Point of order

Speaker, I rise to address the point of order by the member for Cumberland North and the resolution that it concerns, which is on the order paper because it was put forward by the government side in order to force an apology from a member of the Opposition, the penalty for which was removal from the House. Let's be clear what we are talking about.

At the heart of this is whether MLAs should be restricted in their speech on the floor of this House, and I think it's clear that our speech is protected in this space. We can argue for or against a government bill. We can throw cheap shots, if they're not unparliamentary. We can take cheap shots, if we are in a position where we are so lucky to be a Minister of the Crown and be required to absorb contrary opinion. And we're not just free to do this, but we're actually required to. That is our job, in many ways, in this Chamber. Lots of times, members will take issue with what is said; they will take issue with the veracity of what is said. Anyone who's been here for any period of time has been involved in those conversations and Speakers' rulings.

But when they come to a vote, particularly in the case of a majority government, that majority government will always get their way. They will always pass. They have the power to win any vote that has a simple majority, and this is a resolution that requires a simple majority to pass. To reiterate what's already been said, it means, in effect, that the government - any majority government, but this government - has the power, in theory, when it disagrees with something said by a member of the Opposition - who comes here on behalf of our constituents, on behalf of Nova Scotians - to test the laws put forward, to test the positions put forward by the government.

That is why we are here: to make the laws better. We get precious little opportunity to do that. We were presented with hundreds of pages of legislation today, which will be law next week, probably after all of our children are in bed. That's a bad process, but at least it's a process. If we pass a resolution like this, we don't even have that, because if the government doesn't like what someone says, well, then, we don't have to have that conversation, because they can remove them. That is something that should be worrying to anyone who suggests that they are a member of the democratic system, which we all are.

I think it's worth saying - and some examples have been brought up, and we have debated the resolution before - that this Chamber is not a level playing field. We did celebrate firsts today. We have the first African Nova Scotian woman sitting as a Cabinet member, and that is fantastic. We all celebrate that. We have the first woman Speaker in our province, and that is fantastic. We celebrate that. We move slowly - I don't know if there's glass on the floor, or glass in the windows - but we are making progress.

But that progress is not done. We are not all treated equally. Women are treated still - the cheap shots taken against women are not the same as the cheap shots taken against men in this House. I think most people would agree.

Parliamentary privilege is one of the rules that legitimately and absolutely levels the playing field, because it does, in fact, apply to everyone equally. Everyone can have their say, and that say is protected, and it must remain protected.

The genesis of this conversation and this resolution is sad and terrible, and in my opinion, never should have made it to the floor of this House. But I want to say - and I will recognize that there are members of Can't Buy My Silence in the gallery who are fighting against the misuse of NDAs - that if the misuse of NDAs was legislated - if the bill that we have been fighting so hard to pass had been considered by the government and had been passed by the government, we wouldn't be having any of this conversation.

I think that that's really worth noting. A bill which has been passed in 17 states, which has been passed in Prince Edward Island, which would make it illegal to force a victim to sign a non-disclosure agreement without their consent - that is what is actually at the heart of this conversation. If that was not legal, we would not be here having this conversation.

That bill could have been passed. I am confident in saying that the government would have had the full support of the Opposition in this matter. I won't talk about it anymore. I saw the Clerk whisper in your ear. Conversely, I do not think that ejecting the member for Cumberland North and preventing her from taking her seat, or even having the spectre of that possibility, is the right thing to do.

The power that the government holds to censure, as has been discussed in the point of order and by my colleagues, must be used very selectively - ideally only in the case of criminal wrongdoing. As members, we all from time to time feel mischaracterized, hurt, unfairly implicated by the words of others in this Chamber - some of us every day. Nonetheless, we persist in doing the work that Nova Scotians elected us to do - the work of representing our constituents, advocating for their hopes, addressing their needs, and trying to remedy their challenges.

It is our position that to prevent another member from doing this is the most serious tool at our government's disposal. We do not believe it should be used in this case. We stand to support the point of order and call for the resolution on the order paper to be rescinded.