NUNAVUT WATER BOARD

  
  
            Licence No. 1AR-NAN0914 Type A Licence
               Renewal/Amendment Application
  
  ___________________________________________________
                      PUBLIC HEARING
                         VOLUME 2
  ___________________________________________________

  
                    Arctic Bay, Nunavut
                      October 9, 2014

  

  
  
                     TABLE OF CONTENTS
  
  Description                                       Page
  October 9, 2014
  
  KEVIN BILL, Affirmed                              113
  
  Presentation by Department of Fisheries           113
  and Oceans Canada
  
  Nyrstar Canada (Holdings) Limited Questions       117
  Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
  
  Questions from Members of the Public              119
  
  Nunavut Water Board Staff Questions               121
  Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
  
  Nunavut Water Board Questions Department of       124
  Fisheries and Oceans Canada
  
  Questions from Members of the Public              127
  
  Nunavut Water Board Staff Questions               137
  Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
  
                     TABLE OF CONTENTS
  
  Description                                       Page
  October 9, 2014
  
  Nunavut Water Board Staff Questions Aboriginal    137
  Affairs and Northern Development Canada
  
  Final Submissions by Nyrstar Canada               143
  (Holdings) Limited
  
  Final Submissions by Aboriginal Affairs           144
  and Northern Development Canada
  
  Final Submissions by Department of                147
  National Defence Canada
  
  Final Submissions by Department of Fisheries      147
  and Oceans Canada
  
  Closing by the Chair                              154
  
  Certificate of Transcript                         156
  Exhibit Index                                     157

  NUNAVUT WATER BOARD
  T. Kabloona              Chair of Hearing
  J. Pameolik              Member
  B. Dean                  Member
  
  NUNAVUT WATER BOARD STAFF
  D. Cote                  Executive Director
  C. Boyer                 Legal Counsel
  D. Hohnstein             Technical Advisor
  S. Joseph                Technical Advisor
  B. Kogvik                Board Secretary/Interpreter
  R. Ikkutisluk            Licencing Administrator
  
  INTERPRETERS/TRANSLATORS
  M. Allurut               Inuktitut Language Translator
  K. Attagutsiak           Inuktitut Language Translator
  
  T. Rizzoli, CSR(A)       Official Court Reporter
  
  N. Portais               Sound Technician
  
  NYRSTAR CANADA (HOLDINGS) LIMITED
  J. Skoglund              Group Manager Environment
  A. Laudrum               Consultant (SRK Consulting)
  C. Lavallee              Environmental Technician
  
  ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT CANADA
  K. Costello              Director of Resource
                           Management
  M. Ball                  Manager of Water Resources
  I. Parsons               Regional Coordinator
  
  DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE CANADA
  L. LeMay                 Technical Specialist (Defence
                           Construction Canada)
  R. Watson                Department of National Defence
  
  DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS CANAD
  K. Bill                  Manager of Strategic Planning
                           and Investments
  _______________________________________________________

  

  

  

  (PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED AT 9:03 AM)
  THE CHAIR:               Welcome back, everyone, and
  good morning.  This morning we will start with DFO's
  presentation, and after they'll all done, we will open
  questions to DFO from the applicant, AANDC, DND,
  public, staff, and Board.  Not necessarily in that
  order, but we'll start with DFO's presentation.
  KEVIN BILL, Affirmed
  THE CHAIR:               Go ahead.
  Presentation by Department of Fisheries and Oceans
  Canada
  MR. BILL:                Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  The
  presentation is, essentially, the -- or is exactly the
  same as what was provided last night at the public
  hearing.  I can provide a little bit more details.  My
  name is Kevin Bill, and I'm here representing Fisheries
  and Oceans Canada.  A quick summary of the
  presentation.  Again, I'll describe DFO's mandate and
  our reasoning, our interest, and participation in the
  licence and amendment renewal; our earlier
  participation in the completeness of technical review
  portions of the process; DFO -- our submission to the
  technical hearing and the prehearing conference; and
  finally, our review of supplemental information
  provided by the applicant.
       So Fisheries and Oceans is a fairly large
  department in terms of the number of sectors that we
  have.  We have science, conservation and protection,
  hydrographic service, Canadian Coast Guard.
       With respect to the application for the renewal of
  the licence, the two sectors within our department that
  potentially would have interest would be the DFO
  Fisheries Protection Program, formerly known at the
  Habitat Program.  They have participated in the
  previous renewals of the licence, and as outlined in
  the most recent and provided to myself, they have no
  concerns with respect to the remediation and
  reclamation of the site with respect to the impact or
  potential impact on fish and fish habitat.  I -- I'm
  here representing DFO Real Property Management who are
  the current administrator of the site on behalf of the
  Crown, and our primary interest is to ensure that the
  obligations outlined within the lease are being met.
       With respect to our participation in the earlier
  parts of the process, the completeness and technical
  review -- I guess I should preface by saying that our
  primary interest is with the activities for the
  remediation in the -- in the dock area and tank farm.
  That's where our lease and property is located, so
  that's the primary part of the application we're
  commenting on.  During the completeness review, our
  initial comments focused on Appendixes I and J of the
  application, which includes the proposed amended
  remedial approach, which has subsequently been
  withdrawn from the process is or from the application.
  Subsequent to that, during the technical review, we
  provided comments and recommendations with respect to
  the field sampling.  At that time, it recommended a
  shift from composite sampling to discrete confirmatory
  sampling that would allow -- assist in the verification
  of the remediation and also some comments with respect
  to the remediation progress reports and that perhaps
  they could be more comprehensive and include additional
  information.
       As a result of the technical hearing and
  prehearing conference, there were several commitments
  that DFO agreed to provide to the Board.  The first was
  information on the memorandum of agreement between DFO,
  DND, and CanZinco.  DFO and CanZinco had assigned a
  memorandum of agreement that extended the use of the
  concrete pad for temporary storage of soil in order to
  facilitate the remediation project and DND's Nanisivik
  naval facility construction to proceed concurrently.
  The agreement requires that all the soil be removed
  from the pad by August 1st of 2015.  And DFO and DND
  are currently finalizing a memorandum of understanding
  to transfer the administration of the site from DFO to
  DND.  We were also requested to provide additional
  information on the lease between the Crown and
  CanZinco.
       This slide provides -- there's a diagram of the
  site.  It's an older diagram or graphic that outlines
  the boundary of the lease, the boundary of the total
  size of the property.  The original lease was signed
  between the Crown and Nanisivik Mines Limited in 1978,
  and at that time, it was administered by the ministry
  of transport.  The lease includes 30.36 acres of land.
  Administration of the site was transferred to Fisheries
  and Oceans Canada from Transport Canada in 1998.  The
  final lease for the site expired on December 31st of
  2003.  It was not renewed.  The requirement -- the
  information that was provided to the Board outlines --
  includes the lease and also highlights the sections
  within the lease that obligate the lessee to remove all
  the structures and return the site to the previous
  condition and that that remains in place even with the
  expiration or even if it were a cancellation of the
  lease itself.
       So our most recent review of information was
  specific to these three topics outlined on the slide.
  First, the remediation confirmatory soil sampling
  methodology:  We had no specific concerns with the
  methodology itself.  It was reviewed against the
  federal contaminated sites action plan guidance for
  sampling sites on federal properties, and it's
  consistent with that.  It was also reviewed against
  some other guidance documents.  Methodology used to
  develop site-specific remediation objectives:  We have
  no significant concerns with the proposed methodology.
  We will have additional comments when the further
  information is provided on the development of those
  site-specific remediation objectives.  Finally the
  updated abandonment and reclamation plan:  We have no
  specific concerns with the proposed plan.  We did have
  some questions with respect to removal of some of the
  remaining liner within the area and subsequent field
  reports have outlined that that will be removed as
  well.
       So that's a brief summary of our -- our review of
  those follow-ups and the supplemental information, and
  at that time, that's the conclusion of the
  presentation, and I'd be happy to field any questions.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.  We will open the
  questioning from the applicant to DFO.
  Nyrstar Canada (Holdings) Limited Questions Department
  of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
  MR. SKOGLUND:            Johan Skoglund from CanZinco.
  I'd just like to state for the record that, from our
  point of view, we've made several attempts to renew
  this lease with the DFO, but the DFO has expressed that
  they don't see an interest in renewing the lease, so I
  would like the Board to be aware that we have made
  those attempts.  I would also like to comment on one of
  the things that was said in the presentation that our
  obligations are maintained if the lease is cancelled.
  I don't agree with that opinion, and we will -- we will
  seek a legal opinion on that.
  THE CHAIR:               DFO?
  MR. BILL:                Kevin Bill with Fisheries and
  Oceans Canada.  Yes, CanZinco has approached Fisheries
  and Oceans Canada to update and renew the lease, and
  the Department was of the opinion that, because of the
  obligations remaining with the expiration of the lease,
  that, at the current time, it was not of a benefit to
  the Department to renew it.
       With respect to the comment with the cancellation
  or expiration, as outlined in -- in our submission to
  the Board, we reference the relevant sections of the
  lease that include that information.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Applicant?
  MR. SKOGLUND:            Johan Skoglund, CanZinco.  The
  comment was in terms of the cancellation of the lease.
  I find it strange that, if a lease is cancelled, that
  the obligations will remains, so that was my comment in
  relation to that.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.  Any further
  comments?
  MR. BILL:                No.  Not at this time.
  THE CHAIR:               Any further questions?
       Next, AANDC?
  MS. COSTELLO:            Karen Costello for Aboriginal
  Affairs.  We have no questions at this time.  Thank
  you, Mr. Chair.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       DND?
  MR. LEMAY:               Louis LeMay from Defence
  Construction Canada for DND.  We don't have a question
  at this time.  Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Questions from the public?  Questions from the
  public?  Tommy?
  Questions from Members of the Public
  TOMMY TATATUAPIK:        It's probably off.  My
  question, DFO, I -- there are two sides to DFO, the
  fish and fish habitat and we call them lakes, fish
  lakes.  In the ocean, in Inuktitut, we call the oceans
  fish as cod or turbot and bottom feeders.  We don't
  call them fish, so to my understanding, my question to
  DFO is how do you define the ocean fish and the lake
  fish, and -- if you can understand my question.
  THE CHAIR:               DFO?
  MR. BILL:                Kevin Bill, Fisheries and
  Oceans Canada.
       So if I understand the question, it's how
  Fisheries and Oceans Canada defines lake fish versus
  ocean fish.  The way the Fisheries Act is structured in
  the definition of fish, there is no distinction between
  lake fish and ocean fish.  They're all encompassed
  within that definition, so there is no distinction with
  considering what is a fish or what isn't a fish.
  They're all considered the same under the regulations
  and the acts.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
  (OTHER LANGUAGE SPOKEN)
  TOMMY TATATUAPIK:        Thank you.  I got it.  I
  understand.  But Inuit have specific names for
  different species, so fish -- so when you say "fish",
  we have to know what species of fish you're talking
  about, so -- although you say "fish", we know, under
  your definition, but we need to be more specific to say
  whether it's ocean fish or if it's a non-fish, but if
  you just say "fish", like, there's cod and other fish
  in the ocean.  We have to be more specific when you're
  talking about fish especially because if you just said
  fish habitat, let's say, I wouldn't understand which
  species you're talking about.  Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       DFO?
  MR. BILL:                Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Kevin
  Bill, DFO.  Yes, sorry.  I was speaking initially with
  just the generic definition of fish and how the
  Fisheries Act would apply.  With respect to the
  identification and what type of species could be
  potentially impacted that would definitely -- within a
  review of any given project or development project, the
  Fisheries Protection Program would provide comment on
  potential impacts of that activity with respect to a
  species, as the definition within the Fisheries Act now
  states, that is important commercial recreation or
  aboriginal fishery or if it's significant impact to the
  habitat that supports that fishery, so any review of
  any project would provide advice specifically to any
  species present in the area that could potentially be
  impacted by the activity.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
  (OTHER LANGUAGE SPOKEN)
       Questions to DFO from Staff?
  Nunavut Water Board Staff Questions Department of
  Fisheries and Oceans Canada
  MR. JOSEPH:              Sean Joseph, NWB.  Thank you,
  Mr. Chair.  We have two questions for DFO.
  THE CHAIR:               Go ahead.
  MR. JOSEPH:              Our first question has to do
  with the memorandum of agreement.  As part of the terms
  and conditions included in the memorandum of agreement,
  there is requirement to -- for the proponent, CanZinco,
  to supply certain management plans and reports.  One of
  the things that NWB is wondering is whether this
  information is public or can be provided to the -- to
  the Board?
  THE CHAIR:               DFO?
  MR. BILL:                Kevin Bill, Fisheries and
  Oceans Canada.
       I believe that you're referring to the soil
  management plan that's referenced in the agreement?
  MR. JOSEPH:              Sean Joseph, NWB.
       That is correct.
  MR. BILL:                Kevin Bill, Fisheries and
  Oceans.
       I would suggest that we probably could share that
  with the Board.  It outlines, as you mentioned, what
  activities would be undertaken to move soil and -- and
  also the time frame for that, so I believe we could
  provide that to the Board.
  MR. JOSEPH:              Thank you, DFO.
       Our second question has to do with -- with the
  transfer agreement that is currently being worked on
  between DFO and DND, and what -- what we are wondering
  is whether or not, if the transfer agreement were to
  actually come into fruition, what would be the -- the
  consequences of that agreement for the current
  agreement that is in place between CanZinco and DFO?
  THE CHAIR:               DFO?
  MR. BILL:                Kevin Bill, Fisheries and
  Oceans Canada.  I would suggest that the agreement that
  is in place currently between DFO and CanZinco would be
  included in the transfer of administration of the site
  to DND.  I can't speak specifically to that.  We
  haven't had those direct discussions yet, but it would
  be my opinion that that would be the case.
  MR. JOSEPH:              Sean Joseph, NWB.
       Thank you, DFO, and that would be all.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Questions to DFO from Board members?
       Staff?
  MR. BOYER:               Craig Boyer, legal counsel to
  the Board.  I just want to have an understanding.
  You've referred to the soil management plan, which is
  referenced in the memorandum of agreement.  The
  memorandum agreement has been provided as one of the
  commitments following the technical meeting prehearing
  conference and will be an exhibit in these proceedings.
  Will you be able to get us the soil management plan in
  short time?  And can you tell us when you would expect
  to do that because it could have impact on keeping the
  record open?
  MR. BILL:                Kevin Bill, Fisheries and
  Oceans Canada.  I can attempt to provide that today.
  THE CHAIR:               Any further questions from
  Staff?
       Questions to DFO from Board members?  Joe?
  Nunavut Water Board Questions Department of Fisheries
  and Oceans Canada
  MR. PAMEOLIK:            Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Joseph
  Pameolik, Nunavut Water Board.  Although Nunavut Water
  Board is responsible, our mandate is for freshwater.
  Hearing from the public yesterday and as an Inuk, we
  look at our environment as a holistic idea.  Has DFO
  done any types of testing for contaminants from fish
  from the surrounding area, whether in the summer?  Not
  necessarily a test fishery, however, a small sampling
  just to see?  There is a lake called Kuhulu Lake.  I
  believe there is or was fish in there.  We have really
  an opportunity to clean this place up properly.  It's
  being done through the progress that's coming.
  However, with DFO's regulations, with your act, has DFO
  done any type of testing on fish?  Thank you,
  Mr. Chair.
  THE CHAIR:               DFO?
  MR. BILL:                Kevin Bill, Fisheries and
  Oceans Canada.  I'm not aware of any testing or
  sampling of fish in the area, recent sampling at least.
       What I can suggest is that I could do further
  follow-up on that to determine whether or not any has
  been, but to my knowledge, there has been no sampling
  done of fish in the area by Fisheries and Oceans
  Canada.
  MR. PAMEOLIK:            Thank you, Mr. Chair.
  MS. DEAN:                Bernadette Dean, Nunavut Water
  Board.  Just to add to what Joseph said, because my
  understanding of yesterday's public comments is people
  in this community still fish from Kuhulu Lake or Kuhulu
  Lake or whatever, and I would think that it's -- and
  according to the presentation that you did, it is part
  of DFO's mandate to protect -- where was it?  The
  Fisheries Protection Program, and I just wanted to
  remind you of that because there were concerns about
  whether there was possible contamination from the
  tailings ponds or things in that area.  So I'm just
  reminding DFO of those things.  Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               DFO?
  MR. BILL:                Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Thank
  you for the comments.  That's correct.  Fisheries and
  Oceans Canada does have a responsibility to -- under
  the Fisheries Protection Program, to determine whether
  there are potential impacts to a fishery, as I
  described earlier, or significant impacts to the
  habitat.  That side of our department, as I've
  described, we have a number of sectors who are
  responsible for a variety of things.  That portion of
  our department is not my expertise, but I would suggest
  that the -- perhaps the mechanism to express those
  concerns from the community level would perhaps be --
  sorry, this is just my understanding of the process and
  our activities in the area -- would be to provide those
  concerns to the Department and the area offices in
  Iqaluit who have fisheries management biologist and
  Fisheries Protection Program staff who would be able to
  provide better comment on that side of our programs.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.  Any further
  questions?
       Any further questions from interveners, public,
  Staff, Board?
       On that note, we will take a half-hour break
  before we get into the closing remarks, and we'll see
  you back in half an hour.
  (ADJOURNMENT)
  THE CHAIR:               Welcome back.  Before we
  proceed with other matters, I do believe we have one
  more question from -- one more question from Tommy to
  DFO.
       Tommy?
  (OTHER LANGUAGE SPOKEN)
  Questions from Members of the Public
  TOMMY TATATUAPIK:        Thank you.  Thank you,
  Chairman.  I first would like to say I want to tell you
  that I do -- I'm Tommy Tatatuapik from Arctic Bay.  One
  of my responsibilities -- I want to tell you what my
  responsibilities are.  I work for Parks Canada.  I
  was -- I was one of the community members for Parks
  Canada for over 5 years, and I'm with the rangers for
  over 14 years, and I also participate in -- just as an
  elder just expressly to make sure that people that are
  going to court understand what there is and their
  responsibilities are in the communities, but I'm part
  of many communities in our community.
       And also for government departments, I want to
  apologize.  I keep -- I keep saying I'm here for the
  public to participate in the communities, but nobody
  seems to be showing up to listen or to -- I apologize
  for our community members for not participating in
  the -- in this hearing because this is really important
  for us as community members.
       Maybe if you guys can inform more and -- to the
  community members of the activities that will be taking
  place in our community, and I will be talking -- and I
  want to make sure that I inform all the people about
  Nanisivik because I was working for Nanisivik for the
  last 12 years before.  I was not just an employee.  I
  was working for Nanisivik at that time.
       And contaminants, they're a very big issue and
  concerning for all of us, and I would take part in
  cleaning the contaminants too at the same time.  When
  the ship was docked in the community and there were
  contaminants that were leaking out from the boats, it
  affects all the cods and all the fisheries where that
  area is, yeah, and chemicals that were leaking to the
  community -- leaking to the ocean, concentrate.  And I
  was -- I was looking at the assessment monitoring of
  the creeks, and I just heard for the very first time
  that those are being monitored, and to say -- the water
  source, the lake, used to also have fish before, the
  Twin Lake that was over there.  Some of them are 5
  inch, 12 inches before in the Twin Lake, and -- and the
  tailings, the lake that was being used as the tailings
  pond was also -- there was fish before, and Kuhulu Lake
  is now being used actively by the community members,
  and all the women go fishing over there.
       There were many fish in those spots before, and
  I've never heard from -- that DFO would participate in
  taking -- in monitoring and everything, so this is the
  very first time that I'm hearing that they are
  responsible for monitoring and assessing the impacts
  that it might have from mining.  I just wanted to say
  that and want to learn more about the assessment that
  takes place.  Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Is there a response to that?
  MR. BILL:                Kevin Bill, Fisheries and
  Oceans Canada.  To confirm what I believe was the last
  statement provided with respect to DFO's
  responsibilities for assessment and monitoring for
  impacts on fish, that is on ongoing responsibility of
  DFO.  The responsibility to ensure that, as I described
  earlier, fish have commercial, recreational, aboriginal
  importance, and the potential for significant impact on
  the habitat of -- that support those fisheries is the
  responsibility of DFO.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
  (OTHER LANGUAGE SPOKEN)
       Any further questions?
  LILY KIGUTAK:            My name is Lily.  I'm from
  Arctic Bay.  I want to know more.  I want to know if
  the animals have been monitored as to -- for the
  impacts of the contaminants, the land animals and sea
  animals, and what kind of animals have been identified
  that are being monitored for contaminants and also the
  impacts that ships that are coming into our docks and
  how it impacts the animals, and due to climate change,
  are those being monitored and assessed at the same
  time?  And because the dock -- they have to be very
  concerned of all the animals that will be impacted by
  the dock area, and so I want to know -- I want to make
  sure that I find out exactly what kind of assessment
  monitoring and evaluation they have for all the boats
  that will be coming -- all the ships that are docking
  into Nanisivik dock.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.  Is there a
  response from the applicant, interveners?
  MR. WATSON:              Good morning, Rodney Watson
  from National Defence.  In terms of ship traffic
  expected at the facility -- and mind you, the facility
  is not expected to be in operation until the 2017, 2018
  time frame -- we've identified that we -- we've
  identified in our initial submission to the Nunavut
  Impact Review Board that we expect the number of naval
  vessels to visit the site to be in the range of four to
  ten visits per season, and that's -- we consider it the
  navigable season of the year, and that's the ice-free
  season.  It's difficult to speculate at this time the
  exact number of visits, but I -- if you want to compare
  the -- to say a private industry, like a mining
  operation that can be expected to have probably a
  fairly high amount of ship traffic coming to and from
  in a season, the -- the visits by -- the expected
  visits by the patrol ship is -- is fairly small in
  number, and again, that's -- that's something we put in
  our submission to the Impact Review Board and that --
  that was accepted by the -- by the Board at that time.
  As far as other ship traffic goes, we -- it's our
  understanding that sealift vessels also come to -- come
  to the dock in support of the local community.
  There's -- we expect that to continue as the community
  requires it, and we also expect the Coast Guard to
  continue their operations at the site as they -- as
  they do on an annual basis, so -- but from -- from a
  national defence point of view, our visits to the
  facility will be fairly minimal.
  LILY KIGUTAK:            Thank you.  Right now, there
  were many ships that came to our communities, and
  there's been a lot more activity from the ships that
  are coming to our community and also to the dock.  And
  if it's going to be used by DND, we know that the ships
  coming in will be a lot more, and this is -- this will
  be more visiting the Nanisivik dock.  Will the DND --
  does the DND have a facility that the DND will be --
  what my concern is, once the DND starts going up to
  Nanisivik all the time, one of my issues that I have
  and the concern that I have is, when the ships start
  going there, how will the DND be involved with the
  issues of the passage and the dock, the environmental
  and the ocean and also the dock area and the animals?
  THE CHAIR:               DND?
  MR. WATSON:              Rodney Watson, National
  Defence.
       There are a number of regulations that National
  Defence follows in regards to their operations at sea
  and the care not to interfere with marine wildlife.
  Those regulations were submitted as part of our project
  proposal to the Impact Review Board to demonstrate that
  we are very cognizant of the importance of -- of the
  marine habitat, and we will adhere to all of those
  regulations that -- that are there.  I think, as the --
  as we get closer to the commissioning of the patrol
  ship, I expect that there will be more information
  brought forth to the communities about the expected
  emissions of the ships, and again, this is a -- this is
  a very important concern, one that we -- we have heard
  in the past and have listened to, and as I said, we've
  responded to in the project proposal and certainly will
  take under advisement in the next few years again as we
  get closer to the ship's launch date toward 2018, 2019
  or so.
  MR. LEMAY:               Louis LeMay with DCC, also
  representing DND.  One of the things in our submission
  to NIRB is that, currently DND does exercises every
  summer up in the Arctic through the operation window,
  which is screened to NIRB through the northern
  operations group out of Yellowknife, which submits an
  environmental assessment or land proposal of the impact
  or what the operations are going to take place.  It is
  our understanding that the AOPS, the Arctic Offshore
  Patrol Ships, will be incorporated into the submission
  every year.  So there will be a review of the
  activities of the AOPS ships on a yearly basis through
  the NIRB.
  LILY KIGUTAK:            I forgot that I had a question
  yesterday or last night.  There was a response on the
  website to -- it was an address.  I tried to check the
  website this morning.  I want the address, website.
  THE CHAIR:               Damien?
  MR. COTE:                Thank you, Mr. Chair.  If the
  website that we're talking about here is the Water
  Board website -- and there's two ways to get there --
  NWB for Nunavut Water Board dash oen.ca or
  nunavutwaterboard.org.
  LILY KIGUTAK:            I did go into the website.  I
  just couldn't find the actual process that the
  Department of National Defence is going through as to
  the contractors.
  MR. COTE:                Okay.  Thank you for that
  clarification.  That would be on -- we call it the FTP
  site.
  LILY KIGUTAK:            FTP?
  MR. COTE:                Which is available on, it says
  "public registry" on the website.  You click on that.
  Usually and exceptionally, for the first time this
  year, the website happens to be down for the last 24
  hours, for some reason, and that's an awful
  coincidence, and we apologize for that.  It's unusual,
  but that's the FTP site.  The website is working but
  not where you would find the documents.
  LILY KIGUTAK:            Okay.  Thank you.
  MR. COTE:                So I can verify and confirm if
  it's back on today.  Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.  Any further
  questions from anybody?  Staff?
  MR. JOSEPH:              Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Sean
  Joseph, NWB.  On the subject of the application that is
  before the Board for DND, the comment deadline period
  for that application has passed.  The Board hasn't
  issued a decision on the application yet, which is
  separate application from what is being considered here
  right now.  So we had asked the Hamlet to actually post
  a copy of the distribution of the notice of application
  in the community.  Yesterday I was at the Co-op.  There
  was actually a copy of the distribution that the Water
  Board provided to the Hamlet, so the comment deadline
  period is now passed, and we didn't receive any
  comments from the Hamlet of Arctic Bay with respect to
  the application, but the -- and also the information is
  on the website, but the -- if you still want to comment
  on it, you can provide some information, but all the
  interveners have already provided their information to
  the Board.
  THE CHAIR:               Damien?
  MR. COTE:                Mr. Chair, if I may as well,
  on the earlier question --
  THE CHAIR:               Do you have a name?
  MR. COTE:                Damien Cote, Nunavut Water
  Board.  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  On the earlier question,
  DND has provided some answers, but for your benefit, I
  also want to mention the Water Board, with the other
  institutions of public government, NIRB, Wildlife
  Management Board, and NPC together form what's called
  the Nunavut Marine Council, and that -- with all the
  IPGs, and are together meant to look at things like
  marine mammals and the marine environment because the
  Water Board alone only takes care of freshwater, but
  together these IPGs look at the marine issues, so the
  increase in shipping, et cetera, et cetera, are going
  to be things that that council will look at, so there
  is something in place there.
  THE CHAIR:               Any further questions from the
  public?
       Any outstanding questions to the application that
  is before the Board from anybody?
       Tommy?
  TOMMY TATATUAPIK:        Tommy Tatatuapik from Arctic
  Bay.  I didn't have a question, but I have a remark.
  Nanisivik is -- will always be part of our community,
  and I just wanted to make a remark.  When the closure
  first started happening, our community members, the
  elders community and the elders committee and the
  mining and DFO, we had -- we had a meeting together at
  that time in the last consultation for the closure, and
  our community -- we wanted to say thank you for all the
  people that helped from the Department of Aboriginal
  Affairs at that time.
       One of our biggest concerns that we had at that
  time in our last consultation is to make sure that all
  the fish in the fish lakes were being looked after and
  monitored.  We would like acknowledgement to Arctic Bay
  community members, but after Nanisivik closure
  happened, like, all the containments of the whole site,
  they were -- they were given to Arctic Bay people at --
  it was like thank you from Nanisivik Mine at that time,
  and it closed.  All the buildings were thrown out in
  containments, like the furniture were given to Arctic
  Bay.
       And I just want to say -- yeah, I just wanted
  to -- I just wanted to acknowledge all the help we got
  from the closure of Nanisivik too at that time.  Thank
  you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.  If there are no
  further questions from the public or anyone, we will
  move on to closing statements.
  Nunavut Water Board Staff Questions Department of
  Fisheries and Oceans Canada
  MR. COTE:                Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Damien
  Cote, Nunavut Water Board.  I wanted to ask a couple of
  questions, firstly, to DFO.  We understand that there's
  been a transmission of documents to the Water Board.  I
  was hoping you could put that on the record and explain
  what that was.
  MR. BILL:                Kevin Bill, Fisheries and
  Oceans Canada.  Yes.  The documents that were requested
  earlier, the soil movement plan information that was
  referenced in -- in the MOA between DFO and CanZinco
  was provided to the Board.
  MR. COTE:                Thank you.  Thank you,
  Mr. Chair.  Damien Cote, Nunavut Water Board.
  Nunavut Water Board Staff Questions Aboriginal Affairs
  and Northern Development Canada
  MR. COTE:                Second, to AANDC, also during
  your short intermission we had discussed and we were
  hoping that you might have had an opportunity to look
  at the A&R plan and if you have some comments to share
  at this time.  Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               AANDC?
  MS. COSTELLO:            Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Karen
  Costello, Aboriginal Affairs.  We very much appreciate
  the opportunity to offer some comments for the Board's
  consideration based on our recent review with the
  abandonment and reclamation plan for treatment of
  contaminated soil that was submitted to the Board on
  September 16th.  Generally, we believe the plan is
  sound.  We are concerned on two aspects.  There are
  statements by CanZinco in the plan that indicate the
  piles within the cells may exceed the initial design
  height.  We are concerned that this might impact the
  effectiveness of the remediation and prolong -- prolong
  the time required for the soil quality objectives to be
  achieved.
       Our second point was that there does not appear to
  be any contingency in the plan in the event
  contaminated soil is found under the 950-square-metre
  liner that is still in place, and that, we understand,
  is planned to be removed in 2015.  This raises the
  question, if the security estimate that is provided for
  in the plan is adequate.
       Based on our review of this plan for the treatment
  of contaminated soils, the Department would be
  satisfied to maintain the amount of security that is
  currently held.  Should new information become
  available from the future work programs, there will be
  an opportunity to review the security.  At this time,
  we are confident this can be managed going forward, and
  we do not see the need for a site-wide security review
  using Reclaim 7 as per our earlier submission.
       And those are the comments that we'd like to bring
  forward for the Board's consideration.  Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Applicant?
  MR. SKOGLUND:            Johan Skoglund from CanZinco.
  I guess first I'd like to clarify with AANDC whether
  the four comments that were raised last night are still
  maintained or -- or -- and if I need to respond to
  those as well, so that would be good to get
  clarification on that.
       In regards to the two comments that are just
  raised now for the first time, I have to say I'm a bit
  surprised.  The Department has had that documentation
  for several weeks, and the information about the
  biopile height has been responded to in the past, and
  we have disclosed that information in several locations
  in our annual report, so it is -- it's somewhat
  surprising that it's raised now at the 11th hour of
  this public hearing.
       If I understood the comment correctly, the concern
  are that the height of the biopiles are lower than the
  design height or higher?  Was the concern that they
  were lower or higher than the designed height?
  THE CHAIR:               AANDC?
  MR. BALL:                Thank you, Mr. Chair.  It's
  Murray Ball with Aboriginal Affairs.  We noted in the
  plan that there's a reference to piling soil within the
  treatment cells above the level which they were
  designed to function, so the depth of the soil in the
  cells will be increased in the event that it's
  necessary for managing the amount of soil.  And it also
  states in the plan that, should that step be taken,
  that the aeration process for treating the soil in the
  cells would not be applied to the full depth of the
  pile, which to us, raises the possibility that the
  lower part of the pile may not be treated as
  effectively as the upper part, so we see this as a
  potential for extending the amount of time required to
  achieve the reclamation objectives using that method.
  Thank you.
  MR. SKOGLUND:            Johan Skoglund from CanZinco.
  Thank you for that clarification.  That makes it a bit
  easier for me to respond.  So I think both of these
  comments are related to contingencies, so what Murray
  is referring to is -- we would describe as contingency
  options should not the remediation proceed as planned.
  So we are saying, in the plan, that, as a contingency
  option only, we could put more soil in the cells.  That
  is obviously not the preferred option, and we're hoping
  to avoid this, but we've said that could be a
  contingency option should we find more soil or if the
  remediation does not proceed as swiftly as planned, so
  hopefully we don't have to do it, but if we have to do
  it, I mean, all it means is that the piles will be
  higher, which means that the effective treatment of the
  soil will be limited to what's closest to the surface,
  so it essentially means, you get a bigger pile, it will
  take longer to clean up, and the effective treatment
  will be limited to the upper layers, so it's not a
  preferred option, but it's something we could look at
  as -- put forward as a contingency option, and I think
  that that provides, actually, the question to -- the
  answer to the second question as well.  You know, if we
  do decide -- if we do find more contaminated soil
  underneath the liner, you know, that's when the
  contingency plan comes into play, and that's when
  this -- this option, you know, may be something we
  would look at.  I'd say, too, that, in terms of
  contingency options, in the plan the other contingency
  option is the development of the site-specific
  remediation objective, and that's very important for us
  because, you know, if we're successful with that work,
  it will allow us to complete the treatment earlier.  It
  means that we would not have to pile more soil in the
  treatment cells, and we can generally do the work more
  efficiently, so we have two contingency alternatives
  outlined in the plan of which one was brought up by
  AANDC.  I hope that answers your question, but I'm
  happy to elaborate more if needed.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       AANDC?
  MS. COSTELLO:            Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Karen
  Costello for Aboriginal Affairs.  I appreciate the
  clarification on the contingency.  It was not clear
  that -- from -- from the read that the contingency
  included having room for any material that might be
  under the liner, and for us, that represented, like, an
  unknown, so a risk, and we are also -- we do appreciate
  that, should you find something upon removal of that
  liner, it -- it will be reported accordingly, and we
  have every confidence that it will be addressed, and
  that's why, overall, we thought that the plan was
  sound, and we just wanted to be clear that what we
  didn't see was contingency for the what if.  What if
  there is something?  And also thank you for clarifying
  that -- the implications of the increased pile height.
  With regard to the other points, we had planned to
  address them in our closing remarks, so if we could
  just wait until we have that, and we'll address --
  we'll speak to the four points that we addressed in our
  opening remarks, which were based on our September 17th
  submission, and based on our dialogue, we'd like to
  offer some closing comments for the Board's
  consideration.  Okay.  Thank you.
       Thank you, Mr. Chair.
  THE CHAIR:               Anybody else?  Thank you.
       If there are no further questions, we will move on
  to the closing remarks -- statements from the
  applicant, AANDC, DND, public, Staff, and Board.
       Applicant, you may go ahead.
  Final Submissions by Nyrstar Canada (Holdings) Limited
  MR. SKOGLUND:            Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Johan Skoglund from CanZinco.  I think, at this point,
  all I'd like to say is again, thank the members of the
  Panel, thank the Nunavut Water Board Staff and all the
  interveners and members of the public that have taken
  the time and made the effort to come here and to listen
  to what we have to say.  I think our discussions have
  been useful and fruitful.  We obviously remain
  committed to answer any more questions that may come up
  as the process continues.  I think, being here today,
  if there's anything more we can help you resolve today
  while we're all together, then we're obviously very
  committed and -- and happy to do so, but also after
  we've separated here today.  So I would just like to
  extend my gratitude and my thanks and thank --
  thank the Board.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       AANDC?
  Final Submissions by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern
  Development Canada
  MS. COSTELLO:            Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Karen
  Costello for Aboriginal Affairs and Northern
  Development Canada.  We really do appreciate the Board
  providing this opportunity to contribute to this
  hearing and also the licence review process.  We'd like
  to thank the community of Arctic Bay for the
  hospitality, especially the elders for sharing their
  insights and offer comments, and we truly have
  appreciated the opportunity to hear comments from other
  parties, the public, our fellow interveners, and the
  applicant, and we've been able to work through a few
  points that the Department and others have raised.
       In our closing remarks, I'd like to go back to
  some of the points we initially raised in our
  presentation at the start of this hearing.  Yesterday
  we raised a point on the effectiveness of the soil
  treatment process and sought clarification on the
  ultimate fate of the treated soil.  We were also
  concerned about completing treatment within the
  timeline proposed by CanZinco considering the volume of
  material remaining on site.  After reviewing the
  information on record, it is clear of the amount of
  material to be treated, which is approximately 6,000
  cubic metres, can effectively be managed within two
  years by continuing the current process and perhaps in
  less time, were the company to develop site-specific
  soil quality objectives.  The question of where the
  soil will ultimately be located, its end use, has been
  answered by CanZinco to our satisfaction in their
  explanation that it will be made available for
  commercial and industrial purposes.
       The second point of concern to us was the method
  used to develop the site-specific soil quality
  objectives.  We gave two examples -- we gave two
  examples of some points of confusion in the high-level
  document developed by Hemerra and shared to this group
  by CanZinco.  That was specifically held in comparison
  to soils at Nanisivik would be made to soils used in
  developing guidelines in southern Canada and whether
  end points would include use of insects and field
  testing.
       The Department accepts that these areas of
  uncertainty to us, in reviewing this document, could be
  clarified by CanZinco proceeding with their study and
  sharing the detailed report.
       At this time, the Department suggested it is
  important to -- to review the methods, as that would be
  something new for Nunavut that could affect other
  projects, and the Department would be comfortable with
  reviewing the study in detail after it has been
  completed, and we recognize that it is not necessary
  that we further review the study design before the
  Board makes a determination on the application before
  it.
       I've already offered some comments on the
  abandonment and reclamation plan for treatment of
  contaminated soil.  As we said, the plan is sound.
  With regard to financial security, we are satisfied to
  maintain the amount that we currently hold.
       And just finally thanks to the community for
  giving up their community centre to allow the Board to
  host this meeting.  Thanks to the catering crew.  The
  donuts were great.  I enjoyed one last night.  The
  coffee was hot and plentiful, so thanks to the Staff
  and, in particular, thanks for the interpreters for
  their diligence.  We sometimes don't make it easy for
  you, so thank you.
       And for me, this was my first visit to Arctic Bay
  and I must admit I've been fortunate to have my first
  experience to be spectacular weather.  It has really
  been a pleasure to be here, and thank you for
  everyone's attention on this file.  Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       DND?
  Final Submissions by Department of National Defence
  Canada
  MR. LEMAY:               Louis LeMay for Defence
  Construction Canada on behalf of DND.  We want to thank
  the Board and the members and the participants and all
  the technical support for making this public hearing
  possible and allowing us the opportunity to
  participate.  In our closing remarks, we just would
  like to remind some of the points we brought up.  Our
  concern with possible migration of contaminants from
  the contaminated cells with the state of the material,
  how it's been placed in the cells at the end of the
  season, and our concern with the availability of the
  site for our construction.  We are -- especially in
  light of the latest discussion about possibility of
  additional contamination in their liner and the
  extension of -- of contingencies to excavate, we
  absolutely need CanZinco to clean the footprint of our
  project by the end of next season, which is 2015;
  otherwise there will be financial impact to the project
  and to taxpayers.  That's it.  Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       DFO?
  Final Submissions by Department of Fisheries and Oceans
  Canada
  MR. BILL:                Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Kevin Bill, Fisheries and Oceans Canada.  I too would
  like to thank the Board, the community of Arctic Bay,
  the other participants, including the interpretation
  (sic) as well.  This is also my first visit to Arctic
  Bay.  I have visited many communities in the western
  Arctic but not as many in the eastern Arctic, so I'm
  happy to have the opportunity to come to Arctic Bay and
  participate.
       With respect to closing comments, as we outlined
  in our -- in our presentation, our reviews of the
  additional information produced no significant concerns
  with the information provided.  At this point, we would
  like to just express our interest in continuing to
  provide review and comment on additional information as
  it is provided, including in the -- the results of the
  site-specific remediation objectives, study, and any
  proposed objectives resulting from that.  We will
  continue to provide comments on progress reports with
  respect to the remediation itself and also with final
  closure, the eventual closure of the remediation, we
  will continue to provide comments and input into that
  process as it proceeds.  Thank you very much.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Craig, your exhibits.
  MR. BOYER:               Mr. Chair, thank you.  Craig
  Boyer, legal counsel for the Board.  At this junction,
  given that all the parties have presented their
  materials and their submissions.  I would just like to
  read into the record all of the exhibits that have been
  received by the Board in the process leading up to the
  hearing and the hearing today and yesterday so that we
  have it on the record, and with your approval, I'll
  proceed with that.
       Mr. Chair, the first exhibit in these proceedings
  will be the agenda for public hearing, and that is both
  the English and the Inuktitut versions.
       EXHIBIT 1 - Agenda for public hearing
       (English and Inuktitut)
  MR. BOYER:               Exhibit Number 2 will be the
  CanZinco PowerPoint presentation that was presented at
  the first day of the public hearing and that is in both
  English and Inuktitut.
       EXHIBIT 2 - CanZinco PowerPoint presentation
       (English and Inuktitut)
  MR. BOYER:               Exhibit Number 3 would be the
  AANDC PowerPoint presentation given yesterday, and that
  is both in English and Inuktitut.
       EXHIBIT 3 - Aboriginal Affairs and Northern
       Development presentation (English and
       Inuktitut)
  MR. BOYER:               Exhibit 4 would be the AANDC
  presentation executive summary which was available with
  Robin Ikkutisluk yesterday, and that is both English,
  French, and Inuktitut versions.
       EXHIBIT 4 - Aboriginal Affairs and Northern
       Development Canada presentation executive
       summary (English and Inuktitut)
  MR. BOYER:               Exhibit Number 5 would be the
  DND PowerPoint presentation in English.
       EXHIBIT 5 - Department of National Defence
       PowerPoint presentation (English)
  MR. BOYER:               Exhibit Number 6 is the agenda
  for the community session on October 8th, in both
  English and Inuktitut.
       EXHIBIT 6 - October 8, 2014, community
       session agenda (English and Inuktitut)
  MR. BOYER:               Exhibit Number 7 will be
  the -- I'm sorry, the Nunavut Water Board community
  session PowerPoint presentation given last night, and
  that's biota English and Inuktitut versions.
       EXHIBIT 7 - Nunavut Water Board community
       session PowerPoint presentation (English and
       Inuktitut)
  MR. BOYER:               Exhibit Number 8 would be
  CanZinco community session PowerPoint presentation
  given last night, and that is both English and
  Inuktitut versions.
       EXHIBIT 8 - CanZinco community session
       PowerPoint presentation (English and
       Inuktitut)
  MR. BOYER:               Exhibit Number 9 being the
  AANDC community session PowerPoint presentation, in
  both English and Inuktitut.
       EXHIBIT 9 - Aboriginal Affairs and Northern
       Development community session PowerPoint
       presentation (English and Inuktitut)
  MR. BOYER:               Exhibit 10 is the DFO
  PowerPoint presentation in both English and Inuktitut.
       EXHIBIT 10 - Department of Fisheries and
       Oceans Canada PowerPoint presentation
       (English and Inuktitut)
  MR. BOYER:               Exhibit 11 is the Nyrstar
  letter dated September 5th, 2014, English and Inuktitut
  versions.
       EXHIBIT 11 -  Nyrstar letter dated September
       5, 2014 (English and Inuktitut)
  MR. BOYER:               And these are now going into
  the materials that were provided before this public
  hearing that had been referenced and will be part of
  the record.
       Exhibit 12 is the Hemmera letter of September 4th,
  2014.
       EXHIBIT 12 - Hemmera letter of September 4,
       2014.
  MR. BOYER:               Exhibit 13 is the SRK
  Consulting letter of memorandum dated September 4,
  2014.
       EXHIBIT 13 - SRK Consulting letter of
       memorandum dated September 4, 2014.
  MR. BOYER:               Exhibit 14 is the SRK
  Consulting letter of memorandum dated September 5th,
  2014.
       EXHIBIT 14 - SRK Consulting letter of
       memorandum dated September 5, 2014
  MR. BOYER:               Exhibit 15 is the AANDC letter
  dated September 17th, 2014.
       EXHIBIT 15 - Aboriginal Affairs and Northern
       Development letter dated September 17, 2014
  MR. BOYER:               Exhibit 16 is the DND letter
  dated September 17th, 2014, in both English and
  Inuktitut.
       EXHIBIT 16 - Department of National Defence
       letter dated September 17, 2014 (English and
       Inuktitut)
  MR. BOYER:               Exhibit 17 is a DND e-mail
  which was dated September 10th, 2014.
       EXHIBIT 17 - Department of National Defence
       e-mail dated September 10, 2014
  MR. BOYER:               Exhibit 18 is the Nyrstar
  letter dated September 24, 2014.
       EXHIBIT 18 - Nyrstar letter dated September
       14, 2014
  MR. BOYER:               Exhibit 19 is Environment
  Canada letter dated September 10th, 2014.
       EXHIBIT 19 - Environment Canada letter dated
       September 10, 2014.
  MR. BOYER:               Exhibit 20 is the DFO letter
  dated September 30, 2014.
       EXHIBIT 20 - Department of Fisheries and
       Oceans letter dated September 18, 2014
       EXHIBIT 21 - Department of Fisheries and
       Oceans letter dated September 30, 2014
  MR. BOYER:               Exhibit 22 is the memorandum
  of agreement dated July 25th, 2014, between DFO and
  CanZinco, and this will include the schedules of the
  soil management plan -- or soil movement plan that were
  provided today and acknowledged on the record.
       EXHIBIT 22 - Memorandum of agreement dated
       July 25, 2014, between DFO and CanZinco
  MR. BOYER:               Exhibit 23 is the DFO letter
  dated Sept -- February 19th, 2009, which is the lease
  of the mine site.
       EXHIBIT 23 - Department of Fisheries and
       Oceans letter dated February 19, 2009, which
       is the lease of the mine site
  MR. BOYER:               And lastly Exhibit 24 will be
  the lease of the mine site dated March 22, 2001,
  between DFO and CanZinco.
       EXHIBIT 24 - Lease of the mine site dated
       March 22, 2001, between Department of
       Fisheries and Oceans and CanZinco
  MR. BOYER:               And these are all materials
  that are all available on the FTP site, so those are
  the exhibits of the hearing.  Thank you.
  Closing by the Chair
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.  The Board takes
  this opportunity to thank the parties, especially the
  applicant; and the NWB staff; interveners;
  interpreters, Ben Kogvik and Kataisee Attagutsiak; the
  court reporter, Toni Rizzoli; PIDO, Norbert Portraits;
  all the community members acknowledged for their valued
  participation in this hearing.  Thanks also to the
  Hamlet of Arctic Bay for its outstanding hospitality
  and patience with the Board.
       As we are at the close of this hearing, I would
  will make some comments to let parties know what
  happens next for the application.  First, I now close
  the hearing record for the renewal and amendment for
  Type A for IAR-NAN0914 by Nyrstar Canada Holdings
  Limited on behalf of CanZinco Mines Limited.  What this
  means is that no additional information will be
  accepted on this application prior to the Board making
  a final decision on the application.
       The Board anticipates making the decision on the
  application in approximately 30 to 45 days.  If you
  have any questions from this, until then, please
  consult our executive director.  Have a good afternoon,
  safe travel home, and enjoy your visit to Arctic Bay.
  The hearing is now adjourned in accordance with the
  instruction.
       And I would now like to ask Tommy Tatatuapik do
  the closing prayer.
  (CLOSING PRAYER)
  _______________________________________________________
  PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED AT 11:24 AM
  _______________________________________________________

  

  

  
  
  CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPT:
  
       I, Toni Rizzoli, certify that the foregoing pages
  are a complete and accurate transcript of the
  proceedings, taken down by me in shorthand and
  transcribed from my shorthand notes to the best of my
  skill and ability.
       Dated at the City of Calgary, Province of Alberta,
  this 17th day of October 2014.

  
  ________________________________
       Toni Rizzoli, CSR(A)
      Official Court Reporter

  

  

  

                     EXHIBITS ENTERED
                      OCTOBER 9, 2014
  
                                             PAGE NUMBER:
  
   EXHIBIT 1 - Agenda for public hearing        149
   (English and Inuktitut)
  
   EXHIBIT 2 - CanZinco PowerPoint              149
   presentation (English and Inuktitut)
  
   EXHIBIT 3 - Aboriginal Affairs and           149
   Northern Development presentation (English
   and Inuktitut)
  
   EXHIBIT 4 - Aboriginal Affairs and           150
   Northern Development Canada presentation
   executive summary (English and Inuktitut)
  
   EXHIBIT 5 - Department of National Defence   150
   PowerPoint presentation (English)
  
   EXHIBIT 6 - October 8, 2014, community       150
   session agenda (English and Inuktitut)

   EXHIBIT 7 - Nunavut Water Board community    150
   session PowerPoint presentation (English
   and Inuktitut)
  
   EXHIBIT 8 - CanZinco community session       151
   PowerPoint presentation (English and
   Inuktitut)
  
   EXHIBIT 9 - Aboriginal Affairs and           151
   Northern Development community session
   PowerPoint presentation (English and
   Inuktitut)
  
   EXHIBIT 10 - Department of Fisheries and     151
   Oceans Canada PowerPoint presentation
   (English and Inuktitut)
  
   EXHIBIT 11 -  Nyrstar letter dated           151
   September 5, 2014 (English and Inuktitut)
  
   EXHIBIT 12 - Hemmera letter of September     151
   4, 2014
  
   EXHIBIT 13 - SRK Consulting letter of        152
   memorandum dated September 4, 2014
  
   EXHIBIT 14 - SRK Consulting letter of        152
   memorandum dated September 5, 2014
  
   EXHIBIT 15 - Aboriginal Affairs and          152
   Northern Development letter dated
   September 17, 2014
  
   EXHIBIT 16 - Department of National          152
   Defence letter dated September 17, 2014
   (English and Inuktitut)
  
   EXHIBIT 17 - Department of National          152
   Defence e-mail dated September 10, 2014
  
   EXHIBIT 18 - Nyrstar letter dated            153
   September 14, 2014
  
   EXHIBIT 19 - Environment Canada letter       153
   dated September 10, 2014
  
   EXHIBIT 20 - Department of Fisheries and     153
   Oceans letter dated September 18, 2014
  
   EXHIBIT 21 - Department of Fisheries and     153
   Oceans letter dated September 30, 2014
  
   EXHIBIT 22 - Memorandum of agreement dated   153
   July 25, 2014, between DFO and CanZinco
  
   EXHIBIT 23 - Department of Fisheries and     153
   Oceans letter dated February 19, 2009,
   which is the lease of the mine site
  
   EXHIBIT 24 - Lease of the mine site dated    154
   March 22, 2001, between Department of
   Fisheries and Oceans and CanZinco