Debates of March 24, 2004 (day 7)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions this afternoon are for the Minister of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development. They concern the cleanup of the Giant Mine site. An issue that I believe has been out there since last year was a stall in discussions between our government and DIAND on responsibility for the surface cleanup at Giant Mine. I understand there are difficulties there with jurisdiction and potentially financing. Could the Minister advise on the status of our discussions with DIAND on responsibility for surface cleanup at Giant? Thank you.

Minister of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development, Mr. Bell.

Return To Question 71-15(3): Surface Cleanup At Giant Mine Site

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all let me say that I think this budget was very favourable in terms of contaminated sites. The last budget, if memory serves me, identified $500 and some odd million for cleanup of contaminated sites. It was short-term funding. I think this furthers that commitment. It is roughly ballpark. I think the same types of dollars per year, but it is a 10-year commitment, and there has been an indication that something like 60 percent of it will be spent in the North. I think that bodes very well for the NWT. I think even in the backup to the budget an indication that Port Radium, Giant Mine and DEW Line sites have all been identified. I think that is good. The funding hurdles that we have had seem to be stabilizing. I think that this can be put to good use. It is important that we stay on the federal radar and make sure that our contaminated sites make it to the top of the priority list, and it sounds like that is taking shape.

We still do have some jurisdictional issues with DIAND related to the surface cleanup at Giant. We had discussions about a framework for this cleanup, and I think it has been DIAND’s position in the past that they wanted to bundle surface and underground together. We have always felt that the two shouldn’t be confused and that the federal government had exclusive responsibility and jurisdiction for the underground liabilities. So we are still in those negotiations. We are spending money, GNWT money in this current year, on surface cleanup, but we continue to have this dispute over jurisdiction. Thank you.

Supplementary, Mr. Braden.

Supplementary To Question 71-15(3): Surface Cleanup At Giant Mine Site

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to explore this issue of jurisdiction a bit more. There was of course at some point a transfer from federal to territorial jurisdiction for environmental responsibility. Is there difficulty at that sort of large high policy level, or are we simply in dispute about a single site, a single issue cleanup? What is this jurisdictional problem, Mr. Speaker? Thank you.

Minister of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development, Mr. Bell.

Further Return To Question 71-15(3): Surface Cleanup At Giant Mine Site

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will have to get more information and more detail for the Member as to the nature of the concerns and the specific hang-ups between our two governments. I do understand that with the transfer we acknowledge some responsibility for surface cleanup, but not the degree and the level to which we believe the federal government is trying to imply we have. So the dispute surrounds that. As far as specific information on the detail, I think we can discuss that further, but I will get more information.

Supplementary, Mr. Braden.

Supplementary To Question 71-15(3): Surface Cleanup At Giant Mine Site

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Miramar Mining Corporation, I think in a deal that worked I believe to their benefit as well to workers, continues to mine ore at the Giant property. It is milled at the Con property. I am wondering if the Minister could advise if Miramar is still planning on following their mine shutdown program and will they be stopping for good the mining of ore at the Giant property later this year? Thank you.

Minister of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development, Mr. Bell.

Further Return To Question 71-15(3): Surface Cleanup At Giant Mine Site

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We know that underground operations have ceased at Con, the mill is still operating, and as the Member has indicated ore is being processed there from Giant. Our indications were that that would cease at the end of ‘04, approximately. I don’t think that we have any information to make us believe that plans have changed. I did notice that gold was over $400 U.S. the other day, and I am sure that these kinds of things factor into decisions, but I don’t believe we have any official communication from the company telling us that their plans have changed. Thank you.

Final supplementary, Mr. Braden.

Supplementary To Question 71-15(3): Surface Cleanup At Giant Mine Site

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One of the major, perhaps the major outstanding issue of the Giant property, Mr. Speaker, is the question of how we are going to be managing the underground vaults that are full of arsenic trioxide. The federal government has indicated that it wants to proceed with an underground freezing option, and I would like to ask the Minister from the GNWT side has this government considered that option and is it prepared to give it its full endorsement? Thank you.

Minister of RWED, Mr. Bell.

Further Return To Question 71-15(3): Surface Cleanup At Giant Mine Site

Thank you. After the issue has been studied for quite some time, and quite a bit of comprehensive discussion around this issue, we believe that given current technology, the in situ option that involves freezing is the safest and best, and most advantageous for us. So at this point we are supportive of that, but we don’t believe that this is a walk away solution, and we are hopeful that future technology will allow…We are hopeful that at some point the material, the arsenic could be rendered inert or there would be some safe way to get it out of there and move it. At this point we believe that freezing is the safest option, so we are supporting it on that basis. Thank you.