Thank you, Mr. Chair. As this is an important matter for the Legislative Assembly, the people of the Northwest Territories, and all Members including those in Cabinet, for that reason I wish to advise that the Executive Council will have a free vote on these motions. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Premier. Do we have any further opening comments? Ms. Green.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I just want to go back to the point at which this motion was passed and sent to the committee on rules and procedures. We had not been here long enough to find the washrooms and most of us had come in as brand new Members following an unprecedented turnover of incumbent MLAs.
What I and others came in on was a wave of hope for change and increased accountability. There was a feeling among people in the electorate that people in this room were taking too much for granted in terms of their privilege and their position and that it was time for us to re-examine that and consider whether our code of conduct was effective in managing our conduct. That was the context for us taking this job on.
What we have done through the comprehensive deliberations that my colleague, the honourable Member for Frame Lake, described is to strengthen the code of conduct with recommendations that will make it more meaningful and more enforceable. It also provides clarity around measures that are not clear at this time, or which could be strengthened if they were more clear. In other cases, we made recommendations to make the provisions of the code of conduct more specific so that Members are left not only to their own devices to interpret how they should behave, but to have specific guidance available to them. It also closes some holes that were opened by Members in previous Assemblies. A couple of recommendations deal with historic problems. They don't revisit these historic problems, but they acknowledge that they were there and they make recommendations to prevent them from reoccurring.
In short, Mr. Chair, it is my interpretation that we are taking steps to move this House from a collection of old boys who operate according to their own standards and to professionalize the whole enterprise and to bring the standard of conduct up to that which is regulated and enjoyed in other professions. There is going to be, if we adopt these recommendations, an end to any "nudge, nudge, wink, wink, you don't say about this, and I won't say about that." It will make our conduct more professional and, most importantly to me and to the people who elected me, more accountable. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Green. Do I have any further opening comments? Seeing none. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Just for those that are listening or watching, what we are going to do is take the recommendations from the committee report and turn them into motions one by one. The committee motion is as follows, Mr. Chair: I move that this Assembly recommends that the Elections and Plebiscites Act be amended to provide that, during the election period, candidates declare compliance with a code of conduct including the duties to abide by the laws of the Northwest Territories and Canada; to conduct his/herself with honesty, integrity, and respect for others; and to refrain from actions that would, upon election, create or be perceived to create a conflict of interest as set out in Section 74 of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. To the motion, Mr. O'Reilly.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I believe this motion in particular will be hopefully non-contentious. We did have brought to the attention of the committee by one of the individuals who made the submission of a situation where, in the past, an individual had been elected, they had not yet been sworn in as an MLA, and there were some actions taken by that individual that were questioned in terms of the conduct. What we found was that the conduct guidelines did not apply to anyone who is a Member-elect until they are actually sworn in. So, the Committee turned its mind to this issue of what happens during this period of a gap. What we did was, we came up with the recommendation that you see, so that anybody who intends to be in Cabinet -- sorry, not into Cabinet, but a candidate -- wishful thinking on my part, perhaps. Anybody who would like to serve as a candidate would agree that they would abide by the same code of conduct as someone who would serve, so it would take it right back to an individual who would like to indicate that they would be prepared to serve as a candidate.
That is what the goal of this first motion is, is to fill in that gap period, and I believe that all Members should support this. I think it should not be a contentious matter. We just want to make sure that candidates, Members-elect, will hold themselves to the same sort of standards that sitting MLA would then. I would look forward to my colleagues to vote in favour of this motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. To the motion? Mr. O'Reilly.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I neglected to indicate that I will be seeking recorded votes for each of the motions, please. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. To the motion? The question has been called. Mr. O'Reilly, would you conclude debate of the motion?
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. The Member has requested a recorded vote. All those in favour, please stand.
(Mr. Schauerte): Mr. O'Reilly, Ms. Green, Mr. Nadli, Mr. Nakimayak, Mr. Moses, Ms. Cochrane, Mr. Abernethy, Mr. McLeod – Yellowknife South, Mr. McLeod – Inuvik Twin Lakes, Mr. Schumann, Mr. Sebert, Mr. McNeely, Mr. Vanthuyne, Mr. Testart, Mr. Beaulieu, Mr. Thompson.
All those opposed, please stand. All those abstaining, please stand. Results are 16 in favour; zero opposed; zero abstentions. The motion is carried.
---Carried
Mr. O'Reilly.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to move onto the second motion, which is the second recommendation from the Committee.
I move that this Assembly recommend that the Elections and Plebiscites Act be amended to include a five-year limit on eligibility for candidacy for anyone convicted of an offence of violence or threats of violence under the Criminal Code of Canada and who has not received a pardon or record suspension; and where the offence was committed against a person over whom the accused was determined by the presiding judge to be in a position of trust, authority, or intimacy; and, if applicable, that the limitation not apply to offences committed before the coming-into-force date of this amendment; and that a consequential amendment of Section 6 of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act ensure consistency of qualification of sitting Members and candidates. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let us be honest here. This is the one recommendation or motion that is likely to spur quite a bit of discussion and debate, and I look forward to that. I think it is very important that all Members speak on this issue so that their views are known, and we know where everybody stands.
I would like to start by going back to the original referral motion and cast our mind back to December 17, 2015. This is shortly after we were all elected. The very first motion that we passed in this House is we wanted to refer this issue to Members' conduct to the Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures. This was the very first piece of business that we conducted in this House, and it is a very important one. It was fresh on everybody's mind at the time, and what was asked was that the Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures was asked to conduct a comprehensive and public review, including a thorough examination of conduct guidelines from other jurisdictions, both parliamentary and non-parliamentary organizations, all relevant legislation, and the rules of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories Committee report back in the fall sitting of 2016.
We did do that. We had an interim report that highlighted many of the issues that had been brought to our attention through our research. Then we went out on the road and held public consultations with regard to those issues that were highlighted in a discussion paper as well. We received written submissions. We held three public hearings in Inuvik, Hay River, and Yellowknife, and we had lots of very careful, crafted submissions to us. As I earlier stated, I thanked all of the parties that participated in the process.
This was a long process for the committee as well, and I do want to commend all the committee members. We have been working on this for over a year, and it has come to a head today, and I look forward to the debate and discussion.
I would like to start by what, I think, the committee heard, and I do not think any of the committee members are going to disagree in any way that there is an expectation out there that Members of this House and those that would like to become Members of this House, there is an expectation of a higher standard for what we do and how we behave. I think that was universal from everybody that we heard from.
Now, people were varied in how best to do that. What we heard was that a variety of positions ranging from leave it basically to the electorate to decide, right through to anybody who has a criminal conviction should not be allowed to run ever again. That was sort of the range of opinion that we had presented to us in terms of eligibility for becoming a candidate.
Now, I think it is also fair to say that we did have some individuals talk to us to say, you know, it is common practice if you would like to become a security guard, a bylaw officer, a school bus driver, a substitute teacher, a childcare worker, even a volunteer in sports, that you have to have a criminal records check. If there is something on there, maybe even a record of non-conviction, that you may not get the job. You may not have the opportunity to serve as a volunteer.
We did have people say to us: why is it that somebody can become an MLA without that sort of criminal records check? Anyways, it was an interesting question that was posed to us. Now, I guess I would like to say that we fully understand that there is a basic Charter right to run for public office, and that any attempt to restrict that has to be very, very carefully considered. It has to be justifiable. It has to be narrow, and we did seek the advice of the law clerk as we worked our way through that. I am glad the law clerk is here in the Chamber with us, and if there are any questions, I am sure she will be delighted to help us work our way through that.
I think it is fair to say that one of the biggest issues that we heard was concern around the epidemic of family violence that we have here in the Northwest Territories. The statistics are quite plain and clear. They are laid out in our report. Family violence rates here in the Northwest Territories are nine times the Canadian average. I am not going to go on about those, but some of the submissions that we received wanted to take us into a direction of -- well, as I said earlier, all of the submissions that we received, wanted to ensure that there was a higher standard of behaviour, higher standard of conduct for us all to make sure that politicians are in a position of trust, and there's public confidence on what we do and how we behave.
The committee looked at this issue very carefully, and we decided to help us show leadership to address this issue of the epidemic of family violence. We recommended that there should be a restriction in terms of eligibility, but it is a very narrowly defined restriction and you have to have been convicted of a Criminal Code offence that involves violence or threat of violence. If you've had a pardon this would not apply to you, but most importantly, it's a requirement in the Criminal Code that if you've been convicted of a crime of violence or threat of violence the presiding judge has to determine whether an individual was in a position of trust, authority or intimacy. So that's how the Criminal Code system works and there has to be determination about those things.
The majority of the committee members felt that this was reasonable and justifiable in terms of Charter rights to put this forward, and we do have other jurisdictions in Canada where this is the case. Nunavut has legislation, its Elections Act, that provides for something similar, and Nova Scotia as well. If you've been convicted of a criminal matter in Nova Scotia and the sentence could be greater than five -- sorry, I had better get this right; I'm going to go back to the committee report. If you have been convicted of an offence -- sorry, Mr. Chair, I've just got too many papers on my desk here, but if you've been convicted of a Criminal Code offence in Nova Scotia you would be restricted from running for a period of five years afterwards. So this is not unique; in fact, the Northwest Territories had similar provisions until that was removed in 2006 as well.
So all of that to say that I know this is a very difficult matter, but this was what the committee came up with. This was not a recommendation that we put forward lightly; it involved a lot of discussion and internal debate, and I look forward to having that discussion and debate as part of the consideration of this motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that Committee Motion 91-18(2) be amended by inserting the words "except in cases of exceptional circumstances as determined upon application by the prospective candidate to the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories" immediately after the words "position of trust, authority or intimacy" in the second paragraph. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Testart. There is a motion to amend the motion. The motion is on the floor and being distributed. The motion to amend is in order. To the amendment to the motion. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I think one of the highest obligations of any legislator is to ensure that the rights of Canadians, and certainly in our case the rights of all Northerners, are protected including essential democratic rights, and the Charter is our guide to doing that.
I am concerned that the amendment as indicated in Committee Motion 91-18(2) does not adequately ensure that the constitutional rights of Northerners will be protected and potentially infringed by a ban for running for office, and I propose this amendment is a way to provide certainty that, should a ban be brought forward, those subject to it still have an avenue of recourse to apply by way of petition to the Supreme Court and request an exemption to the ban based on exceptional circumstances.
Should this amendment pass, there will be work required to determine those exceptional circumstances, but I believe this is the best way forward to ensure that this Assembly can both send a strong message about expected behaviour of responsible citizens in the Northwest Territories and respond to the epidemic of family violence, which is clearly indicated in both our mandate and priorities document and has been referenced many times by the honourable Members of this House on various occasions and on various topics.
We have an obligation to be role models, but we also have an obligation to make sure that the rights of Northerners are protected, and this seeks a balance to do both. I know this topic has not been without controversy, and as the honourable Member for Frame Lake mentioned, that's a good thing. It's good that we can debate this fully and understand exactly what we're trying to achieve with recommendations such as these and motions such as these. I do believe that we have an onus to ensure without a doubt that rights are respected when we are making statements and changing the rules for the reason of addressing social ills in our territory.
So with that, Mr. Chair, I will yield my time, but I look forward to debate on this amendment and any other motion. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Testart. To the amendment to the motion, Mr. Sebert.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I see this amendment as being very problematic. Surely the decision as to whether a person can stand for election is the job of this House. I don't think we should advocate to the judiciary that job.
The amendment says "except in cases of exceptional circumstances as determined upon application by a prospective candidate to the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories," it doesn't even give any direction to the court as to what these exceptional circumstances might be. This would remove from us and put into the courts the decision as to whether a candidate can run, and in my view it's totally unacceptable and I'm urging Members to reject this motion. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Sebert. Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have a question on the original motion, so I will wait until the original motion comes back up for discussion.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. It may not, but you can wait. To the amendment to the motion. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I guess I would like to ask the law clerk, if I may. I know I had some concerns initially about this terminology of exceptional circumstances, but I'm just wondering if we might be able to hear from the law clerk in terms of what this would do in terms of the Charter right. Why don't we start with that? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Mr. O'Reilly asked me to direct it to the law clerk, so I'll direct it to Deputy Law Clerk Ms. Holland. Ms. Holland.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, I'll speak briefly. Given that there is little detail in the amendment to the committee motion regarding the meaning of "exceptional circumstances," it's difficult for me to say what implications this might have on the constitutionality more broadly of the proposed legislative amendments.
It is possible that something like this could potentially provide an avenue for judicial oversight in cases where the application of these legislative changes could raise concerns about Charter validity, perhaps with respect to arbitrariness or other kinds of concerns that tend to raise red flags about Charter compliance, but as drafted, I'm not able to provide an opinion on how that would apply in this case.
Thank you, Ms. Holland. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I guess I'd like to ask through you, then, another question, if I may. I've got a couple of ideas of things that could be considered as exceptional circumstances, but I'll just go ahead and throw them out there. Somebody who may be a few days or a week short if they were caught within that five year period and an election had been called and they may be a few days short of something. Presumably that is the sort of thing that could be determined through this sort of process as an exceptional circumstance. Is that the sort of thing that could be defined in that way? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Ms. Holland.
My view is that, simply based on the discussion we are having now, that could be something that could be drafted into legislation as an example of an exceptional circumstance. Obviously, I think there would need to be more discussion regarding the particular harm that the legislature is seeking to avoid by invoking a provision like this. That said, allowing a mechanism for judicial oversight where the consequences of these legislative changes could have a particularly harsh consequence for a particular individual in their circumstances may have a consequence for the constitutionality of legislation in terms of making it less likely to be found to be contrary to the Charter. That said, again, to provide a more definitive opinion I would have to see the proposed language.
Thank you, Ms. Holland. Anything further? Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I think I have put the Law Clerk on the hot seat long enough. I guess the other circumstance that might be construed as exceptional by some would be if someone had a Criminal Code conviction and was prohibited from running. Assuming all the conditions were still there, if someone had been through a healing process journey and had completed that sort of treatment and so on, would this be another way of defining what an exceptional circumstance could be?
Where I am going with this, Mr. Chair, is I view this as a potentially friendly amendment and worthy of probably some further work. I think, as drafting instructions, general direction, in terms of amending the original motion, I think this is helpful. I haven't really had a chance to discuss this with any of my committee colleagues. That is my personal view. I think it would also probably address some of the issues and concerns that we have heard from some members of the public. I view this as a friendly amendment. I am prepared to support it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. To the amendment. Mr. McNeely.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. To the amendment. Taking into account the integrity of this institution and listening to my colleague across the way who has legal background and looking at the amendment and the wording on exceptional circumstances, that could be defined in several ways, if passed, could go against the integrity of this institution to use something so vague that would be caught up in litigation for several weeks or several months depending on the court's schedule to really define what is exceptional. By that time, two Assemblies may have passed. To me, it doesn't strengthen the integrity of this institution to have acts of loopholes or defined as loopholes, and really not viewed to the reader as a real defined terminology on exceptional circumstances. I just point that out, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McNeely. To the amendment. Ms. Green.
Mr. Chair, I am not sure about how the procedure would work here. I wonder if we could amend the amendment to refer this motion back to the Rules and Procedures Committee to take on the task of defining exceptional circumstances and to bring that recommendation back after that work is considered. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Green. You need to put forward a motion to amend the amendment to the motion at this point in order to do that. Do you have a motion?
I could make one. I move that recommendation number 2 of the Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures report entitled "You Are Standing for Your People" be referred back to the Rules and Procedures Committee for further clarification. Thank you.
We are going to take a brief recess.
---SHORT RECESS
I call the Committee of the Whole back to order. We have a motion on the floor. Ms. Green, would you please read your motion?
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and just a quick thanks to the staff for drafting this on the fly. Mr. Chair, I move that Committee Motion 91-18(2) as contained in Committee Report 7-18(2): Report on the Review of the Members' Conduct Guidelines and the proposed amendment thereto be referred to the Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures for further consideration in accordance with Rule 58(e). Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Green. The motion is in order. To the motion. Ms. Green.
