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.