Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We’ve heard repeated bad news lately on the Giant Mine Remediation Project. Citizens in the Weledeh riding in Yellowknife and those downstream have great cause for concern. Spring ice dams on Baker Creek have caused contaminated water to overflow from the tailings area. Northern Affairs released little and late information. The federal Department of Public Works person in Edmonton finally released some facts. The situation is bad, and DIAND is under legal direction to take action.
But things have just gotten worse. A large sinkhole has appeared, which could channel water to flood the underground arsenic-filled stopes, rendering the frozen block plan useless. Again, DIAND made no proactive announcement. The information came in media reports, thanks to a public registry posting.
These extremely troubling developments undermine confidence in the overall project. Site managers failed to control reasonably predictable flooding. They apparently had no idea a sinkhole was possible, so the people planning the perpetual containment of 200,000-plus tonnes of deadly arsenic cannot predict a routine flood or a site cave-in. That’s perpetual care, meaning as long as there’s human life on the planet.
These incidents are alarming, but the overlying concern that the project developer is also the regulator is the biggest underlying problem. With no independent watchdog for the public interest, the dual regulator/developer role is no good, as recent incidents show.
In 2009 the City of Yellowknife, the Yellowknives Dene, and a private citizen asked DIAND for minor funding to investigate how best to establish independent oversight of the project. DIAND refused, saying oversight is being considered in the environmental assessment and an independent study of oversight options would be redundant. The day-to-day revelations and the stubborn failure of DIAND to meet its public information and accountability responsibilities make independent oversight absolutely essential.
The GNWT has taken no position on such crucial issues as independent oversight, ongoing research, or reporting. We have considerable leverage when it comes to crafting the environmental assessment recommendations and whether they will be accepted, rejected, or modified.
I seek unanimous consent to conclude my statement.
---Unanimous consent granted
In four years I don’t recall ever being given a departmental briefing on this project. We are not standing up for the public interest. It’s time to start.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.
