Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, today I am appearing before committee of the whole to provide comments on Bill 15 which amends the act that administers elections of Members to the Legislative Assembly. Mr. Chairman, this bill is one of those bills that is not the sole responsibility of the government to sponsor. Amendments to the Elections Act fall under the responsibility of the whole of the Legislative Assembly.

The amendments proposed in this bill were recommendations for changes to the Elections Act made to the Legislative Assembly by the chief electoral officer after the 1991 general election. These recommendations were based on observations by the 24 returning officers, the NWT elections office in Yellowknife and the chief electoral officer's staff in Ottawa. The report of the chief electoral officer contained 10 recommendations in the following areas:

1. date of election;

2. enumeration;

3. voting by mail-in ballot;

4. inmate voting;

5. advance polls;

6. advance poll registration;

7. revisions of the list of electors;

8. election officials;

9. election financing; and,

10. control of elections.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to indicate the process that was followed after the receipt of the chief electoral officer's report. The recommendations were reviewed in detail by the Management and Services Board, who provided direction for the preparation of a report to Caucus which contained recommendations for changes to the act. As Members will recall, the report was presented to Caucus by the Speaker on August 19, 1994, and was agreed to with the exception of the recommendation on the implementation of a special ballot system. The results of the Caucus direction are contained in the bill before you today.

Mr. Chairman, Bill 15 contains a number of major amendments to the Elections Act and a number of consequential amendments that are required to support the major amendments. There are also a number of technical amendments relating to advance polls, election officials and the reporting of campaign financing. Mr. Chairman, as indicated, the significant amendments contained in this bill relate firstly to allowing the chief electoral officer to set the period of enumeration which could be carried out prior to the issuing of the writ of election. Secondly, Mr. Chairman, one that the Honourable Sam Gargan has raised on a number of occasions and that was also a recommendation of the chief electoral officer, relates to the permitting of inmates serving sentences of less than two years to vote in an election.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my introductory remarks to Bill 15 and I would like to seek the assistance of witnesses in order that I can answer any questions that you may have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Pollard. At the appropriate time, we will invite witnesses. The Standing Committee on Legislation has reviewed this bill. Do you have any comments, Mr. Whitford?

Standing Committee On Legislation Comments

Thank you, Mr. Whitford. Mr. Pollard asked, before I recognized the Standing Committee on Legislation, if he could bring witnesses into the House. How do Members feel about that? Are there any objections? Sergeant-at-Arms, will you show the person where they have to go?

Mr. Pollard, would you introduce your witnesses, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have with me Mr. Mark Aitken on my right, legislative counsel; and, Mr. David Hamilton, Clerk of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill has seen quite a bit of discussion. We discussed it in the Management and Services Board and I, for one, support every aspect of the bill except for the one area where I, along with others, have had some real problems and that is the whole concept of inmates voting. I personally believe, as a principle, that once you have been convicted of breaking the law and you are in an institution, you have lost that right or you should lose that right. I think that's a very important fundamental part of society that has been lost. Even when I heard the acting chairman talk about the need for procedures to allow dozens of candidates to woo inmates in various institutions really gives a strange symbolic signal to the public. Are we going to allow candidates signs in the cell block or in the exercise yard? I can just see it: "Vote Joe Blow," "Inmates for Joe." I have some very serious problems with that.

One of the original concepts was that all inmates could vote and I want to put on the record that if that had been brought forward, I would have not only spoken against this bill, I would have voted against this bill. We've been told, one more time, by our legal experts, that the Charter of Rights will dictate what this freely-elected Assembly must do. We have no choice, as accountable politicians, to make any other decision but to allow these inmates to vote. It is another sign where elected officials of this country really cannot make a lot of fundamental decisions and I think it's a real shame.

So, I want to say that I'm absolutely, unequivocally against the principle of inmates voting but, because of the reality that we face -- if we don't pass this law with this clause in it, the elections can be open to legal challenge -- with a lot of reluctance and because I have no option, I will support this bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Ballantyne. Do any other Members have general comments on Bill 15? Mr. Whitford.

Thank you, Mr. Whitford. Mr. Patterson, next.

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.

Thanks, Mr. Patterson. Next is Mr. Dent.

Shame, shame.

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.

Thank you, Mr. Antoine. Before asking for any response to the issue you raised, Mr. Antoine, I will recognize Mr. Whitford.

Mr. Pollard, do you have a response to Mr. Antoine's question?

Mr. Chairman, if this bill were to pass and there were no amendments to the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, then I suppose somebody could run and be elected to this Legislative Assembly. But, the intent is, as I said earlier this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, if this bill passes today, it will not be given third reading nor would we ask for third reading until such time as the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act has been amended and brought before this House and they would both go to third reading together. There is no intention of taking this bill to third reading without the other bill being amended to prevent the concern that Mr. Antoine raised. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Pollard. Mr. Antoine.

Thank you for that explanation, Mr. Minister. I just want to say for the record that, according to statistics, a large majority of people who are in jails in the Northwest Territories are aboriginal people and the main reason they are in jail are for crimes related to misuse of alcohol and alcohol-related problems. Court documents in the communities are proof of this. The majority of the people who, as a result, are incarcerated are aboriginal people. We know that there are lots of social problems out there and, as a result, here in the Legislative Assembly we have passed legislation against societal violence.

Through the laws of this Legislature, we try to solve some of the problems in society and I'm sure people who are incarcerated are not all very bad people. In fact, I probably have a lot of relatives in there right now and so do a lot of people in here. Knowing these people, they have concerns and they would like to see some changes. They are part of society; they will always return to society after they do their time. This allows them to vote and they have an opportunity to vote for the people who will best serve them. Based on that, I have no reason to oppose this bill.

Like I said at the beginning of my comments, I will be supporting this bill and supporting the idea that inmates who are serving less than two years have the right to vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who wants to say something? Mr. Whitford, do you still want to speak? Mr. Whitford.

Mr. Pollard.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, it affects all of the provincial jurisdictions, Yukon and ourselves. I don't know, and we don't know at the table, whether it would affect municipal elections. I can only say that there are such things as precedent, Mr. Chairman, but it certainly does affect the provinces. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Pollard. Have we finished this item at this stage? Mr. Koe.

Mahsi, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to ask the Minister, I recall when there were indications that this bill was going to be revised, there was much discussion about the technical aspects of voting. For example, the ability to use proxies when voting, the possibility of voting by mail and also maybe the use of electronic voting. Can the Minister advise us as to the status of these issues? Has anything changed or is anything proposed to be changed in how people are able to vote in territorial elections?

Thank you, Mr. Koe. Mr. Pollard.

Mr. Chairman, proxies remain the same. There has been nothing done on voting by mail-in ballot, and the electronic voting was not discussed, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Pollard. Are you ready to go clause by clause? Mr. Dent.

It's a pretty long motion and I want to be sure that everybody understands your motion, Mr. Dent. But your motion is in order. I want to ask Members if everybody understands the motion, or would you like to have it written up? We'll take a break while that motion is written up and translated.

---SHORT RECESS

I will call the committee back to order. We have a quorum and now have a written and translated motion. It is a motion to defer so there is no debate or discussion.

(Microphones turned off)

A point of order was made first by Mr. Koe.

Point Of Order

Mr. Chairman, I have a translated copy here in English and it looks like Inuktitut, but there is no Gwich'in translation, so I would like to request that we have Gwich'in translation of this motion, please.

We've heard one point of order and I believe I can only hear one point of order at a time. I will need to get some legal advice on the point of order made by Mr. Koe that this motion has only been translated into one language.

To your point of order, Mr. Koe, we do have an Official Languages Act and it is not tested that often, but you do have a point of order. You have a right to have this motion put into that language; so, therefore, to this one point of order, I would request that it get translated into Gwich'in, which is your request. I can't entertain other points of order until we deal with this one.

---SHORT RECESS

Before I can recognize a point of order, there has to be something on which to raise a point of order. So I would like to ask Mr. Dent to read his motion into the record, please.

---Laughter

We're going to give Mr. Koe a test.