Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question today is for the Minister of ENR, the Minister of Environment. I’d like to follow up on questions I had the other day about fracking.
In the unedited Hansard of June 3rd, on page 24, Minister Miltenberger said we are of the opinion that if, in fact, ConocoPhillips complies with everything that they’ve promised plus the extensive list of mitigating factors put forward by GNWT, this project could proceed, other than meeting those commitments by ConocoPhillips and addressing the concerns raised that we have supplied to the Sahtu Land and Water Board.
Conoco did not, in fact, agree to address many of the options raised by the GNWT. In fact, in the areas of technology, options for burning waste, gases, air emissions, assessment and screening level modeling, groundwater and surface water protection are very key areas for environmental protection, and as I know, dear to the Minister’s heart. Accordingly, the Minister’s faith in Conoco was unwarranted. So will the Minister adjust his opinion based on the facts clearly on record?
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The Minister of Environment and Natural Resources, Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is a process underway. The Member has raised some concerns. He has a different point of view than we do as a government, so we’ll have to agree to disagree on that particular issue.
I’m not sure if the Minister is saying that this is, in fact, incorrect. I’m sure, in fact, that these are facts. They are contrary to what the Minister has said, and that’s my point.
The Minister also claimed that the Sahtu Land and Water Board would adopt these, and in fact, the Sahtu Land and Water Board also rejected the terms and conditions that the GNWT put forward in these areas, so this is further evidence that there is a need for an environmental review here.
Could I get clarity on what the Minister is saying here? Clearly, his statements were wrong, as per the record, as this is on record to be available at the touch of a button here. Is the Minister saying he’s not willing to adjust his opinion in the face of contrary facts?
We have submitted the position of the territorial government. We have reviewed the application from ConocoPhillips. Those are the two facts that I put on the record yesterday.
There were additional facts that the Minister put forward, and I’m quoting verbatim from the unedited Hansard here. The Minister also said that there was a big distinction between the MGM application and ConocoPhillips. The Minister said, “The ConocoPhillips application is very comprehensive. It covers a whole host of areas, which is one of the reasons there was a different decision made by the Sahtu Land and Water Board when they looked at the MGM proposal. It didn’t have the same depth and level of comprehensiveness as the ConocoPhillips one does.”
Well, in fact, there were others interested. The Sahtu Renewable Resources Board, for example, renewable resources councils, and they actually did a line-by-line comparison, and in fact, there were very few improvements to the Conoco application, but they are equally bad on a number of important points. Conoco certainly had a lot more effort in making friends inside and outside the region, and perhaps that’s good…(inaudible)…but unless by depth and level of comprehensiveness that Minister Miltenberger means the application had more nice pictures, it was longer and had a better explanation of Fracking 101, then the application does not provide any more.
Again, will the Minister look into these facts, which are contrary to what he said in the House, and consider adjusting his opinion to the protection of the public interest?
The information I provided to the House was accurate. The Member is quoting chapter and verse from some document, some feedback he’s providing this House that I don’t have before me, and of course, we always check when there are issues raised by the Members and they query the actions of government and they ask us to double check. Of course, we’ll do that.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m glad to finally get that commitment. These are the Minister’s words, and the record. The vast improvement in the application, as the Minister claimed, doesn’t hold up. The conditions that the Minister suggested would be adopted by ConocoPhillips and the Sahtu Land…(inaudible)…don’t hold up.
What action does the Minister see is needed here in light of these facts to protect the public interest, the clean air, water, and health of the wildlife and their habitat that this Minister is responsible for? I’m looking for accountability here.
What we have is a lot of assertions and opinions by the Member. He says they’re facts. He asked me to check. We’ll check.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.
