Deputy Speaker Change - Resolution 385 - Government Motion

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : Mr. Speaker, I want to speak briefly to this motion and maybe just bring us back a little bit, as you have valiantly attempted to do. I want to actually read the motion because I really think that although this may not mean much to folks outside this Chamber, it should mean a lot to folks in this Chamber, and I think there are a few points that are worthy of discussion.

BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

1.      In addition to the honourable member for Preston and the honourable member for Halifax Citadel-Sable Island, the honourable member for Chester-St. Margaret's, the honourable member for Eastern Shore, and the honourable member for Shelburne be the Chairs of Committees and Deputy Speakers of the House of Assembly;

2.      That the honourable member for Eastern Shore be the Deputy Speaker within the meaning of Subsection 14 (3) of the House of Assembly Act and within the meaning of the House of Assembly Management Act; and

3.      The annual salary of the Deputy Speaker, established pursuant to the House of Assembly Act, be divided equally between the five Chairs of Committees and Deputy Speakers.

So that's where we are. I want to speak directly to this motion, but I need to say at the outset that to understand this motion we also have to understand the context in which this motion is made and what its impact will likely be.

First, nowhere in this motion does it say that the historic appointment of two deputy speakers whose voices are among the least represented in this House throughout history, and I'll remind the Chamber that there have been more MLAs named John than women who have sat in this Chamber, let alone women or people who are genderqueer, who are African Nova Scotian, or who come from other diverse communities.

It doesn't say in this motion that the roles of these two historic deputy speakers will be diluted but, in fact, they will. In an employment context - which this, of course, isn't - but if this were a regular job, this might actually be thought of as somewhere along the lines of a constructive dismissal. They will make less money, they will have less responsibility, and they will still be required to be here. Those changes have been made unilaterally without any conversation.

Now, whether or not that is within the rules, I think it appears that it is. Is it appropriate? No, it isn't. (Applause)

Further context is that prior to the appointment of these two deputy speakers there were, in the political realm, many questions about this government's lack of diversity in their caucus and in their executive council. Again, this is important context, and it is part of why all parties banded together to celebrate the appointment of these two individuals to this role because it was widely acknowledged that this government had a representation issue and that the appointment of these two deputy speakers did go some way to elevating the voices and the roles of certain folks in this Chamber. (Applause)

Second, the middle section of this motion is very important, and I think it goes a little bit to what the member for Halifax Atlantic was pointing to. It contemplates that the Speaker will vacate the Chair because while it appoints five deputy speakers, it appoints one within the meaning of the Act, and the meaning of the Act is that that one deputy speaker will take the role of Speaker of the House if that role is vacated. By putting this in the motion, it contemplates that this Chair will be vacated, and that is very important.

I remember when I was first elected there was a piece of legislation that quietly came through the House that replaced the words school board in the Education Act with the word minister, and I was the education critic, and it landed on my desk, and I said: They're going to get rid of school boards. Everyone said: What do you mean they're going to get rid of school boards? I said: Well, they don't need to be here anymore. The word's not in the legislation anymore. I give this example to show that this is as important for what is in the motion as what is not in the motion.

Unfortunately, this motion contemplates that the Chair, the role of the Speaker, will be vacated, and regardless of the decision that was made today around the conversations that have happened between the Premier and the Speaker - which, of course, we accept as the Speaker's Ruling - I would suggest that when the Chair of the Speaker is vacated, that the next Speaker who will be elected to that Chair - if such an election happens because here there can be an appointment pending an election - will be a partisan Speaker. That will be a partisan Speaker because that Speaker will know that when they make a decision that goes against the will of the government, that that Chair will once again be vacated.

So, to go back to the point that the member for Halifax Atlantic brought up earlier about who decides which deputy speaker is in the Chair, the Speaker decides, and if that is an impartial Speaker elected by this Legislature, whom we know to be fair, then we can live with it. If it's a partisan Speaker, who was elected after some shenanigans around how this role works in this House of Assembly, that becomes very problematic.

With 60 per cent of the deputy speakers - after this motion, we assume, passes - representing the government, it's unlikely that the opposition deputies will take the Chair, as has been said. We have seen time and time again in the short life of this government that the chance that someone might speak, let alone rule, against them is too much for them to bear. (Applause)

As to the necessity of this motion, which I feel compelled to address, there is none. There is no need for this motion other than to continue to follow the pattern of steamrolling the opposition and the democratic process in favour of greasing the wheels to "get things done".

Unfortunately getting things done in this context, most people assume, is doing the work of democracy in a robust democratic process. That does not happen. Sitting for days and weeks rather than the months and seasons that our colleagues across the country sit to contemplate bills, to take them into committee, to hear from experts and the public, instead putting people here for 10, 12, 15 hours a day for a couple of short weeks. We don't need to work 9 to 5, but surely we need to work more than four weeks a year in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker.

I'll say it again - there is no need. Have there been times that deputy speakers haven't been available? Yes, and this is another place where context is very important.

First of all, the Rules of this House of Assembly, in several places, contemplate what happens when the Speaker or Deputy Speaker is not available. Another member may take the Chair. That has always been the case so the idea that there have been times when deputy speakers haven't been available doesn't come close to a reason why we would need additional deputy speakers who are put forward in this way. It happens all the time.

Just to cite a few rules: Subsection 39(1) in Committee of the Whole House, Subsections 12(1) and 12(2). There are lots of places where a member may take the Chair. But let's talk about why, in the opinion of the government, this happened so many times recently.

Despite wishing it weren't so, this government was in fact elected in the middle of what was still a raging pandemic. During our first in-person sitting here, this government set the current pattern of keeping us here late into the night, running the Law Amendments Committee in tandem with the proceedings of this House, which I think might be unprecedented - if not unprecedented, highly unusual.

While this was happening, we were severely short-staffed. We had one Clerk. In fact, we had what may have been one of the first significant rulings of the Speaker that was unfavourable to the government - when he wouldn't let the Government House Leader call the hours that she wished to call, which were until midnight, because there simply was not enough staff in the building to accommodate that request.

Although the Premier and the Government House Leader had been told that and had been asked, they didn't care. They didn't care about the people who were out sick with COVID-19, about how stressed and overworked the staff were, or how difficult the working conditions were. They still wanted to keep us here until 11:59 p.m. in this room in the middle of a pandemic. Why? To push through their agenda with no debate.

Mr. Speaker, that is the context around which we may not have had the Deputy Speakers here for 12 or 15 hours a day in the middle of a pandemic with simultaneous proceedings in a budget session. So you'll excuse me if I don't think that that's a normal situation, or that there isn't lots of ways - and it happened - that other members could have taken the Chair.

This is not how government should work. We should be debating policy. We should be making laws together. Is that a pie in the sky idea? Maybe, but I think that that is the largeness that my colleague, the member for Halifax Chebucto, spoke of that people long for and need from us. They need all of their elected representatives to have a role here. To have respect in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker - not only the majority and those who are partisan and loyal to them.

This government said that they were different. They campaigned on being different, and so it seems they are - in their disrespect for the Rules of this House, the spirit of this work, and the tone of government that Nova Scotians deserve.

I hope that the government will think carefully about this vote and about the motions that are surely still to come regarding the Speaker's Chair. The ability for Nova Scotians to have a voice in this Chamber and to expect fairness hangs in the balance.