HON. MICHELLE THOMPSON: The Nova Scotia Health Authority and the primary care team that works there are responsible for attaching individuals through the primary care strategy and making sure people are attached. I have faith in that team. These are clinicians, these are doctors, these are nurses, and these are managers who've worked in the Nova Scotia Health Authority for a long time. They work tirelessly, and I believe they are telling the truth, unlike the member opposite.

They are telling people that we . . .

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN: Victims of sexual assault, victims of sexual harassment, sexual violence, and sexual battery deserve more. Right now, they have been silenced. Too many have been silenced by non-disclosure agreements in this province. Many fall into depression. Many struggle with mental illness after years of this. Some have requested to meet with the Premier, and they're very discouraged that he has not been willing to meet with them. The question has to be asked: Who is this government protecting?

LISA LACHANCE: Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier in Question Period, the Premier used unparliamentary language referring to the Leader as spreading misinformation. I believe that is unparliamentary language, and we would like it retracted.

DAMIAN STOILOV: I rise today on a point of order. Yesterday during debate on Resolution No. 5, the member for Halifax Armdale, a physician, said the following: "I apologize for the hacking and coughing the last two weeks. Although not one to blame and shame, I did seem to start to cough on February 10^th after I shook hands with the member for Bedford South, who was coughing at that time."

KRISTA GALLAGHER: I commend the government for finally listening to Nova Scotians and walking back the undemocratic plan to muzzle the Auditor General. We are relieved that the government decided to do the right thing, but the changes should not have been proposed in the first place. Now that they have admitted they have done wrong to attack the Auditor General's independence, they should be honest about why these changes were proposed in the first place.

PAUL WOZNEY: Point of order, Speaker, but is it parliamentary to suggest that someone has presented something that is not factual intentionally in the House?

THE SPEAKER: When you are making rulings on a point of order, it has to do with how they say something. In no way did that member say that the other member intentionally misled. He had stated misunderstood, may not have read it correctly, yada, yada, yada. I know you've been here for a long time now (laughs), but I trust in the decisions made by the Clerk and myself when it comes to things like that.

CLAUDIA CHENDER: None of this is necessary. What these rule changes are designed to do is to stifle debate on controversial legislation that this government wants to bring. My message to this government is: If you stand behind your platform, if you're putting the "Yes" in Nova Scotia, or whatever your smear campaigns that you're sending out to your constituents say - I retract that.

CLAUDIA CHENDER: Instead of attaching people to primary care, protecting renters, building homes that people can afford, this Premier has decided that his top priority is hiding information and keeping Nova Scotians in the dark about what their government is doing. Silencing dissent and reducing access to information hurts our democracy. Over the past number of days, my colleagues and I have been inundated with messages from Nova Scotians from one end of this province to the other who are deeply troubled . . .

THE SPEAKER: You're speaking too much to the House and not to me: you guys, you, you, you. I ask that you keep it on track. Thank you. You did it once, and I was going to let you get away with it, but you've moved on and done it too many times.

The honourable member for Sydney-Membertou.

DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE: I respect your decision. That is the Cape Bretoner coming out in me when I use those terms. That's right. You put an "s" at the end of "you" - "yous". That's been used in a democratic forum before.

PAUL WOZNEY: A question for clarification: When raising unparliamentary language, my understanding is that you get to make your case once. Are we now in the habit of allowing people to make supplementary applications for unparliamentary behaviour? Is that a change to process in the House that we should all be aware of?