Debates of May 27, 2025 (day 60)

Thank you, Member from Monfwi. To the motion. Member from Frame Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate following up after the Member from Monfwi because I couldn't have said it better myself. I really appreciated her comments, and certainly quite a lot was said about this motion already, and so I don't want to add too much to it; I appreciated the Minister's response.

Mr. Speaker, there's a few aspects of this motion that I'm more comfortable with than others but would say that much of this has been called for already by MLAs, the NWT Medical Association, nurses, and other healthcare practitioners, and this motion is kind of -- I don't even know, I guess I'd call it like a healthcare super motion that kind of brings all the thoughts together that have been coming out in committee over the past couple of months. And so to the principle of the motion, Mr. Speaker, I do agree with it. I will vote in favour of it. I'm going to leave my comments at that. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I do support the intention behind this motion, and I support many of the specific demands within it. I will support the motion, but it's also a very long list of demands and I just wanted to note my concerns with some of the specific points within it, for the record.

First, I don't actually think that another working group is going to be very helpful. There is currently a clear line of responsibility through the health authorities, to the public administrator, and ultimately to the Minister, and the Premier in some cases. The Minister is already responsible for overseeing primary care reform, and the Premier's responsible for overseeing the health system sustainability initiatives. So my concern is that a working group that includes Regular Members is not going to be able to directly oversee anything given that our role is to hold Cabinet to account. We already have many avenues to do that, including working with our committees to have regular communications both ways with the Minister, which has been happening.

Secondly, I'm unclear as to what it means to call on the GNWT to, quote, "work with" the Public Service Alliance of Canada and the Union of Northern Workers to develop an inclusive bargaining structure for all healthcare workers. If we're talking about rearranging locals within the union or changing decision-making internally around who gets to be on the bargaining team, I don't see how it would be appropriate for the GNWT to get involved in that. What the GNWT is responsible for is our legislation, and, honestly, I think what would give frontline healthcare workers a real voice in negotiations is if they have the freedom to choose their bargaining agent and to be able to choose to represent themselves at the bargaining table instead of in this motion, once again, dictating that it's the PSAC and the UNW and the GNWT who know best, and they should be the ones to decide on behalf of healthcare workers how bargaining structures should be organized.

Next, I don't see how we could or why we should even publicly release the details of locum contracts, just as we don't publicize details of other private contracts in this government, and I'm not clear what the purpose of that would be. And, certainly, if we want to phase out agency nurses or temporary workers, I think there's general consensus that we don't want to have a system that relies on agency nurses, but we would have to eliminate the need for them. And that means major changes and to achieve this goal in the next few years, major changes in the short term to be able to retain and recruit new nurses.

Significant and lasting changes in compensation and financial incentives are really only going to come from a new collective agreement and one that is targeted at meeting nurses' needs, which is what is contemplated by the Private Member's bill I brought forward that's now going to be examined by committee.

The other items on the list, I do support, and we've already been hearing from Cabinet that work is underway on most of them. So it's up to us to continue holding the government to account to ensure that meaningful and steady progress is made. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I won't be quite as long; I've got my speech right here. Mr. Speaker, it comes as no surprise to us that the Member from Range Lake has brought this motion forward. He's been passionate about this issue. It's been one of the main issues he brought to this House since he's been elected, since we've been in here, and the points he brings forward are valid and he does a lot of work in that area, and I certainly appreciate that. It also comes at no surprise to me that my colleague, the Minister from Inuvik Twin Lakes, is also passionate about this and has done a lot of work to already implement a lot of those things that are brought up in this motion, and I certainly appreciate that, and I know how much she cares about this issue as well.

It's not just a Yellowknife issue, obviously. I speak to health professionals in Inuvik as well. I know we're facing challenges. I speak to colleagues across other jurisdictions in Canada, and I speak to family back on the East Coast. We're not the only jurisdiction that's facing this, Mr. Speaker. We have -- there are issues throughout the country. There is -- you know, we're fighting, as they say, to get health professionals up here and some of the things outlined in this motion are things that are going to help us, as the Member from Range Lake had said, to attract those, to make us the place to want to come and to work and to live. And certainly, I appreciate all the work he's put into that. As I said, I appreciate the work that the Minister's done as well. I look forward to working collaboratively on this issue and continuing to move this forward, and I'm sure that the Member from Range Lake will continue to bring those issues forward as well. Having said that, I appreciate the work. I'll certainly support the motion and look forward to continuing further. Thank you.

Thank you, Member from Inuvik Boot Lake. Member from Great Slave.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Like many of my colleagues who have spoken before me, I do agree with the intent of this motion. I, too, am not certain why a working group is required when we have a very hardworking social development committee that the motion -- or the mover is a part of but perhaps he would like to speak to that later on.

I am also concerned that phasing out agency nurses without a wider national plan is something that we need to look at very carefully and therefore I'm very pleased to hear that the Minister is working on that file specifically.

And one thing that hasn't been mentioned so far, Mr. Speaker, is something that I just want to flag for the House, is when we talk about artificial intelligence, that cat is out of the bag, Mr. Speaker -- there's no putting it back in -- but I think that federal regulation is strongly needed on this front. I have also heard from the doctors speaking about the charting, the note taking, and I think these are all reasonable and rationale reasons for wanting AI to assist them in their work and make their workload smaller. I think that the intent of that particular clause is a good intent; I just want there to also be federal regulation about it. So with that, I will support this motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Member from Great Slave. To the motion. Member from Sahtu.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, will be supporting this motion. What I've heard these past several months, several weeks, is healthcare reform, efficiencies, and with the passionate leadership we have I'm confident that this motion will only add to the list of efficiencies as a check box, and with four departments in deliberations, including Dexterra, I'm quite confident that the department will harness the leadership together to execute this motion, which I feel confident strengthens our move forward to rehab our system.

When I recently visit the hospital here and when I recently visit the clinic in Norman Wells when the dental team came in, there's a need for servicing that equipment in these smaller communities to make them readily available when the team comes to that small community. So there's a number of issues out there that needs our attention, and I'm confident in the leadership will do that. In short, thank you. I'll support this motion. Mahsi.

Thank you, Member from the Sahtu. Member from Hay River South.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As a member -- an active member of a volunteer ambulance service that was pretty busy back in the day, you know, I was able to form many relationships with doctors and nurses currently in the territories, around the territories, and throughout Canada. You know, I do appreciate the work that's been done to this; however, I do feel for me, it's very Yellowknife focused and very focused on what the issues are in Yellowknife where, for me, if we took care of our regions, if we took care of our communities, the strain on Yellowknife would not be as much as it is. And we not only have to deal with the issues of staffing issues, we also have to deal with the lack of professionals out there that are willing to work full-time, willing to be committed full-time. And I know this firsthand because I know two physicians who work in the city, that live in a city, that locum in the same city, that do not want to work full-time. So these are the things that our government has to deal with all the time, is attracting physicians, attracting people to work, that don't want to work full-time. They want to do locums. They want the freedom to do as they wish. So it's not only always a government issue. We're dealing with HR issues. We're dealing with personal issues, family issues, manager issues. We're dealing with everything. And I commend our health Minister on the work she's been doing. For somebody who bothers her probably on a weekly basis, I feel that, you know, we've come a long ways in the last little while with where we're going with the department of health.

One point I will bring up in here, however, is, you know, just for an example, establishing a licensing body for paramedics. My concern immediately triggers the fact that this would have huge detriments to volunteer ambulance services across the Northwest Territories. And my concern with that would be we would have a bigger strain on our volunteers and on our healthcare system by not being able to provide these services when we're putting more pressures on licensing and governing people that where a majority of the people in the territories are volunteering. So, you know, although I will -- sorry, I'll just leave it at that because I think it's important that, you know, we realize the impacts are not only here but throughout the whole Northwest Territories. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's a great pleasure supporting a motion like this. I think it's in -- I think it's key to some of the mandate many of us has been running on, and I would certainly say, you know, I feel like saying hi, my name is Robert, I'm a healthcare supporter. It's been 560 days since my last election, and I've been fighting for better health care. It's 859 days until my next election, and I'll still be fighting for healthcare improvements, Mr. Speaker. You know, it's just this ongoing fight but, you know what, I promise to be relentless to the end. Actually, that's one of my mottos, being relentless, and I won't give up. And to move the dial or the needle a little further on this particular issue, I think my colleague from Range Lake had pointed out, you know, perfect is the enemy of good. We'll take any improvement we can get, and then we'll build on it. I'm a believer of success begets success, Mr. Speaker. So, yeah, we don't need the perfect solution.

As the clouds clearly are going over the NWT Assembly right now, the tone had changed, it kind of feels similarly or akin to how the gray clouds over health care is. And we continue to raise these things not because it's a bad system, but it needs improvement. And I want to thank the many voices that give us the strength to talk about the issues. And I want to stress that because the strength of their issues are our issues. I mean, when the Member for Range Lake brings forward an issue, it's not just because he's got nothing better to do. But then again, you can clarify that with him. But the thing is the community of the health professionals are saying to him, you know, we need help. When the community you're telling my good colleague from Tu Nedhe about how their community health services are struggling, I mean, he's not just doing it because, again, he's got nothing better to do. He's hearing crisis, and they want their voice echoed in this chamber.

So when we hear about people working together, trying to do this, this is exactly what we're talking about. This is a collaborative approach making positive suggestions on how we can improve this. I mean, if you're looking for failure in here, I don't -- like, in the sense of a bad message, there's not a piece in here. There's not a line saying give me someone's head. There's not a line in here saying, you know, bring them before us on their knees. There's nothing like this. This is all about working together. You know, when we -- that highlights about trying to get the two unions together on the same page, absolutely.

Now, I can appreciate my colleague down the road here as concerns maybe about the wording of the messaging of this but, you know, we must empower groups to work together. And if these two unions are willing to work with the government, we could almost do anything. How exciting that is.

Mr. Speaker, wanting to work together is exactly what the working group concept is and being part of the solution. I mean, how many times does the House hear me talk about or bemoan about the fact that Members are often thought of as an afterthought? We want to be part of the solution. We want to be part of the progressiveness of these communities. Again, we're here to help too. But it's been a little bit of a process here since I've been in this 560 days about, you know, we have all the power and we get to do it all ourselves and we'll tell you when the solution's ready but we'll tell you, and we'll tell you when to vote for it.

Members want to be part of the solution, Mr. Speaker.

Now, I recognize as well some of my community colleagues may be voting for this because they appreciate the file and I hear other community colleagues saying well, this is a Yellowknife issue. I wish you'd see beyond that. This is a healthcare system issue. Yellowknife issues are the same but different than regional issues, and regional issues are the same but different than community issues. And hence everyone has their own dynamics. But it doesn't mean you have to ignore Yellowknife to fix a Deline issue. We can work on them differently at the same time. You know, a solution in Norman Wells may be a solution in Fort Smith and Fort Simpson that is slightly different than Yellowknife. Yeah, work on them all at the same time. We have so many people working on different facets. You know, I hate this frustration of somehow embedding or characterizing this is a Yellowknife only solution or a Yellowknife only motion. This is a territory-wide problem.

Mr. Speaker, some of the -- I'm going to run through these very quickly. You know, for example, locum contracts and we want to talk about them in a public release. Actually, I think that would be a good thing. It's kind of like the sunshine list of our contracts. They're out there, we're honest about what we're paying people, and we're showing people. What better way to be more competitive and transparent. Mr. Speaker, there's no shame in that by saying these are the base pays of what we offer. They may come with benefits, but the reality is these are the base fee. By the way, we do that for most of our employees anyway now so why would we keep this area super secret just because we call the work contract instead of employed?

Mr. Speaker, the reason we -- you know, we want to instill -- very important essence to the agency nurse problem. When we see people coming here, being paid more, leaving and whatnot, it causes frustration. And hence we also see people here, and we've been told stories by the nursing community where folks have just said well, wait a minute, if I quit and I move to California -- and I even heard a lady point out an individual from Australia comes all the way here. I mean, it's hard to imagine that those costs are being picked up. So you have all the glory of living wherever you want in the world and someone picks up all your costs. I mean, these are the type of dynamics that we want to see closing those gaps. Will there ever be a time that there's zero agency nurses? I don't know. But we can work towards it. And we certainly should work with that attitude trying to close that gap to zero. And it's things like that change the retention attitude on how nursing and other types of healthcare workers feel.

As far as pay incentives, Mr. Speaker, I mean I heard the other day about -- from the Minister, you know, like, they have a contract and sort of a way her response being as, you know, we can't do that. I never, ever, ever heard someone saying they wouldn't take more money than their contract currently prescribes. I mean, it would be really nice if people were like that, but the truth is is that if we're going to pay healthcare workers more, who is going to say no? Oh my goodness, you're paying my 10 more dollars an hour; that's a breach of your contract. Like, they're not going to dig it.

You know, and the fact about pay is you know what, it's about money too. I mean, what's wrong with leading the country? And I hate the repetitive story I hear everyone's competing for these people. Who cares? Let's show them we're leading and make them sweat bullets when they find out how much we pay them and show them how much we take care about -- care for them, and how much we're willing to go. I mean, if the Minister wants to bring forward through the Finance Minister clearly, but if the Minister of health wants to push forward a supp of another 20 percent on her budget, I mean I'll support it. Because health care matters. And as a matter of fact, every door you knock on, whether you're in Lutselk'e, whether you're in Deline, health care matters.

Mr. Speaker, it's funny when we talk about the negotiated physician licensing sharing. Actually, it's kind of like a -- the trade barrier is broken down, you know. A license is good here as a license is good there. And I think things like that are extraordinary opportunities. You know, and when we look at, for example, technologies, I would actually extend that for my opinion of saying, like, online bookings. I was listening to something Wab Kinew was talking about the other day, how he was holding up his cell phone -- I won't use it because it's technically a prop -- but he was holding up his cell phone and showing people in Manitoba, you want an appointment, here, book one in the night. Oh, book one on the weekend. You know, like, the attitude of doing things is so much different. I really like that guy, by the way. Shout out to Wab Kinew because he's pretty cool. I really wish he was here at Western Premiers. He was the guy I wanted to meet because he's real. That's why. He's not robotic. He's sincere, but he's in touch with some of the challenges. And I really feel that he cares about the passion of these particular issues. And that's not saying the health Minister doesn't, but I'm just saying he has a way of communicating that passion. And I think Manitoba's quite lucky to have him.

Mr. Speaker, when I hear about emerging technologies, it's not emerging. Booking online, it's not emerging. Transferring your file, e-file to Alberta when you need a specialist to look at you, and it's not an emerging technology being able to dial in and find your own file like you can in other jurisdictions. These are literally catching up to the modern age. We're not even advancing progressiveness in health care; these are catching up.

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak of a little frustration given the chance here is that doctors will be frustrated. We've seen the statistics. We've pulled them. We talked about 50 percent rates, challenges of staffing our specialists, hearing about some who have left, some who are planning to leave. And, you know, often we hear things like from the doctors directly themselves, would you just let us schedule our own stuff. Let us schedule our own files. Let us manage our own schedules. Let us arrange our own surgeries. We will work with each other and cover each other. And you see that loyalty from the medical community. So I say what type of -- you know, what larger bell do we need to ring to acknowledge there's a crisis here? Things are falling down. Things are challenging. It's true things are working but things I think are getting by on the thinnest of possibilities in hope that they're struggling, they're losing.

Mr. Speaker, when you hear about the challenges the medical association has brought forward just to keep the emergency room open, was that the bell of crisis that no one was listening to?

Mr. Speaker, again, I just want to circle back as I want to close here, and I would talk about the risk. Many of the professionals have put great -- I'll say personal risk in jeopardy by coming forward and talking to us, talking to others. They're concerned that the public administrator isn't the right fit or they're not seeing it through the right communities in the sense of community conversations that is. They're not hearing their concerns. They're bringing them to us. And, you know, they've reached the point of saying they don't care anymore; they're willing to risk it. And to me, that speaks passion, that speaks volumes about how important this matter is to these people, that they must feel that they put it all on the line to make sure it doesn't crumble.

Mr. Speaker, I want to finish by -- I'll finish-finish by saying I'm very grateful for the healthcare system we have. I have not been the product of it, but I have certainly been a user of the system very much my whole life. In other words, I wasn't born here but I was certainly -- I've had the pleasure of getting excellent service. Like so many of us here, I doubt any of us would deny that they offer nothing but gold standard. And we are just trying to show them the same type of respect that they give every one of those patients who walks through the door and says, hey, I need some help. And now they're coming to us and saying hey, we need help too. And I can't stress enough this isn't a teardown motion; this is a build-up motion. And I need that that -- ensure that that's loud and clear. This is a build-up the system, collaborative approach, welcoming approach, trying to be a friend of the system and trying to be part of the solution. So if you heard something else, give me a call, I'll walk you through it and show you that we mean well and we want this endeavour to succeed.

So, Mr. Speaker, I'll do it for my good colleague just in case, I know he'll be asking for a recorded vote, so I'll make sure that that gets noted on the record now so it doesn't get forgotten. So anyway, thank you, colleagues, for listening and to our healthcare workers, we need every one of you, please don't leave. Thank you.

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

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.

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.

The Member from Range Lake. The Member for Inuvik Boot Lake. The Member for Monfwi. The Member for Frame Lake. The Member for Great Slave. The Member for Yellowknife North. The Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh. The Member for Sahtu. The Member for Yellowknife Centre.

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

The Member for Thebacha. The Member for Yellowknife South. The Member for Kam Lake. The Member for Hay River North. The Member for Hay River South. The Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes. The Member for Nunakput.

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 by laws 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, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to keep my comments brief today. Certainly, as a Member of this committee, I see merit in investigating this issue further. Times change. Social media has been around for quite a long time now. I'm happy to refer this to committee for further investigation. I'm supportive of the motion as such. Thank you.

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 in 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 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 matters 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.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First, I just wanted to clarify that as far as I understand, we're not talking about taking away or challenging any of the rights and privileges -- rights and privileges established for work that we're doing here within the chamber or within our committees. The point that I think we're trying to discuss here is that as elected officials, our freedom of speech needs to be balanced and constrained by the need to instill public trust and confidence in their elected officials. So I think that's the basic premise that we already accept because that is already constrained by code of conduct and rules within this House.

Mr. Speaker, four years is a long time between elections. I mean, it can be short for those of us who are really anxious to focus on the issues and make as much change as possible for residents. But it can be long for residents who may watch their elected officials publicly behave in unethical ways, whether that's through comments on social media or comments that make it into more traditional media.

Mr. Speaker, no one is going to stop anyone from speaking truth to power. The point is to put boundaries and consequences around elected officials potentially speaking lies, and that would be within forums such as social media. I think it's alarmist to claim that this would lead to a flood of complaints. I mean, I don't know what my colleagues are planning to do on social media. I hope it wouldn't lead to a flood of complaints. And I don't accept the idea that it would be impossible to judge what is an inappropriate, untrue, or misleading statement on social media. We already have mechanisms to judge within this chamber whether statements, you know, violate the code of conduct or are untrue or misleading. So we could use similar criteria that we use to judge things spoken within this chamber to judge statements made outside the chamber. I don't think this is a slippery slope that would lead to wide-spread censorship amongst members of the public at large. We're talking about conduct of elected officials here. And I just wanted to note in my -- the Speaker's previous ruling was based on our existing rules, and it reflected the constraints in our existing rules. And that's fine. But what we're talking about is looking at changing the rules. So for those reasons, I'm supportive of sending this referral to the standing committee so they can examine what could be appropriate amendments to our code of conduct. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do feel the same way here. I don't think -- I don't really see the validity in the motion, but I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt by supporting the motion and moving to committee so they could do their work to the motion, thank you, and come back with a report as suggested by the deadline. Thank you.

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. 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.