Oral questions. Mr. Gargan.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is directed to the Minister of Justice with regard to the whole issue on whether or not inmates have a right to vote. I would like to ask the Minister whether or not there has been a review done with regard to this. Has there been a review on whether or not our Northwest Territories Act is okay as far as the Constitution goes?

Minister of Justice, Mr. Patterson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the federal Court of Appeal, in the case of Belczowski versus Canada, did hold that the provisions of the Canada Elections Act disqualifying prison inmates from voting in federal elections were contrary to the Charter. However, Mr. Speaker, it is not known, yet, whether this case will be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. It is likely that the results of that case would apply to voting provisions in the territorial Elections Act, but I am advised that it would be preferable to wait for the outcome of an appeal, if any, before amendments to that act are made or contemplated. Thank you.

Oral questions. Supplementary, Mr. Gargan. Oral questions. Mr. Gargan.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, under the Legal Services Act, again to the Minister of Justice, one of the provisions under section 4, clause 35, states, "Subject to this act and the regulations, legal services may be provided in relation to all civil matters except..." One of these sections deals with proceedings relating to elections. I would like to ask the Minister if he has reviewed that section and if there are any avenues the inmates might be able to take in order to challenge, the Elections Act, if the need arises.

Mr. Patterson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, as the honourable Member may know, there is a concern about the spiralling costs of legal aid, courts, court services and policing in the Northwest Territories. Because of that concern, the previous Minister of Justice had approved the appointment of a task force on legal aid to review the whole system, particularly with a view to dealing with the increases in costs. I have tabled that report and, to my recollection, it does not address that particular issue. In fact, the report is generally directed at limiting services and costs, rather than expanding them.

Mr. Speaker, to answer the Member's question, I have not considered expanding the scope of legal aid. In fact, I believe that I may be required, by financial restraint, to consider doing the opposite: limiting or controlling the scope of legal aid. Thank you.

Oral questions. Supplementary, Mr. Gargan.

I would like to ask if there are any avenues that inmates have if they feel that their constitutional right to vote is being violated. What are the options that the inmates have in that case?

Mr. Patterson.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that rather than spending a lot of time and money on litigation, I would suggest that the solution to that problem lies with this Legislature and, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that it is a decision that can be addressed by this Legislature without the need for litigation. We as a Legislature can determine whether inmates should have the right to vote or not. It does not take a court challenge to decide. The honourable Member well knows the tools that are available to any Member of this Legislative Assembly to bring this issue before the House and to the attention of the government. Thank you.

Supplementary, Mr. Gargan.

Mr. Speaker, if the Member recalls, I made a motion with regard to changing the Elections Act, the Plebiscite Act and the Local Authorities Elections Act which none of the Members supported. This motion would have enabled inmates to vote. The opportunity for change was there, but it never occurred. I would like to ask the Minister whether or not, in the event the possibility exists, it could be challenged. This could disrupt the plebiscite. Perhaps the government should be changing the acts so that inmates may have an opportunity to vote.

A question should not normally deal with a hypothetical case. I think the Minister understands the intent of the question. Mr. Patterson.

Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect to the honourable Member, I would suggest that the federal case dealt with federal elections, and while it may well apply to territorial elections, I think there is quite a distinction to be made with regard to a plebiscite. I think the previous litigation on the plebiscite described the plebiscite as an opinion poll. It has a different status than that of an election in the sense of a municipal or a territorial election.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that it is up to this Legislature to determine which classes of people it wishes to consult on, in effect, an opinion poll through the plebiscite. I think the Member's concern about the applicability of this case is valid and quite possibly justified with regard to elections legislation. I respectfully suggest that there is a whole different set of arguments that apply to plebiscite legislation. Thank you.

Supplementary, Mr. Gargan.

Mr. Speaker, in the event that the response

would be what the Minister said, I would like to get a legal opinion on that. The Plebiscite Act does contain a clause restricting prisoners from voting. Under the act itself, that could be challenged if there was a plebiscite and the inmates decide to do that. What I am getting at, Mr. Speaker, is whether or not any Minister has taken any initiatives. Does the Minister agree that there might be a disruption in the plebiscite process if it was challenged? What is he doing about it?

Mr. Patterson.

Mr. Speaker, the case is under Plebiscite Act, and I guess the case of Allman et al versus the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories in the Court of Appeal of the Northwest Territories, 1984, basically described the plebiscite as an opinion poll, as I said earlier, Mr. Speaker. I believe the Charter right to vote has been considered, so far, in courts to apply to elections rather than opinion polls. So, Mr. Speaker, to answer the Member's question, I am not concerned about the possibility of a challenge, or even a violation of Charter rights, by the exclusion of certain classes of people like prisoners with respect to the Plebiscite Act. I think the Member has a very good case to make, that the Charter, right to vote may well apply to our elections legislation in the Territories, but I am advised that it is quite a different matter with regard to the Plebiscite Act.

So the short answer to the question, Mr. Speaker, is that I am not concerned about the validity of the Plebiscite Act as against the Charter, and I am not concerned about the possibility of a challenge. Thank you.

Oral questions. You have used up your three supplementaries, Mr. Gargan. Mr. Nerysoo.

Mr. Patterson.

Mr. Speaker, the honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta pointed out the other day that the equality provisions of the Charter were not in effect when the residency requirement was litigated in the case of Allman versus the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories in 1984. I have sought advice from my department about the point the Member raised; namely, could the equality provisions provide a basis for challenge of the residency requirement that was not available in 1984. Mr. Speaker, I am advised that it is never possible to predict for certain what courts will do, but I am advised that the right to vote is the best ground to challenge the residency requirement in the Plebiscite Act, that it is not so much an equality argument as an argument founded in the right-to-vote provisions of the Charter. I am advised by my department that therefore the challenge was thoroughly dealt with by the court of appeal in 1984, and it was on the best ground that could be available to a challenger today, and that therefore that case probably accurately sets out the law today as well as it did in 1984.