Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just this morning our Minister of ITI was interviewed on the radio, stating that fracking is absolutely a safe practice, in spite of only being on the job of regulating our oil and gas industry for a couple of months, and in spite of a report commissioned by Environment Canada stating that we as a country do not know enough about fracking to determine if it is safe. He then said that his department needed some time to consult the public and develop new regulations.
First of all, this Minister is the regulator. As a regulator, it is his role to weigh the evidence presented and then make a decision. It is not his role to publicly speak about what is safe and what is not safe before he has seen the evidence. He is obviously not experienced in his new role, and a pause in the fracking application would give him time to get used to the idea that he is now speaking as a regulator and not a cheerleader.
Second, the Minister has stated that his department needs time to consult with the public as it develops new fracking regulations. This is exactly what this motion is asking for: time to properly consult the public, starting with the big questions and then getting to the details.
A thorough public review and environmental assessment are overdue and it shouldn’t have come down to this. Unlike just about every jurisdiction I know, we are pushing forward without any attempt to seek a social licence through a comprehensive consultation of this controversial technology from our residents. All across Canada and around the world, governments are calling moratoriums positive, while they take more time to review the evidence and consult with the public. The cost of a thorough and public review and assessment is modest, especially when compared to the risks, but necessary for sound planning that puts a firm hand on the directions, face and scale of exploitation with backing from all residents, not just a few business owners that stand to benefit the most.
The ConocoPhillips project went ahead partly with the understanding it would be closely monitored and reported upon, but where are the evaluation reports we were led to expect? We all heard about the many close calls, the jackknifed trucks that produced water, the onsite accidents, the water and sewage spills. We know there is massive flaring of gas happening, but there is no inclination of what kind of gas, efficiency of flaring, how much greenhouse gas emissions and what type is occurring. How do we know that the wells are not leaking? What will be the long-term integrity of the wells? Were the lakes drained, and so on? People have many questions.
Currently, Husky has pulled out for the next two years and ConocoPhillips is applying for 10 fracked wells to be conducted in two or three years, so there is a timely lull in fracking activity for a year or two. This provides an opportunity for serious and comprehensive public review and environmental assessment. To be clear, we are not talking about a review of regulations. The issues to be dealt with first are bigger than this. People wish to learn more and have their questions clearly stated and answered and views considered before going ahead with fracking. We need to listen to the people.
We are currently dealing with a fourth application to conduct horizontal hydraulic fracturing in the NWT. The first has been referred to an environmental review before they went through the application. What changed? As far as I can see, the public has only become more concerned about fracking activities. Section 125 of the MVRMA, Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, states that an environmental assessment will be called for if there might – and I underscore “might” – be cause for public concern. I’d say there’s no question here.
Recently, a number of relevant events have brought forward new perspectives: a petition tabled here in March, a national report on the impacts of fracking in Canada in April, the Elders Parliament motion in May and, finally, the Yukon has established a select committee to look at the costs and benefits of fracking in the Yukon. I will briefly review these.
A petition in the House in March, signed by 790 people from 24 communities, including every Sahtu community, expressed serious public concern about fracking and called for an environmental review.
In April a national report was published by the Council of Canadian Academies, urging caution and more study before wholesale commitment to fracking and outlined serious risks it entails. Entitled “Environmental Impacts of Shale Gas Extraction in Canada,” the author stated, “The North American energy landscape is undergoing dramatic change. Unconventional oil and gas resources are fuelling an energy boom that is having profound economic, environmental and social impacts across much of the continent, including Canada.” And further, it said this report comes at the request of Environment Canada, which asked the council to assemble a multidisciplinary expert panel to consider the state of knowledge of potential environmental impacts from the exploration and extraction and development of Canada’s shale gas resources.
The report reviews the use of new and conventional technologies in shale gas extraction and examines several issues of concern, including potential impacts on surface water and groundwater, greenhouse gas emissions, cumulative land disturbance and human health. The report also outlines approaches for monitoring research as well as mitigation and management strategies.
“Overall, the panel found that well-targeted science is required to ensure a better understanding of the environmental impacts of shale gas development. Currently, data about environmental impacts are neither sufficient nor conclusive.”
The panel’s assessment focused on a number of environmental impacts. They include oil integrity, water, groundwater and surface, greenhouse gas emissions, land impacts and seismic events, human health, monitoring and research. In the executive summary they note: “…the rapid expansion of shale gas development in Canada over the past decade has occurred without a corresponding investment in monitoring and research addressing the impacts on the environment, on public health and communities. The primary concerns are the degradation of the quality of groundwater and surface water, including the safe disposal of large volumes of wastewater; the risks of increased greenhouse gas emissions, including fugitive methane emissions during and after production, thus exacerbating anthropogenic climate change; disruptive effects on communities and land and adverse effects on human health. Often, concerns include the local release of air contaminants and the potential for triggering small to moderate-sized earthquakes in seismically active areas.
“Two issues of particular concern to panel members are water resources, especially groundwater, and greenhouse gas emissions. Both relate to well integrity.”
The authors note that there are many uncertainties, a lack of knowledge, an unavailability of knowledge – that’s knowledge that resists but will not be released – few baselines and insufficient monitoring.
In May, during the Elders Parliament right here in the House, a motion called for a moratorium on fracking and this was passed unanimously. Jean-Pierre Isore put forward a fracking motion and said, “We are balancing economic decisions with the life and health of our citizens and that is inadmissible. There is no such thing as an acceptable risk when it comes to the health and life of our citizens. There is no compromise with the life of the earth, of our children and our grandchildren.” The motion before us today has drawn, to some degree, upon the motion passed by the elders in this House.
In May 2013 the Yukon Legislative Assembly established a select committee regarding the risks and benefits of hydraulic fracturing. It was established just over a year ago. This is a comprehensive, all-party review of fracking that is developing a science-based understanding of hydraulic fracturing, which also provides for public participation. The select committee has been visiting sites of its own choosing and had experts in many areas of the field testify in a public hearing in Whitehorse, including witnesses from CAPP, industry, Pembina Institute, hydrogeologist, the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission, Mark Jaccard on the economics of fracking in the Yukon, the chief medical officer of New Brunswick, and the regional medical health officer from northeast BC, and it made a point of visiting citizen coalitions in places like Alberta where grassroots people have many years of experience and huge concerns about impacts of fracking.
The select committee note that Yukon First Nations have concluded that impacts of fracking far outweigh the benefits and, thus, have banned fracking on their lands. The select committee has heard many of the same concerns highlighted by our Elders Parliament, by the Canadian Council of Academies in their report and from expert witnesses in public hearings, and they just completed a second round of hearings with expert witnesses last week and they are now on the road visiting communities in the Yukon.
Not surprisingly, our citizens in the NWT, community groups, elders and so on are bringing up similar points, but so far this government has not exerted its authority to refer fracking applications to environmental assessment. This is upsetting, especially so given the legislation that clearly states an environmental assessment will be conducted if there – and again I underscore – “might” be public concern.
Fracking is seen by many as gambling and, even worse, as government’s gambling on the health costs of their citizens and the land. People are asking, is this what we voted you in for? Is this what I get for putting my trust in government? The risks are great and it will only grow if we move forward without comprehensive and public environmental review from two wells to 10 wells to 100, and then thousands of wells with all its such development entails in costs to people, their communities, cultures, land, air and wildlife.
People want a meaningful opportunity to discuss and learn about fracking and the associated activities of exploitation and then to provide input towards our future direction. They have opinions, thoughts and insights, and values they want to present and have considered. To date, the only response from government is that they have confidence in themselves; that is the government has confidence in themselves and their ability to manage the situation. Government has remained mute on their responsibility to hear the public and to support a thorough review of what fracking means and whether our people feel the impacts outweigh the benefits.
Maude Barlow of the Council of Canadians is also concerned, calling fracking in the Sahtu the next Giant Mine. The Council of Canadians opposes fracking because of its high water use, its high carbon emissions, its impacts on human health, the disruption it causes to wildlife, and the danger it poses to groundwater and local drinking water.
Many residents have pointed out the fracking in the Sahtu could have horrible consequences for the Mackenzie watershed and for the communities through which trucks carrying contaminated water and toxic, potentially explosive hydrocarbon products will pass. They are also concerned that taxpayers and GNWT budgets will be heavily drawn upon for infrastructure, its costly maintenance and it’s even more costly replacement, worsened by the knowledge that these expenditures are taking away from other much needed infrastructure that could support truly beneficial development. These are concerns that provide insights into the territory-wide impact that fracking in one region can have. In this case, it’s not just a Sahtu issue. It affects everyone around the Sahtu.
In contrast to the government, the people of the NWT may see different paths for economic development. Choices that they are comfortable will provide for the values they have without impacting other people’s health or land or water or cultures. They want to bring these ideas forward into the light for weighing against the government’s unilateral decisions on how to move forward.
I don’t think anybody questions that there might be public concern about fracking. There is public concern about fracking in Tulita, Norman Wells, the Sahtu, throughout the NWT, across Canada and around the world. The question is: Will this government listen to its people and follow the law that is in place requiring an environmental assessment when there might be public concern as per Section 125 of the MVRMA, or better still, calling for a regional review as per Section 144 of the MVRMA? This wise law was put in place by the people through land claims settlement legislation. Let’s listen to our elders and our residents and heed it.
To wrap things up, I call upon the words of elder Jean-Pierre Isore of the Elders Parliament: “Not one single independent study supports fracking.” This is based on an all-night study of several hundred studies and summaries of fracking research.
Further quoting: “The technical analysis shows that whatever you do today in terms of fracking is risky. In the military life, we learned to take risks, calculated risks. There must be a direct proportion between the risks you take and the result you get, and we don’t get that. We take all of the risks and we get no result, so at one point we have to turn to our government and say, will you listen? Of course, they will come back and say, you don’t know what you are talking about. Well, we happen to be in an area of the country where the term “elders” means something. Around this table I calculate that we have 1,200 years of wisdom. That beats the government, doesn’t it? And we say, no way. No way. Get back to the drawing board. We’re not crazy. We want prosperity but not at any cost.”
Mahsi, and I will be calling for a recorded vote.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The Member has asked for a recorded vote. All those in favour, please rise.
Mr. Bromley, Mr. Nadli, Mr. Hawkins and Ms. Bisaro.
All those opposed, please rise.
Mr. Yakeleya, Mr. Menicoche, Mr. Blake, 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 of those abstaining, please rise. All those in favour, four; all those opposed, 13; abstentions, zero. The motion is defeated.
---Defeated
