This is page numbers 1041 - 1073 of the Hansard for the 12th Assembly, 7th Session. The original version can be accessed on the Legislative Assembly's website or by contacting the Legislative Assembly Library. The word of the day was violence.

Tony Whitford

Tony Whitford Yellowknife South

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I won't be long in my comments because we have heard quite a number of comments from both sides now and it would only prolong the debate here at the stage where it is a bit premature.

I will be supporting the principle of the bill and the second reading. I have made this decision, after careful consideration and some consultation on the matter -- perhaps not as in-depth a consultation that one could on other subjects. But I believe that it doesn't effect the public as much as it does myself. I am the one that's here. I am the one that's most subject to the affects of this bill, whether they be positive or negative, and I think that I will stand on that principle.

I think that the principle of zero tolerance that we supported last year so wholeheartedly did lack and this may, with its flaws, be a building block onto which we can set an example to other legislatures of our commitment to what we espoused here when we passed the zero tolerance declaration.

If it is only the fear of repercussions of being a good Samaritan that some people are hesitating in supporting this bill, well, personally, I will take that chance because I think that whatever court convicts will also consider the rationale behind an act that I will take, and I will take that consideration as well. I speak more personally perhaps in support of this than I should.

If we go on and get caught up -- and maybe we should get caught up -- in the emotion of this topic, it will bring out points that the public have given us over the term that I have been in here about setting examples. I think Members have tried to set examples, and perhaps we may have a mechanism here already to deal with it, but we never do; we never use those mechanisms that we have. We never do, and this is one way of dealing with it, and it's not going to be something, I hope, that people out there will want to use to seek revenge on Members here. They will not be successful in their efforts.

I think the main thing is that we have to not only set examples for the public as to what our behaviour in the public's eyes is going to be but also set examples for ourselves as to what we expect. If we expect it of the public then we should ourselves be willing to be subjected to...

An Hon. Member

(Microphone turned off)

Tony Whitford

Tony Whitford Yellowknife South

Thanks. With that, Mr. Speaker, I don't want to go on with more points because they have been more eloquently said by other Members. This is just to point out that I will support the principle and the second reading of the bill.

The Speaker Samuel Gargan

To the principle of the motion. Mr. Kakfwi.

Stephen Kakfwi

Stephen Kakfwi Sahtu

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. During 1983-87, when I was president of the Dene Nation, and even before my time, there were entire assemblies of the Dene Nation that took sometimes two to three days, put all the business aside and spoke directly to an issue regarding the conduct of chiefs and executives of the Dene Nation, and specifically to the issue of drinking of alcohol. Delegate after delegate would walk up and demand that all the leaders, the chiefs, the executive of the Dene Nation be forced to declare whether or not they were willing to abstain from drinking.

Prior to 1986, I dreaded the day when those assemblies came because I knew, without a doubt, I would be put on the spot, and I would lament the hours that this was taking up, saying there's business to take care of, we have financial statements to review and pass, and we have motions to deal with. I didn't want to deal with those particular issues. I was not ready to do that. There was absolutely no way in which I would be able to, with a straight face, say yes, okay, you asked me. I shall quit drinking. I shall abstain from drinking while in office.

When an issue like this comes up, it is an emotional issue. Some of us have difficulty with it because it is a personal issue. At the end of the day, it's a personal issue, and the way we address it can reflect perhaps, and be seen to reflect, on our colleagues, on each other.

So it becomes difficult but, in my view, whether or not this bill had wide circulation before it was thrown in front of us, we have to be ready to address it.

I believe that every chief, every Metis leader, every elected person, every person in a position of power, every person in a position of trust has to be able to say that, yes, they support that principle.

I think we have to set some very strong examples, some very clear examples and up front set some really high standards so that people who aspire to hold office, people who aspire to positions of power, trust and authority know up front what it is that they have to meet before they get in there. This is what I like about this initiative. It's fine to say we have the power to discipline each other, but I say that we should let people know long beforehand that if you aspire to be a chief, if you aspire to be an elected person, an MLA, then you should know up front that you have to commit to zero tolerance, no matter what.

You look at the kind of impact, the kind of leadership that people like Ghandi and Martin Luther King provided, not only to their own people but to people all over the world. When thousands of their followers, millions of them, advocated violence, they stuck to the principle of zero tolerance.

Look at the impact that these individuals had. You can imagine. I can imagine the kind of impact that collectively all of us would have. Once we have completed debate and we choose to take, collectively, a very strong stand because I believe not all of us will be back here. There's an election coming and if anything, we should set some very high standards for the next batch of people. I think that if we had done this 10, 15, 20 years ago, what a difference it would have made, what a wonderful difference it would have made about the kind of people that would have passed through these halls and sat in this Legislature. I think it would have made a tremendous difference in the kind of people who got elected and in the conduct of those Members over the years. That's the significance for me of saying up front, here are the standards, here are the rules.

When I travel in my constituency -- whenever I travel, but particularly when I travel to my home town -- it has been a practice for me, since 1986, to let people know that I don't drink; that when I bring my children with me, I don't want anybody drinking. It's clear to my friends, to my relatives, that it's for my protection and it's for the protection of my children. I will not walk into a house where there is drinking, where there is partying, and I will not let my children be subjected to, to be present in the company of people who are drinking.

To this day, it's eight years now that I've been able to comply with that and have my family comply with that. It's had a good impact. I just don't have any tolerance for it and people accept that. I haven't been harmed. I've been yelled at, called a few things once in a while but basically there is an understanding. There's no less expectation of other elected people for that. There's a certain amount of respect that all of us want and expect and I think that once you tell people, once people know what is acceptable and not acceptable and you're willing to advocate it and speak to them about, people aspire to meet the standards you set.

Today I have no excuses. If I am convicted of violence in order to protect myself, I have to believe that if I am brought to court, that the courts will be fair. I have to believe that. In all the years I've been in office, in the Dene Nation and certainly as an MLA and as a Minister, I've never had a situation where I've had to do anything with regard to violence. When there were occasions that came... There is no hesitation on my part if I see someone attacking my mother for me to step in there. I would know, however, if I beat the person to a pulp and do extensive damage to the person that, yes, I will properly be severely punished in a court of law for using excessive force.

I have personally seen extreme cases of violence, violence inflicted on myself and my family, and it is difficult to say, yes, you will be reasonable about protecting them. It is difficult but I believe that we have to try and be reasonable about it and just simply say that at the end of the day we have to adhere to the view that whatever the reasons are, whatever the situation is, we must adhere to the principle of zero tolerance but still protect ourselves and still protect our loved ones.

Again, I believe that there is room for amendments that will improve on this bill. I believe that whether it's a government bill or a private Member's bill, that there's always room for improvement, for clarification, for better definition, for amendments. I look forward to dealing with this bill and seeing some improvements made to it as all of us have heard some very good suggestions made over the last few weeks. Thank you very much.

The Speaker Samuel Gargan

Thank you, Mr. Kakfwi. To the principle of the bill. Mr. Antoine.

Jim Antoine Nahendeh

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to speak on the principle of the bill. Every since this bill was introduced, I have thought about it. It's a very difficult bill because this is a law that we're making for ourselves as individual MLAs, so we're drawing the focus internally into ourselves and it's a difficult thing to do. I realize the principle behind the bill is that if any Member is convicted of a Criminal Code offence they automatically lose their seat. That is quite a strong bill. I have difficulty with it because the way the bill is written it deals with a specific process for an individual who commits an act of violence. Disciplinary action should be taken first, I think, before we implement this bill. If this bill passes, then we have a chance to debate it in committee of the whole and perhaps the committee could do some work on making amendments to it.

I did want to say, just looking at the figures, that in the act of violence... The majority of the people in our jails, 90 per cent of the people in our jails, are aboriginal people. The aboriginal population is about 64 or 65 per cent of the Northwest Territories. We have an extremely high rate of aboriginal people who are convicted under the Criminal Code in our jails today. The people who have been kicked out of the Legislative Assembly have always been aboriginal people. In this way, I see this bill aimed more towards aboriginal people than non-aboriginal people. We're going to have to deal with that.

The majority of the cases are alcohol-related anyway. We have been trying, in the Legislative Assembly, to make laws and legislation to try to deal with the violence in our society. As a Dene person, I have sometimes encountered a lot of violence and a lot of the time I've had to protect myself. That's the case with many people here. If I ever get into a situation like that again... I know that the honourable Member, Mr. Dent, is saying that if you're going to be protecting your family or yourself, then this bill would allow for that but I don't think so. It's going to be left up to the courts to decide that. The courts will decide whether you were protecting yourself or you were protecting your family. It's not this Chamber that's going to decide whether what you did is allowable or not.

In this way, I have difficulty with this bill because I've done things in the past. If somebody really wanted to, they could come after me and I could be convicted. I'm sure that aboriginal Members and maybe non-aboriginal Members know what I'm talking about. There I have difficulty because we're focusing in on ourselves again. I would like to say this for the record, that I have seen this bill, I've talked to people in the communities, and I have received a lot of form letters, as well, from different people who want me to support this bill. I'm going to support the principle of the bill so that we get it into the committee and hopefully we get it into committee of the whole, but I wanted to say these things for the record, that I have some real strong reservations about this bill. Everybody wants us to pass it. Sure we should set examples, but I think it's really up to individual Members to be accountable to the people who put you here. You have to conduct yourself in certain ways. The reason why you are here is to represent people in the communities and you have to watch how you do things.

Like my colleagues who were in Ottawa to talk about these new gun control laws, if you don't abide by the real strict regulations, if you don't have a firearm's license, if you don't register your rifles and continue to pursue traditional lifestyles of lending each other rifles and store them loaded by your tent when you go out spring hunting in case of black bears around your camp, it might take this law to the extreme case. As I said, it's not going to be up to this Assembly whether you're convicted or not, it's going to be up to the courts. Based on that, I think we're going to have to look at this bill when we debate it in the House.

(Translation) This is all I wanted to say. Thank you.

The Speaker Samuel Gargan

To the principle of the bill. Mr. Pudluk.

Ludy Pudluk High Arctic

(Translation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll make my comments very brief on this subject. We know what the content is of the bill because we have seen it. I have been a Member for a long time and we've introduced a lot of bills and amendments to bills. First of all, I would like to say that amendments that we pass are for the people of the Northwest Territories, even though everybody might not agree with them. A lot of times we hurt our constituents when we pass or amend bills. For example, there was a wildlife amendment that said people who own dogteams were not allowed to feed their dogs within 12 miles. This was a big burden on some communities.

We pass bills that are not agreeable to our constituents. It would be us who would have to be blamed because we pass bills even though our constituents might not agree with them. I would like to deal with the bill. I also support the second reading of the bill. I'm not saying that on the third reading I will vote on it. We have to understand the intent of the bill; how it should be written so we can make amendments to it when we're dealing with it before third reading. Maybe we might even agree with the intent of the bill after it's amended.

We have a lot of bills in front of us and we all know that they're not all beneficial to our constituents. I support the second reading of the bill so we will fully understand the intent. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker Samuel Gargan

Thank you. To the principle. The chair would like to recognize a former Member of the Legislative Assembly, Mr. Bill Lyall. Welcome to the House.

---Applause

To the principle of the bill. Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Jeannie Marie-Jewell Thebacha

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I'll be very brief in my remarks. First of all, in looking at this bill, Mr. Speaker, I did have some concerns on some of the details of the bill. I certainly support the intent of the bill, however, I do want to state for the record that I don't believe this bill should only reflect on criminal offences that are done by MLAs, with respect to violent acts that are committed by MLAs. I believe that it should pertain to criminal offences, period. Whether it's impaired driving or other types of criminal

offences they are charged with, if we're going to get right into disciplining MLAs I don't think we should be specific. That's why I have concerns with the bill as it is. I think it's only piecemealing the intent of what the mover of this bill is attempting to do.

I did have a couple of concerns because I think of some of the circumstances that could happen in small communities. I think back, for an example, if you did -- and I know that if I did -- see any type of violent act being performed, such as a woman getting beaten up or whatever, particularly a woman, I probably would, being a woman, attempt to help her. I sort of wonder, if this bill is passed, if you're going to sort of institute southern attitudes and try to walk by and ignore it. I think that's wrong.

I'm concerned about the bill as is because if you attempted to help someone in a fight, the person could counter-charge you and charge you with a criminal offence even though your intentions were good. I'm concerned about some of the details of that particular bill.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the principle should be passed to allow for public consultation because I believe the public are the ones who should let us know whether they think this bill is good, whether it's a piecemeal bill, whether it should be expanded, or whether or not these types of things should be determined by another process.

However, I do know that we do have rules in our Legislature to be able to discipline Members accordingly, and I believe that sometimes Members certainly are reluctant to impose the rules accordingly. Just for the record, I do want to state that I certainly support the principle of it, but I have concerns with the details. I will deliberate those when we go into third reading of the bill. Thank you.

The Speaker Samuel Gargan

Thank you. To the principle of the bill. Mr. Dent.

Charles Dent

Charles Dent Yellowknife Frame Lake

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to some of the concerns that have been expressed by other Members; in particular, Mr. Nerysoo.

Mr. Speaker, I've witnessed far too much violence; I suspect we all have in this House. I don't think this is the time to get into a debate about who has witnessed or experienced more. We're talking about the principle of a bill that would help all of us to get past tolerating violence, which is something that we have to admit is a problem all across the north.

Regarding the consequences of the legislation and its effect on small communities, I disagree that the bill fails to recognize the reality of life in small communities. I think we've heard a number of Members from small communities speak in favour of the principle of this bill today. I know that certainly in travels with the Special Committee on Health and Social Services, in every single community I went to, people told us, we expect you, the leaders, to set the example. Don't just talk about it, set the example. Prove to us that you really are going to be non-violent. I think that perhaps the people of the north do expect us, even in the smaller communities, to change the way we have tolerated violence in the past.

I also think, Mr. Speaker, that having spoken about the amendments I see as necessary to the bill, that we have representatives from the smaller communities who sit on the Standing Committee on Legislation and the concerns they have in the smaller communities can be adequately discussed in that forum. That's the proper way for our bills to proceed.

I'm not bringing this bill forward for personal goals. SCOF, itself, asked for action on violence. I kept asking the Minister for action on violence and I only brought forward this bill when the Minister made a statement which said that Cabinet would not be proposing such legislation. I agree, it should have been a government bill, it shouldn't have been a private Member's bill. The government should have brought this kind of legislation forward.

The Legislature does have an inherent right to discipline and dismiss its Members, as Mr. Nerysoo says, but it doesn't have a strong tradition of doing so. This bill simply expands on the provisions that we have already codified. We have enacted provisions for disciplining and dismissing Members so it's not unusual that we would expand on those, once they're in existence. What this bill does is ensure a mechanism to make Members address a situation if it arises.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in this bill that changes the current situation for a Member getting involved when they see a violent action taking place or if they are, themselves, assaulted. I know that I, for one, would certainly still not hesitate to get involved, as I see necessary, in an incident involving violence.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Nerysoo also at one point commented that amendments might change the principle of the bill. I would like to point out that amendments are not uncommon at the committee stage in our process, and the committee report presented today by the Standing Committee on Finance indicates a situation where a bill, Bill 30, was substantially changed in committee, while respecting the principle. I would submit that we will be able to take a look at maintaining the principle of this bill, while moving to deal with concerns that Members have expressed.

As Mr. Nerysoo said, I received a copy of the legal opinion that Mr. Nerysoo was quoting from. In fact, I spent a lot of time with Mr. Avison, who is the deputy minister of Justice and Ms. MacPherson, the Law Clerk of the Assembly, looking for ways to deal with concerns that Mr. Avison had originally expressed in his memo to Cabinet. I think that all of us have agreed that the principle of the bill can be maintained, and the bill actually improved through amendments at the committee stage.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Thebacha has raised a point about the need to address other offenses and dealing, perhaps, with codifying a response to Members who break other laws. I must say that I can't disagree that we need to consider broadening the net but, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill was to respond specifically to one policy which has been adopted by this House, and that is the policy on zero tolerance for violence. That policy is, so far, the only one that is extremely explicit which we have adopted in this House. Therefore, I didn't feel comfortable proposing a bill that went beyond that principle which we, as Members of this House, have already adopted. I would welcome a broader look, but I think it has to happen in a different act. Until such time as we adopt more principles in this House, I don't think we can codify a response to breaking them.

Mr. Speaker, I agree that the goal shouldn't be one of straight politics. People have said to us, as leaders, we expect you to prove that you are, in fact, now ready to set the example. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask Members to set that example this afternoon. Mr. Speaker, I would like to request a recorded vote.

The Speaker Samuel Gargan

The comments on the principle of Bill 32 are concluded. All those in favour of the motion, please stand.

Recorded Vote

Clerk Of The House Mr. David Hamilton

Mr. Dent, Mr. Ballantyne, Mrs. Marie-Jewell, Mr. Zoe, Mr. Koe, Mr. Antoine, Ms. Mike, Mr. Pudluk, Mr. Kakfwi, Mr. Whitford, Mr. Ningark, Mr. Patterson.

The Speaker Samuel Gargan

All those opposed, please stand. All those abstaining, please stand.

Clerk Of The House Mr. David Hamilton

Mr. Ng, Mr. Pollard, Ms. Cournoyea, Mr. Todd, Mr. Nerysoo.

The Speaker Samuel Gargan

The vote on the motion of the second reading of Bill 32 is 12 for; zero against; and, five abstentions. The motion is carried.

---Carried

---Applause

Bill 32 has had second reading and, accordingly, the bill stands referred to a committee.

Item 19, consideration in committee of the whole of bills and other matters: Bill 1, Appropriation Act, No. 2, 1995-96; Bill 13, An Act to Amend the Fair Practices Act; Bill 16, An Act to Amend the Retirement Plan Beneficiaries Act; Bill 26, An Act to Amend the Jury Act; Bill 27, An Act to Amend the Land Titles Act; Committee Report 2-12(7), Report on the Legislative Action Paper on the Office of Ombudsman for the Northwest Territories; Committee Report 3-12(7), Report on the Review of the Legislative Action Paper Proposing New Heritage Legislation for the Northwest Territories; Committee Report 4-12(7), Report on the Review of the 1995-96 Main Estimates; Committee Report 5-12(7), Report on the Review of Rewriting the Liquor Laws of the Northwest Territories: A Legislative Action Paper; Committee Report 6-12(7), Report on the Review of the Legislative Discussion Paper on the Draft of the New Education Act; and, Committee Report 7-12(7), Report on the Second Annual Report, 1993-94, of the Languages Commissioner of the NWT, with Mr. Ningark in the chair.

Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 1063

The Chair John Ningark

Thank you. The committee will come to order. What is the wish of the committee? Mr. Dent.

Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 1063

Charles Dent

Charles Dent Yellowknife Frame Lake

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to recommend that the committee resume consideration of Bill 1 and Committee Report 4-12(7), specifically to deal with the budget of the Workers' Compensation Board, followed by the Department of Justice and then, depending on the time, bills 16, 26 or 27.

Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 1063

The Chair John Ningark

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Do we have the concurrence of the committee that we will consider WCB, Justice, and then perhaps bills 16, 26 or 27?

Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 1063

Some Hon. Members

Agreed.

---Agreed

Bill 1: Appropriation Act, No. 2, 1995-96Committee Report 4-12(7): Report On The Review Of The 1995-96 Main Estimates
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 1063

Some Hon. Members

Workers' Compensation Board

Bill 1: Appropriation Act, No. 2, 1995-96Committee Report 4-12(7): Report On The Review Of The 1995-96 Main Estimates
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 1063

The Chair John Ningark

After the break. We'll take 15 minutes, okay?

Bill 1: Appropriation Act, No. 2, 1995-96Committee Report 4-12(7): Report On The Review Of The 1995-96 Main Estimates
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 1063

Some Hon. Members

Agreed.

---Agreed