This is page numbers 115 - 148 of the Hansard for the 12th Assembly, 7th Session. The original version can be accessed on the Legislative Assembly's website or by contacting the Legislative Assembly Library. The word of the day was chairman.

Topics

Bill 5: An Act To Amend The Maintenance Act
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 136

The Chair John Ningark

Thank you. Mr. Mark Aitken, director of legislation.

Bill 5: An Act To Amend The Maintenance Act
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 136

Aitken

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The definition "common-law spouse" provides that a common-law spouse means either of a man and a woman. This means that it only includes a relationship between a man and a woman, it would not include a relationship between two men or between two women. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Bill 5: An Act To Amend The Maintenance Act
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 136

The Chair John Ningark

Thank you. General comments from the floor. Mr. Arvaluk.

Bill 5: An Act To Amend The Maintenance Act
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 136

James Arvaluk Aivilik

Mr. Chairman, in the area of limitation -- I don't know my law very well -- does this two years also apply to married couples?

Bill 5: An Act To Amend The Maintenance Act
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 137

The Chair John Ningark

Thank you. Mr. Minister, you can use your discretion if you want one of your witnesses to answer.

Bill 5: An Act To Amend The Maintenance Act
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 137

Stephen Kakfwi

Stephen Kakfwi Sahtu

Ms. Cooper will answer that.

Bill 5: An Act To Amend The Maintenance Act
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 137

Cooper

Mr. Chairman, when people divorce, most of the time they're going to be looking for support payments under the Divorce Act, which is a piece of federal legislation. Those provisions would apply to people who are divorcing and have divorced. Married people could still apply under this act for support, but they can only apply under this act instead of the Divorce Act until the time when they are no longer spouses because once they're no longer spouses, they wouldn't come under this act.

Bill 5: An Act To Amend The Maintenance Act
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 137

The Chair John Ningark

Thank you. I'd like to apologize to Mr. Dent. I'll recognize Mr. Arvaluk and then when he's finished, I'll go to Mr. Dent. Mr. Arvaluk.

Bill 5: An Act To Amend The Maintenance Act
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 137

James Arvaluk Aivilik

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I see the difference: In the area of common-law spouse, from the time they separate up to two years, these limitations would apply; however, in the case of married couples, not the separation but the divorce would apply. I guess my point here is if you were married, it seems to give you more time because sometimes divorce takes years and not right after the separation. Am I correct in that?

Bill 5: An Act To Amend The Maintenance Act
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 137

The Chair John Ningark

Thank you. Mr. Minister.

Bill 5: An Act To Amend The Maintenance Act
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 137

Stephen Kakfwi

Stephen Kakfwi Sahtu

Mr. Chairman, when you live common law, there's no legal contract that binds you so these provisions were intended to give some sense of permanence, a short-lived permanence, or some status because when you get married there is a legal contract. Whether you separate or not, until you divorce that contract is binding. It tries to give the common-law relationship a little more equal footing so that if you lived common law, at least you don't have just a week after you've broken up to act. There has to be some measure of time but also some comfort to at least one of the parties who may want to get on with other relationships or financial commitments. That's why it worked out the way it did. Thank you.

Bill 5: An Act To Amend The Maintenance Act
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 137

The Chair John Ningark

Thank you. On the list of speakers I have Mr. Dent and Jeannie Marie-Jewell. Mr. Dent.

Bill 5: An Act To Amend The Maintenance Act
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 137

Charles Dent

Charles Dent Yellowknife Frame Lake

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In terms of a general comment, I just wanted to say that I support the intent of this act and am glad to see it coming forward. I had, Mr. Chairman, attended the committee meetings in December and expressed concern there about the terms; that being, the two-year limitation. I have a number of questions about different sections of the act, Mr. Chairman, and I notice other Members have gotten into that so I hope that you won't mind if I proceed with some questions I have on different clauses.

I wonder if we could find out if the definition of common-law spouse in this act is comparable to other jurisdictions. In other words, do other jurisdictions say that it should be a period of two years? Do other jurisdictions say that the cohabitation should be a period of six months, one year, or three years? I

wonder if we could get a comparison of what is common across Canada?

Bill 5: An Act To Amend The Maintenance Act
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 137

The Chair John Ningark

Thank you. Commonly, when we go to sections, the section that has the suspect clause in it, that is the appropriate time but I have let a couple Members ask questions so I will let Mr. Dent ask his questions. Mr. Minister.

Bill 5: An Act To Amend The Maintenance Act
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 137

Stephen Kakfwi

Stephen Kakfwi Sahtu

We have a sheet here and perhaps what I could do is offer to give copies to Members so I don't have to read out it's entirety. It gives examples of British Columbia, Manitoba, and all the provinces across the country and what is applicable there. Is that acceptable to the Member?

Bill 5: An Act To Amend The Maintenance Act
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 137

The Chair John Ningark

Thank you. Mr. Dent.

Bill 5: An Act To Amend The Maintenance Act
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 137

Charles Dent

Charles Dent Yellowknife Frame Lake

Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to get the detail in printed form but I think for the record, the Minister should perhaps read the shortest and the longest so that there is some indication on the record as to what the variation is.

Bill 5: An Act To Amend The Maintenance Act
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 137

The Chair John Ningark

Thank you. Mr. Minister.

Bill 5: An Act To Amend The Maintenance Act
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 137

Stephen Kakfwi

Stephen Kakfwi Sahtu

Mr. Chairman, in British Columbia it's within one year of separation. Manitoba is the same. New Brunswick is the same. Newfoundland is the same. In Ontario, it's within two years of separation. In the Yukon, it's within three months of separation. Those are the examples that we have a this time.

Bill 5: An Act To Amend The Maintenance Act
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 137

The Chair John Ningark

Thank you. Mr. Dent.

Bill 5: An Act To Amend The Maintenance Act
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 137

Charles Dent

Charles Dent Yellowknife Frame Lake

Mr. Chairman. I would like to clarify the Minister's answer. I had indicated that I would be willing to have him read only the shortest and the longest into the record and I had asked about the definition of a "common-law spouse." The Minister, in his answer, just mentioned within three months of separation. I was going to ask that question next but I think the Minister may not have answered the question that I was asking. What I'm interested in is the definition of "common-law spouse." In other jurisdictions, is that typically for two years or where there is a child who is a product of the relationship, is it shorter or longer?

Bill 5: An Act To Amend The Maintenance Act
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 137

The Chair John Ningark

Thank you. Mr. Minister.

Bill 5: An Act To Amend The Maintenance Act
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 137

Stephen Kakfwi

Stephen Kakfwi Sahtu

Mr. Chairman, in British Columbia the definition basically reads that you have a common-law relationship where the two people have been living together for a period of not less than two years. In Manitoba, it's where parties cohabited for at least one year and there is child or the parties have cohabited for five years. In New Brunswick, where parties have cohabited continuously for a period of not less than three years in a relationship, where one person substantially depends on the other or parties are in a relationship of some permanence and have child. In Newfoundland, the parties cohabited for a period of one year or more and the man is the father of a child born to the woman. In Nova Scotia, parties living together as husband and wife for one year. In Ontario, parties have cohabited continuously for a period of not less than three years or parties are in a relationship of some permanence and have a child. In

the Yukon, parties cohabited in a relationship of some permanence. In Saskatchewan, parties cohabited as husband and wife for a period of not less than three years or parties cohabited as husband and wife in a relationship of some permanence if they are the birth or adopted parents of a child.

Bill 5: An Act To Amend The Maintenance Act
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 138

The Chair John Ningark

Thank you. Bill 5, Mr. Dent.

Bill 5: An Act To Amend The Maintenance Act
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 138

Charles Dent

Charles Dent Yellowknife Frame Lake

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm assuming that the numbers the Minister read out earlier had to do with the restriction on the amount of time after the relationship ends, for people to seek support. I would like to know why two years was selected by this jurisdiction. As far as I know, some jurisdictions -- as the Minister has stated -- are as short as three months. And, I'm not sure he mentioned Saskatchewan, but I understand Saskatchewan has no time limit at all, so a person in a relationship there has no limitation on when they might seek support afterwards.

So, I guess my question is what is the rationale for two years in our jurisdiction? Is it just because Ontario happened to do it? I notice Ontario is the only jurisdiction that chose two years and so the question is, why did we follow along with them and not look at another province like, for instance, Saskatchewan?