Premier’s Influence on Speaker: Review Request - Resolution 391

Resolution No. 391

Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:

Whereas the Office of the Speaker acts independently of the Premier, the Office of the Premier and the Government of Nova Scotia; and

Whereas the Premier has interfered with the Speaker, compromising the integrity and independence of the Office of the Speaker; and

Whereas the Speaker is accountable to the House of Assembly, not the Premier or the Office of the Premier, making this incident of great concern to our democracy;

Therefore be it resolved that the Conflict of Interest Commissioner be directed, as an Office of the House of Assembly, to conduct an independent review to reaffirm that the Office of the Speaker is independent from, and not answerable to, the Office of the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, that is the resolution.

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : Mx. Speaker, I would like to rise and say just a few words to this motion. I think much of what there is to say is, in fact, in the public record. I think that this motion makes sense and has not been canvassed by the deputy speaker's opinion.

Before I get to that, I want to note that there are things we should be discussing in this Chamber. We should be discussing the 1 in 4 Nova Scotians, according to Statistics Canada, who don't have a family doctor. We should be discussing why the government is blustering about the Opposition not supporting the carbon tax, instead of actually negotiating with Ottawa and doing something about carbon pricing. We should be discussing the skyrocketing cost of everything and how we can help Nova Scotians during this difficult time, but we are not discussing this, and that is at the heart of this motion. We are not discussing these because we are not able to properly debate issues, because a pall has fallen over the role of the Speaker in this House of Assembly.

Is it appropriate to attempt to pressure a Speaker to step down? That's what is at the heart of this, and that has not been canvassed by the deputy speaker's opinion that was released yesterday. The answer is no, it is not appropriate. I think we would all agree that it is not appropriate, and I agree with some of the comments that have been made about the Speaker's stature and his friendships in this House, and I hope that there are members of the government side who are at least privately reaching out to the Speaker to voice support. I hope that one of the reasons that the Speaker is still in this Chair is because there is dissension in the government ranks about this decision and the conduct of the Premier as it relates to the Chair. We will likely never know the answer to that question, but I would like to say that I hope that is the case.

The role of the Speaker is independent, by design. I think it's important to note, and this was canvassed in the deputy speaker's decision yesterday, that in actual fact a Premier in a majority government environment can remove a Speaker, because of the way that this Legislature works and the parliamentary rules. A Speaker is elected on a simple majority. So a simple majority will be present in the case of a majority government and that simple majority can vote for a motion to remove a Speaker. Those are the facts. A Premier can direct his caucus to remove a Speaker. He can do it, but he shouldn't.

I think this is at the heart of what we are talking about, because there is what I would call a loophole that is not intended but it exists in actual fact in our procedures such that a Premier can remove a Speaker. It is therefore even more incumbent upon a sitting Premier in a majority environment to preserve the independence of the role of Speaker.

What we have seen is the exact opposite of that - what I would call responsibility that is placed with a Premier in a majority government environment in Nova Scotia. The Premier has eschewed that responsibility and continued with his "my way or the highway" approach that we have seen with everything from appointments to Crown corporations to legislative sittings, to deputy speakers and anything else in his path. So here we are.

I think it's important that we understand that if we cannot, in good conscience, have some sense that the role of the Speaker is independent, it will impede us from debating any of the important issues that our constituents send us here to debate. It will prevent us even more so than some of the procedural changes and the hours and the ways that the government has been conducting itself, from being able to properly do the work of an MLA in this Chamber. That is why this is so important. That is why I support this motion. I think we need to understand that this role is independent.

I will add that the motion that is still currently on the Order Paper regarding the deputy speakers further supports this point. That motion directly contemplates the resignation of a Speaker. Why do we have a motion on the Order Paper that contemplates the resignation of the Speaker? Section 2 of that motion appoints a deputy speaker within the meaning of the Act. It is further evidence of pressure, not intimidation.

I would echo the comments of some of my colleagues that it is not intimidation precisely because the current Speaker refused to be intimidated. That decision speaks volumes about the integrity of the Speaker and very little about the conduct of the government, so I don't want that to be in the statement.

Mx. Speaker, with those comments I'll just conclude by saying we need to preserve the independence of the Chair. It is very likely we will see another Speaker in this session, and it seems increasingly likely that we will see one soon. Unless we have some assurance that there will be independence in that Chair, we will move forward with the assumption that the Speaker is partisan. That is bad for this House, that is bad for Nova Scotians, and it is bad for democracy.