Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We're proceeding with it now because it is not in any way tied to the definition of civil marriage. As I said in my opening comments, this has nothing to do with recognizing civil marriage and, in fact, half of the amendments in this act also extend benefits and obligations to common-law couples. We're not talking common-law heterosexual couples, so this bill isn't dealing exclusively with same-sex benefits. But as Members are aware, there have been a number of court cases throughout the years that have found that laws have to respect the living situations of same-sex couples. Therefore, the obligations and benefits that they are entitled to under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are the same as benefits that are enjoyed by heterosexual couples. The laws in Canada have been found in various jurisdictions to be discriminatory when same-sex couples are not treated the same under the law. So all across Canada, jurisdictions have been modernizing their legislation to meet that test.

As was pointed out earlier, if we didn't do this there's a likelihood that, even if it wasn't the right thing to do, which it is, we would face court challenges which we would lose and be forced to change the legislation. I'd be hard pressed to explain to the people of the North why we'd be spending money that we know we're just throwing away to try and defend discriminatory laws. We have a far better purpose on which to spend our money. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.