead to get there, we will never get there.
We all have concerns about age. I'm a firm believer -- when we were drafting this legislation, I talked to Mallory. Mallory was 17 when I spoke to her and she was a victim. There's no other way of putting it. She was a victim of non-action on the part of a whole lot of people in society, not only the children's aid society -- I don't ever want to say that -- but a number of people.
That's why I'm convinced that 16- and 17-year-olds should be included in here. If we're going out on a limb and we're taking a chance at this point in time that may not stand a court challenge, but if at some point in time the Child and Family Services Act does include 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds, and there is no problem, should we not take the bold step and include them and hope the rest of the legislation that is not appropriate in age be made appropriate in age? I'm trying to find out where there's a common ground, because we could be debating this forever and then nothing happens.
Mrs Boyd: I share the frustration that both the other members have been expressing. I know that this very difficult issue around consent is one that plagues every level of government all the time and certainly anybody who is trying to care for children. It is one of those ethical issues that we have to talk about. There are some people who don't believe there should be any special protection for children and others of us who believe those protections should be extended. I think probably all of us in this room have some real concern where it's protective of and it's not protective of kids. That's a really serious issue that's been raised.
The reality is that the only way we've had to deal with children who are engaged in prostitution is by criminalizing the behaviour. What the member is trying to do is decriminalize this behaviour but ensure that there's still some intervention to try and help these young people leave a lifestyle that's pretty destructive for them and certainly anti-social in any kind of sense we might have.
We can throw up our hands and say we won't pass the bill, or say we pass the bill knowing that it's going to be confined to the netherworld forever because it's unworkable, or we can try and work to change the bill to make it at least something that we can all defend and believe is a statement around the need to expand that protection for children.
Mr Preston: How would you feel, Rick, if this whole thing was scrapped with a view to a subcommittee visiting all the problems and another one with all the problems visited?
Mr Bartolucci: Peter, I wouldn't be too happy and let me tell you why. There is absolutely no question that at the very beginning we had a road to choose. It could have been the road to making an amendment to the Child and Family Services Act, not knowing what the government's intention is with that act, or to be very issue-specific. I chose at that time to be issue-specific. Did I know that somewhere along the line there was going to be a conflict, that the road was going to meet and there might be a collision? I assumed that at some point along the line this would come up. I hoped that down the road it might resolve itself with the change of age in the Child and Family Services Act.
I don't know that we want to scrap this. I think this is --
Mr Preston: Well, "scrap" means -- you know what I'm saying.
Mr Bartolucci: I know what you're saying. I think this may be a fruitful exercise to go through, and if at the end of the day, when we're all finished with this and this act has gone through the clause-by-clause and we have an act here that is in harmony with a revised Child and Family Services Act, then at that point in time we might want to say there is no need for two; they can be rolled into one. I would suggest that at that point in time we do that or we meet to discuss that.
I've said many times in Hansard that I don't care where this ends up and I don't care who takes credit for it. I don't care where it finally happens, as long as it happens. What I'm suggesting is that we go through this and, if it's bold, take a chance with the court challenge. It may resolve itself anyway at the end of the day with amendments to the Child and Family Services Act and at the end of the day it may come together anyway. What we've had is an exercise where -- I'm reading a motion that I just got from the government that I like. I think it should be included somewhere in this. I wouldn't want to scrap it at this point in time. We may have to join them some along the way, as Ms Boyd said, and if that's the case, as long as when we're finished kids are better protected than they are now, then you what know? We're all winners, especially the kids.
Mr Preston: You're right, absolutely. I really didn't mean "scrap."
Mr Bartolucci: I know what you're saying.
Mr Preston: On the back burner until some kind of a committee can pull all these loose ends together. That was just a suggestion off the top of my head.
Mr Jim Brown: Mr Preston, it seems like the three and a half years that I've been here is more like 20. I know how if things don't get going --
Mr Preston: Oh, I know.
Mr Jim Brown: I agree with Mr Bartolucci. I've always viewed this as a single issue, not necessarily tied to the CFSA. I believe Mr Bartolucci looked at other jurisdictions in compiling this bill. I did too. For example, Bill 1 in Alberta got passed. I think that you have looked at that very carefully and in many respects you've brought that to Ontario. That bill received royal assent, as a matter of fact.
I share your concern. There are lots of kids of out there that we've got to protect, and we've got to do it now. I think we've got to worry about our children.
Mrs Boyd: I'm curious. If indeed this bill, in whatever form it finally takes, passes, are we hearing that the government is guaranteeing to bring it forward for third reading?
Mr Jim Brown: I beg your pardon?
Mrs Boyd: Are we guaranteeing that if this committee passes this bill with whatever changes and whatever amendments, the government is going to bring this forward for third reading?
Mr Jim Brown: I don't think anybody on this panel is a House leader or has any clout over what the House leaders do. I urge you in you capacity to urge your House leader to try and bring it forward.
Mrs Boyd: Depending on the form it takes, that may or may not be possible. As I indicated, I don't believe this bill will stand and I don't believe a minister of the crown will allow this bill to be brought forward, given the inherent conflicts it has. It's my belief that we need to be very responsible here. The member is suggesting that we should go ahead so that this can get into place and we can start protecting kids. The reality is that even if this committee passes this bill, because of the inherent contradictions in it, it isn't going to be put into effect. Mr Klees talked about how serious those conflicts are.
I guess my question is similar to yours, Mr Preston. Should we be adjourning this committee at this point and seeing if there is some way to bring these things out of the conflictual position they're in? I hear Mr Bartolucci, as mover of the bill, saying no, he doesn't wish to do that. I always worry about raising people's expectations at this stage of something if indeed we've got a pretty clear indication that the government won't bring it forward for third reading, and with very good reason. I support that decision -- with great regret, but I do support it. I think the inherent contradictions are so great that it can't go forward.
I'm not sure that it helps anybody, and certainly not those young people out there on the street, if we pass this bill and the news is that we're going to protect young people engaged in prostitution when that is not going to be the result.
1630
Mr Jim Brown: I'd like to suggest that the Alberta Legislature treated this as a single-issue item and it received royal assent. I'm not indicating to you if it fits into the legislative calendar or not -- who knows? -- but I do indicate to you that there is precedent for a bill that's almost identical to Mr Bartolucci's going the full distance. I think it's very admirable of Mr Bartolucci to bring it forward.
Mrs Boyd: I agree that it is very admirable of Mr Bartolucci to bring it forward. I think all of us agree with that. The discussion that we've had has really got a lot of people thinking about the need to be more protective of these young people. I don't think there's any question about that. He's very much to be congratulated about that.
There is a difference. This is a private member's bill; this is not a government bill. The bill in Alberta was a government bill, and the government, understanding that it was going to cost some money to make that bill work, made it a government bill.
We've got a real problem here. Basically, this should have been declared out of order, but we're all glad that it was here. Just leaving it at that, we know there is money involved in making this bill work. There always is. Protective safe houses are going to cost money. We all know that and I think all of us around this table are committed to that as being worthwhile.
The second thing is that we have to remember Bill 1 in Alberta has not yet been put into effect. Yes, it has been given royal assent, but the actual enforcement of that law, we heard here, has been delayed until January 1, 1999, so we don't know how it will it work. It was delayed because of the complexity of trying to make it work.
While I quite see that you would like to see this bill there somewhere on the books, the reality is that there are really very serious problems with it. It is not a government bill. When you have a government bill, sometimes they don't come forward for third reading, but for sure if you have a private member's bill, there is even less chance that it's going to come forward for third reading if there are really serious problems with it.
Mr Klees: I think we as a committee have a responsibility to Mr Bartolucci's bill to ensure that it's dealt with adequately and receives thorough consideration. I think we also have a responsibility to deal practically with matters before this committee and understanding what the hurdles are that would keep it perhaps from going to that third reading. That is in no way an indictment of the intent of this committee or how we all feel about what should happen around this protection issue.
What I also want to do is make sure that we give respect to the time that the witnesses to this committee put into their presentations. A great deal of thought, a great deal of effort went into those submissions to this committee, all of which are very helpful to the committee and will be very helpful to the government as we move forward on this.
I appreciate Mr Brown's position, never having been hamstrung by the legislative process or whatever has been done before, and I think everyone understands that. What we want to do here is to say, how do we move from this stage forward? Whether we spend another two hours or three hours or four hours discussing these various amendments, the reality is it's not going to change where this goes. I don't want Mr Bartolucci to be shortchanged either from the standpoint of being recognized for, first of all, his diligence in preparing this bill and his courage for bringing it forward. We should be sure that Mr Bartolucci gets every consideration and all of the respect for having done this.
I'd hate to have this bill end up somewhere on a shelf without impacting what happens in the future. But I don't think Mr Bartolucci is concerned for bringing this bill through all of the steps and perhaps the agonizing number of hours that it would take all of us here to deal with the sundry amendments that we have.
My recommendation is not to scrap the bill but for us to recognize the good work that has been done and go forward to the Legislature with a strong recommendation, hopefully a unanimous recommendation, from this committee that this issue be dealt with by the ministries that this bill affects and this issue affects, in a co-operative way, and to urge the government, perhaps under the leadership of Mr Brown, in co-operation with Mr Bartolucci, to bring something forward that we can then consider in the context of all the other legislation that's in place. That would be my recommendation and I think any amount of time that members of this committee would spend would be much better focused in the next step rather than in the process that we're involved in here.
Mr Jim Brown: Very well said, Frank. You're so much more eloquent than I. I don't think I would want to waste the time of the Legislature in debating and in voting to pass at second reading and to put it into committee. I cherish the comments; I welcomed the comments. There were very valid and terrific comments by all of the people who made deputations. We travelled around Ontario. We spent a fair bit of taxpayers' money. The input was excellent and well worth the expenditure of time and money. To say that now we would adjourn and not go forward with this, I think that's awful. We have heard from many interested parties. They've taken great pains and time and trouble to make their deputations. We've got children at risk and we must push on.
You made a suggestion it was a money bill. I don't think Mr Bartolucci really thought this was a money bill, I don't think the Legislature thought this was a money bill and I don't think it's a money bill. So when you say it's a money bill, let's rule out it of order, I think only you would want to spend money on this.
The Acting Chair: I just would like to remind members of the committee that we are dealing with Mrs Boyd's motion to amend subsection 2(2).
Mr Preston: None of the aforementioned deputations, work we've done, question we've asked -- especially the work done by Mr Bartolucci -- none of that is wasted. That's all here, that's all done, there's no question about that; valuable deputations, no question.
What we're saying is that we're going to go through this exercise and it's going to come to naught, especially everything that's been brought forward. I used an unfortunate terms in saying "scrap." Let's say we'll make an end run around the problem by saying: "All right, let's put this down for a minute. Let's go out and get the problems that are out there brought to bear." Then Mr Bartolucci can bring his bill back or the government can bring a bill back or, as Rick says, it doesn't matter who the heck brings the bill back, as long as we protect kids. In its present form, this won't protect one child, because it's not going to see the light of day.
That's not because it's a bad government; it's because we've got lawyers who say it is a money bill, because we're going to have to spend money trying to enforce this and then spend money trying to protect it in court. But if we take a step back and start to see the forest without the trees in the way, maybe we can take a little diversion and do, not to denigrate your work, but do it right, do it in a form that will get put out on the street and worked on. That was my suggestion when I used the unfortunate term "scrapped." Let's say "a detour" here.
Mrs Boyd: It's very difficult to bring forward a private member's bill that doesn't entail the expenditure of dollars. There's no question about that. If we were, for example, just to look at the cost of setting up protective safe houses, we know, because we know the numbers that people were talking about in the deputations, that in order to have those facilities available that costs money. It costs money to go before a judge and get a warrant. It costs money for a police officer to serve that warrant. We all know that. When I say it shouldn't have come forward, I think the government was extremely generous in not saying it was out of order, but really showing good faith in terms of their concern about this issue in saying it should come forward for discussion.
If we were, for example, to add the costs that are entailed in the government motion around the seizure of vehicles and that sort of thing, which met with very good response from the people who came for deputations, that costs money. I know, because we actually priced what the storage costs would be for seizing vehicles, and it's quite an extensive cost. There's no question about that. Is it worth it? I think there are lots of people who think it is worth it. But there is cost. So let's not quibble about whether it costs governments money to do good things. It does, and that's a reality.
I'm quite prepared, from our party's point of view, to go through all these amendments and discuss them, and either pass them or not pass them, pass the bill or not pass the bill, if anybody thinks that's going to actually add to the debate and add to the protection of children. I don't have any problem with that. We're not time-allocated here, so we have time to thoroughly discuss some of the issues that have arisen. If that would further the debate, I'm delighted to go ahead with that. My suggestion wasn't to try and close down debate; it was to try and find some way that we can move forward in a constructive way.
Mr Preston: We all agree; it's not just your point.
Mr Jim Brown: To my colleague from London, I certainly hope you're not just trying to torpedo everything that we've done up to now, because I think what we've done up to now has been excellent work. You seem to say that we should scrap it and adjourn.
Mr Preston: That was my comment.
Mr Jim Brown: There was a little bit of prompting before Mr Preston said it.
Madam Chair, I'd just like to, if I could, ask if we could have a five-minute recess.
The Chair: I think a five-minute recess sounds in order, given the fact that we've spent a great deal of time on this motion, so I'm inclined to grant it. Five minutes.
The committee recessed from 1644 to 1649.
The Chair: Mr Preston.
Mr Preston: Rather than have this bill voted down or withdrawn or whatever, I think you've had an excellent suggestion. Everybody withdraws their amendments, we pass the bill and put it through. That, in your opinion, would be akin to stopping it now and working on it, roughly?
Mrs Boyd: I can't vote for it, but if that's what you decide to do.
Mr Preston: Would you withdraw all of your amendments?
Mrs Boyd: No.
Mr Preston: I just thought the faster we got it settled, the faster we could set up some kind of mechanism for working on --
The Chair: Mr Preston, Mrs Boyd has indicated she won't withdraw her amendments. Of course, it doesn't stop you from not discussing her amendments.
Mr Bartolucci: Just a couple of things: The last thing I want to do is withdraw this. I have to be perfectly honest with you, because I think we firmly believe that we're accomplishing some good here. I'm a minority. At the end of the day, if it's voted to be withdrawn, it's withdrawn. I'll respect the decision of the committee.
I believe that this bill will help with future legislation, as is. I believe that. If I didn't believe it, I would say let's stop the process, let's scrap it right now, let's go home and let's make a lot wiser use of our time.
This isn't a money bill. I want that to be set clearly in the record. If in fact this is a money bill, there has to be somewhere in the act where we're suggesting the imposition of taxes or the imposition of costs. Will there be costs associated with it? Yes, but I believe that's proper and fitting in a private member's bill. It's not a money bill. Is the conflict so profound that this bill is of no value at the end of the day because it conflicts with the Child and Family Services Act? No. I believe it can be the lead for the Child and Family Services Act amendments. I would suggest, because of that, it's a good piece of legislation.
Finally, whether or not it comes to the government, no matter how perfect this could be, it will never ever be the duty of the opposition to be able to call a bill for third reading. That's clearly and solely at the discretion of the government. That's one of the roles of government, deciding what type of legislation is going to go forward.
For all of those reasons, I believe that this bill is well positioned, well intentioned and I would hope that it has -- I was clear on this before I came in today -- an influence on other legislation. If it means that it speeds up or alters the process or in fact enhances the process, all of which are good, let's do it.
I'm prepared to withdraw my amendments to this to speed up the process, because I believe they're defined somewhere in this anyway. I'll take some of the Liberal amendments out; there are not many. I'll take them all out, in fact. But that doesn't mean the bill is being weakened. I simply think that the bill gets to the stage where we may want to be at the end of the road we're going down anyway. Will it come in the next day, in two days, two months, two weeks or who knows? Nobody can answer that except the government.
But I do know something: If we shelve it and scrap it -- not scrap it; let's not use that -- if we decide to put it to the side, I believe we take a bit of the focus off. I don't think anybody's intention is to do that. I'm willing to withdraw my amendments, but I've got to be honest. I like the government's amendment because that's something else that we've heard so much of. I guess we're caught in a bit of a quandary here. A way of solving the problem would be to scrap the amendments and let it go and let it act as an influencing legislation piece, but I don't know that that's going to happen. Anyway, that's my intention.
I'm not in favour of scrapping it. I have to be honest. I'm not in favour of shelving it and not having the dialogue or suggesting that this is not a good piece of legislation. Are there problems? Yes. Will there be the opportunity to solve the problems at the end of the day? Possibly. We speak in unknowns, but this is what legislation is all about anyway.
The Chair: Just as a matter of procedure here, we only have one amendment on the floor at the moment. That's Mrs Boyd's amendment to subsections 2(2), (3) and (4). There is nothing to withdraw except that one amendment. If members want to not move those amendments, that's perfectly in order. If members want to read in their amendments on the record and then withdraw them, that's also perfectly in order. But there is only one amendment on the floor right now that we need to deal with. Before I get to that amendment -- and I'd like you to stick to that amendment first, if you don't mind. I'd like to dispose of that, then move on. Prior to the break, we had two people who hadn't spoken. I'm going to give them a chance to speak to that amendment now if they still want it, and then we'll proceed with the regular course. Mr Brown, did you want to speak to the amendment?
Mr Jim Brown: Not in the specificity that you just laid on me.
The Chair: That's fine. Then we'll move on to Mr Klees. Do you wish to speak to the amendment?
Mr Klees: Sure, I'll speak to the amendment.
The Chair: To the amendment, Mr Klees. Thank you.
Mr Klees: Actually I'm prepared to support this amendment, because it captures some elements that were missed in the original drafting. I favour the wording of this amendment, and if I could go beyond that, although it's still related, my suggestion would be that we pass this amendment, that we not deal with the others, that we send the bill on to the House and send a very strong signal that this committee feels very strongly about this issue, with one other exception that Mr Bartolucci indicated that he likes the government amendment, and so we may, as one other act, pass the government amendment to add that very important aspect to it, because you're right, I think all of the people who came who were asked to comment on that thought that would be an important deterrent. That's my recommendation, and I think that could get us out of here within the next 15 minutes if we did that.
The Chair: Of course none of us is really looking at the clock, because we're so focused on the task ahead. I want to remind members that we're talking about this amendment and we need to dispose of this amendment first before we move on.
Mrs Boyd: I certainly hope this amendment is passed. I will certainly make a commitment not to speak to my amendments, but I want them read into the record. But I would make a commitment not to speak to my further amendments if that would make things move more smoothly. I do believe we should read them into the record, we should have a vote on them and then the bill has integrity when it goes forward, if that's what the government is planning to do.
The Chair: Any further discussion on this amendment? All in favour of the amendment? Against? The amendment is carried.
There's one other item of business with respect to this section. Shall section 2, as amended, carry? All in favour of that motion? Opposed? Carried.
We can proceed to section 3 or you can continue debate on what to do procedurally with respect to the remainder of the act.
There are no amendments to section 3. Shall section 3 carry? All in favour? Opposed? The section is carried.
Section 4: We have the government amendment. That's what it says on my list. Has it been changed? All right. Section 4.1 is not there. Very well.
Mrs Boyd: I move that subsection 4(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "convey a person to a protective safe house" in the second and third lines and substituting "deliver a person to the care of a child protection worker."
The Chair: Any discussion? All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.
Mrs Boyd: I move that subsection 4(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "premises and search for and apprehend the child" in the sixth and seventh lines and substituting "premises, search for and apprehend the child and deliver the child to the care of a child protection worker for the purpose of assessing whether or not the child is in need of a protective safe place."
1700
The Chair: Discussion? All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.
Shall section 4 carry?
Mrs Boyd: A recorded vote.
Ayes
Bartolucci, Jim Brown, DeFaria, Galt, Klees.
Nays
Boyd.
The Chair: Section 5.
Mrs Boyd: You had said that this was the appropriate place. I move that section 5 be deleted.
The Chair: You have actually two; the first is not an amendment at all, what you have there.
Mrs Boyd: You told me now that I should move that it be deleted.
The Chair: Very well. Mrs Boyd, your amendment is not in order, because the only choice we have as a committee is to vote for or against or amend an amendment but not to delete an entire section.
Shall section 5 carry?
Mrs Boyd: A recorded vote, please.
The Chair: Do you have two amendments to section 5, Mrs Boyd, or just the one?
Mrs Boyd: I'm withdrawing the second one.
The Chair: She's withdrawing the second one.
Mrs Boyd: Well, it's not being moved.
The Chair: Very well.
Ayes
Bartolucci, Jim Brown, DeFaria, Galt, Klees.
Nays
Boyd.
The Chair: Section 6.
Mrs Boyd: I move that section 6 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Confinement in place of safety
"6(1) If a child apprehended under section 2, 3, or 4 has been conveyed to a protective safe house," -- well, I'll just go ahead with "place of safety," I think, since that other was not accepted -- "the child protection worker who performed the assessment to determine whether the child was in need of a place of safety may confine the child in that place for a period of up to five days and at or before the end of that time period shall,
"(a) return the child to the custody of the child's parent or to an adult who in the opinion of the child protection worker is a responsible adult who has care and control of the child;
"(b) release the child if in the opinion of the child protection worker the child is capable of providing for the child's own needs and safety; or
"(c) apply to the court for an order in accordance with subsection (3).
"Consent of child 16 or older
"(2) Despite subsection (1), a child protection worker shall not return a child who is 16 years of age or older to the custody of the child's parent or to a responsible adult unless the child consents. If the child refuses to give his or her consent, the child protection worker shall act under clause (1)(b) or (c).
"Show cause hearing
"(3) If a child is apprehended without a warrant under section 4 and confined in a place of safety under subsection (1), the child protection worker who has performed the assessment as to whether the child is in need of a place of safety shall appear before the court within five days of the commencement of the confinement to show cause why the confinement was necessary.
"Application for an order
"(4) If a child is confined in a place of safety under subsection (1) and the child protection worker has determined not to act under clause (1)(a) or (b), the child protection worker shall, within five days of the commencement of the confinement apply to a judge for a supervision order, a society wardship order, a crown wardship order or consecutive order of society wardship and supervision under section 57 of the Child and Family Services Act.
"Consent of child 16 or older
"(5) An order shall not be made under subsection (4) with respect to a child who is 16 years of age or older unless the child consents to the order.
"Application of Child and Family Services Act
"(6) Sections 47 to 70 of the Child and Family Services Act apply with necessary modifications to an application for an order made under subsection (4) as if it were an application to determine whether the child is in need of protection under section 47 of the Child and Family Services Act.
"Continued confinement
"(7) Where an application is made under subsection (4), a court may, on application of the child protection worker, order that the confinement of the child in the place of safety be extended until the application is finally determined if there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe that confinement in a place of safety is the least restrictive means of protecting the child."
The Chair: Any discussion? All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.
All in favour of section 6?
Mrs Boyd: A recorded vote.
Ayes
Bartolucci, Jim Brown, Galt, Klees, Preston.
Nays
Boyd.
The Chair: The section is carried.
Section 7.
Mrs Boyd: I move that section 7 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Child protection worker's duties
"7. If a child is apprehended and conveyed to a place of safety under this act, the child protection worker who performed the assessment under subsection 2(3) shall have exclusive custody of the child and be responsible for the child's care, maintenance and well-being while the child is confined in the place of safety."
The Chair: Discussion? All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.
All in favour of section 7?
Mrs Boyd: A recorded vote.
Ayes
Bartolucci, Jim Brown, Galt, Klees, Preston.
Nays
Boyd.
The Chair: The section is carried.
Section 8.
Mrs Boyd: I move that subsection 8(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Notice to parents
"8(1) Subject to subsection (1.1), the child protection worker who performs the assessment to determine whether a child is in need of a place of safety shall immediately give notice that the child has been apprehended to the child's parents and inform the parents of the child protection worker's intention, where applicable, to confine the child in a place of safety in accordance with subsection 6(1) and to apply for an order in accordance with subsection 6(3).
"Exception
"(1.1) A child protection worker shall not give notice under subsection (1) if,
"(a) in the opinion of the child protection worker, it is not in the best interests of the child to do so; or
"(b) the child is 16 years of age or older and has not consented to notice being given to his or her parents, unless the child protection worker believes on reasonable grounds that giving notice to the parents is necessary to protect the health and safety of the child."
The Chair: Discussion? All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.
Shall section 8 carry?
Mrs Boyd: A recorded vote.
Ayes
Bartolucci, Jim Brown, Galt, Klees, Preston.
Nays
Boyd.
The Chair: The section is carried.
Section 9. Any discussion? Shall section 9 carry?
Mrs Boyd: A recorded vote.
Ayes
Bartolucci, Jim Brown, Galt, Klees, Preston.
Nays
Boyd.
The Chair: The section is carried.
Section 10.
Mr Bartolucci: I move that section 10 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Programs
"10. The minister shall establish such programs as are necessary to assist children in ending their involvement in prostitution."
The Chair: Any discussion? All in favour of the amendment?
Mrs Boyd: A recorded vote.
Ayes
Bartolucci, Boyd, DeFaria, Galt, Preston.
Nays
Jim Brown, Klees.
The Chair: The amendment is carried. Mrs Boyd?
Mrs Boyd: It's the same motion.
The Chair: Very well. Shall section 10, as amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed? The section, as amended, is carried.
Section 11.
1710
Mr Bartolucci: I move that section 11 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Duty of minister
"(2) The minister shall ensure that every protective safe house is operated so as to provide each child who is confined there under this act with the protection and security that are necessary to that child and with programs that are suitable to the child's needs."
The Chair: Discussion? All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? We're going to do this again, because it wasn't clear to me how people were voting.
Mr Klees: Which amendment are you calling?
The Chair: That's helpful. If that's causing some difficulty for people, we're on section 11 and it's the Liberal amendment on page 14. If we could all go to that page.
Mr Jim Brown: Is there discussion on this?
The Chair: There can be discussion. I had called for the vote, but if it's the will of the committee that we go to discussion, we could do that. Any objections?
Mr Jim Brown: Now we're talking money, and that may be outside the scope of a private member's bill. For that reason, this motion might not be acceptable.
Mr Preston: I'd like to know what a protective safe house is.
Mr Bartolucci: We would be defining that here. It's anywhere where a child can go to ensure that (1) he or she is protected, and (2) is given proper programming. Is it a jail? No. Is it Elizabeth Fry Society? No. Could it be a children's aid foster home? Yes. Could it be a John Howard Society home? Yes. It is anywhere where the child is in a safe environment with the necessary programs.
Mr Preston: Is it likely to be the ones in effect at the present time?
Mr Bartolucci: Could be, yes.
Mr Preston: Like, if it was boys, it would be My House.
Mr Bartolucci: Yes.
Mr Preston: Those programs are in effect already.
Mr Bartolucci: That's right. We're enshrining this.
Mr Preston: They don't have to be enshrined. They're already in effect.
Mr Bartolucci: Not in this act. The only reason we're doing this, Peter, is -- that was my initial reaction. That's why I worded it the way we worded it in the act, because, by and large, protective safe houses already exist.
Mr Preston: Yes.
Mr Bartolucci: But there was a concern out there that it be defined a little more specifically with regard to programming. That's what we're trying to do here. That's all.
Mr Preston: I have a concern that they will consider things other than the normal programming that is done for a child who is in protective custody.
Mr DeFaria: While I agree with the content of Mr Bartolucci's intentions, I have a real problem with this bill, as Mrs Boyd has indicated. I think we are talking about protective safe houses which already exist. We are talking about a definition of "child in need of protection," which is already in the Child and Family Services Act. Anybody under this act, or anyone under 16 who would be, for example, involved in prostitution, would be under the definition of "child in need of protection" under the Child and Family Services Act anyway.
Actually, Mr Bartolucci could achieve what he wants in a couple of sections. One would allow a judge to issue a warrant to arrest anyone aiding and abetting a person under 18 into prostitution and providing for jail sentences of up to six months. I don't think under the summary offences act you can go any further than six months, and we have 24 months here. You could have fines of up to $25,000. A second would allow a judge to issue a warrant to return children under 16 to protective safe houses, or to their families if that would be determined by a protection worker; and, under the warrant, provide an order restricting such child, if that child is under 18, from being in the place where the person is found committing prostitution. So you would have an order where the warrant would prevent that person under 18 being in a place where he or she is found committing prostitution.
The Chair: Mr DeFaria, I'm not sure where we are here. Are you referring to other sections of this bill? Are you giving us additional amendments? Would you clarify that, please?
Mr DeFaria: No, I'm just mentioning to Mr Bartolucci that with those two provisions you do exactly what you want and everything else would be under the Child and Family Services Act. We are going through a lot of amendments and we may have to vote them down because it requires -- for example, this one indicates "the minister shall," which includes an order to spend money. We may have to vote them down when we are actually in support of your intention here. That's just a comment that I have.
The Chair: Thank you for your comments. Any further discussion? All in favour of this amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.
Mrs Boyd: I'd like a ruling, Madam Chair, because we now have -- oh, I guess we defeated the amendment, didn't we?
The Chair: We defeated the amendment.
Mrs Boyd: I move that section 11 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Prohibition, identifying child
"11. Except as may be necessary for the administration of this act, no person shall publish or make public information that has the effect of identifying,
"(a) a child who is apprehended under this act;
"(b) a child who is the subject of a warrant made under section 2 or 3; or
"(c) the parent, foster parent or member of the family of a child referred to in clause (a) or (b)."
This was a recommendation from the privacy commissioner.
The Chair: Discussion? All in favour of this amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.
All in favour of section 11?
Mr Bartolucci: As amended.
The Chair: No, there's no amendment. Sorry, Mr Bartolucci. Good try, though.
Shall section 11 carry? Opposed? The section carries.
Section 12.
Mrs Boyd: I move that section 12 of the act be struck out and the following substituted:
"Regulations
"12. The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations,
"(a) respecting assessments to determine whether a child is in need of a place of safety conducted under this act;
"(b) prescribing places of safety as defined under the Child and Family Services Act as places of safety under this act;
"(c) respecting the programs established under section 10 of this act;
"(d) respecting the rules to be followed in any proceeding under this act; and
"(e) respecting the forms, including notices to be used in any application made to the court under this act."
The Chair: Discussion? All in favour of this amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.
Shall section 12 carry? All in favour? Opposed? Section 12 carries.
Section 13.
Mrs Boyd: I move that section 13 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Same
"(2) any person who contravenes section 11 of this act" -- it's out of order, Madam Speaker, because we didn't pass the previous amendment.
1720
The Chair: Thank you very much for pointing that out.
Shall section 13 carry? All in favour?
Mr Jim Brown: What about subsection --
The Chair: We're getting to that. That's a new section, though.
Mr Jim Brown: No, it's subsection (1) of 13.
The Chair: No. My understanding was that it was going to be 13.1 and it was a new section. We're going to get that clarified.
Shall section 13 carry? All in favour? Opposed? Section 13 carries.
We'll move now to section 14 and go over to you, Mr Brown, for section 14.1, a new section.
Section 14, any discussion?
Mrs Boyd: I have to argue against this because the Child and Family Services Act should take precedence over this act. I think making this act take precedence over the Child and Family Services Act is a really serious error.
Mr Jim Brown: I believe this is such an important new addition to the legislative set of tools to fight against adults taking advantage of our kids that I think this should take precedence, just as Mr Bartolucci has suggested in his bill. I think it is that important. It's very, very important that it take precedence over the Child and Family Services Act.
The Chair: Further discussion and comments? All in favour of section 14? Opposed? Section 14 carries.
Section 14.1.
Mr Jim Brown: This is a lot to read. I have to read it all, right?
The Chair: We're quite willing and eager to listen to every word.
Mr Jim Brown: Every inflection.
The Chair: The inflections don't show up on the record but the text is important.
Mr Jim Brown: I move that the following new section 14.1 be added to the bill to amend the Highway Traffic Act by creating a new section:
"(1) In this section, 'designated person' means a person designated by the Attorney General for the purpose of this section.
"(2) The Attorney General may appoint a person or designate a department or branch of the government as a garage keeper for the purpose of this section.
"Seizure of vehicle used in committing certain offences
"(3) A peace officer who on reasonable grounds believes that a motor vehicle is being operated in the course of committing an offence under any of the following provisions of the Criminal Code (Canada) shall seize the vehicle and take it into custody of the law:
"(a) section 211 (transporting person to bawdy house);
"(b) section 212 (procuring);
"(c) section 213 (offence in relation to prostitution).
"Release of seized vehicles and personal property in seized vehicles
"(4) Any personal property present in a motor vehicle that is seized under this section, other than personal property attached to or used in connection with the operation of the vehicle, shall be released to the owner of the personal property upon request, unless it is required as evidence in a prosecution or in connection with an investigation of an offence under this act, in which case subsections (2) and (3) (peace officers may apply for an order to extend detention) apply, with necessary modifications.
"No release or removal of vehicle except as authorized
"(5) No person shall remove or release, or permit the removal or release of a seized motor vehicle from the place of storage except as authorized under this section.
"Temporary release of seized vehicle by peace officer
"(6) Despite subsection (3), a peace officer who seizes a motor vehicle under this section but is satisfied that taking it into the custody of the law would jeopardize the safety of, or cause undue hardship to, any person, may delay taking custody of the vehicle and may permit it to be driven to a location specified by the officer, where any peace officer may take custody of it.
"Seizure of released vehicle at other location
"(7) Where under subsection (6) a peace officer permits a seized motor vehicle to be driven to a location and the vehicle is not taken into custody at that location, a peace officer may apply to a justice for an order to take the vehicle into the custody of the law, and if the justice is satisfied that the officer had reason to seize the vehicle, the justice may grant an order authorizing a peace officer to take the vehicle into the custody of the law in accordance with this section, with necessary modifications, and for that purpose to enter a building or place where the vehicle is stored or kept.
"Release of vehicle by peace officer of stolen vehicles or under alternative measures
"(8) Where a motor vehicle is seized under this section, a peace officer may, with the approval of the designated person, release the vehicle to the owner, or to a person authorized by the owner, if the officer is satisfied that
"(a) the vehicle is stolen; or
"(b) every person
"(i) who was in the vehicle at the time it was seized, and
"(ii) who the peace officer referred to in subsection (3) had reasonable grounds to believe had committed an offence referred to in clauses (3)(a) to (c),
"is eligible for, and consents to be dealt with by way of, a program of alternative measures authorized under clause 717(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (Canada).
"Indemnification in case of stolen vehicle
"(9) Subsection (30) (indemnification) applies, with necessary modifications, in respect of a motor vehicle released under clause (8)(a).
"Applications to court by certain owners of vehicles
"(10) The owner of a motor vehicle seized under this section may, if he or she is not charged with an offence referred to in clauses (3)(a) to (c) in respect of which the vehicle was seized, apply to a justice designated by the chief judge of the Provincial Court of Ontario to hear applications for the release of vehicles under this section by
"(a) making application in the form and manner required by the minister; and
"(b) paying the prescribed fee.
"Justice may consider any relevant evidence
"(11) In a hearing conducted pursuant to subsection (10), the justice may consider any evidence or information he or she considers relevant, which may include
"(a) a report of a peace officer respecting the seizure of the motor vehicle; and
"(b) a report of the designated person respecting any record of a previous seizure under this section of a vehicle that was at the time registered in the name of, or owned by, the applicant.
"Determination by justice
"(12) If the justice is satisfied that
"(a) at the time the motor vehicle was seized, the driver was in possession of it without the knowledge and consent of its owner, or
"(b) the owner could not reasonably have known that the vehicle was being operated in the course of committing an offence referred to in clauses (3)(a) to (c);
"the justice shall order
"(c) that the vehicle be released to the owner, or to a person authorized by the owner, subject to payment of the lien under subsection (23), and that the designated person so advise the garage keeper, and
"(d) that the application fee paid under clause (10)(b) be refunded to the owner.
"Owner may obtain vehicle by depositing security
"(13) The owner of a motor vehicle seized under this section may at any time apply to the designated person for the release of the vehicle on deposit of a sum of money, or security for money approved by the Minister of Finance, equal to the value of the vehicle, as determined by the designated person in accordance with the regulations.
"Certificate of Minister of Finance confirming deposit
"(14) The owner shall deposit the amount determined under subsection (13), or security for it, with the Minister of Finance, who shall issue to the owner a certificate that confirms the amount of the deposit.
"Designated person to authorize release of vehicle
"(15) On receiving a certificate issued under subsection (14), the designated person shall authorize the release of the vehicle to the owner, or to a person authorized by the owner, subject to payment of the lien under subsection (23).
"Security not subject to other claims
"(16) The money or security for money deposited with the Minister of Finance is not subject to any other claim or demand.
"Release of seized vehicle of low value
"(17) If a designated person is satisfied that the costs and charges related to the seizure of a motor vehicle under this section will or could amount to more than the value of the vehicle or the value of the interest of the owner in the vehicle, whichever is less, the person
"(a) may release the vehicle to the owner subject to payment of the lien under subsection (23) (garage keeper's lien); and
"(b) before releasing the vehicle, may register a notice, in the form of a financing statement, under part IV (registration) of the Personal Property Security Act, that the vehicle is subject to forfeiture under this section.
"Effect of forfeiture on transfer or new security interest
"(18) If a notice is registered under subsection (17), any transfer of the motor vehicle by the owner and any security interest given by the owner after the vehicle is released is void upon forfeiture of the vehicle under clause (26)(b).
"Notice of release to be given to owner
"(19) If a motor vehicle is released under subsection (17), the designated person shall give notice to the owner of
"(a) the release of the vehicle;
"(b) any notice registered under clause (17)(b); and
"(c) the possible disposal of the vehicle
"(i) under the regulations, or
"(ii) if the vehicle is an item of collateral under the Personal Property Security Act, by the secured creditor pursuant to that act,
"if the vehicle is not removed from storage within 30 days after the date of release.
"Procedure when released vehicle is not removed
"(20) If a motor vehicle referred to in subsection (19) is not removed from storage by the owner within 30 days after the date of release, the designated person shall
"(a) give the garage keeper approval to dispose of the vehicle in accordance with the regulations; or
"(b) where the vehicle is an item of collateral under the Personal Property Security Act, give notice to the secured party of the amount of the lien under subsection (23) (garage keeper's lien).
"Secured party may pay costs and proceed on default
"(21) A motor vehicle referred to in clause (20)(b) may be released to the secured party on payment of the lien under subsection (23), and the party may
"(a) add the amount paid to the amount owing under the security agreement; and
"(b) proceed in accordance with the Personal Property Security Act in respect of the default of the owner of the vehicle in failing to pay the lien.
1730
"Procedure on seizure of vehicles
"Requirements for peace officer seizing vehicle
"(22) A peace who seizes a motor vehicle under this section shall
"(a) complete an acknowledgement of seizure setting out
"(i) the name and address of the driver, each passenger that the peace officer had reason to believe had committed an offence referred to in clauses (3)(a) to (c), and the owner of the vehicle,
"(ii) the year, make and serial number of the vehicle,
"(iii) the date and time of the seizure, and
"(iv) the place where the vehicle is to be stored;
"(b) give the driver referred to in subclause (a)(i) a copy of the acknowledgement;
"(c) if the owner is present at the time of the seizure, give the owner a copy of the acknowledgement, and if the owner is not then present, without delay send a copy of the acknowledgement by registered or certified mail to the owner's last known address as recorded in the registrar's records of motor vehicle registration;
"(d) cause a copy of the acknowledgement to be given to the garage keeper who stores the vehicle; and
"(e) retain a copy of the acknowledgement.
"Lien for costs relating to seizure
"Lien for costs relating to seizure of vehicle
"(23) A motor vehicle that is seized under this section shall be stored where the peace officer directs, and the garage keeper who stores the vehicle has a lien, which may be enforced in accordance with the regulations, for the following:
"(a) costs and charges relating to the seizure of the vehicle, as prescribed by regulation;
"(b) costs and charges on account of administration of this section to be paid to the Minister of Finance upon the release of the seized vehicle, as prescribed by regulation;
"(c) the cost of searches and registrations, and other charges under the Personal Property Security Act, that are reasonably necessary for the garage keeper to perform his or her obligations.
"Effect of garage keeper's lien
"(24) A motor vehicle that is subject to a lien under subsection (23) shall be retained in the custody of the law until the lien is paid or the vehicle is dealt with under this act or the regulations.
"Return or forfeiture of vehicles and deposits
"Process when no person is convicted
"(25) If no person is convicted of an offence in respect of which a motor vehicle is seized under this section, the Minister of Justice shall
"(a) if the vehicle has not been released under this section, release the vehicle;
"(b) if a notice has been registered in the personal property registry under clause (17(b), discharge the notice in accordance with the Personal Property Security Act; and
"(c) return any sum of money or security for money deposited with the Minister of Finance in respect of the vehicle under this section.
"Forfeiture of vehicle or deposit on conviction
"(26) When a person who is in a motor vehicle at the time it is seized under subsection (3) is convicted of an offence referred to in that subsection
"(a) if the owner of the vehicle has deposited money or security for money under subsection (13), the deposit is forfeited;
"(b) if a notice has been registered in the personal property registry under clause (17)(b), the vehicle is forfeited to the government, subject to any security interest registered before the notice;
"(c) if at the time of the conviction the vehicle remains under seizure and has not been released under this section or disposed of under the regulations, the vehicle is forfeited to the government, subject to any security interest registered before the seizure.
"Value of certain forfeited vehicles is debt due
"(27) Where a motor vehicle forfeited under clause (26)(b) is for any reason at the time of forfeiture not being operated in the province, or the value of the vehicle has decreased since it was seized, the Attorney General may recover from the owner of the vehicle, as a debt due to the crown.
"(a) in the case of a vehicle not being operated, value of the vehicle at the time it was seized; or
"(b) in the case of a decrease in value, the amount of the decrease.
"Use of funds from deposit or sale of vehicle
"(28) proceeds realized from a forfeited deposit or from the sale of a forfeited motor vehicle shall be used
"(a) to pay any costs and charges relating to the seizure of the vehicle, as determined by the designated person in accordance with the regulations; and
"(b) after payment of the costs and charges, to assist any groups or organizations that, in the opinion of the Attorney General, support or deliver programs to reduce the occurrence of the offences referred to in clauses (3)(a) to (c).
"General provisions
"Owner's right against driver for amount of lien
"(29) The owner of a motor vehicle that is seized under this section may recover, from the person who was the driver at the time the vehicle was seized, the amount of any lien that the owner is required to pay under this section.
"Indemnification
"(30) The Attorney General may, where he or she considers it reasonable and just in respect of a seizure made under this section,
"(a) waive any cost or charge prescribed by regulation; and
"(b) indemnify the owner of the motor vehicle for any direct cost incurred by the owner in respect of the seizure.
"Reasons for indemnification
"(31) Where the Attorney General acts under subsection 3(30), he or she shall file with the designated person the reasons for doing so.
"Regulations
"(32) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations
"(a) respecting the towing, transportation, care, storage and disposal of motor vehicles seized under this section
"(b) respecting the release of motor vehicles seized under this section;
"(c) prescribing fees for the purpose of clause (10)(b);
"(d) for the purpose of subsections (13), (17) and (27), respecting the determination of the value of motor vehicles;
"(e) respecting the deposit of money or security for money under subsection (13), including the disposition of interest earned on deposits;
"(f) respecting the enforcement of liens under subsection (23);
"(g) for the purpose of clauses (23)(a) and (28)(a), respecting the costs and charges relating to the seizure of motor vehicles, including the towing, transportation, care, storage and disposal of vehicles, or the manner in which those costs and charges are to be determined;
"(h) for the purpose of clause (23)(b), respecting the costs and charges payable on account of administration, or the manner in which those costs and charges are to be determined;
"(i) respecting criteria for the exercise of discretion under subsection (30);
"(j) respecting any matter that the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers necessary or advisable to carry out the intent and purpose of this section."
Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): What a fine reader you are, indeed.
The Chair: Mr Brown, I think you may well have set a precedent in presenting an amendment to the section that's twice as long as the bill before us. There are 16 sections in the bill before us and 32 in your amendment. I regret to inform you that your amendment is out of order. I wanted to give you the opportunity to read it into the record because I know it's an issue that's very important to you and you have spoken at great length on this issue during the course of our hearings.
Mr Jim Brown: And it was so eloquently delivered.
The Chair: It was not only eloquently done, I think it was a test of endurance, and it was great.
Mr Jim Brown: For me or for you?
The Chair: Let me tell you why it's out of order. It's out of order for a couple of reasons: first, because the scope of what you have put before us goes beyond the scope of the bill, which does not deal with amendment of the Highway Traffic Act; and second, because it tries to amend a statute of the Highway Traffic Act which was not already amended in this bill.
Just as an aside, it would have had to be redrafted anyway even if it had been amended, because obviously the sections that you're referring to are not Ontario statute sections. That could have caused us some difficulties as well, but we don't have to deal with that issue at this point.
I regret to do that, but I think your amendment, as introduced, will certainly indicate once again your concern, and hopefully that will be the message that will go forward if that's something that needs to be done.
Having said that, we will proceed with the remainder of the sections before us.
Section 15, any discussion? Shall section 15 carry? All in favour? Opposed? The section is carried.
Shall section 16, the short title of the bill, carry? All in favour? Opposed? Section 16 carries.
Shall the long title of the bill carry? All in favour? Opposed? The long title carries.
Before we go to the bill as a whole, I neglected at the beginning to seek the committee's vote on the preamble. Shall the preamble carry? I don't believe there were any amendments to the preamble, were there? All in favour? Opposed? The preamble carries.
Shall Bill 18, as amended, carry? There are actually two amendments to Bill 18. All in favour?
Mrs Boyd: A recorded vote, Madam Chair.
Ayes
Bartolucci, Brown, DeFaria, Galt, Klees, Preston.
Nays
Boyd.
The Chair: The bill carries.
Shall Bill 18, as amended, be reported to the House? All in favour? Opposed, if any? The bill will be reported to the House.
I want to thank all of you for this.
Mr Bartolucci: Just before you adjourn, Chair, I'd like to thank Legislative Assembly staff as well as the legal staff who did a great deal of work, offered a great deal of guidance and were certainly very patient in not only the drafting of the bill but in the execution of the committee hearings etc.
I don't know where this is going to go. I don't know that we'll ever see it again in this form. We may see it in another form. We may see it in the original form. One never knows. The important thing here is that at the end of the day and when everything is said and done and new legislation is in place, these children are protected. That's a common goal of all three parties, I don't care where we sit or what our political philosophies are.
I want to thank the committee members and I want to thank those committee members who visited the different cities. You deserve a lot of credit. You deserve a lot of praise from the taxpayers of Ontario for giving up your time and believing that it was important. So whatever happens from this point I'm sure will only help the children of Ontario who are sexually exploited or abused, and I want to thank you for that.
Chair, as usual, you are very businesslike and very fair, and I thank you for that.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Bartolucci, and thanks to all of you. This has been an extremely valuable committee. It certainly has been wonderful for the people who participated in the debate to be given a hearing on a very important issue.
I want to thank all of you, but I would be remiss if I didn't thank the technical staff and Hansard and our legal counsel and our clerk for doing a fabulous job.
Mr Klees: Your producer, too.
The Chair: Well, Mr Klees, this is a hard act to take on the road and they did a fabulous job. We were always on time. We always finished on time. They were ready every step of the way and we want to thank all of them.
Mr Galt: And I only got here for this afternoon.
The Chair: You missed a good time. What can I say?
Mrs Boyd: Madam Chair, may I ask about the work of the committee? We had several subcommittee meeting dates set that were subsequently cancelled. There are at least two bills that have been referred to this committee. May I ask what the future of those discussions is?
The Chair: I wish I could tell you, Mrs Boyd. We have three pieces of legislation before this committee: the bill on international adoptions, the bill on the Holocaust memorial and the bill on red light cameras. We have attempted to schedule two subcommittee meetings and that has not been possible because the government was not willing to attend and was also not willing to send a delegate, which is why I used those very strong words. I can understand that there might be a problem with scheduling, although we tried to give it a great deal of notice, but there wasn't even ability to give a substitute to this committee.
Given that tomorrow we would normally be sitting on this bill and we aren't, I've asked the clerk to schedule a subcommittee meting for tomorrow, immediately after the regular session of the House. Hopefully we will have a subcommittee meeting. Failing that, I shall proceed to the procedure that I used the last time when we had this problem, because this is not an isolated incident, and call a full committee of this body to sit and decide on the calendar of events for the committee.
Mr Jim Brown: Not all of us are regular members of this committee but --
The Chair: You can come visit any time, Mr Brown.
Mr Jim Brown: I'd like to leave on a positive note. I commend Mr Bartolucci for bringing this serious matter to everybody's attention and allowing us to go around the province and discuss it, because our kids are important and we have to do whatever we can to protect them. I congratulate Mr Bartolucci.
Mr Bartolucci: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you all very much. We are adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1743.