No. 5B No 5B ISSN 1180-2987 Legislative Assembly Assemblée législative of Ontario de l’Ontario First Session, 37th Parliament Première session, 37e législature Official Report Journal of Debates des débats (Hansard) (Hansard) Wednesday 27 October 1999 Mercredi 27 octobre 1999 Speaker Président Honourable Gary Carr L’honorable Gary Carr Clerk Greffier Claude L. DesRosiers Claude L. DesRosiers Hansard on the Internet Le Journal des débats sur Internet Hansard and other documents of the Legislative Assembly L’adresse pour faire paraître sur votre ordinateur personnel can be on your personal computer within hours after each le Journal et d’autres documents de l’Assemblée législative sitting. The address is: en quelques heures seulement après la séance est : http://www.ontla.on.ca/ Index inquiries Renseignements sur l’index Reference to a cumulative index of previous issues may be Adressez vos questions portant sur des numéros précédents obtained by calling the Hansard Reporting Service indexing du Journal des débats au personnel de l’index, qui vous staff at 416-325-7410 or 325-3708. fourniront des références aux pages dans l’index cumulatif, en composant le 416-325-7410 ou le 325-3708. Copies of Hansard Exemplaires du Journal Information regarding purchase of copies of Hansard may Pour des exemplaires, veuillez prendre contact avec be obtained from Publications Ontario, Management Board Publications Ontario, Secrétariat du Conseil de gestion, Secretariat, 50 Grosvenor Street, Toronto, Ontario, M7A 50 rue Grosvenor, Toronto (Ontario) M7A 1N8. Par 1N8. Phone 416-326-5310, 326-5311 or toll-free téléphone : 416-326-5310, 326-5311, ou sans frais : 1-800-668-9938. 1-800-668-9938. Hansard Reporting and Interpretation Services Service du Journal des débats et d’interprétation 3330 Whitney Block, 99 Wellesley St W 3330 Édifice Whitney ; 99, rue Wellesley ouest Toronto ON M7A 1A2 Toronto ON M7A 1A2 Telephone 416-325-7400; fax 416-325-7430 Téléphone, 416-325-7400 ; télécopieur, 416-325-7430 Published by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario Publié par l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario 159 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE OF ONTARIO DE L’ONTARIO Wednesday 27 October 1999 Mercredi 27 octobre 1999 The House met at 1830. provide an equivalent set of rights and responsibilities for same-sex partners as for common-law spouses in this province. ORDERS OF THE DAY Second, there was the timing issue. The court indi- cated that the matter should be dealt with within six months, which is by November 20, 1999. AMENDMENTS BECAUSE OF THE Third, the indication was that the approach that could SUPREME COURT OF CANADA DECISION be taken or perhaps ought to be taken by the province IN M. v. H. ACT, 1999 was a comprehensive one; and indeed the province has LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT DES LOIS done so. There has been a review of the numerous public statutes of this province in an attempt to be responsive to EN RAISON DE LA DÉCISION that indication from the Supreme Court of Canada. DE LA COUR SUPRÊME DU CANADA DANS L’ARRÊT M. c. H. Marriage is not affected by this bill. There are certain unique rights and responsibilities that relate to marriage Mr Flaherty moved second reading of the following that are not affected by this bill; for example, the prop- bill: erty rights in parts I and II of the Family Law Act, the Bill 5, An Act to amend certain statutes because of the right to inherit on intestacy in the Succession Law Act, Supreme Court of Canada decision in M. v. H. / Projet de and other rights and responsibilities. It is important for loi 5, Loi modifiant certaines lois en raison de la décision members to be aware of that fundamental in this debate, de la Cour suprême du Canada dans l’arrêt M. c. H. that marriage is not affected by this bill. Marriage, as Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister members know, involves a man and a woman in Ontario. responsible for native affairs): This bill responds to the We have preserved in the bill the traditional definition Supreme Court of Canada decision while preserving the of “spouse” and “marital status.” Both “spouse” in traditional values of the family by protecting the defini- part III of the Family Law Act and “marital status” in the tion of “spouse” in Ontario law. This legislation is not Ontario Human Rights Code, as defined now, refer to a part of our Blueprint agenda. We are introducing this bill man and a woman, and that remains. because of the Supreme Court of Canada decision. By way of context, in May of this year the Supreme Conceptually, the bill creates throughout the Ontario Court of Canada rendered its decision in a case called public statutes the rights and responsibilities for same-sex M. and H. The Supreme Court found section 29 of partners. As members have gone through the bill, I’m Ontario’s Family Law Act to be unconstitutional. The sure they’ve noticed that that is repeated throughout the Supreme Court of Canada also noted that numerous amendments. It is certainly important and I think helpful Ontario provincial statutes include similar provisions to for members to understand that that concept and theme the provision which the court held to be unconstitutional are repeated throughout the bill. in the M. and H. case. The bill itself can appear somewhat intimidating at The court suspended its declaration for six months first blush because it is rather long, but as I’m attempting from May of this year to allow the province of Ontario to to indicate to members, the length of the bill is not in- address these issues in a comprehensive fashion. A com- dicative of the complexity of the principles involved. In prehensive response is necessary to protect the constitu- fact, the principles involved are few in number and quite tionality of many of the public statutes of Ontario. This direct. One of those principles is the creation of same-sex bill amends 67 public statutes of this province. partner rights throughout the various items of statute law The Supreme Court of Canada ruling means that under that are referred to in the bill. the Constitution, same-sex partners are entitled to the Another important point is, pursuant to the ruling of same rights and responsibilities as common-law couples. the Supreme Court of Canada, the attempt in Bill 5 to There are three indications from the Supreme Court of create that equivalency of rights and responsibilities Canada that are taken into consideration pursuant to the between same-sex partners and common-law spouses in M. and H. case. Ontario indeed was, as we understand it, the essence of First of all there is, if I may call it so, the equivalency the ruling made by the Supreme Court of Canada in May directive, where the court indicated that the law ought to of this year. 160 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO 27 OCTOBER 1999 The other principle I’ve mentioned is the com- this complex and difficult project. They deserve our prehensiveness of the approach. An attempt has been thanks, in my view, and congratulations for a job well made to use the best skills available to do a thorough done. They have certainly demonstrated a high degree of analysis of the public statutes of the province of Ontario professionalism in their work with respect to Bill 5. and to respond appropriately to the ruling of the Supreme I stress that this bill reserves the definition of “spouse” Court of Canada with respect to all of those many and “marital status” for a man and a woman, the tradi- statutes. tional definition of “family” in Ontario. The bill intro- This is not just about rights. This is also about respon- duces into the law a new term called “same-sex partner,” sibilities. One of the most fundamental rights and respon- while at the same time protecting the traditional defini- sibilities that the Supreme Court of Canada dealt with in tions of “spouse” and “marital status.” M. v. H. was the right of support, which on the other The rights and obligations that are unique to married hand is the responsibility of paying support. That is dealt couples and are not being extended to same-sex partners with in part III of the Family Law Act. It is a right that in particular are property rights, the rights that relate to accrues to common-law spouses in Ontario and therefore, the matrimonial home, and the right to inherit on intes- pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, tacy, for example. The decision of the Supreme Court of if this bill is passed in the wisdom of this Legislative Canada and this bill are not about redefining the tradi- Assembly, then those rights and responsibilities with tional understanding of family. This bill responds to the respect to support, which are significant rights, would Supreme Court ruling while preserving the traditional also accrue to same-sex partners in Ontario. values of the family in Ontario. This government respects If the bill is passed, same-sex partners would have an the Constitution. That is why we are introducing this obligation to provide financial support when a relation- legislation. I remind all members on both sides of the ship breaks down just as common-law spouses do now. House of the need to meet the November 20 deadline set The courts would hear law proceedings involving same- by the Supreme Court of Canada. sex partners. May I also say, by way of concluding remarks, that Same-sex partners would be eligible to receive pen- I’ve been involved in a substantial number of consulta- sion, employment and insurance benefits provided for in tions as Attorney General, with respect to this bill, with several statutes.