Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order under Rule 24 (h), making allegations against another Member, a House Officer, a witness, or a member of the public; (i) imputes false or hidden motives to another Member; (j) charges another Member with uttering a deliberate falsehood; and/or (k) uses abusive or insulting language of a nature likely to create disorder. I have waited until today to raise this point of order because I wanted to review Hansard.
Yesterday, during Members' Statements, the Member for Monfwi said while speaking of the Honourable Premier, and I quote from page 14 of the unedited Hansard from Wednesday, February 26, 2020:
"Mr. Speaker, the Premier has confused her powers under the Public Service Act with the Minister of Education's powers under the Aurora College Act. In her confusion, I believe she has misled this House and overstepped her authority, in fact breaking the law."
On the same page, the Member also said, and I quote:
"If these statutory realities aren't enough to convince the Premier of the errors of her ways, the Aurora College Act offers one other bit of guidance that should have told her she was exceeding her powers. For added clarity, section 19(3) of the Aurora College Act states that, for greater certainty, the Minister's authority to appoint the president "operates notwithstanding the Public Service Act."
And finally, on the same page, the Member stated, and I quote:
"It should be troubling to this House that the Premier would play so free and easy with something as sanctified as the duly enacted statutes of this House. It makes one wonder where else she might choose to exceed her authority as a Premier. I believe her misconduct warrants an apology to this House and a pledge to us that this will never happen again. Masi, Mr. Speaker."
Additionally, during Question Period, the Member for Monfwi stated at page 31:
"Section 19(3) of the Aurora College Act, which is a law that we follow, "for greater certainty," the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment's authority to appoint and hence terminate the president of Aurora College "operates notwithstanding the Public Service Act."
The Member further stated, and I quote:
"Will Premier Cochrane apologize to this House for overstepping her authority in terminating the Aurora College president?"
And finally, and I quote:
"Masi, Mr. Speaker. Since I am not getting the answer the public is expecting, at a later time, I am tabling a document that is legal advice that I received and let the public decide on this. Masi, Mr. Speaker."
Mr. Speaker, the Member then tabled document 42-19(2): A Legal Opinion from the Deputy Law Clerk regarding the "Legal Authority to terminate the appointment of the Aurora College President."
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Member's words and actions in this Chamber yesterday seriously violate the rules of order and decorum in this House in a variety of ways and I will attempt to separate them and express my concerns.
1. Accusations against another Member/Abusive or Insulting Language Likely to Create Disorder (Rule 24(h) and (k)):
Firstly, Mr. Speaker, the Member has made serious allegations against another Member of this House. The Member has alleged that the Honourable Premier overstepped her authority, misled the House and broke the law. These are very serious allegations Mr. Speaker. The effect of the Member's words create doubt about the integrity of the Premier and appear to reflect an intent to discredit the Premier in the minds of the public. The effect of this is that the Member has created disorder in this House.
Mr. Speaker, the Member has suggested that the Premier broke the law, and has further suggested that the public should consider that the Honourable Premier is capable of further abuses of authority. Such allegations and suggestions could easily contribute to the public perception that unlawful activities are actually, or at least likely, taking place.
These allegations are serious, Mr. Speaker. Public confidence in good governance is essential. We must take these allegations very seriously as a government.
The Premier, Members of the Executive Council, and, in fact, all Members of this Legislative Assembly are required to operate within the confines of the law.
In addition, our Members are bound by a Code of Ethics that they have agreed to follow.
Mr. Speaker, the remarks from the Member for Monfwi seem to suggest a deep mistrust of government and specifically the Premier that I don't believe are helpful in advancing the business of the Assembly or maintaining a positive working relationship in this House. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Member's remarks are so serious that they are likely to create disorder in the House.
Maintaining a positive working relationship in this House is critical to the success for the operation of a consensus government. In fact, Mr. Speaker, our own Guiding Principles of Consensus Government in the NWT state that:
"As with all parliamentary systems of government, a healthy level of tension must exist between Cabinet and Regular Members. While the ultimate goal of the Regular Members is not to defeat or discredit Cabinet, it is their job responsibility to review and monitor the leadership and direction of Cabinet and hold it to account."
Mr. Speaker, the Member's accusations against the Premier crossed the line. The Member for Monfwi went well beyond merely holding the Premier to account and instead, it appears as though the remarks were intended to discredit the Premier in the eyes of the public. Mr. Speaker, I believe the Member's remarks used unparliamentary language and violate the established rules and practices of this Assembly.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, in dealing with unparliamentary language, it is not just the words that matter. In the second edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 2009, it is noted at page 619 that the tone, manner, and intention of the Member speaking and whether the remarks create disorder in the Chamber also matter.
I believe that anyone listening to the Member's statement and questions yesterday would conclude that he was accusing the Premier of misleading the House and breaking the law. Such allegations create disorder, are un-parliamentary and a violation of the Rules of this Assembly.
2. Imputing False Motives (Rule 24(i))
Mr. Speaker, the Member for Monfwi also implied that there is a likely risk that the Premier would ignore the laws of this territory and intentionally exceed her authority in other circumstances as well. By stating that the Premier would "play free and easy with something as sanctified as the duly enacted statutes of this House" and that "it makes one wonder where else she might choose to exceed her authority as a Premier" implies that the Premier may have false or improper motives in executing her authority under the law.
Again, Mr. Speaker, this crossed a line. Such language is not in the spirit of holding the government to account. Rather, it is an attempt to discredit a fellow Member. It is against the rules of practice of this Assembly. It is unparliamentary and contravenes the guiding principles of consensus government.
3. Suggesting the existence of legal support proving the Premier broke the law (Rule 24(h))
Mr. Speaker, during Question Period the Member for Monfwi stated that "Section 19(3) of the Aurora College Act states that, 'for greater certainty,' the Minister's authority to appoint the president 'operates notwithstanding the Public Service Act.'" The Member also continued, stating "Section 19(3) of the Aurora College Act, which is a law that we follow, 'for greater certainty,' the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment's authority to appoint and hence terminate the president of Aurora College 'operates notwithstanding the Public Service Act.'"
Further, the Member for Monfwi stated that, "Since I am not getting the answer the public is expecting, at a later time, I am be tabling a document that is legal advice that I received and let the public decide on this."
Mr. Speaker, I believe the Member's comments in this regard suggest a likelihood that the Member had legal authority holding that the Premier broke the law. Mr. Speaker, this is inaccurate. The document tabled by the Member is a legal opinion. It is not legal authority. The tabling of legal opinions are exceptionally rare. The document tabled offers consideration of who has the authority to terminate an appointment. It does not fully consider who has the authority to terminate an employment relationship, which is a critical distinction.
I believe the Member for Monfwi's comments in this regard were inappropriate and unparliamentary.
Therefore, based on all of the evidence above, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully suggest that the Member be directed to withdraw his remarks made during Members' Statements and question period and apologize to this House. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.