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.