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 138

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 138

Stephen Kakfwi

Stephen Kakfwi Sahtu

Mr. Chairman, this was the time limit that I thought, with the advice of officials, would be a reasonable time period. We looked at the anomalies across this country and we made the decision that two years was a reasonable time period to put into legislation.

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. General comments. 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

Mr. Chairman, in response to that, I will continue to support the bill because I don't want to see it thrown back but I must express some concern about that limitation. I think it would have been better to have gone with a longer period of time. But, not wanting to see the act held up, I will continue to support the act. 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 138

The Chair John Ningark

Thank you. Mr. Kakfwi.

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

Page 138

Stephen Kakfwi

Stephen Kakfwi Sahtu

Mr. Chairman, we have to remember that even in 1992, there was still very strong pressure from our societies to see families set up with some permanence. That is, unless I'm terribly outdated, I believe that everyone -- families and societies -- wants people to be married. That is what our whole society is based on. Common-law arrangements have grown increasingly acceptable but the fact that there was no protection for common-law spouses, or even the definition, argues the point that we did not want to deal with them for a great many years.

We are trying to do that here, to protect those people who make the choice to live common law. But, making that choice, you also choose to live with less security than what the law provides for in a legal marriage. That is what we are trying to reflect here. If you want to live common law, that is fine but you should know that the law, in many instances, does not provide any protection for you.

We have moved to provide some protection here, but it is not as good as can be provided in a legal marriage. But, that's the choice you make. You don't have to live common law if you don't want to, and you don't have to get married if you don't want to, either, but you should know there are differences. I think that's the point that should be made here. 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 138

The Chair John Ningark

Thank you. General comments. I have Jeannie Marie-Jewell.

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

Page 138

Jeannie Marie-Jewell Thebacha

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hear what the Minister is saying, the choice of the people is there, and the government is trying to protect some of their interests with regard to maintenance. I guess what I want to know is, the limitation period being two years, how does the government determine the separation date if it is argued?

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. 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 138

Stephen Kakfwi

Stephen Kakfwi Sahtu

If I understand right, Mr. Chairman, there would probably be some ambiguity there because it would be argued before a court of law and the judge would be the one who would decide. If one party said the relationship broke up on one day and the other party argued otherwise, there would have to be arguments made on both sides to convince the presiding judge that their case is the more valid one. In a marriage, there is more protection and more certainty. In common-law arrangements, there isn't. 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 138

The Chair John Ningark

Thank you. General comments. Member for Thebacha.

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

Page 138

Jeannie Marie-Jewell Thebacha

Mr. Chairman, I guess what I'm trying to find out is if this encourages or forces one of the spouses to go through the court process when a common-law relationship breaks up and one of the spouses wants maintenance payments, whether it be the woman or the man, whoever decides to take the children. I guess I'm trying to find out where it can be fine-tuned. I'm not saying that this particular bill has to be amended to accord with the concern I have, but where can we address the issue if, first of all, they choose not to go through the courts? If they can't afford to go through the courts and in the meantime, one of the spouses argues about when they separated, that then prolongs the implementation of any type of maintenance. I guess what I'm saying is this bill could possibly prolong payments to a spouse, if they choose to use the courts.

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. 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 138

Stephen Kakfwi

Stephen Kakfwi Sahtu

Mr. Chairman, I'm not quite clear on what the question is, but I will see if some more comments will help. When a common-law relationship breaks up the parties -- at least one -- would probably end up looking for another relationship quite quickly. I'm just making this up, but bear with me. It would be difficult to strike up another relationship and give certainty to that one if there are still possible outstanding legal or financial obligations that have to be fulfilled.

For instance, if a member goes into another relationship immediately, there should be some period of time in which he or she should know whether a former partner may initiate action which would then mean them ending up making monthly payments in support. That is why we introduced the two years. On the other hand, it gives what you may call "the grieving party" lots of time to initiate action: two years, about when the relationship may or may not have broken up, according to their own definitions.

As I understand it, if there's a written contract between the two to govern their common-law relationship, then that contract could be legally binding on them and these provisions won't necessarily apply.

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

Page 139

The Chair John Ningark

Thank you. General comments on Bill 5. Member for Thebacha.

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

Page 139

Jeannie Marie-Jewell Thebacha

Thank you. I don't know if I was hearing right, Mr. Chairman, but it appeared that I seem to have heard a very chauvinistic attitude by the Minister, and I always thought he was very fair to women.

Mr. Chairman, I guess what I'm concerned about is I don't want to vote against this bill because I think it's critically important that we look after common law with regard to relationships because there's nothing in the current bill as it is, as we stated. I'm trying to see, where can you give common-law spouses who separate some comfort where they may not want to use the courts, may not want to go through the process of going to a judge to determine a date that they have separated and ensure that they're protected under the time frame that this bill allows. That's basically my concern. 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 139

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 139

Stephen Kakfwi

Stephen Kakfwi Sahtu

Mr. Chairman, there are no provisions here. There may not be in the family law reform provisions, but having said that, let me start from the basis that I think all of us acknowledge common-law relationships have minimal protection for both parties. The parties get into that arrangement, I think perhaps not knowing it but having to live with it. So we're trying here just to provide one element because there's some urgency to this one. We haven't addressed all the issues. We haven't addressed all the issues at all.

The amendments, as they are, are all we're proposing at this time. Subsequent provisions to cover other elements of common-law relationships may be coming in the future. 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 139

The Chair John Ningark

Qujannamiik. General comments. Mr. Whitford.

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

Page 139

Tony Whitford

Tony Whitford Yellowknife South

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I recognize it's a fairly short piece of legislation that we're dealing with here, but it's an important piece of legislation. Just to follow up on some of the things my colleagues have been saying earlier on, I think this is kind of -- forgive me for saying this -- a biased piece of legislation, or amendments, that are being made here.

There's a little story that goes something like this. A boyfriend says to his girlfriend, we can live together so in case we make a mistake we won't have to get a divorce. And the girlfriend says, well, what about the little mistake? Who looks after him? And this is what we're talking about. We're talking about the protection of the innocent victims of relationships that go wrong. While it's true that we must recognize a certain long-time commitment with marriage, there are times when it happens that people do cohabit and they choose to part later on, but it's been my experience when I was in social work that it was always the woman who was stuck with the children.

What we're looking at here are limitations, that there's still no clear line on -- at least I'm not clear on it -- when does this clock start ticking, this two-year limitation? The responsibilities that people have go beyond a certain time frame, a month or two months or whatever, two years in this case. That's never been clearly defined, and I guess the answer to that has been to let the courts decide that. Well, that's true. Perhaps we can do that, but there are times when a person may not be aware of their legal rights and may not choose to pursue something because either they don't know about it or they have a certain amount of pride that prevents them from pursuing something like this on a legal basis or in such situations where a person may skip out of the country or the province and their whereabouts are unknown. I would like to try to ask that question to the Minister, to try to deal with that issue of if the rights of an individual or the awareness of the legal rights of an individual are not that clear, and a person can perhaps pinpoint it when they got on the airplane, the boat or the car as to when that relationship ended. But if there's no legal action or there's no way of finding out where an individual is to commence action, is this being covered somewhere in case a person skips?

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

Page 139

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 139

Stephen Kakfwi

Stephen Kakfwi Sahtu

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.

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

Page 140

The Chair John Ningark

Thank you. Qujannamiik. General comments.

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

Page 140

Some Hon. Members

Clause by clause.

Clause By Clause

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

Page 140

The Chair John Ningark

Okay. We shall go clause by clause. Bill 5, An Act to Amend the Maintenance Act. Jeannie Marie-Jewell.