Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, in my mind this motion is about rights and obligations, the right of two adults to start or end a relationship. The obligation to share the spoils of that relationship and the obligation to acknowledge the penances arising from the relationship. I do not see the motion as encouraging same sex relationships. It does recognize, however, when two people live together, dependencies can develop and that both contribute to the relationship.
It also seems to be an issue of benefits. Two people contribute over time in their own way and this Act provides a way to divide the contribution fairly, very similar to splitting a small business. This Act gives rules to guide the split. In my mind, this amendment would also protect partners in an unequal relationship, dealing with things like power, knowledge of the law, and education levels which can be different between partners.
Madam Chair, if you look at the legal trends across the country where there is an issue in dividing or providing quality and benefits, most legal cases includes reference to same sex. My sense is that, if we do not recognize this now, with this legislation that has been the works for 10 years, that we will soon be forced to do so in the courts, which as we all know with other circumstances we are involved in, is an extremely costly and adversarial process.
Madam Chair, once again, to me this is not an issue of condoning, condemning or approving same sex relationships. It just recognizes that all long-term couples should have the same obligation to equitably share property. It forces couples to face their responsibilities. It does not let them rely on society to pick up the pieces.
Madam Chair, I will support on principle that people should fulfil these responsibilities and obligations. I will be supporting the motion. Thank you.
