Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Most Members received a newspaper called the "Lawyer's Weekly," and in September there was a case in British Columbia where the adoptive parents were claiming compensation for a child who was in an accident. The adoptive parents were in their 90s, but the court in British Columbia made a ruling that because, under the Insurance Act, it identifies only the legally adoptive parents or the biological parents for benefits under the Insurance Act, this old couple were denied any kind of compensation.

I do have the copy of the case itself, but the case involves an application by the biological grandparents, who were also the custom adoptive parents, for compensation due to the death of their grandson by custom adoption. Under the regulations made pursuant to the Insurance Motor Vehicles Act, dependent parents could claim for compensation from the insurance corporation. The issue was whether the words "dependent parents" included those parents who were parents by custom adoption. The Supreme Court of British Columbia held that adoption by custom only provides moral rights or obligation. There are no legal rights or obligation. In other words, Mr. Speaker, under the present Insurance Act in BC, the custom adoptive parents could not claim compensation unless it was their natural child.

The elders themselves, under section 5 of the Charter of Rights, would have challenged that act on the basis that it was unconstitutional because custom adoption is like a customary practice and aboriginal right. However, Mr. Speaker, the elders have no money to challenge the act itself. The Insurance Act in BC is still a legal document, but in the NWT, where we do practise custom adoption, it is recognized. But in all the acts themselves there are a lot of places where it refers to parents and a child, and a "child" means a person who "in the absence of evidence to the contrary, appears to be under 18 years of age." Parents include a guardian except in part four. This is under the Child Welfare Act.

But in a lot of acts right now, the NWT Act, Education Act, Social Assistance Act, you have the definition of "parents" and you also have the definition of "child." But when those definitions are there, they do not necessarily refer to a custom adopted child. What I am asking the government to do is basically review all their statutory laws to ensure that where the definition of "parents" or "child" is written, then they include in there "custom adopted child" or "custom adoptive parents".

In the event that a ruling like this happened here in the NWT, I am sure it would be challenged. Basically that is the only reason I made the motion, just to ensure something like this does not happen, or in the event that there is an accident or a death of custom adoptive parents or child, that perhaps even the insurance companies do not use that excuse of denying the custom adoptive parents compensation, or the child compensation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.