Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on a point of order today under clause 23(m) which states, “In debate, a Member will be called to order by the Speaker if the Member introduces any matter in debate that offends the practices and precedents of this Assembly.”
I’ve waited until today, Madam Speaker, to look at Hansard to make sure of the remarks. Yesterday during question period and I quote from page 18 of the unedited Hansard from Wednesday, February 12, 2014, “We’ve heard that deputy ministers will move money that is intended for human resources over to projects because they want to fulfil their mandate within their department. My view is they are actually breaking direction laid out by the
Legislature. In essence, it’s tantamount, in my view, of breaking the law.”
On the same page, Mr. Hawkins also said, “I’d like to ask what the Finance Minister is going to do if we know that deputy ministers are signing off human resources money that is designated, protected and passed in this Legislature by a duly elected body when they go behind the scenes and re-appropriate the money for their pet projects.”
Madam Speaker, Mr. Hawkins has clearly accused deputy ministers of deliberate criminal behaviour and, in doing so, I believe violates the established practices and rules of this Assembly. There have been explicit rulings on this matter in the past.
On March 25, 1995, in a landmark ruling, the Honourable Sam Gargan ruled, “The respect in which Members hold this institution is clearly evident. In order to uphold and enhance this respect, I will not permit comments, whether written or spoken, in this Legislative Assembly that have the tendency to question the personal integrity of others in this House or impute motives to those unable to respond or which have had the impact of adversely reflecting on those persons outside the Legislature.”
More recently, on February 15, 2007, Honourable Paul Delorey ruled, “It is both the rule of this Assembly and a common courtesy to not make reference to persons who are not Members of this House and do not enjoy parliamentary immunity. This includes reference to Members of the public specifically by name or in such a way that there can be no mistake as to the identity of the individual involved. The parliamentary immunity that we all enjoy within this Chamber comes with certain responsibilities. I would ask that Members respect the rights of those who do not have direct voice in this Chamber both in formal session and in Committee of the Whole.”
On that basis, Madam Speaker, I respectfully request that Mr. Hawkins be directed to withdraw his remarks and apologize to the House. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. I will allow some debate on Mr. Miltenberger’s point of order. Anyone who wishes to is allowed to speak once. Is there anybody who would like to speak to Minister Miltenberger’s point of order? Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Before us here today, we have an interesting situation which reminds me of an almost identical circumstance that happened on February 16, 2006, to be exact. I raised a point of order and it is described as such: I felt a Member of the Assembly used unparliamentary language to insult me. However, it’s important to note that this was not brought up in a timely way. I quote Speaker Delorey of the day and his quote is as such, when he ruled that it wasn’t a point of order: “I’m going to rule the point of order should have been brought up at the time, so I’m going to rule that you do not have a point of order based on that it should have been brought up at the time the comments were made.”
Madam Speaker, I didn’t raise my point of order of my concern of the language used against me in a timely way. I did it later in the day. Then Speaker Delorey’s ruling, which I accepted, is also precedence, which reminds us, simply stated, that a breach must be brought up in a timely way at its first opportunity. If it isn’t, then the details of the specific grievance, in the end, matter little.
Proper process is the key, Madam Speaker, and I certainly agree. Minister Miltenberger, in his view, is telling the House here today that this is his first opportunity to raise this concern, which in essence, in my view, is wrong. I draw the attention of the Assembly towards the simple fact that these words, if they cause such grievance, why he didn’t call a point of order in a timely way at the first opportunity. Why do I say that, Madam Speaker? Because which yesterday was, as a matter of supporting fact, I call everyone’s attention to yesterday’s Hansard. Minister Miltenberger expressed his grievance with my comments and rebuts them repeatedly during several responses to my questions. Not once, Madam Speaker, but five times. Surely if it was such an offence yesterday, a skilled, if not an elder parliamentarian, as he respectfully is, would have made note of the grievance and called a point of order in a respectable time, as highlighted by Speaker Delorey’s earlier ruling.
This reaffirms that this was drawn to his attention at that particular time. It furthermore says, as the rules state, he should have risen to a point of order to address them at that time, but he didn’t.
To tie it a little tighter, Madam Speaker, under Section 319 of Beauchesne’s, “Any Member is entitled, if not bound, to bring to the Speaker’s immediate notice of any instance of breach of order. The Speaker’s attention must be directed to a breach of order at the proper moment, namely the moment it occurred.”
If we respectfully boil this issue down to what it is, Minister Miltenberger didn’t use the words I used to express my feelings on how I feel, which I stressed “in my view.” These are my feelings, in my view, and in my view, they are still my feelings, how I feel. I’m not going to be in any position, Madam Speaker, here to judge Minister Miltenberger’s thoughts or suggestions, perhaps, to the situation. Only he can clarify and he’s welcome to do so.
I’m going to quote two small passages from Beauchesne’s to finish up. Under Section 24, “Parliamentary privilege is a sum of particular rights enjoyed by each House collectively, and its Members, and its Members of the House individually without which could not discharge their functions which exceed those processes by any bodies or individuals. The privileges of Parliament are rights which are absolutely necessary for the due execution of the powers.”
Finally another quote, Madam Speaker, from Section 75, “The privilege of freedom of speech is both the least questioned and the most fundamental rights of a Member of Parliament on the floor of the House and in committee.” Of course, we all know that expands to the Legislature here.
Finally, I say this, Madam Speaker, in closing, we could clear all of these comments up if the government would simply offer sanction and confirm the witness statements made at the in camera meeting held on February 11th to which I cannot specifically refer to because they were made in camera and that would be a breach of the House’s rules. So, we could ask Minister Miltenberger if he would authorize that and we can let the public be the final judge of public accountability on this measure and allow the court of public opinion to make their ruling in their view. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Would anyone else like to speak to the point of order? Premier McLeod.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think the Member has acknowledged the breach and now he’s trying to use process to not withdraw his remarks.
In this House, the process has always been you raise it at the first opportunity and almost every instance that I can recall, the 17th Assembly, the 16th Assembly, invariably the Member waits until the next morning so they have a chance to review Hansard. There’s no process for trying to find out how a Member feels when he’s making the remarks, but it’s very clear that if people outside this House can’t speak to protect themselves and it’s not normal process for them to do so, I think that the Member should withdraw his remarks because it’s inappropriate use in this House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Thank you, Premier McLeod. Any further comment or debate to the point of order? If not, I will take the point of order and the comments that have been made subsequently under advisement and withhold any ruling on that until a future date. Thank you.
