Debates of May 27, 2025 (day 60)

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Member from Nunakput. To the motion.

Question.

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

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

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

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

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

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