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.