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.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. To the motion. I’ll allow the mover of the motion to have further remarks. Mr. Hawkins.

Well, first of all, Mr. Speaker, I thank those who have spoken in favour of the motion, and those who spoke against the motion, I probably won’t thank you at this time. But in the spirit of consensus government, I do recognize and appreciate and respect your perspectives.

I did hear a few things and they did cause me great concern. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important question, the plebiscite question on hydraulic fracturing. The reality here before us, though, is if we can’t use the Plebiscite Act for stuff this important, why bother having it?

I heard the cries of people suggesting things, and I was actually quite upset when I heard colleagues suggest this is about region against region. To be honest, that actually bothered me quite a bit. Yellowknife is not against any region. More particularly, if I may say, Yellowknife, in my opinion, certainly everyone I know isn’t against the Sahtu in any way. If anything, we support people in the Sahtu asserting their rights and certainly they deserve economic opportunities. I’ve never spared an opportunity to say, “People there need economic opportunities because their families matter too.” I stand by that and I will always stand by that.

I will tell you, I was quite upset hearing the characterization that this was taking away or denying opportunities. As far as saying Yellowknife against the regions, the real technicality about this is Yellowknife represents approximately 45 percent of the population, so Yellowknife could not take away the opportunity of the territory. A true vote, there’s a majority of people outside of Yellowknife.

Again, this was never about Yellowknife against anyone. This is about how do we want to do business and how do we plan to do business.

As I said earlier, the fracking regulations talk about how to frack, not the merits of fracking. They talk about how to frack, not why shouldn’t we do this. We should never find this funny and we should never be gloating as we see the numbers laid out before ourselves. This is an important issue. As I said earlier, if we couldn’t use the Plebiscite Act to do something like this, then why even have it some days?

I did hear the number of $1.8 million. That is not a true number. People can keep saying it and they can repeat it as much as they want, but it doesn’t make it true. Now, would it cost $1.8 million to run the whole election? Absolutely. If you ran a stand-alone plebiscite? Probably. I don’t know. But I can tell you, the research into adding a valid question at the ballot box is $17,500, and that is for the printing of ballots and that’s associated with the organization thereof, because they’re already doing an election and they already have a ballot box and they can run it concurrently.

There are no hidden costs. I appreciate the fact that people are worried about hidden costs, but that is simply it: $17,500. As I said earlier, I’ve seen us spend way more money on things that are way more questionable.

Mr. Speaker, as I wrap it up I am going to stress that I’ve heard my colleagues. I do appreciate and certainly respect their opinions. Many of them I don’t agree with, but, hey, I suspect there’s many a time they don’t always agree with my opinion. But what we’re missing here, in closing, is the fact that we’re missing a great opportunity to reach out to the public and hear them. I worry, as people vote against this motion, we’ve silenced the public in a very constructive way.

As I said earlier today, this is a black and white definitive way of deciding how the Northwest Territories wants to go forward, and for people to blame the economy about stuff not happening here today should not have any effect on the chance, if not the great opportunity, to make good public policy. Good public policy should stand the test of time and certainly should stand the test of good times before us.

Mr. Speaker, I already asked for a recorded vote, so I look forward to seeing the final outcome of the results. Thank you.

All those opposed, please rise.

All those abstaining, please rise.

Yes, three; no, 11; abstentions, two. Motion is defeated.

---Defeated

Mr. Bouchard.

WHEREAS the Order of the Northwest Territories was established in 2013 by the Territorial Emblems and Honours Act to recognize individuals who have served with the greatest distinction and excelled in any field of endeavour benefiting the people of the Northwest Territories or elsewhere;

AND WHEREAS Section 21(1) of the Territorial Emblems and Honours Act provides for the creation of a Northwest Territories Honours Advisory Council to review nominations and recommend appointments to the Order of the Northwest Territories;

AND WHEREAS Section 21(2)(b) of the Territorial Emblems and Honours Act provides that the council be composed of not more than five members of the public appointed by the Legislative Assembly on the recommendation of the Board of Management;

AND WHEREAS Section 22(2) of the Territorial Emblems and Honours Act

provides that the members of the panel hold office at pleasure for a term not exceeding three years;

AND WHEREAS the Board of Management has considered a number of qualified individuals for appointment as honours advisory council members;

AND WHEREAS the Board of Management is tasked with recommending individuals to the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Assembly is prepared to make a recommendation to the Commissioner;

NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Kam Lake, that the following persons be recommended to the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories for appointment to the NWT Honours Advisory Council, effective immediately for a term of three years:

Ms. Grace Blake of Tsiigehtchic;

Ms. Sabrina Broadhead of Hay River;

Mr. Paul Delorey of Hay River;

Mr. Danny Gaudet of Deline; and

Ms. Anne Peters of Yellowknife.

To the motion. Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to make a few brief remarks about this motion and I’m extremely pleased to see we’ve reached this point. The idea was presented to me by a constituent several years ago and I felt it was an idea worth pursuing and so I did pursue it, pushed it as much as I could at Caucus and I’m very pleased that Caucus did agree that an NWT Honours Award was something worth pursuing. I am very glad we got to this point and that it has come to fruition. So I need to give credit to that constituent, and his name is Jeff Corradetti. I want to thank Jeff for pushing me and I want to thank my colleagues for allowing themselves to be pushed to get us to this point. I look forward to the first awards who are going to be chosen by this very exemplary, I think, slate of candidates. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. To the motion.

Question has been called. Motion’s carried.

---Carried

Mr. Yakeleya.

I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Thebacha, that, notwithstanding Rule 4, when this House adjourns on Thursday, June 4, 2015, it shall be adjourned until Tuesday, September 29, 2015;

AND FURTHER, that any time prior to September 29, 2015, if the Speaker is satisfied, after consultation with the Executive Council and Members of the Legislative Assembly, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, the Speaker may give notice and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and shall transact its business as it has been duly adjourned to that time.