Two of three medical officers of health who presented before the Yukon's fracking committee Wednesday advocated for a ban on hydraulic fracturing – for the foreseeable future anyway.

The third, Dr. Brendan Hanley, the Yukon's own chief medical officer of health, urged the government to take a slow, well-planned approach if it decides to allow the controversial practice of hydraulic fracturing to take place.

Both Dr. Eilish Cleary, the chief medical officer of health for New Brunswick, and Dr. Charl Badenhorst, the regional medical health officer for northeast B.C., have seen the development of a shale gas industry in their jurisdictions.

The two doctors asserted to the committee of MLAs that the impacts on public health were not adequately considered before those industries were given the green light to develop.

All three medical officers of health advised the government to undertake thorough health impact assessments before making a decision.

But as Hanley noted during a question and answer period following the three presentations, it's not good enough to simply conduct an impact assessment.

The findings and recommendations that result from the assessments must be implemented to effectively mitigate any potential negative impacts on public health.

Hanley highlighted the numerous drivers that impact public health, including income, social status, social environments and physical environments.

A formal health impact assessment process must include assessment of those factors along with things like exposure to air and water pollution, he said.

Climate change and the impact of further dependence on fossil fuels should also be considered as the government seeks to make its decision regarding a shale gas industry in the territory, Hanley argued.

The territory needs a more formalized process, he stated – one that's led by the Department of Health and Social Services, but involves other departments as well.

While a broad health impact assessment should be conducted before the government decides to allow fracking in the territory, assessments of individual resource extraction projects should also be required, he said.

Hanley, Cleary and Badenhorst highlighted current gaps in available data that limit the ability to fully assess the potential impacts of a shale gas industry, including the lack of baseline public health information.

They also raised concerns about the lack of transparency when it comes to the chemicals that are used in hydraulic fracturing fluid and environmental and health monitoring.

Key concerns include water and air pollution, noise, light, increased traffic and vibrations, and inequitable distribution of any potential economic benefits.

Cleary, who wrote a report in 2012 making recommendations for the development of the shale gas industry, said if she were writing the report today, she would focus more attention on the psycho-social impacts of the development.

Stress, she noted, was cited most frequently as an impact of the Marcellus shale development in the U.S.

Cleary went on to explain that stress can manifest itself in physical ailments as well.

Both Badenhorst and Cleary poked holes in the common assertion from governments and industry that economic growth will improve social issues in an area.

Badenhorst noted that economic growth doesn't always address poverty. Meanwhile, during her comments, Cleary noted that Canada doesn't have a good history of distributing wealth equitably.

"We do have a good history of making rich people richer,” she said.

Members of the Yukon government have repeatedly commented that economic growth, including from resource development, will translate into greater investments in health care.

But Cleary cautioned against that type of narrow thinking, noting industrial development could initially worsen public health, leaving a "steeper hill” to climb.

In Badenhorst's district, he's noticed more emergency room visits as family doctors are unable to cope with the influx of people and an industry associated with high accident rates.

He also noted that the figures for total serious crime have risen, while graduation rates have worsened, and alcohol sales are up.

He advocated strongly for community planning, reiterating the importance of community consultation that allows the community a true opportunity to influence government policy – unlike the processes many governments undertake.

In the end, when asked by a member of the public whether they were for or against fracking, none jumped forward in support.

"The quick gains in cash will not balance out the long-term effects,” said Badenhorst.

"I think you're in an excellent position to sit and wait and learn from other people's mistakes and then maybe decide whether you can go ahead or not.

"Personally ... I think, wait,” he said.

Hanley doesn't advocate a ban nor proceeding.

"There may well be a place for oil and gas development if it's within the values I've already identified as important,” he said, noting, for instance, localization of production to balance importing fossil fuels from elsewhere.

But if shale gas is developed, it should be with an eye to reducing dependency on fossil fuels altogether.

"There are realities we have to deal with, we do use fossil fuels, this may be a potential source. I think we just have to deal with the mechanisms in place to make sure we have a transparent process, that citizen concerns are taken into account, that we use the best science, that we use the best technology of the day in combination with health impact assessments that are done and that it is consistent with an overall climate change strategy and energy use strategy,” he said.

Cleary said she was hesitant to make a specific recommendation to the Yukon, not fully understanding the context of the conversation underway in the territory, but she reiterated the recommendation she made to the government of New Brunswick.

"I advised the New Brunswick government, ‘wait, stall for now.' I don't see a compelling reason to move forward quickly.

"There is a finite amount of gas in the ground, given the gaps in information, the technologies that are new and evolving, the lack of science base for the recommendations that we have, the fact that there is not public acceptance for it, the fact that we do not have the tools, resources, the capacities within public health or other areas of government to adequately put in place regulations or to monitor it, that there's an absence of planning processes to protect what's already there – for all of those reasons, I said we should wait.”