Thank you, Member from Yellowknife North. To the motion. Member from the Sahtu.

Thank you, Member from Sahtu. To the motion. Member from Yellowknife Centre.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Although I may not have been around as long as you have per se, but I've been around a while in this process and to me, this motion is rolling out the welcome mat for censorship. I'm not going to overstate -- and I insist this is not an overstatement when I say, you know, what's next? You know, do we have the 1984 George Orwell thought police on, you know, we didn't like the Members' or the Ministers' decisions so I'm thinking bad thoughts? Like, out of frustration, obviously, and I certainly wouldn't do them, but I'm just saying where do we stop next? Is this a situation -- is this a novel being written by Philip K. Dick? Who knows? Controlling our thoughts, asking us. It's honestly a slippery slope and, as my colleague had said, like, where does it end? You know, and that's what really worries me is it's rolling out, again, the welcome mat for censorship. Limiting free speech honestly undermines individual autonomy I have, you have, my colleagues have. And, you know, rightly so. That last decision, you know, your authority as Speaker of this House to help us ends at the door or at the end of the precinct, Mr. Speaker. And to me, we can't let Members who want to downplay the seriousness or the consequences of what's happening. They're kind of missing the point. We're opening up the doors to this type of censorship and it's, you know -- it's abhorrent to the overall principles of our Assembly.

It will stifle free exchange of ideas, opposing ideas, ideas that people speak both frankly and passionately, and sometimes it takes a special ear to hear the difference. And what I mean by that is I remember being at a wonderful speech Perry Bellegarde was giving, and I was really excited listening to him, and he got louder -- and I'm going to emphasize just by way of -- louder -- and I'm just emphasizing -- louder, and he stopped, and he goes, I'm not yelling, I'm just excited. But somebody only heard the volume and thought he was yelling, but then the moment you stop and think about maybe the words, it's their passion sending the message. And I really enjoyed that little comment he had provided. Because it's true, the writer, or in his case the speaker, was sending a message. Which message are you hearing? Which message do you want to hear? Which message do you refuse to hear or acknowledge? I really like that man's context because to me, it made a big difference on how I listen to people sometimes or sometimes how I hear people sometimes.

So I mean, we could go on or get dramatic about the democratic process and as important and fundamental that is, it can't be overlooked. I mean, the moment that we allow this type of censorship, suppression of dissent to me, just, it starts to get -- like, I get a chill down my spine thinking about who is going to police Members; are we policing Members? So why do we police Members when certain people in the public say way, way, way worse things than us; do we police them next? Is that the next thing? Because if a Member is making a comment on social media that offends another Member well, why wouldn't we be policing the public, then, if it offended a Member of this House? Like, where does it stop? That's the point. The code of conduct, I actually really strongly and adamantly believe this is a lowering the bar of offences, finding ways to find offence, putting Members at risk, risk that's unfortunate, risk that you have to accept in this business that people will be disagreeable and sometimes very strongly disagreeable.

Mr. Speaker, when we have that risk, then it'll be Members deciding about the continuity and we'll be voting on oh, well, that hurt their feelings or that hurt their opinion, and I completely disagree, or we feel that that might have misled the circumstances. And that will then roll the ball onto the next process. Well, we need an inquiry and a process, and we welcome more complaints. I mean, how many times has there been complaints about stuff that ends up growing legs? I mean, we had complaints that were dismissed through the last Assembly through the Integrity Commissioner about someone swearing at someone in the public. I mean, yes, good behaviour matters and, I mean, I make no exception to it. I've had less good behaviour at times. I know it's hard to believe for most of you. But the truth is I'm full of energy and passion, and sometimes that's exactly what that is and what's driving sort of how I believe. To stifle this, you're suppressing people from being people and their passion, and that's what bothers me, is their passion.

I'm also going to sidestep but also draw to a very important example. We've all heard of conflict of interest in one form or another. In the principles I was once told by someone very wise before me and said it's actually used as a shield to protect those at risk. It's a reminder that the conflict of interest is to ensure that you're safe from something that it's okay you're in conflict with, but it's there to protect you just as much as it's to protect everyone else. But unfortunately, in many cases, it's used as the sword to come after someone, and they wield it with great indiscriminate behaviour and it ties more time up. So, again, I can only imagine -- I don't know what the final bill of that last inquiry was but, I mean, my goodness, where -- you know, we have to remind freedom of speech comes at a cost, so does defending it come at a cost, and so does proving one side right or the wrong comes at a cost.

Mr. Speaker, I've heard Members say this is about stopping falsehoods, spreading -- by spread by Members online. And I don't see anything in this motion that really focuses in on that. Decorum and disorder is a challenging thing. So who exclusively will oversee that falsehood? I mean, that's a funky sort of process. It's okay to disagree, and it's okay to be passionately disagreeable. I remember there was a former Member from the -- well, it would have been the Monfwi riding in the old days, I think it was called North Slave. And he was very clever in his disagreement. I mean, how many times would he have been charged before this when he often said the Minister and the truth go in two different directions, you know, and he'd come up with these clever anecdotes to talk about how he'd feel things. So if he said that today on Facebook of his frustration that he didn't believe the Minister or didn't believe they were being honest, they would be brought before this House in some form, his personal passionate disagreement. In the House, I appreciate the fact that you can't use that language or those types of tricky words and process. In other words, you can have two truths in the House that point in two different directions. But I worry freedom of speech must be protected at any cost because once you crack that door open, this is what we're going to see.

First, it's going to be like who shamed me on Facebook? Let's haul them in before the committee and fine them. Let's haul them before us on bended knee and shame them for making -- so then Members will no longer use their media. That's the idea. Maybe that's what the nature of this motion is, to control Members. Maybe that's what it is. It's a fundamental right that aligns with who we are as Canadians, and many worlds and democracies share this. And I won't quote the Voltaire quote, but we all know that about defending and supporting opposition points of view. Yeah, I don't like what you're saying, but I will respect that you want to say it.

I think it's right that certain aspects of speech should be limited, although I don't profess to be an expert but I'm going to say when it comes to hate speech as an example, there's many examples, that's when the process should be kicking in. But when a Member is passionate online, where does it end?

So, Mr. Speaker, I'm worried about where we're going next. It's not overstating that are we looking at a George Orwell times or Philip K. Dick times once we start this, imagining what people said. Well, I think you kind of said this and I think you kind of implied this. And where does it go? I'm just going to say that I think it's a -- it's scary as I've ever been -- it's more scary than some of the decisions I've heard of this government, Mr. Speaker. I'm that worried about where it will go next. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Member from Yellowknife Centre. To the motion. Member from Hay River North.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So I'll be supporting this motion, and I'll say right now that when it comes to these types of motions about the rules of the House, there's no Cabinet position so all Cabinet Ministers are going to vote how they feel. You know, I won't presuppose the outcome of -- you know, if this motion passes, I won't presuppose the outcome of the committee report. I won't presuppose that it will recommend that all -- that we allow complaints to the Integrity Commissioner for everything said on Facebook that offends someone. I mean, if that's what the report says, then obviously I would vote against that. So I'm not scared that we're going to wind up in a situation where any time anyone opens their mouth outside of this House we'll have an Integrity Commissioner complaint. I think that's a bit much.

But we are in a post truth era, Mr. Speaker, where truth is beginning to take a backseat to a motion and to people's personal beliefs. People live in echo chambers on social media. They don't bother searching out the truth. They see an official, an elected official, and they make an assumption that what that person is saying is true. We know that's not the case. We see what happens when elected officials go on social media, spread misinformation, spread disinformation. It threatens democracy. The entire world right now is in a crisis, a democratic crisis, and social media and the comments made by politicians on social media have a role to play in that. So I don't think this is farfetched, the idea that we want to look at that sphere.

I am, you know -- I think it's worthwhile to examine it. It's going to have to be some very well-crafted recommendations that really don't infringe on free speech to the greatest extent possible for me to support it. You know, even standing up here, you know, no matter what comes out of this, I'm probably leaning -- right now I'm leaning towards well, maybe I won't support whatever comes out of this report, but I want to see what comes out of the report. I think it's worthwhile to have that conversation. There's been -- you know, I hear about the comments that people make on social media, elected officials, and then I hear what the results of that. That empowers other people to make similar comments. It empowers them themselves to go after elected officials. There's real life consequences of the comments that officials in this territory make for other people, for those other people's families. So this isn't, you know -- this isn't a situation where we haven't seen any sort of impact from these comments. This is a response to things that are actually happening today. And I know the Integrity Commissioner was quoted earlier, and I also have a quote from the Integrity Commissioner from an October 8th, 2024, ruling: There are limits on what a Member may do and how they may go about what they do. Being a Member is not carte blanche to make or repeat unverified or unfounded allegations. Members have an obligation to inform themselves about the facts.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think that's a very high bar, and that's my concern. I want Members to inform themselves about the facts and I want Members, when conveying information, for that information to be factual as far as the Member is aware and that they've done their due diligence. There's, frankly, too much nonsense out there. There's too many comments that are made outside of this House that everyone knows definitely can't be made inside this House. But they have the same effect. Because of social media, actions outside of this House have a far greater reach than the actions inside this House. And so I think that it's worthwhile for us to at least begin to look into this because we could be heading down a path of the United States. We see instances in Canada where we are going down that slippery slope where social media comments are eroding democracy, are empowering, emboldening people who would do damage to our democracy.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think that this is something where we want to get ahead of this. We don't want to be talking in a number of years about why we never looked into this at all. So I'm supportive of this motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Member from Hay River North. To the motion. Member from Kam Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, let me be clear from the outset I do not believe in censorship or anything that stifles anyone's ability to speak truth to power, but I do believe in the need for responsible leadership.

Before the last election, I sat down with a dozen people considering running for MLA. I was excited with their ideas, leadership, and professional experience, reputation, and what they would bring to the job. But the majority chose not to run. The most common reason, they said they had too much to lose. The social cost of politics had become too great, driven largely by the behaviour they witnessed from politicians in chambers and on social media platforms where facts did not always prevail, and the global shift is notable.

This should concern us all. When good people refuse to serve because the personal cost has become unbearable, we don't strengthen democracy. We weaken it by narrowing the pool of those willing to lead.

Social media has fundamentally transformed political communication. These platforms have democratized political engagement in remarkable ways. Politicians can speak directly to dozens, hundreds, and millions. Citizens access diverse perspectives instantly, and grassroots organizing has become more accessible than ever. And this is good news. Yet this digital revolution has also created serious concern. Information overload, echo chambers that deepen divisions, rapid spread of misinformation, and the informal nature of these platforms leading to more impulsive, sometimes harmful, statements from politicians that imply untruths or conveniently leave out key information to drive a narrative.

Freedom of speech stands as one of our most cherished democratic principles, yet it remains one of our most misunderstood rights. Too often, we hear this phrase invoked as blanket justification for any statement no matter how harmful or irresponsible, but true freedom of speech has never meant the absolute right to say anything anywhere at any time without consequence. The architects of our constitutional freedoms created a framework for robust democratic conversation, not a license for unlimited expression. Even the most speech protective legal systems recognize necessary boundaries. These limitations exist not to weaken free speech but to preserve its essential purpose, enabling the open exchange of ideas, holding power accountable, and allowing truth to emerge through debate.

Consider how unlimited speech can restrict freedom when marginalized voices are drowned out by harassment campaigns, when communities are terrorized by hate speech. When deliberate lies poison public discourse, the result is less meaningful dialogue, not more. Free speech protections aim to create space for all voices in democratic conversation, not to allow the loudest or most aggressive speakers to dominate.

With every right comes responsibility. The power and privilege to speak brings the obligation to consider the impact of our words. This doesn't mean self-censorship of controversial ideas. They are precisely what free speech protections are designed to safeguard. It means recognizing that our words have consequences, they can heal or harm, unite or divide, inform or mislead.

Mr. Speaker, all that said, there needs to be clear lines, and I would like to start with one: When people run for elected leadership, they consciously submit themselves to public scrutiny. Their policies, records, statements, and actions will be dissected, debated, and criticized. This is not only appropriate; it's essential to democracy. But their children, their families who never sought the spotlight, these individuals made no such choice. When we attack politicians through their families, we're not holding them accountable; we're engaging in collective bullying that diminishes us all. This behaviour doesn't strengthen democratic discourse; it drives good people away from public service and reduces our politics to its worst elements.

I see this motion as two-fold: How the rules we have committed to in this House follow us out of this space; and second, is balancing legitimate concerns about misinformation and responsible governance with fundamental principles of free expression on social media platforms.

Decorum and responsibility aren't reserved for when the cameras are on. They are the foundation of public service, whether speaking in chambers, posting online, or engaging in private conversations that inevitably become public. The strength of our democracy isn't measured by how ruthlessly we attack one another. It's measured by how thoughtfully and effectively we can engage with ideas as change makers.

I have taken questions in this House about creating safe spaces in schools. We need to lead by example by modelling those safe spaces here. I support this motion because I think there is value in discussing how the rules that we have chosen to adhere to in this House apply outside of this room where we spend most of our time and because the role social media plays in how we serve residents and the consequences to democracy play a significant role in politics today, and that is what this motion does: It creates space for the conversation. Thank you.

Thank you, Member from Kam Lake. To the motion. Member for Monfwi.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, when people leak confidential information, there should be consequences, but our ability to express is another issue. From Indigenous perspective, as an Indigenous person, a woman, we finally got our voice. As a result of the colonization, it destroyed our language, culture, and way of life. For so long, the racist Indian Act had power and control over our life. Not only that, it discriminated more against the Indigenous women. With this in mind, Mr. Speaker, I do not support this motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Member from Monfwi. To the motion. Member from Inuvik Twin Lakes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today to support the motion to send the Members' Code of Conduct to the standing committee on procedure and privilege for review and possible changes. This motion, again, is not about restricting free speech. As my colleague has said, as an Indigenous woman, we have a voice, we'll use it, but it's about our duty as elected leaders to maintain the respect and the trust of the people that we represent.

In our territory, governance goes beyond just laws and parliamentary rule. It's also deeply connected to Indigenous laws, values, and northern traditions as we practice those as part of our processes. The Dene, Metis, Inuvialuit, and other northern communities have long governed themselves based on respect, honesty, and accountability. These values are not just written down; they are shown in our relationships, teachings, and the shared responsibility to keep harmony in our communities. And when I speak about this, one of the areas that I like to talk about is when my first experience of walking into this chamber of fear, of fear of doing it wrong and getting it wrong for the people that I represent, of being a role model for those that come behind me, and to be the person that my elders expect of me. And many of our elders are sitting around us, behind us, as we do these proceedings. And I do hear feedback from my constituents and other residents in the Northwest Territories and ask me what's going on, what's going on, why is this happening, you know. And I take it a step back and, you know -- and I say that we -- we are all passionate. That is not -- I'm not going to say that that's not -- that's not -- that's happening in this room. Every single one of us are here because we are passionate about the work that we are doing. We may disagree. And, again, we can disagree. We can, you know, get to the point where we may not even like each other very much. But we have to respect each other. And that was something that was taught to me a long time ago, and I'm not saying that rule that's in here. That was given to me when I was working, when I was in school. I had teachers that I didn't get along with. It was, like, you may not like them but they are there, and you have to respect them and you have to do the work with them. So, you know, and I take that away.

So, Mr. Speaker, our northern laws and values teach us to communicate carefully and with integrity, especially in the public. That's another part that I've always said, is as a leader everything that I say carries weight, even though I'm not very big and -- but I'm very loud and so I try to be heard because I'm very small, but the things I say, I have to be careful because it may, you know -- and the way that it's interpreted, I -- you know, I have to be very careful in the way that I speak because it may be interpreted in the wrong way that I don't want somebody to take that the wrong way. So, you know, this reminds us to be role models, protect, honour, through respect, behaviour, and care for one another. When a Member of this House speaks publicly, whether here or in it the community, again, like I said, those words represent not just the individual but all of us, the integrity of this building, this Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories, and we need to be aware of difference between lawful speech and speech that is respectful and responsible. So this motion acknowledges that our current code of conduct may not fully meet the public's expectation in this digital age where words can spread quickly and cause significant harm; it also shows our common goal across cultures that communities and communities that -- to ensure that our leaders are held to a standard that respects the privilege of serving in this house.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a partisan matter. This is about people honouring our legislative traditions and respecting the laws of the land as experienced by Northerners. It's about fostering respectful dialogue, accountability, and leadership that reflects the best of who we are, both as Members of this House and neighbours.

And at the end, in closing, Mr. Speaker, you know, I do reflect when I have conversations with Members or with people in the public that might get heated and take away, and I'm always okay to say I'm sorry and I forgive you and move on for the greater good, and I think that's something that a lot of people that are close to me kind of go I don't know how you can forgive and forget a lot of things. And that's not to say that that's -- in this House. It's something that I try to carry throughout everything that I do. So for those reasons, I wholeheartedly support this motion and the work that will come with it. Thank you.

Thank you, Member from Inuvik Twin Lakes. To the motion. Member from Tu Nedhe-Wiliideh.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to respond to this motion today which seeks to update the code of conduct to include public statements made outside the Legislative Assembly to voice both my disappointment in this motion and explain the risk I know it will have on our unique democracy. I think the intent of this motion is to signal some constituents in the North that our institutions are strong, especially when it mentions words like "trust" and "in confidence." Those words may inspire reassurance to some who look around the world are frightened. However, my constituents will interpret this motion very differently, that our institutions are, in fact, weak because they look to their history, the history of the rule of law of selectively applying to silence them. The truth is this motion will have the unintended consequences of restricting the speech of elected representatives. Even though this motion makes it clear that such speech does not meet the threshold of legal action, that my constituents would ask, if this speech is not defamation then what is the problem.

However, that would be a rhetoric question because as an Indigenous man, I know what the problem with this speech is, and my constituents do as well. The problem with this is free speech is that it's only one guilty of eroding a confidence of the Legislative Assembly. In other words, speech that the territorial government may find objectionable. We treat each other with very high standards in this Assembly to ensure we do our best work, to follow the traditional parliamentary democracy. Outside of this chamber, I consult with my communities, my constituents, chief and Metis councils who I represent, and I work hard to bring their perspectives back into this chamber. These are different institution that this Legislative Assembly of the Government of the Northwest Territories because they come from a different tradition. The tradition of my communities have existed here since time immemorial, so there are going to be in conflict with the territorial government which arrived very recently. This is the history of the Northwest Territories, and the North has changed for better as we let natural disagreements shape our common future. Yet, when you take the standards we have in this building and you apply them onto how I work out in my communities with vague policies decided by strangers behind a desk, then you are disconnecting me from my communities and limiting my ability to serve them.

I've been through this before because I am first generation survivor of residential schools. The schools thought to disconnect us from communities and limit how we can express ourselves. This was done to assimilate us through an unequal application of rights by a political system that made no room for other perspectives out of fear and ignorance. How can we work, how we look around at the progress that has been made in this territory to advance the rights of Indigenous people in their self-determination which culminated in many of my colleagues -- sorry, my Indigenous colleagues, and I becoming elected representative to the Legislative Assembly only to be told that to participate, we must assimilate and disconnect ourselves from community -- from our communities.

Again, Mr. Speaker, we been through this before. So I oppose this motion and caution because our democracy is stepping between us and our communities will prevent us from shaping the -- that common future based on a respect and self-determination we have so far worked -- so hard to achieve. If our institutions are indeed strong, it would not need to relying on motions which seek to prevent criticism therefore prevent changes.

And this motion, to me, I feel that it's going to prevent us from speaking out on what we're told by our people in our community. And in some ways, this motion, to me, it seems like it's a -- would muzzle us, and my voice for small communities is not going to be heard. So no matter how the vote turns out, I want you to listen to what I have to say here today because it's coming from the people in the small communities, and we need to be heard. And I've been saying that since day one, that we're here to do a job for our people and work together. That's what our elders always say. So, Mr. Speaker, thank you.

Thank you, Member from Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh. To the motion. Member from Thebacha.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, when I am outside of this chamber, I make every effort to consider the 18 other Members of the 20th Legislative Assembly in how I conduct myself and how I make comments in the public. You know, a lot of passion in this room regarding this issue on both whether you're supportive of moving forward with this discussion or you're not, and I think the one thing that -- and I'm going to keep my comments pretty short here -- that should be considered throughout this conversation is how did we get here and why are we having this actual conversation. So maybe a little bit of inner reflection from the Members in this room to look at the situation that created the need to bring this to the floor or not bring it to the floor as the case may be might just require a little inner reflection. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Member from Thebacha. To the motion. Member for Nunakput.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I respect everyone's viewpoint, and I don't want to be stifling or suppressing any type of freedom of expression as we live in a democratic society. But in our role as elected officials, we have to be careful in our expression to ensure we are not bullying or intimidating or hurting intentionally. We have to lead the way in public discourse, especially in this age of social media, with our children and our grandchildren accessing it constantly. I would agree that having the committee examine the code of conduct. If it needs to be updated, I would agree with that. I will support this motion.

Thank you, Member from Nunakput. To the motion.

Question has been called. Before we conclude, Member from Great Slave, you may conclude the debate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And thank you, colleagues. This was a good discussion. I want to respond to a bit of what I heard today.

The motion I've provided is discrete in the sense that we are looking at our current practice in this House and whether it is something that we would like to consider for the online forum, how we do business as Members. Yeah, it is not about infringing on the freedom of speech in any other fashion.

The broadness of this motion allows the committee to study and recommend actions which are for the public's knowledge which are then voted on by all Members. There is no final decision being made here today. There are several checks and balances before or if any, indeed, changes are made to the code of conduct.

Having respect for each other in this House doesn't mean we need to agree. It means we debate policy, not personalities. I feel that if you can't appropriately argue the content of debate without attacking someone's intent or character, in the rules of our House that's something that the Speaker would rule on. Being honourable means respecting your colleagues. Both our elders and our youth are watching us here and outside of these walls. I also think of the principles of consensus. We're not here to defeat or discredit or lie about each other. If impugning motive to Members is unacceptable in this House, my question, I suppose, with this motion is why should it be acceptable online?

Consistent behaviour strongly contributes to perceptions of integrity and encouraging Members to behave consistently in all and public contexts helps build trust and confidence in individual Members and the Assembly as a whole. I would like for standing committee to investigate what other jurisdictions have done to encourage civil and truthful discourse amongst their Members online. And regardless of the outcome of the vote, I really do honestly thank Members for an open and frank conversation here today. Mr. Speaker, I would request a recorded vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Member from Great Slave. Question has been called. All those in favour, it's a recorded vote, please stand.