Debates of June 4, 2015 (day 83)

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. I’ll allow the seconder to the motion, Mr. Blake.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m privileged to second this motion here today. I know my views have changed over the last year and a half here, but there’s a lot of concern out there, especially in my riding. All the water in this territory comes to the Mackenzie Delta. It comes right down the Mackenzie River from the Sahtu. My constituents are very concerned about what kinds of pollutants will come down in the future. They’re not thinking about today.

We may make a few million in this territory over the next couple of years, but what is that going to cost in the future, to have our waterways polluted? Our wildlife depends on our water and our environment. That is what my constituents are thinking about at this time.

Our future generations, what are they going to have? Are they going to have clean water like we have here today? You could go to almost any creek and in the mountains and drink that water, but what about the future? That’s what my constituents are thinking about right now.

They’re looking down the road 15, 20 years. What is this territory going to look like at that time? I know there are a lot of people out there right now who want us to okay fracking so that we can make a couple hundred million dollars. My constituents have said that our water and our environment is priceless and they want to ensure that if this moves forward, that we see what happens to the Sahtu in the next 10 to 15 years.

This moratorium just asks for a hold for the next couple of years so that we can ensure that we give out more education on fracking. Even to this territory, it’s very new to us. We’ve only been speaking about this for the last two to three years here. For that reason, I am seconding this motion.

Thank you, Mr. Blake. To the motion. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m just going to quickly say I am going to support this particular motion. I do have a fair bit of comments, but I think what I would be doing is duplicating my statement today, because I have a fair bit to add and speak on the plebiscite motion, which is almost, in some ways, the similar theme.

That said, to save my good colleagues from hearing them twice, I’ll just say I’ll be supporting the motion, and I’ll say, “Look forward to my comments,” my good colleagues. “I have some great, passionate statements to make in a few minutes on the plebiscite motion.”

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. To the motion. Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am in support of this motion. I’ve spoken for probably a year now about the need for us to have a conversation on fracking, a public conversation on fracking, and to engage our residents, to help them learn more, to help them ask the questions that they want asked so they can get the information that they are seeking. I spoke last week in my statement and said that we need to have a conversation on fracking. It has yet to happen, and the answers from the Minister to my questions indicates that this government is not prepared to stop looking at regulations and have the conversation about if we should frack.

I also spoke on Tuesday and said the same thing, that we need to have a conversation on fracking. This motion will help us to do that. As Mr. Bromley said, the whereases in the motion speak for themselves. The public has asked for a conversation. They’ve asked for a review. They’ve asked for something similar to what the Yukon did and over a two-year period. We have the time. We know that there is not going to be development in the Sahtu over the next at least year, two years, even longer I gather, is what the industry is saying.

It is a perfect time, in my mind, for us to stop, do the consultation and the total review on the merits and benefits of fracking. I believe that’s the wording in the motion. It’s badly needed, and I wish, as Mr. Bromley said, that the government would start listening to what the people are asking for.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. To the motion. Mr. Bouchard.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the mover and the seconder of this motion. I think a lot of the information that’s in this motion is true. I think we do need to get more information out to the public, but at this current time I don’t think it’s an appropriate time to have this motion. I think it’s too early in the process. Our government is currently looking at all the regulations and discussing this.

The Member has indicated that there is no indication that there is any discussion about discussing hydraulic fracturing anymore. The Ministers in this House indicated that we’re going to take our time. We know there’s a natural moratorium. All the industry companies have told us that they’re not going to be here for another two years at least, so this motion to have a moratorium is moot. It doesn’t do anything, because we already have a natural moratorium happening.

Our committee, the Economic Development and Infrastructure committee, the mover and seconder are on it. They know that we are putting that information out to the public, getting the public informed. I think most of the concerns that I’ve been hearing are people want to know more information before they make a decision, so we need to do that. I agree that this government has maybe failed in the fact that maybe we should have brought out a whole discussion.

Some of the other Members have talked about the Yukon. The Yukon spent two years going through the process, and I do believe the Yukon is going ahead. They’re going to want to talk about regulation. They’re going to want to make sure that is great for the Yukon, great for the Northwest Territories regulations, making this jurisdiction the toughest in the world to do hydraulic fracturing, to protect the land and the water.

I do believe that a lot of the information is there, but I don’t think we need to stop this process right now. I think we need to carry on. We need to keep the pressure on the government, to make sure that regulations are done correctly and our public is informed on hydraulic fracturing. We’re doing that. We have a press release out right now. We have all kinds of information. Our research has been spending tons of time. EDI has been looking at this for over two years. We need to get that information out to the public and let the public decide that decision after a process, not to take a knee-jerk reaction and say, “Let’s have a moratorium.”

A motion to say moratorium says, “Industry, we’re shut down for business. We don’t want the business here for at least two years.” Well, we know that the diamond mines are getting to their shelf life on some of them. Where is the next opportunity in 10 years from now? If we shut down now for two years, are we shutting down for 25 years? Who knows? We know that anytime there’s a holdup in the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline, any kind of holdup could have an effect for 20 years from now.

I think this motion is a little bit premature. I think maybe even in the fall we could have this motion and have a more serious discussion, once the public has had an opportunity. Now that the regulations have been out and it’s a keen topic in the public, once they have that information, then they can make that decision. The problem that I have is some of the people who I’ve been getting e-mails from are dead set against fracking. It’s not even calling for a moratorium; it’s just saying no. “Say no.”

I don’t think a lot of our public believe that or have educated themselves to that point to say, “Absolutely no.” I think the majority of our public is saying, “You guys are doing regulations already and we’re not up to speed. We haven’t been given all the information on that.” I agree; we need to give them that information. Let’s do that. Let’s not put a moratorium on it at this time. Let’s get the information out to the public. Let’s keep the discussion going. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. To the motion. Mr. Moses.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to thank the mover and the seconder for bringing this motion forward. Obviously, it has been a big issue, and we did have a little bit of a theme day on this during this sitting.

On April 9th, during my Member’s statement that I made in the House on the community engagement that I attended in Inuvik, I mentioned there was a lot of participation. There were over 30, as I mentioned. But we also had a lot of leaders from the communities come and show their concerns. A lot of it, as you heard from my colleague Mr. Blake, was concern over downstream, should there be spillage or something happen that these fracking chemicals get into the water and eventually come down to our neck of the woods and possibly cause some serious damage.

I also wanted to discuss some of these transboundary water agreements and how much water is being used to do this hydraulic fracturing in Alberta and BC and how it’s affecting our water levels. If we do go ahead and do this hydraulic fracturing, how much of the water is going to be taken away from our water resources? That will impact our water levels throughout the North at the same time.

However, we’re debating this motion in the House right now and there’s no activity going on. There’s no fracking going on. I believe, and I said in committee this morning, that it’s premature to call for such a motion while the government is in the middle of doing a public consultation and public engagement. It criticizes government before for not consulting on various subjects and various matters, and now they’re going out and doing their due diligence and we’re trying to put a motion in this House and pit Members against Members and put a Member’s decision-making forward or not and using it as a piece of an election topic.

Let’s have that discussion when election time comes. However, there’s nothing going on right now. We’re debating a motion on a moratorium of an activity that’s not even taking place, you know? Let’s wait and see if the department can come up with this comprehensive, transparent public review of the cumulative, environmental, social and economic risks and benefits of this process.

All these big companies that come through the Sahtu said they’re not going to be looking at doing any work until 2016-17. If we put this moratorium in place for the two years that they’re expecting, well, what we’re doing is tying the hands of the 18th Legislative Assembly on the tail end of what we think is important. And it is important. I agree on that. But we’re making a decision for Members coming in who would have to make the big decisions, looking at our debt, looking at our programs and services and looking at how we do business for residents of the Northwest Territories.

When is the economy going to pick up? Who knows? Yet we’re going to be tying the hands of the decision-makers in the next government on a process that’s not even happening right now.

I understand the case. Let’s wait to see if the government can give us those reports. Once we get them, then we’ll have this debate, then let’s make this decision. And if what we get from them we don’t agree with, then let’s put this moratorium in place. But right now I think we’re debating a motion on something that’s not even happening and it’s putting us in a very awkward position to discuss something that’s not even happening in the Northwest Territories right now. It might not even happen in the 18th Assembly. So let’s look at it in that sense.

These public engagements are going to put a moratorium in place. You’ll hear it from my constituents and hear it from people across the North. Sure, there are a lot of people who are uneducated on hydraulic fracturing. These public engagements can actually educate our residents and tell them the process of what’s actually happening. In these public engagements, and as I mentioned during my Member’s statement, there are whole new requirements to meet northern priorities. As we said, devolution came down the pipes. We’ve taken on this decision-making, and under that, our government has decided to put four new requirements to meet northern priorities on the proposed regulations that we have right now: baseline surface and groundwater information. Companies are doing that right now. While they’re not looking at drilling, they’re going out and doing that work right now.

I think the big thing that I heard about public disclosure is that they want to make the voluntary disclosure practice mandatory. Tell us everything that’s in your fracking ingredients. Then there are also measures to address air quality and also enhanced supporting. I think it was ConocoPhillips that just released their report recently. It’s a big document and I haven’t had a chance to read it, but that’s the reporting that we need to make a decision on something that we’re discussing right now. How many Members have read that report? I haven’t. We’re trying to make decisions on it and yet there’s a report out there that’s discussing this. Has the Standing Committing on Economic Development and Infrastructure read it? You know, those are questions we have to ask ourselves. Trying to make decisions without the facts is a big concern of mine. We have to start making decisions based on facts and consultations.

As I said earlier, one of the big things, one question I brought up was why are we going to go ahead with hydraulic fracturing when we don’t even have buy-in from all the groups? That’s where the education comes in.

Last year I saw it through a lot of media. Husky and Conoco both declared plans on any type of drilling exploration actually be demobilized out of the communities, and we see the economic impact that had on the Sahtu. You know, you went from 36 local companies down to, what, six? That’s people with jobs. The income assistance went down. There were a lot of benefits and that’s what we need.

You’re going to hear it from Members on this side also. You know, debates and calls for jobs in our communities. You’ve heard here in the House before that we have the highest unemployment rates in the small communities. Right now throughout the world you have a slump in oil prices. We’re not the only jurisdiction that has seen a downturn in the economy and that has no jobs; it’s right across the world. Yet we’re making it even harder to try to get those jobs.

With doing this on the tail end… The response of the Energy Charrette report was just tabled in the House today. We don’t even know what’s in that. You don’t even know what’s coming out of it. What’s the action plan? There might be a better action plan in that Energy Charrette that we can work with what’s going on now, but we’re putting on a moratorium to stop moving forward. Plus the Transportation Strategy.

Mr. Speaker, as I’m trying to make my comments, I’m hearing a little bit of sidebar here, or comments.

Mr. Moses has the floor. Mr. Moses.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker A big thing is the Transportation Strategy. You know, we heard from the Mineral Association of Canada when we had NWT Days and they said that in order to ship resources out, we need infrastructure and I think that questions I had earlier today for the Minister of Transportation show that we need that infrastructure in place so we can start creating jobs. Even if it’s not directly related to the oil industry, at least we’re creating jobs.

All you’ve got to look at is what’s happening up in our region: the Inuvik Tuk Highway; a decrease in income assistance; you’ve got more people working, more families that are able to secure jobs; even the youth that are coming up; so there are a lot of benefits there, even if it’s just working on building that infrastructure up the Mackenzie Valley. During the whole education process of the public engagements, what I heard from that engagement was the shale potential, shale potential for the Gwich’in, the Inuvialuit, of course in the Sahtu, Liard Basin, Cameron Hills. There are tons of it all over the Northwest Territories and, you know, a lot of potential.

Let’s wait until we hear the reports. Let’s see what the government can do before we decide to stop anybody from doing anything. Like I said, we’re debating something that’s not even happening right now.

Coming from the other side of the committees that work and operate in the government, I chair the Standing Committee on Social Programs. You know, we fight for every nickel and dime to provide treatment, to provide counselling, education, work within the justice services. You know, we talk about health centres, schools. We talk about infrastructure to make it the best possible services and programs for the residents who need them.

Last year we just passed a $1.7 billion budget for a population of about 43,000 people, which is, I think, a lot of money when you look at it. I know that we cannot continue to sustain those kinds of programs and services for the people and residents without getting any kind of source of revenue somewhere else. Yet we’re one of the leaders in the world in terms of the shale activity, and I know we do need jobs.

When I ran my campaign, I ran on a social agenda and I still pushed that agenda but learned more about what we need as a territory and as a government, and I think residents also need to see this side of the picture. They need to know that we need jobs to keep our economy going, to keep our government going and to provide a tax base and also provide revenue to keep our programs, our social programs – income assistance, housing, education, Student Financial Assistance – going and operating.

So this motion today is going to be very interesting. We’re trying to already put the shackles on the 18th Assembly. Even in the 18th, like I said, this might not even happen. I look at it on both sides. I’m trying to make a conscious decision, based on the facts and based on what we’re still waiting to hear from the government. But we’re trying to pass a moratorium on something that’s not even happening in the Northwest Territories, and that just boggles my mind and I think that we should, when that happens, when we get the reports, when we get all the information that we need, and if we don’t like it then, then let’s bring the moratorium forward and let’s say, “Hey, you guys went out. You did your consultation. We don’t like it. Let’s put the moratorium in.” Then we can stop it.

We’ve got another sitting of this government in September and I think that’s when this moratorium should have been introduced, not at the tail end of this, not when we’ve got the Energy Charrette report, not when we’ve got the Transportation Strategy. I think we should have got it when we’ve got all the pieces of the puzzle together and then make a decision on that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Moses. To the motion. Mr. Nadli.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to briefly provide my constituents, especially the elders, in terms of the context, in terms of explaining the process of fracking. So I just want to take a couple of moments just to explain to them who are out in the communities.

[English translation not provided.]

Fracking is generally the practice of putting water underneath the ground and ensuring that something comes up, and that’s normally the petroleum resources that are hard to get at. That’s the practice that we’re debating today.

I stand in support of this motion because, you know, we have done moratoriums in this House before. Recently we did a moratorium on evictions. Back in the ‘70s, I think everybody is familiar with the Berger Inquiry and the Berger Report and he put in place a moratorium back in 1977. So, moratoriums are not something new to us and, you know, the timing is perhaps something we need to reflect upon.

We’ve seen, over the past year, a warming trend where we’ve experienced extreme drought conditions. We have on record, forest fires that basically decimated the southern part of the NWT and we’re still experiencing drought-like conditions and it’s not only in the NWT, it’s all over North America. For that matter, around the world we’re seeing just how it is that global warming doesn’t stop and doesn’t have any time. It will continue to advance forward, and it is inevitable that more than likely it will impact two very critical things that I believe play a large part in this whole discussion. One of them is permafrost and the other one is water. You know, we’re seeing a warming trend.

I’d like to know, and this is where our counterparts in Yukon have taken their time, is to study what kinds of impacts global warming will have on permafrost and, at the same time, how hydraulic fracking will impact permafrost. We don’t really know, and we’re living in a part of the world where permafrost is very critical. At the same time, it almost acts like a sponge for us to retain water, and water at this point has become a very precious and critical resource and we can’t take it for granted. We’re seeing, perhaps, water in decline in all parts of the world and we need to ensure that we take measures to conserve this valuable product.

You know, I understand, in terms of oil and gas development, the need for jobs and businesses, and colleagues have very vividly painted the picture that there’s a slowdown in oil and gas activity all over the world because of the oil prices. Yes, I understand that, but at the same time I think what’s very important to remind ourselves is that we didn’t really allow the public, in terms of having their input of how they believe this government should be reflective of the government and be for the government. This is an opportunity where we, as elected leaders from our constituents, express to them, reassure them that yes, indeed, this motion reflects their sentiments and their concerns. So, for those reasons, it’s a simple task for me to stand in support of this motion and ensure it goes forward. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Nadli. To the motion. Mr. Dolynny.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I mentioned the other day, it’s hard not to get caught up in this polarizing drama when the concept of fracking is discussed, and we did that the other day and we’re doing it today as well. So, the truth, Mr. Speaker, as I said, this well has been poisoned a very long time ago, with both extreme views on both sides of the fence, on ideology, scepticism and now science is being involved.

Looking around the globe, activists, social media, environmentalists, scientists, industry and media have done a commendable job getting this issue on the floor of democracy, and today, in our House, we find ourselves debating this motion brought forward by two of our Members.

This motion today, calling for a ban or moratorium on fracking, is a passionate plea and a sign of heartfelt sympathy. However, we cannot afford to walk away from our economic duties as newfound stewards of the land and we cannot ignore the economic potential from responsible resource development.

Yes, as I said earlier, we can all agree that there are risks. All large-scale human activities have them, which is why we must subject ourselves with the highest degree of environmental integrity to the objective of managing this new resource development.

As a Member of this House, I have a duty to all Northerners to protect the land, the water and resources from unwarranted adverse effects, and I intend to do this. Yet, I am equally bound to support the immense benefits of responsible economic developments for its people.

I have witnessed, as we heard from Mr. Moses, first-hand our social umbrella expend a greater deficit without any economic balance whatsoever, and consequently, in order to achieve this balance in society, we need to look at these opportunities and investment and growth with a proper diversified and environmentally sound economy.

Unfortunately, today’s motion contains a litany of issues, some pursuant to fact, others subject to opinion. Yet, to debate each one of them will not distance ourselves from our legal authority to regulatory responsibility under this current act.

I have always said one must find the simplicity of the situation, and in this case, the journey to get there is more important than the decision, and dealing with hydraulic fracturing is no different. Therefore, we must continue and support this comprehensive public engagement that is occurring within our government regulatory authority, and supporting any sort of a ban or a moratorium goes directly against the premise of gathering this important knowledge. We need to manage such risk. As we’ve heard today, it is just too premature.

In the end, we are, and continue to be, a resource-rich economy which has the ability to provide meaningful input in our assessment and management of those economic risks and benefits. We have demonstrated responsibly that we can bring significant employment and business opportunities to our residents, as our diamond mines are a clear example of this success.

To look at this another way, without a mineral resource-based economy, we are a have-not territory, plain and simple. Supporting a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing will have unlimited and significant impact on the future of our economy. I can assure you, sending such a message to the private sector and to the world markets that the NWT is not open for business will result in a complete erosion of confidence for decades, if not generations.

Outside of Yellowknife, where the economic picture is extremely dire, shutting down opportunities from responsible economic developments and benefits will affect our smallest communities, and this I cannot let happen, especially under my watch.

To Mr. Bromley: I’d like to thank you for bringing the motion forward, and to Mr. Blake for seconding it and allowing this debate today. I wish I could support you folks today, but unfortunately, as we’ve heard today, I find this is a bit too premature. As we heard, we have a natural moratorium built into the program right now, and let’s let the department finish the job that it was given instructions to do. I think this is going against that premise.

As I said the other day, there are no winners in this, just merely survivors of opinion, and for that, I’d like to thank everyone today for allowing this debate to occur.

Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. To the motion. Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the Sahtu we believe we can do better because we have the tools now with our hands to create our own destiny, not from Ottawa or not from Yellowknife anymore. They’ve gone through many changes and have adapted to those changes as part of our life.

In the ‘20s, Norman Wells oil development began and is still in this process of developing.

However, the principle of recognition of who we are remains firm. We are our own people in this great land of our ancestors. No one can deny our life’s opportunities, either good or bad, and only good if we’re responsible and bad if we’re irresponsible. But the fact remains, it is our decision alone to make when the Sahtu decided to accept the land in 1993 and it became law. We made a decision to take action, to become a participating member of Canada and build our sovereignty to create opportunities for our institutions and make decisions on how we will protect our land and use our economic activities.

Canada asked the Sahtu if they wanted lands to be opened for exploration. The Sahtu met and decided and said yes. It’s an important point here. Canada asked, not imposed. The residential school days are over.

Last year the Sahtu passed a motion. The motion was drafted and voted on. Earlier in this House today I tabled a motion. The motion talks about working together with the GNWT. It talks about looking at the potential risks, the benefits, sharing of information, seeking the advice of regulations and experts and providing the public report, including recommendations. That’s what the Sahtu wanted in that motion last year. The motion is about working together. What other better time to do this, because today we have an economic self-moratorium. There is nothing, zilch, nil going on in the Sahtu with regard to hydraulic fracking or any other types of exploration in the Sahtu.

Earlier today EDI said they’re eager to participate in the process. Today we also have the mover and the seconder on the EDI to continue this process of regulations. I’d like to say to the EDI members, why don’t you come to the Sahtu? Visit the Conoco leases, read their report and see what types of negative impacts it has done in the two wells that it fracked. Better yet, I would say go down to Fort Liard. As reported in the Economic Strategy, the National Energy Board approved the commercial discovery to produce sweet gas, 12 million cubic metres per day from multi-fractured horizontal wells. Go down there. Do your homework. Check it out.

My colleague, I have family down where he lives. I’m concerned for what he talked about, but today I have not seen any type of evidence, factual evidence that the water that has been used in the fracturing process has gone down. They put tracers down into the ground to see if anything was coming up. Zilch. Nothing yet. But yet, at the same time, Imperial Oil renewed its water licence for 10 years. There are billions of litres that are going down to his country, Good Hope, and it’s going to happen for 10 years. We did not see anybody doing any hard letter-writing campaign from outside our region. Nobody there picketing. Nobody flying up to protest. We allowed that. Imperial got approved. Billions of litres are going to be injected into the 179 producing wells that they have. One hundred seventy wells are well-injected. It means that they’re putting stuff down there to bring the oil up.

There are 386 wells in the proven area, and there are billions of litres that are coming out of the Mackenzie. A lot of it has been going on in the ground, and billions are going to be returned back to the Mackenzie River.

I don’t see this government jumping up or anybody on this side saying, “Put some water stations down in Fort Good Hope to know the impacts of long-term, cumulative effects.” This is 2015. This kind of stuff has been happening since the 1920s. We know the industry. We lived it. We breathed it.

That’s what we’re saying. Because of that type of stuff that was going on, the Sahtu said, “We’re going to negotiate.” After we finished our land claim negotiations it became law. Imperial Oil went up the Mackenzie River to Bluefish Creek to do some work. They didn’t inform us. We told them, “You can’t do this anymore. We have a new law in town.” You know what they did? They got mad. They loaded up their barge and took off down to The Wells.

Their attitude wasn’t even saying we’re sorry. For too long they’ve been doing things like this. That’s why in the Sahtu we wanted to have a land claim to create our own destiny.

I want to say that by working together we can move things, and by working together we can educate each other. I’m learning. Even though I don’t agree with some of the points, I’m learning. I’m learning something, and there’s so much data out there. There are important ones and unimportant ones. I’m trying to figure what’s the information, what’s fact and what’s fiction. I’m trying to educate myself and I want to continue to do it today on what’s available. There’s lots of stuff. Facebook, that’s a whole different world, you know? So, I’m trying to look at what’s available that would give us active data on this new technology and not distort it and just question it. That’s what I tell the people. Learn about it; educate yourself about it. I say that because it’s the messaging that’s getting out there and it’s really important that we get the proper message out there.

A 2011 survey, age 15 and over in the Sahtu, 245 people were unemployed, 550 people were not in the labour force. However, as I researched more, also in the same year, 995 were employed versus 245 that were not working.

So the point is the messaging. Who do you listen to and how does it come across? In the Sahtu we have lots and lots of work to do.

All we’re saying is that if you’re thinking about putting a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing, I ask my colleagues put a moratorium on the diamond mines first before you start calling for a moratorium on oil and gas. Let’s call it even-even. We will not tell you how to do your business in Yellowknife or around the region.

We have a land claim; it’s settled, it’s a constitutionally protected document. We have provisions on our land and water board. We have provisions in our Sahtu Land Use Plan, 10 years in the making by elders who are not even sitting in our home communities right now. We have provisions in our land; we have jurisdiction. Respect that jurisdiction because time is on our side. Right now time is on our side.

I ask the Members on my side of the table, this side here, to look at what’s before the House. What are the measures that are coming out, and that, as Mr. Moses said, we have to look at a number of factors. The number one that I’m looking at is the message that we have to send our children to not be afraid. We have to deal with what we have to deal with, otherwise we’re going to be crippled and be in poverty and we do not want to be in that state. So, I want to say in closing that this motion should never see the light of day again in this House, and I mean it. A motion like this, I’m really wondering about it because we have Members who want to put the cart before the horse. We wanted the control. We asked for it; they gave it to us. Now it’s in our lap and let’s be responsible. We can do it.

Again, I say that time is running out on our legislation, our time in this Assembly. Let’s make some hard decisions and let’s start the 18th Assembly with a clean slate.

So, as you probably know by now, I’m not going to support this motion.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Ramsay, to the motion.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Our government has already made a commitment to the people of the Northwest Territories to take the time that we need to ensure that we get this right and that we intend to do just that. There is no oil and gas activity in the Northwest Territories today and we don’t expect to see any for at least the next couple of years. This pause gives us the opportunity to look at the science, to look at best practices from around the world and to design a world-class approach to managing it. Time is on our side and we should use that time to our advantage.

Last week I committed publicly to take the time that is necessary to ensure that Northerners understand this important issue. I remain committed to that and this government remains committed to that. We’ve already initiated a public dialogue on hydraulic fracturing, and it is important for that process to play out so that Northerners can better understand what this is all about and what is at stake. As a government, we want to see that dialogue with Northerners continue so that together we can understand the issue and decide how best to manage it.

Just over a year ago we gained responsibility of our regulatory system through devolution. We took up that responsibility and we told NWT residents that we could serve them well. We said that Northerners would be in charge, that we would be in charge and we are in charge. We promised to maintain the fundamental aspects of the regulatory system that have been established through the land claims and territorial and federal legislation. The system reviews every project multiple times, making sure projects are in the public interest. Land and water boards regulate the use of land and water in our territory. The departments of ITI, Lands and ENR have important roles in the system. Other public agencies are involved in inspections and in management.

That system works. We can trust the system and we can strengthen the system. We can design made-in-the-North rules that benefit the territory and its people. Working to build that system with the people of the North is our primary focus. We’ve already started to do that, and we already know we have the time that we need to get the work done. We need to keep moving forward with our work to build a strong, robust system here in the Northwest Territories.

These are the reasons why the government will not be supporting this motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. To the motion. I’m going to allow the mover of the motion to have closing remarks. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all I want to thank all of my colleagues for their participation in the debate today and of raising their various perspectives.

First of all I’d like everybody to realize, in the Northwest Territories, that we’re talking about very big dollars here, very, very big dollars, and when we are doing that you can get a real distortion and move away from objectivity into distorted views and so on and a lot of biases.

So, I know it’s frustrating for the public, but that’s not unusual and it’s something we have to deal with. The public’s voice will be prevailing, but I think it’s important to know that we are talking about very big dollars here and that’s causing many people to have the views that they do have. I would say we need to listen to our elders, and our elders, when they were in this House, spoke with a unanimous voice very clearly on fracking and what they thought.

This gets back to what my seconder said very clearly: The concern is about our future. It’s about our water. Will it be safe? It’s about our land. Will it look and feel and actually be the same into the future for our children and our coming generations?

We’ve heard that people have called for a formalized opportunity. My colleagues have called for a formalized opportunity for a thorough conversation on the risks of fracking. The government is clearly refusing to do that. They will talk about how to get fracking done, but they are refusing to have that conversation.

I’ve heard my colleagues call for a real opportunity to get information out on the table for discussion from all angles, an example of the data. That’s what is being refused here today.

I guess we heard that informing the public, we need to educate our residents. This is so incredibly arrogant. One of the biggest difficulties for me, serving the public, is to hear this sort of arrogance. I am continually impressed with the knowledge of the public that I interact with. There may be an education needed, for sure, but from what I see and hear, it’s not only outside of this House where education is needed.

I think somebody mentioned it is a moot point. We do have a quiet period of time and that’s certainly true. But consider two things: The government is on record of permitting fracking without environmental review already. This is not an unknown situation, so the public is reacting to that, of course. Secondly, the public is calling for the moratorium. This is not something we’ve come up with ourselves. The public are the ones who have signed the petitions by the thousands. You’ve heard from them in many different ways. That moot point is a bit of a moot point there.

Social programs need dollars. I hope my colleagues realize I pushed very hard for spending in the social area. It is the reason why I always push for the triple bottom line. We cannot do these things in isolation. To allow and even support the damage to our environment and reducing the ability of our environment to support life in order to try to support the social side of things is biting ourselves in the butt. That’s why I always encourage people to try to get to both meetings – the social, environment and economic discussions – so we can have that rounded picture.

The point about deciding to put a moratorium in place when all information is collected, unfortunately the government is on record for permitting fracking without an environmental review and they are saying they will not have this comprehensive discussion this motion calls for. That’s the important part, not the moratorium. The important part of the motion is it calls for a comprehensive, transparent and public discussion and review of the risks and a public decision on whether or not those risks are acceptable. That is not clearly on the government’s agenda, as we’ve heard today.

I think it would have been great to learn more about the ConocoPhillips wells, and I have attempted to do that through written questions, as suggested by my colleague for the Sahtu. But, of course, that information is proprietary and confidential. I was told I can’t have that for a couple of years.

Finally, I would agree that this will certainly be an election issue no matter what we do, and that will be appropriate. Many people wanted to seek a ban and I have been a proponent of a moratorium as opposed to a ban. They wanted a ban based on some pretty good information, very convincing.

Again, I encourage consideration of a moratorium. I guess I now would encourage the public to go for a ban. We know that fracking is not healthy for people and our future. I again encourage people to look at the committee research report on the draft fracking regulations that were tabled today.

Speaking to my colleagues, I wanted to thank the researcher for the extraordinary work that she did, Megan Welsh, on producing that report.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The Member is seeking a recorded vote. All Members in favour of the motion, please stand.

Mr. Bromley, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nadli, Mr. Hawkins, Ms. Bisaro.

All those opposed, please stand.

Mr. Yakeleya; Mr. Beaulieu; Mr. Abernethy; Mr. Miltenberger; Mr. McLeod – Yellowknife South; Mr. Lafferty; Mr. Ramsay; Mr. McLeod – Inuvik Twin Lakes; Mr. Dolynny; Mr. Bouchard; Mr. Moses.

All those abstaining, please stand. Five in favour, 11 opposed. The motion is defeated.

---Defeated

By the authority given to me as Speaker by Motion 10-17(5), I hereby authorize the House to sit beyond the daily hour of adjournment to consider business before the House.

Mr. Hawkins.

WHEREAS the Elections and Plebiscites Act provides that the Commissioner may, on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly, direct that a plebiscite be held on any question that is of importance to the people of the Northwest Territories;

AND WHEREAS discussion and debate of hydraulic fracturing in the Northwest Territories has entered public discourse;

AND WHEREAS the government has recognized the significance of public engagement in this area and announced that engagement on proposed hydraulic fracturing regulations will continue until at least August 2015;

AND WHEREAS, to date, this engagement has shown hydraulic fracturing to be an issue of great importance to the people of the Northwest Territories;

AND WHEREAS the people of the Northwest Territories should take part in any decision on whether to undertake hydraulic fracturing in the Northwest Territories as well as how to regulate any such activity;

AND WHEREAS the Polling Day of the Northwest Territories General Election will be held on Monday, November 23, 2015;

NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Weledeh, that this Legislative Assembly recommends to the Commissioner that a plebiscite be held in the Northwest Territories on Monday, November 23, 2015, with the following question: “Should hydraulic fracturing be permitted in the Northwest Territories?” Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Hawkins.

Mr. Speaker, today’s motion is a plebiscite. It’s a motion calling for clear guidance from the public to the Legislature. This motion is something that none of us can lose on if we vote in favour of it. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, this is our opportunity to get the opinion of the public.

Fracking is defined as the topic of today. You see this question all over the place, not just here, not in the Northwest Territories, not in Canada, but all over the world. This is an important question for our time. So, it’s not just about what we think we know about fracking, it’s also about what we want to know from the public, which is how do they feel.

This motion is simply asking about the authority to frack, nothing more. It doesn’t go along and ask the people how to frack, it asks the question, simply, “Should we be allowed fracking in the Northwest Territories?”

We have polls out there, like the old Nik Nanos that reach out by calling people and they all have margin of errors. But a plebiscite would come forward and it would be clear. It would be in black and white, of the public’s opinion.

Now, some will say, and they will be right about this, that the Northwest Territories government is out there getting people’s opinions on hydraulic fracturing under the regulations process, and what’s at play here is it’s not about should fracking happen, it’s about how to frack. It’s quite a bit different. They’re not the same issue.

Should we not ask the permission of the people on such an important issue? It may be correct that they should ask how to frack, but I think that’s one step ahead of where we should be today. We need to realize this before we continue too far down that path, before we forget to look back.

Let me stress, Mr. Speaker, this is a plebiscite. The plebiscite asks for clear direction, a public opinion, and a plebiscite motion is non-binding. Under Section 48 of the Elections and Plebiscites Act, it clearly spells out that it isn’t binding on the Legislative Assembly, on its Executive Council, or any other person under that purview. So, if it’s non-binding, there’s nothing for us to be afraid of. If anything, it shows great courage that we were willing to go out to the people and ask them their opinion. Leadership sometimes thinks that. It’s not about making decisions in isolation and there’s certainly no shame in asking the public what they want. If anything, we should feel enormously proud that we’ve used our democracy in a way that works. We’ve gone to the public saying, “What do you think?” We have the ability to make these choices. Let us use that courage to deal with this issue in that manner.

Now, there will be those in favour of fracking, and let me assure them, by supporting this motion it shows leadership, as well, because it is the direction from the masses. We should not be hiding behind maybe a few people making this decision. Let’s involve everyone as part of it.

This is an ideological question. It’s an environmental question. If anything, this is a question about the future. So let us gain power from the strength of ourselves reaching out to the strength of our people and stand strong and tall. This is certainly the lifetime opportunity we’ve been looking for by being willing to ask this type of question.

To be clear, this government technically doesn’t have a mandate from its people; and the style of government that we run, which is consensus government, never gets one. But wouldn’t it be neat if this was a way we could break ranks and allow our Ministers a free vote? Wouldn’t this be a neat way to get a mandate from the people of the Northwest Territories on one clear issue? A mandate could say, one way or the other, if the Territories supports fracking or not. It would be definitive; it would be clear; it would be black and white. We would be able to go forward as a government, as a people.

Now, some would say, “Well, let’s wait. We could do this in September.” Well, you know, there is no technical sweet spot of when we do these things. You either do them or you don’t. So we can wait and we can do an information campaign now; we can wait and do it later; or we could probably not do it at all. But we have to ask ourselves, when would be the right time, and now is it. I trust the public, I really do, and I think the public deserves the opportunity to have their voice heard on this one.

This is not a trivial issue and I wish people would not try to pretend that everything’s perfect. We all know that there has been, and I’ll be fair, there have been experiences where fracking has not been done well – and there should be no denial of that – and at the same time there have been places where fracking has been done very safely and we know that. But this is an ideological question. This is not a question about has it been done right or has it not been done right. This is a question about what type of northern development do we want here. This issue, honestly, will define a generation, like climate change. I link it to that. How many issues do we have the world talking about? Not many. Let us not miss this opportunity to rise to the occasion.

Now, some don’t think this is important and, you know, making a decision, I hope they do see this is important. But people will ask, “Where were you when this decision was made, this incredible decision was made?” People will also ask you, “Where were you and how did you decide as part of this very important decision?” The opportunity to make this decision – empower the people, get them involved, let them be clear – would only cost us $17,500 if it ran during the next General Election, which is about six months away. Without trying to sound critical, of course, I’ve seen this government spend millions of dollars on profoundly less important issues over and over again. That’s an opinion. I’m not trying to say that it’s critical, but we all know spending could be done better in various ways. But I’ll tell you, what an amazing amount of investment and public opinion and mandate that would be clear and definitive for such an affordable price.

Now, if you’re for fracking, I honestly say this actually helps your argument. If the public votes for it, there you go. And if you’re against fracking, well, that helps your argument too. I really don’t see a lot of losers in this situation by asking the people what they want. Let the people play a role in this, because they deserve it. So, this is not about how to frack, this is solely left, should we frack. By the way, to date, to frack or not to frack is left solely in the hands of the seven people on Cabinet. It’s not the 19 of us.

So, back to timing. There’s the old Goldilocks theory and it’s all based on timing. Either too soon, too late, or when it is just right. So, again, some people will say, “Well, let’s wait and leave this motion until September. Let’s put it off until later.” The fact is September is just, frankly, too late. The government or anyone else couldn’t get the right information. The government or anyone else couldn’t get information out in time. That wouldn’t be fair to the issue. That wouldn’t be fair to anyone.

Now, some would have said, “Well, we should have done this last session or maybe even last year.” Mr. Speaker, that wouldn’t have been right either because it would have been so far in advance people would probably not care, not organize properly. So, when is the right time? Now is the right time to make a decision. It’s relevant, and with the regulation discussion going on, the timing doesn’t get better. The public barometer is there. They’re tuning in with their finely tuned antenna, asking themselves, what’s happening? They want a role in this particular situation. They want to know. They want to be involved. They want a say.

This does not interfere with the regulation discussion going on. It could go on at the same time and there’s nothing to be afraid of. It doesn’t debunk that process and, actually, could run concurrently. And there’s no worry, Mr. Speaker, we could do it.

The public is asking for an opinion on this one. I’m asking Members to vote to allow them to have an opinion. Should it succeed, I think we’ve done a monumental thing; that is the motion, that is. We should never be afraid to give the public an opportunity to engage on important issues like this, and frankly, as I said at the beginning, if the plebiscite came forward and whatever the results were, they’re non-binding. The government could use them as good advice on how to do business better, or how to do it differently.

As I come to the end of my opening comments I will say this: What better way to have a mandate from the people of the Northwest Territories? There is no clear method to do this through a public plebiscite. This would give any future government the authority to act and how to act. No one could deny that.

The plebiscite question is about all of those communities and all of those peoples and all of those assemblies talking about one thing – their future – and they want to be part of it. It takes courage amongst all of us to make that type of decision. If this motion fails, I will tell you, the public will never be given another chance to have input in such a similar way as they could today. It’s true they can write letters and they can send e-mails and they can demonstrate until the cows come home outside of the Assembly, but the fact is, this is really the sweet spot for them to have a chance to be part of the process and today is their day. So I ask everyone to think about that when they choose to rise about their comments. When they choose their comments, I ask them, let us give the public the chance to weigh in on this very important issue. Mr. Speaker, absolutely, of course, I’ll want a recorded vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. To the motion. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Devolution was supposed to give the people of the Northwest Territories a voice in matters previously decided from afar by faceless bureaucrats with no skin in the game. It has become apparent, as illustrated by the issue of whether we should pursue fracking in the NWT or not, that our public’s voice continues to fall on deaf ears and that the government’s platitudes about decisions being made by the people of the North were just lip service. The people continue to be unheard when they speak.

That is why when presented with an initiative to give the people an opportunity to speak clearly and directly to the government on a matter of importance to them, I will always be in full support of it. A plebiscite on this contentious issue held in conjunction with our territorial election this fall will provide clear, if narrow, direction to the next Assembly on the issue of whether we should allow the use of hydraulic fracturing in the Northwest Territories or not.

Obviously, it would be much better for this government to hear the people put in place a cost-free moratorium, given the unlikelihood of any industry interest for years, and conduct a comprehensive, transparent and public review of the risks that accompany fracking and whether or not they are acceptable.

Given their apparent deafness and based on their record, my expectations of government to act as requested by the public are low at this point. They have done nothing in response to the clarion call of public: “Why would the government respond to MLAs trying to bring the public voice forward.” But we leave no tool untried.

I am confident this will be an issue in the upcoming election one way or another, but for this moment, this is a straightforward, low-cost motion to seek the public’s view on fracking. I will support this motion.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. To the motion. Mr. Moses.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank Mr. Hawkins for bringing the motion forward. He makes some really good points, some pretty clear points there, and once again, we’re trying to make a decision here on something that’s not even happening in the Northwest Territories. The economy is so bad right now worldwide, we don’t even know what’s going to happen in the next government. There’s going to be a cost effect to it, no matter how low it is. We’re still going to make a decision, throw money at it, and we don’t even know what’s happening.

The main problem that I have with this plebiscite is the population disparity. We’re going to get thousands of people here in Yellowknife who are going to vote against the small community of Norman Wells, the small region of the Sahtu, the small region of the Beaufort-Delta. Every time, regions are going to lose. Small communities are going to lose when we put a plebiscite out like that, and it’s not fair to the small communities and it’s not fair to the small regions. I think that when we do bring a motion like this into the House, you’ve got to think about the small communities that we’re here to serve. Right there, it’s unfair. I can’t support this motion on that alone. Especially, like I mentioned, you’ve got the transportation, the report on the response to the Energy Charrette coming through. We haven’t even looked at those yet. We haven’t even heard from the public engagement.

Like I said, we’re making a decision on something that’s not happening right now, and in terms of population disparity, small communities, regions are going to lose. I came here to represent the small communities, the regions, even Yellowknife, but in this case, for such a controversial issue, we know where it’s going to go, so I’m not going to vote in favour of this motion. I think it’s very unfair to the people of the Sahtu, the Gwich’in, the Inuvialuit, the Deh Cho where all the shale potential is. I don’t think it’s fair to them and I think it’s almost… I won’t even say anything on that yet, but I will leave it at that and I won’t be voting in favour of the motion.

Thank you, Mr. Moses. To the motion. Mr. Bouchard.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated with the last motion, I think some of this stuff is very premature. This motion is even worse. We talked about taking a couple of years in the last motion, taking a couple of years to get information out to the public, get informed. Now we’re going to rush it over six months, and now six months from now the public has to make a decision on whether we’re going to have a plebiscite or not.

Honestly, our committee didn’t even hear about this until a couple days ago. This decision to do a plebiscite, we’re going to take this to the people right now? We haven’t even completed the process of talking to the people. I mean, my colleagues say they support the fact that we should be listening to the people. I have no problem with that. That’s what I’ve indicated. We need to keep consultation going. A plebiscite to force them to make a decision on that now or over a period over the next three months when we’re in the summer session, how do we get that information out to them to make that decision?

I understand. This is the perfect timing for it if we’re going to do it, but I don’t think we’ve gotten all that information out there. We haven’t had all that discussion. My colleague Mr. Moses hit it on the head. I mean, with a population of anywhere from 45 to 48 percent sitting in Yellowknife that don’t have anything to do with hydraulic fracturing, there’s a disparity there.

At this time, we need to stay the course. We need to keep pressure on our government to make sure regulations are as strong as we can have them in this territory, as anywhere else in the world. I will not be supporting this motion.

Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. To the motion. Mr. Blake.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Even though I did support the last motion, I will have to abstain on this motion. The reason being is the reason I supported the last motion. As I said, people need more time. As the Member from Hay River mentioned, six months is not enough time. That’s why we asked for up to two years for a moratorium here so people can get that information.

We would have had a couple more votes on our last motion if we didn’t go ahead with this one, and I was hoping that we didn’t. But just with that, I’m abstaining on this one.

Thank you, Mr. Blake. To the motion. Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My stated goal is that we have a comprehensive public review of fracking, and that is what I wish for. I don’t believe that this motion will give enough time for that to happen. I support, certainly, the wish of my colleagues to hear the voice of the people, and I am always open to the voice of the people.

At this point, I don’t feel that I can make a decision on this motion. I haven’t had time to canvass my constituents. As mentioned, we saw this quite late in the week this week. I’ve been considering it ever since I first saw the motion and I really don’t know how I should vote. I am going to abstain. I don’t feel that I can vote against it, because it is the wish of my colleagues that this motion go forward, but I can’t vote for it in this particular instance.

I have to comment on a couple of the statements that have been made earlier by my colleagues. It has been stated that we – and I’m presuming by “we” it’s talking about us in the House – are making a decision with this plebiscite. I have to disagree. We are not making any decision in terms of fracking. We are simply giving an opportunity to the public to express their view.

There have been comments about the fact that if there is a plebiscite that the majority of people in Yellowknife will override the people in the regions. What it doesn’t do, if there is no plebiscite, is it doesn’t allow the people in the regions who are against fracking – and there are a lot of them – to express their voice. I wish we would not pit region against region. I think you will find that there are a lot of people in Yellowknife who probably would support fracking.

However, that said, I want to keep my comments short and that’s all that I have at this point.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. To the motion. Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, am going to not support this motion. I find it puzzling. I don’t know if it’s the appetite of the day or the week, because this motion coming in here and asking us to take a plebiscite to the people in November, and on any question that’s important to the people of the Northwest Territories, as MLAs, every Assembly we have questions of importance. I could add on to the plebiscite a number of questions to the people to vote on. It’s just a natural process in November when we go to the polling stations, people there vote on the candidacy, on their records, on where they stand on certain positions. You don’t need to ask them. They know where you stand. They know what you’re saying in the House. You go in the grocery store and they tell you. You go on Facebook and they’ll tell you, really tell you. So, you don’t need to spend $17,000. Put that towards an education or youth program. Put it somewhere where it’s best to use.

So there are lots of discussions, lots of debates of hydraulic fracking. It’s in the public; it’s in the bars; it’s in the restaurants; it’s in the conference rooms; it’s in the House. There are lots of discussions, lots of debates, depending on where you sit on the table; depending on what information you get; depending who you believe, who you don’t believe. There are lots, even in Yellowknife here. Even for me going down, people talk about fracking. They don’t talk about the community or how about fracking is really going on. Let’s not kid ourselves here.

Feedback into the regulations, that’s happening now. We all have different roles in the Assembly. We all play different roles. We’re given these roles to take them on with high integrity and regard and very seriously. We have members on Social Programs, Government Operations and EDI. I see you having a role with EDI asking this question. So I wonder sometimes, is that committee tainted because they’re asking these questions? They haven’t finished their work yet. That clearly, clearly, if anything, is putting the cart before the horse. Let’s do our work. Let’s not pull our potatoes before the first seeds have sprouted and grown up, okay? That, for me, is serious.

However, we all justify our own means of putting things forward and working on them. I respect the members from EDI. I’d respect them more if they went to Norman Wells and did a tour of the Conoco sites.

I want to say something again clear and loud. Read my lips: The Sahtu people have a land claim. They are the ones who said, ‘Yes, open the lands for exploration.” The people of the Northwest Territories, Sahtu, through their jurisdictions, institutions, constitution, protected rights said yes, not the people of the Northwest Territories. That’s a clear fact that we’re not looking at. We have a land and water board. Look at the Water Board: tight, tight, tight in regard to regulations. Yes, we can learn some more. Look at our Sahtu Land Use Plan. If you were to look at the regulations, you would have four decks of binders of regulations. You go to Alberta there are two decks. You go to Russia, there are no decks. It’s pretty rough over there on environmental issues.

So, we’ve got to put things in perspective. We’re in the driver’s seat and, like driving a vehicle, it’s a privilege. You follow the rules. You obey signs and regulations. There’s a good chance that you won’t get in an accident, but you never know. Slippery roads, blowout tires, other drivers. That’s part of life. There are no guarantees.

I want to say that, again, it’s not up to the people. Mr. Hawkins thinks it’s up to the people of the Northwest Territories. Very, very clear, even though we do have impacts, it’s no different than the diamond mines here in Yellowknife. Have you read their report? They drained five lakes, millions and billions of litres. Does that compare to hydraulic fracturing? It’s more like a little teaspoon of water in their buckets of water that they use. Its chemicals are crazy. Thousands of trucks, tens of thousands of trucks that pass through Yellowknife. If our exploration ever hits peak, it’s about 2,500 at the most.

We in the Sahtu never interfered because, you know, these benefits down here, we have never said, “Should they have a plebiscite on should they be mining here?” You ever see those pictures of the mines? I have it right here. I don’t want to table it because it’s a public document already. Drained lakes, 10, 11, 12 hundred fish taken out of the lake. It’s just mind-boggling.

So I just wanted to say that Canada asked the people in the Sahtu, and Canada is working with the people in the Sahtu because we have a land claim, and our land claim allows us to participate in the Northwest Territories. It’s a sovereign state. It’s a sovereign nation, jurisdiction, institution, self-government provisions. It’s totally different from the 1920s, ‘30s and ‘40s. That’s what people of the Northwest Territories outside the region need to understand. We have our own work inside our own region to do and that’s what we’re basing our decisions on.

So, in short, I will not support the motion.

---Laughter

To the motion. Mr. Dolynny.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to thank Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Bromley for bringing this to the floor of the House today to allow some debate on it here.

The whole idea about devolution was to reduce our dependence on Ottawa. We keep hearing that, that we want to take full control of our lands, our water and resources, and in this process we are evolving. We’re going through our evolution, and I think we’ve shown our ability, in a very short period of time, to deal with our new environmental duties in managing our resource development. It appears, by all accounts, that this government is still listening, the department is still learning, and I think this is a good sign. I still see a government today knocking on the doors of communities and getting feedback on the creation of these regulations, regulations that will form the principles of the environmental protection umbrella that will be governed by Northerners for Northerners.

So, today’s motion before us calls for a plebiscite, and we’ve heard from Mr. Hawkins this is not a binding legal standard and he used the term “a barometer.” It’s a gauge. It’s a kind of a tool to gauge public opinions, but I know that this is not the only tool that can be used by the House and certainly sometimes it’s not the most cost effective. In fact, past debates on this very same issue of a plebiscite or a referendum put costs around $1.8 million to the Minister as a stand-alone event. Now, I know the motion speaks for this question to be added to the ballot of the next General Election, but there will still be a cost and to what extent we really don’t know.

I know we’ve heard today from a Member and also from another Member here that $17,000 range as a number, and I know this number came from the office of the Chief Electoral Officer. Now, for all due consideration, Members of this House have only been privy to this number just for a couple hours here, and this number has never been substantiated or validated by any accounting standard or practice and I do have the utmost respect for the chief electoral office and definitely the fine work that they do, but until we see a full cost accounting that breaks down the wages and legal costs, drafting costs, management costs, printing costs, the most we can hope to say at this point is that this motion asks the taxpayer to budget anywhere from $17,000 to as high as $1.8 million, which I know is high, but these are the only numbers we know. At the end of the day, we don’t know. I’m not saying it’s $1.8 million, I’m just saying that we don’t know. It’s somewhere in between.

To the bigger question, as an elected leader, as an elected official of the Northwest Territories, you’re here to do what’s best for the people we serve. My role, everybody’s role here is to act as a fiduciary in protecting of the land, the water and resources and to support any benefits of responsible economic development of the Northerners we serve. I for one have no problem, no problem at all, standing up in this House to represent the views of my riding and the people I serve. To cloud this ability in any form and to resolve our proceedings by plebiscite or even a referendum, for that matter, questions the very system that I hold true, and I’m sure it’s the same for many of us here.

So, for that, it’s unfortunate that I cannot support this motion. But I do want to thank Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Bromley for bringing it forward today. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. To the motion. Mr. Nadli.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think it’s fair that in this circle we work in consensus. Looking at this issue of hydraulic fracking, right across Canada there is no consensus. There are jurisdictions in parts of Canada that have put a moratorium on this very matter. This is at the national level. Perhaps looking at the NWT there is indeed no consensus as well. We have some regions that are prepared and want to do fracking. There are some regions that are against it. But at the same time, there are communities that don’t have consensus on this matter.

Clearly, the best thing we can do is to try to take this matter to the fullest extent of how we work in principle in terms of consensus. Giving the voice to the people is giving an opportunity for them to express their concern and for us to respectfully listen to them. That’s the true spirit of consensus.

This plebiscite is in that spirit and I support it. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Nadli. The honourable Premier, Mr. McLeod.

Mr. Speaker, this government understands that the protection of the land, water and environment matters to Northerners. It matters to us too.

Sustainable responsible development has always been a priority for our government. As part of devolution, we committed to improving and strengthening the way we manage development in the Northwest Territories, to ensure that it reflects northern values and priorities while providing for the creation of jobs and economic opportunities through responsible sustainable development.

We already have a strong system based on federal and territorial law and obligations established in settled claims and self-government agreements. Decisions must be made within that legislative context and should be consistent with established frameworks and policies like the Land Use and Sustainability Framework, Sustainable Development Policy and NWT Water Stewardship Strategy. That system already provides good tools for managing development in the Northwest Territories with ongoing input from the public. We should continue to rely on that system and focus on making it better.

A plebiscite is not the best way to do that. Plebiscites are not binding. They are simply tools used to gauge public support. They are not the only tool to do that and they certainly are not the most cost effective. Previous estimates of the cost of a plebiscite were approximately $1.8 million, and we know a significant amount of work and time with Elections Northwest Territories would be required.

We are already engaged in a public conversation about hydraulic fracturing and have committed to taking the time we need to develop good, strong rules about it, rules that are informed by science, best practices and the views of Northerners.

We have plans to continue that conversation and to engage with Northerners across the territory in the coming months. There will be plenty of opportunities during the public engagement for the people of this territory to express their views on the issue of hydraulic fracturing.

Hydraulic fracturing is a complicated issue that cannot be easily reduced to just one question. It has implications for oil and gas development more broadly, and ultimately for the future health and growth of our economy.

We shouldn’t reduce something this important to one simple question. We should be having an extensive public discussion about it. The public engagement process we have already undertaken gives us a venue to have that kind of conversation. It gives us the opportunity to dig into the issue and fully understand it. We need to continue that conversation because it will give us a better and rich understanding of what matters to Northerners than a plebiscite would.

We don’t need a plebiscite to learn what Northerners think. We already have a process underway and have already committed to taking the time we need to have that conversation with the public. I hope that the public and Members of the Legislative Assembly will take advantage of that to weigh in on the issues in the coming months.

Cabinet will be voting against this motion, Mr. Speaker.