Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The environmental assessment hearings for the Giant Mine Project were held in September. The Mackenzie Valley Environmental Review Board heard testimony on the plan to stabilize the vast stores of arsenic and conduct limited surface remediation. On the first night of public presentations alone, 50 people sat through a 45-minute power outage to share their concerns. Seventeen people spoke, most staying well past 11:00 p.m. People care deeply about the Giant Mine cleanup.
Based on my observations, people spoke of the lack of a funded perpetual care plan, lack of a legally binding independent oversight mechanism, the proposal to dump arsenic-laden water into Back Bay in new ways, lack of commitment to research the final elimination of the arsenic, concerns that the frozen block method won’t work over the long term, the consistent failure to proactively communicate project information, and many other misgivings. Besides individual residents, the Yellowknives Dene First Nation, Alternatives North, and the North Slave Metis present thorough and learned submissions.
Weeks later, the project co-proponents – Canada and the GNWT – sent closing comments to the board. Reading their final comments, I have to wonder if the governments were hearing the same input I was or if they just weren’t listening. Consider the quotation, “The project team concludes that the remediation plan is not the source of the long-standing concerns about Giant Mine.” Dismay and skepticism with the remediation proposal, its delivery and monitoring are exactly what the public, Aboriginal government and NGO concerns are all about. The co-proponents’ comments demonstrate the adoption of virtually nothing from the concerns expressed so strongly by public interest groups and citizens.
This week we had more evidence of this deafness. The proponents gave public registry notice that they will proceed with demolition of the roaster complex, exempting the most arsenic-contaminated portion of the site after the underground vaults from the authority of the environmental assessments. Rather than make an effort to inform the public or allay concerns, they are seeking board approval to do it without public oversight.
I will table the co-proponents’ letter today and will question the Minister of the Environment on this government’s role in these disappointing developments and pronouncements.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The honourable Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As you heard from Mr. Bromley already, for a full week this past September the environmental assessment hearings were held on the remediation plan for the Giant Mine site. The GNWT is a partner with the Government of Canada, acting as the developer for the project at these hearings. Two weeks ago the developer made their final submission to the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board, and reading the content of their submission, as Mr. Bromley stated, I also felt that it’s almost as though they weren’t listening to any of the presenters.
The GNWT representative on the project development team signed the final submission, so I have to assume that this government supports the position outlined in that final submission. If that’s the case, then I must express my grave concern that this government is not adequately representing me and my constituents to the review board.
The developer states that the community showed wide support for the freezing approach. I only attended one evening session, but my experience that night was not that as expressed by the developer. Most presenters found fault with the freezing approach for one reason or another.
The developer is also confident that their plan is the best available approach. That seems to acknowledge the lack of confidence in the remediation plan by the general public, but it’s the intention of the developer to continue to engage Yellowknife citizens until they too become confident. That method hasn’t worked to date, why would it work in the future?
Lastly, the developer’s submission had no indication of any commitment to real and effective oversight of the project and long-term monitoring required for the project. This was a huge concern for many of the interveners at the hearings and it’s a huge personal concern for me as well.
So considering that a number of issues are still at large, a number of issues are still not adequately dealt with, in the minds of both the Yellowknives Dene and the citizens of Yellowknife, how can this government sign off on this final submission to the review board? How is my government protecting me, protecting the residents of my riding and the city?
Mr. Speaker, I will have questions for the Minister responsible for this project at the appropriate time. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The Member for Range Lake, Mr. Dolynny.
