Res. 622, MLA Expulsion Resolution: Need to Repeal

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : I rise to address the motion put forward by the member for Yarmouth, Resolution 622, and therefore also the motion put forward by the member for Pictou West, which it attempts to rescind. At the heart of the motion put forward by the Progressive Conservative caucus, with which this motion deals, is parliamentary privilege, specifically whether MLAs should be restricted in their speech on the floor of this House.

I think it's clear to all members that, in fact, our speech is protected in this space, as has been confirmed by many rulings of Speakers past and by the Supreme Court of Canada. We are free to argue in favour of or against any government bill or expenditure or other issue that may land here, with as much vigour as we are able and which we think the matter deserves. Not only are we free to do this but I would argue that we are required to.

Sometimes a member will take issue with what is said and with what is tabled. Sometimes they will take issue with the truth of an argument, but in the end, these debates come to a vote, as this motion that still sits on the order paper could at any time. When they come to a vote, in a majority government, that vote will always pass.

This government has a majority, and they have the power to win any vote that requires a simple majority, as this motion would. What the House is being asked to consider is whether a member should be removed from her ability to represent her constituents in this Chamber based on what is said on the floor of this House.

As has been mentioned, since these resolutions were both tabled, two members of the Assembly in Tennessee were, in fact, kicked out of the House for protesting gun violence, in the context of a majority government that believes firmly in gun rights. They were kicked out of the House, they were unable to represent their constituents, for protest. In many of the speeches they made at the time and subsequently, they pointed out that there were times when the two men who were ejected, who were African American, when the debates would have been about whether they were allowed to be in that House. It's not a perfect analogy, but I think it's important to point out that many of the rules of this Chamber were not made for women, they were not made for non-binary folks, they were not made for BIPOC folks. They were made for men - men who are white and men who have privilege.

I think Parliamentary privilege is, in fact, one of the only rules that does protect us all equally. I think of an example - and I don't stand here to challenge a Speaker's ruling but I will just raise the example of the point of privilege that was brought earlier. There was a point of privilege and it was ruled out of order, as points of privilege often are, because it was not brought at the earliest practicable moment, or whatever Bosc & Gagnon's wording is.

We've talked about this notion of the earliest practicable moment for a woman to disclose that she has been mistreated many times in many contexts, particularly in justice. It is now widely accepted that one person's ability to come forward and report a wrongdoing is not, in fact, equal to another person's ability to come forward and do that, particularly where there may be some perception of intimidation. This is an example of a rule that may, in fact, not apply equally to all members of this House, particularly in the case of the member's point where she was alleging a pattern. Did the pattern start at the first instance, or was the pattern discovered last week? That's for the Speaker to decide.

I only raise this to illustrate that it's not a level playing field in here. This rule of privilege is one of the only things that does, in fact, level that playing field and allow us to speak without fear.

I want to say that I do not think the floor of this Legislature is the place to debate the story of a young woman who was treated terribly, suffered greatly, and ultimately died.

But I also want to say that all of this arose in the context of a bill put forward by our party last year, a bill to prevent the misuse of non-disclosure agreements. Our bill - like legislation passed in P.E.I., 17 states and federally in the United States, and in Ireland - would render this conversation moot.

We wouldn't be talking about whether an NDA was signed, and with whom, against the backdrop of the real human suffering of a young woman, and the devastation of her family. We wouldn't be talking about it because such an instrument would be illegal.

It is our position that, while not retroactive, the single most useful thing this government could do, right now, would be to pass this legislation today, with all-party consent and ensure that no one else has to endure this and that this never comes up again in this House. I am confident in saying that this government would have the full support of the Opposition in this matter, and something good could come from this awful situation. Conversely, I do not think that ejecting the member from Cumberland North and preventing her from taking her seat is the right thing to do.

The power this government holds to censure must be used very selectively - ideally, as has been mentioned, in the case in criminal wrongdoing of a member, or other serious illegal infraction. As members, we all, from time to time, feel mischaracterized, hurt, and unfairly implicated, by the words of others in this Chamber. I would go so far as to say every day.

Nonetheless, we persist. We persist in doing the work 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 the government's disposal, and we do not believe it should be used in this case. We stand in support of this motion to rescind the notice that was originally brought.