Yeah, thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the motion, staffing solution to rebuild and reform health care. Mr. Speaker, for me, I bring this book along wherever I go, and I raise it with committee and I raise it with my Cabinet Ministers whenever I can, and it talks about in the treaties it just so happens that along with the Yellowknives Dene First Nation and Chief Drygeese, my great-great grandfather Oliver Edjericon also signed this treaty. And also, we got modern treaties as well. But most importantly is that the medicine chest is in our treaties, and it talks about health care. And right now, the biggest thing I'm hearing back from my constituents in my riding is that the fear of closing the emergency doors here at the Stanton Hospital. And right now, the medivac, the planes that go into the small communities for medivac, patients to bring them out, most of them come to Yellowknife and use the emergency, and that's where they get treated. But they're concerned because what happens if they close it and they -- and where do they go? Do they go to Edmonton? Vancouver? Winnipeg? Calgary? So it's a big concern to the constituents of my riding that, you know, how do we -- how do we deal with that and how do we -- how does medical travel deal with that?

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Minister of health is in her job now two years, and she inherited one of the biggest files in government that takes up one-third of our budget, and it's a big file, but overall, you know, the nurses that come into our small communities are locum nurses. They don't engage the community. They come and go. But at the end of the day, we just want to have good health care in our small communities. And our elders really need them. The people that are asking for help are -- where do they go?

So I want to just say thank you to all the nurses out there that had provided good services to the GNWT and small communities as well. You know, we need nurses, and we need to backfill them with our young people that are coming up from our small communities or larger centres that go into colleges and universities. We need nurses.

The big issue too as well is NIHB is a big problem is that we don't have enough money. And how do we deal with that? Like, medical travel is a big issue. But right now it's been managed but -- by the health and social department but there's not enough money there to really help our people out who are really in need. And, most importantly, but going forward, though, I -- we still got to talk about the UNDRIP that was passed in the 19th Assembly and the Royal Commissioner Report on Call to Action, there's -- a lot of them are good recommendations that were in there too as well. And MMIWG is -- there was some really strong recommendations that are in that report as well. There's a lot of work that has to happen. And to me is that, you know, this motion, it's a start. It's a way to start working on reconciliation with -- on health throughout the Northwest Territories, especially in the small communities.

And Mr. Speaker, I didn't want to take too long, but I just wanted to say that also the review of the public administrator, you know, it would be nice to have him come to our communities and also listen to the elders as well because they have issues and concerns as well. So I look forward if the public administrator could come to my riding and listen to what the people have to say, especially to the leadership in our small communities.

So, Mr. Speaker, I know this is -- this motion here is reform. It's not to point fingers or anything like that. All we want to do is build on what we have. But how do we work together? And how do we improve it? We only got two more years in our mandate and between now and then, I think it's time that we really take a look at this issue and this motion is a start. So I'll be supporting this motion, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

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

Question has been called. Before we do question, Member from Range Lake, would you like to conclude the discussion.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And thank you, colleagues. I think today was a very good show of the unity of this House to address health care on very strong terms. I think having these conversations in here is really important as well. It's the heart of our government, a heart of our democracy; the heart of our society in many ways. And knowing that we are listening, we're having these conversations in a very public forum is exactly what so many people want us to -- want to see when they feel like they're, quite frankly, banging their heads against the wall to be heard. So I think this is a good start, and it's a good way to move forward.

I want to take a minute to acknowledge that our Minister of Health and Social Services is an Indigenous nurse with -- and someone who has real experience both in the profession and in the small communities. I hear that. I have no compunctions about her character, her experience, or her passion for the work. She is the Minister, though, and as the Minister she is accountable. So when we bring a strong voice of accountability to these issues, it's not to diminish her strong credentials and bona fides as a passionate health leader in the Northwest Territories. It is to hold her to account for the job that she has been assigned. And it is a tough job. I acknowledge that. But our job on this side of the House is to be tough critics as well. And I think when we have these discussions, it can get -- there can be tensions. But that tension is exactly what -- what's required sometimes when we are at these crisis points.

So, Mr. Speaker, I support the Minister's -- the three kind of overarching principles that she had laid out, but I would like her to add a fourth, one of those being -- that being the staff-led innovation pieces, staff-led feedback, innovation, system -- continuous improvement of the system. That needs to be enshrined in our healthcare system.

Before the amalgamation of the authorities, there were robust mechanisms in place for physicians, for nurses, for other healthcare professionals, to participate and make continuous improvements to their workplaces. Somehow, that hasn't transitioned into the new -- the amalgamated authority, and it is something that's sorely missed. Now, I should stress, no one who's currently working there wants it to change back to the way it was. They recognize the improvements of centralizing the authority into one cohesive unit. But they do feel unheard. And I know there's been town halls. The Minister's participated in those town halls. We've had town halls as well. And, unfortunately, I think the -- you know, the conversation's happening but people aren't still feeling like those conversations go very far. So we need to find a way -- and I'll charge the Minister with this. We've given her some places to start, but staff-led innovation and continuous improvement and system change that needs to be enshrined in operational groups that can make -- so it's not a top down process where all the changes are coming from a public administrator or from a board or from senior management, but they're actually coming from the floor, meeting somewhere in the middle. Because that's been missing from this conversation and from the system that we currently use.

You know, I'm pleased to hear there's only five agency nurses. I know they've been reducing the amount of agency nurses, so I just say take the extra step, commit to phasing them out. If we wait for every other jurisdiction to do it, I guarantee you there's other jurisdictions saying the exact same thing, especially the smaller provinces, PEI, New Brunswick, that are struggling with these challenges as well, that are have-nots. I'm sure that they are saying same thing. If we get rid of this resource, then we'll lose it and what are we going to do. But if we all did that, not much would change. I think of daylight savings time. You know, we're waiting for Alberta. Alberta's waiting for BC. BC's waiting for California and so on and so forth. So we're never going to lose it. And that's frustrating for people who are tired of it. And it's the same thing here for workers who are tired of seeing travel nurses and competing with travel nurses while they want to see them gone, and they don't want to hear the excuses of, we'll wait for everyone else to do it first. I applaud Quebec for their changes, and I hope other provinces do follow suit, starting with this one next. We could be the next domino to fall as we move forward, and we've given the Minister plenty of time to consider a robust plan.

Now, I just want to speak to -- I know some of our colleagues are very passionate about collective -- expanding collective bargaining for nurses. But there are other healthcare workers as well. And, you know, the discussion we had yesterday in the House didn't include them, so it's -- I don't think it's too perplexing to consider that those healthcare workers also need a voice.

One of the things I have heard from those folks, who work very hard for Northerners, is that they don't feel like they're heard as loudly as the doctors or the nurses and so forth. And we don't want to leave anyone out. So what this is calling for is essentially for the parties who are involved with labour in the Northwest Territories to sit down and figure out an inclusive way to make sure no health workers are being left out. You know, so there's certainly a lot of effort that's gone into supporting nurses, but we need to support everyone because we need those professions as well.

Mr. Speaker, the working group concept that also is flummoxing some Members, this was pitched by our Honourable Premier. So I don't know what it looks like. He's established a small community -- a committee of Cabinet, which is a different approach. I'm not on that committee. I've seen the terms of reference, but this is a concept that was brought forward as a way to find closer ways to working together. So, yeah, we have a standing committee, for sure. We have these committees. But this, again, was a novel concept to solve crises or challenges that are affecting regions, not long term but short term. And we have a crisis right now that needs short-term fixes before we can move to those long-term stabilization. So to put a finer point to it, the motion contemplates an action plan at the fall; let's establish a working group from both sides of the House to build that working plan collaboratively. So if any Members are wondering what it could look like, that's an option. But I'll leave it in the hands of the people with the resources to pull together that rather than speculate on our side because ultimately it wouldn't be in our hands; it would be in the hands of the Executive Council.

And my last comment is just because I'm a Yellowknife Member doesn't make this a Yellowknife motion. I hear often that criticism, and you know, I hear on the one hand some Members saying, you know, there's a divide and conquer approach that is often seen in this Assembly and we shouldn't have that. And then I hear other Members saying well, Yellowknife gets everything. But that's divide and conquer. And, again, just because I'm a Yellowknife Member doesn't mean this is a Yellowknife motion. If we're trying to staff positions in the communities and outside of the capital in regional centres, well, we need a strong incentive regime. We need a strong collective agreement. We don't have the staff to deploy to the small communities or recruit to the small communities, so I don't see what these points are explicitly about Yellowknife. Yes, there's a hospital in Yellowknife that serves the entire territory. It's Stanton Territorial Hospital, not Stanton Yellowknife Hospital. We benefit from that resource, absolutely. My community benefits from that resource. But it is not to the exclusion of the rest of the territory. And this motion is contemplating solutions that affect multiple communities, and the changes that we want to put -- we want to put in place will impact multiple communities.

So, again, don't let the fact that Range Lake is in Yellowknife fool you. This is a territorial motion for a territorial problem to help territorial doctors and nurses. So I -- with that being said, I think this is a good start to this problem. I am very -- to start solving these problems. I am very encouraged by the words spoken by the Minister of Health and Social Services in this debate. I was encouraged by the words she spoke earlier about a willingness to make changes to the public administrator's work plan to better explain his mandate.

I think communication is a key point here, and I want to communicate something very clearly, that coming into this session, I had made references to confidence. I'm no longer making those references to confidence. I am now confident that the Minister is on the right track. And now it is our job to hold her accountable for the commitments she's made. But I am confident that she is moving forward, and I hope that we will be active partners as we build a stronger healthcare system together. But rest assured, if it falls off the rails, I will be the first one to jump up again and say this is not okay; we need to take care of our doctors and nurses, allied healthcare professionals and everyone else. But the Minister has clearly understood the problem. I have confidence that she will bring forward plans that are going -- a plan. I hope it is costed, time-bound, and is very clear and clearly communicates the government's intentions and actions to the public so there's no ambiguity, and people , not just me, but the people of the Northwest Territories regain confidence in their healthcare system. And, most importantly, the people who work in that healthcare system regain confidence as well. So the Minister has a lot of work ahead of her, and I hope we can all be part of the journey together. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Member from Range Lake.

Question has been called. The seconder has asked for a recorded vote. All those in favour, please stand.

All those opposed, please stand. All those abstaining, please stand.

Colleagues, all in favour, 9. Opposed, zero. Abstentions, 7. Motion has carried.

---Carried

Motions. Member from Great Slave.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS a Member's privilege of freedom of speech is crucial to a Member fulfilling their role in the Assembly;

AND WHEREAS a Member's freedom of speech applies to all proceedings of the Assembly, including committee meetings;

AND WHEREAS a Member's freedom of speech during proceedings is only limited by the rules of the Legislative Assembly;

AND WHEREAS these rules only apply to proceedings of the House and its committees;

AND WHEREAS the Members' Code of Conduct was established to ensure that Members conduct themselves in a way that instills trust and confidence on the part of the public in their elected officials;

AND WHEREAS the conduct of individual Members of this Legislative Assembly can and does reflect on all other Members, as well as the institution itself;

AND WHEREAS residents of the Northwest Territories expect and will hold Members of this Legislative Assembly to a higher standard when it comes to how we conduct our business in and outside of this Assembly;

AND WHEREAS public statements made online by Members of this Legislative Assembly outside of proceedings, that are not governed by our rules, and may not meet the threshold for legal action, may be interpreted by members of the public in a manner that erodes the trust and confidence in the Legislative Assembly and its Members;

NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the Member for Yellowknife South, that this Legislative Assembly direct the Standing Committee on Procedure and Privileges to consider if the Northwest Territories Legislative Assembly Members' Code of Conduct requires any amendments or updates regarding statements made online by Members of the Legislative Assembly outside of our proceedings;

AND FURTHER, that the Standing Committee on Procedure and Privileges deliver a report to this House on the Matter by February 2026.

Thank you, Member from Great Slave. The motion is in order. To the motion. Member from Great Slave.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the conduct of each Member of the Legislative Assembly reflects not only on how the public perceives that Member but also how the public sees all Members and the institution. This is why we have a Code of Conduct. Residents of the Northwest Territories expect and will hold Members of the Legislative Assembly to a high standard when it comes to how we conduct our business inside and outside of this Assembly.

Comments made by Members outside this House can and sometimes do cross the line of what would be allowed to say in the proceedings of the Assembly or its committees per our rules. Those rules are what we have collectively agreed to not allow for decorum and order and to be respectful of each other.

The limits on our speech during our proceedings are, in some instances, greater than those required by law. Members' conduct outside of the proceedings of the Assembly is governed bylaws as well as the Members' Code of Conduct. As such, Members of the Legislative Assembly are expected to conduct themselves to a high standard to protect the reputation of the institution. This builds and maintains public confidence in our institution and contributes to a healthy work environment for all Members and staff.

If this institution is seen as a healthy, collaborative workplace, it can and will inspire residents to seek public office. This point is very important to me as the Commonwealth woman parliamentarian for the Northwest Territories. I'm committed to sharing my knowledge with residents of all genders and backgrounds who wish to run for elected office.

Our residents deserve to choose the best representatives to serve in this institution, and if we are working towards a healthy collaborative workplace it can encourage more people to get involved in our democracy.

After discussing the idea for this motion with caucus, I heard that Members are particularly concerned with the conduct of conversations of politicians, or at large, that is, in many jurisdictions worldwide, on social media. This motion is a deliberately public conversation that I will hope help us discuss whether Members should consider updating the code of conduct so that online statements made outside of the House are bound by some or all of the rules related to order and decorum in our proceedings.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will reserve the rest of my comments to close the debate.

Thank you, Member from Great Slave. To the motion. Member from Frame Lake.

Thank you, Member from Frame Lake. To the motion. Member from Yellowknife Centre.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, it was my pleasure to be the seconder on this motion. I'm going to try to be relatively brief, but I do think it's important, Mr. Speaker, that the public hears some of the perspectives on this, including around the idea of freedom of expression/freedom of speech, in this context.

Mr. Speaker, freedom of expression obviously is extremely important, particularly political expression. This is an essential feature of democracy in my view and it's enshrined in the Charter of Rights, which is something that inspires much of my professional life. Being a part of our constitution, being part of our supreme law, Mr. Speaker, I do think it's important that we, again, lay that foundation as to why this is so important before we discuss any potential of in any way limiting that right.

Obviously, we can't exist in a democratic society without freedom of expression. It's a means by which we become aware of different ideas, different options, of different opinions, of different policies. It's a way that can help us govern ourselves better. And, Mr. Speaker, freedom of expression protects distasteful ideas as much as it might protect the more popular ones, and this is a key tool because it allows us in a democracy to ensure that it's not just the majority that get the voice, it's not just those with power or authority or money or funding who can bring their message out. It means that everybody should have an opportunity to raise their voice or share their message; in other words, express themselves.

With all of these important benefits, freedom of expression, however, is not absolute. We are, of course, and again, in a situation where even the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does permit reasonable limits on individual rights and freedoms, including freedom of expression, and governments do place limits on these freedoms including on freedom of expression such as, for example, when there's someone expressing something that meets the definition of hate speech or, for example, when there is someone who wants to make a claim in a legal court of action for libel or defamation. This is where there's been expression made that can be demonstrated as being false or damaging or otherwise libelous and that it actually can then harm a person's reputation.

We don't have rights of citizens to simply say anything and everything in every context at any time. There are limits. There's limits, again, that the government can place upon us. There may be limits that are in a workplace where there's harassment-free policies to ensure that people are not subjected to any and all expression that can be harmful to them. And, of course, we have placed already limits on ourselves here through our code of conduct that creates some limits on what we can or how we say things here in this House. And so in short, Mr. Speaker, freedom of expression is fundamental to democracy. Its protection from government encroachment is enshrined in the Constitution, but it is not absolute.

And so, Mr. Speaker, what this motion speaks to is an arena where expression can be arguably its most creative, arguably its most free, but also equally perhaps its most vile. And it is a space that is often rife with inaccuracy, poorly regulated, and that, of course, that I'm speaking of is the internet. The internet is increasingly a source of misinformation and disinformation and can, in fact, go so far as to have active attempts to spread false information and deceit.

And now misinformation, quite unlike other forms of expression, in my view, can be a very threat to democracy. It's not just a matter of being uninformed or incorrectly informed. When done with some intention, sharing information that is inaccurate, that is knowingly incomplete, that is suggestive of something that is untrue, it can lead those who are receiving or reading the information to draw false conclusions, to draw unknown, unwarranted conclusions, to have terrible impressions, and this can be done in a way that can be used against a political opponent, against a particular policy, or against an idea and in that way, Mr. Speaker, we would, in fact, be limiting the kinds of expressions that would provide greater opportunity for minority voices and for alternative voices. We, in fact, would start to stifle debate and stifle people who may want to speak out and may want to participate in discussion. Because when you're under attack, if something is untrue, it's one thing to counter a fact, it's one thing to simply counter a lie, but it's difficult to start to counter suggestions and innuendo. And so in that sense, you start -- you stop arguing over policy and you start to have to question whether or not you want to engage or how to go about engaging in a meaningful way.

So, Mr. Speaker, there are certainly forms of what might be defended as political expression that then can be reduced to something much more simplistic, and this is what I read this motion to be alerting us to. And, really, the motion at its core is quite simple. We're just asking ourselves as elected leaders if we will consider, consider, whether there are limits that we want to place upon ourselves to try to ensure that our public discourse, our public discussions, don't veer towards misinformation or false misinformation or towards anything that would bring this House into disrepute.

Mr. Speaker, writing on the eve of the recent federal election, a political commentator in the Edmonton journal wrote this, and I quote: "At some point, a class of political operatives in this country decided that business as usual wasn't working for them and that the main problem wasn't their strategy but the system itself. After all, what do democratic norms, traditions, and integrity matter if you lose? It's okay to lie and deceive, obfuscate, because the end justifies it. Fear and outrage are allies. Institutions that provide checks on this behaviour must be vilified and neutered. Rather than building bridges, more votes can be gained by blowing them up."

So, Mr. Speaker, should society expect us as political leaders to hold ourselves to some higher standard or rather than simply saying what may be in our individual interests, I would think yes, and so, again, that's why I've seconded this motion so that we can at least give some thought to that process or thought to what that might look like, and should society or does society expect that its political leaders with an ability to establish reasonable limits and rules, that we would then use that power to place some limits and rules upon ourselves so that we act with the highest standards of integrity when we put information out into the public dialogue. Again, I think as leaders we should expect that, and I think that society, as members of society, that we would expect this as well.

Mr. Speaker, it's also a matter of trust and how we go about increasing and encouraging trust not only in our leadership but more importantly in government institutions broadly. Government institutions are how we decided to organize our society. It's how we establish and share and distribute our common resources. It's how we want to work together towards common goals, to seek better goals, to find better ways of serving one another as members of the society. But if people and residents and members of the society don't have faith in what leaders are saying, that what we are saying is accurate, truthful, fulsome, again, Mr. Speaker, I fear that we quickly render any meaningful debate meaningless and becomes a conduit towards something that is far -- quite the opposite from building trust. I think we want to try to encourage more trust in our institutions here and certainly not less and ini no way put them in any further jeopardy.

And, Mr. Speaker, we're certainly not alone in trying to face down the challenge of how to deal with the rather speedy rise of internet media as a medium of unregulated expression. It's a challenge that's being faced by democracies around the world and by colleagues across Canada. Fortunately, I believe here in the Northwest Territories, we are well placed to lead this discussion.

MLAs who are legislators but not Members of executive council have access to government information in a very different way than what politicians in a partisan system might. We, of course, have a variety of information sharing protocols and practices to provide MLAs with a variety of different advanced copies, for example of the budget or of other documents and in-camera briefings where we can speak frankly, and certainly entrust this House with the various documents through our internal processes here with legislative proposals, for example, and ask committees to do the hard work and heavy lifting of legislative committee work. There are standing committees that have powers to bring Ministers and department officials in. And, Mr. Speaker, we, of course, are not divided in terms of allegiances to party lines or party teams or platforms. We arrive here as representatives, each of us together. And so, really, I would suggest that as far as any legislative system in Canada, we are arguably are among the best placed to consider whether or how we can look to ourselves and ask ourselves how we can find a way to engage in policy discussions that are tense and often terse but that remain well informed, founded on facts, and avoid anything that veers towards presumption or innuendo that is not founded on fact and not advancing a policy discussion in the interests of the residents of the Northwest Territories.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I, of course, don't know what outcome of the discussion there might be at this committee on this question. Perhaps we will not find any path forward that will allow us to better manage ourselves in a digital age, although I certainly hope that we do. Even so, Mr. Speaker, I am still pleased to second this motion for the very fact of wanting to put it to the public to let them know that we are trying to be better leaders, and we are trying to look for ways to improve how we as leaders communicate to the public about topics and issues that impact this territory. And so it was with that in mind that I seconded this motion and that I support this motion and that I want to encourage the committee to do some heavy lifting. I hope we are asking ourselves what more we can do to improve public discussion of political matters, what more we can do to find ways to better express ourselves as an Assembly of 19 elected leaders and as on behalf of our constituents. I think, Mr. Speaker, that we can do better and, at the very least, I'd like us to try. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Member from Yellowknife South. To the motion. Member from Range Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Voltaire you famously said, quote, "I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." These immortal words are the crux of the matter of this debate, that being the speech of Members of this Assembly that is not subject to our rules of debate, nor the privileges we enjoy as parliamentarians.

Mr. Speaker, Members enjoy certain individual rights and privileges by virtue of being elected to this House. The privilege of freedom of speech in parliamentary proceedings is generally regarded as the most important of the privileges enjoyed by Members of any legislature. This right is protected in the Constitution Act 1867 and section 18 of the Northwest Territories Act that provides the Legislative Assembly with the privileges, immunities, and powers enjoyed by provincial legislatures and the Parliament of Canada.

The House of Commons defines this right as such, quote, "freedom of speech permits Members to speak freely in the conduct of a proceeding of parliament, such as in a chamber during a sitting or in committees during meetings while enjoying complete immunity from prosecution or civil liability for any comment they make in order to encourage truthful and complete disclosure without fear of reprisal or other adverse actions as a result of their testimony. This right also extends to individuals who appear before the House or its committees. The House of Commons could not work effectively unless its Members and witnesses appearing before House committees were able to speak and criticize without being held to account by the outside body."

Mr. Speaker, the reason we have rules of debate, points of order, which Members are very familiar with, is because of this immunity, this fundamental right which gives us complete protection for what we say in this chamber. There needs to be some limit on it which is why we have rights for ourselves. To extend those rights outside the chamber is unnecessary.

On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, the Indigenous traditions of open dialogue, inclusive decision-making, accommodation respecting trust, form the other side of a consensus circle. These principles err on the side of allowing Members to speak more frequently, affords more time to do so, and encourages honest debate that sets aside procedural rules in favour of clear and respectful communication. What this motion contemplates is nothing less than an affront to both sides of our consensus traditions, Indigenous and Westminster, that enshrine the right of freedom of speech that's paramount for our role as elected representatives in the NWT. I believe this motion is reckless, undemocratic, and will lead to a chilling effect on speech in a territory where far too many of our people fear reprisals when speaking truth to power.

Mr. Speaker, this motion is calling on a committee to investigate new restrictions on speech outside of this chamber online and in social media. While the code of conduct requires us to live up to a higher standard than most others, it should not be used to lower the standard for what is acceptable speech. Our citizens enjoy the right to free speech, but even that right has limitations that are determined by the courts through libel and slander laws and criminal offences such as uttering threats. This motion contemplates imposing new restrictions, if the committee chooses to endorse them, of the speech of its Members through the back door by making statements made by Members outside of proceedings online that, quote, "erode trust and confidence in the Legislative Assembly and its Members. These offences could be censure, fines, suspension, maybe even expulsion. Despite the fact that these statements so made would not meet the threshold for legal action in civil society."

Mr. Speaker, my question is who then decides what comments, quote, "erode the trust and confidence in the Legislative Assembly and its Members in the eyes of the public?" This definition is so broad and so subjective that anything written by an MLA that personally offends another Member or a citizen could reasonably interpret it as offensive. Perhaps the Integrity Commissioner would disagree, but regardless an investigation would be required and thus lead to complaint after complaint after complaint any time someone feels so aggrieved.

Mr. Speaker, in his July 16th, 2020, ruling for a complaint made by then MLA Jackie Jacobson, the Integrity Commissioner warned against the weaponization of the code of conduct writing, quote, "I recognize and emphasize that the purpose of the Members' Code of Conduct is to set high standards which MLAs as leaders are expected to abide by in every aspect of their daily lives in order to earn and keep the respect of the citizens they serve. However, it is not the purpose of the code to be used as a political weapon of choice."

Support for this motion encourages exploring ways to further weaponize this code by making every word spoken outside of this chamber subject to a complaint if interpreted the wrong way or interpreted opportunistically by a bad faith actor.

Mr. Speaker, MLAs are accountable to each other, especially so in our consensus system. Confidence in the Premier and Cabinet is held individually, not collectively. That means each Member of the Executive Council is personally responsible to the other Members of this House. They're not appointed by Premier or party leader, and their actions by their peers deserve to have the same level of scrutiny as any other citizen. It is in our very job descriptions and etched into the DNA of our proceedings.

To this end, Members should not have fewer rights of free speech than the public we serve. This is an absurd notion. We must be able to freely communicate with our constituents in the spaces they use most frequently to share their stories and raise their concerns. In 2025, Mr. Speaker, that place is social media for good and for ill. Social media connects the North in a profound way that traditional media never could given our geographic and linguistic differences. It is a hugely important tool for elected officials to communicate with their constituencies. It is a prime venue for free speech of our Members to communicate policies, concerns, and, yes, even criticize government decisions and fellow decision-makers.

Mr. Speaker, the politics of getting along to get ahead is a longstanding concern of many Northerners regarding our system of government. In-camera meetings and discussions are typically the rule and not the exception. Too often is accountability confined into what is tolerable to maintain chummy relationships within a given caucus, relationships that purportedly advance the political priorities of Members. For those who prefer to govern that way, this motion only furthers that style of internal economy by giving new tools to deal with dissent outside of private conversations in-camera that are far away from the public eye.

As per guiding principle number 4 of our process conventions, quote, "effective communication is a double-edged sword. For consensus government to work, all Members must agree to respect the confidentiality of information before it is properly made public. Similarly, Members should acknowledge the fact that information was shared in confidence once it has been released."

Mr. Speaker, this so-called double-edged sword is hard enough to cope with when constituents are looking for answers. With this motion, our ability to speak freely or freely speak to our accountability will only be further restrained, and our ability to speak to the -- as per our ability that's already constrained to speak to confidential matters that are shared with us.

Mr. Speaker, I will say again Members of this House know exactly how reluctant many of our constituents are to speak out publicly, and support for this motion only furthers that fear in public of reprisals from their own institutions. Mr. Speaker, putting all that aside for a moment, the very real -- those very real arguments of a slippery slope towards censorship, I cannot help but raise the question what problem is this motion trying to solve? Because, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, you've already solved it in your March 3rd, 2025, ruling on a point of privilege brought forward by the Member for Yellowknife South.

Mr. Speaker, you ruled as followed, quote: "In our proceedings, we can speak freely. Our only rules limit what we can say. In this case, the words were not spoken in our proceedings. Had they been, they would have been out of order. If you are following our rules, your words in this chamber are protected. Outside this chamber, including on social media, they are not. Remember, there can be real consequences to words spoken or typed outside our proceedings. Although I did not find it in this case, statements outside of this Assembly easily could have been found a question of privilege."

Now, I'm not reflecting on your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I do not wish to relitigate any part of it, but it does come to mind in the context of this motion. Clearly, this House has found the boundaries of the rights of Members to speech both inside and outside the chamber. This precedent is now set by your ruling and therefore there is no need for further investigation by standing committee referral. The work is already done, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, democracy is beautiful, even when it gets messy. We shouldn't be trying to sanitize political speech and instead embrace it for what it is even when it forces us to face hard truths about ourselves and what we stand for as politicians. As an elected official, I expect to be scrutinized in print and online; I except to be satirized in editorial cartoons and memes. This is what we all signed up for whether we like it or not. We have better things to do in the limited time of this assembly than police the speech of our Members outside of this chamber and the committee room. Let's fix our broken health care, end homelessness, rebuild our faltering economy, take back our streets from criminals, balance the budget, or any other multitude of issues Northerners sent us here to solve. Censoring Members' words and protecting Members' hurt feelings are not the reason why we were elected. Let's not waste time on matter that have already been addressed by the precedence of this House, by the rulings of our Speaker, that are guaranteed by our privileges and, most importantly, fundamental to our rights as Canadian citizens. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to reject this incautious motion and get back to the work of what matters most to our constituents. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Member from Range Lake. To the motion. Member from Inuvik Boot Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Another long speech. It's a tough one. Certainly, I mean, I see both sides of the debate on this one. The Member who brought it forward -- and I'm not convinced, Mr. Speaker, that we can change the code of conduct to reflect online comments without restraining our freedom of speech, but I think it's -- but I'm not an expert in that. The Member has asked to have this go to committee and, quite frankly, committee on policy and planning procedures could have studied this at any time they want. I don't have an issue with taking a look at it at committee. I'll support the Member's motion to send it there to have a look at it, to at least review it. Again, we're not making any decisions at this point; we're just saying, hey, let's take a look at it in light of some of the things that have happened. Certainly, a wise person told me that I think Facebook has been stolen by the Baby Boomers from Gen X, and 50 percent of the comments are likely made from the washroom anyway, Mr. Speaker. So we'll take a look at it at committee. Thank you.

Thank you, Member from Inuvik Boot Lake. To the motion. Member from Yellowknife North.