Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll save this for petitions. Thank you.

Item 13, tabling of documents. Mr. Kakfwi.

Item 13, tabling of documents. Mr. Patterson.

Thanks, I'll try it again, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. I wish to table several documents, if I may. Tabled Document 125-12(7), an article from the June 5th edition of the Ottawa Citizen entitled, "Francophone Parents in NWT May Challenge School Act."

Secondly, Tabled Document 126-12(7), an article from the June 5th edition of the Winnipeg Free Press entitled, "French Rights Fight Vowed."

Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, Tabled Document 127-12(7), a news release in French and English, dated June 2, 1995, from the National Commission for Francophone Parents.

Fourthly, Tabled Document 128-12(7), a news release dated May 31, 1995 in French and English from the Iqaluit Parents' Committee. All these releases concern the new Education Act.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, in French and English, Tabled Document 129-12(7), a news release dated May 31, 1995 from La Federation Franco-TeNoise of the Northwest Territories. Again, concerning the new Education Act. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Item 13, tabling of documents. Item 14, notices of motion. Item 15, notices of motions for first reading of bills. Item 16, motions. Item 17, first reading of bills. Item 18, second reading of bills. Item 19, consideration in committee of the whole of bills and other matters: Committee Report 11-12(7), Report on the Review of Bill 25 - The Education Act; Bill 26, An Act to Amend the Jury Act; and, Bill 32, An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, No. 2, with Mr. Whitford in the chair.

Agreed.

---Agreed

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to follow up on some of the comments from yesterday's discussion, I would like to know whether it's possible for Mr. Dent to clarify and be specific with regard to giving explanations or, possibly, examples with respect to the definition in his bill of "attempted" and the definition of "threatened" in clause 2.(b). Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With respect to the issue of "attempt," the law focuses on looking at whether there is an action by a person which could reasonably be interpreted as indicating an intention to assault somebody else, an action which an ordinary person might reasonably construe as indicating an intention to carry through with an assault. For example, if a person were to strike at another person but miss them because they lost their footing, that would be an attempted assault because it is reasonable to assume that, but for the fact that they lost their footing, they would have carried out the assault.

Whereas if a person were behind bars, for example, and made a threatening gesture to another person, because they are behind bars, it is not reasonable to assume that they would have the means to carry out their assault so that would not be an assault. There has to be an element of reasonableness. The ordinary person has to reasonably construe that there is an intention to assault and the ability to carry through with that assault, for there to be an attempted assault.

In terms of threats, threats usually involve a situation where there isn't a physical action, but just the use of words threatening violence. Again, the issue is would the reasonable person have construed the words as being threatened. Whether a statement constitutes a threat would depend on what the words were, the context in which the statements were made, and the likely impact of the words on the recipient. Certain words might be more accepted in one context than in another context. So in terms of determining whether a statement is a threatening statement, the court will examine all of those different factors. I hope that assists the committee, Mr. Chairman.