Mr. Speaker, I don't object to having criminal record checks for vulnerable sector individuals or for any others who require them. What we are talking about here is providing records that say that there has been an interaction with the law but not a conviction. The Minister has said that the 2012 territorial policing contract was designed so that the RCMP remains independent of political influence, and yet has the ability to apply the rule of law as determined by and in consultation with the territorial Minister of Justice. My understanding of the rule of law is that people are innocent until proven guilty. Will the Minister apply this rule and direct the RCMP to stop issuing records of non-conviction?

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are for the Minister of Justice. First off, I want to ensure that I understand the Minister's position on records of non-conviction based on our correspondence. As Justice Minister, do you believe the RCMP should release information on criminal incidences for which a person has never been lawfully convicted when the release of that information can result in unjust and even unlawful discrimination against innocent people? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.

Laws Applicable in the Northwest Territories

Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms

provides that every citizen has the right to vote in elections for Members to the House of Commons or Legislative Assembly and to “be qualified for membership therein.” However, the right to run for office may be limited in ways justifiable in a free and democratic society. Court decisions to date show that such restrictions, when challenged, will be carefully scrutinized to determine if they are absolutely necessary to ensuring confidence in the election process. Within those parameters, provinces and territories may set criteria for candidates running for election.

Eligibility for Office in the Northwest Territories Legislative Assembly

Provisions of the Elections and Plebiscites Act and the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act define who is an eligible candidate for election and who may serve in the Legislative Assembly.

Generally, a person is eligible to be a candidate if he/she is a Canadian citizen, is at least 18 years old, and has been a resident of the Northwest Territories for at least 12 months.

Current legislation disqualifies candidates or Members convicted and imprisoned as a result of a criminal offence; the disqualification ends with the term of imprisonment. The legislation is silent on offences that do not result in jail sentences. Such matters fall to the Legislative Assembly’s rules, code of conduct, and the use of parliamentary privilege to discipline or expel its Members.

Elections and Plebiscites Act

Legal precedents set elsewhere in Canada have sometimes led to changes to NWT legislation. For example, in 1995 the Elections Act was amended to allow persons imprisoned in a correctional facility to vote if serving a sentence of less than two years. The law was also changed to ensure that prisoners remained ineligible to run for office (also a provision of the Canada Elections Act). This led to questions about what would happen in the event of an offence by a sitting member. Such circumstances were subsequently addressed in the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, discussed below.

The Elections and Plebiscites Act also includes a five-year prohibition of anyone convicted of a major election offence from being elected or sitting as a Member, voting, or holding office appointed by the Commissioner or Legislative Assembly. These offences include such conduct as voting more than once, intentional miscounts, knowingly making false statements about a candidate’s character, attempting to intimidate or compel a person not to run for election, and others.

Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act

The Legislative Assembly

and Executive Council Act sets out requirements for Members’ and Ministers’ conduct, including conflict of interest provisions and a Member’s general obligation to “arrange his or her private affairs in such a manner as to maintain public confidence.”

Since its inception, the act has been amended respecting offences that would prevent a Member from continuing to serve. In 1995, following changes to the Elections Act and the adoption of a zero tolerance motion the year before, the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act was amended to disallow a Member from serving if convicted of an indictable Criminal Code offence involving violence or sexual exploitation of a child. Expulsion was not automatic if a Member was convicted of a less serious summary offence. In such cases, the Legislative Assembly would determine if expulsion or discipline was necessary. However, the act did not specify particular criminal offences, left important issues open to interpretation, and ignored other potentially serious offences that might tarnish the public confidence, trust, and integrity of a Member. This provision was therefore repealed in 2006 and replaced with the requirements that exist today.

Currently, any Member who would no longer be eligible to be a candidate for election is not permitted to continue in office, and his or her seat is deemed vacant. In the event of a conviction or imprisonment of a Member, a suspension from office allows for legal appeals to be resolved before full disqualification takes place.

Other Relevant Legislation

Canada Elections Act

Under this Act, a person who is imprisoned in a correctional institution is not eligible to be a candidate. In addition, any person convicted of an offence that is an illegal or corrupt (election) practice under the act is not entitled to be elected to or sit in the House of Commons for five or seven years, respectively.

Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act (Nunavut)

Nunavut’s legislation sets out the circumstances which will lead to a Member’s loss of his or her seat. Under Nunavut’s Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, a Member cannot serve if they are convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code prosecuted by indictment (typically, a serious offence). The law also sets out a discretionary provision to consider whether it is in the public interest and in the interest of the Assembly to expel a Member convicted of a lesser (summary) offence. Nunavut’s regime has not been challenged in court and is similar to the Northwest Territories’ restrictions in place from 1995 to 2006.

House of Assembly Act (Nova Scotia)

The laws of several provinces prevent a person imprisoned on conviction of an indictable offence from sitting as a Member or running for the office. This limitation generally expires when the term of imprisonment ends, as it does in the Northwest Territories.

In Nova Scotia, it is possible in certain circumstances for the prohibition from candidacy or holding office to be longer than the actual sentence imposed. This could occur if a person was convicted of a serious offence punishable by imprisonment of more than five years, but sentenced to a shorter term. In such a case, the person is ineligible to be nominated as a candidate for a period of five years from the date of conviction. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to pass the report on to Minister Sebert.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I'm rising today to share one NWT resident's experience with a document called records of non-conviction and to call for the end of its use in Yellowknife.

A constituent of mine who was on income assistance got a job working with clients in the vulnerable sector. The employer properly requires applicants be screened to ensure that they don't have criminal records. Two days after getting the job, my constituent was let go. He has never been convicted of a criminal offence but the forms supplied by the RCMP detailed the things he was not convicted of. Mr. Speaker, this is a record of non-conviction.

What kind of things has he not been convicted of? Well, I don't know. From my research, I can say that these documents contain records of a person having been questioned by the police and not charged, or charged with charges that were later dropped, or charged and later acquitted. So my constituent lost a job he desperately needed because the police issued a form which confirms he has no criminal record, but which also says there is "adverse information" on file. In this circumstance, information is released on the crime investigated. But again, this is not a conviction, it's a suspicion.

Mr. Speaker, not to put too fine a point on it, this is outrageous. When I learned of this practice, I went to the Justice Minister for background information, and asked whether our administrative oversight powers under our policing contract enabled us to tell the RCMP to stop issuing records of non-conviction. The Justice Minister said this is a national policy of the RCMP and that the information is given to the job applicant, so it is not the police prejudicing anyone by informing prospective employers.

This is just obfuscation, Mr. Speaker, because you can't get or keep the job without the criminal record check and the criminal check is released along with the record of non-conviction, it's all on one page. The injustice of this situation is clear for any fair-minded person. The words "innocent until proven guilty" come to mind, but do they mean anything? I will have questions for the Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, it's no accident that we haven't had a mid-term review in this Assembly since the 12^th Assembly, since before division. It has been really a lot of work to come up with a set of principles and a process to conduct this mid-term review. I want to emphasize that, with Mr. Sebert's help, we canvassed thoroughly the different options and tools that we could use to produce a mid-term review that was fair and equitable, and I have confidence in the report that we produced, that we were able to hit that mark.

That doesn't mean to say that, once the review takes place, it won't need improving or tweaking to accommodate the realities of what happens, but I want to stress that the purpose of the review is to measure progress towards our common mandate. The review is not about taking out individual Cabinet ministers. In fact, it's worth nothing that, in Nunavut, in all the years that they've been doing mid-term reviews, and they've done them in every Assembly since division, only once has a Minister been replaced.

The purpose here is to measure our progress on our common mandate, and it would have been my desire, Mr. Speaker, to have seen us support this unanimously, since the mandate came from all of us and the motion to have a review was also unanimous, but the government has its own reasons for going its own way.

I do want to say that we are committed to a fair and open process and one which furthers the interests of the 18^th Assembly's mandate and to be accountable in every possible way to the people who put us here. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I MOVE, seconded by the Honourable Member for Great Slave, that, notwithstanding Rule 4, when this House adjourns on October 20, 2016, it shall be adjourned until Tuesday, October 25, 2016;

AND FURTHER, that at any time prior to October 25, 2016, if the Speaker is satisfied after consultation with the Executive Council and Members of the Legislative Assembly that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, the Speaker may give notice and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and shall transact its business as it has been duly adjourned to that time.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I give notice that, on Wednesday, October 26, 2016, I will move the following motion.

Now therefore, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, that the Department of Education, Culture, and Employment produce a plan to implement junior kindergarten in 2017-2018, along with a fully costed budget for presentation to the Standing Committee on Social Development;

and further, that the department implement all the recommendations of the junior kindergarten review tabled in February;

and furthermore, that, in developing an implementation plan, the department acknowledge that a one-size-fits-all approach to junior kindergarten is contrary to the report's recommendations;

and furthermore, that the department tailor the introduction of junior kindergarten to each community with a focus on providing the greatest need to improve school readiness;

and furthermore, that the department accommodate existing community programs for four-year-olds without jeopardizing their viability;

and furthermore, that the government provide a comprehensive response to this function within 120 days.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I am going to table today e-mails between David Poitras and myself, dated October 20^th; e-mails between David Poitras and Alfred Moses, dated July 28^th; and e-mails between David Poitras and the Department of ECE, dated August 29^th.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to table these e-mails and I will pursue my concerns in greater detail at another time. But my last question in this string is to ask the Minister what his department has done proactively to explain the changes to people who receive income assistance about their allowances. Not about the child benefit, the Canada child benefit, but about the change in the income assistance allowances.