Well, fracking is an issue up there. We had some test wells drilled two or three years ago. At the time there was no public health input whatsoever. About 80% of the studies that have ever been done on fracking have been done since 2013, so they are now in the peer-reviewed literature. Of the ones that have been done on health, 84% of them show red flags. That just shows how quickly evidence progresses.
We see in this agreement that there is an exclusion for tobacco. You can opt into an exclusion for tobacco, and meanwhile we're saying that there are other public health protections. If there are public health protections within the agreement, why do we need an exclusion for tobacco?
I'm really worried that as the evidence progresses, different things turn out to be public health problems every day. Glyphosate is under scrutiny, and BPA, and all the fracking chemicals. We've only just started doing toxicological analyses of them. We've only just started in the last two years, and we're already fracking. The threat to human health is huge.
I could easily see the N.W.T. coming up with fracking legislation in the same way that they did in Quebec, and that could potentially cause problems. Lawyers are trying to decide whether that's sort of a justifiable public health measure, but who's going to brief them? Who's going to teach them the evidence? Who's paying them? If the agreement has such major consequences for health and health people aren't involved, is it really a trade agreement or is it a health agreement?
To me, having spent this much time going to medical school to learn about health, to think of lawyers adjudicating whether or not something is good for health...I mean, really? We're going to sign on to that? That doesn't make any sense to me.