Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A number of amendments were made during the clause by clause review. Since the bill was introduced in the House, federal child support guidelines have come into force. Children are entitled to similar levels of support whether their parents are married or common-law partners. The federal guidelines are being adopted as part of this legislation. A number of amendments were made to reflect this change. A blood sample is required for determining parentage. The section on consanguinity stopped one teenage father from giving consent to have a blood sample taken. This has been corrected. A family parent clause was added to the best interests section. This requires the court to consider the wellness of one parent to facilitate access for the other parent in determining custody and access arrangements. In making a judgement on custody and access, the bill only required written reasons when the judge ordered joint orders when one or both of the parties did not request it. This has been changed to require written reasons in any case where the judge orders custody arrangements that were not requested by one or both of the parties.

Guardianship for youth is normally ended at age 19. There was prohibition allowing youth under 19 who were parents to apply to end guardianship. This subsection was removed, giving all youth equal treatment and equal opportunity to make application in unusual cases. The section on mediation was amended to allow the court to order a couple to participate in mediation. We are encouraged by the success of the mandatory mediation in other jurisdictions, and this provides a first step.

Further amendments will be required in the House on some issues. The section on vital statistics, reduced ability to change of birth record is unclear. The department is looking into this problem. We are concerned about section 19 on the rights of parents who leave the family home. There is the potential for a parent to make promises about access, and then not follow through once the other parent is out of the house. One parent moving out of the home also establishes a status quo which may be difficult to overturn later in court. The bill will not require assessors to be available to the court to provide testimony regarding assessment reports. This is contrary to the normal rules of evidence. The committee has discussed this point with the Minister a number of times. In our opinion based on the public feedback, section 29(9), should be deleted to ensure assessments follow the rules of evidence. Section 30 deals with problems with access either custodial parent denies the other parent access or parent does not use their access. We felt this section was not strong enough. The department is preparing amendments which will provide specific sanctions on these cases.

There is no provision for recognizing the differing costing in the NWT communities in the child support guidelines. The committee felt strongly that these differences must be taken into account. The Minister has indicated that at some point the NWT could develop its own guidelines. This is a step we would like to see taken in the future. Section 59(3) deals with the setting aside contract and default. While the bill was amended in the committee to give a six month default period we would like to see a further amendment to a shorter period of time. Section 7 deals with restraining orders. The committee felt that the third parties such as family members or concerned relatives should have ability to obtain restraining order. The committee did raise concern about the cost of assessments. There are no qualified assessors practising in the NWT This means couples in dispute have to bring in an expert from outside the NWT The cost to have the assessment are extremely high since legal aid will not cover these costs. This becomes an option only available to those with money. We suggested that there is the need for a government assessment service. This would significantly decrease the cost. It will also encourage couples and the courts to use assessors since the service would be available locally. The committee would like to see the Minister continue to consider this option. Many individuals raised concerns with maintenance enforcement. They asked what the point of new laws were if parents were not forced to live up to their support obligations. Although this was not directly part of the bill, we share the concern and will be addressing this in detail with the Minister of Justice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.