Oct. 12, 2023 - House of Assembly Proceedings
First Day in the Legislature and Standing Up for Democracy ! (Case Ref: ES3077)
Premier<PREMIER@novascotia.ca> | Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 10:32 PM |
| To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> | |
Thank you for your email to Premier Houston. This is an automatic confirmation your message has been received. | |
Premier of Ontario | Premier ministre de l’Ontario<Premier@ontario.ca> | Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 10:32 PM |
| To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> | |
Thank you for your email. Your thoughts, comments and input are greatly valued. You can be assured that all emails and letters are carefully read, reviewed and taken into consideration. There may be occasions when, given the issues you have raised and the need to address them effectively, we will forward a copy of your correspondence to the appropriate government official. Accordingly, a response may take several business days. Thanks again for your email. ______ Merci pour votre courriel. Nous vous sommes très reconnaissants de nous avoir fait part de vos idées, commentaires et observations. Nous tenons à vous assurer que nous lisons attentivement et prenons en considération tous les courriels et lettres que nous recevons. Dans certains cas, nous transmettrons votre message au ministère responsable afin que les questions soulevées puissent être traitées de la manière la plus efficace possible. En conséquence, plusieurs jours ouvrables pourraient s’écouler avant que nous puissions vous répondre. Merci encore pour votre courriel. | |
Office of the Premier<scott.moe@gov.sk.ca> | Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 10:32 PM |
| To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> | |
This is to acknowledge that your email has been received by the Office of the Premier. We appreciate the time you have taken to write. NOTICE: This e-mail was intended for a specific person. If it has reached you by mistake, please delete it and advise me by return e-mail. Any privilege associated with this information is not waived. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. Avis: Ce message est confidentiel, peut être protégé par le secret professionnel et est à l'usage exclusif de son destinataire. Il est strictement interdit à toute autre personne de le diffuser, le distribuer ou le reproduire. Si le destinataire ne peut être joint ou vous est inconnu, veuillez informer l'expéditeur par courrier électronique immédiatement et effacer ce message et en détruire toute copie. Merci de votre cooperation. | |
Moore, Rob - M.P.<Rob.Moore@parl.gc.ca> | Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 10:32 PM |
| To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> | |
*This is an automated response*
Thank you for contacting the Honourable Rob Moore, P.C., M.P. office. We appreciate the time you took to get in touch with our office.
If you did not already, please ensure to include your full contact details on your email and the appropriate staff will be able to action your request. We strive to ensure all constituent correspondence is responded to in a timely manner.
If your question or concern is time sensitive, please call our office: 506-832-4200.
Again, we thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ Office of the Honourable Rob Moore, P.C., M.P. Member of Parliament for Fundy Royal | |
Newsroom<newsroom@globeandmail.com> | Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 10:32 PM |
| To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> | |
Thank you for contacting The Globe and Mail. If your matter pertains to newspaper delivery or you require technical support, please contact our Customer Service department
at 1-800-387-5400 or send an email to customerservice@globeandmail. If you are reporting a factual error please forward your email to publiceditor@globeandmail.com Letters to the Editor can be sent to letters@globeandmail.com This is the correct email address for requests for news coverage and press releases. | |
David Amos<david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> | Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 9:55 PM |
| To: pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>, premier <premier@ontario.ca>, "blaine.higgs" <blaine.higgs@gnb.ca>, PREMIER <PREMIER@gov.ns.ca>, premier <premier@gov.ab.ca>, Office of the Premier <scott.moe@gov.sk.ca>, "Pineo, Robert" <rpineo@pattersonlaw.ca>, paulpalango <paulpalango@protonmail.com>, premier <premier@gov.pe.ca>, premier <premier@gov.nl.ca>, premier <premier@leg.gov.mb.ca>, premier <premier@gov.nt.ca>, ".\"premier\"" <premier@gov.bc.ca>, premier <premier@gov.yk.ca>, nsinvestigators <nsinvestigators@gmail.com>, NightTimePodcast <NightTimePodcast@gmail.com>, "Jacques.Poitras" <Jacques.Poitras@cbc.ca> | |
| Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com> | |
From: Elizabeth Smith-McCrossin MLA <mla@esmithmccrossinmla.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2023 00:11:07 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: First Day in the Legislature and Standing Up for Democracy !
(Case Ref: ES3077)
To: david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
 Dear David Amos Today was the first day of the Fall Session of the Legislature. My team and I have a full slate of work prepared to bring the real issues facing the people of Cumberland North to the Legislature. I will strive to bring forth the voices of the people I was elected to represent. Unfortunately, I continue to face possible removal from the Legislature despite being democratically elected by the people of Cumberland North. In the spring, the MLA from Pictou West, Karla MacFarlane, tabled Resolution 598. This resolution asks for my removal. Although the government has not called it for a vote, it sits on the order paper and can be called for a vote any day we are in the Legislature. Today, I stood in the Legislature and read a Point of Order outlining why Resolution 598 is unconstitutional and should be removed from the Order Paper. The Leaders of the Liberal and NDP Caucus and MLA Kelly Reagan stood and spoke to support democracy and fully supported my Point of Order to remove this unconstitutional Resolution. They believe it is a form of threat against me. The Deputy Speaker will make a ruling on this soon. In the meantime, I will continue to work for you and do my absolute best every day. I will share my work on behalf of my constituents regularly while I am in the Legislature. For those interested in my Point of Order, please see below. Also, you can watch my speech along with my colleagues on NS Leg TV. It starts at the 2:00:05 hour mark. https://www.youtube.com/live/ While I am in the Legislature, the constituency office is still open at 5 Ratchford Street, Amherst, NS; the phone number is 902-661-2288. You can email me anytime. You can also contact my Constituency Assistant Dan Gould, assistant@esmithmccrossinmla. Sincerely, Elizabeth Smith-McCrossin (Condensed version which was read) POINT OF ORDER – That Resolution No. 598 (April 3, 2023) is Out of Order Madame Speaker, I rise on a Point of Order with regard to a Motion currently on the Order Paper – Resolution No. 598 of April 3, 2023 – and ask that the Motion be found out of order and removed from the Order Paper in accordance with s.37 of the House of Assembly Rules. With your indulgence, and noting that my Point of Order has been provided to your Office and to the three House Leaders yesterday, I would like to put on the record my rationale for this Point of Order and ask that you take this under consideration and provide a written decision in a timely manner. As briefly as possible, while noting key procedural aspects, I submit the following rationale as to why Resolution No. 598 is not in order. In addition, I am tabling a more detailed version of this argument, with references to relevant authorities, and ask that the tabled version form the basis of my position when you consider this Point of Order. The resolution states that “the member for Cumberland North misled the House, and that she not be allowed to take her seat until such time as she retracts her comments and apologizes. ” First, it is submitted that Resolution No. 598 is unconstitutional. A resolution of this House cannot be in order if the substance of the resolution would be a violation of the Constitution. Specifically, I note s.17 of the Constitution Act, 1867, s.9 of the Bill of Rights of 1689 and the Supreme Court of Canada’s interpretation of Freedom of Expression The Constitution of Canada recognizes the parliamentary privileges as defined by the UK House of Commons at the time of the adoption of the Act in 1867. Those rights and privileges are defined to include Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech, as defined in Canada, includes the freedom not to speak or otherwise compelling a Member of this House to take an action that requires that Member to do something, such as apologize, to which the member is not so inclined. Since the adoption of the Charter of Rights & Freedoms in 1982, s.2(b) of the Charter creates a right to freedom of expression. That right has been defined by the Supreme Court of Canada to include the right not to speak or act. Therefore, the law of Canada recognises freedom of expression to include the freedom not to express. Resolution No. 598, if passed, would require a Member of this House to utter an apology, which would violate my parliamentary privilege of freedom of speech and would be unconstitutional. As such, the resolution is not in order. Second, what is being proposed in Resolution No. 598 is akin to a motion to find a Member in contempt of the House. Since the House of Assembly Rules are silent as to how such matters are raised, it is incumbent on this House to consider how such matters are addressed by the Canadian House of Commons Standing Orders and the Standing Orders and practices of the United Kingdom’s House of Commons. Under the Canadian House of Commons procedures, the raising of a matter of contempt by a Member acknowledges that such a motion must state that the matter, if the motion is passed, will be sent to the appropriate committee in charge of issues of privilege for investigation. In precedence dating back to the 19th Century, the House of Commons has routinely dealt with matters of a question of contempt of a Member by way of a motion to refer the issue to a committee for investigation. In addition, as noted in Maingot’s Parliamentary Immunity in Canada, it is the standard procedure that a motion to find a member in contempt, if passed, shall go to a committee of the House for investigation and recommendation. A similar approach has been standardised in the UK House of Commons as well. Since Resolution No. 598 does not provide for the issue to be sent to a committee for investigation, I submit the resolution is out of order. Third, Resolution No. 598 is out of order because it does not allow the member to whom an accusation of contempt has been made to have the right to respond to such an accusation in accordance with procedural fairness or the principles of natural justice. In short, Resolution No. 598 does not give the accused his or her “day in court”. In the case of this House, that would mean a hearing conducted by the Committee on Internal Affairs in which the accused member could testify, have the right to counsel and otherwise respond to the accusations made in a motion for contempt. Again, the House Rules are silent on this issue, but we can turn to the practices and procedures of the UK House of Commons to see that procedural fairness has been accepted as an integral component of an investigation in the accusation of contempt by a Member. As noted in Erskine May, in 1999 and in 2013 UK House of Commons committees looking into this issue confirmed the need for procedural fairness when a member is facing potential suspension. Fourth, it is submitted that Resolution No. 598 is out of order and cannot be placed on the Order Paper for possible calling for debate because such a motion must take precedence over other debates in the House. Since the Resolution has not been called for debate for more than six months, the motion is out of order for not being debated and the accusation of contempt being adjudicated by the House and its Committee on Internal Affairs in a timely manner. In short, a resolution making an accusation of contempt must be debated forthwith. If not, it is out of order as a result of the delay. Finally, I raise this Point of Order because there is something inherently inappropriate about a motion in this House that, if debated and passed, would allow for a Member of this House to be suspended indefinitely with no opportunity to defend oneself or to have the matter adjudicated by a committee of this House. If this motion is in order, it begs the question, what is stopping any government from using its parliamentary majority to systematically move a motion to suspend a member from the House indefinitely against every member of the opposition in order to eliminate the opposition bench, a key tenet of a democratic system? I ask that you take into consideration these arguments and I ask your indulgence to reserve your decision on this Point of Order until a written decision can be produced. Elizabeth Smith-McCrossin MBA, BScN Cumberland North MLA Excellence in Health care is my priority If you are looking for work in Health care please join one of our teams in Cumberland, For more information please contact me and take a look at these links: Cumberland Regional (Close to Amherst) Hospital: https:// Pugwash Hospital (brand new facility summer 2023) : https://pugwashhealthcare. 2.jpg) | |
No comments:
Post a Comment