00234 NUNAVUT IMPACT REVIEW BOARD PREHEARING CONFERENCE FOR THE MEADOWBANK GOLD PROJECT JUNE 7, 2005 VOLUME 2 LOCATION: BAKER LAKE RECREATION CENTRE BAKER LAKE, NUNAVUT PANEL: Albert Ehaloak Chairperson Peter Paneak Pauloosie Paniloo Lucassie Arragutainaq Mary Avalak Peter Akkikungnaq BOARD STAFF: Bill Tilleman, Q.C. Legal Counsel Stephanie Briscoe Executive Director Stephen Lines Technical Advisor Karlette Tunaley Technical Advisor Carolanne Inglis Hearing Coordinator Gladys Joudrey Manager of Environmental Administration Mary Hunt Interpreter/Translator DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00235 Percy Tutannaq Interpreter/Translator Joe Otokiak Interpreter/Translator John Komak Interpreter/Translator Pat Braden Sound Technician Court Reporter: Tara Lutz DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00236 INDEX INAC SUBMISSION REGARDING THE 238:12 ALL-WEATHER ROAD CUMBERLAND'S SUBMISSION REGARDING 244:2 THE ALL-WEATHER ROAD KIA SUBMISSION REGARDING THE 261:24 ALL-WEATHER ROAD RESIDENTS COMMENT ON ALL-WEATHER 266:17 ROAD ISSUE PRESENTATION BY INAC 270:5 PROPONENT QUESTIONS INAC 284:22 KIA QUESTIONS INAC 287:24 LOCAL RESIDENTS QUESTION INAC 290:13 NIRB STAFF QUESTIONS INAC 297:23 BOARD MEMBERS QUESTION INAC 303:8 PRESENTATION BY NATURAL RESOURCES 306:20 CANADA BOARD STAFF QUESTIONS NATURAL 316:13 RESOURCES CANADA GENERAL QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS OF 320:11 LOCAL RESIDENTS CLOSING COMMENTS BY CUMBERLAND 327:15 RESOURCES DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00237 1 (COMMENCED AT 9:05 A.M., JUNE 7TH, 2005) 2 CHAIRPERSON: Good morning, everybody. 3 Before we start, I would like to do the opening prayer. 4 Tom? 5 TOM MANNIK: (Opening Prayer) 6 CHAIRPERSON: We will turn it over to 7 Bill. 8 BILL TILLEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 9 As we left last night, there were a couple of issues of 10 a legal nature, I guess, that we were looking forward 11 to, and I suggest, having talked to counsel, that we 12 begin the day by hearing from them. 13 And I'm informed today that there was a letter that 14 was sent to NIRB dated April 13th of 2005 by the Nunavut 15 Planning Commission. Even though it is addressed to 16 NIRB, NIRB has never received an official copy to that, 17 and the person to whom it is addressed hasn't seen it 18 until today, so that's easily corrected by now that it 19 is in our possession, we will ensure that the letter 20 from the Nunavut Planning Commission to Stephanie 21 Briscoe dated April 13th, 2005 will be placed on the 22 public registry, so it will form part of the record. 23 So if any party who is making motions today 24 regarding the road wishes to refer to that, it will be 25 part of the record. 26 And with that, we also left with a little homework DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00238 1 assignment, and I would hope that the parties, whenever 2 they find it appropriate, might give us their thoughts 3 on that. 4 But those are the housekeeping matters, Mr. 5 Chairman, and that's it for me. So I would suggest we 6 just hear from whomever wishes to make their motion this 7 morning. And it looks like DIAND is at the mic, so 8 maybe, sir, if you just ask them if they wish to start, 9 and we will just take it as it plays out. 10 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. INAC's 11 presentation? 12 INAC SUBMISSION REGARDING THE ALL-WEATHER ROAD 13 CARL McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My 14 name is Carl McLean, Acting Director of Operations with 15 INAC, Nunavut regional office. With me is Norm 16 Cavanagh, legal counsel with INAC with Justice Canada, 17 and I am going to get Mr. Cavanagh to ask for some 18 advice and direction regarding the road issue. 19 NORM CAVANAGH: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Norm 20 Cavanagh with Justice Canada, counsel for INAC, as Mr. 21 McLean said. 22 If it pleases the Board, I would like to bring an 23 application to this Board for advice and directions 24 regarding the issue of whether the all-weather road is 25 included in the present review process or not. 26 Significant confusion has arisen, and depending on DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00239 1 whose interventions you look at, some of the parties do 2 not believe the all-weather road is part of this 3 proceeding, and some other parties believe it is part of 4 the proceeding. 5 I would like to refer to a limited set of facts, 6 and I know Mr. Donihee will refer to further facts in 7 his submission. But in order to answer the question of 8 whether the all-weather road is part of this review, it 9 is helpful to look at a little bit of the history that 10 got us here, and I think all of the counsel, in any 11 event, are in agreement with the following facts: The 12 original project description filed by the proponent did 13 not make any reference at all to an all-weather road 14 between Baker Lake and the project site. That project 15 proposal or project description is what was reviewed by 16 the Nunavut Planning Commission and then sent to this 17 Board for a screening. 18 In the screening decision of this Board, the Board 19 referred to site access in the following terms, and this 20 is a quotation: 21 "The project is designed as a fly-in fly-out 22 operation with an airstrip providing the only 23 year-round access to the site. All construction 24 and operating supplies for the project will be 25 transported on ocean freight systems to 26 facilities constructed at the Hamlet of Baker DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00240 1 Lake, which will include barge unloading 2 facilities, laydown area and tank farm. A 3 92-kilometre long winter haulage route from 4 Baker Lake to the project will provide seasonal 5 access and resupply, while permanent onsite mine 6 access roads will connect the open pit areas to 7 site infrastructure." 8 And that was what was included in the screening decision 9 that went to the Minister of DIAND requesting that the 10 matter go for a Part 5 or Part 6 review. The Minister 11 responded to that screening decision and sent it to the 12 Part 5 review, which is where we are today. 13 Following that, when the proponent filed their 14 Draft Environmental Impact Statement, they made 15 reference or continued to make reference to site access 16 as a fly-in fly-out operation, but did indicate that an 17 alternative was being considered, allowing access by an 18 all-weather road. 19 Now, the written intervention certainly filed by 20 DIAND, and I believe the one filed by the NTI, Kivalliq 21 Inuit Association, Environment Canada and DFO all to 22 varying degrees show that there is some confusion as to 23 whether this all-weather road was part of the original 24 project description and is part of this review. 25 The reason DIAND -- there is a couple of reasons 26 why DIAND is bringing this application. The first DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00241 1 reason is we would not like to see this whole process go 2 to its ultimate conclusion, whatever that may be, and 3 have a third party question whether something was done 4 jurisdictionally correct. Because if the all-weather 5 road is not in this review, it should not be being 6 reviewed. If it is in the review, all the parties 7 should be aware of that so that the submissions are 8 tailored accordingly. 9 The second reason, obviously, is at the end of this 10 process, whatever decision this Board reaches does go to 11 the Minister of DIAND, and the Minister of DIAND has to 12 review or has to accept or reject that proposal. So we 13 think it is critical that this issue be dealt with at 14 this point. 15 I guess about the only other thing that I can add 16 is at the present time, all of the information relating 17 to the geotechnical aspects of the road and the 18 socio-economic impacts of that road are not available, 19 and so at this point it appears that, at the very least, 20 there will have to be a delay until that information is 21 collected. 22 The other point the Board should be aware of is the 23 documentation allowing the all-weather road. To go to 24 the Nunavut Planning Commission for a conformity review 25 has only recently been submitted to the NPC, and the NPC 26 has not yet made that conformity determination. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00242 1 I would refer the Board to the relevant provisions 2 of the Nunavut Land Claim Agreement, and if need be, I 3 can refer to them in detail, but I would think at this 4 point it would be better just to do a little summary of 5 the process, and if the Board needs further detail, I 6 will be certainly happy to provide it. 7 Essentially the process is supposed to follow the 8 following procedure, a project proposal goes to the 9 Nunavut Planning Commission for a conformity review. 10 Following that conformity review, if it is positive, 11 then it goes to this Board for a screening, and 12 depending on the results of the screening, it then goes 13 to the Minister of DIAND, who, and I will -- I am going 14 to make certain assumptions here so that I don't have to 15 deal with all of the possible outcomes. 16 But when it goes to the Minister of DIAND, the 17 Board is recommending a Part 5 or Part 6 review. The 18 Minister of DIAND reviews that and refers it to a 19 review. The review then takes place, and whatever the 20 result is is the result of that review. 21 The Nunavut Planning Commission, since they have 22 not done a conformity review on the all-weather road, 23 must do that step. And the concern that DIAND has is 24 what we now are faced with is we have got a review that 25 is currently ongoing where the all-weather road may be 26 treated as part of the review, that being this review. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00243 1 But at the same time, a part of what may be perceived to 2 be in this review, being the all-weather road, is still 3 over at the Nunavut Planning Commission awaiting a 4 conformity decision. And it seems illogical and 5 probably -- well, certainly in DIAND's view, contrary to 6 the Land Claim Agreement to have two separate project 7 descriptions undergoing two different processes at the 8 same time. 9 There has to be a process that relates to the 10 project description, and we are seeking the advice of 11 the Board and directions from the Board on whether the 12 all-weather road is part of this review. And I suppose 13 if the decision is yes, it is part of this review, we 14 would need some explanation as to how it came into the 15 review. 16 If the decision of the Board is that it is not part 17 of this review, then we will need a process in place to 18 make it part of this review, because I think everybody 19 is in agreement, there should not be two reviews, one of 20 the road and one of the mine. They should not be 21 separated. They have to be together in some fashion, 22 and the question is how do we get them together? 23 And at that point those would be all my 24 submissions. I'm sure other counsel will have 25 submissions on this. 26 Thank you very much. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00244 1 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr. Donihee? 2 CUMBERLAND'S SUBMISSION REGARDING THE ALL-WEATHER ROAD 3 JOHN DONIHEE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the 4 opportunity to respond. And I would like to say on 5 behalf of Cumberland that we appreciate DIAND bringing 6 this issue to the Board's attention. It is a very 7 important matter, and it is obvious -- it was obvious to 8 us from a review of the technical submissions made by 9 the various parties that some confusion still exists 10 about the question of whether or not the all-weather 11 access road is part of the project proposal for the 12 Meadowbank Mine Project. 13 And as the Board will know from things that were 14 said yesterday, and certainly all of the reviewers know 15 from discussions last week, it is an absolutely critical 16 question from the standpoint of Cumberland because of 17 the project economics, Mr. Goodings spoke to that in his 18 presentation yesterday. 19 And because of the project economics, the question 20 of whether an all-weather access road can be built or 21 not will actually determine whether or not there is 22 going to be a Meadowbank Mine Project, so that's why it 23 is very important for the Board to make a ruling and to 24 clarify this. 25 Because the matter is so important to Cumberland, I 26 am going to take a little bit longer than Mr. Cavanagh DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00245 1 did to outline our suggestions for how the Nunavut Land 2 Claim Agreement should be interpreted by the Board. And 3 before I get into the details, Mr. Chairman, I simply 4 want to say that it is our position that the way that 5 NIRB has handled the question of the all-weather access 6 road up until this point is quite consistent with the 7 Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, not contrary to it. 8 We are also going to outline for you our view that 9 there are not two separate project descriptions, but 10 rather only one. And that consequently it would be 11 problematic, and here I think I agree completely with 12 Mr. Cavanagh and INAC, it would be very much of a 13 problem if two reviews had to be done, and that's 14 because there is law, cases decided under both the old 15 Environmental Assessment Review process guidelines or 16 the EARP process, and decided under the Canadian 17 Environmental Assessment Act. 18 There are cases that say splitting a project so 19 that you do two separate environmental assessment 20 processes on the same project, that's a problem. One of 21 the reasons for that, of course, is that it is possible 22 that if the -- if the NIRB were to do only a screening 23 of the all-weather access road -- let's assume for the 24 moment that Cumberland gave you an excellent screening 25 for the all-weather access road and you and the 26 reviewers were completely satisfied, at that point it is DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00246 1 possible that NIRB could decide that the road part of 2 this project didn't need to go on to review, and that 3 can create some difficulties because then you would have 4 one part of the project at the highest level of scrutiny 5 at a Part 5 review, and you would have handled the other 6 part of the project just with a screening. 7 That has effects on how you do cumulative effects 8 assessment and your overall impact assessment, as well, 9 in terms of the level of detail you get into. 10 So this project splitting, handling two parts of 11 the same project in two different ways has been held by 12 the courts to be something that should not happen. 13 In general, then, Cumberland takes the position 14 that NIRB has handled its responsibilities in relation 15 to the Nunavut Planning Commission appropriately, that 16 the arrangements made to provide for an NPC review of 17 the all-weather access road option, those arrangements 18 are appropriate. They do not infringe on NPC's 19 jurisdiction. 20 And as I understand what has taken place, NIRB has 21 simply said -- recognized that the question of the 22 all-weather access road does require a conformity 23 analysis by NPC. We have allowed time for that -- or 24 NIRB has allowed time for that to take place and has 25 indicated that it will not call or set down dates for a 26 final hearing until NPC has made its ruling. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00247 1 There isn't anything in the Land Claim, that I'm 2 aware of, that says these processes can't work at the 3 same time, concurrently. 4 I want to go back and add just a few more facts, 5 and I have a written submission that everything that I 6 am saying today is based on that written submission, and 7 I will provide that to Mr. Tilleman for the Board's 8 information after we finish. 9 I agree with the facts that Mr. Cavanagh and INAC 10 have brought forward. The original project description 11 did talk about a winter haulage route, and it did not 12 mention an all-weather access road. But when NIRB 13 prepared its guidelines in February of 2004, NIRB 14 required in Section 4.10.1.7 that Cumberland consider 15 alternative ways of carrying out the project, and also 16 that Cumberland look at alternatives to project 17 components, and the winter road or the all-weather 18 access road are clearly a component of the project and 19 they have been since the beginning. 20 The Draft Environmental Impact Statement did look 21 at site access options as required by NIRB, and it said 22 the following, and here I am quoting from Section 4.11.6 23 at page 80 of the Draft EIS. 24 "Two overland haulage options from Baker Lake 25 were investigated. The use of tractor-trailor 26 units on an all-weather road or use of DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00248 1 all-terrain tracked or low pressure tired 2 equipment, towing trailers or sleds on a 3 winter-only road." 4 So certainly the DEIS and the work that went into it did 5 consider, as instructed, an all-weather road. 6 There is no doubt from our technical session last 7 week and from the submissions made by the other parties 8 in this review that there needs to be more work done to 9 fully assess the impact of an all-weather road. The 10 initial effort was to look at it only as one of the 11 options. As everyone knows, as a result of the 12 feasibility study conducted by Cumberland and reported 13 in February of 2005, the all-weather road is now the 14 preferred option, and it is only appropriate that more 15 analysis of the environmental effects of an all-weather 16 access road be completed. 17 Now, what's happened since then, since February, is 18 that Cumberland has applied for a land use permit and a 19 land use license, one for the Crown land and the other 20 one for the KIA land, in order to conduct the summer 21 work that's necessary to do the impact assessment. So 22 they want to go out and do wildlife and fisheries work, 23 they need to do some engineering work to find out where 24 the best route alignment for the road is, and they need 25 to find out where the borrow pits are and that sort of 26 thing. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00249 1 So those land use applications were received, and 2 the question immediately arose whether or not they were 3 part of this Part 5 review. 4 And NIRB heard from the parties on that point, and 5 on April 25th of this year, NIRB exercised its 6 discretion and it used Section 12.10.2(b) of the Land 7 Claim Agreement, and it exempted those land use 8 applications from screening in order that any effects of 9 these summer activities could be included in the Part 5 10 review. But that only took care of the work that was 11 going to be done this summer, and ultimately there is 12 the question of the long-term use of the road and the 13 long-term tenure. 14 And, subsequent, there were a series of letters 15 back and forth. I don't need to go into the details 16 between DIAND and NIRB. Cumberland was invited to 17 respond to one from Mr. MacIsaac dated May 13th, and 18 this issue was debated, you know, back and forth by 19 correspondence. And it is clear that the question of 20 the longer-term tenure and use of the road still is a 21 matter upon which NIRB hasn't ruled. 22 Now, is it part of the project proposal or isn't 23 it, and that's what Mr. Cavanagh has raised this 24 morning. That's the ruling that Cumberland would like 25 NIRB to make as well, and certainly that's the ruling 26 that is essential to bring the pieces together so that DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00250 1 we can go forward with certainty with respect to 2 preparing the Final EIS. 3 So that gets us to where we are. I guess the 4 questions really are should the all-weather access road 5 be included as part of the Meadowbank project. And 6 there is a second question that's a legal question that 7 arises out of that, and that is does NIRB have the 8 authority to amend a project proposal during the course 9 of a Part 5 review? And I want to speak to those two 10 questions. 11 But there is a third point that I need to say a few 12 things about, just to clear the air a little, and that 13 has to do with the relationship between NIRB and the 14 Nunavut Planning Commission and the process that's been 15 used for ensuring that NPC's authorities are respected. 16 First, I think that it is our view that the Land 17 Claim Agreement, the NLCA, should be interpreted in a 18 manor which includes the discretion for NIRB to amend a 19 project description during the course of a Part 5 20 review. 21 The NIRB decision of April 25th, in our view, 22 properly reflected and respected the jurisdiction of the 23 Nunavut Planning Commission. It also was sensitive to 24 the need to ensure that the Cumberland project proposal 25 conforms to the Keewatin Regional Land Use Plan. 26 NPC, if you look at Section 11.5.10 of the Land DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00251 1 Claim, NPC reviews applications for project proposals, 2 and they do so before NIRB can undertake a screening 3 under Article 12. Now, with the original project 4 proposal here, that was done. 5 What's happened in this case, is that the 6 Cumberland project proposal has been amended or changed 7 during the course of the Part 5 review. So the question 8 is whether the change to an all-weather access road from 9 a winter road is part of the project proposal already 10 reviewed by NPC or whether it is a new project proposal. 11 Because if it is new, then the new project proposal 12 should go for a screening. 13 Cumberland's position and the approach I'm going to 14 be suggesting to NIRB is that that is simply not the 15 case. It is not a new project proposal. 16 There is no reason to treat the winter access 17 road -- pardon me, to treat the all-weather access road 18 as a new project proposal. And the authority that we 19 are suggesting to the Board you can rely on in making 20 that decision is directly related to the authorities 21 that say the project splitting shouldn't occur. I 22 described project splitting a few moments ago, and so 23 there is case law out there. And in our view, as well, 24 the Nunavut Land Claim Agreement provides the Board with 25 the authority to go forward. 26 Without the Meadowbank mine, there is no purpose DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00252 1 for the road, it would never be built. Without an 2 all-weather road, the mine can't be built. It is not 3 logical to treat the all-weather access road component 4 of the Meadowbank project proposal as some kind of 5 separate project proposal, okay? It has no purpose on 6 its own. It would never be built on its own. 7 The land access to the Meadowbank project has 8 always been an integral element of the mine project 9 proposal. Even at the outset, it was always clear there 10 had to be land access from Baker Lake to the mine site. 11 And all we are talking about here is a switch from land 12 access based on a seasonal road to a permanent road. 13 So I guess I want to say it is not that big a 14 change. How significant the impacts are, you know, may 15 be a different question than whether or not we are 16 really talking about a different project proposal. 17 Now, the portion of Article 12 that deals with 18 NIRB's relationship to NPC doesn't really address the 19 situation that you have in front of you, and that's why, 20 of course, you are going to need assistance from counsel 21 both today and subsequently. 22 But what Part 3 of Article 12 says is that NIRB 23 can't proceed with a screening unless NPC has ruled on 24 conformity. But Part 3 of Article 12 does not deal with 25 the situation where NIRB is already doing a review and 26 there is a change and the question of whether or not DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00253 1 that change requires NIRB to go all the way back to the 2 beginning or not. 3 Now, as I said earlier, the law related to 4 environmental assessment says that you shouldn't because 5 that would be to split the project. But we have to deal 6 with the relationship between NIRB and NPC here, and I 7 suggest that that's been done properly. NIRB will not 8 make a final determination in this matter, it won't even 9 have a final hearing until NPC has ruled. 10 And Cumberland, when it wrote at NIRB's request to 11 the Board on May 16th, recognized the situation, and we 12 said we think NIRB has approached this properly. NPC's 13 jurisdiction is going to be respected. And if NPC rules 14 that an all-weather access road is not appropriate or is 15 not consistent with the Land Use Plan, Cumberland has 16 options under Article 11 of the Land Claim. We could 17 apply to the Minister of DIAND for an exemption. 18 Now, clearly if NPC says that the all-weather 19 access road is not in conformity with the plan, the NIRB 20 process will have to stop and we will have to wait 21 until -- or you will have to wait until you see whether 22 Cumberland gets an exemption or not. But the fact that 23 NPC has to make this ruling doesn't mean necessarily 24 that we have to stop what NIRB is doing right now, and 25 that's the approach that NIRB has taken to the question 26 of the summer work. And we suggest that that's the DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00254 1 appropriate approach to take in respect of your 2 relationship to NPC for the all-weather access road. 3 I want to say a few things now about NIRB's 4 authority to include the road based on Article 12 of the 5 Land Claim Agreement. And as we talk about this, we 6 need to remember what the fundamental purpose is for 7 environmental impact assessment are. 8 Environmental impact assessment is a planning tool, 9 it is a way for Inuit, through their Land Claim 10 comanagement board and for government as the other 11 party, to ensure that projects which are proposed to 12 take place within the Nunavut Settlement Area are 13 examined thoroughly and that all environmental effects 14 are identified and that they are minimized, if they can 15 be, or eliminated. And that at the end, if the residual 16 impacts are too significant, then NIRB has the 17 opportunity to make a recommendation to the Minister 18 that the project should not proceed. 19 That's what environmental impact assessment does, 20 and that's NIRB's job. 21 Now, one thing that all environmental assessment 22 authorities require as part of an environmental 23 assessment is a consideration of the alternatives, both 24 the project and the components of a project. This is 25 required, it is not an option in the NIRB process. 26 Paragraph 12.5.2(i) of the Land Claim Agreement makes it DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00255 1 mandatory for NIRB to consider options for implementing 2 a project proposal, okay, not options to the project 3 proposal, different ways of implementing the project 4 proposal that's in front of you. And that means looking 5 at different ways for land access is not only 6 appropriate, but NIRB had to make sure that that would 7 happen, because the Land Claim Agreement said that you 8 should. 9 Now, NIRB's guidelines of February 2004 did require 10 this, and I would just like to say, I think considering 11 alternatives is good environmental assessment. It does 12 identify options that can reduce impacts, and it is 13 consistent with your role as a board that's responsible 14 for planning and ensuring that the environmental effects 15 of projects or development are minimized. 16 I would like to suggest to you that it makes no 17 sense to spend time assessing the impacts of 18 alternatives, which is required by the Land Claim. If 19 Cumberland then identifies an alternative for 20 implementing the project and NIRB doesn't have the 21 authority to actually consider that alternative, it 22 doesn't make any sense at all to do that. So it is the 23 Land Claim requires that NIRB look at these different 24 components and the impact assessment of the different 25 components. 26 Surely if one of those components makes more sense DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00256 1 than the other and it requires a little bit of 2 additional work to get through the EIS to reflect that, 3 NIRB has the authority to say, yes, continue with that 4 work and let's finish the job. So that comes right out 5 of the Land Claim. 6 The other point I would make, I guess, is a little 7 bit repetitive, but I think it is important, that is 8 just that interpreting NIRB's authority to go forward 9 also means that we interpret NIRB's jurisdiction in a 10 way that gives it the capacity to avoid project 11 splitting, which we already know from the case law is 12 something that probably shouldn't happen. 13 If NIRB decided to split, and Mr. Cavanagh made 14 this point earlier, but if NIRB decided to split the 15 project and consider the all-weather access road 16 separately, there is every likelihood that the whole 17 process could be challenged legally at the end. And I 18 think we are all of the same view that we don't want to 19 see that happen. 20 So the task that confronts NIRB is to determine 21 whether the all-weather access road should be part of 22 the scope of the development of the project proposal and 23 whether you will go forward with the Meadowbank review 24 with the all-weather access road included. 25 There is no case law on Article 12 of the Land 26 Claim Agreement to guide the Board in making this DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00257 1 scoping decision. And in my written submission, I am 2 suggesting that NIRB can have a look at the Canadian 3 Environmental Assessment Act and some of the cases that 4 it dealt with, scoping under both the EARP process and 5 CEAA, because they have had to wrestle with these 6 scoping questions, what's in and what's out, that's what 7 I mean by scoping. 8 And there is a case called the Bow Valley 9 Naturalists case. It involved a matter, it was a 10 challenge to a screening decision made by Parks Canada 11 in relation to an expansion of the hotel in Lake Louise 12 in Banff National Park. And the Federal Court of Appeal 13 had some very useful things to say about the scoping of 14 a project in that case. 15 And I do want to point out that there is a good -- 16 these situations are similar, there is a real good 17 analogy here because Section 15 of CEAA doesn't actually 18 say how to scope, it just says who is responsible for 19 scoping. And so the Court in the Bow Valley case had to 20 deal with this question of what -- how do you make a 21 determination of whether something should be in or out? 22 How do you decide whether it is part of a project that's 23 already in front of you or whether it is something 24 entirely different? 25 And in the Bow Valley case, the Federal Court of 26 Appeal had reference to a document called a CEAA, DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00258 1 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Responsible 2 Authorities Guide, and that guide set out some tests 3 that could be used to make this decision, and I will 4 pose -- I will outline the test to you just by posing a 5 series of questions. 6 First, what is the project? So in this case the 7 road, and what is the principal project. So, you know, 8 how is the new thing, the new element or component of 9 the project related to the principal project? How is 10 the road related to the mine? 11 Secondly, what's the purpose of the project? 12 What's the purpose of the road, and why is it proposed? 13 Third, is the project, the road, physically linked 14 and inseparable from the principal project, the mine? 15 And fourth, are other environmental assessments 16 occurring? And I think if we work through those things, 17 what you will see here is that, you know, the smaller 18 new project, if you will, is the road or the all-weather 19 access road change. The principal project is the mine. 20 The purpose of the road isn't really that different than 21 what was there before, and it is to provide land-based 22 access. The only difference is it is going to last all 23 year long. 24 Why is it proposed? It is clearly necessary, based 25 on the evidence that's already in front of the Board, 26 for an all-weather access road simply for the economics DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00259 1 of the project to work. Is the road physically linked 2 and inseparable from the mine? Obviously so. It is 3 going to go from Baker Lake to the mine site and nowhere 4 else. Are other environmental assessments occurring? 5 Well, yes, there is another environmental assessment, it 6 is a NIRB Part 5 review, it is what we are doing. 7 So when you look at all of those questions and you 8 think about the answers, they can guide NIRB in making a 9 decision as to whether or not it should decide that the 10 change to the all-weather -- to the land access 11 component of this project is part of the original 12 project proposal or whether it is something entirely 13 different. 14 Okay, and I guess I am suggesting, Mr. Chairman, 15 that when you think about those questions and the 16 answers to them based on the evidence that's already in 17 front of you, the only answer that you can come to is 18 that the all-weather access road is an integral part of 19 this project and that it makes sense to do the 20 environmental assessment of the all-weather access road 21 as part of the overall environmental assessment, okay, 22 and that will also avoid project splitting. 23 In the end -- I don't want to say too much more, I 24 guess. In the end, Cumberland submits that it really 25 wouldn't make any sense for the Land Claim, the Nunavut 26 Land Claim Agreement to give NIRB the authority to DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00260 1 require an options analysis and then for us to interpret 2 Article 12 in a way that prevents NIRB from responding 3 to the options once they are identified. I think that's 4 really the key here. 5 You know, in a broad sense, this is a planning 6 process. You are required by law to look at options. 7 Once you look at them, surely to goodness the drafters 8 of the Land Claim Agreement would have intended NIRB, if 9 you get information as part of your analysis, that you 10 can act on that information. So what's why Cumberland 11 is saying that, in our view, NIRB has the jurisdiction 12 to include the all-weather access road as part of the 13 original project proposal. It is consistent with your 14 Land Claim authorities, it is consistent with the law 15 about project splitting, and it makes sense. 16 Cumberland submits that NIRB -- therefore, that 17 NIRB has the legal authority necessary to adjust the 18 scope of this Part 5 proceeding to give Mr. Cavanagh and 19 even more strongly, perhaps, to order Cumberland to 20 proceed to include an impact assessment of the 21 all-weather road in the Final EIS, and we are asking 22 NIRB for a ruling to that effect. 23 We submit that such a ruling is appropriate because 24 an all-weather access road is an integral part of the 25 Meadowbank project. 26 In closing, I do want to point out that if, at the DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00261 1 end of the day, when NIRB considers what counsel have 2 suggested to you and the submissions we have made today, 3 if at the end there is still some concerns on NIRB's 4 behalf about this jurisdictional question, that there is 5 another option available to the Board, and that is that 6 if the Board has concerns about making a legal ruling 7 about its own jurisdiction in this matter, it could ask 8 the Minister of DIAND to provide instruction under 9 Section 12.5.1 of the Land Claim Agreement to include 10 and address the all-weather road in the current Part 5 11 review. 12 So NIRB has two ways of getting there. And from 13 Cumberland's standpoint, we are saying it is our view 14 that you have the jurisdiction to include the road 15 anyway. We are asking you for a ruling to that effect, 16 but if NIRB also wants to confirm with the Minister, 17 that course of action would be appropriate as well from 18 Cumberland's standpoint. 19 So those are Cumberland's submissions on this 20 matter, Mr. Chairman. And I will provide a written copy 21 of the comments that I have made here to your counsel, 22 Mr. Tilleman, at the next break. Thank you, sir. 23 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Comments? 24 KIA SUBMISSION REGARDING THE ALL-WEATHER ROAD 25 KIMBERLEY GILSON: Mr. Chairman, if I could? 26 Kim Gilson on behalf of KIA. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00262 1 KIA, of course, shares the concerns the parties 2 have expressed this morning about the issue pertaining 3 to the road, and I am not going to repeat any of the 4 facts or issues that you have already quite succinctly 5 before you. 6 KIA is really wrestling, I guess, as everyone else 7 is. Really, I think, what the question comes down to is 8 when does a change actually amount to an amendment that 9 requires referral back to NPC? 10 Now, we appreciate the fact that the Board did 11 question the alternatives and has suggested to 12 Cumberland that they consider something such as this 13 all-weather road, and Cumberland has done just that, but 14 the fact remains that the road is in front of NPC as a 15 separate project, and that causes us concern. 16 We do understand that there is no clear direction 17 in the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement that gives this 18 Board sort of its clear answer and direction, but KIA 19 supports the motion that was brought by DIAND this 20 morning seeking advice and direction. 21 Thank you. 22 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any other 23 comments? 24 NORM CAVANAGH: Mr. Chairman, if there are 25 no other comments, I would like to say a few -- I would 26 like to give a few comments in response to what Mr. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00263 1 Donihee has said. And basically the only point I would 2 like to, or a couple of points that I would like the 3 Board to focus on when making this determination. 4 I don't think anybody is in disagreement that at 5 the end of whatever the decision is, this should be 6 viewed as one project and should be reviewed as one 7 project. The problem arises out of the wording of the 8 Nunavut Land Claim Agreement, because the Nunavut Land 9 Claim Agreement uses the word "project proposal", and 10 what we -- in DIAND's submission, what we presently have 11 is the situation where there is a project proposal, 12 there is a project proposal under review by this Board, 13 and that project proposal did not have an all-weather 14 access road. 15 There is an all-weather access road presently in 16 conformity review by the Nunavut Planning Commission. 17 Both of those meet or are project proposals under the 18 definition of the Nunavut Land Claim Agreement. And so 19 we have two separate things meeting the same definition. 20 The Land Claim Agreement only allows a project 21 proposal to come into the NIRB process after it has gone 22 through the Planning Commission process. And the letter 23 that Mr. Tilleman referred to earlier being, I believe 24 it is the April 13th letter from Nunavut -- from the 25 Nunavut Planning Commission specifically says that the 26 project proposal that they originally reviewed did not DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00264 1 include an all-weather road. 2 What the Planning Commission says is the Nunavut -- 3 "The NPC confirms that the second change noted 4 above, the construction and use of 102-kilometre 5 all-weather road as opposed to the winter road 6 originally proposed is relevant to the 7 conformity requirements of the KRLULP. The 8 NPC's 2003 conformity determination was based on 9 the road in question being constructed and used 10 as a winter road. A conformity review of that 11 change will be necessary when the applications 12 to build an all-weather road are received." 13 And so the problem is not, I don't think, as Mr. Donihee 14 has put it. The problem is because there is another 15 board out there that has to follow its process, that 16 being the Nunavut Planning Commission, it has to review 17 something, and what it is reviewing is a project 18 proposal. And I don't think anybody is saying it can't 19 review that project proposal. 20 And it seems inconsistent to say the Nunavut 21 Planning Commission reviewed a project proposal, that 22 one had a winter road, that went to NIRB. There is now 23 another one that the Nunavut Planning Commission is 24 reviewing -- there is now another project proposal that 25 the Nunavut Planning Commission is reviewing which is 26 the all-weather road, but somehow that magically DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00265 1 appeared in this review, even though it hasn't been 2 through the conformity review required under the Nunavut 3 Planning Commission. 4 But everybody is in agreement at the end somehow we 5 have to get these two pieces together, and it all has to 6 be handled as one part of the review, and that's really 7 the question that we are asking the Board to decide 8 today. Thank you. 9 CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you. Before 10 we do any further questions, can we take a 15-minute 11 break. 12 (BRIEF RECESS) 13 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for your 14 patience. One of our Board members, Mary Avalak, has 15 left for personal reasons, and we will update you more 16 after lunch. We will carry on. Bill? 17 BILL TILLEMAN: So, thank you, Mr. 18 Chairman. I take it that we are done with the motions. 19 If any other party in the audience has a response to the 20 motion, they should come up now and say so. 21 I don't see any interest, but it doesn't mean no 22 other party cares to respond to Mr. Cavanagh's motion 23 and Mr. Donihee's reply and KivIA's reply. But if they 24 wish to do so, they should come up now. 25 I should attempt it, out of a complete abundance of 26 caution and for the argument's sake only, to also invite DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00266 1 any of the people here to comment on whether or not if 2 NIRB were to rescreen the all-season road separately as 3 of today right now, would any party in this proceeding, 4 in this audience believe the result would be any 5 different than the conclusion which finds us here today, 6 under the Minister's authority today? 7 I have heard counsel say that, no, everyone 8 believes this is the right result, but I think we should 9 offer any party to come forward if they believe it 10 should have been done differently for NIRB's purposes. 11 And so with that in mind, just through you, sir, to 12 the audience, if anyone wants to make any other final 13 comment on that, they should, to complete the record, 14 otherwise we should move on to the presentations. 15 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Bill. Any other 16 comments? Go ahead. 17 RESIDENTS COMMENT ON ALL-WEATHER ROAD ISSUE 18 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Can you hear me? Thank you 19 for being here. It is good to see everyone here. 20 I just have a comment to say in regards to -- it 21 seems that the access road is being discussed, and I am 22 thinking that if it was to be in two separate projects, 23 I think money will be lost in terms of if anybody is 24 thinking as to why the Hamlet employees might be 25 impacted. 26 I am thinking that it might not be better. I'm not DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00267 1 too sure whether exactly I am correct, so that if the 2 proponents and Hamlet meet together and try and hash 3 this out. And if there is any way, by letter, if they 4 can't agree together, that's what I would like to know. 5 If anybody else is going to speak, I'm going to wait. 6 MICHAEL AKILAK: Thank you. Listening to 7 the access, winter road or all-season road, I think I 8 prefer to see the all-season road push because of the 9 Elders wanting to get out would be a perfect way to get 10 them out. 11 And for the younger generations that rely on GPS, 12 that road would be an ideal thing, all-season road would 13 be an ideal for any young hunters that really can't find 14 their way around to be able to come back through. Even 15 wintertime, you could follow the road back to the 16 community or the mine. Thank you. 17 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any other 18 comments? If there is no other comments -- 19 CRAIG GOODINGS: I would like to have Jacob 20 give his thoughts on the road. 21 Just to introduce Jacob, he is from that land. His 22 family is buried around that area. This is his country 23 up there. 24 JACOB IKINLIK: I am Jacob Ikinlik. 25 Up there in Meadowbanks in the spring and the 26 summer and during the winter, I have grown up in the DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00268 1 area, and there are -- my in-laws are also buried up 2 there and just across from the Meadowbank project area. 3 When we are talking about the road, the 4 all-weather, and I feel that this road must really be, 5 if there are going to be coming -- if whatever things 6 that are coming in by barge in the summer, you know, 7 they are going to have to -- and they are going to stay 8 here until the ice is firm and thick enough to bring up 9 whatever is needed to go up there. 10 And having looked at and surveying the area myself 11 over the summer, and I feel that if there is going to be 12 fencing on the road, you know, it is going to be a 13 deterrent for caribou. 14 There is no way caribou would be deterred from 15 crossing the road even if it was used year round, 16 all-weather access road. 17 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any other 18 comments? Go ahead. 19 SIMONE TOOKOOME: Yes, I am in support of -- 20 I am Simone Tookoome. And if it is going to be 21 available to all the hunters, and I would like to be 22 able to get further clarification if this road will be 23 available to all hunters. 24 And they were saying, you know, they were thinking 25 that if there was a road, that vehicles would crash into 26 caribou, and I don't think there will be any fatalities DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00269 1 because of vehicles -- wildlife also keep an eye out as 2 to what's happening, and I know that the wildlife are 3 not as afraid as they used to be, and they are always 4 watching as to what is going on around them. 5 And I also grew up in the area. It has good fish, 6 and we want to be able to get to the lake. And I feel 7 that if the all-weather access road is going to be 8 available to all hunters, you know, we are all in 9 support of it. 10 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Go ahead. 11 TOM MANNIK: The Inuit, just to get 12 regular Inuit, to get further clarification. 13 Okay, the wildlife, they have to stop and make sure 14 that the wildlife have to cross, and once they are 15 across, and I feel that that legislation is going to be 16 used. And I don't think it will be too much of a 17 deterrent for wildlife. 18 CHAIRPERSON: You had a question? 19 JOE KALUDJAK: Mr. Chairman, when the 20 legal people were talking, counsel were talking, NPC, if 21 we are waiting for NPC, especially in terms of 22 documentation and what is brought up right now 23 concerning KIA, which are being discussed up to today, I 24 feel that we don't want to see anything to slow down the 25 process, and we would like to see the process continue. 26 We just wanted to let you know of that, inform you of DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00270 1 that. 2 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, any other 3 comments? There is no other comments. We will continue 4 with our presentations. INAC? 5 PRESENTATION BY INAC 6 CARL McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 7 Good morning, everyone. I want to thank the Board 8 for the opportunity to speak to you and the community 9 members here today. 10 My name is Carl McLean, Acting Director of 11 Operations for the Nunavut regional office of Indian and 12 Northern Affairs Canada. 13 With me today are other staff from the Inuit 14 office. To my immediate right is Robyn 15 Abernethy-Gillis, environmental scientist. To my far 16 right is Mike Hine, resource development advisor for 17 economic development. In the back we have Charles 18 Drouin, communications officer, and Alison Cormier, 19 administrative assistant. And Alison has been 20 invaluable in getting us here and making sure that 21 everything is done for us, so a special thank you to 22 her. 23 We have also brought some of our consultants who 24 assisted in preparing our comments to the Board so we 25 can do our best to answer any questions. 26 I would like to introduce you to Mark Watson from DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00271 1 EBA Engineering Consulting Limited, who is a specialist 2 in the field of mine and quarry design and planning, and 3 Norm Cavanagh, our legal advisor. 4 INAC derives its regulatory mandate 5 responsibilities and obligations from several pieces of 6 legislation and policies. There are shown up on the 7 board. These include the DIAND Act, the Nunavut Land 8 Claim Agreement, Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 9 Federal Real Property and Immovables Act, the Nunavut 10 Water and Surface Rights Tribunal Act, the Nunavut Mine 11 Site Reclamation Policy and the Territorial Lands Act 12 and Regulations. 13 Indian and Northern Affairs Canada has two roles in 14 the Meadowbank Gold Project: as an intervenor in the 15 environmental assessment process, and in a regulatory 16 capacity once the project has been approved to proceed 17 based on the environmental assessment. 18 During the NIRB environmental assessment process, 19 as intervenors, INAC has a role and responsibility to 20 provide the best advice possible to the Nunavut Impact 21 Review Board. INAC utilizes staff from the regional 22 office and our headquarters office for this 23 responsibility. 24 We want to be sure that NIRB has the best available 25 information from us to perform its role and 26 responsibilities as outlined in the Nunavut Land Claim DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00272 1 Agreement. 2 We are also here to answer any questions the Board 3 or the proponent has of us, as well as answering 4 questions that other intervenors, and most importantly, 5 the community may have with the permission of the Board. 6 After the final hearings, once NIRB has reviewed 7 all of the evidence presented and written their report, 8 the INAC Minister and headquarter staff will have the 9 task of reviewing the report, and he will be doing this 10 in conjunction with other ministers that have a 11 responsibility for authorizing the project to proceed. 12 INAC's regulatory role in the Meadowbank review. 13 If the project receives approval, INAC will administer 14 and enforce the terms and conditions of the water 15 license, as well as for the portion of the project on 16 land with surface rights held by the Crown. 17 The mine aspect of the proposed project is located 18 on -- entirely on surface and subsurface Inuit-owned 19 land administered by the Kivalliq Inuit Association. 20 Access to the site via all-weather or winter 21 haulage route lies partly on Crown land administered by 22 INAC. 23 Storage and laydown facilities for the mine site 24 are located on municipal lands in the community of Baker 25 Lake. 26 INAC will hold security deposits for water license DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00273 1 and for the reclamation of those parks and the project 2 on Crown land. 3 INAC has procedural concerns with the Meadowbank 4 Gold Project scope currently considered for review. 5 INAC recognizes the road component as a significant part 6 of the project. However, INAC will not assess the 7 all-weather road component of the project until the land 8 use conformity review with Keewatin Regional Land Use 9 Plan is conducted by the Nunavut Planning Commission and 10 followed by further direction and assessment from the 11 Nunavut Impact Review Board. 12 Cumberland Resources Limited has only recently, in 13 the last two weeks, applied for long-term tenure for 14 site access, that's for the all-weather road. The 15 department has forwarded the complete original land 16 tenure application to the Nunavut Planning Commission 17 for their land use conformity review. 18 INAC is awaiting a conformity determination from 19 the Nunavut Planning Commission against the Keewatin 20 Regional Land Use Plan, and then inclusion in this 21 review as determined by NIRB and the Minister. 22 I will now get into an overview of INAC's 23 submission to NIRB. This presentation will present a 24 summary of INAC's adequacy review of the information 25 contained in Cumberland Resources Limited Draft 26 Environmental Impact Statement and supporting documents. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00274 1 This was requested by the Nunavut Impact Review Board of 2 all other intervenors. As such, INAC has analyzed the 3 issues in the Draft EIS that are within its mandate. 4 I must emphasize to the Board and the public that 5 our presentation today can only be a very short summary 6 of the full written submission we provided to the Board. 7 We are only highlighting deficiencies in the Draft 8 Environmental Impact Statement that we feel need to be 9 brought to the attention of the Board, Cumberland 10 Resources Limited and the public for discussion. And we 11 hope all parties interested in our expanded views on the 12 project will look to our written submission. 13 We have with us copies of our executive summary in 14 large print that we made in our submission at the 15 handout table, and we are prepared to address any 16 questions on our entire submission, the Board, 17 Cumberland Resources Limited and the public may have for 18 us. 19 INAC has committed providing the necessary staff 20 and resources for the review of this project so that it 21 can help resolve any technical concerns to all parties' 22 satisfaction and to enable the proponent to move forward 23 in the environmental assessment. 24 Engineering and physical science deficiencies. In 25 general, INAC has found that Cumberland Resources' Draft 26 Environmental Impact Statement address most technical DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00275 1 issues pertaining to engineering and physical sciences; 2 however, these design issues are conceptual and are 3 still in the project planning stages. 4 INAC does, however, have concerns with the 5 methodology of how the assessment was conducted with 6 limited technical information provided in the areas of 7 engineering, physical science and the socio-economic of 8 the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 9 Specifically, INAC found that Cumberland's Draft 10 Environmental Impact Statement minimally presents and 11 references their baseline data, making a traceable and 12 reproducible review of impacts against the baseline 13 conditions extremely difficult. This is followed by 14 insufficient analytical assessments to allow INAC, at 15 this time, to share Cumberland's confidence in their 16 assessment results. 17 INAC's largest concern relates to the absence of 18 data, particularly with dike stability of the tailings 19 impoundment area, water quality related to acid-rock 20 drainage, metal leaching, deep groundwater contamination 21 and the cumulative effects assessment. 22 INAC cannot, at this time, share Cumberland's 23 confidence in their predictions of the stability of the 24 tailings impoundment area, since there is insufficient 25 presentation of baseline data on the lake bed soils. 26 With this uncertainty, it is possible that a change in DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00276 1 dike and open pit footprint design may have to occur. 2 There is also insufficient data on the geochemical 3 and geological properties of the ore bodies and planned 4 construction material to be used. Without the required 5 understanding of the rock and mineral characteristics, 6 the impacts of water quality and its containment plans 7 cannot be fully assessed. These materials may be acid 8 generating and may release heavy metals into the 9 surrounding environment with their use in the 10 construction and operation of dikes, ditches, site roads 11 and airstrips. 12 Engineering and physical science deficiencies, we 13 will continue with those. INAC would like the proponent 14 to prove that the potential from deep groundwater 15 contamination is low. The Draft Environmental Impact 16 Statement has insufficient data for INAC to be confident 17 in Cumberland Resources' determination that contaminated 18 seepage from the tailing into groundwater will not occur 19 before the talik, located under the tailings impoundment 20 area, freezes. 21 Cumulative effects. Cumberland Resources should 22 provide evidence from their public consultation 23 activities, including information learned from the 24 traditional knowledge, Inuit Qaujimajatuangit, IQ, I 25 hope I said that right, for the determination of valued 26 ecosystem components, valued socio-economic components DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00277 1 and indicators for the company's cumulative effects 2 analysis. 3 The criteria used for the company's assessment of 4 cumulative effects is sound, however the indicators used 5 are not identified, referenced, nor incorporated into 6 the Final EIS. 7 NIRB's guidelines asked the proponent to include a 8 comparison of the additive contribution of the project 9 for regional thresholds, carrying capacity of the 10 identified valued ecosystem components and valued 11 socio-economic components. Where uncertainty exists in 12 how the project may approach or reach carrying capacity 13 of the identified valued components, a follow-up 14 strategy on how this uncertainly will be handled should 15 be provided. 16 INAC's key concerns with the socio-economic 17 assessment and plan found in the Draft Environmental 18 Impact Statement are with the spatial scale, that being 19 the focus on Baker Lake, community consultation, 20 methodology and the planned primary mitigation and the 21 monitoring tool used. 22 Cumberland has chosen to focus exclusively at Baker 23 Lake, however the company has not demonstrated how the 24 residents of Baker Lake are more capable to gain and 25 hold employment over other Kivalliq communities. This 26 suggests that the selection of Baker Lake as a primary DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00278 1 community is a policy of the company, a rationale that 2 the company should discuss further. 3 INAC is also concerned that Cumberland has also not 4 demonstrated the full range of insight and interest from 5 communities, stakeholders and vulnerable groups from 6 their community consultation process. 7 Cumberland Resources has presented -- was presented 8 with the 2005 award for Decade of Community Consultation 9 and Community Involvement at the Nunavut Mining 10 Symposium held recently in Rankin Inlet. INAC is aware 11 that the company has been working diligently in the 12 Kivalliq region gathering public input on the project 13 since 1996. 14 At this time, it is INAC's recommendation that 15 Cumberland Resources provide the information acquired in 16 their community consultation work and demonstrate how 17 this information or concern has been addressed in the 18 Draft EIS. 19 Methodologies used to determine potential impacts 20 do not appear to take into account differing components 21 of the community, such as family status, age, gender, 22 previous wage employment or language capacity, et 23 cetera. These are significant variables that will 24 reflect the impact of the mine on the community, the 25 residents and company's ability to mitigate those 26 impacts, both negative and positive. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00279 1 INAC recommends the proponent review their 2 methodology and these factors' impacts upon valued 3 socio-economic components. 4 Cumberland Resources proposes to use the Inuit 5 Impact and Benefit Agreement as the primary mitigation 6 and monitoring tool. The public is not privy to this 7 confidential document, nor its negotiation. 8 Cumberland Resources should explore other 9 socio-economic mitigation and monitoring instruments. 10 In doing so, the company can then demonstrate that a 11 proper mitigation plan and follow-up monitoring program 12 for maximization of benefits and minimization of 13 negative effects has been completed for review and 14 approval through NIRB's procedures. 15 It is INAC's opinion that the technical session 16 held June 2nd and 3rd here in Baker Lake has been 17 successful. But like the other intervenors, consider 18 that a considerable amount of information remains to be 19 exchanged. 20 The value of technical sessions has been the 21 face-to-face discussions regarding the present scope of 22 the project, introductory and deeper discussions 23 regarding the primary technical issues and the offer by 24 Cumberland Resources to provide the technical reports to 25 support the positions taken by Cumberland Resources at 26 the technical meetings. In effect, the technical DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00280 1 meetings are viewed as a very effective first round of 2 information requests. 3 It is INAC's opinion that upon the technical review 4 of the project references, the intervenors can either 5 share Cumberland Resources' confidence or can, through 6 information exchanges, clearly and independently assess 7 the residual risks. 8 NIRB also asked us to address the nine presentation 9 topics, and we will go through those now. 10 The first objective they asked us to address is the 11 schedule for prehearing conference exchange of 12 information. There is still a substantial exchange of 13 information required between the intervenors, proponent 14 and NIRB. 15 One suggestion is for a revised information -- a 16 revised Draft EIS to be submitted, complete with all 17 required information, or alternatively, a series of 18 information exchanges with prescribed time frames that 19 allows us for review and comment on the information that 20 Cumberland Resources agreed to provide at the technical 21 meeting and the commitments list. 22 New information may be submitted and reviewed in 23 accordance with time frames set by NIRB. 24 With regards to objective number 2, intervenor 25 identification and registration; I believe we already 26 captured that in slide number 2. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00281 1 Objective number 3, the list of issues to be dealt 2 with at the final public hearings and clear statements 3 of the issues. At this time, without reviewing 4 Cumberland Resources' Final Environmental Impact 5 Statement and participation at the technical and 6 prehearing conference, INAC is unable to provide further 7 comments on the technical issues related to the 8 environmental assessment of the Meadowbank Gold Project. 9 INAC has submitted a technical adequacy review 10 assessment of Cumberland Resources' Draft Environmental 11 Impact Statement and supporting documents to the Nunavut 12 Impact Review Board. The department has also prepared 13 this presentation to provide an overview of the issues 14 requiring more information based on its assessment 15 submission to the Nunavut Impact Review Board. 16 Objective number 4, technical reports and other 17 documents needed for final public hearings. There is a 18 substantial list of reports and information, as 19 identified during the technical meetings and our 20 intervention, that are needed prior to the final public 21 hearings. And I believe there is a bunch of submissions 22 from different parties, along with the commitments list, 23 that kind of outlines that requirement. 24 The schedule to be followed by the parties for 25 completion of the reports needed prior to the final 26 public hearings. In view of the substantial amount of DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00282 1 information outstanding and the fact that some 2 information is in the process of being collected and 3 compiled, we find it difficult to provide comments on 4 that at this time. 5 Schedule, dates, times and places of the final 6 public hearing. INAC requests that NIRB provide 7 intervenors with a minimum of 90 days to complete their 8 technical review following receipt of a complete 9 Environmental Impact Statement from the proponent. 10 Should there be deficiencies in the information 11 submitted and an information request for supplemental 12 information be required, INAC suggests that the 90-day 13 review period not start until those deficiencies have 14 been addressed. 15 INAC also suggests that NIRB set a final submission 16 cutoff date for all documents to be received. INAC 17 requests that the final submission deadline should be a 18 minimum of ten days before the final public hearing. 19 INAC recommends that the final hearings occur at 20 the following communities in the Kivalliq region: Baker 21 Lake, Rankin Inlet and Chesterfield Inlet. Technical 22 hearings should be undertaken in Baker Lake, with 23 nontechnical hearings occurring in the other 24 communities. 25 We have no motions with regards to objective number 26 7, special procedures. And with regards to objective DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00283 1 number 8, any motions that may be needed before the 2 Final EIS is filed, we have no recommendations on that. 3 With regards to objective number 9, INAC recommends 4 that the final hearing be segregated into topics rather 5 than by intervenor so that the discussion can be 6 focussed. 7 INAC is aware of the involvement of Cumberland -- 8 involvement Cumberland has had in the Kivalliq region in 9 preparation for the Meadowbank environmental review. 10 Where all information may have been collected, INAC has 11 observed that the information has not been provided, nor 12 properly referenced, and as such, INAC's review has 13 identified some significant areas of weakness in the 14 company's Draft EIS. 15 It is INAC's opinion that the proponent has not 16 provided sufficient baseline data and, therefore, has 17 not demonstrated an adequate assessment, mitigation, nor 18 management in key areas. This opinion is based on the 19 absence of required baseline data to allow a 20 comprehensive assessment of impacts, as well as the 21 ability to support analytical assumptions. 22 Therefore, INAC recommends to NIRB that the 23 required information from the proponent be provided to 24 all intervenors and the public before the project review 25 proceeds into final technical review. 26 INAC's submission to NIRB provides recommendations DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00284 1 on how the proponent can address deficiencies observed 2 during INAC's review of the Draft EIS and its supporting 3 documents. This submission focuses on the information 4 that is necessary in the following key project areas: 5 baseline data necessary for construction of the tailings 6 impoundment area and dikes, acid-rock drainage and metal 7 leaching, potential deep groundwater contamination, 8 cumulative effects and socio-economic areas. 9 In order to conduct a thorough assessment of this 10 project, the proponent should submit information from 11 its consultation activities to support its baseline data 12 and assessment justifications. 13 Once the road application achieves conformity, INAC 14 concurs with NIRB that it is in the best interest to 15 include the all-weather road in the assessment, so the 16 final hearings can address all components of the 17 project. 18 Matna. Thank you. 19 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for your 20 presentation. Any questions to INAC from Cumberland 21 Resources? 22 PROPONENT QUESTIONS INAC 23 Q CRAIG GOODINGS: Yeah, thanks, guys. All 24 the issues you raise in this document, they have been 25 included in the 110 commitments that we have included to 26 give to you; is that correct? DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00285 1 A CARL McLEAN: Yeah, Carl McLean, INAC. 2 To the best of our ability, with the information we have 3 reviewed to date, we think that our requests are there. 4 However, upon review of the additional information, 5 there may be other questions that come up that we really 6 would reserve for that time. 7 Q CRAIG GOODINGS: But you are confident most 8 of them are on there? 9 I think one of the issues that we have been asked 10 to submit is additional information, 110 commitments. 11 And it may seem like a large amount, and they are 12 indicating that it is, and it is a large amount, but 13 this is raw data. 14 All the -- Cumberland has spent $5 million on this 15 impact assessment in front of you, and we have hired the 16 best consultants that we could, Golder and AMEC, these 17 are world-class consulting companies. I don't think 18 there is anybody in this room that would state that 19 Golder isn't able to build this mine safely, so we are 20 quite confident about this work. 21 So we know that when we submit this additional 22 information to the intervenors, they will come to the 23 same conclusion that Golder has come to, and they will 24 be the same conclusions that are in these documents. 25 But we would like -- but as I said to you before, 26 the more eyes that look at this submission, the better DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00286 1 it will be. So we do appreciate the time people have 2 taken to read the document carefully. 3 I will add, as well, that this -- we are not going 4 to build this mine by committee. This mine will be 5 built and signed off by our engineers, so they 6 ultimately have the final say in what this mine looks 7 like, because it is their professional engineering stamp 8 that goes on the final diagrams. That, to us, is also 9 an assurance that the product will be good. 10 So even with all of these intervenor comments, I am 11 going to leave it for our consultants, Golder and AMEC, 12 to put the final design together. 13 They don't agree with everything everybody says, 14 and some of these comments were more opinions. And I do 15 appreciate the fact that without the raw data behind 16 them, Golder's comment, that it is difficult to support 17 Golder. However, again, I am quite confident when this 18 additional base -- when the additional information is 19 received by the intervenors, they will come to the same 20 conclusions as Golder and AMEC have. 21 As far as the socio-economic, I know this is a 22 contentious issue. Many people want to see what we 23 decide to do for the Inuit; however, Cumberland is quite 24 confident that the KIA can be the lead in this, and so 25 we stand behind the KIA in its endeavours to indicate, 26 to try to get the best for the local people, for the DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00287 1 Inuit of the Kivalliq region from this mine. 2 We hope that the other intervenors will agree with 3 that and eventually see KIA's role in here is important 4 and should be supported, we do. 5 You know, we think that this is a good process, we 6 think we have done a good job, and we know in the end 7 that the project will move forward and it will be 8 positive for Baker Lake and the Kivalliq and Nunavut as 9 a whole. 10 What we don't want to see are unnecessary delays in 11 procedural haranguering between the various agencies. 12 Let's not forget what's at stake here. As Peter Tapatai 13 clearly said yesterday, don't forget about the Inuit. 14 Delays are only going to hurt the project, and so, you 15 know, what I am hoping for here is that all you people 16 can get together and make the right decision that we 17 move forward on this, because asking for delays is not 18 the way to go as far as serving the best interests of 19 everybody that lives in this town and also the 20 neighbouring regions. 21 That's all I have to say. Matna. 22 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. KIA, NTI, any 23 comment to INAC? 24 KIA QUESTIONS INAC 25 Q KIMBERLEY GILSON: Thank you, Mr. Chair. On 26 behalf of KIA, the technical issues, as was noted, were DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00288 1 addressed earlier, so we aren't going to raise any 2 further points this morning with respect to the 3 technical points in the DIAND precipitation. 4 However, we also reiterate the concern that was 5 just expressed by Mr. Goodings with respect to 6 socio-economic impacts and benefits. Our concern is 7 that there not be a proliferation of IBAs or IIBAs or 8 any other kinds of agreements. The risk that we run 9 there is that there is going to be a division in terms 10 of approach, duplication of efforts. It has a real 11 potential to delay the process because if both 12 Cumberland and KIA are trying to reach agreement with 13 respect to impacts and benefits, if we have to stop our 14 process in order to run back to other parties, DIAND, 15 Hamlet, anybody else, we are going to really seriously 16 risk separating the issues and separation of the 17 project, which we want to avoid. 18 It also creates problems with respect to monitoring 19 afterwards and potential for things falling through the 20 crack, so we definitely see it as something that is a 21 danger if we start going down that track. 22 KIA has committed to doing consultation with all 23 affected Inuit and with any parties that are interested 24 and that ought reasonably to have input into our 25 process. So we are prepared, certainly, to hear from 26 DIAND and anybody else as to what their issues of DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00289 1 concern are, and we would commit to taking those to the 2 table in our discussions with Cumberland. 3 So our question, I guess this morning, for DIAND is 4 really one of trying to determine what it is that they 5 think is missing in the process that would require 6 additional intervention on their behalf, given the 7 strong commitment of both KIA and Cumberland to do the 8 best we possibly can to address the impacts and 9 benefits? Thank you. 10 A MIKE HINE: Mike Hine, INAC. Part of 11 the concern, I guess, from INAC's point of view is that 12 there are a number of parties that would be typically 13 outside of the IIBA process, specifically the Hamlet of 14 Baker Lake, which, you know, Baker Lake may be 95 15 percent Inuit, but the Hamlet is a separate entity that 16 typically wouldn't be part of the IIBA process. 17 And our concern is that -- sort of where Ms. Gilson 18 pointed out, we don't want anybody to fall through the 19 cracks, to make sure the IIBA is as complete as 20 possible. That being said, as I pointed out before, the 21 Hamlet typically wouldn't be part of an IIBA process. 22 And some of the other bodies that may have some concerns 23 also would not be part of the IIBA process, and I don't 24 know how those outside parties could be brought into the 25 IIBA process when typically they wouldn't be the 26 signatories to the IIBA at the end of the day. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00290 1 So, you know, we are more than interested in 2 working with, you know, the proponent in order to create 3 something that is all inclusive, and I'm just not sure 4 how that is. 5 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Department of 6 Fisheries and Oceans, any comments, questions? Thank 7 you. Natural Resources Canada? 8 ROB JOHNSTONE: No questions, Mr. Chairman. 9 CHAIRPERSON: Acres International? 10 RAMLI HALIM: No questions, Mr. Chairman. 11 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Local 12 residents, any questions to INAC's presentation? 13 LOCAL RESIDENTS QUESTION INAC 14 Q MARTHA TICKIE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I 15 don't know your name or INAC. 16 I would like to give us a short story first, over 17 there, in Mary Lake (phonetic) and southwest of what I 18 remember, and I will also tell that story a little bit. 19 You know, the mining companies used to leave 20 everything back then, and that I used to go with, and I 21 played with them when they were left behind, and they 22 were toys to me. 23 So we are listening to all the potential hazardous, 24 and we are happy that hazardous materials are being 25 looked at and discussed, and we don't really want to go 26 through a hazardous life in our environment. And I can DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00291 1 see them all clearly. 2 The other one that I want to, and everybody else 3 has never seen the land, and I was born up there. And I 4 think even though -- and I love everyone, those that 5 don't speak the same language I do, and along with my 6 family. There are a number of people in Baker Lake who 7 use the language. 8 One that weren't to speak about at Mary Lake, you 9 know, and they used to steal traditional materials and 10 archaeological materials, and we don't want to see that 11 happening again anywhere. 12 And when -- there are no longer recorded, and we 13 don't want to see if there is anybody, whether they are 14 KIA, INAC or anybody else, if they are Inuit or 15 nonInuit. We have found a deposit, as we Inuit, we know 16 it. 17 And looking at the river that's coming from the 18 west and coming from the north and looking at as to 19 what's happening in the south. And I feel for me, if I 20 was going to go alone, I'd find it far, but if I had -- 21 you know, there is a lot of minerals in Mary Lake. And 22 from what I have been seeing, some are the same as 23 everywhere else, but I am just trying to inform them, 24 look -- having heard from Indian Affairs and that's all 25 we are hearing from, and it seems -- and we are still 26 alive today and because of them, that seems that -- INAC DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00292 1 seemed to be putting aside -- when ITC first came about, 2 I saw the land there, and I think they are going to be 3 working on it, but I am not too sure. 4 There are different mining companies in the area. 5 They have been saying all this time in looking at the 6 photographs that they are going to freeze in the land, 7 and I am in support. Everybody, including -- please 8 somehow try and work together and help each other to 9 resolve this issue. 10 You know, obviously we don't always have the same 11 thoughts or don't always agree with each other, and it 12 is obvious and the one that we serve is only one, and we 13 are the ones who are breathing, and somehow -- and the 14 land I grew up in, I would like for someone to -- I just 15 want it included with everything else. 16 And whenever I am looking for assistance, you know, 17 and money always comes up, is the question. And, you 18 know, we are just looking at the surface and subsurface 19 and not deep into the land. And so because it is close 20 to Cumberland, and at this point because of Cumberland, 21 you know, we know what's going on because we are well 22 informed by Cumberland and they are not hiding as to 23 what they are doing from us anymore. 24 You know, it is hard sometimes, you know, and they 25 also have things translated and so the different 26 addresses also makes things confusing, you know. There DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00293 1 is Iqaluit, there are with the difference offices. 2 You know, the Indian Affairs should start writing 3 correspondences and not try and delay things. And so I 4 would like Cumberland, well supported, maybe, maybe I'm 5 going the wrong road, but I am thinking of people, the 6 Inuit or nonInuit who are here with me. Thank you. 7 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any other 8 comments, local residents to INAC's presentation? 9 Q MICHAEL AKILAK: Yesterday, I am pretty 10 sure, there was a guy mentioned on this side here 11 15-year road. I'm just trying to get some information 12 if they are going to tear it down after 15 years or 13 leave it to the community? 14 A CRAIG GOODINGS: In this environmental 15 assessment process, we are proposing to build a 15-year 16 road, and that's a requirement for us to assess the 17 impacts and the mitigation of that road. However, we 18 have left the door open for further consultation between 19 the KIA, and the other players, Hamlet, for instance, on 20 what happens to that road, what happens to that road 21 after we leave. 22 But we are not doing an environmental assessment 23 for a road that will be there for 100 years, only 15. 24 That's just part of the procedures we need to follow 25 here. 26 Q MICHAEL AKILAK: Okay. Thank you, and to DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00294 1 Fisheries and Ocean, the fish you guys were talking 2 about yesterday, what exactly are you guys going to do 3 with that fish? Are you guys going to open up a fish 4 plant or do something about the fish or transfer the 5 fish from one lake to the other? 6 CRAIG GOODINGS: I will answer that 7 question. I don't think Derrick is here, is he? Hi, 8 Derrick, can I answer it for you? Maybe you should do 9 it, he asked you. 10 A DERRICK MOGGY: Thanks for that question, 11 it is a good question. It has come up a few times both 12 yesterday and in the past. 13 Cumberland has provided an approach to what we are 14 going to do with the fish. We are definitely going to 15 have them take the fish out before the water is taken 16 out of the lake. What we actually do with the fish we 17 haven't fully decided yet. There is a couple of 18 options, one of them is transferring them to another 19 lake, another option might be to bring back the fish 20 into the community and let them do what they would like 21 to do with them. 22 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Go ahead. 23 HUGH NATEELA: Good morning . I am Hugh 24 Nateela, I'm the COO of Baker Lake, I am the KIA, and I 25 am also the vice-chair of the HTO, and I also run a 26 little small business in town. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00295 1 I guess my question would be, I'm not sure who I 2 would forward this question to in regards to training 3 Inuit to get them ready for mining activities. I guess 4 my question would be, I don't know if the INAC panel 5 would be able to answer this, but I think it would be 6 nice just to have it noted in terms of training our 7 young people. 8 I guess it is -- has more to do with the process as 9 well. We talk about benefits and training for our young 10 people, but in actuality, when you -- when the IIBAs are 11 done, if they go into an IIBA, by the time the IIBAs are 12 done and they are ready to start work at the mine, we 13 will not be able to fill in the number of skilled 14 labourers in the camp or in the mining sector. 15 So I guess one of my questions would be how we can 16 rectify this problem of trying to train our young people 17 at the last minute when it takes them four or five years 18 to get into college or university to be able to get 19 their, whatever they need, water technician, botanist 20 or, you know, whatever is required in the work force. 21 And I think that this is something else, one area that 22 needs to be considered is with the timing, I guess, if 23 we are going to -- if you want our kids to benefit from 24 projects, we need to get into the high schools as early 25 as possible so we can start training and informing our 26 students if they want to become, you know, water DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00296 1 technicians or whatever else is required. 2 I understand there is a minimum of four or five 3 years they need to be in a college or university to be 4 able to work as a technician or a skilled labourer. 5 Then I guess in terms of training funds and money, I 6 wonder if such things would be made -- would be looked 7 at to be made available before, you know, the actual 8 work is started or any IIBAs are done. 9 So I guess that would be one of my -- I don't know 10 if it would be a question or comment, Mr. Chair. 11 Thank you. 12 CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you. To me 13 that was more of a comment. We are going to try to keep 14 our general comments to this afternoon. We want to 15 focus on INAC's presentation and any questions to INAC's 16 presentation. And all of our other general comments 17 will be done this afternoon, if that's possible. 18 So is there any other comments to INAC's 19 presentation? 20 TARA FESYK: Good morning. I just 21 wanted to thank INAC for your concern with the Hamlet to 22 be involved with the negotiations, because it is just 23 really important to stress that KIA does represent the 24 Inuit of the Kivalliq region, but they do not represent 25 the Hamlet of Baker lake, so we need to ensure that our 26 community's needs are met. So thank you for that. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00297 1 CARL McLEAN: Mr. Chair, if I can just 2 make a comment to the question just before the last one 3 or the comment for the last one. 4 We can, maybe this afternoon, give a little bit 5 more information on the participation and work we have 6 in the Nunavut mine training strategy and focus group 7 that Mike, my colleague here, is sitting on a committee 8 that's part of that group. So we can hopefully give 9 some clarification on where that aspect is going. 10 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any other 11 comments? 12 BILL TILLEMAN: So if there are no other 13 comments, Mr. Chair, we need to file their presentation 14 as an exhibit, so we will mark it as Number 11. 15 EXHIBIT 11: INAC PRESENTATION. 16 BILL TILLEMAN: Sorry, Mr. Chairman, there 17 might be a few more questions, the staff had some, and 18 I'm sorry I overlooked them, and I didn't mean to cut 19 off anyone else from the audience, I just didn't want to 20 forget the exhibit issue. 21 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. NIRB staff 22 comments? Karlette? 23 NIRB STAFF QUESTIONS INAC 24 Q KARLETTE TUNALEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 25 have a question about your comments on the cumulative 26 effects assessment. Could you explain what indicators DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00298 1 you would like Cumberland to use in their cumulative 2 effects assessment and how you would like them 3 referenced? 4 A ROBYN ABERNETHY-GILLIS: Mr. Chair, one thing that 5 we had detailed in our presentation was we felt that the 6 indicators should be sought from the community 7 consultation process. So what indicators Elders, 8 hunters, would know to look for in caribou to see if 9 there is any stress or impacts, rather than just that 10 they are in the same place and the same time as a mine 11 or absence or presence. We would like to see what we 12 should be looking for in animals, or it doesn't have to 13 be just wildlife, it spans into people too, fish. Just 14 wondering what those indicators would be from people 15 that live here? Does that answer your question? 16 Q KARLETTE TUNALEY: Yes, it does. So just to 17 clarify it, you are to include that in the 18 socio-economic part of cumulative effects assessment as 19 well? 20 A ROBYN ABERNETHY-GILLIS: That's correct. That spans 21 the whole document. 22 Q KARLETTE TUNALEY: And just one more question. 23 How would you like Cumberland to show how the project 24 may be reaching thresholds or carrying capacity? 25 A ROBYN ABERNETHY-GILLIS: I know that's very 26 difficult to determine in the Kivalliq region and in a DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00299 1 lot of Nunavut where there is not a lot of published, 2 like, Inuit Qaujimajatuangit or traditional knowledge, 3 but where there is uncertainty as to what effects might 4 happen, I am just trying to know what the -- what kind 5 of monitoring or what activities that the proponent will 6 undertake to make sure that their conclusions that there 7 is no effect will be right, so just a followup to make 8 sure that they haven't -- where there is uncertainty, to 9 make sure that they can follow up on that. 10 KARLETTE TUNALEY: Thank you. 11 CRAIG GOODINGS: Just for clarification, 12 the part of the impact assessment review is to determine 13 if there is an effect and to judge that effect whether 14 it is major or minor, and so just to say there is no 15 effect, that doesn't take the full picture here. And we 16 have assessed all the effects, and we have determined 17 that they can be managed through mitigation and all the 18 effects are termed to be minor and locum, and we stand 19 by those conclusions. 20 The other question about traditional knowledge, 21 this is certainly a challenge and subject to integrate 22 into the project, and the way we have done that was to 23 hire as many local people as we possibly could to work 24 on this project, plus this expert Hattie Mannik to do 25 our TK. And this gentleman sitting beside me has more 26 TK, well, I don't know how to answer that, more TK than DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00300 1 I can imagine, put it that way. So just to have him 2 working with us, integrated with our process, we have no 3 doubt and we are totally confident that we have 4 consulted the people properly and we have enough 5 information back for traditional knowledge. 6 We are quite confident and very proud of the work 7 that these guys have done in our traditional knowledge. 8 I just wanted to reclarify that to the Board. Matna. 9 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We will try to 10 just stick to INAC's questions or comments. Thanks. 11 Any other -- Carolanne? 12 Q CAROLANNE INGLIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair. On 13 your slide 9, you suggested that there was insufficient 14 evidence to demonstrate the full range of insight and 15 interest from affected Kivalliq communities, 16 stakeholders and vulnerable groups. And I was just 17 wondering what INAC would recommend for Cumberland 18 Resources in order for them to assess the full range of 19 insight and interest from the affected Kivalliq region? 20 A CARL McLEAN: That's Carl McLean, INAC. 21 Thanks for that question. 22 Like, we are aware that Cumberland has gone out to 23 many of the Kivalliq communities for community 24 consultation. In our opinion, there wasn't as much 25 evidence as we would like to see in the Draft EIS that 26 summarized what was collected in that community DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00301 1 consultation, so we would certainly like to see more 2 evidence of what was collected in those meetings. 3 CHAIRPERSON: Carolanne? 4 Q CAROLANNE INGLIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My 5 second question is does Cumberland Resources -- sorry, 6 does INAC think a human resources and training plan is a 7 vital part of the socio-economic impact assessment? 8 A MIKE HINE: Yes. 9 Q CAROLANNE INGLIS: And just to follow up with 10 that, I would like to ask INAC if they have any 11 suggestions on -- for the completion of how Cumberland 12 Resources, and to what extent Cumberland Resources 13 should detail that information in their Environmental 14 Impact Statement? 15 A MIKE HINE: Obviously the human 16 resource plan is a fairly important component of the 17 socio-economic impact because that will specifically 18 detail the direct effects of mine employment on the 19 individuals who are employed by Cumberland. 20 It should, you know, like any good HR plan, it will 21 sort of set the baseline on how the employees will be 22 asked to -- sort of the employee requirements on how the 23 company will respond to them. I think part of the issue 24 that you are sort of alluding to is the training 25 component of the HR plan. And I believe that Cumberland 26 has some responsibility to detail that in their HR plan, DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00302 1 obviously with their employees that they do hire. 2 The bigger picture is how will we get -- as I 3 believe Hugh pointed out, how will the broader community 4 participate in training opportunities that will 5 potentially lead to mine employment, and that's an issue 6 that is sort of outside of Cumberland's. 7 But I know that Cumberland is also part of the -- I 8 believe they are also part of the mine training focus 9 group, which I am also. As DIAND representative, I sit 10 on that, and that's an issue that Cumberland, the 11 Government of Nunavut, specifically Arctic College, 12 should be a part of as well. 13 And I can't speak for Arctic College or anything 14 else like that, and probably most of the training issues 15 should be directed specifically towards them. 16 Q CAROLANNE INGLIS: Thank you. Just a 17 follow-up to that a little bit more specifically, I do 18 believe Cumberland Resources submitted a human resources 19 plan with their draft, and I was just wondering if INAC 20 is suggesting it needs to be expanded further? 21 A MIKE HINE: Quite frankly, I don't 22 recall a whole lot about the HR plan, so I can't answer 23 that right now. 24 I would assume that the HR plan that the company 25 has put together will satisfy the company's requirements 26 to develop its own in-house personnel. Maybe Craig DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00303 1 could answer that a bit more. 2 Like right now, INAC, there are some weaknesses in 3 the HR plan, but I am certain that they will be 4 addressed at the Final EIS. 5 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any other 6 questions from the staff? Any questions Board members? 7 Pauloosie? 8 BOARD MEMBERS QUESTION INAC 9 Q PAULOOSIE PANILOO: Thank you, Mr. Chair. What 10 was the previously a person from here, Baker Lake, this 11 person stated earlier the person did not want to see 12 serious impact on certain things in the sensitive areas, 13 sensitive issues. I have a question in regards to the 14 proponent is here, and also what was said earlier as to 15 are we going to -- are they going to have a chance to 16 say something about their -- during their comment period 17 so that they can come back to this same issue that 18 people are concerned about? That's my question. 19 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Pauloosie. I 20 think the questions period pretty much for everything 21 will be this afternoon regarding all aspects of 22 intervenors or the proponent. 23 Any other questions from the Board? Is there any 24 other questions that may have been missed to INAC? Go 25 ahead. 26 Q MIKE AKILAK: I have another question DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00304 1 about hiring, who is going to be doing the hiring, 2 Turcon or Cumberland? 3 A CRAIG GOODINGS: Cumberland. 4 Q MIKE AKILAK: Cumberland? 5 A CRAIG GOODINGS: There is different projects 6 going on though, but Cumberland is the overall overseer 7 of that. 8 Q MIKE AKILAK: All right. 9 A CRAIG GOODINGS: And we have an agreement 10 with KIA how we post jobs and stuff like that. 11 Q MIKE AKILAK: And before the hiring 12 starts, are you going to be doing any trades like heavy 13 equipment training, plumbing and also carpentry, 14 electrical? 15 A CRAIG GOODINGS: We will have on-the-job 16 training programs. We have also submitted a list of 17 jobs to the Arctic College, and this has happened three 18 years ago. 19 Q MIKE AKILAK: Okay. 20 A CRAIG GOODINGS: And hopefully they have 21 been working on that. 22 Q MIKE AKILAK: All right. Are you going 23 to be sending up instructors up here to do those trades? 24 A CRAIG GOODINGS: For the on-the-job 25 training, yes. 26 Q MIKE AKILAK: Okay. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00305 1 A CRAIG GOODINGS: There is different 2 programs. The details need to be worked out, but I 3 think we certainly understand, as everybody does, that 4 is important. Without the training, how are you going 5 to access the jobs, and so that's definitely an obstacle 6 that has to be overcome. 7 Q MIKE AKILAK: The reason why I asked this 8 question is because there is a lot of people in the 9 community and also in the Nunavut territories that go 10 down for training and don't finish and come back home, 11 either get kicked out from the training and stuff, 12 that's one of the reasons why I asked this question. 13 A CRAIG GOODINGS: Just to add to that, I 14 think it is hard to go and be trained for something that 15 when you come back to town, there is no job to do 16 anyways. So that's one thing about the mine, it will 17 hold out some reason to stay in your training programs. 18 MIKE AKILAK: Thank you. 19 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, INAC, for your 20 presentation. 21 CARL McLEAN: Mr. Chair, I have been 22 thinking about the first question that -- sorry, I was 23 thinking about since the first question that Craig 24 asked, I just want to add one thing to that so it is not 25 misunderstood, it is regarding the list of 110 26 commitments. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00306 1 INAC reviewed the list of 110 commitments and did 2 submit a response to that requesting what we thought 3 might be additions or just to make sure that nothing was 4 missed, so I do just want to confirm that we did submit 5 our comments on the list of 110 commitments to NIRB. 6 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Thank you very 7 much. Next we have Natural Resources Canada's 8 presentation. Would you need time to set up? 9 ROB JOHNSTONE: Just a couple of minutes 10 should be sufficient. 11 CHAIRPERSON: Break for five minutes. 12 (BRIEF RECESS) 13 CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Welcome back, 14 everybody. We will do NRCan's presentation, and then we 15 will do the questions probably after lunch. 16 When you are answering questions, could you please 17 state your name so it could be recorded for our 18 stenographer. Thank you. 19 NRCan's presentation? 20 PRESENTATION BY NATURAL RESOURCES CANADA 21 ROB JOHNSTONE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and 22 Board members. I want to thank you for inviting Natural 23 Resources Canada to these proceedings. It brings me 24 great pleasure to be back to Baker Lake. 25 My name is Rob Johnstone, and I'm Deputy Director 26 of Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Affairs with DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00307 1 NRCan's Mineral and Metals Sector in Ottawa. However, 2 in previous careers, mineral exploration and worked for 3 the territorial government as a minerals advisor. I 4 have been back to Baker Lake a number of times through 5 the years. 6 First of all, I wanted to cover some of the NRCan's 7 responsibilities with this process, and I will also 8 explain some of our expertise, that is backing up the 9 many layers of expertise that have been brought to this 10 assessment. And following that, I will cover over some 11 of the information requirements and deficiencies that 12 have been submitted both in the submissions to NIRB on 13 technical comments from the Draft EIS, as well as our 14 participation in the technical hearing last week. 15 Natural Resources Canada or NRCan is involved in 16 environmental assessments across Canada, here in the 17 Nunavut Land Claim Agreement. Our participation as a 18 Minister with responsibility is triggered under the 19 Explosives Act, which we administer. And we are 20 involved presently in a number of environmental 21 assessments or impact reviews across the country. I 22 think the last estimate is about seven for mining 23 projects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment 24 Act. 25 We are also called upon not just as Minister of 26 responsibility or responsible authority, but also as an DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00308 1 expert department in perhaps about 20 projects right now 2 of various sorts in the natural resources sector. 3 Here we are largely providing roles and expert 4 department in expertise in a number of areas. So we 5 have done a review with our experts, Draft Environmental 6 Impact Statement and will for the Final Environmental 7 Impact Statement and supporting documents. 8 We are also as Minister of responsibility under 9 claim consulted by DIAND and the Minister of DIAND's 10 review, the final hearing report and ultimately a 11 project certificate. 12 Our expertise covers many of the physical sciences. 13 Unlike some other departments, we rely entirely upon our 14 staff research scientists for our reviews. And NRCan is 15 organized with our policy headquarters in Ottawa, but we 16 have regional offices of the Geological Survey of Canada 17 across the country, as well as three labs of the mineral 18 technology branch, Canmet. 19 Between the two of them, they provide expertise in 20 the areas of regional bedrock geology, and we have had 21 mapping projects over, well, the past 70 years in the 22 Baker Lake area doing regional bedrock geology and 23 studies of metallurgy. We also have expertise in 24 surficial geology and produce many surficial geology 25 mappings regionally. Experts in permafrost and 26 permafrost processes, seismic risk or mineralogy, DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00309 1 hydrogeology, explosives research. 2 In Canmet, we have specialists in acid mine 3 drainage processes. We have been the lead in, for 4 instance, the MEN (phonetic) program producing 5 technology and processes for managing acid mine 6 drainage, metallurgy, the study of ore deposits and the 7 processing thereon. And as well, various subjects 8 within the area of mine tailings treatment. 9 I want to emphasize that the type of advice that 10 comes from NRCan is based on our research projects, as 11 well as the knowledge that has been gained from working 12 either on research or in reviews of many mining projects 13 across the country. 14 Now, the -- what I am preparing is the deficiencies 15 in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. We have 16 largely given our comments through the detailed 17 submission to NIRB, but also with the presence of Dr. 18 Alex Desbarats at the technical hearing last week. He 19 is a specialist in hydrogeology and is involved right 20 now in, I believe, five mining projects. 21 He was -- found the technical hearing extremely 22 useful. It gave a lot more information on many of our 23 concerns that were raised, largely with having 24 sufficient documentation to support modelling, to 25 support interpretations of certain processes, and I will 26 really not dwell on these. They have been mentioned by DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00310 1 previous intervenors. They are largely similar comments 2 now to what has been presented by DIAND, KIA and a few 3 other groups. 4 The main points that were raised at the last 5 meeting in our submissions was the need for more 6 documentation, which I believe is available, for the 7 numeric modelling to basically quantify the changes in 8 groundwater flow, and this is important. We also need 9 more information, and this is also things that have been 10 already committed to in the 110 points here for pit 11 inflow estimates. 12 And our experts are looking at more documentation 13 on how these estimates analysis are going to be done. 14 In the other aspect that, although is not mentioned in 15 the commitments that we would be looking for, is 16 estimate of chlorine concentrations in attenuation ponds 17 and postclosure ponds and pits. This is some 18 information that in our reviews of other projects, 19 similar open-pit mines has been something that has 20 become a topic for analysis. 21 In referring to the pit lakes, we are looking for 22 analysis and modelling of geochemical stage of 23 postclosure pit lakes, also another commitment that I 24 see is here. Tailings, more detailed geochemical 25 characterization of the tailings solids, leachate, also 26 committed. And also in looking at justification for the DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00311 1 thermal modelling that has been offered in the Draft EIS 2 in postclosure tailings impoundment. 3 In looking at the overburden that is proposed to be 4 used in road and dike construction, we could like more 5 details of the mineral composition, geochemistry and 6 texture to judge suitability for that used to avoid 7 excess mine drainage, that aspect, or acid rock 8 drainage, I would say. 9 Lake sediments, there is a certain commitment to 10 looking at lake sediments a little more thoroughly, and 11 more specifically we wanted to see the documentation, 12 the heavy mineral analysis to see whether this might be 13 a situation where it might be releasing solids into the 14 water column. 15 Tailings freezeback, reclamation and closure, this 16 area we had discussed during the technical hearing, more 17 need for documentation, justification of the thermal 18 model with the accounting for heat generation in the 19 tailings, say, and sulphide oxidation and the heat 20 transfer from deep groundwater outflow. This is also -- 21 there is a similar commitment in the response from 22 Cumberland on this, but this, we feel, would be useful 23 in putting the more comprehensive thermal model 24 together. 25 And the same topic, we wanted to see what the 26 predicted sulphide mineral contents of the tailings DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00312 1 were. As well, more information on the test results 2 specifically of acid-producing potential and pore water 3 chemistry. 4 More detail, and I believe this is covered in one 5 of the other sort of larger commitments, but basically 6 on the design of the tailings cover and basically the 7 shape or contour to avoid pockets of snow and water 8 accumulation and the development of the deeper active 9 layer. Consideration also for mobile contamination 10 through tailings beneath the dam during freezedown, this 11 has been mentioned by other intervenors, due to the 12 specific considerations of snow water accumulation at 13 the edge of the dikes or the dam. Changes in the pore 14 water composition, pressure. 15 One thing that is not quite specific in the 16 commitment that we would be looking for is a little more 17 bedrock characterization and giving more details on the 18 mineralogy, not just geochemistry but mineralogy, 19 geochemistry and testing of metal leaching potential, 20 potential acid generation for the, all of the 21 lithologies that would be exposed in mining, lake 22 dewatering or construction. 23 Ultramafic rock capping dikes and tailings and 24 waste rock storage areas be used recognizing that there 25 can be variability in the ultramafic rocks. We would 26 like to see a more detailed characterization of these DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00313 1 heterogony of the ultramafic rocks that would be used, 2 so this would be both mineralogy and the geochemistry. 3 In looking at explosives use, and mind you that 4 that is where our regulatory responsibility comes in and 5 the issuance of explosives factory license. In an 6 impact assessment, explosives use and storage is largely 7 a health and safety issue, rather than an environmental 8 issue. And what we would like to see is not just a 9 description of the explosives factoring but also any 10 wash facility and also how the ammonium nitrate storage 11 is going to be managed, quantities, distances to key 12 other installations, such as fuel storage and such. And 13 although there is maps showing locations of facilities, 14 more detail in this is useful. 15 Also, emergency response plans, those contingency 16 plans is necessary as part of the conditions that are 17 brought in for the issuance of an explosives factory 18 license magazine. 19 The all-weather road, although we do have reviewers 20 that could look at some aspects, permafrost, overburden 21 considerations, we did not review that in not having 22 complete information. This would come in once this 23 information in geotechnical research has been done, and 24 that would occur towards the end of the process. 25 So in conclusion, we are looking for more detailed 26 information in certain areas between bedrock and DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00314 1 surficial geology, more information on the modelling and 2 dam designs, the justification for some modelling for 3 judging the migration of contaminants with pore water 4 and such, with the growth of permafrost. More detail on 5 the description of explosives factory, various 6 facilities, ammonium nitrate storage. 7 And we have put pretty much clear information in 8 our submission to NIRB. You will see that it is fairly 9 similar to other reviewers. We will be adding a little 10 more detail into the list of commitments. I hope to 11 complete that by the end of today, with not significant 12 changes but essentially what -- some of the things that 13 -- well, certainly all of the things that were raised in 14 the technical hearing last week, and as well, we will be 15 looking at the desire to see as much information 16 following the satisfaction of these commitment as 17 possible to make a complete package before the final 18 hearing to allow our reviewers sufficient time to put 19 input. 20 Based on the experience with other reviews , our 21 reviewers tend not to duplicate comments when they are 22 in agreement with those of other intervenors. And we 23 may actually be providing less commentary towards the 24 end, but at the same time, they are quite willing to 25 provide advice on the best techniques to use based on 26 current standards. And you will see in some of our DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00315 1 comments, suggestions that are useful for proceeding, 2 particularly in the area of hydrogeology. 3 Matna. Thank you. 4 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. We 5 will break for lunch now and be back at 1:15 p.m. 6 (ADJOURNED AT 12:00 P.M.) 7 (RECONVENED AT 1:15 P.M.) 8 CHAIRPERSON: Welcome back, everybody. 9 Before the end of the day, we are going to have the door 10 prizes. We have six prizes to give away, but there is 11 one prize that Simone Tookoome gave us for a door prize, 12 and that's his print, and I will give that away last. 13 So make sure you get your tickets from Gladys. I will 14 just quickly show you the print. 15 So thank you very much to Simone, that is very 16 generous. 17 I think we are going to try to shut down about 4 18 o'clock so we can start preparing for our move to 19 Chesterfield tonight. 20 Our last was a presentation from NRCan. We are 21 onto questions from Cumberland. 22 CRAIG GOODINGS: No questions. 23 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. KIA, NTI, any 24 question to NRCan? 25 LUIS MANZO: No questions. 26 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Indian and DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00316 1 Northern Affairs, any questions? 2 CARL McLEAN: No questions. 3 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Department of 4 Fisheries and Oceans? 5 DERRICK MOGGY: We have no questions, Mr. 6 Chairman. 7 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Acres 8 International? 9 RAMLI HALIM: We have no questions, Mr. 10 Chair. 11 CHAIRPERSON: Local residents, any 12 questions to Natural Resources Canada? NIRB staff? 13 BOARD STAFF QUESTIONS NATURAL RESOURCES CANADA 14 Q KARLETTE TUNALEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 15 was wondering if you could elaborate what the concern is 16 with chlorine and that getting into the pit? You 17 mentioned -- 18 A ROB JOHNSTONE: There is -- in studying the 19 Diavik process, there has been some indication that 20 predictions of chlorine concentrations were higher than 21 what was predicted originally in the mine planning, so 22 it is really an issue that we are just sort of following 23 as a potential concern. 24 So basically if there is some in the modelling that 25 the salinity and chlorine is considered as part of that, 26 it is worth keeping that as part of something to watch DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00317 1 for. Not saying that there is necessarily going to be 2 an issue, but that would be brought into the management 3 plan. 4 KARLETTE TUNALEY: Thank you. 5 BILL TILLEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 6 Not really a question, but before the break we had a 7 presentation from NRCan, and if I understood what they 8 were going to do, would be to present a more complete 9 list describing differences or concerns they had with 10 the commitment list that was sent to everyone and 11 replied on by Saturday. 12 Essentially, the time for commenting on that, you 13 know, with that kind of approach really ended Saturday. 14 We had a deadline of 7 o'clock Saturday evening, and 15 even though DIAND's came into us late, it was date 16 stamped earlier. It was either we misled them or they 17 punched in the wrong fax number or whatever. They did 18 get it in before Saturday, we just didn't get it until 19 Sunday or Monday. 20 Now, that doesn't mean that the staff's request to 21 all parties doesn't still stand. In fact, another party 22 came up to us during the break and asked, you know, what 23 again was the assignment ? And there were two things, 24 one was taking this general commitment list versus their 25 comments, what principally is missing in a detailed way. 26 So did it add one or two, or did it take away one or two DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00318 1 or three, or is it all in pretty good shape? That was 2 really the homework assignment. 3 The second one was on the Draft EIS versus final, 4 does anyone have an outline for us? For example, on the 5 all-season road, that they would suggest from a terms of 6 reference as to how to require that as an addition to 7 the Draft EIS, the NIRB board would be satisfied. In 8 other words, what would -- at a macro-level detail, what 9 would the components be that we would require further 10 study on based on the concerns we have heard to date? 11 And I hope I haven't been too confusing, but we are 12 just, generally at this point, looking for what is wrong 13 with the list of 106, what needs to be added or 14 subtracted at a general level is what would be helpful 15 to us at this point in time. Recognizing we are soon 16 going to the public part of this presentation, whenever 17 you decide to do that. 18 ROB JOHNSTONE: Mr. Chairman, yes, the list 19 that was produced coming out of the technical review, I 20 received it for the first time last night. Our expert 21 reviewer Alex Desbarats had to leave at the end of last 22 week. I don't know whether he received this list, I had 23 no knowledge of that. 24 However, the comments that we would add to it is 25 largely confirmation of the -- many of the items that 26 were raised in that meeting, which I have had to discuss DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00319 1 with Alex back in Ottawa, and as well as a few extra 2 items that I have just presented in my presentation. It 3 essentially will assure the quality of that information 4 and avoid information or requests further down the line. 5 But as far as efficiency of the proceedings, I can 6 get confirmation of these slight modifications, and as 7 well, clarifications in the list by the end of today. 8 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any other 9 questions, NIRB staff? Any questions from the Board? 10 Thank you for your presentation. 11 I guess we are onto overall general questions. 12 Bill? 13 BILL TILLEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 14 realize that we now have gone through the list of 15 intervenors and our independent consultant, but what's 16 really important to the staff, and I know to the Board's 17 mandate, is to hear from the local citizens about any 18 concerns they might have. 19 And so, through you, sir, I would just encourage 20 anybody in the audience who has questions of anyone, the 21 proponent, probably mainly, but maybe governments as 22 well. If it is a procedural question, if they want to 23 ask NIRB anything about process, now is a really good 24 time to do it. 25 And so I would just look forward to, through you, 26 sir, having anyone come up and make comments from the DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00320 1 local community of any kind and direct any questions 2 they might have to the proponent who is with us here 3 today right now. 4 Because we are now, as you suggested, we are 5 leaving tonight and going to Chesterfield and then 6 Rankin, so I really hope that people come forward and 7 tell the Board what they think about this project and if 8 they have any concerns about it, they would do that now. 9 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any overall 10 questions from the public? Go ahead. 11 GENERAL QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS OF LOCAL RESIDENTS 12 Q MIKE ALEIX: This is going to be a 13 simple one. I was here yesterday. 14 I just wanted to know where the Acres International 15 is from, which of you is that? You are from Acres 16 International, right? I just heard that. I mean, where 17 are you from, the States, England? 18 CHAIRPERSON: Excuse me? Can you go up 19 to the mic and -- 20 MIKE ALEIX: Minnesota? 21 A RAMLI HALIM: Yes, I came from Winnipeg, 22 Manitoba. 23 Q MIKE ALEIX: Oh, I see. I wasn't aware 24 of that, so welcome anyway. 25 I just want to introduce him. Make yourself home 26 or whatever while you are in town. I think you guys are DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00321 1 leaving soon. But anyway I didn't know that. Thank you 2 very much. God bless you. 3 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any other 4 comments regarding -- 5 Q HUGH NATEELA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Some 6 of us are a little bit curious if our public government 7 is one of the intervenors? Government of Nunavut? I 8 don't know if they are involved in this process in the 9 technical hearings and the prehearings? And I guess 10 some of us were just a little bit concerned as the 11 Nunavut Government is one of our bigger stakeholders 12 that I don't know if they have any representatives here 13 during the hearings, and I guess that would be just one 14 of my questions, Mr. Chair. 15 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Thank you, 16 Government of Nunavut? 17 A MIKE HUGHSON: Hi, Mike Hughson, 18 Government of Nunavut. We did have a representative at 19 the technical hearings, that was Mike Atkinson. 20 I am just sitting in myself as an observer. At 21 this time we don't have any comments as such at this 22 time. Okay? 23 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any other 24 questions? 25 Q MIKE ALEIX: Hello, I know I keep coming 26 here, but I know -- I think that last day of the meeting DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00322 1 and you go out to other communities. 2 Last year there was DeBeers company from Toronto, 3 maybe, and Kennacott. This is the only one, Cumberland 4 Resources, that has been having a meeting after all this 5 time. I don't know, we haven't heard from either the 6 other two companies yet, like Kennacott was here last 7 year, and DeBeers. Now it is 2005, and we -- I don't 8 see anybody aware of that, Nunavut Impact whatever 9 impact, you know Nunavut -- where is Nunavut Government? 10 Which of you is that, you? Which of you? 11 CHAIRPERSON: For the Nunavut Government? 12 No, he just -- 13 MIKE ATKINSON: Where are those two 14 companies? They are probably exploring for something 15 right now. Kennacott Canada and DeBeers. I am aware of 16 that, they were here last year. We haven't heard. Is 17 Cumberland aware of that? I would like to know any 18 of -- anybody here? 19 CHAIRPERSON: Bill? 20 BILL TILLEMAN: Well, since the question 21 really was directed to the Government of Nunavut, and 22 there is a man here, if he could maybe come back to the 23 mic and also tell the Board which department he works 24 for. And then if he wants to answer the question. I 25 cannot answer, sir, the question, but this man behind 26 you works for the Government of Nunavut. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00323 1 Q MIKE ALEIK: You are from the 2 government? You should tell the public. Are you aware 3 of Kennacott or DeBeers, you know? Are you aware of 4 those. You should announce it. We would like to know. 5 This one is a good one. Just so the people may want to 6 know. Anyway, say something. 7 A MIKE HUGHSON: Mike Hughson, Government of 8 Nunavut. I work with the CG, Community Government 9 Services department, and I was asked to come here and 10 attend the meeting as an observer. 11 I understand Mike Atkinson was here last week 12 attending the technical side of things. 13 I'm just standing in for the government as an 14 observer, and that's about all I can say for right now. 15 They will have comments later, I think, but not at this 16 time. Any other questions? 17 CHAIRMAN: Any other questions? Thank 18 you. 19 MIKE HUGHSON: Bill, does that -- 20 BILL TILLEMAN: Well, you have your 21 instructions, so I can't add to what you have said. 22 MIKE HUGHSON: Okay. Thanks. 23 MARTIN GEBAUER: Just to add to that, Mike 24 Setterington of the Government of Nunavut was here for 25 the technical meetings as well, and he is their kind of 26 impact assessment specialist. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00324 1 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any other 2 general questions from the public? Go ahead. 3 MARTHA TICKIE: The offices don't always 4 inform us as to, you know, either through Hamlet and 5 then bring all the information that we just found that 6 he is working for Nunavut Government. And I think one 7 of the teachers and Sara are the only ones that I know 8 for sure that are, you know. Once we leave here and are 9 not here, as to those who are living in the community 10 that have offices. You know, whenever we come to 11 meetings, we find out, sometimes that's the only time. 12 And for the first time that I finally heard, I'm 13 sorry for saying what I have, but, you know, we in the 14 community want to be informed as to who is who, who is 15 working for where and what offices they have in town. 16 You know, when the pilots and sometimes the, you know, 17 machines don't always work properly, so, you know, of 18 course we do worry and as to who they are with and to be 19 informed completely is what we would like. 20 We want proper assistance. Sometimes I don't even 21 know what jobs are, you know. If the employment 22 opportunities or what have you are publicly advertised, 23 which would make it a lot easier for anybody in the 24 community or anyone else to check to see what there is 25 in town. 26 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any other DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00325 1 general questions? 2 Q HUGH NATEELA: I had heard Mr. Craig 3 Goodings mention yesterday that, when there was 4 discussions of fencing, and I know I don't want to beat 5 a dead horse here, I had mentioned it yesterday. 6 But I was just wondering if Cumberland would sort 7 of leave that option available, should community members 8 or different groups wish to have, require a fencing, in 9 particular around the tailings pond and maybe not 10 necessarily the open pit itself, but with respect to the 11 tailings? 12 Thank you, Mr. Chair. 13 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Cumberland? 14 A CRAIG GOODINGS: We are neutral on the 15 mitigation we use to keep the caribou safe, but we want 16 to also understand that mitigation needs to be developed 17 in consultation with all the various stakeholders. 18 I think you are aware, Hugh, that the fence issue 19 came up with the Elders, their concerns, and so the 20 solution around the fence would be -- it is going to 21 take more consultation, maybe, with the Elders to 22 explain a bit more what the need of the fence may be. 23 But in the end, the techniques we use will come down to 24 what the consultation tells us to use in the end. So 25 that may or may not be good fences. 26 CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you. Any DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00326 1 other questions? 2 Q SIMONE TOOKOOME: I am Simone Tookoome. 3 The question, when they are blasting, the concern 4 that I have is that if the blasting is going to affect 5 the fish or when they are blasting fish will not be 6 killed or not. 7 And I have heard, I have seen that myself at times. 8 You know, when they are doing explosives, when they are 9 blasting, I would like to know whether fish are going to 10 be affected. 11 The other one I wanted too, the road that is to be 12 built, well, once the mine is closed, they would like to 13 know whether the road will be reclaimed or will it stay 14 as it is for hunters? Because it would be very useful 15 for hunters during the summer. And, you know, when you 16 want to go quite a distance, travelling on land without 17 a road makes it hard. And, you know, you have to travel 18 all over the place just to get to where you want to go 19 because just the way of the lay of the land. 20 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Cumberland? 21 CRAIG GOODINGS: Yes, thank you. 22 The question, we share your concern for the fish, 23 and we will follow the proper procedures in blasting. 24 And DFO has very good protocols for blasting, and we 25 will follow these. And we expect that by doing so, we 26 will not harm the fish in blasting. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00327 1 Second question about the road, we also listened to 2 the various stakeholders, and we know that there is a 3 great desire to keep this road for use, multiple use. 4 And we anticipate through consultation that these issues 5 will be resolved, what happens to the road, who uses it, 6 but these are still things that still need to be 7 negotiated with the various stakeholders. 8 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any other 9 questions? Any questions from the intervenors? Any 10 questions from NIRB Board -- NIRB staff, sorry? Any 11 questions from the NIRB Board? If there is no other 12 questions, I would like Cumberland Resources to say 13 their final say without questions. 14 Thank you. 15 CLOSING COMMENTS BY CUMBERLAND RESOURCES 16 CRAIG GOODINGS: John will have more to say 17 after I finish, but I have already sort of given my 18 final closing statements earlier on regarding what the 19 process and how it is working. So I would say that 20 I'm -- I said this in the technical hearings that I was 21 very pleased and happy that we are now at this stage of 22 review, and I just look forward to continuing to move 23 forward on the process. 24 Matna. 25 JOHN DONIHEE: Mr. Chairman, Cumberland, I 26 think, would prefer to be a little bit -- to have the DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00328 1 opportunity to review what all the parties have said 2 about the 100 and-some-odd points, and Mr. Tilleman gave 3 all of us a homework assignment last night, and I have 4 to confess that my dog ate my homework. 5 I didn't have time to prepare on that point for the 6 simple reason that I knew that Mr. Cavanagh was here, 7 was going to be here, and we were going to have to deal 8 with this legal issue related to the road this morning. 9 And I guess to go further, we haven't, until just a few 10 moments ago, heard from NRCan and DIAND in detail with 11 respect to their presentations. 12 And so with the Chair's permission, I think what we 13 would like to do is defer a formal closing until later 14 in the week, probably Rankin Inlet. We will try to do 15 the full wrap-up at that stage. 16 We are still -- our consultants are still working 17 on some of the points that have been raised, and we are 18 just simply not capable of giving you the -- a 19 thoughtful closing at this point. 20 With that said, just perhaps two or three other 21 points, the -- I think all of the parties, and certainly 22 from Cumberland's side as well, Cumberland feels that 23 the technical sessions which were held last week were 24 extremely helpful and very productive. 25 There is a long list of commitments made. Much of 26 the -- many of the items that are on that list simply DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00329 1 involve providing additional information and background, 2 baseline data, and other things that are already in 3 Cumberland's possession, and I would hope that the Board 4 will understand that, you know, in preparing the Draft 5 EIS, there was a question that Cumberland had to wrestle 6 with, and that was how much -- how many reports to 7 produce for the Draft EIS and how thorough they had to 8 be. And this pile of documents that's in front of me 9 right now, all of these papers, some 3,000 some-odd 10 pages or so represent the compilation of the work that 11 Cumberland has done to date. 12 It is clear from what happened last week that we 13 need to work and continue to work with the other 14 parties, Kivalliq Inuit Association, NTI, DIAND, the 15 other government agencies, DOE, environment from the 16 Government of Nunavut and Environment Canada, DFO, I 17 hope I haven't forgotten anybody, NRCan. The point is 18 simply that Cumberland will work with all of these 19 agencies. 20 From our perspective, the job going forward is to 21 continue to provide the information that's necessary in 22 order to support and to clarify the conclusions which 23 have been drawn by Cumberland and through the work of 24 its consultants, engineering and otherwise. 25 There is new work being done as well, and I -- Mr. 26 Tilleman made a very good point a few minutes ago, and DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00330 1 we will produce an outline of the work that's being done 2 on the all-weather access road and show how that relates 3 to the other work that has been done so far so that the 4 Board can have a sense how it will integrate into the 5 Environmental Impact Assessment in the Final 6 Environmental Impact Assessment. 7 And obviously the work, then, will be identified 8 and if -- certainly we are committed to doing it anyway, 9 but if the Board wants, should probably reflect that in 10 the instructions given for proceeding towards the FEIS. 11 I guess the final observation or observations that 12 I would make, Mr. Chairman, are that in some ways we 13 need to remember or remind ourselves or perhaps the 14 Board could remind everyone about where we actually are 15 in this process. We are only at the Draft EIS stage. 16 Some of the information which has been demanded 17 from Cumberland and its consultants actually is -- would 18 be more appropriate if you were at the final design 19 stage, and we are just not there yet. We are still at 20 the stage where we are identifying options. We are 21 still at the stage where we are evaluating those options 22 and trying to reduce the choices, and to be much more 23 specific for the Board in a Final EIS about how the 24 company actually wants to construct this project. 25 This is a prehearing conference. We have talked 26 about the nine points that the Board raised, and you DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00331 1 have had advice or comments from a number of parties 2 about how the process ought to work going forward. But 3 I just want to remind the Board, perhaps as a final 4 point, that it was never intended that the Draft EIS -- 5 it is just not possible to write a Draft EIS so that it 6 answers all the questions the first time. You try to do 7 the best that you can, but each agency that reviews 8 what's in there has its own unique knowledge and 9 perspective, and obviously Cumberland has listened. 10 We have committed to a very long list of actions 11 going forward. We have committed to working with these 12 other parties and the communities. 13 Our relationship with the Kivalliq Inuit 14 Association, in particular, has been clarified over the 15 last few days. And I think I guess by way of a final 16 point, there is reason for optimism because of this. 17 This process is working the way it is supposed to. 18 The Board will control it as it goes forward, and we are 19 looking forward, I think, in the near future to 20 satisfying all of the items on that list and producing 21 an FEIS which can be the basis for final hearings and 22 hopefully a NIRB approval. 23 Mr. Chairman, I think those are the only comments I 24 would make for the moment. Thank you. 25 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. 26 Again, I would like to thank Simon Tookoome for his DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00332 1 print. That was very generous of you. 2 (DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD) 3 CHAIRPERSON: I want to thank the local 4 people of Baker Lake for their hospitality and their 5 concerns regarding the proposed mine. Your points are 6 well taken, and we, the Board and staff, thank you for 7 coming to the preliminary hearing conference for the 8 Cumberland Resources. 9 I would also like to thank all the interpreters, 10 the coffee, the snacks. I just want to thank you again, 11 and the staff for their hard work preparing this 12 preliminary hearing conference. Thanks again. 13 EXHIBIT 12: NRCAN PRESENTATION 14 (PREHEARING CONFERENCE ADJOURNED AT 1:51 P.M., JUNE 7, 15 2005) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00333 1 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPT 2 I, TARA LUTZ, hereby certify that the 3 foregoing pages are a true and faithful transcript 4 of the proceedings taken down by me in shorthand and 5 transcribed from my shorthand notes to the best of my 6 skill and ability. 7 Dated at the City of Edmonton, Province of 8 Alberta, this 13th day of June, A.D. 2005. 9 10 11 12 Tara Lutz 13 Court Reporter 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00334 1 INDEX OF EXHIBITS 2 3 EXHIBIT 11: INAC PRESENTATION 297:15 4 5 EXHIBIT 12: NRCAN PRESENTATION 332:13 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590