Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Continue, Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak with the members of the committee about Bill 5, which proposes changes to the Adoption Act and the Family Law Act. I would also like to thank the standing committee for their consideration of the bill.

The intent of the proposed amendments is to ensure that NWT law complies with decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada to ensure that individuals in the Northwest Territories are afforded the same rights and responsibilities as those of other Canadian jurisdictions. Sexual orientation is a prohibited ground of discrimination, not only pursuant to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms but also in human rights legislation across the country, including the Northwest Territories' proposed legislation.

The issue of extending rights and responsibilities cuts across all racial and cultural lines. Our review of the Northwest Territories' legislation is being conducted in two phases; these current amendments are the first phase. The second phase will look at all other legislation in the Northwest Territories that may require amendments to bring it into line with the law. The proposed amendments will ensure that those involved in same-sex relationships have the same rights and responsibilities as those involved in common-law relationships.

Under the Family Law Act, this will include the right to seek spousal support, division of property and the right to seek a restraining order. For the purposes of the Adoption Act, the amendments will allow a partner in a same-sex relationship to adopt a child of the other person and allow the couple to adopt an unrelated child. The amendments will mean, in effect, other procedural requirements in the acts do not eliminate the role of government officials or courts when reviewing any application.

In particular, the Adoption Act will still require that a court review any application to determine whether the adoption is in the best interests of the child. Likewise, there will be no change to the assessment process that perspective adoptive parents must undergo, nor will there be any changes to any of the other checks set out in legislation that ensure a child's interests are given priority.

The amendments to the Family Law Act also have an affect on nine other acts that adopt the definition of spouse in the Family Law Act. They are:

• • Mechanics Lien Act;
• • Fatal Accidents Act;
• • Risk Capital Investment Tax Credit Act;
• • Exemptions Act;
• • Public Trustee Act;
• • Maintenance Orders Enforcement Act;
• • Residential Tenancies Act;
• • Labour Standards Act;
• • Home Owners Property Tax Rebate Act

I would be pleased to answer any questions that the committee members may have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. At this time I would like to ask the committee responsible for reviewing this bill if they have any general comments? Mr. Bell.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Standing Committee on Social Programs reviewed Bill 5, An Act to Amend the Adoption Act and the Family Law Act on June 13th, 2002. The bill amends two acts to extend the definition of spouse to include individuals in same-sex relationships. The new definition in the Adoption Act will allow a same-sex spouse to adopt his or her spouse's child. The new definition in the Family Law Act will entitle a same-sex spouse to support, division of property and orders respecting the family home under that act. Finally, a number of provisions are included in the bill to deal with transitional issues.

The committee would like to thank the Honourable Michael Miltenberger, Minister responsible for the Department of Health and Social Services, his officials and those of the Department of Justice who appeared before the committee to present the bill and respond to questions raised by the committee.

During discussions on Bill 5, committee members expressed their appreciation to the concerned citizens who took the time to provide the committee with over 100 written submissions. These submissions provided great assistance during discussion of the bill. Members may have further comments on these submissions and the issues in committee of the whole here today. Mr. Chairman, this concludes the committee's comments on Bill 5, An Act to Amend the Adoption Act and the Family Law Act.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. At this time, I would like to ask the Minister if he would like to bring in any witnesses. Mr. Minister.

Yes I would, Mr. Chairman.

Does the committee agree to the Minister bringing in his witnesses?

Agreed. Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses in. Mr. Minister, could you introduce your witnesses for the record?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have with me Mark Cleveland, deputy minister of Health and Social Services; Diane Buckland, legislative counsel; and Ms. Lucy Austin, senior advisor for family law.

We are dealing with Bill 5, An Act to Amend the Adoption Act and Family Law Act. At this time I would like to ask if Members have any general comments? Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, first of all I must say I am somewhat disappointed that many of the residents of the Northwest Territories did not have an opportunity to speak to this. I speak for many of my constituents who would probably not have spoken in favour of this if they had the opportunity to speak to the committee when they, if they had decided to, go and do community visits.

I listened to some of the comments being made. Through committee work there was not any opportunity to have public debate on the issue and go clause by clause, so we have saved it for this forum and that is all right. It just did not give an opportunity for many of the other committee members to hear concerns from other residents as to why they feel this is not an appropriate move by government.

Hearing the Minister and his comments, he referred to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and a number of other things that the government considers as to being the push to bring this in line. Commenting on that, Mr. Chairman, some comments have been made about not going out to the people because we should not be looking at moral values to establish the laws of this government and of this Territory. If we were to take that to heart, Mr. Chairman, there would probably be at least half, if not more, of our laws that we would have to strike down because many of our laws that exist, exist because of the moral situation of society when the law was made.

There are many laws that we have that many people could argue against because they felt it was not right at that time, or that this law should be put in because it is morally appropriate. We seem to be moving away from that further and further.

Now for those who would argue that this is something that is coming across the land and we have to follow, well, as I did in the 13th Assembly, I disagree. We do not always have to follow every other jurisdiction on what they decide they want to do. Now many of us say that we would be challenged and we will lose. That is unfortunate to make up our minds based on that, because if we are challenged we lose, so let's just fall in line and let us be good boys and girls and do that thing.

I have my concerns, as many of my constituents do, about the move this government is about to undertake. Even though the vote went through on second reading and will potentially go through at this time, I feel it is still my duty to represent a number of my constituents who disagree with the move of the government.

All kinds of arguments could be made in favour of when talking about families because in any family situation one can come up with a poor example of a parent, whether it be as a single parent, a single mother or a single father, or a heterosexual couple. Parenting is not a guarantee and nobody is going to do it 100 percent, but it is the example, it is the state we put things in through government that draws me to go against what is being issued here as a Legislature. Yes I have my own beliefs as well. As a father I have my concerns, as many other families I have talked to in my constituency have their concerns about such a move.

There are facts, Mr. Chairman, that would speak to the issue that is before us that would cause us and should cause us some concern, as we put this in place or if it goes in place. There are facts out there that everybody would have to look at and accept to a certain degree that they are there, and that is what would happen in cases where there are same-sex couples and again relationships.

Unfortunately those who find themselves in a gay relationship, especially on the male side of the equation, if they end up acquiring AIDS or HIV that reduces their life expectancy. Even though the doctors and specialists are working to improve that situation - which they have to quite a degree - there is still the shortened life expectancy.

Here we can put a child into a relationship that, number one does not fit with many residents in the Northwest Territories but as well will put them potentially in a situation where they will have to deal with another matter when one of the parents would become quite ill because of a disease that would have its onset and slowly and progressively get worse. They would have to deal with that side of the equation of a family member that would be lost to a disease like this, and how that individual would then, as they become ill, have to focus on their own health and how they would take care of themselves versus taking care of a family. There are issues, and I know that many people would not like to speak of those, but those unfortunately are the facts of life in a situation like that. We do find that even in heterosexual couples, unfortunately, when disease comes in, if it is cancer or something like that, and that is a difficult time for any family member to undergo.

Mr. Chairman, just for the record I must state my disappointment that the committee is not going out to residents of the Northwest Territories. Even if they would have heard the negative side, at least they would have given people of the Northwest Territories, who they are making this law on behalf of, an opportunity to voice their concerns. Whether one agrees with the law or not, there are many people in the Northwest Territories who say that if this law was not put in place that would be fine, we could live with it. We could get on. I have heard many people say that right now somebody who is in a gay relationship can adopt today. They just adopt as an individual. I recall in the 13th Assembly when we did the tour on the Child and Family Law Act we were told of that situation, but it was not enough that that opportunity exists. They wanted it in law and they followed through, and have found at this time Members of this Assembly that will accept that. Members of this Assembly have made it their stand, I guess, to a certain degree when getting involved in this line of work.

Members in this House do speak and when laws are established, unfortunately good or bad, the majority will win. In this case I am saddened. I have heard one of my colleagues talk about the embarrassment that this did not go through in the 13th Assembly. I can say that I am equally embarrassed this time if this law does go through that more values of residents of the Northwest Territories are just thrown out the window because it is considered not good enough any more. Not only did they remove the opportunity to be taught a religion in the classroom during the regular school day, but now we are saying that family values are going to be removed as well. I must say at this time, for the record, that I am dismayed at what this Assembly is about to do, if in fact it does go through.

For those who have voted against this, I would urge you to continue to stand against it. Someone must stand for some rights of the Northwest Territories even though unfortunately at times the numbers are not there. With that, Mr. Chairman, I will leave it to other Members to speak. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. General comments to Bill 5. Mr. Lafferty.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. General comments on Bill 5. Mr. Delorey.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, on this issue it has been one that has been talked about quite a bit since it was introduced. I know that I was expecting a lot more input from constituents and from residents over the last while, but I must say, Mr. Chairman, there were very few people who approached me on this topic. I had four people who approached me. Three of them were constituents of mine and all of them encouraged me to vote against this.

I had one person who approached me on this issue who was not a constituent of mine who figured I should vote for it, but more on how it pertains to the law and the refrain was I was not here to represent my own views, that I had to represent the views of the public. If I had to do that, strictly on the numbers of people or constituents who approached me on it, I would have to vote against it.

I have to say, due to the public input, I would vote against it. That is not the only reason, Mr. Chairman, that I would vote against this bill. I am very disappointed, I guess, that the committee is not taking this to the people to hear concerns in the communities. I think this is an issue that is of far, far greater importance than some of the things we have gone to residents with before, as far as getting public consultation.

In this House, we are very quick to talk about things that have been handed down from generation to generation, whether it is beliefs, whether it is morals. I must say, for myself, if I had to look back on my generation and say, how would they have voted on this type of an issue if they had to make laws and regulations that are going to guide the people that we represent, how would they have voted on this issue?

I come from a very large family and they all have families. I know if I took a poll from them, I know how it would go. I think that each one of us has to ask ourselves that question. If we look at it from a moral issue, how would we vote on this if we were to represent the moral values that our generations have handed down to us and what we are supposed to believe in and what we are supposed to view as a good society to raise kids and family in?

I think that there is a way of doing this -- I am aware of court rulings that have taken place across the country and I do not doubt that if we were to vote this down today and a court case was made of it, that some judge somewhere would vote that that is the law and that is right. I do not think that every time a judge voices an opinion and makes a law in this country that it is totally the right decision either. There is an old saying that says, if you are in a group and everyone jumps off a high-rise, it does not mean you have to jump off as well.

I have no hesitation to say, whether it is right or wrong lawfully, I think it is not morally the right thing to do and they are not the principles that I stand for. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I will not be supporting this bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

-- Applause

Thank you, Mr. Delorey. General comments on Bill 5. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have stated my position on this legislation previously. I will not be very long. I wanted to put on record once again that I support this legislation, not because we are marching to the beat of drums everywhere else, but I do believe very strongly that this is the right thing to do. I feel very honoured that I am able to be a Member of this Legislature at a time when legislation such as this has come before us and I can exercise my privilege to vote in this House on behalf of the people.

By voting for this legislation, I do believe I am saying that I believe in the right of everyone to live freely in our land without fear of intimidation or discrimination based on who we are. That we live in a place where each of us values the rights and freedoms that we have and we are willing to share that with our neighbours and our friends and everyone else in our society.

Mr. Chairman, I must admit that this issue is not something that came to me naturally or innately, it was something that I had to think through in my 20s and 30s as the issue came to me, especially when I was studying political science and law. It is something I have thought about and I had to rationally think that I do not have to understand every detail about what this is. It is very easy to make the leap when you really believe and trust the fundamental values that you appreciate in this world and this society.

I do believe that this is the right thing to do. It is not a question of a weakening of morals or a changing of society without any basis for principles, or anything like that. I believe strongly that this is not a question about morality, it is really a question about all of us recognizing and respecting the right of everyone to do that which we should all be entitled to, to have our family the way we want to. I believe fundamentally that families come in all shapes and sizes. I do not think that this legislation says that people who have a homosexual orientation are given the automatic right to a right that is not accorded to anyone else. I do not believe it is anything like that.

It is about all of us having the right to choose our life in a way that no one should be discriminated against because of who they are. This is about who they fundamentally are. Those who are homosexuals, or however people put it, they are valued citizens and we have to say that with legislation like this.

I was not planning to speak on this, but I wanted to make sure that voters and the people in our constituency know that we are joining the 21st century. That we walk the talk when we say that we value the Charter and the basic fundamental rights of everyone in our society. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. General comments on Bill 5. Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too will be speaking in favour of this bill. We have seen discussion and progress on this bill now for about two years, which is, I think, a reasonable period of time for any kind of legislation to move through an Assembly. I have no doubt whatsoever in my mind that this is indeed the right thing for the Northwest Territories to be doing.

There is really no cause for us to further delay or debate whether this should be done. In the time that our Legislature has been looking at this, we have seen the Government of Alberta bring forward proposed legislation which is, I think, at least as progressive and forward looking as what we are proposing. I believe the Government of Quebec has passed legislation that I think surpasses any other legislation in Canada in terms of recognizing the rights and responsibilities of same-sex couples.

We have, I hope, an open and progressive society that can accommodate these changes in values and attitudes, Mr. Chairman. I have said in earlier debates that I do not believe this is an issue of right or wrong. This is an issue that each Member, each lawmaker here brings their values to the table; what they have been brought up with, what is important to them and what they hope to pass on to their families and the communities, so I am not going to say that people who will vote against this are wrong. I respect their views and those of their communities, absolutely.

Mr. Chairman, I think this is a piece of legislation that tests our readiness and our willingness to accept and tolerate different views and different values. I have noted in some of the previous debates we have had on this that society does change. It needs to change. There were democratically elected governments in the past that accepted slavery, that curbed the rights of women, minorities, of blacks and Japanese Canadians to not participate fully in society. Thank goodness those things are behind us now. I view this law in the same context. It is not only progressive, Mr. Chairman, it is the right thing to do.

I think what convinced me most of all in a law sense and a Charter sense was that when it comes to recognizing the rights of people we are not differentiating between, or we are trying not to differentiate between, young and old; between religious grounds or on ethnic grounds; whether you are able-bodied or handicapped; we are not differentiating between whether people are men or women or mothers or fathers. We are saying in the eyes of the law, that we want to recognize people and individuals for who they are and what they can do and what they can contribute. This law recognizes that. It is the right thing to do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. General comments on Bill 5, An Act to Amend the Adoption Act and Family Law Act. General comments. Mr. Kakfwi.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We as a government have decided that this is the right thing to do in moving this forward. In Canada, we live with a Charter of Rights. It is the overriding constitutional document that prevails across all governments and all legislation. This is what we accept. It is there to put an end to discrimination and to legislation that would be deemed unfair to individuals that live within this country. We have the view that these proposed amendments are the right thing for us to do as a government and our duty as legislators to enact and support.

One of the great pains or vacuums that some of us have grown up with is the denial of rights. Aboriginal people grew up with that. Until we experience it and live with it, it is difficult sometimes to understand how those who are oppressed and denied rights feel. There is no dignity in it. There is no respect and your self worth is something you have to struggle to maintain.

One way to look at this is, would you feel any different if your own children were born gay or born of a different sexual orientation, or some of your grandchildren were born with these different sexual orientations? Would you love them just as much as if they were born of the orientation you would prefer? Or would they be banished or treated different or denied the love and support and the fair treatment they should be accorded?

This is the way I look at this particular piece of legislation. We all have children. We all have grandchildren or are going to have grandchildren. It is up to us to prepare the future for them. It must be a future that strives to eliminate discrimination in whatever form it manifests itself. So I will be again, and the Cabinet will be, supporting the proposed amendments. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Kakfwi. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very disappointed that there was a lack, or there was no allowance for public consultation to take place through the review process of this legislation. I think it is appalling that we allow an act which will have a major effect on the majority of the population of the Northwest Territories, especially aboriginal people and aboriginal children.

I have a real concern that presently under the existing acts that we have for adoption that are in place, that the lack of consideration we have for the aboriginal cultures, the aboriginal groups and aboriginal people is not taken into consideration when children are given up for adoption or allowed to be adopted through the existing system we have. There is very little consideration given to aboriginal bands, communities, family units, grandparents.

If anything, the biggest concern I have is the effect we see in our society with the whole idea of the family unit, marriage and parents as husband and wife being diminished to a point where it is being pushed aside, yet we have nothing in legislation to enhance that idea. Instead we have legislation to deplete the whole idea of the existence of families and marriage as we know it. I think my biggest concern is the whole area of aboriginal children, their parents and grandparents and aboriginal organizations such as band councils or tribal councils realistically having a meaningful say on what happens to those children through this process.

Can you unilaterally say, "No, I do not want any of our children, through any band council or band corporation, to allow for the adoption of those children into gay or lesbian relationships, where you have that type of a unit"? I do not see it in this legislation. I do not see it anywhere in the existing legislation. We have legislation with regard to adoption where it says that you are supposed to notify the band council or organization that those children are from or the family unit, yet when the band chiefs or the communities get involved in these things, they are the last to be able to be involved in this process.

The system that we have now is deplorable. It is problematic in that it does not involve that aspect of the existing legislation. If it does not work in the legislation that we have now, what assurances do we have that this legislation will protect those children and those families and those aboriginal cultural groups in the communities I represent?

I am afraid that this will become the grounds of what we have seen through the hostel systems, where we have seen the effect on our small children in our communities being taken away to be put into an institution, regardless of if it is a family institution or an institution of government. Have we not learned anything from that?

For myself, I thought this legislation would have more teeth to ensure that would not happen. As a government, we are basically legislating into law to make it happen. I think that to say that we as a government are doing the right thing, sure we are doing the right thing under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but what about the rights of the aboriginal people and their aboriginal children? When will that come into the picture in regard to this legislation?

I find it deplorable for this committee to go out of its way to say we had public involvement. We got a whole bunch of submissions -- that is the involvement? They did not even step outside of the boundaries of Yellowknife to get that submission or even make an attempt to sit down with the aboriginal organizations to see what they think about this legislation. No attempt was made. To say that this legislation had due process and went through the process in place to allow public input is deplorable.

I have a real problem and concern, especially when we talk about self-government, land claims rights, where we want to be in regard to the aboriginal people governing themselves, when we as a government establish legislation that undermines that whole idea of assuring the membership of those organizations that those self-government agreements will allow those organizations to establish their own membership is being undermined by this type of legislation, before we even have a chance to implement or conclude that legislation.

I think it is pretty apparent how fast this legislation was rushed through, and then when it comes to the public consultation aspect, how fast we find reasons or excuses to not allow for public input, especially to ensure that this did go through due process, to allow for the only avenue that the public has to have any say on any legislation that comes through this House. Once it goes to the committee for public hearings, that is the only avenue that the public has to have input to legislation in this House.

Yet, for us to sit here and say we can stand up and say that we tried, I do not think that we tried hard enough. I have a real problem with the question of aboriginal children and aboriginal people's rights. To basically have their children, knowing that the majority of children in the Northwest Territories that are adopted are aboriginal children, and not make one window or one ounce of energy put towards ensuring that that aspect is being protected. There has to be some type of a process in place to allow for and to ensure that those children who fall within the family unit of those organizations, regardless of if it is an aboriginal tribal council, a band council or a community Metis local, that there will be due process. That before anything happens, there will be a process to ensure that there is some means or some test that has to be followed before that takes place.

I think it is crucial that we vote against the bill today, knowing it probably will not make a difference. I feel that this definitely should be challenged on the basis that we did not follow the due process that is required under the existing rules and procedures of this House. We have undermined our fiduciary obligation to First Nations people when it comes to treaty rights, aboriginal rights and land claims rights for their memberships.

I have to sit here being totally embarrassed to be a Member of this House and say that we have a vote that some people can live with, knowing that most of the people outside of this Legislature did not have the opportunity for due process to have allowed public hearings in all of the regions, or at least in one or two communities in each of those regions to see what the public thinks, not what we think, knowing that the numbers are there to get it through. With that, thank you, Mr. Chairman.