Journal Pioneer

P.E.I.’s new water act must ban fracking

-

At the Environmen­tal Leader’s Forum held during the last provincial election, the moderator asked each leader whether he would ban shale-gas fracking if elected Premier. All party leaders indicated they would, except Wade MacLauchla­n, who simply said: “A moratorium may come through the Water Act process.”

In legislatio­n, the word ‘shall’ indicates something ‘must’ happen: the word ‘may’ signifies only that something ‘might’ happen; and unfortunat­ely, ‘may’ often indicates that something is not likely to happen...especially when most people believe it SHOULD happen.

Whenever government wants something to happen, the word shall is used. When government is eager to give the impression that it will do something, but wants to reserve the right not to do it, the word may is used. May gives politician­s enormous discretion­ary power, is often misleading, and can easily frustrate the democratic will of the people. There are 24 occurrence­s of the phrase “the Minister May” in the 38-page draft Water Act, which is a problem. And unfortunat­ely, the Act doesn’t say that there shall or even may be a moratorium on fracking: in fact, the word “fracking” is not mentioned.

The omission of any mention of fracking will certainly come as a major disappoint­ment to the lobby group “Don’t Frack P.E.I..” In a recent letter to TC Media by group member Andrew Lush he mentioned the premier’s preelectio­n comment about (possibly) including a moratorium on fracking within the Water Act, adding that: “On the website dontfrackp­ei.com there is a database of hundreds of damning reports on the effects of past and current fracking operations which should, in any sane world, be more than enough to put a stop to this reckless and greed-driven rush to the bottom.” I totally agree.

I have previously published an article in the Guardian in 2013 entitled “Will shale gas fracking be allowed in PEI?” offering irrefutabl­e evidence that there is a significan­t risk of ground-water contaminat­ion from fracking that can neither be prevented with certainty, nor mitigated if it happens. Given that P.E.I. is 100 per cent dependent on aquifers for fresh water, there is simply no acceptable level of risk when it comes to ground-water contaminat­ion. The provincial government has, therefore, both a moral obligation and a political duty to impose a total ban on fracking in P.E.I. (indefinite­ly). Such a legislativ­e course of action represents the only reasonable policy to ensure the protection of water for present and future generation­s. Islanders should be very concerned that a Wade-the-LiberalLea­der’s may (uttered in the pre-election period) has not materializ­ed into a Wade-thePremier’s shall (written into draft legislatio­n in the post-election period). Premier MacLauchla­n may call it an oversight and insert a clause saying the Minister may impose a moratorium on fracking. But that just won’t cut it! We need a shall not a may. The Water Act must oblige the Minister to impose a moratorium! There are simply no conditions, circumstan­ces or scenarios where fracking for shale gas should ever be permitted in P.E.I. The eventual likelihood of a catastroph­ic event demands that the political discretion needed to permit fracking doesn’t exist in law.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada