Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Firstly I would like to thank MLA Martselos for bringing this point of privilege. I want to begin by explaining a bit of procedural issues for those who are watching.
This current point of privilege is not the sole adjudicator's report, it is not the motion recommended in that, this is a point of privilege to anything that was outside of the four corners of the report and as such we should not be speaking about what was within the terms of reference of that report. However, I do think that it is important that this point of privilege is raised so that the entire context for when we have the debate about the motion to remove can be provided. I believe that is why this point of privilege was brought.
I want to begin by, Mr. Norn called me rather upset and he said, "If you come for my family, I come for you."
I want to clarify when I first received this, I did not interpret it as a threat, of a physical threat, and in fact I didn't even necessarily interpret it as one directed at me, more as a general principle that if someone comes for Mr. Norn's family he comes for them. And he immediately apologized after that, and we went on to have our discussion which was somewhat amicable.
I don't believe that matter on its own would meet the prima facie test for a point of privilege. However, as the Member has raised, this is also occurred to staff and then ultimately to all Caucus members and at some point, Mr. Speaker, these general threats of "I'm coming for you" amount to a breach of our privileges to feel safe in this House, to feel safe in our jobs, and a doubt starts to creep in to exactly what that means with no explanation provided by Mr. Norn.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to clarify that I, as Caucus chair, have worked to resolve this not on the floor of the House, not in such and adversarial way, and it has been extremely difficult.
Most recently, at a December 13th Caucus meeting when these specific threats from staff were raised, Mr. Norn did not deny any of the alleged incidents nor did he apologize for them. In fact, Mr. Speaker, he became visibly upset, raised his voice during the meeting and left. Before leaving, he told Members that he would only take further questions through his lawyer.
Mr. Speaker, the idea of a Member in our Caucus saying they will not be questioned or held accountable and all questions have to go through a lawyer breaks down the fundamental way we try to resolve differences in this House. We do not operate through each other with a legal counsel. We are all here as colleagues, as equals, of the 19th Assembly.
Mr. Speaker, you have a two-part test:
Whether this was raised at the earliest opportunity; I don't believe there is any doubt about that. This is first day of session since all of these events occurred.
The second part of the test is whether these meet a prima facie case of privilege. I think that this pattern of behaviour meets that test. This is not behaviour we can let be tolerated. If there was a ruling that this does not meet the prima facie, then any Member is allowed to threaten and it is not a privilege of this House to come in here and feel safe in our workplace. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.