Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I, too, served on the Rules Committee to present this report to the Assembly. As we travelled around, we heard a variety of views on this, many views. Some views, I suppose, I personally did not disagree with. I felt that many of the views were not views that took into consideration the voting public. I feel that the public has the right to vote, and the public has the right to choose the best candidate that can represent them at this level in this Assembly. I feel that if the public indicates that they want a certain Member, then we should not put additional punishments in to not allow individuals to represent people.
It is very difficult to get individuals in the House who can speak Aboriginal language. If this is something, and the information that has come out that proportionately, this would affect Aboriginal candidates more than other candidates, and that is just from the statistics that I speak of.
When an Aboriginal group or community finds individuals who can communicate with everyone in the community, including individuals who only wish to speak Aboriginal language, it would be a shame that something like this could prevent that individual from continuing to represent the people who think so dearly of the language, and want to speak and communicate in that language. I know that I represent people in the various communities who prefer to speak the Aboriginal language when they speak to me about their issues.
I had spoken to an elder many times who had passed away two years ago who was a friend of my father's, who was in residential school with my father, and she had come to me one day and said, "You are going to run again, right?" I said, I might.
She said, "Well, you should, because we never need an interpreter with you. So, when I speak to you, I know exactly what I am saying is going to be presented to the government, or in the House, because that is exactly what I want to hear, and you understand 100 per cent of what I am saying."
If this law or this rule comes into effect, there is a possibility of that being impacted. There is a possibility that people who wish to be served by a person who is bilingual, and a person who speaks to them and about them and understands the language to a "T" that that person could be lost to them, as a person that could be possibly representing them. That, I had trouble with.
The other thing is more technical. I do not even know if it would be possible for individuals convicted of certain crimes to become eligible to have their records suspended or to be pardoned. I think that, in some instances, after the crime is committed and the punishment is served, that it takes maybe seven years, 10 years, whatever, in order for that individual to become eligible to apply for a pardon which, again, takes some time, and sometimes it is not issued. A record suspension, I think, is easier to obtain, but that is also another one that may not be issued. Depending on crimes that we are not even talking about here, an individual could end up being unable to get a record suspension. An individual, who we are targeting, saying this is based on family violence, could commit another crime which doesn't allow them to get a record suspension. Something that is not intended to be achieved here will be achieved. As a result you could end up eliminating candidates that the people want representing them.
I don't want to rehash a lot of stuff. I agree with what the Members of the House said today. I think the main issue, from my perspective, is that people have the right to vote for the person they feel best serves their interest at this level. They shouldn't be saying you are not eligible. We shouldn't be saying, and the judge shouldn't be saying that in the court of law, that you are not eligible. Somebody who suspends records somewhere in Ottawa shouldn't be saying that individual cannot represent this group of Aboriginal people in the Northwest Territories. For that reason I, too, will not support this recommendation. Thank you, Mr. Chair.