Debates of March 9, 2005 (day 52)

Thank you, Madam Chairperson. With respect to the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, I have always noted that it is a nice fancy title, but in essence it is the same thing as asking me to recognize and change the definition of how we treat the marriage of men and women and their benefits. With that alone, I have no problems saying that I am not going to support any of these changes or the bill at all at this point. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. General comments, Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I will support this motion. I am sorry, supporting this bill. It is an area that I was involved in, in the last Assembly, Madam Chairperson, when this Assembly amended our adoption laws to legalize the adoption rights and responsibilities of a couple if they are of the same sex and recognizing how we are to manage and set laws for adopting children.

At the time, it was made quite clear that if we were to take that step, as we did, there would be further consequential changes to many of our other laws, which also needed to reflect the new definitions. There are significant decisions in other courts of Canada, Madam Chairperson, which also compel the Northwest Territories to bring its own statutes in line with those new amendments in Canadian law.

Madam Chairperson, I don’t have the Hansard before me, but I recall parts of that debate. I think a number of the reasons that compelled me to vote in favour of the adoption law a few years ago also compel me to vote in favour of these changes.

Madam Chairperson, there are a lot of things over time that change in a society and our levels of tolerance, of acceptance of natural justice of human rights are things that in the course of Canadian history we can all mark. I would look at such milestones as granting the right to vote to women in the 1920s as something that, at that time, was an enormous change in the value system of governing and giving people rights to have a say in what was going to happen.

But you know something? Women now have the right to vote. To even think of bringing that idea back, that women should not be allowed to vote, is absolutely unthinkable. Madam Chairperson, the same step was taken sometime in the 1950s regarding the right of aboriginal people to have a vote in Canada. What an astounding change of value and tolerance and acceptance in our land.

Again, to look at that it would be a heresy to think that we should not accept that now. As society and acceptance and tolerance in the values of society have changed, so now have we come to accept the choice of some people to not partner with people of the opposite sex and yet, in the community and in the obligations and responsibilities that they take on, that same-sex couples take on among themselves, for me, Madam Chairperson, it does not just say okay we are extending a right, as this bill says, a benefit or an obligation. It is a further recognition that these people do have responsibilities in society, to themselves and to their community.

This is a two-way street and I am entirely convinced that amending our laws to recognize what obligations and benefits should be afforded same-sex couples in many different areas is also reflective of society's expectation that they will also take these on as promises and obligations and responsibilities that they have amongst themselves and to themselves and to their peers and their neighbours and other Canadians.

Those are the values that I bring to the table on this issue, Madam Chairperson. I am going to be pleased and proud to say yes to this bill when the amendments and the clause by clause begin. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Next on the list for general comments, I have Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I will be very brief. First of all, I will be supporting this bill. I want to recognize that rights of individuals don't evolve with the times. I won’t go on at length, but I really believe in that.

Although many of my colleagues here, I wish to stress, will not be supporting this bill, I do personally want to applaud that they are following their personal beliefs. I know that this is a decisive issue with a lot of people out there. Even with my constituency I have had calls on both sides of the equation. I want to emphasize that I do have personal respect for those who choose to vote against this; I recognize that that is their choice. They are following the beliefs and feelings of their constituencies, as well as their religious and personal beliefs. So I want to recognize that officially.

I will say just quickly before I close, I think this is a principle bill which really takes the debate out of it. We can either have the courts institute this by telling us to make these adjustments or we can make these adjustments on our own terms. That being said, we can write our own legislation, rather than the Supreme Court of the land telling us how to write it.

In closing, Madam Chairperson, I just want to emphasize that there truly are people on both sides of this equation and it is important to recognize and hear their voices as well, but, at this time, I will be voting in favour of this bill because I believe it is the correct thing to do. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Next on the list for general comments I have Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I just want to offer a few comments for the record. I understand and appreciate the complexities and the conflicting views on this and I realize this bill might touch on a subject that is of discussion wider than this Assembly. As the Minister stated in his opening remarks, I think it is important to note that this bill is not in any way defining or redefining marriage.

As the Minister indicated, we, as a territorial legislature, do not have the power to define or redefine marriage. That is the responsibility of the federal government. That is where the power lays and I realize that there are debates going on there.

This bill and what I understand it to be is really about contracts and benefits that arise out of a contractual, understanding relationship. It took many years for common law, for example, to accept and give obligations and benefits to common-law couples. That is a modern form, that is a modernization and that is an understanding of the reality of the situation; that there are many couples, heterosexual couples, who choose not to marry formally in a church or in any other ceremony. The laws now have accepted that any couple who lives together as man and wife have the same benefits, so we got to the point where a husband, for example, or in a common-law relationship, cannot sell matrimonial property or the house they reside in without the consent of the wife. Those are the kinds of laws that weren’t there before, that we have understood to be necessary to protect the rights and obligations of a couple who live in a married-like relationship.

I believe this bill is making the homosexual couples or same sex couples have the same rights that the heterosexual common-law couples have. It is really saying that same-sex couples, like every other couple, have rights and benefits and obligations and that they have basic rights that they should be entitled to.

I know that these are difficult issues for some, but I think in the midst of all the political back and forth we have in this House, I believe that one of the most important jobs that we have as a Legislature and a publicly-elected person is to protect the rights of minorities, who can’t, by sheer number, always win the argument of society. Our job is to protect those who are vulnerable and who are not given the same equal treatment and equal rights under the law.

This is something that has already been decided by the Supreme Court of Canada; not on the definition of marriage, obviously, but on rights and obligations of same-sex couples. The court has already decided that same-sex couples who have lived together for many, many years…The court has decided that it is not fair that if one of that couple dies, all of their employer pensions and benefits that would have gone to a heterosexual couple just gets wiped away. That partner, in that type of relationship, has no rights whatsoever. The court has already decided that that is not the way to go in this country, and many provincial jurisdictions have already followed that. It is my understanding that it is either we have to update our laws to fall in line with that Supreme Court decision or, I am sure, that this issue will go before the courts in our jurisdiction if it does get litigated. The chances of winning that case are very low in light of the Supreme Court decision which is superior to the Territorial Court. We would have achieved the same result at the end of a lot of expenditure of money and resources.

This bill simply makes amendments to many of existing territorial legislation that does not fall in line with the federal law and basic rights that are stated in our Constitution and Charter which is the supreme law and one that we all need to benefit from. That is important to all of us. Sometimes it is difficult, but I believe that we cannot assert our own place under that umbrella of rights.

I think most Canadians, even if they often or sometimes complain about some aspects of our Charter of Rights or our constitutional rights and what kind of affect it has on society, take pride in the fact that we have these basic rights. We all have the same basic rights under the Charter and Constitution. It is like any other good thing. In order to make it work, we all have to take part in it. We all have to share it. We all have to be willing to give and take. As much as we want it for ourselves, we have to be able to give that to every other person in our society.

I also want to recognize that these same-sex couples that are subject of these legislative changes, live among us. They are our friends. They are our sisters, brothers, cousins, neighbours. There is no community in the Northwest Territories where there are not same-sex couples. We have an obligation to them as much as any other citizen in the Territories. I have, I believe, the collective responsibility to look after their rights as well as everyone else’s rights. I want to say that I respect the views of everyone in the House. I know this is a sensitive issue, but it is what we are elected here to do. I believe it is one of the privileges we have to take an action like the one we are taking here today. I would end my statement there. I will be voting in support of this bill. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. General comments. Next on the list, I have Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I, too, would like to offer a few brief comments. I am in support of Bill 17, Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, that is before us today. I just wanted to start off by saying that I really do respect and appreciate the views that other Members have on this. Sometimes we are always not going to agree on things. We all have different religious and spiritual beliefs. Those are to be respected. It is a really touchy issue for many people. But for me, when I got elected in 1997, one of the first tests as a new city councillor was to add a proclamation for Gay Pride Day at City Hall. I thought about this for some time; how I was going to vote, whether I was going to vote in favour of Gay Pride Day being proclaimed in the City of Yellowknife. I searched inside and came to a realization that who am I to stand in the way of other people having the dignity and aspirations that they have. I didn’t want to stand in people’s way of being happy. This life that we have here; all of us are put on this earth. It is a tough enough life to live, as it is, for some people. I think it goes back to the basic human rights, like I said: respect, dignity and aspirations having to be adhered to and people allowed to live the lives that they want to live.

I am not trying to impose my views on anybody, but while I have the floor, I will mention this. I know people have strong beliefs on a man and woman, but if you look at everybody as a person; people are put on the earth with the ability to love and to be in relationships. Again, who am I to stand in the way of any person wanting to love another person, to be in a relationship with another person? I can’t say unequivocally that I am a better father or provider than any other person is. Again, Madam Chair, it goes back to human rights and the dignity and aspirations of people.

I am going to support the bill that is before us. I do respect and appreciate other Members and their spiritual and religious beliefs. That is the way I view this. I am going to support it, and we will move forward from there. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. General comments. Mr. Pokiak.

Thank you, Madam Chair. To be brief, I thought about this long and hard. I think it is going to be on my conscience; but knowing my constituents back home, I know how they feel. I think what I am going to do is I am going to have to vote no against Bill 17, Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act.

I did get some feedback from my constituents, and that is how I am going to vote. I am going to vote against the bill. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. Are there any further general comments on Bill 17? No further general comments. The committee is indicating that they would like to go clause by clause.

Agreed.

I am going to ask Mr. Ramsay if he would take the chair.

Good afternoon. Does the committee agree to go clause by clause?

Agreed.

Bill 17, Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, clause 1.

Agreed.

Clause 2.

Agreed.

Mr. Zoe.

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

Does the committee agree to go back to clause 1?

Agreed.

Mr. Zoe.

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.

Thank you, Mr. Zoe. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. What this amendment is intended to do is to address the concern that conflicts of interest may well arise where couples live together for less than two years. The fact that they lived together may give rise to the perception of a conflict of interest. This amendment applies both to heterosexual couples and same-sex couples because, right now, for instance, in the Conflict of Interest Act, if a heterosexual couple were to be living together for six months in a conjugal relationship, the same act wouldn’t apply to them even though there may be the implication of a conflict of interest because they are living together.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Zoe.

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?

Thank you, Mr. Zoe. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let’s take an example. If a person is a member on a board, like in our Conflict of Interest Act. For instance, if one the Members here…They have to declare the interest of their spouse. What this amendment does is make sure that that condition exists under the Conflict of Interest Act. So a member of a board would have to then be aware and public of the interests of their partner, whether they are same sex or heterosexual. Right now, that is not covered. Right now, the Conflict of Interest Act doesn’t provide the same protection to the public that you find in some of our acts. That is the situation that arises, because if two people are living together, there is an expectation that a man and a wife have to meet a certain obligation to declare or to watch for conflicts of interest. Just because people aren’t married, they shouldn’t have to not worry about declaring that conflict of interest. This is to correct that problem in our laws. It applies equally to heterosexual as well as same sex because it is a problem in our laws with couples right now that aren’t married.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Zoe.

I have no further questions on clause 1.

Thank you. On clause 1, Mr. Menicoche.

With respect to clause 1, I am having trouble seeing the change. What exactly is it that you are changing here, Mr. Chair?

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Right now, under the Conflict of Interest Act, if two people are married and one person is a member of a board or a council, they have to follow the conflict of interest provision. I will just take an example that I am familiar with: the Legislative Assembly Executive Council Act. Under the conflict of interest provisions here, if a Member is married, they have to declare all of the interests of their spouse. They have to make sure that there isn’t a conflict of interest. However, if the couple is not married, it wouldn’t necessarily apply to them. So we are fixing a problem in the law that would apply both to heterosexual and same-sex couples.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am having trouble seeing where the change is. Are you replacing a subsection or deleting?

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are changing the definition of spouse so that it no longer means people who are married, so common-law couples will be included now as well.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Menicoche.

Okay, in clause 1, this is the exact wording of the change. Is that what they are doing here, Mr. Chair?

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Dent.

Yes, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you.

Clause 1.

Agreed.