Thank you, Mr. Chair. Firstly, I'd like to thank all Members and staff of the Committee of Rules and Procedures for their careful consideration of this very important issue.
In Canada all jurisdictions have legislation determining who can run for office and have prohibitions on the right of a citizen to run for office where that person has been convicted under the applicable elections legislation.
In our jurisdiction, under the Elections and Plebiscites Act and the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, there is a definition as to who is eligible for election and who may serve in this Assembly. Our current legislation disqualifies candidates or Members who are convicted and imprisoned as a result of a criminal conviction, but this disqualification ends when the term of imprisonment ends and does not apply to offences which do not result in jail sentences, and a five-year prohibition on anyone convicted of a major election offence.
Our current legislation is similar to that of most jurisdictions and of all Canadian jurisdictions; only Nunavut and Nova Scotia have broader-based prohibitions on running for office. Under the House of Assembly Act in Nova Scotia, persons are barred from running or continuing to sit if they are convicted of an indictable offence punishable by imprisonment for a maximum of more than five years, and that prohibition lasts five years from the date of conviction. Again, we're talking about indictable offences. This proposal talks about indictable and summary conviction offences, applying to all offences.
In Nunavut, a Member convicted under the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act of an indictable offence is not able to be or remain to sit as a Member of their Assembly.
The standing committee's proposal is far broader, applying as it does to all offences of violence, summary and indictable, committed by a person over whom the accused was determined by the presiding judge to be in a position of trust, authority, or intimacy. I see this proposal as problematic in many ways. Unlike the legislation in Nunavut and Nova Scotia, it would apply to all criminal offences of violence, no matter how minor, and not only the more serious ones which are indictable.
There is a serious problem of domestic violence which we try to address in this Assembly, but the proposed legislation goes far beyond domestic violence and it includes all situations of violence where there is a position of trust, authority, or intimacy. So it would include parent-child, teacher-pupil, and employer-employee, among others.
The proposal, and this has been mentioned by Mr. Nadli, also requires the determination by a judge that the violent offence was committed against a person over whom the accused was determined by the judge to be in a position of a trust, authority, or intimacy.
A review of a criminal record will not provide this type of information, and it would be therefore necessary to examine a transcript of the case to determine the judge had made such a finding. This creates a practical problem, as transcripts are not always readily available, and as presumably the legislation would apply to an offence anywhere in Canada it would be necessary therefore to obtain transcripts from other jurisdictions. A logistical nightmare.
Section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedom states: "Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of the House of Commons or of a Legislative Assembly and to be qualified for membership therein."
Certainly, the law in this area is not absolutely clear as to whether the proposed change would be subject to scrutiny under the Charter of Rights. I suggest that it likely would. Whether it would be set aside because of that, I do not know; the law and the cases are not recent nor clear.
Additionally, conceivably this legislation might be open to attack under our human rights legislation which prohibits discrimination on the basis of social condition. So there are several ways it might be attacked.
Jurisdictions outside Canada, including many in the United States, have excluded from voting or running for office those convicted of serious offences. I used to live in one of those jurisdictions, in Virginia. The effect of that type of legislation has been to disenfranchise large numbers of the poor and those from minority groups. We know that a disproportionate number of those appearing in our courts are Aboriginal, and it is logical to assume that the proposed recommendation, should it become law, would disproportionately impact our Aboriginal citizens and their right to be candidates.
As has been mentioned by Ms. Cochrane, the right to vote is sacred in our society. Canada has been a democracy for 150 years, but who has been allowed to vote has changed since 1867, when only men with property of a certain value were eligible to vote or run for office. Restrictions on voting or running for office have been relaxed over time, clearly, with women given the right to vote federally in 1918 and in all provinces by 1940; racial restrictions on voting were not fully ended until 1960, when treaty Indians were given the right to vote.
The whole thrust of our democracy since 1867 has been to allow more, not fewer, citizens to participate by voting and running for election. We should not reverse this progress by eliminating the right to vote in the manner proposed.
This government recognizes that there is an unacceptable level of violence in our territory. We are attempting to do things about it. It is included in the mandate of the Government of the Northwest Territories and I feel that we are making progress. It's going to be difficult. We are making progress. This government is clearly committed to making progress. I suggest, however, in the end, as has been mentioned by other speakers, that we should leave this very important decision to the voters. Let the voters decide and reject this proposal. Thank you.