Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We, being the Members of this House and the public, were led to believe the work on the Highway No. 4 bypass, which went through some potential high-risk arsenic hotspots, was vetted by our Department of Transportation, ENR and the Giant Mine Remediation Team. We were assured that there was an eye on safety and liability aspects of potential risk to workers and contractors. My question today is for the Minister of Transportation.
Yesterday I tabled a 2008 Queen’s University study, where the author clearly recommended more sampling be done further away from the roaster, due to the persistent arsenic trioxide in the soil environment at Giant.
Can the Minister indicate to the House, before yesterday, was this the first time he or his department has seen such report? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Minister of Transportation, Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can’t speak for whether the senior management at DOT has seen that report or not. I know that it wasn’t directly related to the bypass road, and I have not seen the report. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, the second report I tabled was an April 16, 2014, Giant Mine Working Group Public Report. On page 3, “Erika Nyyssonen (GNWT-ENR) noted that DOT, at the time, had been made aware of the Queens Soils results, and their vicinity to the highway realignment activities.”
Clearly, the department was aware of the province of arsenic in the area. So, can the Minister indicate to the House, why there was no baseline soil sampling for the potential of arsenic done by DOT before the construction of the Highway No. 4 bypass? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I don’t know that there were no baseline studies done on the Highway No. 4. I’d have to get to the department to determine whether or not there was a baseline study done. I’m assuming that there was, and if there was some danger there to building the bypass road there, it would not have been built. Thank you.
I can answer that question for the Minister here because it was answered in that report on page 3. I quote, “Todd Slack (YKDFN) asked if there had been any sampling done before the new highway was constructed. Erika Nyyssonen (GNWT-ENR) said that DOT did not do any baseline sampling before the road went in.” So, Mr. Speaker, this is clear evidence that the DOT failed to provide the necessary liability aspects for potential risk to workers and contractors.
Does the Minister know if there has been any baseline sampling done that he is aware of or the department has done during the construction life of the Highway No. 4 bypass? Thank you.
I’m not aware of any studies done.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Here is the bill of goods. According to public documents, DOT clearly knew the potential for arsenic-rich hotspots with the Queen’s report for the Highway No. 4 bypass and yet they did not do any baseline sampling. Why? Who knows?
Can the Minister clearly articulate what real precautions took place with this road construction and what is this government’s liability to the arsenic exposure to these contractors? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As that road is still under construction, I will speak to the department and the work that they’ve done. They have done some work with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources when that road was being planned. I’m assuming the department, if advised by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, another department of the government, that it would be dangerous to build a road there, that the road would not have been built there, but I will check with the department and get back to the Member. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.
