What happens if MLAs vote for a public inquiry? Possibly not a lot.

If MLAs vote this week to set up a public inquiry into last year’s NWT wildfire season, you’d be forgiven for thinking that would mean we’ll get a public inquiry into last year’s NWT wildfire season.

We might not.

At the moment, this is a hypothetical. There are two other reasonably likely outcomes: MLAs could vote down the motion and decide not to have a public inquiry, or they could collectively reach a compromise that lies somewhere on the spectrum between a full inquiry and no inquiry at all.

But the motion going ahead as planned on Thursday this week – and enough MLAs backing an inquiry for the motion to pass – is currently one realistic outcome on the table.

Residents hearing about this motion may have drawn the conclusion that if the motion passes, then a public inquiry is a certainty. However, that isn’t true.

Kieron Testart, the Range Lake MLA, is proposing the motion with the backing of Dehcho MLA Sheryl Yakeleya.

When the motion is brought up on Thursday, it’s expected to be in slightly amended form compared to the one Testart introduced earlier in the month. The latest draft of the motion is understood to call for an establishment order to be issued in May that would set up an independent public inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act, using a three-person panel – one appointed by cabinet, one by regular MLAs and one by Indigenous governments.

Asked if cabinet has to ensure all of that happens should his motion pass, Testart responded: “No. But if they fail to do so, it may trigger a point of privilege. We’re hoping it doesn’t come to that.”

A point of privilege refers to a process by which MLAs can formally object to “any act or omission which impedes or obstructs the House or its members in the performance of their duties.” In those circumstances, the Speaker of the House decides what happens next.

Cabinet agrees with Testart that the rules don’t mean the government has to do whatever any motion tells it to. (Be warned, we’re about to get into the weeds.)

Agata Gutkowska, a cabinet communications spokesperson, told Cabin Radio by email that a motion adopted by the House – in other words, one that passes – “is an order only if it requires its committees, members or officers to do something.” Examples are motions that approve budgets and bills or give instructions to standing committees.

“Motions that declare the opinion of the Assembly or affirm a fact or a principle are resolutions,” Gutkowska continued. “A resolution of the Legislative Assembly is not binding.”

If the wildfire public inquiry motion passes, she wrote, “it would not result in the Commissioner being compelled to establish an inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act.”

Cabinet could, of course, read the room and get on with setting up the inquiry, regardless of whether the motion technically forces an inquiry or not, if the motion passes. Will ministers simply take the motion as an instruction in those circumstances?

“If the motion is adopted, cabinet will work with regular members to determine next steps,” Gutkowska wrote.

Testart said he’s confident a crisis will be avoided.

“The fact that the premier deferred the motion instead of having cabinet abstain leads me to believe it would be taken seriously if passed,” he told Cabin Radio, referring to Premier RJ Simpson’s narrowly successful motion on February 9 that delayed the public inquiry debate and vote until Thursday this week.

Simpson said he needed more time to reach a consensus with regular MLAs on the issue. He has maintained that a public inquiry is not necessary and could be costly and unwieldy.

“We’re continuing to talk, so it’s not like we’re waiting until Thursday to figure something out,” said Testart.

“I’m hoping earnestly to have a fair compromise that makes everyone content before then.”