By adopting the principle of this bill, we demonstrate that we will practice zero tolerance for violence.
Further, in the preamble to our motion on zero tolerance, this House said "that violence has been tolerated for too long; the incidents of violence denied and its affects minimized. The practice of violence is transmitted from generation to generation. Children and youth are educated by experience and example to practice violence, and family violence will only be contained and reduced if northern society refuses to continue to tolerate its occurrence."
Mr. Speaker, we must set the example. We cannot just say that we refuse to tolerate violence, but through our actions demonstrate that we refuse to tolerate violence. By adopting the principle of this bill, we would demonstrate our belief that actions do speak louder than words and that we are willing to stand by our words as those who have elected us have a right to expect that we will do.
Mr. Speaker, the Legislative Assembly has the inherent right to regulate its own affairs and to discipline Members. Already, a Member loses their seat if they are convicted of an offence and are sent to jail. Similarly, the amendment proposed by this bill simply codifies the intrinsic power already held by the Legislative Assembly and adds to the existing conditions which can cause a Member to lose their seat. It provides a mechanism to ensure we live up to the principles we have already adopted in our declaration on zero tolerance for violence.
It would be hard to disagree with the idea that we should have a process to remove a person from the Legislature who had been found guilty of assaults on family members, other serious assaults or any kind of sexual assault. We already have a section in the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act that removes a Member if they are convicted of any crime and jailed for at least one day. The goal of this bill is to tighten up that section of the act so the Legislature can address situations where someone is convicted of a crime involving violence and may not be sent to jail.
Having already adopted the principle of zero tolerance for violence in this Legislature, how could we ignore such a situation if it developed in the future? By approving the principle of Bill 32, we are confirming that in the future we will not let such a situation occur in our House.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember that we are talking about the principle of the bill today. Do we support the principle of zero tolerance for violence? If so, we must support the principle of Bill 32 which would ensure that Members have to live up to that principle by exercising the inherent power of the Legislative Assembly to control its own process and removing Members from the job if they do not abide by the principle of zero tolerance for violence.
Supporting the principle of Bill 32 does not mean that there is not room for improving it. Since introducing the bill, I have had a number of suggestions for amendments made to me and in some cases there are persuasive arguments for making changes. I have heard some suggest the bill be referred to the Rules committee before we conclude second reading. Mr. Speaker, that approach would deny us the opportunity to demonstrate to the public that Members in this House support the principle of this bill and would effectively kill the bill during the life of this Assembly. A vote to refer is quite simply a vote against the principle of this bill.
In our Legislative Assembly there are two and only two occasions where a bill, such as Bill 32, may be amended after first reading; the first is while it is under consideration by the Standing Committee on Legislation, the second is during consideration in committee of the whole. Even if the bill is referred to the Rules committee, they cannot make changes. The bill will still have to come back to this House for second reading exactly as it reads right now. A motion to refer only puts off debate and slows the process down so much that we could not pass the bill before dissolution.
Every bill must have second reading before being referred to a standing committee to ensure that there is support for the principle of the bill. I hope Members will demonstrate their support for the principle and allow the process to continue as it should. Once the bill is sent to the Standing Committee on Legislation there will be occasion to talk about amendment, and another opportunity when the bill comes up for discussion in committee of the whole.
Some of the amendments which have been suggested to me would not only respect the principle expressed by Bill 32, but would make it more clear as to how the bill would apply and provide greater certainty in some situations. In fact, there are some amendments that I intend to propose to the bill when it is being considered by the Standing Committee on Legislation.
It has been pointed out that the bill as currently written might miss some offences that really do fall within the principle of the bill. While our motion adopting the principle of zero tolerance for violence, specifically mentions sexual abuse as a form of violence, Bill 32 as it is now written might not apply to someone convicted of an offence such as "invitation to sexual touching." Therefore, when this bill is being considered by the Standing Committee on Legislation, I will recommend that it be amended by adding the words "offences involving the sexual exploitation of children."
Mr. Speaker, I've also been convinced that amending the bill to ensure it is applied in a two-stage process can be a method of making it more effective. I will further recommend amendment to the bill to ensure a Member is automatically removed for conviction on an indictable offence; but for summary conviction offences, requiring the Legislative Assembly to specifically address whether a Member, if found guilty, should be permitted to be or sit as a Member. In this manner we could also ensure that the Assembly could consider
those situations where a Member might receive an absolute or conditional discharge.
If the principle of this bill is zero tolerance for violence -- and I certainly see it as that -- we must find a way to ensure a Member who receives an absolute or conditional discharge still has to face his or her colleagues to find out if they will be permitted to continue as a Member.
Mr. Speaker, this two-stage process would also allow the flexibility necessary to ensure the facts in any given situation can be considered by the Members. In a case of modest culpability, it may be important for the Assembly to have the ability to look at extenuating circumstances.
Mr. Speaker, some concern has been expressed about whether we can support the principle of Bill 32 and still defend ourselves or come to the defence of another person, who is being assaulted. I have been assured that the use of reasonable force is legally allowed in self-defence or when protecting your family or another person and a conviction is unlikely in that situation. We have, however, all heard of situations where someone in good faith, intervenes in a domestic incident to prevent what appears to be certain injury, only to have the battling parties accuse the good Samaritan of interference upon reconciliation. Should such a situation result in an assault charge, the two-stage process I plan to suggest as an amendment would allow the Member a chance to present the facts in their defence.
As leaders and law-makers, we also need to have some confidence in our system of justice to weed out nuisance charges or instances of Members being targeted by people who are out to get them. Today, a Member could be charged by someone who has provoked an assault or charges could be laid maliciously by a person for political motives. Even if the charges are thrown out, there will always be some damage to the Member's reputation. This bill does not increase the likelihood of that happening.
Mr. Speaker, the public has a right to have confidence in the officials it elects. We must seek to honour this confidence and trust. We can do so in part by demonstrating our willingness to put ourselves out in front, showing that we do understand that actions speak louder than words. We have already adopted the policy of zero tolerance for violence in this House. By giving Bill 32 second reading today, we can demonstrate that we adopt the principle in action and that we really are serious about tackling the problem of violence in the north. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.