Mr. Chairman, the good Member starts his comments by saying he thought it was very biased, and I'm a little bit concerned about the comment, not with that in isolation, because the previous Member said very clearly she thought I was very chauvinistic in the remark I made and I don't know what it means because there's no explanation, it was just left dangling out there by itself. There are lots of name-calling going on in this business. I don't want to pretend I didn't hear it, so I just wanted to let the Member know I got it. It coloured the context in which you made your remarks, Mr. Whitford.

The initial remarks you made, I thought were focusing on, what about the little person. I take that to mean what about the child. I should point out that this legislation doesn't apply to child support payments, it only applies to where a man or a woman who was in a common-law relationship wants to apply, after that relationship has broken up, for support payments for themselves. Where a child is involved, there is no limitation whether the child comes out of a common-law relationship or a legally married couple. So there is that comfort for us in there.

As to what can we do with common-law spouses who may appear to be out of the legal reach of this government or the courts, I don't know the answer to that. I don't know if there any provisions for people who are compelled to make payments or who are being taken to court to seek support payments, whether they should be compelled through the government of another country to provide those payments. I don't know that. I think that was what you were asking in the last part of your question.