Thank you, Mr. Speaker, honourable Members. Mr. Speaker, the two-year limitation on action also reflects a philosophical decision. The Minister said, on Thursday, that when a common-law relationship breaks up, at least one of the parties would end up looking for another relationship quite quickly and that 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 would have to be fulfilled.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I would argue that reflects a philosophy and there could be a lot of discussion about whether that philosophy is accepted by a majority in our society. Does the Minister think it is wrong for me to point out that in Saskatchewan there is no two-year limitation on action; in fact, there is no time limit at all? Rather than taking my comments on the bill personally, I had expected that he would at least attempt to provide me with arguments as to why certain decisions were made or, if he thought my concerns could be addressed other ways, to let me know that.

The goal should be to have the best legislation protecting the most people possible. Mr. Speaker, concerns expressed by ordinary Members should not just be dismissed out of hand as showing no respect for the Minister. At no time have I heard how this legislation will provide relief to those who were left with no protection immediately following the court decision in 1991. The two-year limitation means people who left relationships between 1991 and 1993 have no recourse. That certainly was a policy decision, which is reflected in the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, later today we will probably give Bill 5 third reading. Let me say again that, because it allows improvement over the current situation, I will be voting in favour of the bill. I still think there are some issues which need to be addressed. The Minister did say there are other amendments, other proposals which are going to come forward in a larger package as part of family law reform and I only hope that some of those proposals will deal with the shortcomings I pointed out. I hope, too, that comments made by ordinary Members will be taken constructively and not considered personal attacks. I will repeat, Mr. Speaker, the goal should be the best possible legislation protecting the most people and I'm not sure we get that if ordinary Members are not able to point out concerns we have with proposed legislation without Ministers taking our criticism as personal attacks. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

---Applause