Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a document, Tabled Document 100-12(7), Renewed Partnerships: An Update. Thank you.

Item 13, tabling of documents. Item 14, notices of motion. Item 15, notices of motions for first reading of bills. Item 16, motions; Motion 18-12(7). The motion will stay on the orders paper for tomorrow. Item 17, first reading of bills. Item 18, second reading of bills. Mr. Dent.

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

Agreed.

---Agreed

Thank you. To the principle of the bill. Ms. Cournoyea.

Mr. Speaker, Cabinet has considered whether it would take a collective position on Bill 32. Given that the bill will have fundamental implications for all of us as Members of this Legislative Assembly, and how this Legislative Assembly chooses to discipline its Members, Cabinet has decided that Ministers will not be bound by a common position. In other words, Mr. Speaker, Ministers will participate as Members of the Assembly in a free debate and a free vote on the principle of Bill 32.

---Applause

Mr. Ballantyne. To the principle of the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, violence is becoming an increasing concern to all of us and to society, generally. Unfortunately, a disproportionate amount of that violence is directed against women and children. During my time in government and my six years as Minister of Justice, I was very proud of the steps this Legislative Assembly has taken in promoting victims' programs; the steps this government has taken in identifying and dealing with the awful problem of child sexual abuse; and the steps that this Assembly and government have taken to identify the barriers to gender equality.

I'm proud of the beginning we've made but I think all of us recognize that we've just started down the road. There's still a long way to go. The spectre of violence is something that really haunts us all, it threatens the stability of society as we know it.

Violent crime is a growing concern and I'm convinced that the fact that violent crime is highly publicized, especially in the United States, was one of the major impetuses for the gun control law. People are worried, people are scared, people aren't quite sure how to deal with a changing society. People are looking for answers and leadership from politicians. I, like most Members of this House, don't think that the gun control legislation is the right way to deal with the problem.

I think, as leaders, we have a responsibility to show leadership. I was one Member who voted against recall because I don't believe in the principle of recall as a mechanism. I really had and continue to have problems with that. But, as we go along the path of trying to deal with the effects of violence in our society, I think every Member here should consider the principles and the implication of the bill my colleague has brought forward.

We hear and see in our school playgrounds that there is increasing violence. In Canada, we now have metal detectors. There are kids that have to be disarmed, guns and knives taken away from them, in school yards in southern Canada.

Like everything else, what are problems in southern Canada now, we can expect to have here in 10 years. Again, more and more, people are looking for answers. When this government came forward, led by Mr. Kakfwi, with a very strong principle of zero tolerance for violence, I had some concerns about that kind of a statement: whether or not we would be raising expectations; whether or not we would actually, at the end of the day, be able to deliver on the philosophy of zero tolerance for violence. I was assured by Mr. Kakfwi and by the government that every effort would be made to try to achieve that very difficult and laudable goal so I wholeheartedly endorsed the approach taken by this government and by this Legislative Assembly.

That now leaves us, I think, with a responsibility. I think it's very difficult to go half-way. If we have made a very strong stand that we support the principle of zero tolerance for violence, I think we have a responsibility to provide the symbolic leadership to lead the crusade against violence. I know there are legitimate concerns of Members in this Legislative Assembly and I respect those concerns. I know that Mr. Dent has met with a number of Members and has suggested that he will attempt to bring in amendments to this bill in order to try to deal with the concerns of Members.

I, for one, agree with the concept of having a two-tiered system where the more serious indictable offences would cause automatic expulsion and for lesser offences, summary convictions would be decided here in the Legislative Assembly. I, for one -- and I made this very clear to Mr. Dent -- think it's very important that, if we're going to deal with the whole issue of violence, we have to include the issue of child sexual abuse. I think that's the most serious social problem facing us here in the Northwest Territories and I think we, in the Legislative Assembly, have to strongly condemn it and demonstrate that in this kind of legislation.

The concerns that I've heard from Members regard the grey area in this particular bill. As we all know, we live in a world that is not as nice as sometimes we would like it to be. I think many Members here have had threats; I know I've had a number of threats. I remember during the Giant strike, I was involved in a number of situations where there were words back and forth. Situations like that happen and will continue to happen. I agree that Members are right to feel some concern about whether or not this bill goes beyond what we intended. I think every Member has a right to defend themselves. I don't pretend to be Ghandi. I don't pretend to say that I will turn the other cheek.

I think that we all should keep in mind, the public should keep in mind, that this bill is really symbolic. There are very few cases where MLAs have been or will be involved in these sorts of offences. I know some MLAs feel a little bit bad that, in a way, it is almost as though we're being prejudged, that the public feels that the people they elect, somehow or another, are more likely to commit these sort of offences than other people. That's not true. Generally, here and across the country, politicians are hard-working, substantial citizens who really try their best to serve their constituents. Most of them are good family members, good mothers and fathers, husbands and wives.

I know in my riding, no MLA has ever been charged or convicted of anything like this, and I can't imagine that happening. I also think that this particular bill doesn't take away the responsibility of the public to screen their MLAs. We don't live in Toronto, we're not one of three million. Here we know the people running for office. Here we should be able to do our homework, and tell the people who have certain tendencies to do certain things. Violence doesn't just happen overnight. Normally, there are signs that it can happen. I think the public has and must maintain the primary responsibility for choosing their elected representatives. This bill does not take that responsibility away from the public.

Mr. Speaker, having said that and having looked at the pros and cons of this particular bill, I think in the area of violence we, as legislators and leaders, have the responsibility to take the lead and set an example. With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly support the second reading of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. I would like to remind Members to speak to the bill. The bill regards the removal of a Member for committing violence against another person. If this bill goes past second reading, Members have an opportunity to make comments when it goes into committee of the whole for further debate. To the principle of the bill. Mr. Ningark.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, when we talked about the violence in the NWT, less than a year ago we passed zero tolerance in this House. I supported the motion for zero tolerance in our jurisdiction. People in my community and people in my riding all unanimously support it. At that time, Members were saying that Mr. Dent's motion to remove Members from their seat will provide the teeth for that declaration.

We also talked about Members' conduct and behaviour. We've come up with a code of ethics in this House. There were other Members of the House who were saying this has no teeth. This particular motion will provide those teeth.

Mr. Speaker, I think we have to demonstrate to the public that we mean what we say. We have talked about it in the House for as long as I can remember, while we don't seem to have the guts to come up with the real thing.

Mr. Speaker, when the issue of recall came up in the House, we thought it was wide open to the people of this country, the people of this jurisdiction, to come up with any excuse whatsoever to remove a Member. This particular motion moved by Mr. Dent and seconded by Mr. Stephen Kakfwi is something that I can support, something I can live with. I have received, Mr. Speaker, correspondence from the mayor of Taloyoak indicating to me that he wanted to support it. I have already indicated to the honourable Member for Yellowknife Frame Lake that I would support his motion, and I will support the motion. It's for the people of this country, of this particular jurisdiction.

Mr. Speaker, there is a public outcry from young people, from mothers, from elders. But, more importantly, Mr. Speaker, there are silenced public outcries that we don't know about because of the tolerance to violence in this particular jurisdiction. For that reason, I will support it. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, when this Assembly passed the motion declaring zero tolerance for family violence, I thought it was a very significant step. During that debate -- which I think most Members participated in -- I suggested that if we were to pass the motion we should follow up with concrete steps. We should consider qualifications for public office, not just for people like ourselves, but for persons appointed by our government to boards and agencies, and given other public responsibilities. This bill, in principle, takes that next step for ourselves as MLAs.

Mr. Speaker, I'm well aware that there are real concerns and there have been legal opinions suggesting that the bill casts too broad a net, that MLAs could be victimized, could be provoked, that people who deal with real people in desperate situations -- and there are difficult situations in all of our communities and households that we enter in the course of representing all of our constituents -- that we are likely to be involved in violence, to be challenged or provoked to fight by people who may want to victimize us and take advantage of this legislation and its very stringent penalties for what could be a minor assault, that we may have to throw an intruder out of our house, we may feel called upon to defend loved ones or perhaps to defend one's honour.

I know that there's a real fear that this bill would, in effect, make many of us vulnerable to losing our seats for acts and situations which many of us have encountered in our communities in doing our jobs. I, myself, am no exception to that.

Mr. Speaker, I think if Members are saying this bill would threaten us, would be a real threat to many of us or future MLAs, they might lose their seats for things that occur in our work; we have a choice to make today. I think we could reject the bill and defeat it, or we could accept the principle and resolve that; even though it will have these implications and it will change the way we must conduct ourselves, change the standards expected of ourselves, we will on the eve of an election do something to set higher standards for ourselves than ever before.

Mr. Speaker, I am well aware that the form of the present bill might well be improved. I think Mr. Dent has made reference to that, Mr. Ballantyne has made some good suggestions, I know there is other work that has been done; that can be done if we give the bill second reading.

I know, also, that there is some concern that, in fact, if we approve the bill on principle today, amendments could not be introduced which would undermine the principle of the bill, and this would be limiting the kinds of changes that could be made. Mr. Speaker, I have trouble dealing with that argument because I believe that the principle we're debating here today is that a Member convicted of a criminal offence involving violence, actual or threatened, should suffer the severe penalty of losing their seat.

I think if we do really believe in zero tolerance and if we do believe in honouring the motion that we've already unanimously passed in this House, we have no choice but to accept this principle today. And I think that's what is at issue today. I think we have to decide whether we will honour the convictions that we expressed in adopting the motion for zero tolerance by taking a serious stand.

We are being watched today, Mr. Speaker. I was impressed that the mayor and council of the town of Iqaluit, who have adopted a declaration of zero tolerance, communicated with me their support for the principle of this bill. I was impressed that directors of the women's shelter have communicated their strong support for the principle of this bill and are going to be watching what I do today.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think it's a major step. I think it may undoubtedly cause difficulties for future MLAs meeting a standard that is going to require probably restraint that may be beyond our ordinary human capacity to deal with at times. But I think we are being expected to set an example and to set a new tone for conduct and to honour the great statements that have been made in this House about not tolerating violence. So, in balance, and not without some trepidation, I have decided that I will support the second reading of this bill, knowing that it will be carefully scrutinized, all points of view will be considered in the Standing Committee on Legislation and then we will have the necessary information to make an informed judgement and consider the next step during the life of this Assembly. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know that others will want to refute some of my arguments; however...I do want to say welcome to Lynn Brooks in the gallery. It is probably by invitation that she is here.

One has to recognize the principle by which this bill is being put forward. Mr. Speaker, I don't know how many people here have ever had the opportunity, the disappointment and the hurt of having someone being beaten in front of them. Those who are proposing a bill of this particular type should have felt that kind of pain before they proposed the kind of bill that is being brought before us.

It is one thing about having to stand up, Mr. Speaker, and talk about what other people feel; it's another to have experienced it. Long before I was in this Assembly, I saw my mother beaten. I saw my mother hurt. I saw my sister-in-law beaten. Now, some Members have had that experience before and some see it even today, but the fact is, Mr. Speaker, you cannot simply introduce legislation in this Legislature or any parliament without recognizing the consequences of that piece of legislation. It is our responsibility as legislators to pass laws in this House that reflect not only the conduct of this Assembly, but the conduct of people outside of this Assembly.

It is simply not good enough to rise in this House and say that we agree on zero tolerance as a principle and then pass laws that do not reflect the facts and circumstances of people who live in small communities and have to deal with these issues. I think it's the wrong way to do business. It's a disservice, whether or not the women of the Northwest Territories want a piece of legislation that addresses the concern of violence, to simply say to the people of the Northwest Territories that all violence and the methods by which we deal with these issues cannot be dealt with through proper legislation.

It is wrong to say that this House, Mr. Speaker, has not had the courage and responsibility inherent in the traditions of this Legislature to discipline and remove Members, to have no courage to use the rules as they are now and then say that judges should make those decisions. If we are incapable of making those decisions in this House then what are we doing here? Why did people elect us? It is to make decisions, and if those decisions mean that we have to throw out a Member of this House, then why don't we live up to that responsibility?

Hear! Hear!

To simply say that somebody else should make that judgement for us is irresponsible. I think, Mr. Speaker, it shows clearly where Members of this House stand. It shows that we're not prepared to stand up and carry out our responsibilities. The rules are clear, Mr. Speaker, the rules are very clear.

Everyone has said this quite clearly, Mr. Speaker, and I've listened to Mr. Dent, listened to Mr. Ballantyne and listened to Mr. Patterson.

(Microphone turned off)

And Mr. Ningark. I've listened to all of them but, more importantly, I point those three people out for this reason: they say that the amendments are the basis of addressing the principle. I say this, rather than trying to meet some challenge, some personal goal of trying to address zero tolerance, why shouldn't we have had a piece of legislation in here which would receive the support of every Member of this Assembly, without having to rely on amendments as a basis of addressing this issue?

I think it's the wrong approach to take. Are we saying to the people of the Northwest Territories that when we're dealing with zero tolerance, somehow we're going to rush to address the issues through individual pieces of legislation which do no good to anybody, but just create more confusion? I have read the proposed amendments to the bill the honourable colleague is proposing, which aren't of consequence right now because we can't debate the amendments. I would have prepared to support that. But to suggest now that we're going to change the principle of the bill and have legal people -- people who know law -- come here and say we can change the principle through amendments is ludicrous.

It is totally ludicrous for us to go to the people and say we know how to pass laws in this Assembly and that we're prepared to pass a piece of legislation that addresses the principle of zero tolerance but, in my view, Mr. Speaker, does not improve the situation for anybody.

Mr. Speaker, for the second time this session, we're debating a private Member's bill on accountability and today I guess you can say we're debating a bill that deals with the principle of zero tolerance for violence, particularly as it relates to Members losing their seats after having been convicted of violent behaviour. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that in my own deliberations and comments, I cannot and will not oppose the objectives of the honourable Member. I think, obviously, we're all defining and refining our relationships and the ways we conduct ourselves because of recent incidents in this Assembly.

Everyone has the right in the Northwest Territories to look upon us here in this Assembly and say that we should be responsible and should discipline ourselves in the kind of leadership we provide. The public has a right to demand from all of us a certain standard of conduct. I don't dispute that for a moment. I think the examples we set in this Assembly, the kind of leadership we provide and the kind of support we give to those who need our help is the basis on which those judgements will be made.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that it is also incumbent upon us -- as I indicated earlier -- to ensure that whatever measures we take and whatever laws we pass reflect the things that are actually occurring in our communities. If we don't do that, then it's a disservice. We can all rise on one special occasion, one special circumstance, one event, one incident and introduce amendments but the fact is, we have to introduce laws that ensure the protection of all our citizens and residents. We have to ensure, as Mr. Ballantyne pointed out, that we protect our children from abuse. We have to protect women and even men who are being abused. The fact is no abusive situation or violence should be condoned.

But I'm going to say this, if we are going to strictly deal with the issue of physical violence at every stage...The fact is, there is just as much abuse here in this Assembly -- verbal abuse, criticism, personal or otherwise -- that are just as damaging in the long term as physical abuse. And it happens all the time in our families outside of this Assembly. I think you have to be careful, Mr. Speaker, about where it is we go with legislation.

We just passed conflict provisions under the Elections Act; conviction of corrupt practices is enough to have a Member's seat declared vacant. Under the conflict of interest provisions in the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, this Assembly can recommend by resolution that the Commissioner declare a Member's seat vacant. We have also just passed legislation which will require that a Member's seat be declared vacant if they are convicted of any offence and are sentenced to serve more than one day in jail. This means a Member will lose their seat for a wide range of offences under federal and territorial laws. Let's consider what they might include: drunk driving; being intoxicated and causing a disturbance in a public place; illegal gambling; theft under and over $2,000; weapons offences under Minister Rock's bill; and, Criminal Code convictions resulting in a jail sentence.

Mr. Speaker, I bring these examples to your attention because we must not leave the impression that this Assembly has not taken meaningful measures to discipline the conduct of its Members. Surely what we now have in place demonstrates to current and future Members that high standards of conduct and behaviour are demanded, otherwise there is a high price to pay.

Moving to the principle of Mr. Dent's bill, I will first briefly outline my understanding of the principle which he is seeking to advance. Mr. Dent has argued that this Assembly must take meaningful steps to demonstrate a strong commitment to zero tolerance for violence. I make the case that we have already delivered on this commitment, given that a Member can lose their seat if they spend one day in jail on a Criminal Code offence. Mr. Speaker, it's interesting that our own Minister of Justice and Members of our Assembly, on a special committee that dealt with the bill regarding gun control and generally gun issues in this country, will note one of the requirements. If you were to spend one day in jail or be convicted, under the present rules of this House you would have to be removed from this Assembly. That is a fact. The fact is that all of us realize the importance of the issue that is before us.

Mr. Dent also wants to take this commitment further, to include a conviction for any offence where violence is used, attempted or threatened. The scope of the application of Mr. Dent's amendment is broad, and it is likely that the language used will include, in addition to homicide, most of the offences in part 8 of the Criminal Code relating to offences against persons. These offences range from uttering threats to unlawfully causing bodily harm to kidnapping. While it is not clear, the language could also cover certain sexual and other offences involving children, such as sexual exploitation, invitation to touching, abduction of persons under 14 and 16, and the duty of persons to provide necessities.

It should also be noted, Mr. Speaker, that such convictions as proposed by Mr. Dent are not confined to incidents which take place while the MLA is sitting as a Member. Incidents which took place in the past, provided they are not subject to a summary conviction limitation period, can be brought before the courts, and if the Member is convicted they will lose their seat.

Finally, I understand that according to Mr. Dent's bill, a Member would lose their seat if convicted of an offence involving violence and given a suspended sentence or probation by the courts.

Mr. Speaker, there are three issues which Members should seriously consider in debating the principle of this bill. The first two are based upon a legal opinion provided by our Department of Justice and provided to Mr. Dent. First, the Legislative Assembly clearly has the inherent right to govern itself and the conduct of its Members. In exercising this right, the Assembly has conceded some of its authority to the courts whose decisions will determine whether a Member continues to sit in this House. This practice is not unusual in Canadian parliamentary tradition; however, Mr. Dent's bill may miss some of the offences which should result in removal of a Member upon condition by the courts.

On the other hand, the bill includes other offences that should result in a removal process which includes some element of discretion. In the former, I noted earlier in my remarks, that offences such as sexual exploitation and invitation to sexual touching may not fall within the scope of an offence in which violence is used and threatened or attempted. Assuming Members agree that these offences should be included and to avoid a situation where the Speaker may be asked to make a legal ruling, consideration should be given to amending Mr. Dent's bill.

On the other hand, in circumstances where an element of discretion is required, Members may want to consider whether they wish to totally abolish the discretion they now have to discipline or remove Members. For example, there could be circumstances which consist primarily of summary conviction offences where the Assembly may want to reserve the right to exercise its authority to discipline Members. Summary convictions are the less serious offences and usually carry sentences up to six months in jail, a fine of up to $2,000 or both. Summary convictions offences involving violence could include things like assault involving violence or a threat of violence, spousal and sexual assaults, or attempts to commit any of these offences.

If these arguments seem reasonable to Members, they may want to consider a further amendment to Mr. Dent's bill. This amendment would establish that in a certain category of offences, the Assembly would be required to specifically address whether a Member, if convicted, should be permitted to be or sit as a Member.

Secondly, if the principle that supports the proposed amendment is rooted in the doctrine of zero tolerance, Members should consider a further amendment establishing that a Member should be found guilty rather than convicted of an offence where violence is used, threatened or attempted.

The reason for suggesting this amendment is that the Members who are found guilty but who are able to persuade the court to grant them an absolute discharge, thereby avoiding conviction, will still have to face their colleagues to determine if they will be permitted to sit as a Member. This measure could also help to avoid the damage that will potentially be caused if courts having granted absolute discharges are seen as undermining the express intentions of the Legislative Assembly.

Third, while I respect Mr. Dent's right as a Member to propose amendments to legislation through a private bill, Members should consider giving this bill the kind of thorough review it deserves. I believe that, for reasons which I have outlined and will raise, Mr. Dent's bill clearly needs further work. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that was articulated.

In the final analysis, whether Mr. Dent's bill survives in this present form or is substantially amended, our objective should be to pass amendments which have a majority of support from all Members including the government and the public.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I've tried to present a balanced argument that recognizes that we already have means to discipline Members while responding to Mr. Dent's proposal for amendments which reflect on this Assembly's commitment to zero tolerance. Mr. Speaker, in concluding, I have listened to the arguments that have been made and I know that I will probably hear rebuttals to my presentation, but I do say this: I've had a chance to read part of our own Bible. There is a quote from Proverbs 24, beginning at verse 28, it says: "Do not be a witness against your neighbour without cause and do not deceive with your lips. Do not say, thus I shall do to him as he has done to me. I will render to the man according to his work."

Mr. Speaker, that, in my view, is a reflection, I think, that should be the basis on which we make any judgement against any man or any woman. Not simply to say that there is some political gain for whatever it is that we do. There should be good in the things that we do. We should not be doing work in this Assembly simply because we think that there is a political advantage to it. There has to be good in our communities.

(Microphone turned off)

That's right. Judge ourselves before we judge others. So, Mr. Speaker, I want to say this clearly to Mr. Ningark. The problem sometimes is that when we are making judgements about ourselves, we fail to make the decisions that are necessary, and I think we have not accepted the responsibility and we need to do that. I know that Mr. Dent is proposing this bill but I still think, as I said before, there is need for improvement. My concern is that there may not be an opportunity for us to make the amendments if we adopt this principle as it is in the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

---Applause

Thank you, Mr. Nerysoo. To the principle of the bill. Mr. Whitford.