L030 - Thu 24 Oct 1985 / Jeu 24 oct 1985
MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AMENDMENT ACT
MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AMENDMENT ACT
MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AMENDMENT ACT
MOBILITY RIGHTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)
SUPPORT AND CUSTODY ORDERS ENFORCEMENT ACT
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AMENDMENT ACT
Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved second reading of Bill 38, An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act.
Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: The purpose of this legislation is to enfranchise certain persons who are currently not eligible to vote in the November 12 municipal elections and to bring the Municipal Elections Act into conformity with the equality provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The present legislation prohibits certain individuals from voting in municipal elections. These are some psychiatric patients, all inmates in correctional institutions and all judges. Effective the November 12 elections, all psychiatric patients, inmates of penal or correctional institutions who are not serving a sentence, and all judges will be entitled to vote in municipal elections. Inmates of penal institutions who are serving sentences will continue to be disqualified.
The legislation also amends the act by deleting reference to the citizenship qualification of other British subjects. However, this change will not come into effect until July 1, 1988. Persons who are currently British subjects but who are not Canadian citizens will be given an opportunity to become Canadian citizens during the three-year period. They will be able to continue to vote in any new elections, by-elections that is, which are held in their municipality until that date.
The legislation also provides that psychiatric facilities be added to the list of places that are required to have polling places. A polling place is also required in any institution of 20 beds or more where chronically ill or infirm persons reside and in retirement homes of 50 beds or more.
Inmates who are not serving a sentence will be permitted to vote by proxy in a municipality in which they normally reside. My ministry will supply all correctional institutions involved with copies of form 1 and an information sheet advising of the qualifications of electors, a procedure similar to that used by the chief election officer in the last provincial election.
The interested qualified inmate completes the form and mails it in or gives it to the person who is going to be his or her voting proxy. The proxy voter must be qualified to vote in the municipality in which the inmate is entitled to vote.
In order to ensure that all psychiatric patients, inmates and judges are qualified to vote in the November 12 election, the changes have been made retroactive to September 3, 1985, the beginning of the enumeration and qualification for municipal elections.
Ms. Fish: I rise to indicate our strong support for the principles enunciated in the bill and for the changes that have been brought forward, particularly those to alter the criteria for eligible electors in municipal elections.
Our concern focuses on a very narrow part of the bill, which is the set of procedures mandated in the legislation before us to bring some of those changes into effect for this municipal election that is coming upon us in just a little longer than two weeks' time. The concern is in the direction of the ability of municipalities, their various clerks, election officials and so forth, to implement properly the requirements of the bill.
Specifically, we are concerned that the changes brought forward in the bill that require retroactivity to enable the voters' list to be deemed to have included those in penal institutions and in psychiatric facilities, and judges, achieve one half of a terribly important element in municipal elections; that is to say, speaking to who by category may be eligible to be on the voters' list to act as an elector.
Under the Municipal Elections Act, however, that also identifies those by category as distinct from and perhaps in addition to those who may stand as individuals for municipal office, since the requirement is that one must be an eligible elector to stand.
Our concern is that in one respect the nomination date has closed and we are in a circumstance where people who were not, and apparently will not be even after this legislation is passed, eligible to run for municipal office, by virtue of nominations being closed, are none the less, through the provisions in the bill for retroactivity, placed upon the voters' list. If they had been properly enfranchised in the period when the list was open or if there had been some extension or change to the list or to the nomination day, then they would have been eligible to run for municipal office.
8:10 p.m.
We are concerned about the anomalous circumstance that provides and we have conveyed to the minister, and wish to convey through you, Mr. Speaker, to other members of the House, the fact that this concern has been raised by several municipal clerks across the province.
The city clerk of Toronto wrote on this matter as recently as today, expressing a concern about the impact of such a proposed change and whether it would in any way call into question the validity of the election or of nomination procedures that place people properly in nomination under, if I might phrase it this way, the old rules.
The second concern is an implementation concern that relates solely to this election because of the compressed time we are dealing with, looking at slightly more than two weeks. It is the requirement for polling stations, and returning officers who would come along with that, to be properly staffed to be able to deal with it. I do not think the additional polling stations are obviously mandated; otherwise we would clearly not be moving in the legislation to speak to the requirement that there be polling stations in these areas. There is also concern about the handling of the special proxy forms being used for this particular election and the arrangements for the proxy on that.
They are related issues. They deal with the training of the municipal officials to handle the question and with their ability to have all the necessary people in place and all the necessary arrangements made to be able to properly implement, administer and discharge the intention of this bill and the letter of this bill which would, of course, enfranchise people for this election with slightly more than two weeks to go before election day.
Once again, I refer to concerns that have been raised by the municipal clerks and returning officers. Those concerns are concerns of a procedural nature, if I can describe it that way. They are technical concerns and questions raised about the ability of our municipalities to respond properly and completely to ensure that if the changes are being made effective for this election, which is slightly more than two weeks away, they will be effective.
I share with the House the fact that the municipalities which have been in touch with us, including the person who heads the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario, have indicated they are concerned that they will not be able to marshal their resources to implement the requirements of this bill.
In particular, a concern has been cited about the fact the head of the AMCTO, as late as noon today, had not been in receipt of a copy of the bill or of the requirements he understood should be coming forward for any implementation that would be required this year.
These are concerns that speak to the narrow focus of implementation for this election. Neither I nor any of my colleagues would wish to have the very legitimate raising of these concerns in any way confused with our very strong support for the principles of the bill, which alters the eligibility criteria to be elected in municipal elections, most particularly in the direction of expanding the opportunities for those who have previously not been enfranchised, and expanding them in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Mr. Breaugh: We will support the bill, as we have for some time supported the principles that are contained within it.
It seems to me it does two or three pretty straightforward things. First of all, it moves us towards some conformity on the qualifications to be a voter in an election in Ontario for any purpose. Any move that would simplify that wonderfulness is useful in and of itself.
Second, contrary to what the previous speaker said, one of my concerns would be that there has been a new Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada for some time now. There are a lot of people who figure that because the federal Parliament of Canada has given them certain rights, the Legislature of Ontario should have paid some attention to those rights. On the other hand, I have heard a number of people complain to my office that it has taken so long for a bill of this nature to come before the Legislature. Since the province obviously knew what was contained in the Charter of Rights some time ago, why has it not moved to bring municipal elections into conformity with that new charter?
One concern I had was that perhaps some bright light out there might actually think laws mean something and that if there is a Charter of Rights in Canada which says that certain people have some rights, such as the right to vote, and if a provincial act does not provide for them to do so, he might decide to go to court and see whether his rights would stand up. It might complicate the whole municipal electoral process if someone decided he should challenge the validity of a municipal election in which his rights had not been guaranteed by provincial legislation.
The other area we should think about a little, simply because some people have raised it, is the matter of whether various municipal offices can cope with changes of this nature. I, too, received a letter from the city of Toronto today saying that it would have some difficulty with this. On the other hand, when I stop to think of the practical aspects of it, we are not asking a great deal here. The onus will still be on the electors to get on the enumerated voters' lists, so they will have to take some initiative in that regard.
For practical purposes, some municipalities will be asked to set up a polling station in a psychiatric hospital. If there is a municipality in Ontario that cannot figure out how to set up a polling station between now and November 12, that municipality has itself some problems.
In my own area, the town of Whitby has a psychiatric hospital. About four weeks ago there were newspaper stories saying that the psychiatric hospital, the Canadian Mental Health Association and the clerk in the town of Whitby all thought some change of this kind would happen and they were all prepared for it three weeks ago.
Whitby is a remarkable place for a number of reasons, but it does not have a huge municipal staff. If Whitby can do it, that is not a bad little milepost for the rest of Ontario. There is a middle-sized Ontario community that has been aware changes of this kind were imminent and took the steps to prepare itself for them. It does not have a huge task in front of it, but it will frankly have no problems, I am told, in implementing this bill.
There may be a few people who are a little nervous about some of the fine points around the edges. We have to balance that against whether we are prepared to deny someone a right, which is the right to vote. This is a pretty fundamental right.
If in the process of passing this act tonight we cause people in municipal offices some anxiety for the next few days, what can they do? They will have to give themselves a pay raise, take a good Scotch and get over the problem. It is an administrative problem they have to resolve. I believe most of them have the capacity to do that. I believe if we do not do it, we invite a challenge under the Charter of Rights to all the municipal elections that will be held this fall.
In closing, I want to praise the minister for responding rather quickly, because he has not been the minister very long, to something that was an apparent need. Many people think it is an important change. It is not going to create millions of new voters for the November 12 municipal election, but it will allow those who are covered by this act the opportunity to vote without having to hire a lawyer, go to court and challenge in a legal sense, so I commend the ministry for responding.
I cannot help noting in passing, and I suppose I should not do this, that those changes in the federal charter were around for a long while before this minister became Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître). I would have thought that on something as fundamental as this we would have seen some movement earlier.
[Applause]
Do not get carried away with a demonstration of affection like that. The member is pushing me. I do not mind giving him a little credit. Just do not kiss me for it, that is all.
I believe this is worth doing. I believe the House should do this tonight. I believe it can be handled in most of our municipalities without any great difficulty at all. I do appreciate the concerns raised by the city of Toronto. In a large urban centre some work will have to be done in the next few days. I believe they are capable of doing it.
8:20 p.m.
Mr. Cousens: Before I begin my comments, I would like to commend the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who brings good intentions to his office. He certainly deserves our respect. What he is trying to do is address a concern raised through the previous legislation our government brought in not long ago giving certain rights to vote to people in the province, having to do with citizenship and where they are at the time of elections. If they happen to be interned and are found not guilty or if they happen to be in a certain kind of residence, it was considered previously under our jurisdiction and legislation that they be given that right.
I have great problems with this bill being retroactive. The intentions may be honourable, but the implementation is going to be terrible. The member for St. George (Ms. Fish) has spoken very well on it. I would like to reiterate some of the points she made in the best interests of the people of this province. The people of Ontario do not like surprises. They do not like to wake up suddenly and see that big changes have taken place.
Hon. Mr. Scott: May 2.
Mr. Cousens: We have seen some changes and we are still trying to get used to them. There is an evolutionary and educational process, a breaking in to make sure everybody is aware of what is happening. If a government, as it is doing now, says something is backdated, it is no wonder people will have trouble dealing with it because they are just going to find out about it tomorrow.
Very few people in this Legislature know the impact and effect this change will have. No one knows how many municipalities are in a position to establish a polling place where it is going to be required under subsection 47. That is not going to be a simple task. They will have to arrange it and do it. That is only one of many aspects.
I agree with the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh). They can do it. They are responsive. However, an election campaign is a very busy time for clerks and municipalities. They have an awful lot to do just to keep things going properly as it is under the existing legislation, which is probably a little onerous. To have a change in the middle of the election further exacerbates their problems.
The people who will be eligible to vote also need to have a full opportunity to understand the process of who the candidates are. As it turns out now, the nominated candidates were duly nominated effective yesterday or Tuesday-whenever it was, two days ago.
An hon. member: Monday.
Mr. Cousens: Monday. Then they had Tuesday to cancel out. Already the people who are considering whom they are going to select and vote for on November 12 will have had a chance to think about it. The people we are talking about have not had that chance. Many of them, not knowing they would have the right to vote, are not prepared. Surely to goodness they should have the opportunity to be better informed.
Then we come to the major question of retroactive legislation. Is this going to be a precedent for this government? Is that going to be the way it is going to operate, with retroactive legislation on things of its own choice?
Mr. Breaugh: Not like the way the member's government did with restraints for civil servants.
Mr. Cousens: There is no comparison. This is the beginning of a new regime.
Mr. Warner: That is right. It was very different.
Mr. Cousens: We did not do it there. It is the first bill we are going to be dealing with, which is going to be passed and might even get to third reading in a very short time.
Mr. Breaugh: The member is wrong again. It is not the first bill.
Mr. Cousens: Do the others count? This deals with the people in the municipalities of the province.
Mr. Breaugh: So did the one that was dealt with the other night.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the honourable member would address the chair and disregard the interjections.
Mr. Cousens: The government is dealing with a precedent of retroactivity that I do not believe in and firmly oppose. It is not the way the people of Ontario like to see their government deal. They have been comfortable in the past and now suddenly the change is made. It should have been one of the pieces of legislation the government brought forward in the summer. There were other times when it could have been done.
Mr. Breaugh: The previous government could have brought it forward last spring or last winter or last fall or the year before.
Mr. Cousens: All the better, but our government did not table it; the Minister of Municipal Affairs did.
Mr. Breaugh: Or in the early 1930s.
Mr. Cousens: In spite of what my friend has to say -- I really do not want to listen to him any more, but what can one do when his voice is so raucous and loud?
I would like to have some clarification on the point of retroactivity from this government and from the minister himself. How many more retroactive bills will he be bringing in? Is this going to be a common thrust? I believe any time we make this kind of legislation or any legislation retroactive, we are dealing with a fundamental principle. That principle should be sacred. It should be protected. We should not be coming back to the people of Ontario and surprising them with changes.
I would like to raise another concern, which has to do with the very sensitive area of the people who will be receiving the vote. Under the whole Charter of Rights and Freedoms we accept that the new Canadian Constitution opens up many new possibilities that heretofore had not been fully understood.
I know your previous government brought in similar legislation that affects people in psychiatric hospitals, who now have the right to vote. I am questioning whether this itself could be subject to legal questions. We are raising the question about these people who have the right to vote under this legislation, but are they capable of understanding all the issues, ramifications and everything else that are there?
Mr. Breaugh: If they voted for the member they do not.
Mr. Cousens: If they vote for anyone, what is going to influence their vote? How many of our members have been in psychiatric hospitals and are aware of the type of people who are now --
Mr. Breaugh: The member is back out again now.
Mr. Cousens: Maybe the member's whole crew should be put in one psychiatric hospital, but they would still have the right to vote.
Mr. Warner: If one is really crazy he will vote for the member.
Mr. Cousens: I do not know. I would say that is one vote I would take. Who knows? Mr. Speaker, perhaps you could get these rabble-rousers to take a pill.
Mr. Speaker: I would remind the member this is not question period. You just asked the members a question then.
Mr. Cousens: I am asking you a question, Mr. Speaker. Could you exercise more control over these members? They have obviously been to someone's bar and enjoyed a little more than they should have, while those of us over here have been spending time --
Mr. Breaugh: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: He cannot accuse me of being at a bar unless he takes me there afterwards.
Mr. Cousens: I come back to the sensitive area of those people in psychiatric hospitals.
Mr. Callahan: I would like to place a point of privilege on your behalf, Mr. Speaker. I understood the member to say that if the Speaker exercised greater control over the members they would not act that way. Since you cannot claim the point of privilege, I claim it on your behalf.
Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. However, I will now recognize the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens).
Mr. Cousens: I thank the member. He is not only a fine member but a good chairman of committee. The Speaker undoubtedly --
Mr. Breaugh: Kissy, kissy. Stop sucking up to these guys now.
Mr. Cousens: That is not very good parliamentary language.
We are dealing with an area that has to do with patients in psychiatric hospitals now having the right to vote. I do not care how they vote, but are we being honest in saying they know how to vote? Having had some service as a psychologist in a mental institution, I have personally seen the kinds of patients who are there. I worry about the responsibility we are placing upon them.
I would be very interested in what the minister has to say on that, if he can answer in the very spirit in which I am asking it. Some of these patients barely know their background. They know their first name. They have been there for many years. They are frail in ways that they just do not fully understand what the world is all about, nor do they understand the responsibility of a mayor, a trustee or the services that are provided within the Municipal Act or by the municipal councillors and elected officials that they would be supporting for any office.
8:30 p.m.
I am just asking how the minister would deal with that. Are they capable of fully understanding the ramifications of their vote? Are they going to be susceptible to certain pressures that can be brought to bear on them by staff or people nearby who suggest to them how they should vote?
Mr. Haggerty: Does the member refer to the candidates or their agents?
Mr. Cousens: No, but we are opening up a big issue.
Mr. Haggerty: It is the same as what happened in the provincial election.
Mr. Cousens: The same thing. Anyone who votes for the member is going to face the same question. The last person they talk to will tell them something. That might have got him here. It is done again and again, and the member will keep getting re-elected because he is such a fine grass-roots politician. It is in the House that he is lacking.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that relates to Bill 38.
Mr. Breaugh: Hardly.
Mr. Cousens: I asked the minister if he could give some answers on the way in which people in those institutions are going to be able to understand the depth of importance of what their vote really means.
I do not think anyone in this House or in this province takes lightly the responsibility of voting and electing our representatives. Those of us who are among the 125 here, even you, Mr. Speaker, know how important that is.
Mr. Cureatz: Even you.
Mr. Cousens: Especially Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Breaugh: How long are you going to endure these insults, Mr. Speaker? It is not right.
Mr. Cousens: I lay this one on the table and I would be very much interested in the minister's answers, even the possibility of his reconsidering that part of the bill.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere.
Mr. Warner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Villeneuve: The member for Oshawa is leaving.
Mr. Warner: He has heard this speech before.
There are a couple of very serious concerns which members should have with respect to the comments that were just made by the member for York Centre. The logical extension of his argument is a very frightening possibility.
The government has seen fit, where previous governments failed, to bring into conformity with our Charter of Rights the rights of certain people who previously were denied the opportunity to vote, to cast a ballot now in a municipal election.
What the member for York Centre is leading to is some kind of litmus test for individuals. Somehow one has to be a qualified voter, that is one cannot simply be a Canadian citizen and 18 years of age or over. The member wants to extend that. The extension of his argument means that one does not stop with persons who are incarcerated or in mental hospitals. From that stage, one moves to determining who among the general public should be entitled to vote, besides those who are simply 18 years of age and over and Canadian citizens. That is very disturbing. Obviously, it runs against the grain of democratic society. It is a very disturbing comment indeed.
Mr. Cousens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: In my remarks I made every effort not to identify any other area within the bill or any other area where people are eligible to vote. I was very specific on one group and I was not trying to draw any parallels or any other concerns to any other part of the electorate. I specifically selected that one group as an area of concern. I think the conclusions being drawn by the honourable member are faulty.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is hardly a point of privilege. I know it is a point of personal explanation.
Mr. Warner: It is a point of backtracking. I am pleased to see that the member is backtracking.
Mr. Cousens: I was not backtracking. I ask the member to withdraw that.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I beg your pardon?
Mr. Cousens: The honourable member has called it backtracking. There is certainly no backtracking whatever.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Warner: Your patience is being tested quite a bit tonight, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate the principle involved that this bill will draw into line what we have attempted to do both federally and provincially, and that is that we view Canadian citizenship to be extremely important. It will only be Canadian citizens who will be eligible to vote in the next provincial election. That has been the case in the last two federal elections and, starting in 1988, it will be the case in municipal elections. That is a very important principle.
What was amusing to me were the arguments put forward by the Conservative caucus about retroactivity. Maybe it is a futile little stab at something they were apparently unwilling to do. Now that someone else has done it, it is a little bit of sour grapes I suppose. Where does one stab? There is not much to attack in this bill, so one looks at the retroactivity.
The argument really falls apart. The nomination date was Monday of this week and the bill was introduced prior to Monday, on October 17. For those folks who are now encompassed by the bill, if they had grandiose plans to run as candidates they knew the plans of the government full well as of October 17 and that includes the date when the bill would take effect. So the argument about retroactivity is so much fluff. The Conservative caucus is deeply disturbed that someone has done something it was unwilling to do; yet it is really a good piece of legislation and one which was long overdue.
I applaud the legislation and will support it when we vote on it.
Mr. J. M. Johnson: I support the bill in principle. I was chairman of the members' services committee that dealt with our provincial legislation, which pretty well did the same thing several months ago. I support most of the concepts in the bill.
The one concern I have is basically the thoughts expressed by my colleague the member for York Centre. I am not referring to the retroactivity. He can handle that one. The concern I have is with psychiatric patients, the people who may not have the knowledge to know what they are doing. I have a great deal of concern about this.
When the bill was first drafted this section was not in it. After the committee listened to presentations given by many people on behalf of these patients, we changed the legislation to allow it to happen. I can support it in federal and provincial elections because there are 70,000 or 80,000 people in a riding, but I wonder if there would be some concern in a small municipality with perhaps 1,000, 1,500 or 2,000 voters which may contain a home. It may have 70, 80 or 100 voters who may not know what they are doing. If they were influenced in some manner, it could have a dramatic effect on the election.
This is a concern. I served on municipal council for many years. Many elections are won by only very small numbers. Only 10, 20 or 30 votes can make the difference between winning and losing.
I am not opposed to the legislation. If it passes, I will accept it. In fact, I will vote for it, but I do express some very real concerns about the numbers. We are talking about a small percentage of votes deciding important elections. I am not sure whether there is some way we can address the problem, but I do want to raise it and I want members to consider whether there is some way we can make some adjustment that will accommodate the right of these people to vote without achieving an abnormal situation during an election in a municipality that is very small and very dependent on a small number of votes.
8:40 p.m.
Mr. Callahan: I rise to speak on this bill because the explanatory note says, "The bill amends the act to conform to section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms." Subsections 15(1) and 15(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in a nutshell, really create equality amongst all people in this country.
If we go back a little bit in history, we will recognize we required that any person who wished to vote, particularly in municipal elections, had to hold real property. At the municipal level one is directly affected by the quality of the candidate one elects, or you have the eligibility to run yourself, if chewed off with the quality of the candidate who runs, in order to protect one's property.
It seems to me the explanatory note is in effect an effort to take out the words "British subject" and to put everybody into the category of Canadian citizen. I suggest to the members and to the minister that if one owns property, resides on it and is affected by the decisions that are made by a municipal council or if one does not like what the council does, and is disfranchised from running for that council, an inequality is being committed and subsection 15(1) has been breached.
As a new boy on the block, I do not know how we deal with it, but I would expect this matter should be sent to committee to consider the point I have raised. It may be an unusual situation, which would never have happened during the 42 years of Conservative government, for a member to rise and speak not against a bill but by way of asking for clarification of it. However, this government believes in open government and allows its members to stand up and make a statement if they feel the interpretation of a bill perhaps requires rethinking.
I want to go back over the point again. It is a late hour and there have been a lot of very important activities today with, I suppose, activities thereafter, but it is extremely important. Those people who have served on municipal councils will appreciate the argument that whether or not one is a Canadian citizen, if one owns property and resides in it -- not the nonresident American, European or whoever who owns property and tries to exercise control through it within an area, but the person who lives there -- one is most significantly and most directly affected by the closest government one has, the municipal government and the fact that it sets the mill rate at the school board level, at the municipal level or at the regional level.
I suggest this amendment will have the reverse effect. Instead of creating equality under subsection 15(1) of the charter, it will be fully challengeable under the Charter of Rights in that it deprives a property owner of the full rights that he has, and has to have, to ensure that his taxes are fairly set; that if he does not like the way they are representing him with regard to zoning and so on, he can run for council; or that if he does not like the school board coming in with a very high rate, he can deal with it. Therefore, I would ask that this bill, subject to the opinion of anyone else who wishes to speak on the matter, be referred to committee for purposes of addressing that issue.
If I am correct in what I am saying, the bill should be appropriately amended to open up votability or candidacy to any person in this province, be he a Canadian citizen or not, so long as he is a resident in the real property through which he is exercising that franchise or as long as he has a tenant. The committee may decide that a tenant is not appropriate because that would allow foreign people actually to demonstrate through the electorate their wishes in our country, but certainly the question of ownership is appropriate.
I relate back to the arguments that went on during the drafting of the Charter of Rights. Very many people in this country were concerned because property rights were not protected in the Charter of Rights. I understand my colleague the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) has a bill before this House. He has petitioned the provincial government. I am not sure where he is going to get doing that, but I suppose if we can get the concurrence of enough provinces we can move to have the Charter of Rights changed to protect that very essential right.
Having said that, and I have spoken briefly with the minister, I submit that if we pass the bill as it is we will be doing the reverse of what the explanatory note says. We will be creating a very effective charter argument, for anyone who cares to make it, that we are treating people in an unequal fashion.
I want to say one final word about my overall philosophy. As a Canadian who recognizes the fact this province and this country have been inhabited -- and I think to the good -- by people from all over the world, I think by passing this piece of legislation as it stands we are thumbing our nose at those people. We are saying to them: "You own property. You have taken the chances. You have taken the steps to buy property."
I have always found it difficult in a municipal election to go around and say to people who were not Canadian citizens: "Yes, you own your home. Yes, the municipal council can affect the taxes you pay. Yes, they can put zonings in place that are not in accordance with your residential area. But you have no right to run for office. You have no right to vote. You have no right to object." I hope the principle and the philosophy of the Charter of Rights and the opening up of Canada in a free fashion eliminate that type of actual or perceived discrimination.
I encourage my colleagues to vote that the bill go back to committee to look at that aspect. I am not speaking against the bill, which I think was a genuine effort to try to bring the matter into conformity with subsection 15(1) of the charter, but with all due respect I suggest we are doing exactly the opposite.
I submit that the effect of this is similar to the war cry of the Boston tea party. Taxation without representation is tyranny. The passing of this bill in its present form, despite its noble and good intentions, is the recry of that very phrase at the time of the Boston tea party. These people own property and are being deprived, unless they are Canadian citizens, of their rights to object to the taxation and to participate in the representation that sets the taxation.
8:50 p.m.
Mr. Sterling: Last Tuesday evening I spoke on a matter regarding the municipal elections this year in my riding, particularly in the town of Kemptville. Considering the fact we are now involved in a minority parliament, in which I hope some of the stigma attached to a majority parliament will be lost and there will be some give and take, I am attempting to remedy a situation that I think has done a great disservice to an individual in Kemptville who has attempted to run for municipal office.
I do not believe something should be totally broken down before it is fixed; therefore, I am going to suggest that we put this bill into committee to amend one small section of the Municipal Elections Act, clause 36(1)(a). Amending this section will not remedy the situation for this individual, but it will prevent it from happening again.
For those individuals who were not here on Tuesday night, let me relate the events leading to my concern with regard to this section of the Municipal Elections Act.
On Friday, October 18, at noon, James Wrong submitted a nomination for the position of deputy reeve in the town of Kemptville. Being new to the process, he submitted only 10 names of people who had nominated him, and 10 people is the requirement under section 36. One other person eventually filed successful nomination papers for the position of deputy reeve, Howard Wilson.
One of the people who nominated Mr. Wrong knew she was not on the voters' list and therefore phoned and asked one of the assistants to the municipal clerk whether this would disqualify her from nominating an individual. The answer was that she had until Wednesday of the next week to make application to get on the voters' list.
There was no further communication between the clerk or the clerk's assistant and the candidate, or between the clerk or the clerk's assistant and this nominator. At five o'clock on Monday, October 21, which was the final day for nomination, the clerk looked at the 10 names and rejected Mr. Wrong's nomination for the reason that this woman was not on the preliminary list, nor had she made application to be placed on the list.
Under clause 36(1)(a), there are two requirements for one to have the right to nominate somebody. The first is that one must be an eligible voter for that position. The second is that one must be on the voters' list.
The anomaly of this situation is that Mr. Wrong had 10 eligible voters on his nominating paper. In fact the clerk knew, because of this woman owning property on Main Street and running a business, she was an eligible voter; however, her name was not on the list. Therefore, because it was not, as required in clause 36(1)(a) he excluded Mr. Wrong from the right to run for municipal office.
Mr. Speaker, this is not a great travesty for you, myself or anybody else, but it is a very unfortunate circumstance. It is important for this individual, who was encouraged to submit his name and who as a result of his not being successful in his nomination --
Interjection.
The Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Sterling: Mr. Wilson was acclaimed to the position of deputy reeve and there is not going to be an election for that position. There is no fault on Mr. Wilson's part in any way, shape or form, but I am sure that even he does not feel comfortable in this situation.
I did interview the clerk. I called him and said: "Mr. Clerk, why did you not call up the candidate and say there is trouble with this 10th nominator? Why did you not go to the candidate and speak to him?" The clerk's response to me was that by involving himself in the nomination process he would be interfering and pulling politically for one candidate over the other. He emphasized in his conversation with me that the act is very clear that all of the obligation is on the person seeking nomination.
This section should be modified so there is only one requirement to be nominated for municipal office in this province, that a person must get 10 eligible voters to be nominated. That may mean a little more work for the clerk if the eighth, the ninth or whatever it is is not on the preliminary list. However, in my view, throwing that small bit of obligation on the clerk is not too onerous a situation to ask.
Therefore, I am going to ask the minister and the other members of the House to agree to put this bill into committee of the whole House and to consider a motion to amend clause 36(1)(a) of this bill. I know it would be very important to Mr. Wrong, and I think it is very important to the town of Kemptville. It is also very important when we see small problems such as this arise in municipal politics that we continue to address them as they come forward. I ask for the indulgence of each and every member in that regard.
Mr. Reville: I rise to speak in favour of the bill. I had thought that when the bill came forward the only concern we would hear from the members of this House would be a concern similar to that expressed by the member for St. George (Ms. Fish). I too got an anxious phone call from the clerk of the city of Toronto expressing concern about the administrative problem that might arise from the lateness of the bill, but I have a lot of faith in the ability of the municipal officials and I am sure they can cope with the problem.
I was surprised and amazed to hear some of the comments of other members of the House. The member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) does indeed raise a bizarre anomaly, but I fail to see how it is relevant to the nature of this bill, which is after all in great part to deal with those who have a disability under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I am sure the member for Carleton-Grenville will not be surprised to know that those of us who have found ourselves in the situation of requiring 10 qualified electors to nominate us sometimes get 20 on the list to make sure this particular eventuality does not occur and leave us without a candidacy when the nominations close.
9 p.m.
I was much more concerned listening to the comments of the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson) and the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens). I am sure they are concerned that all electors should exercise their franchise in a totally rational way, but I fail to see the kind of test that might be administered to an elector to ensure that he did exercise his franchise in a way that would be considered by a consensus of people to be rational.
I am mindful of a story that every member of my caucus will have heard and perhaps will have been required to memorize. It was a story often told by a former leader of the party who now is ambassador to the United Nations. It describes an unfortunate situation that probably has never happened to a member of either of the other two parties, but clearly has happened to members of my party on occasion. One hopes it will never happen again.
I invite all who are professional politicians to think about occasions when they have done inside scrutineering and counted ballots. The story relates to an area of the country where people had not yet seen the wisdom of supporting my party. None of the officials was a member of my party, except for one, who was Mr. Lewis.
They were counting the ballots and it went predictably as it had done for generations in the riding: Tory, Tory, Tory, Liberal, Liberal, Tory, Tory, Tory, Liberal, Liberal, New Democratic Party. A hush fell over the room and the ballot was passed from deputy returning officer to poll clerk to scrutineer. They inspected the ballot and determined it was valid, notwithstanding it was a vote for the NDP.
They went back and counted some more: Tory, Tory, Tory, Liberal, Liberal, Liberal, Tory, Tory, Tory, and on and on, when yet another offensive ballot was found -- another NDP vote. It was also passed around the room to people with shocked and aggrieved looks on their faces who were wondering what to do. The deputy returning officer was a person of considerable leadership and he announced that clearly some person had voted twice.
The reason I tell this story, as self-deprecating as it may be, is to try to deal with the concern the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel elucidated in his remarks, which was, "In a close election, would it not be terrible if the deciding vote were cast by a patient in a psychiatric unit or a mental hospital?"
One wonders how one would be able to tell. One wonders what kind of franchise it is if it does not count in a close election. Having seen many ballots over the years when people in psychiatric facilities were not allowed to vote, I have seen some very strange ballots with comments written thereon and sometimes ballots on which an elector clearly voted for the wrong person.
People in psychiatric facilities ostensibly have a mental disability. That is not to say that all people in psychiatric facilities have those disabilities, although it is alleged that they do. I myself was unfortunate enough to spend a long time as a guest of a previous government in the Ontario hospital in Kingston. My fellow patients took a lively interest in the elections, although they were not allowed to vote. Clearly, they had the same range of political opinion that one might find among any group of people.
It seems to me intolerable that we would deny any citizen the right to vote by virtue of a disability. We clearly have been working on trying to make polling stations accessible to the physically disabled and we do not find that the lack of a leg should somehow prevent somebody from voting.
I am particularly concerned, knowing that the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens) is a psychologist. For him to say that a patient in a mental hospital might not be able to form an opinion about whom to vote for and what the issues of the day are is a shocking commentary on how people who are not laymen view mental disabilities.
I strongly urge people who may hold the view of those two members to think very carefully and try to do some investigating. My view is that the last provincial election was not rendered somehow invalid because people from mental hospitals exercised their franchise.
Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: The members for St. George, York Centre, Brampton (Mr. Callahan), and Wellington-Dufferin-Peel have brought up very interesting possibilities or subjects. However, it is time this House recognized that the very same procedures were used in the last provincial election. I agree with my honourable friend that the provincial election was a well-run affair.
My intention this evening is to enfranchise these people with the right to vote. These people have been disfranchised for a number of years. My intention this evening is not to say that I am a better-qualified person than anyone else to say this person is or is not qualified to vote because he or she is a psychiatric patient. I will let the good Lord prescribe this.
We need to respect these people. If ever, in the future, these people are not known to be part of this world, we will have to deal with it at that time. I would like to respect inmates, judges and psychiatric patients in the very same way I treat my friends in this House.
The amendment that was brought by the member for Carleton-Grenville is out of order because it is not amending this bill. I can assure the member I am willing to look at the possibility of amending the act. He brings out a very good point, but it is too late to provide this amendment to reflect his intentions for the November 12 election.
Also, I can guarantee the member for Brampton his concerns. British subjects will be part of an intense study on behalf of my staff. His point is well taken.
Ms. Gigantes: The tenants as well. The minister has to examine what he said about tenants.
Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: As well as tenants. I would ask the indulgence of the House to support second reading of this bill.
Motion agreed to.
Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.
9:10 p.m.
House in committee of the whole.
MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AMENDMENT ACT
Consideration of Bill 38, An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act.
Mr. Sterling: I have delivered my amendment to clause 36(1)(a) of the act. I have explained my feelings on it and my support for such an amendment during the main debate on second reading.
Ms. Gigantes: Tell us again. Let us hear the story.
Mr. Sterling: If the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes) would like me to go to the top with my argument --
Mr. Chairman: Excuse me. Are there any other amendments? I would like to chase these out of the woods first.
Mr. Cousens: I would like to see an amendment to subsection 11(1), to change "from the third day of September 1985" to some future date which we can arrange. I would like to look at the date of the implementation of this.
Second, the minister did not respond in any way -- he is not listening now. I will wait until he is listening.
Mr. Chairman: It appears we have only two amendments to be proposed.
Mr. Cousens: On the matter of retroactivity, the minister did not comment. Maybe before we get going, I could hear his comments on it. In his summary speech, he did not make any reference to it.
Mr. Chairman: The minister will have time to --
Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I appreciate some members are expressing hurt feelings, but do you have two amendments in front of you?
Mr. Chairman: Yes, I do.
Mr. Breaugh: I do not.
Mr. Chairman: I have no amendments yet, but they will be proposed on a new section 36 and an amendment to existing section 11.
Mr. Breaugh: One, I see. I am happy to entertain amendments when people take enough time and care enough to write them out and stick them in front of our faces, but I am not prepared to take amendments off the top of members' heads. The Chairman knows full well the rules require that we at least get that much notice, that we see an amendment as soon as possible. I do not think the chair is in order to see amendments which are verbal.
Mr. Chairman: The standing orders say it will be placed two hours ahead if practicable.
Mr. Breaugh: I think it is quite practicable and I would want a ruling on it.
Mr. Chairman: We have one written motion in front of us. There will be another one coming, I am advised by the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens). Before we deal with it, we --
Mr. Breaugh: I am also going to ask you to make a ruling on how exactly we go about amending a section that is not in the bill.
Mr. Chairman: We have not had the motion read out. I have a written motion in front of me, but it has not been proposed by the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) yet. When he has moved it, we will deal with your problem.
Mr. Breaugh: I do not have a problem, but your problem is growing by the moment.
Mr. Sterling: I would need the indulgence of the members of the Legislature to move this. I move that clause 36(1)(a) of the said act be repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(a) shall be signed by at least 10 electors who are entitled to vote in the election to such office."
Mr. Chairman: I have to rule your motion is out of order because you are not proposing to add a section. You are proposing to amend the act but not the bill in front of us. You are proposing to amend a section of a different act from the one we are dealing with now.
Mr. Sterling: No, it is not a different act.
Mr. Chairman: You are talking about clause 36(1)(a) of the Municipal Elections Act.
Mr. Sterling: Yes.
Mr. Chairman: We are dealing tonight with Bill 38, An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act.
Mr. Sterling: It is the same act.
Mr. Chairman: The section you wish to amend is not in the bill in front of us.
Mr. Sterling: I was asking the indulgence of the members of the House. I did not hear anyone object to the amendment being put forward.
Mr. Chairman: Are you asking for unanimous consent --
Mr. Foulds: He put it forward, but it is out of order.
Mr. Chairman: Are you asking for unanimous consent of the House?
Mr. Sterling: Yes, I am.
Mr. Chairman: Is there unanimous consent?
Mr. Breaugh: Before you ask for unanimous consent, I might be predisposed to do that, but I fail to see how we can repeal section 36, which is not before us. I do not know how we go about repealing something that is not in front of us. That is my problem. Unanimous consent can do a great many things in here, but I do not think we can delete something from an act when it is not in the act.
Mr. Chairman: I have ruled the motion of the member for Carleton-Grenville out of order.
Mr. Breaugh: Right.
Mr. Chairman: He has now asked for the unanimous consent of the committee of the whole House to have this placed in. There is adequate provision and precedent for this if there is unanimous consent of the whole House to have something in this bill that is not now in the bill.
Mr. Breaugh: May I ask the Chairman to reflect on that for a moment or two and give us a sane explanation of how, even with unanimous consent, we could repeal a section of an act that is not before the House? Explain to me how that happens. I want to listen carefully to this carefully reasoned and logical response, and I anticipate that there will be a lot of Erskine May thrown into this one.
Mr. Chairman: I have ruled it out of order on the same reasoning that you are stating. The member is asking for unanimous consent, however.
Mr. Foulds: For what? To do what?
Mr. Chairman: For this motion to be considered in this bill.
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: It does not seem to me that the honourable member can ask for unanimous consent to do something that is out of order. Second, if you rule it out of order, the member has only one alternative, and that is to challenge your ruling.
Mr. McClellan: No. He is asking for unanimous consent and he is not getting it.
Mr. Foulds: I am not sure he can even ask for unanimous consent to do something that normally requires a bill -- not just a motion, but a bill. We need a bill to amend an act. What he is proposing is an amendment to an act, an amendment that is not before us. I doubt that even the House can give unanimous consent under our standing orders to introduce a bill once this particular bill is past second reading and into committee stage. He could ask for unanimous consent to introduce a motion; but his motion, the thing he is proposing, is not a motion at all but an entirely new bill.
Mr. Chairman: First, I have taken advice, and we do have precedent in this House to add a section in an amending bill that amends a section of the main bill, if I may call it that.
However, in what we have in front of us right now I am asking whether there is unanimous consent to deal with the motion of the member for Carleton-Grenville.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Chairman: No. Fine. There is not unanimous consent.
Mr. Sterling: Before the members say no --
Mr. Chairman: No, sorry. Order. Several members have already said the word "no." That means there is not unanimous consent. Therefore, my ruling stands that this is out of order. Section 1 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 11:
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Cousens moves that subsection 11(1) be amended to read as follows: "This act, except sections 3, 4, 6 and 7, shall be deemed to come into force on the first day of January 1986."
9:20 p.m.
Hon. Mr. Scott: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The motion having been made, do I understand that the time for provision of that notice fixed by the rules has not been met, and that the time can be extended if it is practicable to introduce it only in the way the honourable member has done? Can he give us, in just one sentence, why it was not practicable to let anybody know about this before six o'clock?
Mr. Chairman: I am afraid I was paraphrasing when I said "where practicable." Standing order 58 says: "When time permits, amendments proposed to be moved to bills in any committee shall be filed with the Clerk of the House at least two hours before the bill is to be considered, and copies...shall be distributed to all parties."
Hon. Mr. Scott: On the same point, I presume the provision that requires that be done is as a convenience to the other members of the House who may want to have some notice of what is going to happen during the evening. That is why one has an order paper and requires these notices two hours ahead. For my own part, I am prepared to grant an exception if time did not permit. I fail to understand how an amendment to a bill which has been on the order paper for some days did not permit notice to be given when my honourable friend was sitting in this very House this afternoon at four o'clock.
Mr. Cousens: This is fun, because all one has to do is look at the order paper and this bill is not on today's orders.
Hon. Mr. Scott: It was on yesterday's.
Mr. Cousens: Come on. Yes, it was. It is not on today. That is my first point.
The government has all the information. It is supposed to be open, and here is a classic example in which it did not share with us. Shame, shame. The minister is hoist with his own petard.
Mr. Chairman: Order. On the point of order of the Attorney General, it is quite often done here in committee that amendments pop out of the woodwork -- often and irregular.
Mr. Cousens: Do not call me woodwork.
Hon. Mr. Scott: Surely he did not mean to say you are the woodwork.
Mr. Cousens: The Chairman has called me woodwork.
An hon. member: Wormwood.
Mr. McClellan: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: It is correct to say the bill is not on today's order paper, but it was discussed at the House leaders' meeting this morning. The three House leaders agreed this bill would be called at eight o'clock this evening.
Mr. Cousens: I was in the House yesterday or the day before when the government House leader said it would be stood down. Now we are in a position where, if we are truly going to have committee debate, we should be able to address the bill.
Interjections.
Mr. Chairman: Order. Is the member for York Centre taking the technical position it is not on the order paper and therefore should not be dealt with, or does he wish to carry on with the debate?
Mr. Cousens: I am prepared to carry on with the debate.
Mr. Chairman: Fine. Would you do so, please?
Mr. Cousens: I would be agreeable if the minister wants to have it postponed for debate on another day so there is more time to consider it.
Mr. Chairman: Would you introduce your suggestion?
Mr. Cousens: The motion is on the table.
Mr. Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Cousens: All I can say is that --
Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: The question of whether this bill would be debated tonight was presented at the conclusion of this afternoon's session by the government House leader, who told us at that time the order of business for this evening. I believe proper notice was given to the members.
There it is, handwritten on a scrap of paper. This is what passes for notice of an amendment to a bill. I might be happy to let this go if this were a word change or something that was not of any significance. The proposed amendment is a substantive one. It runs counter to the principle behind the bill in total. It makes a mockery of the system in which a bill before this House is presented and printed in a formal way on the order paper, for a member -- not a rookie, not a new member, but an experienced one -- to come in and write out in longhand on a scrap of paper and hand around an amendment which dramatically changes -- in fact, defeats -- the whole purpose of the bill.
I believe this amendment is out of order and I would appreciate a ruling on the matter.
Mr. Chairman: I do not find your point proper. As you know, in many committees we have handwritten motions and amendments placed in front of the committee at all times and in all forms. That is not an appropriate point of order.
Would the member for York Centre carry on, please?
Mr. Cousens: We are in committee and I would appreciate it if the minister would begin to respond to this. He does not have to say his final word, but --
Mr. Mancini: He does not have to respond to everything you say.
Mr. Cousens: I know, but he might just be so kind, because he did not do so in his remarks when he wrapped up on second reading. I would be most interested to know what kind of precedent is being set for this House to have retroactive legislation. I do not take it lightly.
What members are seeing is that spirit of co-operation. I sat in the chair when the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) sent up handwritten pieces of paper we had to deal with that we could not even read. At least mine can be read. It might be substantive. I will say it is substantive and important. It is important for the people of this province that we have an understanding that we are going to deal with the future and not the past. It upsets me if we are going to keep on taking legislation back month by month or for many months and create problems because of it. That concerns me. I am standing in this House saying proudly I do not like retroactive legislation. I am not satisfied with the minister's answer about it. I would like to have a clearer understanding. If he does not clarify it, I will keep talking for a while.
Mr. Breaugh: I want to speak against the proposed amendments. I think it is fine for members to propose them in this way if the chair says so, although I must register my disgust with the chair's ruling.
The purpose of this bill is to provide the right to vote in this election for some people who I believe deserve the right to vote. Last year this House said so in provincial legislation. With all the due deliberation we can give a bill, we had second reading, took it off to committee and said that in a provincial election a judge can vote, people who happen to be incarcerated but are not under sentence can vote and people who happen to be patients in psychiatric hospitals can vote. I believe this House established that.
There may be those who want to have a little fun tonight and that is fine by me. It has been a long day and I am tired too. However, this is a serious matter for me. I believe these people have a legal right to vote in this country. This bill enforces that they will have a legal right to vote in this municipal election. That is not something I take lightly. We established a precedent in this House last year that they would have the right to vote in provincial elections. We had an opportunity to debate that in principle last year and we did so.
I believe this is a bit of an insult to those who have worked long and hard to see that fairness prevails. The provisions that allow them to vote in provincial elections will allow them to vote in this municipal election. This amendment, as unusual as it might be to have the chair accept it in this form, offends me grievously. I have worked long to see that this bill can be dealt with tonight. We have gone through the channels of having the bill printed. We have sought the agreement of the House leaders to put it forward. We have announced we would deal with the bill this evening at eight o'clock. It is hardly a surprise then that the bill is before us.
What is a surprise to me is that after we have dealt with it in principle, the chair has allowed a handwritten amendment that totally voids the process and speaks directly against the principle of the bill. I believe the principle of the bill is important -- not to me. I am not a judge, I am not incarcerated yet and I have not been a psychiatric patient yet, although being around here is liable to do some of those things to me. I believe it is wrong in a practical, procedural motion for the chair to have allowed it to happen. So be it. The Chairman made a ruling, and I do not feel like challenging the chair this evening.
More important, I believe the amendment itself is wrong. It is a wrong-headed notion, an old-fashioned notion and an insult to a great many people who have a legal right to vote in provincial elections. Surely that is the place where we can establish our benchmark. If they are good-enough citizens to have voted in last spring's provincial election, and they did, surely they are good enough citizens to be allowed the right to vote in this municipal election. That is what this bill is all about. That is what this process is all about and I believe in it.
Mr. J. M. Johnson: I am concerned about the comments of the member for Oshawa. He basically implied we are being perverse on this side of the House because we have some legitimate concerns about the bill. I respect the member for York Centre who expressed his concerns. I fail to understand why the member for Oshawa constantly has to interrupt the proceedings. If he simply wants to get on with the vote, so be it.
I think the minister has a responsibility to listen to the arguments placed before him and to respond to them. He has failed to do either. I am appalled by that attitude.
9:30 p.m.
Mr. McClellan: I do not want to take a long time on this, but I want to express some deep concerns. What we are dealing with is a statute, Bill 38 -- I stress this for the sake of my colleagues in the Conservative Party -- which is lifted from Bill 7, which was introduced by the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) when he was Attorney General. That bill was introduced into the assembly by the Conservative government last June and was given first reading on June 11, 1985. Presumably, it was approved by the Conservative Party members in caucus and they were prepared to proceed with the bill in time for the municipal elections this fall.
The bill has been in the public domain from June to October. It did not just emerge on October 17; it has been in our Orders and Notices for four and a half months. We have had an election in Ontario in which residents of mental health centres were permitted to vote.
I have the honour to represent the Queen Street Mental Health Centre in Toronto. Last May 2 the residents of the Queen Street Mental Health Centre cast their ballots in the provincial general election. I know it was an important day for them. I was at an all-candidates meetings at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre and the ballot was conducted in an orderly and successful manner at that facility.
The patients were able for the first time in history to exercise their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I thought the Conservative government at least understood that what was good enough for purposes of a provincial general election was obviously good enough for the municipal elections this fall.
It is clear that the previous government intended --
Mr. Cousens: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: The member is going off on a side track. This motion is on retroactivity, not on all the stuff he is talking about.
Mr. McClellan: If the member would try to listen, I was in the middle of a sentence in which I was saying the previous government clearly understood that this legislation would apply to the municipal elections this fall. That has to do directly with the point of retroactivity. The bill was introduced last June in plenty of time to be passed in time for the elections this fall. It was clearly the intention of the previous government to have this bill in place in time for this fall's elections.
The successor government has moved enabling legislation to make that a possibility. Now we have one or two members of the Conservative Party attacking it on the grounds of a spurious retroactivity. They are attacking the principle that certain people in this province have the right to vote.
That is too bad for them. We do not intend to allow them to deny that fundamental right of the franchise to citizens in this province who tend to have certain disadvantages. If members insist on making these arguments, which are pretty transparent in the light of the policy of the previous government in its own legislation, perhaps we could speed up the process and have a vote.
Mr. Callahan: The question of retroactivity is only relevant if we are taking away rights. What this bill is doing is creating rights. On the basis of any authority or any statutory interpretation, I submit retroactivity is permissible. If we were taking away rights, I would agree with my friend that it might be difficult, but we are giving rights to people. As my friend from the third party indicates, those rights have already been recognized on the run of a provincial election. The question of retroactivity has no bearing or validity; it is a red herring.
Mr. Cousens: A couple of comments having been made, I would like to go back over a couple of points. I did raise a very sensitive issue in talking about psychiatric patients having a right to vote. I did that on second reading. The Chairman and all members of the House will notice that I have not gone forward with further recommendations or amendments to this bill on that matter, but I wanted to table my concerns.
I felt they were real concerns from where I sat and, as a legislator, I felt I owed that right to my own conscience, to the people I serve and to what I believe in. That is the right we have in this House. For other members to challenge my integrity or my motives on that is, I find, very offensive and not part of the good debate of this Legislature.
My spirit with this bill is one where --
Mr. Warner: Mischievous.
Mr. Cousens: When one is in the House, one stands up and is counted. I am prepared to stand up and say that I speak --
Interjections.
Mr. Chairman: Order. The member for York Centre has the floor.
Mr. Cousens: The day any member in this House cannot stand up, speak his mind and let his conscience show is a very sad day for this House. I find it offensive for other members to deplore that.
Mr. Chairman: You have made that point. Would you speak to the bill?
Mr. Cousens: I just want to make it loud and clear because their hearing seems to be impaired.
Mr. Chairman: Would you speak to the motion, please?
Mr. Cousens: May I just go ahead and say I would be most pleased if the minister, rather than members of the New Democratic Party, would respond to my questions.
Mr. Mancini: He has already done that.
Mr. Cousens: He has not.
Mr. Swart: I had not planned on taking part in this debate, but when the member for York Centre gets up to say he is against the principle of retroactivity, I cannot remain in my seat.
This afternoon there were a number of people in the gallery who work for the ambulance service in the Niagara region. One of the reasons they were here and are now out on strike is the retroactive legislation passed by the former Conservative government to roll back wages. It was their wages that were rolled back.
The member for York Centre, who says he is against the principle of retroactivity, voted for that legislation and helped to pass a bill which retroactively tore up agreements that had been made in good faith. For a person to stand up in this House now and say they are against that principle is a degree of hypocrisy.
Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I find the member for York Centre very strange, and I can use this word "strange." He seems to agree that these people have a right to vote and that we should not interfere with that right. He is picking on subsection 11(1). He wants to delay. He wants to change the date from September 1985 to January 1, 1986, knowing very well that he will prevent these people from voting. That is exactly what he wants to do, but he is afraid to say it on his two feet.
Mr. Cousens: Is the minister saying this can be implemented without any problems? The minister has now been on his feet. The municipality of Metropolitan Toronto has already said it is going to have trouble with it. Mississauga is indicating it is having trouble. Can he say there is going to be no trouble?
Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I can answer the member. This is the first complaint we have received and we received it this morning. It is the only one. Municipalities and municipal clerks were told about this coming legislation through 40 seminars throughout 1985 and they were all prepared for it.
Just because we have received a complaint from the holy city of Toronto, the member wants to bend his knees and kiss its ring. The member should stand on his two feet and vote the right way.
Mr. Cousens: We are talking about an issue that involves my riding, which is north of Metro Toronto. I live north of Steeles Avenue. We are not even allowed the discounted rates on the Toronto Transit Commission, let alone any of the other services. They do not even look after the roads there. I have no desire to do anything special for Metro Toronto. I believe it deserves a fair shake, as does the rest of the province.
9:40 p.m.
I have asked some questions on it. I have tabled those concerns. I do not want to take more time in the House on this matter. I have expressed a very legitimate concern and I feel better for having done so.
Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Cousens's motion will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion negatived.
Sections 11 agreed to.
Sections 12 agreed to.
Bill ordered to be reported.
On motion by Hon. Mr. Scott, the committee of the whole House reported one bill without amendment.
MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AMENDMENT ACT
Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved third reading of Bill 38, An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act.
Mr. Breaugh: I want to point out that it is rather unusual to have second and third reading in the same evening. We are prepared to do that tonight, but I do not want the members to get into the habit of trying to go through second reading, committee and third reading on the same night. That is not going to happen too often.
Mr. Gregory: I would like to echo the comments of the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh). When I was a part of the government, I recall there were objections and screams of anguish from the Liberal Party sitting across the way when we attempted to put through a third reading on the same night as the second reading, and almost the first reading.
A new precedent is being created here. As my friend the member for Oshawa said -- he was not my friend a minute ago, but he is my friend now --
Mr. Breaugh: My friend should choose his words carefully. It may be parliamentary, but it is still an insult.
Mr. Gregory: My friend should not be too insulted. I could have done worse; I could have called him a Liberal.
It is important that we not be too hasty on bills of this sort. This one bill is quite necessary, despite some reservations I have because of objections from my own community of Mississauga. Perhaps I will be called on the carpet tomorrow by the clerk of the city of Mississauga, or by the mayor, which is even worse, for having gone along with this. I think the bill is very necessary, and I do agree with the minister, despite the fact that he has not been too vocal in giving people much information tonight, that this has to go.
It is important that we be very careful on the idea of giving three readings to one bill in one day. We have had much misfortune with this. This is the reason the previous Conservative government did not make it a habit of giving three readings in one day. I think the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) will agree that we made a couple of mistakes and did not do it again. We have to be very careful.
Some of the comments that have been made by my colleague the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens) are quite valid in that the municipalities have a tight election schedule. By asking this tonight --
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think you are up on a point of order but now you are into debating the bill.
Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, are we not talking about a vote on third reading? Are we not allowed to debate on third reading?
Mr. Speaker: Okay, go ahead.
Mr. Gregory: I am debating on third reading, is that right?
Mr. Speaker: Actually we are on a point of order right now.
Mr. Gregory: No, I am not on a point of order. I stood up
Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Oshawa got up on a point of order, and I understood you to say that you had some similar comments.
Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, you called for a vote on the third reading. Normally in this House, as I am familiar with it, there is debate allowed on third reading.
Mr. Speaker: Right.
Mr. Gregory: That is what I am doing, sir.
Mr. Speaker: All right. I will call that shortly. The member for Oshawa was up on a point of order, and I thought you were on the same point of order. I understood you to say that.
Mr. Gregory: On the basis --
Mr. Speaker: Order. I would like to draw to the member's attention to section 61(b) of the standing orders: "A bill shall not pass more than one stage on one day if opposed by 20 members standing in their places." Therefore, the motion for third reading is before the House. If you have comments on it, I will recognize the member.
Mr. Gregory: I thought that is what I was doing. With respect to your position, Mr. Speaker, I know you have the rule book in front of you. I was merely commenting. I can assure you my party is not going to oppose this; I am just pointing out to the members of the new government across the way that there is a certain hazard in calling third readings.
Hon. Ms. Caplan: Sit down.
Mr. Breaugh: Now the honourable member is getting some sense of power over there.
Mr. Gregory: Now they have that sense of power over there, they feel they can do no wrong; I assure them they can. They should not make the mistake of thinking they can do this too often, as my friend the member for Oshawa has said. If they try to do it next time, they may find a lot of opposition.
Motion agreed to.
MOBILITY RIGHTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 8, An Act to amend certain Ontario Statutes to conform to section 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Ms. Gigantes: It is with some trepidation that I raise a point on this bill, given the proceedings we have just gone through. I would like to ask why, when we consider bringing acts in Ontario into line with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we have not looked at the mobility restriction or residential qualification that exists for voters in the Ontario Election Act.
In several of the sections of this act we are dealing with removing discrimination on the basis of mobility and residence in Ontario. It is appropriate to ask why we should be demanding that electors under clause 6(2)(c) of the Ontario Election Act are required to have "resided in Ontario for the six months next preceding the day of polling".
In my experience, what that has meant in effect is that people who have been Ontario residents for most of their lives and who may have spent two years or two months living in another province and come back to take up residence again in Ontario before an election, but not six months before an election, have been disqualified from voting in the Ontario elections.
I also wonder why we would restrict any citizen of Canada who resides in an electoral district in Ontario on the date of enumeration from taking part in an Ontario election. Given the amount of information we have about each other's affairs across Canada these days, I would feel quite qualified to go to Alberta, be there on an enumeration day for a provincial election and cast my ballot in a wise manner. One can well understand how I would cast my ballot.
9:50 p.m.
The same holds true for any resident of this country who is a Canadian citizen. We can assume that all residents and Canadian citizens who come to Ontario are qualified to vote and should be legally treated as qualified to vote. If we cannot have it in this bill, I would like to see the government address that question as quickly as possible and certainly before the next provincial election.
On the whole, Bill 8 is a move in the right direction. It picks up many of the areas we would like to see amended. Again, we welcome this kind of bill, which brings our legislation into conformity with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Mr. O'Connor: I welcome the opportunity to support this bill. Again this is a bill that was introduced by the previous government. It is a necessary bill and a housekeeping bill to bring many of the statutes of Ontario into line with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I have considerable difficulty with the suggestion of the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes) that this freedom should extend to the Election Act. I wonder if she thought through the considerable consequences should that become the law. In effect, it would allow everybody in Canada to vote in every other provincial election. That would mean people from Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan would be free to come to Ontario during our election period as they saw fit, become enumerated by staying in a motel for a couple of nights and then vote in our election to this Legislature, which passes bills and statutes that govern to a great extent the people of Ontario and their affairs.
Presumably these citizens of other provinces, upon their return to their provinces, would not be subject to the jurisdiction of Ontario laws but would have had some say in the governing of our affairs.
Ms. Gigantes: What if they bought property in Ontario? Would that make a difference?
Mr. O'Connor: If they bought property and chose to become citizens residing in Ontario, then they would become subject to our laws and should be permitted to vote here.
Ms. Gigantes: What if they sold that property after election day?
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. O'Connor: To follow the suggestion she has made to its logical conclusion would create an entirely different Confederation than now exists, was anticipated initially or has been freshly created out of the work that was done by the provinces and the federal government over the past four or five years. I do not think that idea has been thought through properly, nor should it be considered by this House.
I am happy to support the other sections of the bill, and particularly section 5. Let us direct our attention to section 5, dealing with the Lightning Rods Act. It is most important that this amendment be allowed so that agents for licensees need not be residents here to sell lightning rods in this province. We are giving a real break to the people of Manitoba; all those lightning-rod salesmen who live in Manitoba can come here and peddle their wares to our citizens. That is a long-overdue amendment, and I congratulate the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) for bringing it in.
Mr. McClellan: I am always thrilled when we have a piece of legislation that attempts to deal with residency requirements.
I am sure the members know residency requirements that attach themselves to various statutes where there is voting legislation or social assistance legislation all have their origin in the post-feudal Elizabethan Poor Law. They are vestiges of the Poor Law that have lasted until the latter quarter of the 20th century.
To hear the previous speaker talk, perhaps he would like those who wander into our jurisdiction from some other domain to be treated as Elizabethan vagrants were and have their cheeks branded until they return to the parish from whence they came.
It is ridiculous, absurd, anachronistic, bizarre and neanderthal that in the 20th century we still have residency requirements attached to so many statutes. It is even more preposterous that every time we try to eliminate these archaic and irrelevant disqualifications we can always count on our friends in the Conservative Party to stand up and defend the indefensible and the preposterous. At least tonight we are assured that one more of these feudal barriers is going to be removed.
Mr. Haggerty: I want to address myself to Bill 8, An Act to amend certain Ontario Statutes to conform to section 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I believe the member for Ottawa Centre raised a valid question about the matter of citizens moving from one province to another. The question is whether they buy property or not.
Under the present legislation for municipal elections, for example, an American or a landed immigrant can come in, live along the shoreline of Lake Erie and be entitled to have his name on the voters' list and vote in municipal elections, but he cannot vote in a federal or provincial election.
Let us look at some of the discrepancies that still exist. The requirement that the chairman of the Ontario Deposit Insurance Corp. be a Canadian citizen ordinarily resident in Ontario is changed to require that the chairman be a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident of Canada who ordinarily resides in Canada. In section 7 the requirement in the Securities Act that an applicant be an Ontario resident to register for trading is removed.
But take the case of a person who is moving from Alberta to Ontario. A resident who has to come into Ontario is not covered under the Ontario health insurance plan; there is a waiting period of 12 months, I believe. A person may go down to the United States for health reasons, be there for a year and come back to Ontario still a Canadian citizen but not be covered under OHIP. There is a residency clause in there that says he has to be here at least four months a year. These discrepancies are still going to be present in the act.
I think the honourable member is correct when one looks at the matter of a person coming here from Quebec and buying property. He might own property here, live in Quebec and come over and spend some time here in the summer months, but he should still have the right to vote in Ontario. Perhaps he is paying income tax here as well as paying municipal taxes. In fact, he might be paying small-business taxes too.
It still does not give one the protection under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If one is a Canadian, one should have the right to move from one province to another without having any strings attached, particularly in relation to OHIP coverage. We are still part of the Canada Health Act and the program that is applied to residents who are entitled to health care premiums. It should follow without the waiting period of 12 months that is now required in Ontario.
10 p.m.
Mr. Lupusella: I rise to associate myself with the opinions expressed by the member for Ottawa Centre and the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan).
I want to emphasize that in most of these debates on certain bills affecting the rights of immigrants who have been living in this country and becoming Canadian citizens, it appears from remarks I have heard from Conservative members that there is an erosion of the principles to deprive special immigrants of certain rights. Therefore, I rise to speak to the principle of this bill, An Act to amend certain Ontario Statutes to conform to section 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
What bothers me is the problem of residency. For example, a Canadian citizen living in Ontario who was an immigrant and spent 15 or 20 years here and goes back to Europe for a year or six months, on coming back has to wait 12 months before getting the right to vote or to receive coverage under the Ontario health insurance plan.
It appears this contradicts the principles of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is all incorporated in the principle that immigrants in particular have been deprived of certain rights for many years even though they have become Canadian citizens. In the great riding of Dovercourt, which I have the privilege to represent, many immigrants who have lived in Ontario and become Canadian citizens go back to Europe for one or two years. When they come back they are supposed to wait 12 months before having the right to vote or to apply for coverage under the Ontario health insurance plan.
That is why I am not extremely surprised the Tories have been losing ground among ethnic people. The Tories have never understood their concerns. They took for granted that by coming to Canada and working in this great province and so on -- the Tories, with their strong power for 42 years, thought they had the right to deprive immigrants of certain rights. That is why the Tories lost credibility among ethnic people.
We have to re-establish the principle of those rights. They should be given to immigrants who are legitimate Canadian citizens. In this province, they do not have certain rights they should have, based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. With this bill, the new government should keep in line with the principles of the charter and should give back to immigrants the right the Tories took away from the immigrant community for 42 years for several political motivations.
Hon. Mr. Scott: I would like to thank all members who participated in this debate for their useful contributions.
I would like to make a point that will clarify a misconception presented by my learned colleague the member for Ottawa Centre. This bill is designed to remove those sections in Ontario legislation that make residency a requirement for employment. It is nothing else but that.
We would not want to confuse it with residency for election purposes. There are perfectly legitimate, court-sustained, proper, sound justifications for residency in election cases, as the member for Oakville (Mr. O'Connor) has pointed out. An example can be made. What is going to prevent the member for Ottawa Centre and the member for Bellwoods getting on a bus with 100 of their colleagues on the morning of December 2 and going to vote in Quebec City? Nothing, except a residency requirement. When they arrive there, they will find they are not on the list because they have not lived in Quebec for six months or whatever it is.
I am well aware from many years' experience with my friends in the New Democratic Party that it is one of their traditions to move their voters and workers from place to place as elections occur, so that wherever one runs in a by-election one meets the same NDP workers from place to place. However, it would be a mistake to confuse the residency requirements for election purposes with the residency requirements that are fixed for employment purposes. It is the latter we seek to remove.
I am sure the member for Ottawa Centre will be interested to hear that the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal recently held that residency requirements for election purposes are entirely consistent with the charter and necessary for the fair operation of the democratic process.
However, to assuage her concerns, we will be looking at whether there are provisions in the Municipal Elections Act that offend the charter. I think of the scandalous possibility that a scrutineer is under age 18 as one. We will be looking at those questions and at that time I will be happy to ask my officials to consider residency requirements in election cases.
With the greatest respect, that is not what this bill was about. I am grateful to the member for Oakville for drawing our attention to the provisions of the Lightning Rods Act. His party is now in search of the lightning rod. I wish the member for Oakville and the member for Eglinton (Mr. McFadden), who is chairman of the search committee, the best success in that difficult exercise.
Mr. Lupusella: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to make one comment --
Mr. Speaker: No. I would like to remind the member that section 19(d) states, "in debate a member shall be called to order by the Speaker if he speaks twice to a question." The member has already spoken.
Motion agreed to.
Bill ordered for third reading.
SUPPORT AND CUSTODY ORDERS ENFORCEMENT ACT
Hon. Mr. Scott moved second reading of Bill 14, An Act respecting the Enforcement of Support and Custody Orders.
Hon. Mr. Scott: This bill is the companion piece to Bill 1, the Family Law Act, which was given second reading in the House the other evening.
The purpose of this legislation is to simplify, expedite and make more effective the enforcement of support and custody orders made by the courts of Ontario or sent to Ontario for enforcement from other jurisdictions with which we have reciprocity.
The principal measure for accomplishing this is the creation of a new office within the Ministry of the Attorney General that will assume, automatically and at no charge, the burden of enforcing support and custody orders.
Experience in other provinces has shown that this is the best and most effective way of achieving enforcement. It will cost the taxpayers and the Ontario government less in the long run because the individuals who have the responsibility of supporting the members of their family will be made to do so.
The legislation works by having all support orders enforceable in Ontario automatically put on an automatic enforcement system with payments being made through the new enforcement office. This will ensure that all payments are effectively monitored and that the defaults are not permitted to accumulate for a long time without active steps being taken to secure enforcement.
Should a default occur, the enforcement office the legislation creates would check existing file information to determine whether a current address and employment data were on file. If available assets or salary were indicated on the file, the monitor would direct the local court office to issue execution or garnishment directed to the appropriate person.
If current location and employment information were not on file, the monitor would turn the matter over to the tracing personnel of the office who, in turn, would locate the debtor's assets and continue enforcement, including summoning the debtor before the court to explain the default.
For custody orders, on the other hand, the system will provide assistance by whatever means appears to be necessary when a child is wrongfully taken or detained from the person who is lawfully entitled to custody.
10:10 p.m.
The legislation is designed to work with that in force in other provinces and territories and the new federal legislation now before the House of Commons. I regard this measure to be equally as important as Bill 1, the family law reform bill, and hope the two bills will proceed quickly through the process so that we can begin operations of the new enforcement office as early as possible in 1986.
If this House sees fit to approve the bill at this stage, it would be my recommendation when the matter is called that it be referred to the justice committee to be dealt with at the same time as the family law reform bill, its companion piece.
Mr. O'Connor: I am happy to indicate our party's full support for this legislation, which again is a bill brought forward by the Attorney General in our government early this summer.
This bill puts some real teeth into an often ineffective system of collecting support amounts ordered by the courts or agreed to by the parties. It has often been much the easier legal step to get an order or agreement between parties than it has been to collect on it. The bill establishes the office of a director of support and custody enforcement, by whom all orders and agreements will be enforced by whatever means the director feels appropriate.
Further, such proceedings will be taken at public expense, with no cost to the spouse to whom the support is owed. That is a very significant section and a very great help to often indigent wives and children who are owed support arrears. The director has power to demand employment information from whoever has it and use garnishee attachments and other proceedings to collect it. If the debtor fails to co-operate in filing returns, attending at hearings as required or providing information requested, he can be arrested and held until the hearing.
The bill is a necessary adjunct to an effective and progressive family law system. We are fully in support of it. We are agreeable to its being sent to the justice committee and dealt with as companion legislation to the family law bill.
Ms. Gigantes: I too rise to support this bill on behalf of my party. We are extremely pleased to see it before us and to be able to deal with it, and we hope to get it working for the people of this province in short order.
Our overall reaction is, finally, here it is. For years, social agencies and people who have spoken on behalf of women and children whose families have fallen apart and have not had support have asked for this kind of legislation in Ontario. We know this type of legislation is extremely effective. The Manitoba experience has been excellent. It has been a moneysaver for the government. That is not the principal reason we support the principle of this bill, but it is a nice side benefit.
The one point I would like to raise with the House at this stage is my concern about whether there are unnecessary infringements of protection of privacy potentially established by this bill. I refer specifically to clauses 6(2)(c) and 6(5)(c), in which the information gathered for purposes of enforcement of maintenance orders is restricted as to relief except for three receivers of information. One would be for the extent of the enforcement, another has to do with the director having sufficient information to be able to order enforcement, and the third is "to a police officer who needs the information for a criminal investigation."
I do not understand why that clause, which is repeated in those two sections, is included in this bill. Perhaps when we get to discussion of the bill, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) will be able to provide an adequate explanation.
On the face of it, it seems to me the bill provides for the gathering of information for one purpose. We are setting up in the bill the possibility that the information will be used for another purpose. To my simple mind, that seems to be going exactly against the whole principle of protection of privacy that we will establish in this session of the Legislature under Bill 34. I ask the members to take a look at that section. I look forward to the discussion in committee.
Mr. Warner: As my colleague the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes) has indicated, not only do we support the bill but we are also very pleased to see that there finally is going to be a better resolution to what has been an extremely serious problem.
We were not given any briefing notes indicating the extent of the problem in dollar terms. I remember a few years ago a figure being used of approximately $68 million per year of payments that were owing and were not being paid, mostly by men to women. I do not know the most recent figures for 1983 and 1984 on how much money owing in support payments has not been paid. It is obviously more than $68 million. That gives us some idea of the dimension of the problem.
One portion I am not quite clear on, and I would appreciate the Attorney General's considered opinion on it, is whether, when a person has secured payment by court order and the person who is supposed to make the payments decides to leave the jurisdiction, the person who is owed the payments will continue to receive payment without interruption. I was afraid that was missing.
There are some cases the Attorney General is well aware of when a woman has secured payments through the court and the spouse decides the best way to avoid the payments is to leave the province. In some cases, that is not just to another part of Canada; they decide to go to the United States or wherever. Unless I have misunderstood what is here, the woman is back in the same position as she is in now. If I am wrong about that, and I hope I am, I would appreciate an explanation. If I am right, I would like to know whether the Attorney General has the same concern and would direct his mind to amending the bill.
What is fair for one individual in this situation is fair for all individuals who find themselves in this predicament. It is surely not the fault of the woman who has been left and who has secured the court's approval for payments if the person owing the money leaves the province or the country. I would like to know whether it is covered in the bill and, if it is not, what we can do to remedy that unfortunate situation.
10:20 p.m.
Hon. Mr. Scott: I thank the honourable members for their thoughtful consideration and review of this legislation. May I respond to the inquiry raised by the member for Ottawa Centre relating to clause 6(2)(c). As she will see, section 6 provides that the director is the custodian of the information and that he may release it. He may not, under subsection 2, release information at all unless it falls into one of the three categories. He is the one who is deciding, but it must be in one of those three categories.
The purpose of clause (c) arises in the following circumstance: If a debtor absconds, it may be necessary for the police to be retained to commence criminal proceedings in order to seek the return of that debtor. If there is a custody default in which the child has to be recovered, or has been abducted, it may be necessary for the director to provide information to the police so they can commence the criminal proceedings designed to bring the kidnapped child back into the jurisdiction.
The honourable member is obviously concerned about information getting into improper hands. The protection is that no information will be released until the director says so. He has the capacity to release it, and it will only be in these three categories. Obviously, if one has a director who is releasing information to the police in nonsupport, custody and maintenance matters, one has a director one has to fire. He is simply not attending to his responsibilities under the act.
With respect to the question raised by the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner), if I understand his concern, it is raised by the following situation: What happens if the debtor leaves the jurisdiction and does not pay? First, the act in Ontario, if passed, will be part of a network of acts that will have a reciprocal effect, so the director will be able to refer the matter to his opposite number in Manitoba, who will then take over the collection process. However, if the collection process fails to work, either because the debtor has no money or in the end cannot be found, there is no mechanism in this act. It was not intended to replace those payments from the consolidated revenue fund.
In other words, if the person owing the obligation either cannot be found or cannot pay, there is no provision in this act and it is not intended that payments should be made by the general taxpayer. That is not to say there are not provisions in the general law that will come to the aid of such persons, but they are not contained in this act.
Motion agreed to.
Bill ordered for standing committee on administration of justice.
CHANGE OF NAME ACT
Hon. Mr. Scott moved second reading of Bill 11, An Act to revise the Change of Name Act.
Hon. Mr. Scott: Perhaps Mr. Speaker will want to call it 10:30 now, or does he want me to make a statement? I am not conversant with this. I am just about to commence my statement, but I note it is close to 10:30 and I draw it to your attention, sir.
The House adjourned at 10:25 p.m.