Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess April 1, 1999 not 1991. Madam Chair, a little joke, it is Friday. Madam Chair, I think the other important thing is from a Government of the Northwest Territories point of view. I do not quite see it as a planning document, I see it as a call to action. I think it is important. With respect to the wide distribution of the document under the Premier's office we have sent this out to all municipalities, chiefs, mayors, et cetera. We have made it accessible to all the staff who may wish to have a look at it. I am told that it is the most sought after document we have had, I would like to think in the history of the territories, but I will not exaggerate today. It is certainly a document that will be in most people's libraries, I suspect. That is an indication of the interest level. I think that Mr. Bailey, I say Mr. Roland, I do not know why I keep mixing up the two outstanding gentlemen, maybe that is the reason for it but I keep mixing up the names. It is a much requested document and I think that is an indication of the interest into what is happening. People wish to see and get some clarity on where this government stands and how it is going to move forward. But I would caution you in as much, as again, it is a document that we have prepared as an advisory piece for the Commissioner. It may not be the final action plan, if you want, that will unfold in the coming weeks. I said in the House earlier, and I will say it again today, I would hope that all parties in this process including this House will see some value in the document. They would see some value in that it does try to lay out, as my colleague Mr. Arlooktoo said earlier today, some of the fundamental requirements to put a government in place. I hope that, at the end of the day, consensus will be reached by the partnership. We will be able to move forward in a course of action that will enable us to put some of the essential ingredients for Nunavut in place and maintain the quality of life for people in the western part of the country. We will be able to, as we are now trying to sit down with our federal and territorial colleagues, identify the additional dollars as necessary and to reassure everybody that division will not be on the backs of the current fiscal framework for the Government of the Northwest Territories.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I briefly want to speak in favour of the transition plan. I know a lot of people have spoken already. It is not a perfect document. I would agree with that. It is a starting point. I would agree with that. In all honesty, ideally if we could establish a fully functional government on April 1, 1999, that would be the ideal way of doing it but unfortunately, as everybody recognizes, there is an urgency because April 1, 1999 is less than 18 months away. The transition document does lay out to establish the basic provisions to have a government in place and, that being a judiciary, the legislative executive component, the financial component necessary to have an informational systems and payroll systems in place to provide services. I think, I hope certainly, the NTI, the federal government and the Interim Commissioner will objectively review what is there, add or delete to it or certainly be able to present their own document to deal with this issue of transitioning towards establishment of a functioning Nunavut government on April 1st.

There is the issue about the decentralized government. What we all know the NIC model, which recommended some function in Igloolik, Cape Dorset, Pangnirtung, Pond Inlet, Arviat, Baker Lake, Kugluktuk and Gjoa Haven, has raised a tremendous amount of expectations amongst people in those communities for having employment opportunities and economic opportunities as a result of potential Nunavut government staff being located there. It is fair to say that we fully support that. I have supported it with the qualifier that there has to be the incremental costs provided by the federal government to allow that to happen. We cannot afford to be taking dollars from the programs that we have for health, for education, for justice, for social assistance to be putting that into administration. That is one of the reasons why our government currently had to undergo some strategic reform. That, quite frankly, has caused a lot of problems throughout the Northwest Territories in a loss of economic opportunities. Changes in reductions to some of our programs that have ultimately come back to MLA's, to Ministers and to this House because of the controversy surrounding some of those changes.

I would like to say that, in respect to, the contracting of services from the Nunavut side to the western side is an issue that I think warrants a lot of consideration. It has been mentioned about the corporate knowledge of people already in our government providing services to the Nunavut area, and that would certainly remain the case post 1999 or leading up to 1999. Certainly there would be more corporate knowledge than other southern jurisdictions. If I can speak on some of the knowledge that is in my area of responsibilities for justice and corrections, we know that there is a lack of Nunavut facilities to house offenders. It would make sense to keep our offenders in the current western institutions because of the fact, that at least, there is some knowledge and awareness of the cultural differences from our people from Nunavut, amongst the people that are currently providing services to them. There still is the issue of accessibility to family members who may travel through the western communities to access facilities.

In respect to the health care, the issue is a huge one for people in my constituency. As members may recall, in the first plebiscite in the early 1980s, the Kitikmeot voted against Nunavut and that was a direct result of real concerns about health and education and where they would be going to receive those services. Subsequent to that in the last plebiscite, there were reassurances made by Inuit leaders that people from the Kitikmeot would continue to come to Yellowknife for their services if that is what they so chose. I would dare to say, and suggest, to the Interim Commissioner's office, who I would hope are monitoring these discussions, recognize that fact. The people in my constituency want to continue to come to Stanton, if at all possible, if they have to leave their constituency for medical services. I just want to make a note of that.

In closing, Madam Chair, we have to recognize that success of any kind of transition towards Nunavut, a lot of it, is going to depend on DIAND Minister and the federal ministry in trying to secure some form of commitment for transitional dollars for the success of decentralized Nunavut government post 1999. The issue of Finance Canada having to reach an agreement on incremental funding in a new base is critical. Also, I think what we have to recognize as well, is the infrastructure for housing and for office space. It is the responsibility of Nunavut construction, as per an agreement with NTI and the federal government, to have the housing and office in place for Nunavut government. It is also a critical component of a decentralized government post 1999. I would stress and urge all parties that are involved, who have an interest, to try to reach some kind of an accommodation as soon as possible to get on with the planning for implementing the transition gearing towards April 1, 1999.

In closing I would like to thank and commend Mr. Voytilla and the staff he had, who worked in putting together this document. It is a starting point, if we can get some kind of resolution of a general direction to go there is a lot more work required to be done. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the family law reform initiative began a number of years ago with tie work of the Family Law Review Committee. This bill is part of the package that evolved from the efforts of that group. It is one of the four proposed bills currently before the Assembly to update family law in the Northwest Territories.

The main subject areas covered by the bill are domestic contracts, spousal support, division of the value of family property and possession of the family home. A significant move forward in this bill is the recognition of common-law spouses as members of families who should have rights and obligations that are similar to those of married spouses. The bill also recognizes that the spousal relationship is a kind of partnership and that child care and household responsibilities, as well as paid employment, are all valuable contributions to the family unit.

During the spring and summer of this year, the Standing Committee on Social Programs conducted a public review of the family law bills. A response from the public and from interested organizations has been very important in the further development of this bill. As a result of their review, the standing committee made recommendations for improvements to it which results in a number of amendments to Bill 3 during their clause by clause review in September. At the standing committee's request, further proposed amendments have been developed to improve this bill and these will be dealt with later today.

I would like to thank the Members of the standing committee and their staff for the thorough work on the family law reform package. Also like to thank all those who were involved in this initiative including members of the public, Members of the Family Law Review Committee and I look forward to discussion on this bill later today. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair and good afternoon. A number of amendments were made to the bill during the clause by clause review. The original bill did not allow people to make binding agreements respecting possessions of the family home in domestic contracts. The committee was concerned there was no opportunity for people to protect their home which may have been in their family for many years. Amendments were made to allow protection of the family home in a contract between the partners. The bill provides for two components to spousal support. There is the standard support arising from sharing the advantages and disadvantages of a relationship. The second component is intended to provide short term support to allow a spouse to become self-sufficient. The section on spousal support was confusing to presenters. An amendment was made to more clearly identify the two types of spousal support. The dependant parents' section was amended to more clearly define when a parent could apply for support from a child. This includes the need for care over a significant period of the child's life. There was also a new section on what types of support could be ordered by the court. The commencement date under the family property part was amended to begin at the start of a common-law relationship.

Madam Chair, time was limited for starting an action under this act was different for married and common-law couples. This was amended to provide a two year period regardless of common-law or married status. A change was made to the section on mediation allowing the court to order the parties to attempt mediation. There are some additional changes we would like to see made to this bill. Endlessly, we raised concerns about Section 19 which referred to default in payment of support. We felt it was not clear and could apply after a single late payment. The department brought amendments which allows six months of missed payments before the section would apply. We feel this is too long and will post an amendment for a shorter time period.

In section 24(3), there is reference to Canada Consumer Price Index. We understand the Minister's reasoning that this is an annual index which is reliable and consistent. However, the committee continues to believe an index more directly related to northern costs could be determined.

Madam Chair, in Section 37, there is the potential for a person to die with more than one spouse. For example, they may have married, separated and then entered a common-law relationship. The ministry is still developing an amendment to address this problem. The part on family property allows one party to remain in the home. However, as currently written there are potential problems with leased property. If the husband's name is on the lease, the wife and children may not be allowed to remain in the home, although that would be the intent under this act. With so many territorial residents living in leased homes, the department is preparing an amendment to address these concerns. There were complaints about the complexity of the current expense form for divorce. The need for simplified forms was stressed. The department has agreed to review this and in developing the relations. Madam Chair, thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair, to my right is Janis Cooper, legal counsel; to my left, Shawn Flynn, legislative counsel. Thank you.

Madam Chair, this sets all the definitions used throughout the Act.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment, I am proposing, does not include the ability for people of the same sex to be married. It does not include the ability for them, as a couple, to adopt children. What the amendment proposes to do is to provide protection to people who enter into relationships. So, upon the dissolution of those relationships, they are able to participate in the division of property that has been acquired during that relationship and also to get spousal support.

The first thing I wanted to talk about is that the amendment would allow people to enter into enforceable agreements prior to or during cohabitation. Today those are called pre-nuptial or marriage contracts and this right would also be extended to same sex couples.

The second thing is upon separation, they would be able to enter into those same types of legally enforceable agreements.

The third thing is that they would have the right to apply for spousal support upon the breakdown of the relationship, similar to a man and woman when their relationship breaks down and they separate. One of the two can apply for spousal support, for assistance, for training, or to help them live for a period of time.

The fourth is that when the relationship is broken down or one of the spouses has died, one person would have the right to apply for a division of property acquired during the relationship. Currently, if one of the spouses dies, the living spouse has no claim on the property not in that person's name. This would rectify that. It would also give the person the right to apply for possession of the family home when the relationship breaks down.

Madam Chair, similar to relationships between a man and a woman, spouses in same sex couples often forego their own career to assist their partner in their career. Other times, they look after the children, perhaps from their partner's or their own previous marriage. When they do, they do not work and they leave themselves out of the workplace for sometimes a long period of time and once the relationship ends, it is difficult to get a job. They may require training. This spousal support is needed for everybody, not just for heterosexual relationships.

Today, it is very difficult for anybody living together to get division of property and you simply cannot get spousal support. You can get division of matrimonial property, but it is very difficult because you have to prove constructive trust to the court. It is very difficult to establish and since it is difficult to establish, it can become very expensive. Once again, we have a situation where we have two systems of justice, one for the rich and one for the poor. Those people who can afford good lawyers might be able to get division of property, but others would not be able to.

As I said, spousal support today, unless you are married you simply cannot get it. Common-law couples, whether they are man and woman relationships or same sex relationships, cannot get it because there is no act in place to provide for that. The courts will not give common law people spousal support. This act gives legal basis for common law spouses to have division of property and spousal support. The proposed amendment that I am speaking to, would go one step further. It would give this same protection to same sex couples. I feel to not extend the right to same sex couples would be against the Canadian Constitution.

Madam Chair, the Canadian Charter of Rights provides in Section 15, that every individual is equal before and under the law, and has the right to the equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination. The Charter is there to protect Canadian citizens from actions and laws of the territorial, provincial, and Canadian governments. Inconsistencies in laws and the actions of those governments are unconstitutional and whole Acts can be struck down or just the part that is inconsistent with the Charter could be taken out of the Act, which could very well happen in this instance.

There is currently a case before the Supreme Court of Canada called M versus H. In that case there were two women in Ontario who lived together for 10 years. The one woman assumed the role of the supportive spouse. She stayed at home and entertained for her partner and generally assisted her partner in achieving her career objectives. At the end of the relationship, she applied for spousal support. It is interesting to note that Ontario's law regarding spousal support was exactly the same as this government proposes today in Bill 3. The first time she went to court, she was denied spousal support on the basis that she had no legal entitlement to support under the law, which only authorized spousal support in an opposite sex relationship. At the Court of Appeal level, this decision was overturned. The Court of Appeal found that the law was discriminatory and that in the context of spousal support, there was no valid societal objective in discriminating in this way.

This case is now before the Supreme of Canada and will be argued soon. Madam Chair, I talked earlier about spousal support, which includes allowances to help a person get training or to help them get back on their feet. When spousal support is not allowed, the government ends up having to provide people in need with income support. While actually it is the former spouse who should be providing this.

What we are proposing would give that spousal support to heterosexual couples, man and woman couples, but it would not provide it to same sex couples. I have heard today about our responsibilities. Being a native person, I have lived with discrimination since I was a child and I have taught my children not to discriminate. I feel that it is my responsibility not to discriminate in the laws that I pass.

Madam Chair, at the proper time I will ask for a recorded vote. Thank you.