Mr. Chairman, I'm going to join the chorus. I'm quite confident that my constituents believe that those who are incarcerated forfeit certain privileges in our society, including their freedom and including the right to vote. I'm shocked that the committee suggests that if the provisions of this bill are passed allowing some inmates to vote, in effect we'd be setting a precedent. As I understand the committee's report, we would be setting a precedent that would mean that a person could be elected to the Legislature while incarcerated. I believe that's what the committee has concluded. This is repugnant.

We've just recently adopted codes of conduct endorsing higher standards of conduct for our politicians and other leaders, and now it's proposed that this Legislature take action which would, in effect, put convicted, jailed inmates on the same status as any other person and allow them to run for office and that we should be making consequential amendments to allow that to happen.

Some of my constituents believe that people are not dealt with as harshly as they should be in our courts. I think there's a general view that people are not jailed when they should be jailed, or not jailed as long as they should be jailed, and now we're sending out a signal that inmates should have the same rights as ordinary citizens. Even Members of the Standing Committee on Legislation are expressing their outrage, and I note that the committee doesn't really say that they support the bill. They say that it's ready for consideration in committee of the whole.

I've always said, Mr. Chairman, that there's a Charter of Rights argument under every rock; behind every tree, you can find one. The latest is, some lawyer has said that we shouldn't be allowed to teach religion in schools any more, even if communities want it and local education authorities want it. I'm told the new Education Act is going to have to change out of our blind obeisance to this Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the legal industry that supports it.

I guess what I'd like to say here, Mr. Chairman, sensing the mood in this committee, is what if we don't pass these amendments? What's going to happen? What are the consequences of not passing these amendments? I think I can guess. I think there might be a challenge mounted by somebody, probably paid for by legal aid. But I guess my attitude, Mr. Chairman, is why cower in fear of the Charter of Rights. Why should we assume the worst: that our legislation will be challenged and our Election Act will be overturned? I would rather do what we think is right, as Mr. Ballantyne says, exercise the responsibility given to us by our constituents to do what we think they would want us to do and let the consequences fall where they may. So I'll be asking the Minister what the consequences would be. I would also like to ask the Minister of Justice would the legal aid plan fund the challenge of an inmate? Because if the public purse is not going to fund a challenge of this kind, then there might be a better chance there wouldn't be such a challenge taken.

So I'm inclined to say no to this aspect of the bill. I want to say that other aspects of the bill are progressive and necessary and will improve the election procedures and will profit from the experience in the last territorial election. I think they should be passed expeditiously.

The other ones, we should defeat or defer. I can't, in good conscience, support these amendments. I'm quite confident that I'm speaking for the clear majority of my constituents. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.