Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanted to thank my colleagues for the report on the rules and procedures on the standing for your people on the review of Members’ guidelines. I just wanted to thank them for the report. Mahsi, Mr. Chair.
I am Dene; I am a father; I am a grandfather. I am human; I made a mistake; I am working on myself, and I have moved on. I wanted to speak to this motion. As representatives of our people, we have a duty to study and inform ourselves about the issues we face and take principled positions before we vote. In general, I think it is an obligation of duty for many of us to abstain on the question before us.
This having been said, I plan to abstain from voting on this recommendation, not because I am afraid to take a stand on this difficult issue, but because of the very personal connection I have with it. I don’t plan to relive the history here, again, today, but I do want to provide a few observations on the recommendation before you.
I would like to start by pointing out the obvious: if this recommendation was part of the law two years ago, I would not be here today, speaking with first-hand knowledge of the road that has led so many Aboriginal people to lives of addiction, abuse, and hopelessness. Regardless of whether you feel I should be here or not, I hope you will find value in that unique perspective.
It is not the type of wisdom I am particularly proud of, but as with most of life’s lessons, the truly valuable ones are learned the hard way: by making mistakes. What strikes me most about the recommendation before you now is the focus on the punishment: punishment that carries on after the offender has paid his debt to society; punishment that continues long after the offender has the opportunity to avail himself of the rehabilitative nature of our criminal justice system; punishment that adds an additional layer to the criminal law for a specific type of crime; and the holding of a specific type of public service.
We may be absolutely clear and wholeheartedly agree with the committee’s conclusion that family violence is at epidemic-rate levels in the NWT. The committee provides compelling statistics that the vast majority of family violence cases are perpetrated by men against women and girls. It goes on to conclude, without evidence, that ethnicity does not play a role in determining the frequency of offenders or victims of family violence. The statistics may not be readily available, Mr. Chair, but it doesn’t take a PhD to know the certainty that the incidence of family violence in our Aboriginal communities is far higher than elsewhere in the NWT and in Canada.
I know, from first-hand experience, that our correctional institutions are full of Aboriginal people convicted of this and other types of crime. A recent report on the Canadian correctional system found that the three northern territories have among the highest rates of incarceration in the world. The recommendation before you will not address this dire situation. In addition to ignoring the restorative aspirations of our criminal justice system, it extends the punitive nature of a very specific type of crime beyond what is already provided for in the Criminal Code.
Furthermore, it robs our people of their precious right to choose who they wish to represent them in this place. For many, voting for someone with a history of family violence will always be out of the question. I certainly wouldn’t recommend it to anyone as a way to improve their chances of an electoral success. For others, however, including the people of the Deh Cho riding in 2015, electing the candidate who has made mistakes, paid their debt to society, learned valuable lessons, and is willing to bring his wisdom to the debate about issues such as this one, the choice is different.
How is it that we feel the need or the right to protect our people from themselves at the ballot box? Family violence is a serious crime; being an MLA is a serious job, but are they the only serious crimes and jobs? Why would we be more comfortable allowing someone convicted of drug trafficking, breaking and entering, bootlegging, fraud, or even a hate crime, for running for office after they have served their time? In fact, the proposed restrictions would not apply to persons convicted of random acts of violence, including assault, manslaughter, or even murder.
I say this not to lessen the importance or prevalence of family violence in the NWT, but to demonstrate the problems that come with trying to achieve important societal goals with such a blunt instrument. Why do the recommendations stop at a person’s eligibility to run as a Member for the Legislative Assembly? Instead of rules in place for many types of professions and offices, do we expect some of the restrictions for people interested in running for municipal councils or education boards? What about teachers, social workers, house maintainers, water truck drivers, or appointees to territorial and regional boards and agencies?
Do they not hold positions of trust and authority in our communities? Are we calling on the Parliament of Canada to enact some of the restrictions to MPs or band councils? Where exactly do we expect people, who have committed crimes and served their sentences, to work? Do we want their elected assemblies to be so whitewashed that they have no understanding of the reasons why our communities and people are struggling so much?
Mr. Chair, I don’t want this to sound like there should not be consequences for those who perpetrate family violence. There must be, but there must also be hope for rehabilitation, for healing. I like to think that my first-hand experience with A New Day program added weight and gravitas to the successful arguments made in this House to keep that program alive.
I would like to think that, by taking responsibility for my actions and for my healing, I can serve as an example to other Aboriginal men that there is an alternative to violence; that there is hope after punishment; that there is only a way forward, other than shame and recidivism.
Mr. Chair, our current legislation is not “toothless,” as some have suggested. As a sitting Member of the 17th Assembly, I lost my seat as a result of my actions. This would have happened whether my actions happened at the beginning or at the end of my term. Our current legislation allows the Legislative Assembly to discipline its Members at any time and for any reason, including expulsion. I fail to see how the proposed amendments would make the situation better. In fact, the recommendation places the onus on the judge to declare that the accused was in a position of trust, authority, or intimacy in order for it to take effect. What criteria do judges apply in making this determination? Are they aware of the implications of doing so for current and future electoral candidates? What if these exact words are not uttered or if they are not recorded as part of the sentencing? How do we expect election officials to monitor and enforce this?
The right to run for elected office is enshrined in Canada's Constitution. As legislators, we must be exceedingly careful whenever we attempt to limit such inalienable rights. Once a member of our society has served a debt to society, is it appropriate that we set additional limits on their return to full citizenship? Is it even desirable? Are better laws made by groups of individuals who have not made mistakes and learned from them? Should not our people be the final arbiters of who should and should not represent them in this place?
I will leave you with these questions to quote from former U.S. Attorney General Robert Kennedy who said, "Circumstances of crime vary. So do motives, and so do the prospects for rehabilitation. The number of imponderables makes it impossible to sentence by formula and still sentence justly."
Mr. Chair, I worry that, by voting against this recommendation, I would send a message that I do not take responsibility for my past actions or view family violence as an epidemic problem in our territory. If I voted for it, I delegitimize my own presence here and the support of the people who elected me. I am happy that I am not a prisoner of my past, that I am able to use the lessons learned from my mistakes to better serve the people who I represent. This won't be the case with everyone, Mr. Chair.
We need to find creative and effective ways to address the root causes of family violence in our society. One-size-fits-all formulas that continue to punish people for their crimes long after they have paid their debt to society and deny electors the right to choose sounds to me like a step backwards and not forwards. I will be abstaining from this vote. Mahsi, Mr. Chair.
---Applause