Further debate?

The member has two minutes to reply.

The time provided for private members’ public business has expired.

Ms. Scott has moved second reading of Bill 138, An Act to amend the Change of Name Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

All matters relating to private members’ public business having been completed, this House stands adjourned until Wednesday, November 15, 2023, at 9 a.m.

The House adjourned at 1831.

Further debate?

Pursuant to standing order 100, the member has 12 minutes for her presentation.

The time provided for private members’ public business has expired.

Mr. Kernaghan has moved private member’s notice of motion number 65. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour of the motion, please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

A recorded vote being required, this vote will be deferred until the next instance of deferred votes.

Vote deferred.

Pursuant to standing order 36, the question that this House do now adjourn is deemed to have been made.

The member for Ottawa South.

The member will have, again, up to five minutes to debate the matter. The government can reply for five minutes.

Further debate?

Further debate?

I’m going to interrupt the member; sorry. Stop the clock for a second, please.

I can hear the member because he’s speaking loud enough, but there is a lot of distraction coming from this side. I would like to be able to listen peacefully to the member who has the floor, so I will thank you for keeping the order until we’re done today. Thank you very much.

The member for Perth–Wellington has the floor. You can continue. Start the clock.

Further debate?

Further debate?

The member has two minutes to reply.

MPP Bresee has moved second reading of Bill 99, An Act to provide for safety measures respecting movable soccer goals. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

We now move on to the late show.

Interjection.

There being no further business, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, May 10, at 9 o’clock.

The House adjourned at 1657.

Further debate?

Further debate?

Further debate?

Ms. Ghamari has moved second reading of Bill 93, An Act to enact Joshua’s Law (Lifejackets for Life), 2023. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

All matters relating to private members’ public business having been completed, we now have a late show.

Interjection.

There being no further business, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, April 26, 2023, at 9 a.m.

The House adjourned at 1710.

We’ll move to further debate.

Further debate?

I would like to start my remarks by thanking the member for Oakville North–Burlington for bringing this motion forward. It is a motion that deals with a very serious issue, the issue of domestic violence, and it deserves full support from all of us.

I understand that this motion is inspired by Keira’s Law, a federal bill that passed in the House of Commons on June 1 of this year, with unanimous support of the whole House of Commons. The bill is currently at the second reading stage before the Senate.

The bill requires a justice to consider whether someone charged with intimate partner violence should be required to wear an electronic monitoring device, but more on point with the current motion, the bill also provides for continuing education seminars for judges on matters related to intimate partner violence and coercive control in intimate relationships.

The story behind this legislation is unfortunately one that is too common. Thanks to the determination of Keira’s mom, Jennifer, we now see Parliament taking action, and we need to do the same.

Keira was her four-year-old daughter, and she was found dead with her father on February 9, 2020, at the base of a cliff at Rattlesnake Point conservation area in Milton, Ontario. It is believed that this was a murder-suicide. The father, Robin Brown, had been abusive for years previously. The mother, Jennifer, sought protection for Keira through the courts. She expressed concern with her ex-husband’s violent behaviour. Unfortunately, like it was mentioned before, she was not taken seriously, with the judge saying that the domestic violence and coercive control of Mr. Brown were actually not relevant to Keira’s custody.

When I say this kind of story is too common, I mean that 30 to 40 kids are killed by their own parents every year in Canada. Some of the responsibilities fall with the courts, because they are failing the victims, because judges don’t have the proper training. Without the science of domestic violence, judges are ignoring clues that could help avoid such tragedies. Science cannot be infused, even for judges; it needs to be learned by those who have the power to make a difference.

All judges understand that in any domestic dispute, the interest of the child needs to be the priority. However, the interpretation of what this interest is can be wrong if the judge is thinking that the child must be able to see both parents and that fact supersedes any consideration of domestic violence. Domestic violence is not necessarily visual physically, and that’s why training is important. Training is not only important, it is critical.

I had the opportunity to speak to Jennifer just two days ago. She’s a brave mother who has shown great determination in bringing forward a proposed solution, not for her, because for her it’s too late, but to protect other children and parents from the infinitely tragic situation she has endured and the pain she continues to suffer. There is no more terrible loss than losing a child. We cannot let Jennifer down, no more than we can let down the children and parents who are at risk every day in this province.

The motion is a great first step. When I spoke with Jennifer, she said she’s grateful and she’s encouraged by this, so I’m totally supportive of this effort by the government. But we need to go further. We need to have conversations with the judiciary and the chief justices about the importance of making this a priority.

I spoke to the member for Oakville North–Burlington and to the Attorney General earlier this week, and I want to reiterate my offer to help and to collaborate with the government on moving this forward, to see concrete changes in our legislation.

Again, I want to thank the member for Oakville North–Burlington for bringing this motion before the assembly of Ontario.

I apologize. I’ll interrupt the member and remind the members that we can’t attribute motive. So I would ask the member to be careful in his remarks.

The member for Windsor–Tecumseh has two minutes to reply.

Mr. Dowie has moved private members’ notice of motion number 15. Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry? I declare the motion carried.

Motion agreed to.

We have a late show, but I don’t see the member present to move it.

There being no further business, I declare this House adjourned until 9 a.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 1739.

Further debate?

I will allow the member to continue.

Further debate?