Debates of March 23rd, 2005

Parliament of Canada Act

[Colleen Beaumier, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wish to be recorded as voting no to the motion.

[Raymond Bonin, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wish to be recorded as voting no to the motion.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Madam Speaker, I wish to be recorded as voting no to the motion.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wish to be recorded as voting no to the motion.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wish to be recorded as being in opposition to the motion.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wish to be recorded as a no vote.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wish to be recorded as voting against the motion.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wish to be recorded as being against the motion.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wish to be recorded as voting no to the motion.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wish to be recorded as voting against the motion.

(The House divided on motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from March 10 consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

Foreign Credential Recognition Program

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the motion.

The question is on the amendment.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

I declare the amendment lost.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, given that the amendment has just been defeated, I would seek unanimous consent of the House that we now go to a vote on the main motion.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

There is no unanimous consent. Accordingly the motion is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

The House resumed from March 22 consideration of the motion that Bill C-272, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (sponsorship of relative), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion for second reading stage of Bill C-272 under private members' business.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

I declare the motion lost.

Message from the Senate

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed certain bills, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

March 23, 2005

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 23rd day of March, 2005, at 4:56 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Curtis Barlow

Deputy Secretary

Policy, Program and Protocol

The schedule indicates that royal assent was given to Bill S-17, an act to implement an agreement, conventions and protocols concluded between Canada and Gabon, Ireland, Armenia, Oman and Azerbaijan for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion--Chapter No. 8; Bill C-20, an act to provide for real property taxation powers of first nations, to create a First Nations Tax Commission, First Nations Financial Management Board, First Nations Finance Authority and First Nations Statistical Institute and to make consequential amendments to other acts--Chapter No. 9; Bill C-6, an act to establish the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and to amend or repeal certain acts--Chapter No. 10; Bill C-39, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and to enact an act respecting the provision of funding for diagnostic and medical equipment--Chapter No. 11; Bill C-41, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 2005--Chapter No. 12; Bill C-42, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 2006--Chapter No. 13; and Bill C-18, an act to amend the Telefilm Canada Act and another act--Chapter No. 14.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Madam Speaker, on December 3 I raised a question on an issue that has arisen in Manitoba. It has also happened in Saskatchewan and British Columbia.

The province of Manitoba informed all marriage commissioners that they had to perform same sex marriages and that if they refused, they would have their licences revoked. Right off the bat, 11 marriage commissioners resigned. Two more refused to quit and have taken this matter before the Manitoba Human Rights Commission.

My question is quite simple. We have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada, yet the government has not stood up for these individuals' rights. The freedom of religion and the freedom of conscience of these individuals are being trampled upon by the Government of Manitoba and also by the Government of Saskatchewan and the Government of British Columbia.

I want to make sure that the federal government will stand up for the rights of individuals. We cherish our charter in this country. We believe strongly in the freedoms that we enjoy as individuals. Yet the federal government has not come to the aid of those individuals. It should be standing side by side with them, defending their rights to freedom of religion, freedom of expression and freedom of conscience and making sure that their voices are heard by the Manitoba Human Rights Commission. The government should tell the province of Manitoba and the other provinces that are doing this to take a solid step back and allow individual freedoms to reign.

Of the two people who are fighting this in Manitoba, one is a constituent of mine, Kevin Kisilowsky. He got his marriage commissioner licence from the province of Manitoba because he wished to sanction marriages outside of a church. He is a Christian who has an outreach ministry for outlaw biker gangs and a youth ministry. He is trying to reach out. These people do not belong to a church. He is not affiliated with any particular religious organization. In order to legally marry people who decide to become Christians through his ministry he needs to have a licence.

He already informed the Government of Manitoba when he applied for his licence that he only wished to marry Christian couples through his outreach ministry. He was told to go ahead with his application and that he would be put on a private list. Unfortunately, Kevin is now in a situation where he refuses to perform same sex marriages so his entire licence is being revoked.

Essentially I want the government to explain why it has not supported Kevin and all the other commissioners in Manitoba. I want the government to make sure that they can still perform traditional marriages. This does not prevent the province of Manitoba from hiring other marriage commissioners to perform same sex marriages.

Let us defend the rights of individuals who were born and raised in Canada and also those individuals who came to Canada because we have such a great charter. Let us not trample on those rights. I want the government to explain why it has not supported the individuals' rights and freedoms of religion and conscience.