Colleagues, I will now also provide my ruling on the point of order raised by Mr. Miltenberger on Thursday, February 13, 2014, regarding comments made by Mr. Hawkins the previous day.

The question of whether a point of order has been raised at the earliest opportunity is decided on a case-by-case basis. In this instance, I find that it was reasonable for Minister Miltenberger to wait to consult the unedited Hansard prior to making his point of order, and that the point of order was, therefore, raised at the earliest opportunity. There are many precedents for this finding.

Minister Miltenberger’s point of order, at page 2 of the unedited Hansard for February 13th , is that in

his comments on February 12th Mr. Hawkins

“clearly accused deputy ministers of deliberate criminal behaviour.”

Freedom of speech in debates and proceedings is one of the cornerstones of parliamentary privilege. It is there to ensure that Members have the liberty to speak in this Chamber without, for example, the threat of being subject to legal proceedings under defamation laws. However, with that privilege comes a responsibility to govern ourselves in a way that befits the dignity of this House and respects the rights of others who do not have a direct voice in our proceedings.

This view is consistent with the rulings of Speaker Gargan and Speaker Delorey quoted by Mr. Miltenberger in speaking to his point of order. As stated in O’Brien and Bosc’s House of Commons Procedure and Practice at page 617: “Members have a responsibility to protect the innocent, not only from outright slander, but from any slur directly or indirectly implied.”

In speaking to the point of order, Mr. Hawkins quoted Beauchesne’s Parliamentary Rules and Forms at paragraph 75. I would draw your attention,

colleagues, to paragraph 77 of the same text, which states: “Freedom of speech does not mean that Members have an unlimited or unrestrained right to speak on every issue. The rules of the House impose limits on the participation of Members and it is the duty of the Speaker to restrain those who abuse the rules.”

Colleagues, parliamentary immunity was never intended to serve as a wall Members can hide behind to hurl insults and accusations at persons who are not Members of this House and cannot reply in their own defence. To use our freedom of speech in this way violates both common courtesy and the rules of this House.

In reference to deputy ministers, Mr. Hawkins stated, at page 18 of the unedited Hansard from February 12th , “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.” He later stated, “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.”

The category of “deputy ministers” refers to a small, easily identifiable group of individuals. Mr. Hawkins clearly called the personal integrity of these individuals into question by suggesting they have broken the law and re-appropriated money for “pet projects.” Mr. Hawkins’ use of the phrase “in my view” may make his allegations slightly less direct, but does not lessen their impact or significance.

There is a point of order. I will now ask Mr. Hawkins to withdraw his remarks and apologize to the House. Mr. Hawkins.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot compromise and I must hold fast to my principles based on my passion and belief. I am…

I’m asking you to apologize to the House. I’m not going to be listening to what you have in your hand. Apologize and withdraw your remarks. Mr. Hawkins.

I’m fighting for the fair and honest opportunities for Northerners, Mr. Speaker, and because of the real situation of the scandal is my perspective…

Mr. Hawkins, I draw your attention to Rule 25(3) of this Assembly, which states, ”A Member be named by the Speaker for disregarding the authority of the Chair…” and Rule 25(4), which states, “A Member named under Rule 25(2) or (3) shall be suspended from the Assembly for the remainder of the sitting day. A motion without notice may be moved to increase the length of suspension of the named Member and shall be decided without amendment or debate.”

Mr. Hawkins, do you understand the consequences by not withdrawing your remarks as instructed? I will ask you again; do you wish to withdraw your remarks? Yes or no.

Mr. Speaker, I feel that this is a distraction and, as such, I cannot withdraw my remarks to my earlier comments because I felt they were made with honest intention.