Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of ITI gave a very vague answer to my last question and did not answer fully on the expansion of the Taltson River Expansion. Will the Minister, in her capacity as ITI and the finance Minister, engage with the Salt River First Nation, whom's reserve lands border the Taltson Dam and they also consider this their traditional territory, whether bilateral meetings could take place to bring Salt River back to the table in this very important project with the expansion of the Taltson; and, moreover, we as a government to move forward in a positive way on this project and reinstate their consultation funds in order to do this. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Member for Thebacha. Minister responsible for Industry, Tourism, and Investment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Salt River First Nation was one of the Indigenous groups that had signed on to the Memorandum of Understanding process and, along with the GNWT and other Indigenous governments who are in the area affected by energy generation potentially, and who would therefore have potentially an interest in participating in the design of the program. There have been two steering committee meetings thus far of this group; however, at the first one Salt River First Nation decided they did not want to participate in the MOU process.

That is certainly their prerogative, Mr. Speaker. We can't certainly force anyone to participate in this MOU process that we've designed collaboratively with the other Indigenous governments. And I would love to see them come back to that table. I think all of the members of the steering committee, all of the Indigenous governments as well, would like to see them return to that table, and I am certainly hopeful that we will see them back so that we can collectively design what this project might look like. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In order to do that, I think that there has to be a process that has to be followed to ensure that the main proponent in this whole Taltson Expansion is consulted, and I think that it's our duty as a government to ensure that they are brought back to the table. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I would like to see that. Would the Minister confer on that? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, Mr. Speaker, again, I certainly will commit to reaching out again. And I think that the steering committee also is directing that we reach out collectively and try to ensure that memorandum of understanding is, to its fullest, utilized in the design of the project.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to consultation, absolutely; when there is a project to consult on, if the Salt River First Nation hasn't come back to the MOU process, which again certainly hoping that they do, if that's their choice not to then, absolutely, any and all Indigenous governments on whose traditional lands and territories a project would potentially have some impact will be consulted. We're not at that stage yet, Mr. Speaker. We don't have a project to consult on. But when we do, we most certainly will be consulting with those who are potentially affected. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Minister. Oral questions, Member for Thebacha. Oh, colleagues our time for oral questions has expired. Written questions. Returns to written questions. Replies to Commissioner's address. Petitions. Reports of committees on the review of bills. Reports of standing and special committees. Tabling of documents. Minister responsible for Education, Culture, and Employment.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the following two documents: Operating Plans for Northwest Territories Education Bodies for the 2021-2022 School Year Ending June 30, 2022, Volumes 1 and 2; and Annual Reports for the Education Bodies of the Northwest Territories for 2021-2022 School Year Ending June 30, 2021, Volumes 1, 2, and 3. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Minister. Tabling of documents. Notices of motion. Motions. Notices of motion for the first reading of bills. First reading of bills. Second reading of bills. Consideration in Committee of the Whole of bills and other matters, Bill 23, Bill 29, Bill 38, Tabled Document 561-19(2), with Member for Deh Cho in the chair.

---SHORT RECESS

Mr. Chair, I rise on a point of order under Rule 3.2(3)(m). I waited until today to raise this point of order because I wanted to review Hansard, and I'm raising it at the earliest opportunity at the commencement of Committee of the Whole where the remarks at issue were made.

During Committee of the Whole yesterday while the Minister of the ENR and departmental officials debated the main estimates for the department, the Member for Monfwi asked questions about the barren-ground caribou mobile management zone. In that context, the MLA said the following as quoted from the unedited Hansard: But the assistant said it's going to take, like, at least 60 days to, you know -- to get the word out. But we don't have 60 days.

According to Rule 3.2(3)(m), a Member can be called to order if the Member introduces any matter in the debate that offends the practices and precedents of this Assembly.

This House has long abided by the practice to not make statements in the House about an individual who is not a Member of this House and who is not present to defend themselves. The MLA for Monfwi makes statements about a specific individual who was not in the House.

Further, the MLA said the following as quoted from unedited Hansard: Because you -- some people are saying that that is not true. It's not true that why did -- it's not true that why did they -- did the boundary so big. They're not telling people the truth. End quote.

Mr. Speaker, the proceedings of this House are based on the long-standing tradition of respect for the integrity of all Members. This includes refraining from the use of unparliamentary language. The Member for Monfwi used language in the Assembly which offends our rules of debate, order, and decorum when she said, quote, "they are not telling the truth", end quote.

Finally, the Member's comments offended the practices of this Assembly because they undermined our consensus government system by attempting to discredit the Minister.

Yesterday, the Minister of ENR stated that he did not want to be the Minister of "no caribou." This was an expression of his passion for ensuring the safety of the Bathurst caribou herd and the measures put in place to protect from decline.

In response to that, the MLA for Monfwi stated: Yes, well, if the Minister doesn't want to be known as the Minister who got rid of all the Bathurst or known of getting rid of certain species, then I think he should change or do a Cabinet shuffle because that's not what the answer that we wanted to hear. End quote.

The guiding principles for consensus government in the NWT say that, "Consensus government is defined by the ability and willingness of all Members of a Legislative Assembly to work together within their respective roles for the collective good of the people of the Northwest Territories."

While the guiding principles also recognize that a healthy level of tension must exist between Cabinet and Regular Members, the ultimate goal of Regular Members is not to defeat or discredit Cabinet.

The MLA for Monfwi's remarks were taken to mean, by the Minister, that he should be shuffled from his portfolio of Environment and Natural Resources for not giving the response that the MLA wants regarding the conservation of the Bathurst caribou herd. This exceeds the healthy level of tension that is expected in debates in the House. As a whole, this type of exchange is not helpful to advancing the business of the Assembly or to maintaining a positive working relationship in the House. On this basis, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully suggest that the MLA for Monfwi be directed to withdraw her remarks and apologize to this House. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mahsi, Government House Leader and Minister Simpson. The Point of Order has been raised regarding the comments made yesterday during Committee of the Whole by Ms. Weyallon-Armstrong. I will allow debate on the Point of Order.

Ms. Weyallon-Armstrong, would you like to respond.

Sit? Okay. Okay, Mr. Chair, thank you. Mr. Chair, I have listened to the Point of Order raised by the Government House Leader and respectfully disagree.

Mr. Chair, I am a passionate advocate for my constituents, and I am here to speak on their behalf. In response to the House -- to the honourable Member's first Point of Order, I do not believe I violated Rule 3.2(3)(m). The honourable Member suggests I made a statement in the House about an individual who is not a Member of the House and is not present to defend themselves.

First, I did not name an individual person. I referred to an unnamed assistant acting in an official capacity who was relaying information on the Minister's behalf.

As noted in House of Common's Procedures and Practice Third Edition 2017, Chapter 3, Privileges and Immunities, Speakers have stated that Members need to express their opinions in a direct fashion but caution that citizens' representation should not be unfairly attacked.

In ruling on the question of privilege involving an individual who was not a Member of the House, Speaker Fraser expressed concern that the person had been referred to by name. That was not the case here. No one's reputation has been specifically attacked.

Second, the Minister was given an opportunity to respond to my comments. There was no need for the assistant to defend themselves. If the information relayed to the Minister's assistant was incorrect, the Minister and his deputy -- deputy both had the opportunity to correct -- to correct it.

As a result, Mr. Chair, I respectfully submit that on the first point there is no Point of Order.

I will now address the honourable Member's second Point of Order that I used unparliamentary language.

The honourable Member suggests that I offended the rules of debate, order, and decorum when I used the words "they are not telling the truth". Mr. Chair, those words are not unparliamentary language. I was expressing what my constituents have been saying to me. As recorded in the unedited Hansard, I said the following: Some people are saying that that is not true. It's not true that why did they -- why did they did the boundary so big. They're not telling people the truth. And for the record, what I would like the Member to do is that -- it is that can he repeat who was the zone developed by because people would like to know the truth about that one. Who was the zone developed by."

Mr. Chair, I was expressing what people have said -- have said to me about decisions made about the size of the zone. People were telling me that they believe they were not being told the truth. I shared this with the Minister and gave him, the Minister, the opportunity to explain who developed the zone so that information could be public and clear to the constituents.

On February 21st, 2003, Speaker Whitford cited Marlowe and Monpetit noted that when dealing with unparliamentary language, the Speaker must take into account the tone, manner, and intention of the Member speaking the person to whom the words were directed, the degree of provocation and, most importantly, whether or not the remarks created disorder in the Chamber. He went on to note that the language must have the character of being abusive and insulting.

In this case, I would suggest my words did not create disorder. The Chair encouraged Members to exercise caution with their words but gave the Minister the opportunity to respond and set out the facts. As a result, Mr. Chair, I respectfully submit on the honourable Member's second point, there is no Point of Order.

In regards to the honourable Member's third point, it is suggested that my comment that the Minister be shuffled went beyond the healthy level of tension that must exist between Cabinet and Regular Members. Mr. Chair, as stated previously, I am a passionate advocate for my constituents who, despite being 2022, are facing challenges accessing clean water and traditional foods. However, I appreciate my comments, while political commentary, exceeded the normal bounds of debate and for that I apologize for those comments, and I withdraw those remarks. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mahsi, Ms. Weyallon-Armstrong. Thank you again, and I will take the matter under advisement. We will take a -- okay, yeah, Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Yeah, if you're willing to entertain debate from other Members, I'd like to make a few remarks if I could.

Yeah, we will allow the debate. Mahsi, Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I appreciate, you know, the Government House Leader raising this Point of Order and the words from the Member as well, and I support -- I do not believe that there's -- the first item is a Point of Order that Rule 3.2(3)(m) has been breached in any way. That rule reads, you know, that a Member should not introduce any matter in debate that offends practices and precedents of the Assembly.

I believe that the words of the Member were that the departmental official said something. I don't believe that that offends anybody in this House but I don't believe that there's any grounds for a Point of Order. We have to have the ability, as Members, to raise issues on what we hear from government officials in the course of our debates and discussions here, and I don't believe that it was done -- and there were no allegations made against this individual. The individual wasn't even named. So I don't believe that there is anything here in terms of a Point of Order on the first item.

And I'm not going to speak to the second one.

And given that the Member has withdrawn her remarks on the third one, I believe that was the right course of action, and I look forward to your ruling, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Mahsi, Mr. O'Reilly. Ms. Nokleby.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not going to speak to the technicality of the Point of Order because this is an area on which I'm still myself trying to learn and understand as someone who has struggled with, you know, perhaps how I phrase things and my choice of words in this House. I definitely have a lot of empathy for my colleague from Monfwi who has come into the Assembly halfway through and tried to pick up in what was a very, very trying and troubling time for all of us.

I would ask that the Government House Leader, or whoever makes this decision, that they take that into account, that we've all had moments in this House where we have said things that perhaps we shouldn't have, myself included, and therefore I do not find that while the Member may have gotten passionate about it, it was done with true intent for her people, and I think that should be weighed into it. Thank you.

Mahsi, Ms. Nokleby. I will take the matter under advisement, and we shall take a short recess. Mahsi.

---SHORT RECESS

Members, we shall take a five-minute break and resume to deal with the Point of Order. Mahsi.

---SHORT RECESS

All right, I'll now call the Committee of the Whole back to order.

On the Points of Order raised by the Government House Leader, points 1 and 2, I find there is no Point of Order on those, and the Member has apologized on the third point and the committee will accept that apology. And we've concluded that Point of Order.

So Member for Frame Lake, what is the wish of committee?

Mahsi, Mr. Chair. Committee wishes to consider Tabled Document 561-19(2), Main Estimates 2022-2023 with Northwest Territories Housing Corporation. Mahsi, Mr. Chair.

Does committee agree?