Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I said in my statement, my questions are today for the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources. As I said in my statement today, I’m amazed at how few of the concerns, so clearly expressed at the hearings, have been reflected in the proponent’s closing letter to the environment board. The commentary persists in the delusion that this is a remediation rather than a stabilization. Its silence on major concerns almost amounts to contempt towards the input of organizations and individuals. This government signed the letter, so I ask, given the passion and details of concerns presented, how can the Minister defend the statement that the remediation plan is not the source of concerns regarding the Giant Mine cleanup?
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The honourable Minister of Environment and Natural Resources, Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We do recognize that this whole project, and all the steps taken and everything proposed are a subject of great debate and there is no unanimity. There is a requirement, at the end of the day, to make the best decisions possible to try to move this project forward, remediate the site and get the job done on an issue that has been with us now for, literally, decades.
The Minister, obviously, isn’t addressing the questions here. There has certainly been debate for many, many years. The public has had a hard time and eventually got these hearings and made their views known. Now, as a government, we should be recognizing those. This statement doesn’t.
Again, I’ve made the point in past statements that it would, almost certainly, if it was a new mine, be governed by a legally binding environmental management agreement such as we see for the diamond mines, transboundary water agreements, and so on. The Giant Mine Project is far from new. It’s a toxic legacy of past federal government negligence and inaction. All the more reason to ensure the federal government, that both the proponent and regulator, is held to legally binding account for environmental safety. Models for an agreement have been suggested at the hearings by YKDFN, City of Yellowknife, Alternatives North. What will the Minister do to ensure a legally binding environmental management agreement is put in place?
We’ll continue to be actively involved at the table with our staff, and politically, where necessary, to move this project forward to address the issues, the governance issues, the process issues, the content issues, the decisions made in terms of choice or type of remediation, the debate over the governance piece. We are a voice and we will continue to be there for all Northerners.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, I see no evidence of the active involvement that the Minister speaks of, or to being a voice for the people of the Northwest Territories. That is the very point that the Members are raising today in this House. The co-proponent’s closing comments letter contains no commitment to the preparation of a fully-funded perpetual care plan. Even though site liability supposedly remains with the federal government after devolution, site management will continue forever or until technology is found to eliminate the arsenic. Will the GNWT include the requirement for a fully-funded perpetual care plan as an element of the final Devolution Agreement?
The Giant Mine site is not part of the devolution negotiations. It’s going to be separate and apart from that process.
In terms of the questions the Member’s raised on behalf of his constituents, let me restate the offer that I would be more than happy, and willing and interested to come to committee with the officials that have been at the table to talk at great length about the decisions made, the detail that would address some of the many concerns raised by the Member. While it may not bring us to consensus, it would at least show that we are there, we are fully participating. This is a complex issue and decisions have been made in the overall best interest of all Northerners.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Final supplementary, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister knows full well that environmental remediation is a topic of the devolution negotiations. Out of the demolition of the roaster, possibly the most lethally toxic building in all of Canada, the adjoining stack contains 14 tonnes of arsenic trioxide that’s permeated with arsenic asbestos and other hazards. No news release, no media briefing, no explanatory advertising, no community information meetings, no attempts to inform the public and allay concerns for human health and environmental safety in this announcement. They just don’t learn.
When will this government demand that the federal government meet its responsibilities for public information and accountability on this project?
Let me say again, the Giant Mine site is not part of the devolution negotiations. There is a section on waste sites, but the Giant Mine site, given the size, cost, and magnitude of the project, is not part of the devolution negotiations.
Once again, let me offer the briefing. I believe we are complying with our obligations. Maybe not to the extent that some folks would have us, but we make every effort to communicate and make sure information is there, recognizing, of course, that we are there as the government. But the federal government, whose project this is and whose overall responsibility it is, is also there and has the majority of the liability. We make our case and in some cases, as I’ve learned over the years in projects and issues, we change the things we can, try to recognize the things that we can’t, and we keep asking to make sure we have the wisdom to know the difference. I want to thank St. Francis of Assisi and give full credit for that quote.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I seek unanimous consent to return to oral questions.
---Unanimous consent granted
The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.
