Question.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, for us to achieve healthy communities we need to stop family violence. In spite of the GNWT policy against family violence, too many people are still being abused. In particular, we must increase our efforts to end the violence against women and children.

Just with regard to the preamble, I have no problem with the recommendation. But, is there a reason why it's just women and children or should it be all persons?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe the other recommendations in regard to the elders and to all of society...I agree with the Member that it shouldn't be specifically targeted to women and children but I believe that from statistics that we have received and comments that we received as a committee when we crossed the north, there was concern to recognize that every effort has to be made to end violence against women and children. Therefore, these are some of the reasons why the committee put it in this context. I will tell you that we certainly recognize elder abuse. We recognize that there is elder abuse. We recognize that there are many other forms of violence and abuse and have attempted to deal with them in other areas of this report. Therefore, this is why we have stated women and children, but we certainly would encourage Members that we have to make our effort to end the violence in our society. It's basically what it should have read. That's what we are trying to encourage. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The words "zero tolerance" have been used quite extensively over the last several months and certainly I believe that people accept the idea that this is a good way to describe what you would like to have as an attitude throughout your society, but when you use the word policy -- it's our policy -- policy normally means a commitment of a service to the public that you serve. So, whenever you enact any kind of policy you have to know what it means. What does that mean if you do that? Does it mean that it imposes something on the public service? We are talking here about the government adopting a policy so you are assuming, therefore, that it has to do with the way public servants within the public service behave.

Before we can vote on something like this, we have to have an understanding of what exactly a policy of zero tolerance means in active, real, concrete terms. What is expected to be done to those people that don't practice zero tolerance? I want to be sure we are adopting more than just nice sounding words. To me, and I used the example today, that we have zero tolerance towards violence in this Assembly. If somebody decides to strike somebody, they're history, they're out of here. That is zero tolerance. In this Chamber, there is zero tolerance towards violence; you know that if you practice violence something will happen to you. So what does it mean when the governments adopt a zero tolerance policy? Does it mean, for example, that if somebody strikes somebody in the workplace, in a government workplace, that they will be fired automatically? Or does it mean that they will be sent home for a week without pay? If we talk about words, they may sound good but are there any teeth to it? Does it mean anything? Is it more than just something that sounds nice and sounds right? I know that the public very often feels that words used in any kind of political arena are just that, unless you really put teeth into it. You must mean what it is that you are committing yourself to do, if in fact violence continues in the workplace or violence continues in communities or whatever. I would like to have an understanding from the committee chairperson or any other Member of the committee as to what is meant by it. What do we mean by zero tolerance adopted by the government? What does the government intend to do in the area of policy making on this particular issue?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to attempt to answer Mr. Lewis' questions. Basically, as we travelled, there were many concerns with respect to family violence and there were many concerns and comments with regard to violence in itself. There were many expressions of what was acceptable to society with respect to violence and what should not be acceptable or tolerated. The concern that the public had was regardless of what type of violence we have out there, regardless of who it is against, whether it's elders, children, women, the disabled or any individual in society, that any form of violence should not be tolerated. Zero tolerance basically means that no violence should be tolerated in any way, shape or form, to put it quite clearly.

Mr. Chairman, it seems that there's some concern in the public that some types of violence are acceptable in some parts of society, or some places in society. Basically the public is saying that we have to make every effort to state to the public that no type of violence should be tolerated and that it should not be acceptable at all in our society. This is why we've recognized that the government has made some effort to deal with violence. We've recognized they've made an effort through providing shelters and to providing homes.

If you go across the territories, only some communities have safe shelters in the territories. When you look at stating that this type of thing should not be acceptable, we're basically saying that we agree, no type of violence towards any individual in society should be tolerated. Therefore, the government has to strive to develop a zero tolerance level of violence and it must be adopted and publicized and made every effort to get that message out to the public through their forms of programs and through their methods of communications. They have to let people in the territories know that they're serious in not tolerating any violence. Thank you.

Many Members did say that violence against any one should not be tolerated and I agree with them. But the other thing I would like to get clarification on is with regard to the meaning within the judicial system? Do we take away the rights of police forces? If a wife or a spouse reports that they have been hit, do we take away the RCMP's right of probable and reasonable grounds and say, violence has been reported and arrest this person, with no regard for circumstances. I don't know whether we are doing that. But I am sure if the police get the message that zero tolerance means exactly that, then that is the way they are going uphold the law. If a person decides her husband shouldn't go to the bar and reports it, they would automatically go to jail that night. I don't know what it means, but this is the way I look at it. Do we influence the judges to increase sentences for people who violate anyone?

I don't see as much senior citizen violence in Providence, but I do see a lot of men fighting amongst themselves. Those are the only exceptions to the zero violence? I have to look at it from that point of view. We don't have any RCMP, judges or lawyers here right now. I would appreciate it if Sheila were here to interpret it from a legal point of view.

Mr. Chairman, I am requesting that we get a legal opinion on that.

My question concerns the judicial system when we refer to zero tolerance towards violence. I know that when an offense is committed, normally police officers have probable grounds to arrest that person. If we were to adopt such a policy, does that compel the RCMP to not tolerate any violence? If violence is reported, then there are no questions asked? They arrest the person, investigate and if the report is frivolous -- regardless of whether the person did anything -- they are locked up in jail because of that policy being adopted. I would go further by asking whether the policy would have an impact on judgments being made by judges? That was my concern.