Report continued from volume A.

1830

Private Members’ Public Business

Fostering Privacy Fairness Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 renforçant l’équité concernant la vie privée

Mr. Bailey moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 237, An Act to amend the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 / Projet de loi 237, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2017 sur les services à l’enfance, à la jeunesse et à la famille.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): I return to the member from Sarnia–Lambton, who will have up to 12 minutes to make his presentation.

Mr. Robert Bailey: It’s an honour to rise in the House today and open the second reading debate on Bill 237, the Fostering Privacy Fairness Act, 2021. This is a bill that I am very proud to have been able to draft. The subject matter of the bill is something that I feel very strongly about and ultimately I hope is something that all members of this Legislature will please choose to support.

I want to begin by recognizing the main stakeholder I’ve worked with on the Fostering Privacy Fairness Act, Jane Kovarikova, founder of the Child Welfare Political Action Committee Canada.

As a former staff member at Queen’s Park, Jane was a familiar face around the Pink Palace. Jane is also a PhD candidate, board chair of the Simcoe-Muskoka children’s aid society, a member of the Premier’s Council on Equality of Opportunity and a former youth in care herself. It goes without saying, Mr. Speaker, that Jane is a very impressive individual.

I learned a long time ago in this job that when someone like Jane taps you on the shoulder and says they have an idea, you need to listen. As I said, most of Queen’s Park will know Jane and the great work that the Child Welfare PAC does to improve outcomes for current and former children who experienced life in child protection systems across our country. In recent years, the Child Welfare PAC has held annual advocacy days at Queen’s Park that are always well supported by all members of the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, I want to also take this moment to acknowledge the member for Windsor West, who sits as a member of the Child Welfare PAC advisory committee. It is certainly an impressive group of advisers working with the Child Welfare PAC, and I know that they benefit immensely from contributions of members like the member from Windsor West.

The Child Welfare PAC has four main goals that it focuses on to try to improve the child protection system in Canada: evidence-based policy-making; mental health and wellness; post-secondary pathways; and privacy rights. Bill 237, the Fostering Privacy Fairness Act, seeks to strengthen privacy rights for former foster children in Ontario by addressing a weakness in the existing Child, Youth and Family Services Act—a weakness that leaves the files of individuals who have aged out of the child welfare system accessible indefinitely.

Before I get into the particulars of Bill 237 and how we can be the first province in Canada to grant former foster children privacy rights, I want tell you the story of how I came to understand just how big a problem accessible child welfare files can be.

It was shortly after the election in 2018 that Jane came to see me at my constit office. She was stopping in to tell me about the success of the Canada Child Welfare PAC since its launch the previous year and update me on some of the things that they were focusing on, including privacy rights. It was an interesting conversation. I promised to look into the issue to see if there was something that could be done through a private member’s bill to raise awareness on the issue.

Probably not more than two weeks later, it really hit home that something did need to be done. It was after a constituent, Ron, stopped into my office to ask to speak to me. He didn’t have an appointment, but there was something bothering him and he had to get it off his chest. All the members here have experiences like that, I’m sure, from time to time. Ron, who is employed in the Ontario public service, told me about an experience that he had with his partner when they decided they would like to adopt a child. Ron detailed his experience in a letter to me that I would like to share with you today. Ron writes:

“Back in 2016, my wife and I decided to become foster parents because we didn’t have children of our own. We went to our local children’s aid society to sign up.

“We passed our initial interview and proceeded to the nine-week PRIDE training course that took place once a week, 80 km from our home.

“There were five other couples in this course. The staff and instructor were very nice and professional during this duration and I felt comfortable with them.

“So at the end the course, I disclose to them that I was a former foster child for eight years, from age seven to 15, at the same location over 30 years ago, and my experiences were not great and very stressful.

“A week later, my wife and I were assigned a caseworker who would oversee our process in the SAFE home assessment and help to finalize us in becoming foster parents.

“This was when everything fell apart.

“During our first meeting with the social worker, it seemed that she was very interested more about me than my wife because I was a former foster child.

“She would ask questions that I didn’t really know the answers to because I wasn’t given any form of access to my files when I requested it in the past.

“But what really got my attention was when she stated clearly to me that I need to be careful of what I say, because she has access to my file and that she had been through it.”

Shameful.

“This was a shock to me and I didn’t know how to respond and felt that my privacy was violated, and that the interview became more like being interrogated.

“We had four further stressful meetings with this social worker, until we were informed that we would not be receiving a child as requested due to living too far out of town.

“We felt the reason given was an excuse and felt that I and my wife were being personally attacked because I was a former foster child.

“I proceeded to issue a letter of complaint to the local children’s aid society due to the conduct of the social worker, which in my opinion was not taken seriously by the agency....

“My wife and I decided it was in our best interest to not continue in the fostering or adoption process because it was obvious that we were not welcome there and it would only result in further problems which both of us wish not to have in our lives ... with this being the end result. It is very unpleasant and unsettling to me personally to be once again treated in a judgmental, stereotyped setting and to include punishing my wife as a result of it.

“To protect individuals from these kinds of incidents, these files should not be accessible.

“Throughout this experience, I really felt as if I was being treated like a criminal trying to proclaim his innocence to someone deciding my fate.

“Hopefully, Bill 237 will change things for the better.”

Mr. Speaker, after I heard Ron’s story, I knew that something had to be done to try and help protect the privacy of these former children in care. How would any of us feel if somewhere there was a file that contained notes and unverified, third-party information, describing someone’s perception of our behaviour or response to any number of events in our childhood: every bad day, every mistake big or small, every one of the questionable decisions that we make as children or adolescents?

And what if we had no ability to review that information or correct the record in any way? Who among us could stand up to that kind of unfair scrutiny decades later? Not many. What if the information was used against us in a background check or a job interview or legal proceedings? Because that is happening today to former youth in care.

Mr. Speaker, you might ask yourself, why is it that children end up in foster care in the first place? I can tell you, it’s not because of something they’ve done. No, most likely, children enter the foster care system because they suffered from abuse or neglect by parents or guardians. They have no say in the matter, no control. What justification is there for anyone to have access to those records after that young person has aged out of the child protection system? The answer is that there’s none.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the fact that the Child, Youth and Family Services Act is incomplete on privacy rights for former foster children is likely the result of unconscious bias and omission, rather than any particular intent. Moreover, in 2018, the Ontario Human Rights Commission released a report finding that, for decades, Indigenous, Black and other racialized children have been overrepresented in the child welfare system. It stands to reason that individuals most likely to be impacted by inappropriate access to their former child protection files are those from racialized communities. Addressing this oversight through the Fostering Privacy Fairness Act is another step that our province can take immediately to address racism and inequality in this province.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 237, the Fostering Privacy Fairness Act, if passed, will ensure that the Child, Youth and Family Services Act is compatible with the legal rights section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by ensuring that former foster children can enjoy the same civil liberties afforded to all Canadian citizens. If passed, Bill 237 will require that records and identifying information of former children in care will be sealed by the children’s aid societies and service providers when the individual turns 21 years old. Going forward, those sealed records will only be accessible if the individual consents to the disclosure or that disclosure is ordered by a court.

Finally, the particulars of exactly where the files will be stored will be finalized through those regulations.

1840

Mr. Speaker, I’ve had a number of conversations with many supportive stakeholders about the administrative challenges involved with sealing the tens of thousands of files that exist in the province of Ontario today. However, that task of sealing those recent and historical files should not be a barrier to the passing of this important bill. I have full confidence in the ability of the ministry officials and the public service staff to develop and implement the system and processes needed to protect the privacy of former youth in care.

Mr. Speaker, taking action to seal these records is the right thing to do. If there is even a small chance that people perceive children in care or former foster children as damaged goods, unlikely to thrive or achieve upward social mobility, then we need to do everything we can to help these individuals. It starts with the most basic principle: granting them their right to personal privacy.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank everyone in attendance who is going to listen to or participate in today’s debate. I’m optimistic that we will have a very good debate, and I hope that at its conclusion I can count on all members of this Legislature for their support of Bill 237.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Further debate?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Speaker, I am pleased to support Bill 237, because I know it will positively impact so many former crown wards who have been negatively impacted by the access that other people, often strangers, can have to their personal information and lives.

Allowing these young folks to have the authority and ownership over their own records is a show of respect to who they are, where they’ve been and who they will be. Those of us who haven’t been through the foster system enjoy a presumed privacy of our younger years, so it should be a matter of fact that these youth do too.

My office spoke with one of the authors of this bill, Jane Kovarikova, and it’s clear how strangers having access to their records can undermine former crown wards in adult life. She said that she knew of former crown wards who applied for jobs with CAS and were grilled by HR regarding intimate details of their childhood. She said that without this legislation, former crown wards will never be on an equal footing with their partner in divorce proceedings. She said that former crown wards have difficulty with adopting and fostering, often being held hostage by their own open records. She said that this legislation is the right and easy thing to do.

But this group, through no fault of their own, can tend to be ignored by policy-makers. I think this bill is a positive step in protecting the privacy of former crown wards. There needs to be teeth to this legislation that would hold those who breach this privacy accountable.

I was speaking, actually, with a former crown ward turned advocate who has been tirelessly working to protect kids and youth in care. He told me that at a chance encounter at an event, he was seated with former managers at the CAS that he belonged to. The managers made it clear to him that they had access to his file, had accessed his file and had discussed it among themselves. This was years after he left the system.

So I’d like to take this opportunity to thank the hundreds of former youth in care across the province who are working to support their brothers and sisters in the system. Like the two I just mentioned, they do so with no support from the government; they do so while often making sacrifices already in their difficult lives; they do so while often reliving the trauma that they endured in an unforgiving system; they do so because no one else is bothering.

Once again, I say that this government has been short-sighted with closing the child advocate’s office. It was a decision that left thousands of already vulnerable children even more vulnerable, especially during the pandemic, with nobody to ensure their voice is heard or reach out to them in this dire time.

Over the two-plus years that the government has been in office, children connected to child protection in some way, not just those in care, die at the rate of one every three days. We all read and were shocked by The Fifth Estate’s report of the death of David Roman, a teen in care in a for-profit foster home, and yet no meaningful change has been made by this government to keep kids like him safe. The system needs to change fundamentally. It needs to become a truly child-centred system.

To that end, I’d like to take the opportunity to say that the current moratorium on aging out of the system needs to be permanent. The current benchmark for youth being forced out of the system is age. This should be replaced with a system that ensures that they are ready to leave. When it comes down to crown wards, the government of Ontario stands in as a parent figure, and a truly child-and youth-centred system would prepare them for success.

I’ve heard story after story of youth in care being fearful of their 18th birthday, knowing that they’ll have to figure out how to be an adult with no support. We’ve been there. Many of us in this room have had the luxury of learning how to be an adult piece by piece over time. For many of these youth, a single mistake can set them back in ways that are so unfair.

Also, unfortunately, with 47 CASs in the province, that means 47 different interpretations of the moratorium. I’ve heard that the moratorium is being treated differently across the province, and this is unfair. All children and youth in this province should have access to the same supports, resources and rules no matter where they live in Ontario. The Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services needs to ensure that CASs are all abiding equally by the spirit of the moratorium. We had heard that when we met with the children and youth advocate, who I spoke about earlier. The best thing for the 12,000 kids and youth currently in care is to know for sure, especially during COVID, that they don’t have to worry about turning 18; that they’ll still have support.

This bill is a positive first step of what I hope is many that need to be in place to preserve the dignity of current and former crown wards. They are no less deserving of respect and care than any other child or youth in this province.

As I say, I support the bill. There are obviously some thought-out privacy pieces, but I do recommend, if there is a breach, that there should be some kind of consequence to that in order to make sure that people—former wards—are respected, and their privacy—we take that seriously if it is breached.

I commend the member from Sarnia–Lambton for bringing this forward and look forward to supporting the bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Further debate?

Ms. Donna Skelly: I’m pleased to rise in the House this afternoon to speak to Bill 237, the Fostering Privacy Fairness Act, a proposal to seal the child protection agency records of former foster children on their 21st birthday. I commend the member for Sarnia–Lambton for introducing this amendment which protects the privacy rights of adults who had been in the foster care system.

These former children in care are some of the most vulnerable in our society. They are victims. Some of them have suffered unimaginable trauma at the hands of a parent or caregiver. Their privacy rights should be protected in the same way that privacy rights of young offenders are protected.

The federal Youth Criminal Justice Act seals and archives files after an accused turns 18, it scrubs names from main database searches, and it permits third-party access to archived files only through the courts.

Currently, the regulations require every service provider and lead agency to provide prescribed reports and information to the minister and other entities. Also, certain information could be available to the public.

However, with the amendment introduced in this private member’s bill, no service provider or agency may disclose information, including personal information, about an individual who had been in the foster system and is now over the age of 21. This includes information that identifies an individual. However, personal information in a CAS report can be given to the individual or to others with the individual’s consent, or the personal information can be disclosed by a court.

It’s only fair that once a person has aged out of the child protection system, access to their personal information should be protected. Unauthorized access could be ensured by sealing the records. Youth child protection records would still be accessible through a court order.

This is about equality of privacy rights for former youth in care. Even juvenile offenders have more privacy rights than children who have been in foster care, and that simply is wrong. It just isn’t right.

1850

This proposed amendment also stipulates that once a former foster child turns 21, such information must be removed from the Child Protection Information Network and stored in accordance with the regulations. Currently, CAS caseworkers can view the files of a person who had been in foster care and is now an adult. Child welfare files include highly sensitive information about a foster child. The file gathers layers of unverified third-party information, information about the child’s most traumatic and intimate experiences. The quality of data in the file ranges from accurate to blatantly slanderous, even racist.

These child welfare files remain accessible indefinitely to thousands of child welfare workers with access to the Child Protection Information Network. Information in these files can be used against former foster children throughout their adult lives.

In his letter of support, a former family law lawyer who practised in the child protection and divorce areas of family law said he was painfully aware of the potential misuse of information in child welfare files. These files have been accessed in divorce court, in adoption proceedings, when seeking board positions and employment at CAS, and when reporting violent crimes.

Youth in care end up in the foster system through no fault of their own, and they are often haunted by the inaccurate information in their files. This is the kind of information that could interfere with job opportunities, in custody disputes and in child adoption proceedings. With this proposed change, names of former youth in care will not be searchable in the main CPIN database or any other database used by children’s aid societies. However, to be clear, this does not apply if the same former foster child is being investigated for harming another child as an adult.

Mr. Speaker, this bill has received numerous letters of support from adults who used to be in the foster care system. They say this bill restores basic privacy rights to former foster children who currently have fewer privacy rights than juvenile offenders. Former foster children say it is chilling that information in a file can be used against them throughout their adult life.

One woman recounts how she entered the system at the age of 10. She said as a child she was aware of constantly being assessed and feeling judged by people who wrote reports that they put in her file, but these people just didn’t know her. She said she felt she didn’t have any control over her file as a child. She said the additional privacy rights being proposed would give her more control over the release of that information. She says her CAS reports don’t reflect who she is today.

There is a letter of support from a retired social worker who said that during her 37 years working in the child welfare system, she has seen files that included inaccurate information and subjective and biased statements. This kind of information could be barriers to former foster children who do not need more obstacles placed in their lives. Many already feel violated and marginalized. The provisions in the Fostering Privacy Fairness Act would offer them more privacy protections.

Mr. Speaker, this bill treats former youth in care with respect. It treats them with dignity. It restores their basic rights. And, Mr. Speaker, for this reason I encourage all members in this House to support Bill 237. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Further debate?

Ms. Marit Stiles: I rise today to speak on Bill 237, the Fostering Privacy Fairness Act, 2020. On behalf of my constituents in Davenport, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the issues this bill seeks to address speak to the experience of many in my community and many more who care about protecting youth, children and individuals. Indeed, this bill does attempt to protect those folks who are currently and formerly part of Ontario’s foster and child care systems.

For those listening, this bill is the result of the extraordinary advocacy of the Child Welfare PAC, and particularly Jane Kovarikova and others, as well as so many former foster children. If passed, it will ensure that agencies and service providers can no longer disclose or access personal information, case histories etc. of any individual who received services under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act after they reached the age of 21.

It perhaps goes without saying, Speaker, that children end up in the system through no choice of their own, and they should be protected accordingly. But then, as adults, they find that their personal information can be accessed. This has been proven repeatedly to be a barrier as they enter into adulthood, seek jobs and so on.

There has really never been a good reason for their information to be made available after they leave the system, and the checks and balances as proposed in this bill should be in place to protect this information. So, Mr. Speaker, we really do believe and we hope that this bill will help youth involved in this system, especially as they emerge and make their own way forward.

But this bill provides only part of the solutions to the problems facing the child and youth care system. I think the bill could most definitely have done so much more to address the systemic issues faced by children and youth in the child welfare system. Even the supporters of this bill have called on government to take the next step and do more to protect the futures of those children and youth.

The research is clear and it is exhaustive. It shows that the system needs to be overhauled to prepare youth better to transition into adulthood. Kids now are ageing out with no transitions or supports past the age of 18. They lack the social capital and the support networks to help them integrate into post-secondary education and, eventually, the job market and adulthood. It impacts their development and, Speaker, it perpetuates that systemic cycle of oppression. Bill 237 could have addressed that.

The system needs to have a more robust use of evidence-based approaches. It’s impossible to ensure the best outcomes for these children and youth if we are not evaluating and measuring that data.

This bill could have provided more support for children in care, who are significantly more likely to live with mental health issues, illnesses, PTSD and more due to their experiences. It could have provided more supports to help them to adjust, and I wish this bill would do more to address those gaps.

I would also have liked to see this bill support children and youth more generally. As the education critic and representative to my constituents of Davenport, I know first-hand how important our youth are to the future of the province. When we fail to address the issues that they are experiencing—right now, Mr. Speaker, those issues are plenty—we fail them and we fail this province.

I’ve stood before this House and called on this government to centre children and youth in their pandemic recovery plans. We are at a critical juncture. We have an opportunity to fix so many of the problems faced by children and youth in this province, and I really wish, again, that this bill had more in it to address some of those issues, particularly the mental health issues and barriers to seeking mental health services for children and youth in this province.

I wish it had more in it that addressed the learning losses we have seen this year. And I would have really liked to have seen something that addressed the economic job opportunities and training losses that we’ve seen experienced by our youth. We know, based on all the international reports and evidence of what other countries are starting to do, that those are exactly the people we have to worry about in this moment: those young people getting their first jobs, post-pandemic moment. The losses that they have experienced—I think we’re going to be feeling the economic impact for a generation.

So, Speaker, I want to thank the member for bringing this bill forward. We support this bill. It’s a step forward, certainly, in tearing down the barriers former youth in care may face. And congratulations to all of those who have advocated for so many years to make the changes this will bring about.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Further debate?

Hon. Jill Dunlop: Speaker, I’m pleased to rise today to speak on Bill 237, the Fostering Privacy Fairness Act. I would like to recognize the efforts by my colleague the member from Sarnia–Lambton for bringing this important bill forward.

Children and youth impacted by the child welfare system do not always get the attention that they rightfully deserve. And I would like to note that Children and Youth in Care Day is coming up on May 14, so this legislation is very timely.

1900

Our government is committed to protecting the privacy of all Ontarians, including those formerly in care. We are committed to listening to young people in care and those who have since transitioned out of care. If we are going to make a positive difference in the lives of children and youth with lived experience, we must be responsive to their concerns and the concerns of those who care for them and support them.

Since becoming Associate Minister of Children and Women’s Issues, I’ve been engaging directly with partners and stakeholders, including those with lived experience in child and family services. I’ve heard from both youth and adults that, in addition to having their personal information safeguarded, it is vitally important that they have the ability to access their own personal information. As I have met with and listened to these remarkable individuals, they have also shared their stories and have been open about the fact that they feel strongly that the child welfare system needs an overhaul—so we are taking action and doing just that.

Our government’s Child Welfare Redesign Strategy focuses on transforming child and family services to strengthen families and communities through prevention, early intervention and seeking more permanent homes for children and youth in care when they cannot stay in their own homes or communities. It is ensuring that these children and youth know that they matter, their opinions matter, their rights matter and their protection matters.

That’s why we’ve created the rights resource—to allow anyone, but especially those impacted by the system, to have an ability to learn and know about their rights in simple, understandable language.

We are also creating another resource to simplify our quality standards framework. This, again, will give children and youth the ability to read and understand the type of care that they are expected to have.

Speaker, another area where we are further extending the voices of children and youth is in our consultations on redesigning how youth leave care. As I have previously mentioned, the current system doesn’t work. As a mother of three daughters who are right in the same age range as a youth leaving care, I couldn’t imagine suddenly allowing my kids to fend for themselves. Better systems need to be put in place—and not just one year before, but from the very beginning. We want markers so that these kids feel comfortable and confident from the moment they speak with someone from a children’s aid society to when they graduate from high school and go on to post-secondary, to when they continue to live successful lives.

Fundamentally, we need to make changes for our children today, but changes that will positively impact the generations to come, as well. We need to build a system that is sustainable, that is prevention-focused, and that not just hears but truly listens to the needs of those within. That includes the security of children and youth, as well as their records, while in care and far past it. Our government takes that security very seriously, and this proposed legislation takes further steps to ensure that security.

I want to again commend the member from Sarnia–Lambton for bringing this bill forward and for the amount of work he has put in this space.

Speaker, this bill and the transformation of Ontario’s child welfare system is essential to better the lives of every single individual impacted. As I mentioned before, it requires collaboration and partnership with Black, Indigenous and other racialized communities, those in the child welfare sector, health and social service partners, other community service providers and those on the front lines. We cannot make these changes alone, and we cannot make changes without the input of those who would be impacted.

Our ongoing work on child welfare redesign will include a focus on amplifying youth voices at both the individual and systemic levels. The introduction of this bill is a demonstration not only of our government’s commitment but of everyone’s desire to listen to those in care and those with lived experience. We will continue to engage with them so that their voices inform programs and services.

As I also mentioned, we recognize the importance of collaborating with youth, the child welfare sector and other partners as changes are contemplated to the CYFSA through this bill. At the end of the day, we are all committed to the protection of privacy.

Our government appreciates the work children’s aid societies do, particularly relating to the privacy requirements in part X of the CYFSA that apply to the children, youth and families that they serve.

As Bill 237 continues in the committee process, we look forward to hearing how we can further strengthen it to advance the privacy rights of former youth in care. Ontarians who have been in care deserve the privacy they are entitled to and our work will help ensure they have no unfair roadblocks impeding the bright futures that they also deserve. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): The member for Sarnia–Lambton has two minutes to reply to the debate.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’d like to begin by thanking the members from London–Fanshawe, Flamborough–Glanbrook, Davenport and, of course, the associate minister from Simcoe North. I’d like to say there’s a number of people who had a lot to do with this bill: my own staff and, of course, Ms. Kovarikova, who we all know very well, a very passionate advocate for children in care, being a former youth in care herself.

I’d like to think this bill is the kind of thing we can work on together in this Legislature, as the members from Davenport, London–Fanshawe and, of course, as my own colleagues on this side of the House said, to make things better for these children. We’ll pass this if we can, and then we’ll go forward. If there are other changes we can make, hopefully we can work together. This is a small step, but they always say the start of a journey starts with the very first step, and this is one of those first steps.

The minister also talked about education; it made me think. I didn’t talk about it in my remarks as I didn’t have time, but Ms. Kovarikova has also started an educational—I don’t know how she’s got the time to do all this, but she has also gotten a number of colleges and universities to set aside a number of spots for former foster children that they’re holding, and with tuition as well. This young lady has got a lot going for her. I think she’s going to help the child welfare system and, of course, children that have been in care.

I’m looking forward to committee when we can debate this and maybe get some more improvements to it if people feel there are improvements needed. We’ll have Ms. Kovarikova of course come before committee. Anyone who hasn’t met her yet will understand why she’s been so successful, because she’s so passionate and everything.

Thank you again, Speaker, and to all the members of the Legislature, for your courtesy.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): The time provided for private members’ public business has expired.

Mr. Bailey has moved second reading of Bill 237, An Act to amend the Child, Youth and Family Services Act. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Pursuant to standing order 101(h), the bill is referred to the Committee of the Whole House, unless [inaudible] direct it otherwise.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Yes, I wouldn’t put you through that. The committee I would like to see it go to is social and justice policy—I think I’ve got that.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Tonia Grannum): Social policy or justice policy?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Social policy or justice policy? One or the other—flip a coin.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: You want social.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Social policy, please.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Mr. Bailey would like to refer this to the committee on social policy. Are we agreed? Agreed. The bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Social Policy.

All matters relating to private members’ public business having been completed, this House stands adjourned until 9 a.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 1909.