The motion is in order. To the motion.

Question is being called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried. Clause 7 as amended.. Excuse me. Mr. Minister.

Mr. Chairman, after Bill 1 was introduced a concern was raised on the ground of family affiliation as it relates to employment. The concern was that the ground might be interpreted to prevent a person who owns a business from hiring a member of his or her family over other applicants. The protection relating to family affiliation and employment was included in the bill to address a concern of the people of the NWT communities. They told the department that when they applied for a job, for example, with a community government or a company, family connections can sometimes prevent them from getting a job.

The concern was that sometimes managers are more ready to give the job to someone they are related to. The people we spoke with believe this is a kind of discrimination.

After the introduction of Bill 1, the Department of Justice heard another concern. The department heard that this section should not prevent the owner of a business from hiring his or her family members. One of the reasons why some people take the risk of starting up a business is so that their family can benefit from it. For that reason, I will be making a motion to add a clause so that the ground of family affiliation will not prevent an owner from hiring a family member.

To the motion.

-- Interjection

Mr. Minister, are you making a motion?

Yes, I am, I apologize, Mr. Chairman, that clause 7 of Bill 1 be amended by adding the following after sub-clause 5:

(6)It is not a contravention of subsection (1) for an owner of a business to give preference employment on the base of family affiliation to a member of his or her family.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, are you moving a motion? Could you state that you are moving a motion?

Mr. Chairman,

I MOVE that clause 7 of Bill 1 be amended by adding the following after sub-clause (5):

(6)It is not a contravention of subsection (1) for an owner of a business to give preference employment on the base of family affiliation to a member of his or her family.

The motion is in order. To the motion. Question has been called. All those in favour? All those against? The motion is carried. Clause 7, as amended.

Clause 8.

Clause 9. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. May I have consent to go back to clause 7? I need a clarification on something.

Ms. Lee is asking for consent to move back to clause 7. Does the committee agree?

Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sitting here thinking about this. I want to be clear about what this act is saying. In terms of, for example, politicians, I mean, I am just thinking that as an example because it is near to me here, we have a rule that says we cannot hire family members for things in our office, I believe, because that would constitute a conflict. Would this new amendment make that in violation of the Human Rights Act for an MLA who may want to hire family? Thank you.

Ms. Cooper.

Just for the record, that was Ms. Cooper. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. From the common sense point of view, I could understand small businesses, you know, mom and pop businesses, we do not want to do anything to jeopardize a situation where I think...a mom and pop pizza place in Yellowknife, I think there is the whole family that works there. We would not want to do anything that interferes with that. At the same time, I believe it is good law that we have rules within our House that says we cannot hire a family member to work in our offices. As I understand it, the Human Rights Act is always...it supersedes any other legislation. It is sort of the mother law, so my understanding of that is if our conflict rule contravenes with the bigger law, which is the Human Rights Act, then our conflict rule could be deemed invalid.

The point of my question is I do not want to see that situation happen. I would like confirmation from our Law Clerk, or Ms. Cooper or somebody, that I do not have to worry about that. That is my question. Thank you.

For clarification, Ms. Peterson.