Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When I was present at the Standing Committee on Legislation, I don't remember this issue coming up for discussion. I'm certain that Mr. Antoine is right, that the example he gave is extreme and Mr. Todd would never take such actions as would lead to a blockade.
---Laughter
The wording of the bill is taken from the Criminal Code. It follows the section that has to do with the use of a firearm and the commission of an offence. The reason for that is to provide some certainty that the words that are used would have some legal basis, should a case come to court, that there be a precedent for the wording, as I understand it.
I would hope that a Member of this Legislature, in a situation such as Mr. Antoine has outlined, would be involved in passive resistance. To lose their seat as a result of a conviction; under this bill, a Member would have to commit violence or threaten violence against a person. I don't think that, typically, in a blockade you're going to see that.
I would hope that Members of the Legislature, if they are involved in civil disobedience, are involved in situations of passive resistance, rather than active ones. I guess, as Members, we have to take a look at a situation where if something were happening on the authority of this Legislature and a Member was involved in a situation, then it is important that the Members of the Legislature do, in fact, discuss whether or not that person should continue to sit as a Member.
The situation, as Mr. Antoine has outlined, would mean that a Member would, in fact, be working against something that the Legislature, itself, had said was the way things should happen. In my mind, it would be right that we would at some time be discussing whether or not that person should continue to sit as a Member. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.