Agreed.

Okay, general comments, any other Members? Mr. Ningark.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I agree with my colleague, Mr. Dent, who spoke eloquently about the zero tolerance of this government. Not too long ago, Mr. Chairman, we debated zero tolerance in this House. It was at that time that we unanimously supported zero tolerance in this particular jurisdiction. Some of the inmates, who may have spent two years or less than two years in a correctional centre, may have been those who have abused women, children and kids.

Mr. Chairman, if the Constitution of the country was not to allow the inmates to vote, then I would support it because of the constitutionality of the act. I don't know what I am going to do, I have mixed feelings about this. But I would not want the inmates to be allowed to vote. For one thing, there is the possibility if they are allowed to vote and they have a very, very strong...They may be able to run for the office of the Legislature and perhaps become elected. We know the rule of this House: If an MLA is charged, convicted, and spends a day in jail, then the MLA has to resign. So, Mr. Chairman, I am not sure what I am going to do in this case. I like the act itself, but the section that would allow the inmates to vote, that is what I am having problems with. Thank you.

Okay, we are still on the general comments. Thank you, Mr. Ningark. Mr. Pudlat.

(Translation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Regarding this bill, I don't really have an understanding about what types of offenses or what level of violence the offenses of the inmates being allowed to vote are, whether it be murder or whatever. I don't really know what types of offenses those inmates who are able to vote have committed. But I am also aware that my constituents would be against the idea of having inmates able to vote. And we, as an Assembly, fully supporting the idea of zero tolerance on violence, are sort of in a bind because we also have to think about the constitutional implications.

Now, if inmates are able to run for office, there is a possibility that we will have an overload of inmates running for office. If elected MLAs are convicted, they have to step down. I am also in a bind as to what I should do on this issue. As my other colleagues, I am in full support of the other aspects of the bill. Because inmates have to give up some of their privileges, I think that it is a great privilege to vote in an election, especially for Members of the Legislative Assembly.

But as I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, I don't know what type of offenses would be considered when allowing inmates to vote in an election, whether they have been sentenced to two years or more. If I don't know all of these issues with the proposed changes, it is kind of hard to support this bill, especially if we fully support the zero tolerance on violence. But, I think I really have no choice but to support it because of the constitutional implications. I will leave it at that, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Pudlat. General comments? Three Members have raised questions. I think that they are expecting some kind of response. Mr. Patterson, Mr. Dent and Mr. Pudlat raised issues, and I wonder if the Minister would like to respond to all or any of those issues?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, with regard to Mr. Dent's specific questions with regard to if this bill passes today and the subsequent amendments to the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, those amendments are being done right now just in case this bill does pass. And I would suggest to the House that they would not let me, nor would I propose, third reading of this bill until the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act was at third reading, as well. So I think that is the way that that would be handled, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to Mr. Patterson's question on what the consequences would be, in all probability -- and I am not legal counsel, I am not a lawyer, and I am not an expert in this particular field, but from the experts who are sitting with me -- and we can't second guess what a court would do -- the challenge would occur before the election. The challenge would be that we are not allowing people to vote when it has been a decision of the Supreme Court to say that they can vote. You may recall that the federal government, when they changed their act, changed it to what we are doing right now or what we are proposing, which is two years and you can vote, over two years and you can't vote.

The danger of a challenge before the election would be that the court may turn around and say all the prisoners in the Northwest Territories, regardless of how much time they are serving, can vote.

If the challenge was not until after the election, then I can't presuppose what a court would say. But we might say that an MLA had been elected and was MLA-elect in a particular constituency, let's just say there were only 10 or 15 votes in it, and let's just say that the opponents knew that there were that many people who were incarcerated for less than two years, regardless of whether it was two years, who could have voted in that particular jurisdiction, let's say there were 20 of them, so theoretically they could influence the election. A judge may then say these people should be allowed to vote.

If you take that a step further, Mr. Chairman, and they are allowed to vote, they already know what the outcome of the other voting was so then somebody may come along and say they had advance notice. In other words, they looked into the ballot boxes before they actually voted themselves. So it could be a number of those kinds of problems that would arise, Mr. Chairman, and I wouldn't venture to suggest any more. But there are all kinds out there that we just couldn't forecast.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to the question on legal aid, I really don't think that there would be any barriers put in the way of somebody in this particular area, but I would defer to Mr. Kakfwi, if he has more knowledge than I do. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Pollard. We're still on general comments. I believe you also answered Mr. Pudlat's issue about crime, and that it has to be less than two years. Mr. Pollard.

Mr. Chairman, we must not think that people who are serving less than two years are just petty shoplifters or stealing cars or intoxicated or something like that. People serving two years could be in there for all forms of violence against people. They could be in there for sexual assaults, substance abuse. So I guess the answer is that those people serving less than two years must not be considered to be just petty criminals; there could be some very serious crimes committed by those people. Thank you.

Thanks very much. Any other Members? We're still on general comments. Mr. Koe.

Mahsi, Mr. Chairman. Again, I find myself in a difficult position as an alternate Member on the Standing Committee on Legislation. And, as an alternative Member, I might add, I participated in the discussions leading up to these amendments. The Members of the committee who were active at the time in deliberating these amendments all voiced various objections or concerns, but the bill is now in front of us. The committee has sanctioned parts of it, I imagine, that we are now faced with having to decide on whether to go with the specific clauses.

The constitutional issue which was ruled on by the Supreme Court of Canada is that everybody has the right to vote. Based on that ruling, these amendments are prepared. I, as a Member of SCOL or an alternate Member of SCOL and also as an MLA, am going to support the bill as proposed.

There are many other items in this bill that we haven't even talked about that are good items: The clearing- up of allowing the chief electoral officer to set the period for enumerations; we've improved the enumeration procedures; we've changed the polling days from two to one; we've improved the procedures governing election contributions and expenses. All these, I agree with, so it becomes very difficult now to say we're not going to support, as Members have indicated, certain clauses and leave the others out. So I, for one, am going to be voting in favour of the amendments as have been proposed by the government.

I guess the issue of inmate voting -- and some Members have alluded to it -- is more administration. How do we access inmates? How do we run campaigns in our institutions? These are things that I look forward to during the next campaign. Mahsi.

We're still on general comments. Does anybody else want to comment on this bill? Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess the basic concern with regard to allowing inmates to vote, no doubt, there's a concern and I think it's a valid concern. However, as we are all aware, with regard to the Charter of Rights and the decisions made by the Supreme Court before with regard to inmates voting, it's basically a right that has been upheld by the court. I think, as Members, we're conscientious of that and respect it.

I guess, morally, we don't feel it's right that inmates should vote, and we feel that inmates should have their voting rights taken away once they are incarcerated, however, the courts have decided otherwise. I certainly just want it noted that I don't believe the general public agrees with the fact that inmates should be allowed to vote. But, like everything else, we respect when the Charter of Rights comes down and decides, I think we have to adhere to it.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, because of the fact that the Supreme Court has decided that inmates have a voting right in accordance with the Charter of Rights, I will be supporting the amendments. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mrs. Marie-Jewell. Are there any other general comments? Back to you, then, Mr. Ningark.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I am a Member of the Standing Committee on Legislation, which reviewed the bill. At the time we discussed it, when we went through this particular bill, I was one of those Members who supported the bill. But the more I think about it, Mr. Chairman, I think we have to send a really strong message to the federal government -- especially the Minister of Justice for the federal government -- that we no longer can tolerate violence against women and children. Even if we are challenged by the inmates and even if we lose, we still have to make a point. We don't want to tolerate violence any more in this particular jurisdiction. In that case, I will not support the bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ningark. Mr. Zoe.

Thank you, Mr. Zoe. We are still on general comments. Is there anybody else? Ms. Mike.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Although I agree with most of the proposed amendments, I have a problem with inmates being able to vote, although I realize this has been challenged and the ruling came out. I am not too sure if, as a woman, I would like one inmate or a number of inmates as the people who put me in the Legislative Assembly; especially if they are sex offenders, in for assaulting a woman or child molesters, for that matter. It reflects on me as a Member. I have a problem with it. As Mrs. Marie-Jewell said, morally, it is

not attractive. It can affect one person's ability to function as a Member of the Legislative Assembly. I am talking from a woman's point of view and I don't feel comfortable with it. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Mike. Is there anybody else who would like to make a general comment? Mr. Koe.

Mahsi, Mr. Chairman. I just want to advise Members that the Canada Elections Act was amended and the current Elections Act for federal elections does allow an inmate to vote. It reads, "Every person who is imprisoned in a correctional institution serving a sentence of two years or more is disqualified from voting." I read then, that "anybody who is serving two years or less is eligible to vote." So in all federal elections, inmates serving two years or less are allowed to vote. I just wanted to make that statement, to clarify the issue with federal elections.

Thank you, Mr. Koe. I believe it is less than two years, not two years or less, in the act. Thank you. Mr. Antoine.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to make a few comments about Bill 15, An Act to Amend the Elections Act. I think this is a good bill. It allows inmates serving less than two years the right to vote and there are other proposed amendments, but this one seems to be drawing a lot of attention. I support this bill on this issue. I agree that people serving time in the north here should be allowed to vote; if federal legislation allows them to vote, then they should be allowed to vote here as well. The concern I have is, and I would like to ask the Minister, if they are allowed to vote, are they then eligible to run for office? Thank you.