Thank you, Madam Chair. During the public hearings we heard from a number of communities, some concern over the definition of spouse in the family law bill. Just the motion and the title of the Act, Family Law Act, seems to point towards families. I was happy in hearing the Minister's opening when comments he spoke of the family unit.
Madam Chair, we have heard arguments a number of times now that other parts of this country are looking at changing their laws. That is one of the reasons why we should be changing our laws, but those decisions have not been made final, especially the one that is in front of the Supreme Court. So that argument I cannot buy. I, and hopefully other Members of this Assembly, will take it very seriously what a family means. Without families, none of us would be here and there would be no need for any of these laws. We have a very serious responsibility and, though others may argue the fact of law, the thing I recall during these public hearings whether it related to husband and wives or children, was law could be used in many ways, good or bad. There is always a way of twisting it around. I am quite concerned that we are setting laws for the territories and may be looking at this just because the nature of spouse refers to marriage. We hear that this will not be impacting that, this will just allow certain other things to happen. But to me the word spouse implies marriage, a husband and wife, and from that we go on. In fact, generations have built on the same families. As I said in my Member's statement earlier today, without a mother and a father there would be no conception. There is no other way of doing things besides how we have been made. To accept anything less than that, would be saying that we disagree with the ultimate reality that life is based on procreation, man and woman, joined in unity and would continue to support life.
As I said, when I drink from my cup of coffee on a daily basis when I am in this Assembly, it would do me great to know that I have taught my children and raised them in truth. To me, by agreeing to something like this, I would be telling my children that this would be the truth and this was the natural way things happen. I have seen, over the years, in the Northwest Territories things change from small towns to large growing centres. Where outside influences have changed things, sometimes for the better, but a lot for the worst, as we have heard in this House. I would urge Members to join me in saying no to this motion because we can set this example, once again, that this lifestyle, this way of doing business and of writing laws in this way, is normal.
I can easily say I respect people who make their decisions based on their lifestyles. That is their decision. There are no facts. There is no solid evidence to prove that this is not anything else but a decision one makes in their life and how they would like to live it. As I make decisions in my life and how I want to live it, I do not go to others to say, this is my lifestyle, endorse it, give me that right and I will live happily ever after. In a perfect world we would not have to face these things, but we are far from a perfect world, as we know. But I think we have a responsibility to show the youth, the generation coming up, that we, as leaders, are leaders that are responsible, and we respect life and the creation of life. That is what we base our laws on. I think every one of us should seriously consider the actions here and the long term impacts of what this decision makes, not just based on law, because law can make wrongs right in some cases. Those are my comments towards the ability of making laws. I would hope that as we review this and it comes to a vote, that Members would think of their families at home and how they will react and respond to this and what we are setting them up for in the generations to come. Thank you, Madam Chair.