Charles Dent

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If an education authority wanted to put their money into providing that kind of service within their school area, they could. Mr. Speaker, I just want to be clear about my previous answer. Many of the kids who are not attending school tend to come from poorer families and we need to address that issue before we start addressing finding those families and making them even poorer to put them back in school. The Member has been recommending that we use the law to try and enforce attendance at school by finding families if their kids don’t attend. What I said yesterday was...

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can only go by the chair's opening comments to the bill today in which it was noted that the committee decided not to proceed with moving any amendments during its clause-by-clause review in order to allow for discussion of any motions in Committee of the Whole during its review of the bill in its entirety so that all Members could participate.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson. With me, I have Ms. Lucy Austin, who is the executive director of the Legal Services Board; and Mr. Mark Aitken, the director of legislation division.

Mr. Chairman, I move that clause 9 of Bill 17 be amended by striking out “section 6 of Bill,” in proposed subsection 10(5) of the Wills Act and by substituting “section 6 of Bill 17,”.

Mr. Chairman, this motion amends clause 9 to correct an internal reference back to Bill 17, Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, in a transitional provision being added to the Wills Act. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We are here today to review Bill 17, Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act.

The bill we are reviewing today does not address marriage. The Supreme Court recently confirmed that it is the exclusive responsibility of the federal government to define marriage.

A few weeks ago, the federal Justice Minister introduced the Civil Marriage Act in the House of Commons. If passed, it will extend legal capacity for civil marriage to same-sex couples while respecting religious freedom. Until this legislation is passed or there is a court decision in the Northwest...

Mr. Chairman, I move that subclause 7(3) of Bill 17 be amended by striking out “section 7 of Bill_,” in proposed subsection 1(3) of the Intestate Succession Act and by substituting “section 7 of Bill 17,”.

Mr. Chairman, this motion amends sub-clause 7(3) to correct an internal reference back to Bill 17, Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, in a new transitional provision being added to the Intestate Succession Act. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can’t say how many are in any facility because of addictions problems. I can say that the vast majority of inmates in the Northwest Territories were under the influence of alcohol when the crime was committed. So that alcohol is still the biggest problem that we face. That would tend to indicate that might be the area where addictions would be the biggest issue. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the amendments are very clear and they don’t get into the issues that the Member is speaking about. I think what we are doing is we are correcting a situation that has been clearly seen by the courts to be discriminatory in Canada under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As a government we have a responsibility to respect the laws of Canada and make sure that our laws are respectful and meet the test of the Charter.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One of the changes in the correctional system that we’re trying to implement as we’ve moved into the new facility is a new approach, more of a case management approach where we have workers who work with individuals who try and assess what their problems might be and what their specific needs might be. The department does purchase space and programming from the Salvation Army. It’s an average of 10 beds a day to assist people making the transition from being in jail to being free again. The programming there is life skills and substance abuse programming to try and deal...

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We had a good part of this debate in the 14th Assembly and the process was started there with the changing of some laws in recognition of court decisions. What we’re doing now is continuing on with that process. It was a commitment that was made in the Assembly at that time that we would continue to do it. So it’s necessary that we change our laws. They are discriminatory right now. We should proceed with them. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.