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.

I guess I would just like to finalize by letting the public know their voice certainly will prevail ultimately. Mahsi.

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

All those opposed, please stand.

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.

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.