Debates of November 4, 2013 (day 1)
MEMBER’S STATEMENT ON GIANT MINE PROJECT TEAM RESPONSE TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last week the Giant Mine Project Team released its response to the environmental assessment. I’m glad they released it. Having the government play the role of proponent and regulator is confusing. If this was a mining company cleaning up its own mess, we would demand that there be no secret communications with the regulator, so there should be no secrets here either.
As a co-proponent, the Giant Mine Project Team includes part of our government. They are proposing to do work that would normally be done by mining companies, but they are not doing this to make or save money for their shareholders. The strange thing is that in their response, they are acting like you would expect the worst of the mining companies to act.
They want to reject or modify over half of the review board requirements. They reject any need for an environmental agreement or independent oversight. They reject the need to do research on a better solution or to spend money where needed. Modern mining companies know that you need to have the public’s trust. They call this their social licence. Such companies know that public engagement and independent oversight creates that level of trust.
Both the federal and territorial governments previously had the opportunity to send this project to an environmental assessment, but they declined, saying trust us, we’ve already come up with the best solution.
Thankfully the City of Yellowknife asked for an assessment, because guess what, there were many areas where their plan could be improved. The environmental assessment was one of the most thoughtful, well-considered documents I have seen. Unlike the project team, the agency consulted with the public, listened to their concerns and made requirements that addressed those concerns. The public agreed. City council, the Yellowknives Dene, the NWT Legislative Assembly, unions, church groups and private citizens all came out and said we support this, implement it. The requirements gave the project team their social likeness. Now the project team says trust us, we don’t need to implement these requirements.
The reason they had to go through an environmental assessment was because the public doesn’t trust them. This team is acting in the role of a modern mining company. They should be setting the standard for best practice in remediation, but by rejecting the requirements put forward by this environmental assessment, they destroyed the public’s trust in all forms of mining. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.