Legislative Assembly photo

Roles

Elsewhere

Last in the Legislative Assembly May 2005, as MLA for North Slave

Lost his last election, in 2007, with 46% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Committee Motion 34-15(3) To Amend Clause 5 Of Bill 17: Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, Carried March 9th, 2005

...and now this thing comes up and the government puts this as high priority. We know what's happening in Ottawa. Why couldn't they wait until that issue was dealt with? Specifically to this clause, Mr. Chairman, they're mixing apples and oranges here.

---Laughter

You know? Not oranges to oranges, but apples to oranges. On one hand what they're doing, it's not a laughing matter. What they're doing is for the unmarried common-law couples for the benefits, as the Minister indicated, in some of our laws that we have in place the benefits for common-law couples they don't receive now because of the way our law is. I agree with the Minister that those types of amendments have to come forward so that the unmarried common-law couples can receive those types of things and make all those necessary changes as these ones. But on the other hand, for same-sex couples they're giving them the same thing. By doing that, you're basically agreeing with same-sex marriage. It ties together.

---Applause

So why didn't the government, to play it on the safe side, particularly for the majority of the people in the Territories, separate those two issues and bring in a bill pertaining to unmarried common-law spouses so they fit into this bill. Maybe at a later date, after what happens in Ottawa, bring in another amendment for the same-sex marriage to make the same amendments. Why couldn't they do that rather than lumping it all together? That's my question to the Minister on spouses.

Committee Motion 34-15(3) To Amend Clause 5 Of Bill 17: Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, Carried March 9th, 2005

Thank you. Just to follow up on what my colleague is saying; first of all, I guess I want to make a comment. I don't know why this particular legislation, Bill 17, is a high priority for this government.

---Applause

Number one. There are other priorities, like the Wildlife Act, that have been sitting on our books for the last how many years...

Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters March 9th, 2005

I have no further questions on clause 1.

Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters March 9th, 2005

You have me really confused now. On the same-sex marriage and unmarried couple, if they are living together more than six months or less than six months or a day or two days, the Conflict of Interest Act would apply to them. If something happens, then they have to fall under that act to determine something. I guess it doesn't matter how long they live together then. Is that the point under the Conflict of Interest Act?

Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters March 9th, 2005

Could I ask the Minister under this section the amendment that is being proposed here, for the Conflict of Interest Act I guess, the definition of spouse. It says under (7), under that section under (b), "a person who has been living together with the member in a conjugal relationship outside marriage for a period of less than two years." Does it mean they have to be together less than two years or more than two years before this amendment applies to them? Maybe I can ask the Law Clerk for either one of them, I guess.

Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters March 9th, 2005

Mr. Chair, I had a question on clause 1. I wanted some more clarification.

Question 580-15(3): Land Leases On Tlicho Lands March 9th, 2005

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can I ask the Minister how soon can I have word back from his office pertaining to this issue? Thank you.

Question 580-15(3): Land Leases On Tlicho Lands March 9th, 2005

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if I could ask the Minister if he could kindly intervene with the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs in their lands section to make sure that my constituent's land lease can go through, although they may be in a transitional phase. The reason I am saying that, Mr. Speaker, is that we're in critical need of housing in our communities and there are a number of clients that require these leases not only for obtaining housing from the Housing Corporation, but there are some other clients that need their land leases to obtain funding from the banks to do additions to their houses, et cetera, for other programs. Thank you.

Question 580-15(3): Land Leases On Tlicho Lands March 9th, 2005

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If that's the case, as the Minister indicated that they are working on a transitional plan in regard to land issues, then my constituents shouldn't be having any problems obtaining Crown land leases in the Tlicho communities or even land reserved for Indians for housing, which is Crown land. So even the Indian Affairs department that deals with land leases should be continuing to use the same process as we have before. Is that the case that the Minister is indicating to me? Thank you.

Question 580-15(3): Land Leases On Tlicho Lands March 9th, 2005

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs. I'd like to ask the Minister why are my constituents having difficulty obtaining land leases for Commissioner's land and Crown land in the Tlicho communities. Thank you.