Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm trying to get some clarity about how to avoid double standards, where Members are convicted by the law. Can we get some kind of legal opinion with respect to double standards being created by this clause, in the event it passes? There may be cases where Members are found guilty of an offence and where other Members are found guilty and given a conditional discharge; the Member found guilty and convicted cannot sit as a Member, and the other Member found guilty and given a conditional discharge can sit. Therefore, is it correct to state that clause 2 can cause double standards in the amendment to the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act that is being put forth?

Mr. Chairman. I'm just trying to determine...It is not currently in our act to discipline other Members, is that correct?

Can I get clarification? Under the current act that we're amending, the Legislative Assembly has the right or the power to expel a Member if they feel it's in the public interest to remove that particular Member. Is that correct?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I recognize that under the current Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, the Members of this Assembly have under convention as it's stated by other Members, the ability to punish Members who have been convicted under the Criminal Code. Whether the Members decide to do so is up to the Members of this Assembly. I've been a Member for the past eight years and I've noted that whether a Member gets into any type of trouble with the law, when it comes into the public forum all Members stay quiet about it. Members may apologize to the House or whatever, but whether we actually enforce that act or not is discretionary.

I would like to ask legal counsel whether there is a need for this particular clause since it's my understanding that under our current act, we can discipline a Member accordingly. I would like some clarification on that. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I find that this bill ...If Mr. Patterson is talking about the inherent right of this Assembly, this bill and the intent of this bill is already in the act of the Assembly; all we're doing is making it more specific. What I'm doing is trying to attempt to close a loophole. For example, nothing is stopping some sophisticated individual from this Assembly from being found guilty of an offence, getting a good lawyer --whether it's O.J. Simpson's lawyer or whomever --to come in and basically plead for a conditional discharge, taking into account that the Member could lose their seat, they could be publicly embarrassed and the judge may have sympathy and give that Member a conditional discharge after that Member may have slapped his or her spouse around.

I think the intent of this bill was to remove Members who conducted themselves in that manner. If you get a conditional discharge, basically you're allowing those Members to sit in the House. I think we're, again, creating double standards for ourselves. What I'm trying to do is be specific: it you're found guilty of a violent offence of or an offence involving sexual exploitation of children, then you're guilty and you should be out of the House. No ifs, ands or buts. That's the intent of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I think I've made it fairly clear that I don't think we can allow ourselves to set double standards among Members because no Member is better than the other; we're all elected by our constituents to represent them. I certainly hope that Members will consider this amendment and support the amendment. With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask for a recorded vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I find some of Mr. Patterson's comments to be somewhat offensive. I expressed these concerns in the Standing Committee on Legislation, and Mr. Patterson is on that committee; well, you hung around that committee enough.

---Laughter

Mr. Chairman, the new section submitted in my amendment under (1.1), I believe, forces the Legislative Assembly to make a determination where there is a discharge or an indictable offence and the addition of "or discharge of' in subsection (2) does the same thing where there is the discharge of a summary conviction offence.

I think, for further clarification, if I may, I will ask legal counsel to explain this. It's basically allowing the Legislative Assembly to be able to determine where there is an indictable offence discharged to be able to find out whether it's in the public interest to remove that Member. If I may, I will ask legal counsel to further explain, Mr. Chairman. I would appreciate that. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I move that clause 2 of Bill 32 by amended by striking out that portion of proposed subsection 6.1 (1) immediately preceding paragraph (a) and by substituting the following:

A Member shall not be or sit as a Member if, after his or her election, the Member is found guilty of and is convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code prosecuted by indictment adding the following after proposed subsection 6.1(1):

Where a Member, after his or her election, is found guilty of and is discharged of an offence under the Criminal Code prosecuted by indictment a)involving the sexual exploitation of children, or in the commission of which Violence against a person is used, threatened or attempted, the Legislative Assembly shall, as soon as is reasonably practicable, determine whether it is necessary, in the public interest and in the interest of the Legislative Assembly, to expel the Member from the Legislative Assembly and to declare that his or her seat is vacant. striking out that portion of proposed subsection 6.1(2) immediately preceding paragraph (a) and by substituting the following:

(2) Where a Member, after his or her election, is found guilty of and is convicted or discharged of an offence under the Criminal Code punishable on summary conviction.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to withdraw my motion and submit another motion, if I may.

---Withdrawn