Thank you. Clause 2. Mrs. Marie-put Jewell.

So does that mean that if a Member is found guilty and given a conditional discharge, if this Assembly decides to remove that Member, in the event this bill passes, 6.2. will remove that Member in totality from his seat?

Thank you. Ms. Stewart.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That interpretation would be correct; 6.2. would permit the Legislative Assembly in those circumstances to expel the Member from the Legislative Assembly.

Thank you. Member for Thebacha.

"Expel" meaning to remove them totally from their seat. There would have to be another election for that riding.

Thank you. Ms. Stewart.

That is correct. "Expel" meaning to remove them from their seat.

Thank you. Clause 2.

Agreed.

---Agreed

Member for Thebacha.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I just want to indicate the intent of the amendments were to attempt to do that without having the Members forced to do that. That was the intent of the amendment. I have never yet, in my eight years being an MLA, ever seen this Assembly attempt to discipline their Members accordingly. I just find that when we are forced to discipline a Member, I find it unfair. I thought that the intention to explicitly read it out and place it into the bill would have avoided creating that animosity among the Members of the Assembly.

Thank you. Clause 2. Mr. Patterson.

I don't want to start a debate, Mr. Chairman. I think the Member's motions have been dealt with. However, for clarification, there have been two occasions in my time in the Legislature where the Assembly has employed its inherent powers to deal with Members' conduct. In those two cases, which I need not spell out, Members were stripped of their committee memberships. So just for the record, that has happened on two occasions since I have been a Member, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Thank you. I believe there were no questions there. Clause 2. Mr. Antoine.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On Bill 32, An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, No. 2, I have received a lot of form letters from my constituents. Someone must have done a good campaign on this one. I have a concern about clause 2. I have no problem with a Member not sitting as a Member if the Member is convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code, prosecution by indictment involving the sexual exploitation of children.

The second one is in the commission of which violence against a person is used, threatened or attempted. In (b), I understand Mr. Dent's arguments and I understand the majority of the people who support this one in this House. However, one area I'm concerned about is, as an aboriginal person --and this happened across Canada already --in some areas where aboriginal people do not like what the government is doing in their territories, they take up action against the government in the form of roadblocks; taking positions on what they believe in. This is the area that I'm concerned about, that if a Member of the Legislative Assembly --and the majority of these people take a roadblock action against the government John Todd were to get his northern accord through but the Deh Cho didn't agree with it, if he were to permit oil companies to go in an area and people take action --that may be a bad example, but let's say that's an example that could happen -- the Members of the Legislative Assembly who represent these people would want to be with their people. If that happens, then what would happen to the Member in this case if they were convicted by taking such an action against the government? Would that person lose his seat because he has taken action with the people who he is representing?

I wonder if this Assembly or the Standing Committee on Legislation has ever looked at that part of this legislation, because it could happen, it has happened across the country. Because such an action, if people are convicted under the Criminal Code, such as has happened in other parts of the

country...A good example, I'm told, is that in the beginning of this country, Louis Riel, the founder of Manitoba, was elected fairly and squarely by the people in Manitoba. When he went to Ottawa, the government of the day would not allow him to take his seat because he was convicted under the Criminal Code; something to that effect. This is quite an extreme, but we're setting this bill up for the future and we have to be careful how we do it. This is the part of the bill I have had concern with. In talking to other people and my constituents about this, there is no problem with the intent of the other parts of this bill, but I'm concerned about that part of this bill ... if that scenario has been explored; if not, why? If you have, can you tell me, if you could find out if this concern has been addressed? Thank you.

Thank you. I believe that is sort of in the area of democratic rights to exercise their rights. Ms. Stewart.

Most of the offences involved in establishing roadblocks are offences that do not involve the commission of an offence in which violence against a person is used, threatened or attempted. They would be such things as unlawful assembly; trespass; breech of a court order; that type of an offence.

If the line were crossed into an offence involving violence such as rioting or attack as we have seen in Yellowknile itself where there have been roadblocks established at the mines here, there have been assault charges arising. Those are offences in which violence is used. But simply the act of establishing a roadblock or manning a roadblock would normally not be a type of offence involving violence used against a person, either threatened or attempted.

My recollection of the discussion in the Standing Committee on Legislation was that this matter was not specifically addressed but perhaps Mr. Dent would care to elaborate, if there was some consideration of that in the preparation of the bill, as it is his bill.

Thank you. Mr. Dent.

Thank you. Clause 2. Member for Nahendeh.

Thank you. Another example would be where recently, the Member of Parliament from BC, Svend Robinson, got charged with helping a blockade. He was found guilty and got to stay in the House of Commons as a Member. I don't know it this was passive resistance or not, but something like that is what I'm concerned about. It is going to be left up to the Legislative Assembly, I guess, according to the bill, to determine whether a person would be expelled or not. It is still a concern of mine. I've thought about it and it is going to be a difficult one to judge.

Today the make-up of the Legislative Assembly is a majority of aboriginal people, but as we go on and after 1999, I understand this bill is going to stay there but the make-up will change. I am concerned about the future. You may understand what I am trying to address. In the future, it will be different. So I have a concern about that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Antoine. Mr. Dent.

MR, DENT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe Mr. Antoine is referring to Svend Robinson. 9 my understanding of the situation is correct, he was involved in a blockade in which an injunction against a blockade had been issued. He was charged and convicted of criminal contempt, but there was no indication of any violence having been used. So in a similar situation, this bill would not necessarily have any effect. That is what I was saying when I answered the first time, Mr. Chairman. If a Member of this Legislature were involved in a civil disobedience or a civil unrest situation in a passive role, there would be no effect resulting from this bill even if criminal charges were laid because to have this bill take affect, there has to be some violence used against a person.

Thank you. Mr. Antoine and then Mrs. Marie-Jewell. Mr. Antoine.