Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to speak to the timeliness of the point of privilege; I don't think that's at issue. I wish to speak to really whether or not this is prima facie point of privilege which means, in other words, whether or not on its face what's been raised is such that it would obviously or clearly amount to a breach of the privileges of the House.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak first to the allegation of threats that was made against public servants and, secondly, to the allegations of the threat made against all Members offence the Legislative Assembly.
Mr. Speaker, I was present on more than one occasion when I heard language used by MLA from Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh towards public servants that was more than rude; it was abusive. Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, I was present for the discussion of one very specific graphic metaphor used to imply the lengths to which the MLA would go to exact his revenge against the reputation of staff if he perceived them to be acting in a manner contrary to his interests.
When trying to figure out the intended meaning of words, context is critical. The MLA, by this time, had launched a very public war against the reputation of one of the senior public officials of this building and it was publicly obvious that he intended to pursue that by methods and means of his design. I say this knowing from the publicly-available report in to the office of the clerks that MLA Norn had chose, despite being provided legal counsel, not to fully participate in that formal process and yet continued to make statements about his allegations and beliefs and to use derogatory language about those others who may have been involved.
His behaviour and his speech is that of someone who believe that the rules simply do not apply to him. Within that context, for a public servant to hear a threat that I heard from MLA Norn is going in some way, is going a long way in my view, to leave them feeling vulnerable, to leave them feeling like they would indeed have to take that threat seriously and, indeed, it would very reasonably impact their ability to discharge their duties freely and unimpaired. That, in turn, impedes the work of this House. It impedes the ability of the staff to give us difficult and unpopular advice, difficult and unpopular news, things we may not want to have to listen to but it is for the good of the people of the Northwest Territories that we understand the policies and the laws that we are here to uphold. It erodes the trust necessary for us as elected officials to use our staff to the best of their ability so that we can, in turn, discharge our duties. This is properly a point of privilege.
I'd like secondly to speak to the comments made towards all MLAs. Again, the words that are used in the context of a threat, in my view, should inform the determination of whether someone is using intimidating language or not. It is worth considering both the intention of the speaker as well as the reasonable perspective of the intended recipient. The words themselves, that of whomever backed this I'm coming for you, the "this" in my belief was the beginning of the hearing before the adjudicator set to start that next morning. In my view, that's quite clear. As for what the "I'm coming for you" means, I'll get to that shortly.
Mr. Speaker, one of our duties is to protect the integrity of the Assembly, to uphold the laws and rules that we ourselves are responsible. If we do not submit ourselves to these rules, laws, and procedures, what moral right do we have to ask citizens to follow the laws, the rules, or the procedures that have been created either by this legislature or as a result of its direction?
After MLAs had learned, along with the rest of the public, that the MLA had breached public health orders and had potentially misled the public about his actions, it was incumbent on us as those responsible for the creation of law, including the Public Health Act and the legislature's code of conduct, to take action. We did so in the form of the referral of this matter to the Integrity Commissioner. And I believe every step was taken in good faith and, frankly, necessary for the preservation of the dignity of this House. From there, the processes that followed were those found in the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act. Section 107 of that act says that we, as MLAs, shall consider the disposition of that process.
By threatening all of those who "backed" the actions that launched the inquiry and the hearing, the MLA, in my view, is telling us very clearly that any further actions or statements that any one of us have to make in relation to his conduct or potential discipline under the code will be met with him "coming" for us. Very clear, Mr. Speaker, I understood those words as a message that should we continue discharge our duties by following in good faith the laws, rules, and procedures established by this Assembly, that MLA Norn will come for us when he disagrees with those laws, rules or procedures. Specifically, that he will come for us if we act in good faith, as MLAs, in an effort to discharge our duties on behalf of the people of the Northwest Territories. That leaves one last thing, Mr. Speaker.
What does it mean to say "I'm coming for you." Again, in the full context of all of what has been going on, the public statements, the media statements, the participation or lack thereof, it seems to me that this means that the speaker will be coming in some form of revenge. I believe the intention was to intimidate us emotionally and psychologically. If we look at the totality of the circumstances of all that has occurred in the last several months, I believe at minimum that the revenge contemplated was in the form of reputational attack. As politicians, reputation is essential capital to discharge our duties. For us to trust one another and for our residents to trust us, we must have reputations for integrity and honesty and decency. The scary thing about reputation is that if someone in a position of trust and authority, such as an MLA, makes public statements against someone else, even if those statements may be totally without basis or evidence, the subject's reputation is immediately at risk of reputational harm.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that MLA Norn's threat was made against us for acting in our professional capacity, for speaking honestly and frankly, for acting in our professional duties on behalf of constituents who had raised their concerns about his disregard for public health orders and process. I believe this was a threat against us for putting into motion the legal processes the legislature itself has established to deal with exactly these situations, and it is a threat of reputational harm for actions that we took in the course of our elected duties.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I believe the intention of this threat was to intimidate us into silence and inaction in our professional capacity so that we do not speak on behalf of the residents who have raised their concerns and certainly not to speak specifically in this House about the MLA's actions. In the totality of the circumstances, in Mr. Norn's conduct and including public statements, lead me to believe that should we fail to heed this threat the MLA would make every effort to cause any one of us, if not all of us, reputational harm in any manner he sees fit. For all of those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you find that there is a prima facie case for point of privilege. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.