What is your point of privilege?

Mr. Speaker, my point of privilege is being raised at the first instance. My point of privilege is that I have the right, as a Member of this House, to speak to the motion. The motion says there is a vacancy and there is an acting commissioner. It is my privilege to speak. I do not believe that any cases that are going on outside have any bearing on what I have to say about the job before me, which is to agree to the appointment of a new Conflict of Interest Commissioner. I have concerns that have not been resolved in this House, which is...

Ms. Lee, would you clearly state your point of privilege, please.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my point of privilege is that the rule allows -- I have a privilege as a Member to speak on behalf of my constituents and as a legislator, on any issues that are before the House. The issue that is before the House is this motion. I want to speak to the motion. I believe I am speaking to the motion. I have been told that I cannot speak to...

Ms. Lee, I will interrupt you again. The Chair is quite comfortable with the fact that we are not depriving you of your privilege to speak. The Chair is merely asking you to speak to the motion and not the issues that you were leaning towards on what has happened in the past. That is not an issue here. It is a matter that is before the courts and the Chair will not entertain any further comments on that.

If you wish to speak to the appointment as it is listed in here, to this motion, then you may continue. Ms. Lee, to the motion.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think I have made my point and I would like to wish the new Conflict of Interest Commissioner well in his endeavours. I would like to wish the old Conflict of Interest Commissioner well in her career. I would like to thank her for the good things...

Ms. Lee, I will interrupt you again. Please stick to the motion. If you wish to compliment someone else, please do it at a different time. Thank you. To the motion. Ms. Lee.

I believe I have concluded my statement. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. To the motion. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the motion, I would just like to say how pleased I am that Mr. Ted Hughes has agreed to take this appointment as the Conflict Commissioner for this Legislative Assembly, because of his eminent reputation and experience, and I will be supporting the motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. To the motion. Question has been called. All those in favour, please signify. Thank you. All those opposed? Thank you. The motion is carried. Motion 5-14(5). The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker,

WHEREAS responsibility for examination of the Department of Executive resides with the Standing Committee on Governance and Economic Development;

AND WHEREAS the Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight has a broad responsibility for issues which have government-wide implications;

AND WHEREAS that portion of the Department of Executive termed the Executive offices currently includes initiatives such as the Social Agenda, Maximizing Northern Employment and the Energy Secretariat;

AND WHEREAS the cross-departmental, government-wide nature of the Social Agenda, Maximizing Northern Employment, the Energy Secretariat and the executive offices generally is consistent with the mandate of the Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight;

NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, that the rules for the Legislative Assembly be amended as follows:

• • Rule 85(2)(a) is amended by adding "including the executive offices of the Department of the Executive" immediately following "government-wide implications", and
• • Rule 85(3) is amended by striking out "including" immediately following "Department of Executive" and substituting "specifically".

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. We have a motion on the floor. To the motion. Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried. Item 17, motions. Item 18, first reading of bills. Item 19, second reading of bills. The honourable Minister responsible for Health and Social Services, Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. We have a motion on the floor. The motion is in order. To the principle of the bill. The honourable Minister responsible for Health and Social Services, Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, human rights legislation across Canada prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees equality under the law to all individuals and various courts across Canada, including the Supreme Court of Canada, have ruled that laws which treat individuals living in same-sex relationships differently from individuals living in opposite-sex common-law relationships can be found to be unconstitutional.

Mr. Speaker, as a result, courts and legislatures have been granting those rights and responsibilities, including the right to spousal support, the right to equal division of property and the right to adopt individuals in same-sex relationships. The current definition of spouse in our Adoption Act and Family Law Act does not ensure those equal rights and responsibilities to individuals in same-sex relationships. In the current legal climate, this means that our legislation is open to a costly court challenge. The principle of equality under the law has guided the courts in their decisions and it is the responsibility of those of us entrusted with making the laws in the Northwest Territories to ensure that those laws conform to our Canadian Constitution. That is the primary purpose of these amendments.

Mr. Speaker, this is a legislative issue before the legislature of the Northwest Territories and it is incumbent upon us to ensure that our laws comply as I have just indicated. I would encourage that we move this bill along to the committee and deal with this as it should be. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. To the principle of the bill. The honourable Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time I have stood up to speak on an issue such as this. As a Member of the 13th Assembly, I also spoke against making amendments to the Family Law Act. I find it distressing that in fact, this Minister has decided to carry this forward and this government has decided to carry this forward once again. I believe I am speaking for a large number of my constituents who do not believe this is necessary, who in fact believe this is an act against what they would consider family values and a significant change.

Now, it is one thing to say that as a government, we must follow the laws of Canada in enacting laws in the Northwest Territories. We can find examples of laws that were enacted by governments, and if those governments had opportunity to rescind some of those acts, they would do so. In fact, the damage has been done. We have numerous pieces of legislation that impact on the Northwest Territories in a very negative way when it comes to the people and the values of the people of the Northwest Territories.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister stated in questions about this that he has not contacted any aboriginal organizations, he has not contacted any other municipal governments or the people in the Northwest Territories besides an advertisement in the paper that would say, we are looking at these amendments, send in your comments. In fact, when questioned, he informed this House that this legislation had already been drawn up. Mr. Speaker, it was an empty notion of this government to ask people for their comments when in fact it is already done.

Many will stand up and say it is the laws of Canada and we must follow those laws.

Mr. Speaker, I speak on behalf of people in my constituency who do not believe this law is necessary. There are opportunities for all individuals across the Northwest Territories, regardless of their background and their choice of life and how they would live their lives. There are a few restrictions. The question is, where will this go? Right now, some would say, well, we are leaving the sanctity of marriage still on its own and this will not touch it, but what is next, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, this is an avenue that is distressing to many people, many elders and people who do not believe this is appropriate, but their voice will not be heard because for the greater good of Canada, it is going to be put forward as the way to move.

Mr. Speaker, I speak in the sense of what would be best for families, for individuals and for us as people of the Northwest Territories and the values we hold.

Mr. Speaker, it is not the programs and services that make this land great, as we would call it. It is the people and their values. Sometimes it is good to have different values than those of other people in Canada. Other jurisdictions can change their laws and I would challenge this government to find a law that is the same in every jurisdiction in this one matter. Some laws are very minimal just to meet the requirement that has been set out. In fact, I believe the law that the Government of Canada has made has been made in a way that allows a fair bit of flexibility or interpretation by different jurisdictions.

Some will say that if we do not pass this, that we will be challenged on the Charter, and that much of the dollars that will be expended will be taken from important programs and services. Mr. Speaker, we have been challenged on different issues. There is always a threat in every law that we put in place that it can be challenged. Every law in the Northwest Territories, especially in light of the self-government discussions going on now, where they could say that our laws are interfering with the actions of aboriginal governments.

Mr. Speaker, I am aware that many Members of this Assembly would probably support this, but I have to speak on behalf of many of my constituents that this is not appropriate. It is time to put this away once and for all, and live lives in a sense that, as many of my constituents would say, as God had ordained it.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to be told again how people who choose as I have, for example, to live a life different from that of many others, which includes acknowledging that God is my creator. If I want my children to be taught in this way, I have to have them taught outside the normal functions of this government, because again, that has been declared unconstitutional to have my child taught a specific religion in a public school.

It seems that governments across this land have started to move further and further away from those values that were once held sacred to families and individuals, and have gone to those that can lobby and lobby hard, and know how to access resources and challenge governments through lawyers and whatever else. Mr. Speaker, knowing that is an avenue we face in the Northwest Territories, sometimes it would take legislators to stand up and say no to certain things and take the risk of that challenge.

To be different sometimes, Mr. Speaker, is not such a bad thing. This is not going to take away any rights. It might limit in certain areas what certain individuals in the Northwest Territories would want and consider to be equal to those individuals.

Mr. Speaker, many people can say that the programs and services within the Northwest Territories can be found lacking in the sense of how we have families and how individuals can make that a better situation, but I see this as another avenue of not really dealing with the issue. If somebody says, "Well we have individuals out there who can adopt a child, but they live in a same-sex arrangement. That is better than the family they were born into because that family is considered dysfunctional." Instead of looking at this avenue to fix the problem, why do we not work on the dysfunctional family to ensure that child can be raised in an atmosphere that is a healthy one? Then on top of that, Mr. Speaker, I am sure many would debate what is considered a healthy atmosphere to be raised in.

Again, Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing that we as a government would be bringing this forward and following other jurisdictions. Simple things that would come out to me, Mr. Speaker, I am sure many of us heard it as we were growing up from family members. When you would do something, they would say, "If your friends are going to play at the edge of the lake or jump off a cliff, are you going to follow?" I can use something as simple as that scenario.

Some would say this is the way to go because everybody else is doing it. Does that make it right just because everybody else is doing it? Is that not an acknowledgement of peer pressure that is being put on in the sense of governing laws and legislation? My family values are too strong, Mr. Speaker, to accept that this government would put forward legislation such as this. I cannot support this, Mr. Speaker, and I cannot vote in favour of this.

I hope that this government, as it goes through this process, will give due process to other individuals in the Northwest Territories to speak and raise their concerns to this Legislative Assembly. We have done it for the hotel tax. We have done it for the highway fee bill that came forward. In that case, many residents of the Northwest Territories spoke out against such legislation and this government listened. I would urge this government and the Members of this Assembly to give residents a fair opportunity to speak to this. If residents come back and say to this government that this is acceptable and we will do it, then we have our mandate.

I fear, Mr. Speaker, that once again the idea of a constitutional challenge will rule the day and cause this government to move quicker than I think is necessary, especially when it comes to seeing residents of the Northwest Territories have their input.

Mr. Speaker, I will live with the decision of this Assembly, as I believe all Members will, once you put your argument forward and discuss this issue. When it comes to a vote, once the vote is decided, we get on with business. It does not mean that I have to accept for my family and me and for those constituents that I speak for in Inuvik, that this is acceptable and that this government is doing what is considered in the best interests of the residents of the Northwest Territories.

In fact, I can have many of my constituents speak to the matter and say that this is not in the best interests in the long-term vision of people of the Northwest Territories. With that, Mr. Speaker, I will not be supporting this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. To the principle of the bill. The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this bill is the right thing to do. A number of us supported this kind of change in the 13th Assembly, but we were not successful then. It is time now that this bill passes.

I would also like to address the issue of legality that my colleague brought up. I believe it is our responsibility as legislators to also uphold and respect the laws of Canada. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the law in Canada, and we are told by the government's legal experts that if we are taken to court on this issue, we will be forced to act. We will have to enact legislation just like this bill. Mr. Speaker, we should respect the law now and should not be forced by the courts to respect the law.

We are being told this by the same legal experts who told this government and this House that if we did not respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms when it came to representation by population, the courts would impose a decision on us. Many Members in this House did not listen to that advice and insisted that we go to court and fight it. That did nothing but enrich a few lawyers and cause us in the end to adopt a law that respected the Canadian Charter anyway. I am surprised that my colleague would say that those lawyers who were right then about the same law are wrong now. I respectfully submit that they are right and we would lose if this went to court.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the only responsible course for us is to pass this law. If we choose to fight it, if this government is forced to fight it, again all we are going to be doing is spending money on lawyers instead of on nurses or teachers or other people that work on the front lines to serve our constituents.

Mr. Speaker, I say let us do the right thing and let us spend the money in far more important areas. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. To the principle of the bill. The honorable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to stand here and, as I have remarked on other occasions, to speak in support of this bill. I am pleased to see that the initiative is before us in second reading. The Minister has well addressed, and so has my colleague, Mr. Dent, many of the legal consequences we would find ourselves in if we did not take this responsibility on. I will not dwell on it. I think it has been very clearly established.

Rather, Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the aspect of right versus wrong, good versus bad, and see just where we are today in terms of our values and the tolerance and the acceptance that we have of a society for ideas and trends that are different, yet are not of a nature that is going to hurt or harm us or pose a threat to any individual, or for that matter to society.

It was not that long ago, not in my living memory, Mr. Speaker, but I think in the memories of elders in the Northwest Territories, when aboriginal people were not allowed to vote or consume alcohol. Further back, women in Canada were not allowed to vote. We have changed. Society changes. It is a good thing now that we are not looking at the gender of a person, at the color of their skin, whether they are black or yellow or red or white. We are not looking at whether they are Jews or Muslims or Christians. We are not looking at whether they are disabled. We are not looking at the languages they speak. Our laws more and more in Canada and around the world are looking at people as individuals, as people, not what unique characteristics they have in the eyes of the law.

Here, Mr. Speaker, is really what is significant to me about this piece of legislation and why it is the responsibility of this Legislature to support this and approve it. Mr. Speaker, when two people of whatever gender come forward and say they want to be recognized in the law as having the will and the commitment to share the responsibility of raising a child, not just getting the right to do that, that looks good on a piece of paper or in a headline or in a procedural book somewhere, but when they want to share in the responsibility of raising a family, that is a significant responsibility. We need that kind of commitment in our territory and our society, Mr. Speaker. As a legislator, I will stand for them to help see that right and responsibility is recognized.

I hope my colleagues can consider their own values and, as I said, their tolerances and their acceptance for what is right and that is, in law, the acceptance of people taking on responsibility and being recognized for that in our laws. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to stand here in support of this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. To the principle of the bill. The honorable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against this bill on the principle that I, for one, believe that religious values, family values and aboriginal values are not being taken into account. You talk about the difference between aboriginal rights, individual rights and collective rights, yet when it comes to aboriginal people in the Northwest Territories and the rest of Canada, who should have the right to decide in regard to legislations passed through this Legislature and other legislatures in the country, to have a say in how it affects aboriginal people's rights under section 35 of the Canadian Constitution. Section 9124 gives you the right to be able to be treated differently.

What this does is impose on First Nation governments and First Nation organizations in the Northwest Territories, and especially the groups that I represent in the Beaufort-Delta, who are negotiating a self-government agreement, for them to be able to establish programs and services and determine exactly who their membership is and collectively how they will be able to allocate programs and services.

Here again, we missed the opportunity of consultation. We talk about involving First Nations, aboriginal groups in the process of legislation that is being drafted through this House to allow for public involvement in this process, but what we see happening here again is we are being railroaded into bad legislation. When push comes to shove, we will threaten you with court action so you better do something.

I for one can state the Canadian Constitution has been a long time coming for aboriginal people, yet we have section 35. We have a court case that has gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, which recognizes aboriginal and indigenous people's rights to hunt and fish, yet provinces and jurisdictions have that legislation but they do not recognize it. Why is it when it comes to recognizing people's rights and individual rights, that when it comes to aboriginal people, we neglect that basically they have a fundamental, unique role to play in the Canadian dynamics?

What this does is it takes the whole picture of the values of indigenous people, aboriginal obligations we have by way of self-government agreements and also in regard to the sections of the Constitution, which basically protects and ensures that we are able to enhance but not diminish the right of indigenous people to basically continue on with their values.

I for one feel that we, in regard to this case, this bill, have to realize that there are other court challenges in Canada at this time that are presently being put in place or being looked at by lawyers, by religious groups, by family groups and other groups in Canada. For us to basically say we are in the position that we are damned if we do, damned if we do not, and if you do not do anything, you are going to lose in court anyway, I would just as soon lose it in court and allow the justice system to dictate to this government how we are going to do our jobs. They did a good job in regard to the sunset clause and the Friends of Democracy. I think this is the same situation we are in with this case. I have a real problem that this government is not going to allow its membership to speak on this issue.

I would like to know exactly how the Ministers sitting across the House...have a free vote on this matter and also ask the Premier if he would allow his membership to basically speak on this matter in regard to where their values are. Where do you stand as individuals in this House? I think that is the important thing, so that not only ourselves on this side of the House will be speaking on the matter, but yourselves as our elected representative on the Cabinet side should really, honestly tell us exactly where you stand on this issue. By simply sitting on your thumbs and not doing anything basically tells us that, you know...

I think this is such an important issue that we have to have a full consultation process. If it means we go into every community, I suggest we go into every community.

--Applause

For me, this is a matter that is serious and that we have to ensure that we have a real feel for our constituents, the people in our communities and what their values are, not just the values of the people in this House.

I for one, Mr. Speaker, would like to ask that we have a recorded vote on this matter and that the Premier allows his Ministers to speak freely on this issue and vote freely in regard to what their moral beliefs are and what they stand for.

-- Applause