Debates of March 9, 2005 (day 52)

…and now this thing comes up and the government puts this as high priority. We know what’s happening in Ottawa. Why couldn’t they wait until that issue was dealt with? Specifically to this clause, Mr. Chairman, they’re mixing apples and oranges here.

---Laughter

You know? Not oranges to oranges, but apples to oranges. On one hand what they’re doing, it’s not a laughing matter. What they’re doing is for the unmarried common-law couples for the benefits, as the Minister indicated, in some of our laws that we have in place the benefits for common-law couples they don’t receive now because of the way our law is. I agree with the Minister that those types of amendments have to come forward so that the unmarried common-law couples can receive those types of things and make all those necessary changes as these ones. But on the other hand, for same-sex couples they’re giving them the same thing. By doing that, you’re basically agreeing with same-sex marriage. It ties together.

---Applause

So why didn’t the government, to play it on the safe side, particularly for the majority of the people in the Territories, separate those two issues and bring in a bill pertaining to unmarried common-law spouses so they fit into this bill. Maybe at a later date, after what happens in Ottawa, bring in another amendment for the same-sex marriage to make the same amendments. Why couldn’t they do that rather than lumping it all together? That’s my question to the Minister on spouses.

Thank you. On clause 5, as amended. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Whether the federal government actually changes the definition of marriage or not we should still proceed with this legislation. Even if the definition of marriage isn’t changed, we should proceed with this. The Member just agreed that heterosexual common-law couples shouldn’t be discriminated against simply because they’re not legally married. That is supported by the courts. Well, the courts have supported the exact same thing with same-sex couples. You can’t discriminate against them simply because they’re not legally married. You can’t say they’re not a couple. So whether the definition of marriage is changed or not, it has nothing to do with whether or not couples have rights. The courts have found that heterosexual couples, whether they’re married or not, have rights, as do same-sex couples.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Zoe. Clause 5, as amended.

Agreed.

Clause 6.

Agreed.

Mr. Chairman, I move that subclause 7(3) of Bill 17 be amended by striking out “section 7 of Bill_,” in proposed subsection 1(3) of the Intestate Succession Act and by substituting “section 7 of Bill 17,”.

Mr. Chairman, this motion amends sub-clause 7(3) to correct an internal reference back to Bill 17, Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, in a new transitional provision being added to the Intestate Succession Act. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. The motion is in order. To the motion.

Question.

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Clause 7, as amended.

Agreed.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the following be added after clause 8 of Bill 17:

Wildlife Act

8.1. Paragraph 30(3)(a) of the Wildlife Act is amended by deleting “wife or widow” and by substituting “spouse or surviving spouse”.

Mr. Chairman, this motion adds a new clause to the bill which will provide an amendment to the Wildlife Act which presently permits the wife or widow of a general hunting licence holder to hunt in a wildlife preserve in certain circumstances. The reference to wife or widow excludes men, women who live in heterosexual common-law relationships and same-sex spouses of either sex. As amended, paragraph 30(3)(a) will include the spouse and surviving spouse of the holder of a general hunting licence.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. The motion is in order. To the motion.

Question.

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Clause 8, as amended.

Agreed.

Mr. Chairman, I move that clause 9 of Bill 17 be amended by striking out “section 6 of Bill,” in proposed subsection 10(5) of the Wills Act and by substituting “section 6 of Bill 17,”.

Mr. Chairman, this motion amends clause 9 to correct an internal reference back to Bill 17, Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, in a transitional provision being added to the Wills Act. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just an observation. Again, I’m not on the Social Programs committee, but why are we bringing forward so many different amendments on the floor of the House and why isn’t it a much cleaner piece of legislation? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As outlined in the opening comments by the chair of the standing committee, there were a number of issues that were raised in the review with the standing committee and a commitment was made to come back with amendments during the standing committee process. But when we appeared before the standing committee with the amendments, the suggestion by the standing committee was that we deal with them in Committee of the Whole. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What was the reason again? Was it strictly the Social Programs committee that wanted it to come forward this way to Committee of the Whole?

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Committee members, could we just speak to clause 9, as amended? Mr. Dent, would you like to respond to Mr. Ramsay’s comment?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can only go by the chair's opening comments to the bill today in which it was noted that the committee decided not to proceed with moving any amendments during its clause-by-clause review in order to allow for discussion of any motions in Committee of the Whole during its review of the bill in its entirety so that all Members could participate.

Point of order there, Mr. Chairman. We’re dealing with an entirely new bill here. That’s not the one we began with, so I don’t know what’s going on.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Can you tell us what your point of order is, Mr. Menicoche, on Bill 17? Thank you.

Okay, to Mr. Menicoche’s point of order then, his point of order is that the bill has been changed in substance to the extent that it’s no longer the same bill that was brought forward and, in fact, these are amendments to the bill which can be voted on as we proceed through the bill. This is a normal course of business. So, Mr. Menicoche, I’m sorry; you don’t have a point of order. To the motion on clause 9. Mr. Menicoche.

What exactly is this amendment changing?

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Madam Chair. What this is changing is, if you look at the first section in quotation marks where it says “section 6 of Bill,” there’s no number there and now it says “Bill 17.” At the time this was initially presented to committee we didn’t know what number it would be. So it would be a normal course of business to make this change as part of the committee review had they considered our bills. But this is to put the bill number in.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. To the motion. Anything further, Mr. Menicoche?

Question.

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Clause 9, as amended.

Agreed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that clause 10 of Bill 17 be amended by striking out “section 6 of Bill,” in proposed section 1.1 of the Workers’ Compensation Act and by substituting “section 6 of Bill 17,”.

Madam Chair, this motion amends clause 10 to correct the internal reference back to Bill 17, Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, in a new application provision being added to the Workers’ Compensation Act.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. We’ll give the Pages a chance to distribute the motion and Members a chance to read it and think about it. The motion is in order. To the motion.

Question.

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Clause 10, as amended.

Agreed.

Madam Chair, I move that Bill 17 be amended by -- how am I going to put this now -- by inserting:

11. This act comes into force on the day the Civil Marriage Act (Canada) comes into force.

Okay, Mr. Zoe, I think we’ll need to take a break in order to have that motion printed up and brought back into the House and translated and then we’ll be back. We’ll have a break until then. Thank you.

---SHORT RECESS