Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I already committed in this House that by the time business plans are presented to the committees that I would update Members of the House on any actions I had taken to try and achieve this. As the Premier had noted earlier, there is an opportunity for all Members to lobby the federal Minister next week and I would certainly welcome the Members’ intervention on this issue as I would hope to intervene as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In many ways there isn’t a significant difference in the program. The biggest one is that adult basic education can be undertaken by anybody. The USEP is designed to provide travel expenses, living expenses, tuition and books for people who can achieve university level entrance within one year. That’s probably the biggest difference, because adult basic education could require somebody taking ABE programs two or three years to get to university level entrance.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I noted earlier today in my statement, we’ve been celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories. To mark the occasion, there’s been a conference in town from the 8th through today, and with us today in the gallery we have 20 judges who have been participating in the conference. I’d like to introduce them. We have Justice Ted Richard from the Northwest Territories.

---Applause

We have Justice John Vertes from the Northwest Territories.

---Applause

We have Justice Virginia Schuler from the Northwest Territories.

---Applause

From Nunavut...

This week marks the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories. Before the court was established, justice was administered for the most part by lay magistrates. Serious cases were most often tried in Alberta.

When Justice Sissons became the first judge of the Court, he said that justice would be taken to every man's door and he meant what he said. Before he retired, Justice Sissons traveled an estimated 275,000 miles by plane and dogsled. The practice of the court going to the people so they can see justice being done and accused can be tried by a...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I didn’t say that it was a waste of time to develop programs to encourage children to be in school, nor did I say it was a waste of time to encourage families to make sure that their kids attended school. But there’s a big difference between finding a family that isn’t sending a kid to school because he hasn’t got any shoes and finding a way to support getting some shoes on the feet of that kid so that he is comfortable coming to school.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As outlined in the opening comments by the chair of the standing committee, there were a number of issues that were raised in the review with the standing committee and a commitment was made to come back with amendments during the standing committee process. But when we appeared before the standing committee with the amendments, the suggestion by the standing committee was that we deal with them in Committee of the Whole. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, Madam Chairperson, I would like to have witnesses.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the following be added after clause 8 of Bill 17:

Wildlife Act

8.1. Paragraph 30(3)(a) of the Wildlife Act is amended by deleting “wife or widow” and by substituting “spouse or surviving spouse”.

Mr. Chairman, this motion adds a new clause to the bill which will provide an amendment to the Wildlife Act which presently permits the wife or widow of a general hunting licence holder to hunt in a wildlife preserve in certain circumstances. The reference to wife or widow excludes men, women who live in heterosexual common-law relationships and same-sex spouses of either sex...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Keeping people from coming back to jail is one of the major focuses of the corrections department. Yes, we will work with inmates. I think it’s important to remember that right now Nats’ Ejee K’eh is one of the resources that is also used, as is the Salvation Army. We do have residential programs available. We’re going to have to take a look at a petition the Member says he’s going to table. We’ll have to have a look at that and try to figure out exactly what area the inmates feel that there is a shortage of space, because right now we’re not filling up Nats’ Ejee K’eh...

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Whether the federal government actually changes the definition of marriage or not we should still proceed with this legislation. Even if the definition of marriage isn’t changed, we should proceed with this. The Member just agreed that heterosexual common-law couples shouldn’t be discriminated against simply because they’re not legally married. That is supported by the courts. Well, the courts have supported the exact same thing with same-sex couples. You can’t discriminate against them simply because they’re not legally married. You can’t say they’re not a couple. So...