NUNAVUT WATER BOARD

  

  AGNICO EAGLE MINES LIMITED WHALE TAIL EXPANSION PROJECT
  APPLICATIONS TO AMEND WATER LICENCES NOS.: 2AM-WTP1826,
                 2AM-MEA1526, 2BB-MEA1828

  
  
  ___________________________________________________
                         HEARING
                         VOLUME 2
  ___________________________________________________

  

                    Baker Lake, Nunavut
                     February 14, 2020
                     TABLE OF CONTENTS
  
  Description                                       Page
  
  February 14, 2020        Morning Session          124
  Discussion                                        124
  Kivalliq Inuit Association Questions Agnico       125
  Eagle Mines Limited
  Nunavut Water Board Staff Questions Agnico        127
  Eagle Mines Limited
  Presentation by Kivalliq Inuit Association        153
  Agnico Eagle Mines Limited Questions Kivalliq     154
  Inuit Association
  Agnico Eagle Mines Limited Questions              157
  Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
  Canada
  Presentation by Environment and Climate Change    160
  Canada
  Agnico Eagle Mines Limited Questions              167
  Environment and Climate Change Canada
  Nunavut Water Board Staff Questions               177
  Environment and Climate Change Canada
  Presentation by Fisheries and Oceans Canada       182
  Kivalliq Inuit Association Questions Fisheries    188
  and Oceans Canada
  Nunavut Water Board Staff Questions Fisheries     190
  and Oceans Canada
  
  February 14, 2020        Afternoon Session        191
  Discussion                                        191
  Submissions by Agnico Eagle Mines Limited         191
  Submissions by Environment and Climate Change     195
  Canada
  Discussion                                        196
  Closing Remarks by Kivalliq Inuit Association     204
  Closing Remarks by Crown-Indigenous Relations     206
  and Northern Affairs Canada
  Closing Remarks by Environment and Climate        208
  Change Canada
  Closing Remarks by Fisheries and Oceans Canada    210
  Closing Remarks by Agnico Eagle Mines Limited     211
  Closing Remarks                                   215
  Closing Prayer                                    217
  Certificate of Transcript                         218

                         EXHIBITS
  Description                                       Page
  
  EXHIBIT 13 - Hard Copy PowerPoint Presentation    160
  Whale Tail Pit Expansion Project Presentation
  to the Nunavut Water Board by Environment and
  Climate Change Canada (Community Session)
  (English/Inuktitut)
  EXHIBIT 14 - Hard Copy PowerPoint Presentation    181
  Agnico Eagle Mines Limited's "Whale Tail
  Expansion" Project Presentation to the Nunavut
  Water Board by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)
  (English)
  EXHIBIT 15 - Hard Copy PowerPoint Presentation    181
  Agnico Eagle Mines Limited's "Whale Tail
  Expansion" Project Presentation to the Nunavut
  Water Board by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)
  (Inuktitut)
  EXHIBIT 16 - Electronic Copy Only Resume of       197
  Cameron Stevens (English)
  EXHIBIT 17 - Electronic Copy Only Resume of       197
  Gary Lawrence (English)
  EXHIBIT 18 - Electronic Copy Only Resume of       198
  John Faithful (English)
  EXHIBIT 19 - Electronic Copy Only Resume of       198
  Gillian Allen (English)
  EXHIBIT 20 - Electronic Copy Only Resume of       198
  Nicola Lower (English)
  EXHIBIT 21 - Electronic Copy Only Kivalliq        200
  Inuit Association Comments on Agnico Eagle Mines
  Limited, January 30, 2010 Draft Water Licence
  Framework (English)
  EXHIBIT 22 - Electronic Copy Only Agnico Eagle    204
  Mines Limited Response to Exhibit 21 (Kivalliq
  Inuit Association Comments on Agnico Eagle Mines
  Limited, January 30, 2010, Draft Water Licence
  Framework) (English)

  

  

  

  

  

  

  
  Proceedings taken at Baker Lake Community Hall, Baker
  Lake, Nunavut
  _______________________________________________________
  February 14, 2020
  
  NUNAVUT WATER BOARD
  L. Toomasie              Chair of Hearing
  R. Mrazek                Board Member
  M. Nartok                Board Member
  
  NUNAVUT WATER BOARD STAFF
  K. Kharatyan             Director of Technical Services
  B. Kogvik                Director of Board Administration
                           and Communications
  R. Dwyer                 Manager of Licencing
  A. Kubeisinova           Technical Advisor
  T. Meadows               Legal Counsel to the Board
  
  INTERVENORS
  
  AGNICO EAGLE MINES LIMITED
  J. Quesnel               Regional Manager Permitting
                           and Regulatory Affairs
  M. Groleau               General Supervisor Permitting
  M. Turmel                Permitting Lead
  E. Parent                Permitting Specialist
  S. Leclair               Lead Indigenous and
                           Stakeholder Relations Nunavut
  C. Kennedy               Technical Specialist
  N. Duquet-Harvey         Environmental Superintendent
                           Meadowbank
  C. Paradis St. Onge      Nunavut Communication
                           Coordinator
  M. Plante                General Manager Meadowbank
                           Complex
  J. Faithful              Senior Water Quality
                           Specialist, Golder Associates
  N. Lower                 Principal Consultant
                           Environmental Impact
                           Assessment and Permitting,
                           Environmental Resources
                           Management
  C. Stevens               Senior Fish Biologist, Golder
                           Associates
  G. Allen                 Senior Geoenvironmental
                           Engineer, Okane Consultants
  G. Lawrence              Associate and Senior
                           Environmental Scientist,
                           Golder Associates
  C. Kowbel                Legal Counsel for Agnico Eagle
                           Mines, Lawson Lundell
  
  KIVALLIQ INUIT ASSOCIATION
  L. Manzo                 Director of Lands
  J. Tulugak               Inspector
  A. Aupaluktuq-Burton     Lands Administrative
                           Coordinator
  A. Sexton                VP Project Management,
                           GeoVector Management
  R. Nesbitt               Senior Aquatic Scientist,
                           Hutchinson Environment
  J. Kataluk               Senior Environmental
                           Technician
  J. King                  Legal Counsel for Kivalliq
                           Inuit Association
  
  CROWN-INDIGENOUS RELATIONS AND NORTHERN AFFAIRS CANADA
  S. Dewar                 Director of Resources
                           Management
  G. Okonkwo               Manager of Water Resources
  D. Zhong                 Regulatory and Science Advisor
  
  FISHERIES AND OCEANS CANADA
  A. Beattie               Team lead with the Mining,
                           Oil, and Gas Division
  E. Ratajczyk             Fish and Fish Habitat
                           Protection Biologist
  J. Audet-Lecouffe        Fish and Fish Habitat
                           Protection Biologist
  
  ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE CANADA
  A. Wilson                Senior Water Quality
                           Specialist
  E. Walker                Environmental Assessment
  (Via Teleconference)     Coordinator
  
  INTERPRETERS/TRANSLATORS
  B. Kogvik                Language Translator
  A. Alooq                 Language Translator
  
  C. Longacre, RPR, CSR(A) Official Court Reporter
  
  R. Dempster              Sound Technician
  _______________________________________________________
  (PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED AT 8:59 AM)
  Discussion
  THE CHAIR:               Okay.  Thank you.  Okay.
  Before we go into questioning -- questioning period, I
  would like to have the -- I think the Applicant had --
  continue with somebody there.  Go ahead.
  MS. KOWBEL:              Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Good
  morning.  Christine Kowbel for Agnico Eagle.
       We just wanted to clarify one thing before we go
  into questions.  We think it was made quite clear
  yesterday, but just to confirm one more time, we want
  to confirm the status of the water compensation
  agreement is as Kivalliq Inuit Association said during
  their presentation.  Thank you, Mr. Chair.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Now, on the agenda, question -- going to Item 9 in
  the agenda, questioning the Applicant.  Start with --
  we want to start with the Kivalliq Inuit Association.
  If you have some questions, you may do so now.
  Kivalliq Inuit Association Questions Agnico Eagle Mines
  Limited
  MR. MANZO:               Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Luis
  Manzo, Kivalliq Inuit Association.
       I would like to -- to confirm some of the concerns
  of Kivalliq Inuit Association for the records.  It's in
  regard to adaptive management.  And we do [sic] have a
  conversation with -- with the proponent during the
  break yesterday, and I just want a confirmation about
  the -- the adaptive management component in what we're
  referring to the 90 percent and -- and the capacity for
  the -- for the capacity for the storage.  We do -- we
  do mention if there's going to be changes in Table 4 to
  address the concerns of KIA and if that is correct so
  we can have it in record.
  MR. GROLEAU:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Michel
  Groleau, Agnico Eagle.
       So, yes, we'll apply the proposed change to the
  adaptive management 60 days following water licence
  amendment.  So the change, if I summarize them, are to
  the Level 1 threshold; we going to apply the 90 percent
  on the maximum operational capacity.  And for Level 2,
  we're changing the wording of the threshold for a
  maximum operational capacity instead of maximum
  capacity.  Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Continue if you have something.
  MR. MANZO:               Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Luis
  Manzo.  Thank you very much.  That's the only question
  I have.
  THE CHAIR:               Turn off your microphone if
  you're done.
       Okay.  Next, Crown-Indigenous Relations and
  Northern Affairs.
  MR. DEWAR:               (OTHER LANGUAGE SPOKEN),
  Mr. Chair.  No questions.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       And then Environment and Climate Change Canada.
  MS. WILSON:              Anne Wilson with Environment
  and Climate Change Canada.
       No questions.  Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       And then Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
  MR. BEATTIE:             Alasdair Beattie with DFO.
       No questions.  Thank you, Mr. Chair.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.  Is there a member
  of public have any questions?
       Okay.  There's none.
       On Item 10 in the agenda, the Board staff, if you
  have questions, go ahead.
  Nunavut Water Board Staff Questions Agnico Eagle Mines
  Limited
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Thank you, Mr. Chair.
       We have a few questions and comments starting with
  Slide 18.  In the Slide 18, Agnico Eagle stated that --
  about -- this was about discharge of effluent into
  Lakes D1, D5.  The statement was the NWB will grant
  authorization to discharge.
       To make sure that we are all on the same page,
  this is not automatic approval between the Nunavut
  Impact Review Board recommendation to Minister --
  Minister agreement or recommendation to NWB.  There is
  a process for this approval and there are -- based on
  the additional assessment and the additional
  information provided with respect to these lakes, D1,
  D5.  Just confirming with Agnico Eagle whether the
  understanding is the same.
  MR. QUESNEL:             Jamie Quesnel, Agnico Eagle.
       Our understanding is that the conditions that were
  provided by the Nunavut Impact Review Board would --
  once we complete those and provide that to the Water
  Board, then a decision would be made, but it -- there
  would be no need for an amendment of the licence.  It's
  just that we would have to provide that information to
  the Water Board prior to utilizing Lakes D1 and D5.
       So the criteria provided by the Nunavut Impact
  Review Board has to be completed by Agnico, provided to
  the Water Board, and then a decision would be made to
  use that -- those Lakes D1 and D5.  However, no
  additional amendment to the water licence is required.
  That's our understanding.
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Thank you, Mr. Chair.
       And based -- based on my memory, this Term 67 from
  NIRB recommendation recognized also the option or the
  possibility that the NWB may say no, no approval.
  MR. QUESNEL:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Jamie
  Quesnel, Agnico Eagle.
       Yes.  That's our understanding.  But we expect --
  anyway.  That's our understanding.
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Thank you.
       On the Slide 27, I have one question or comment
  regarding the adaptive management plan, just to clarify
  that the wording -- yes, the last bullet.  In the
  approved adaptive management plan are included in the
  scope.  To clarify, that -- the adaptive management
  plan is not approved still.
  MR. QUESNEL:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Jamie
  Quesnel, Agnico Eagle.
       Yes.  We've submitted that -- our adaptive
  management plan.  We understand if our licence is
  approved, then the adaptive management plan would be
  approved at that time.
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Thank you.
       Again, this is Karén Kharatyan, Water Board.  One
  comment about Slide 38, just a statement.  Agnico Eagle
  mentioned that they hope that Water Board will be
  looking closely to -- at the draft water licence
  framework.  I can confirm that absolutely we will be
  looking very closely at the draft framework because I
  can -- again, also statement.  There were many
  alteration of conditions, including standard terms and
  conditions.  So just for your information, there is no
  any guarantee that these alteration will be
  incorporated should the licence be issued.  Everything
  is up to the Board to accept or reject the proposed
  terms and conditions.
       One more comment regarding Slide 40, please.  This
  was, I think, about 20-day notice for a number of
  construction activities.  Based on my memory from
  technical meeting, we advised very clearly, Agnico
  Eagle, that if, for construction reports/drawings are
  submitted before potential licence issuance, this will
  make the process a little more efficient and allow
  Agnico Eagle to save some time.  This is not -- I
  understanding from this condition, 20-day notice,
  20-day notice means 20 days early the -- the
  information is submitted, and there is no any -- there
  is no any guarantee that 20 days' notice will allow
  parties to look at these drawings/reports and provide
  their feedback and the Water Board to provide its own
  feedback.
       Agnico Eagle mentioned about -- there was a
  reference to Meliadine Lake -- Meliadine licence.  I
  can maybe clarify that this is the only licence with
  30 days' submission, 30 days prior to construction for
  construction drawings or report submission; however,
  this 30 days was incorporated at the time of Meliadine
  licence process as per Agnico Eagle request because at
  that time, Agnico Eagle was planning to have very
  aggressive construction phase.  So once -- while the
  Board accepted 30 days, the Board also made it for
  Board approval.  This is not general case
  for construction.  Reports are not for board approval;
  are for board review.  However, the standard condition,
  if you remember, is 60 days.  It doesn't mean you will
  hear about acceptance between 60 day -- or in 60 days.
  This -- the -- the -- if all the information is
  provided, no concern are raised, the company will hear
  earlier than 60 days.  Just for your information that
  20 days' notice wouldn't be likely acceptable because
  this is creating a lot of pressure on parties to -- to
  review, and this is creating also pressure for company
  if there are additional information to be provided to
  get this information collected.
       If -- if Agnico Eagle doesn't have anything to say
  right now, I will ask NWB legal counsel to speak about
  regulatory -- or implication between adaptive
  management plan.  Then we continue our questions.
  MS. MEADOWS:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Thank
  you, Karén.  Teresa Meadows, legal counsel for the
  Nunavut Water Board.
       So we have, as Karén said, sort of a regulatory
  question, and I'm going to preface my question with the
  observation -- a number of parties have raised the same
  question with us -- and that is:  What is the effect of
  the draft water licence framework that is proposed by
  Agnico Eagle?  The way the Board treats that submission
  is the same as any other submission.  So the fact that
  there are terms or conditions proposed by Agnico Eagle
  in the draft water licence framework is not binding on
  the Board.  It is a submission the same as any other
  submission.
       And the reason and the rationale for the Board
  encouraging and allowing the draft water licence
  frameworks to be submitted is so that we can focus some
  of the discussions on the key amendments that Agnico
  Eagle may think are necessary in the draft water
  licence.  And so that helps focus the discussion, but
  it does not mean that the Board is bound to follow the
  wording that is provided, nor does the Board expect
  intervenors to be providing detailed wordsmithing
  suggestions to the draft terms and conditions that have
  been proposed by the Applicant.
       So with that said, I do have a general overarching
  question about the regulatory process that Agnico Eagle
  is proposing for dealing with adaptive management
  measures.  I will not list the very substantial
  revisions that are suggested to accommodate that
  process, but I do want Agnico Eagle to kind of walk me
  through their understanding of what they're proposing
  in terms of the process because it seems to me, upon a
  reading of the revisions to definitions and several
  additional sections in the general conditions and then
  in the conditions applying to construction and
  operation, that Agnico Eagle's perception is adaptive
  management measures will be dealt with in a unique way
  under the regulatory system that is not reflecting the
  way that modifications and amendments are typically
  dealt with by the Board.
       So my question is really if maybe you can walk me
  through the implementation process for what seems to be
  two types of adaptive management measures.  So the
  first are adaptive management actions that are
  currently included in the adaptive management plan that
  Agnico Eagle has filed with the Board, and the second
  route is the adaptive management actions that are
  characterized by Agnico Eagle and described as new
  adaptive management actions, both of which are -- or
  the latter of which is not included in the current
  adaptive management plan.
       So if you can start with how you envision the
  adaptive management actions playing out in a regulatory
  way for those that are currently included in the plan.
       Thank you, Mr. Chair.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Applicant.
  MR. QUESNEL:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Jamie
  Quesnel, Agnico Eagle.
       Thank you for the question.  Based on the first
  part of your question, the actions that we have in the
  adaptive management plan that we provided to the
  Nunavut Water Board which was collectively developed
  working with the Kivalliq Inuit Association,
  Environment Climate Change Canada, and -- and CIRNAC,
  we developed this -- this adaptive management plan.
       And I just want to back up to why we developed
  this adaptive management plan 'cause we had discussions
  with the Kivalliq Inuit Association based on some
  activities at the Whale Tail site to implement some
  mitigation measures related to unforeseen events with
  additional rainfall.  And we spoke to the Nunavut Water
  Board, the Nunavut Impact Review Board on implement --
  implementation of measures to mitigate the situation
  that we were in that was unforeseen within our
  footprint.  However, the existing process restricted us
  from being proactive.  In addition, a lot of our
  discussions with the regulatory bodies is adaptive
  management, mitigation, what if this occurs, what if
  this other item occurs, how do you guys deal with it in
  an operation.  And we've had many discussions that we
  like to have flexibility within our footprint but also
  provide certainty to the regulatory bodies.
       So as we work through this process and within, I
  think, the last meeting that we had with the collective
  group, the Nunavut Water Board was -- was part of that
  discussion.  It was very collaborative, a lot of good
  discussion.  Some -- some of the discussions were not
  easy.  But we came to a conclusion that this is a way
  to provide the certainty that the regulatory agencies
  are asking us but also their understanding of the
  challenges that we have in the north and some of the
  events that we have to manage within our footprint.
  And the key objective is -- is to protect the
  environment in a timely way.
       So we developed these action plans with different
  thresholds.  You just heard from the Kivalliq Inuit
  Association referencing a low change to a table with an
  adaptive management plan dealing with capacity in some
  of our ponds at an operation.  So we made that final
  adjustment to adaptive management plan.  So the plan is
  built on if a certain event happens dealing with water
  volume or water quality and certain thresholds are
  made -- are met, we have an agreed-upon mitigation.  It
  may be looking at analyzing this a little bit further.
  It may be increasing some of the existing assets we
  have on the site.  It's like a water treatment plant;
  maybe we have to increase capacity through-put through
  our treatment plant, or maybe we have to hold more
  water on the site by constructing another pond.  So
  based on the existing actions that we have within our
  adaptive management plan, we hit those triggers, we
  have a -- a set action plan which has been agreed upon,
  we implement those based on the approval of this
  adaptive management plan.
       We've spoken with the key stakeholders on these
  actions, what's the best.  It provides them -- provides
  the regulatory bodies, like I'm saying, certainty and
  hopefully to the Board.  It provides that certainty
  that within our footprint we have that flexibility to
  manage certain situations.  And then we implement those
  in a timely way to ensure that we protect the
  environment, the receiving environment.  We have our
  footprint assessed through the Nunavut Impact Review
  Board.  We assessed the effects of our -- our -- our
  operation, this -- and in particular, this application,
  and also we discussed a mitigation.  But sometimes
  things do happen that we have to act quickly.  And
  sometimes we feel the process is -- is -- will handcuff
  us where we cannot react in a timely fashion.  So this
  is why we developed this adaptive management plan.  And
  I think some -- some of the regulatory agencies -- they
  can speak to this on their own.  But I think it was
  complimentary to Agnico Eagle, and we will also
  compliment the regulatory agencies to developing a plan
  that we're working together.  We all want the same
  thing:  To protect the environment in a timely way and
  be -- have that flexibility.  That's what we're all
  about, and that's what we're trying to exhibit here.
  So that's the first piece.  We want to implement those
  mitigation action items when the thresholds are met in
  that decision tree in our adaptive management plan.
       The second piece is for items that are not
  included in the adaptive management plan.  So there may
  be something that we don't have as an action plan right
  now in the adaptive management plan.  We hit a trigger.
  This is our mitigation.  But maybe there's another
  opportunity, a better way, new technology, something
  that can help us.  So this is where we -- we proposed a
  way to evaluate, assess that change that's not included
  in our adaptive management plan right now.  And that's
  what we proposed in the -- in the -- in the draft water
  licence that we submitted to -- to the Board just to
  ensure that we have a process to react quickly.
       We feel some of these items are not a significant
  modification when we have to go through a full
  amendment for six to eight months.  We feel this
  process, based on our footprint -- we can implement
  these as per the proposed language that we have in the
  draft water licence submission.  So I -- hopefully that
  clarifies our approach to this.  I know it's something
  new, but also I think it's -- it's a -- it's a
  requirement just based on some of the optimization
  opportunities that we have in the north.  We've been
  operating here for a while.  Hopefully we're seen as a
  good operator.  We're transparent.  We do have
  challenges, but we're looking at a way that we can work
  together to protect the environment, have the
  flexibility in our footprint to ensure that we can be
  effective and proactive to react to situations that we
  have to deal with in the north as it is -- as a
  challenging environment.  Things do change.  We just
  want to be proactive, transparent, and working
  together, and this -- this tool that we developed, I
  feel and I think some of the regulatory agencies feel,
  provides that certainty to implement key mitigations
  within our footprint.  So hopefully that provides a
  little bit more clarity.  Thank you.
  MS. MEADOWS:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Teresa
  Meadows, legal counsel for the Nunavut Water Board.
       I guess maybe I will give a very practical example
  from the -- the existing adaptive management plan to
  see whether or not I'm actually completely grasping the
  concept here.
       So on page 17 of the adaptive -- the existing
  adaptive management plan, for a Level 3 action, so
  high-risk situation, we have the addition of a deep
  well injection for high total dissolved solids water
  and/or a meromictic pit lake disposal approach
  following approval from the NWB.
       So my question is -- when I look at the way that
  adaptive management actions under the approved plan are
  defined, it says that these will not be -- expressly
  will not be an amendment or a modification to the
  licence.  And so my question is I'm not sure that
  you're -- I don't see what the approval process is
  that's being referenced there.  Is it the approval of
  this plan that is what's necessary or what Agnico Eagle
  perceives to be necessary to approve this, or is it
  something else?  Because if it's not a modification or
  it's not an amendment and that's expressly what the
  amendments that are being proposed by Agnico Eagle to
  the licence would say, I'm not sure what approval
  process you're referring to.
  MR. QUESNEL:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Jamie
  Quesnel, Agnico Eagle.
       Yes.  So you refer to page 17, and based on the
  example dealing with the deep well injection, if we go
  to Level 2, there's an evaluation of that option.  So
  it's an intuitive process where Level 1 would trigger
  some activities, Level 2 we're looking at a valuation
  of that -- of that action, and Level 3 is -- is
  performing that injection if it -- if it does -- if it
  does occur.  So we're looking at the plan is approved
  as per the licence with that mitigation, and we're not
  going to do this by ourselves.  There's going to be
  communication with -- with all parties related to that
  mitigation.  So the evaluation of deep well injection
  for high TDS water would be communicated to -- to all
  the parties.  And then Level 3, in the high-risk
  situation, we would look at implementing that -- that
  action.
  MS. MEADOWS:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Teresa
  Meadows, legal counsel for the Nunavut Water Board.
       But I guess that doesn't actually answer the
  question, which is:  What is the approval process?  I
  mean, you're speaking to communication.  When I look at
  the wording that is currently proposed for how adaptive
  management actions under the plan are approved, it
  looks to me as though the process that's being proposed
  is approval of the plan is approval of the potential
  actions under the plan.
  MR. QUESNEL:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Jamie
  Quesnel, Agnico Eagle.
       Yes.  That's -- that's our -- that's our
  interpretation.  This is the -- this is what we're
  proposing.
  MS. MEADOWS:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Teresa
  Meadows, legal counsel for the Nunavut Water Board.
       I guess my question, then, becomes the Nunavut
  Impact Review Board and the assessment process with
  respect to the Nunavut Planning And Project Assessment
  Act with respect to significant modifications, based on
  my understanding of what Agnico Eagle is saying is that
  their decision as to whether or not something is a
  significant modification is what is captured in the
  plan.  The Nunavut Impact Review Board, as far as I am
  aware, has not been consulted with respect to whether
  or not the scope of the actions that are being proposed
  at this -- especially at the high-risk areas, are
  within the scope of what was previously assessed.  Is
  that -- is that understanding correct?
  MS. KOWBEL:              Thank you, Mr. Chair.
  Christine Kowbel for Agnico Eagle.
       Thank you for that question.  So -- so just for
  clarity, Agnico Eagle did take into consideration the
  Nunavut Impact Review Board's guidance on these things.
  One thing we think that's -- that's very important to
  note for the -- for the Water Board and for everyone in
  the room is that adaptive management is -- is part of
  the guidance from the Nunavut Impact Review Board.
  It's part of NuPPAA.  Companies are asked to adaptively
  manage their operations in order to protect the
  environment, and we think that's a very important
  fundamental part of operating a mine in Nunavut, and
  Agnico Eagle's very proud to do that.
       In -- in taking the time and care to have all of
  these conversations about adaptive management, getting
  very specific in the conversations about what steps
  will be taken in terms of the management strategy,
  things like identifying something like a Level 3
  action, the reason -- one of the -- one of the things
  that Agnico Eagle has done is -- is considered the
  Nunavut Impact Review Board's guidance on
  self-assessment of significant modifications.  And so
  they've considered each of these in their assessment,
  taking into account the NIRB's guidance, is that none
  of the actions in the approved project are -- are
  significant modifications.  They're all within
  footprint.  They're all within the mine site area and
  the haul road.  So when we say "footprint", we mean
  that -- that whole area.  And -- and -- and as we said,
  the -- the goal of the adaptive management actions --
  the primary goal would be to take actions that are
  protective.  And so in Agnico Eagle's evaluation, those
  would not be considered significant modifications under
  NuPPAA or under the NIRB guidance.  And -- and we think
  that's one of the important reasons why it was
  important to get very specific and detailed about
  recommending these actions for approval of the -- of
  the Nunavut Water Board.
       Just one moment, Mr. Chair.  I just want to check
  in with Agnico Eagle.
       Thank you, Mr. Chair.  I think that's -- that's
  our answer to that question.  Thank you.
  MS. MEADOWS:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Teresa
  Meadows, legal counsel for the Nunavut Water Board.
       Thank you for that response.  I do have a question
  arising out of sort of the response from -- from
  Mr. Quesnel about the communication piece with respect
  to Level 3 actions that are currently included in the
  plan.  And my question basically is:  It looks from the
  draft water licence framework when reading the plan
  together -- the potentially approved plan together with
  the suggested amendments, there is no obligation,
  actually.  There -- there is nothing in the current
  wording of the draft water licence framework that would
  suggest that there is any kind of specific route for
  approval or communication -- formal communication with
  the Board with respect to the implementation of the
  plan.  It is only with respect to new adaptive
  management actions that the suggested revisions to the
  draft wording are that there would be 21 days' notice
  provided to the Board with respect to implementation of
  new adaptive management measures.  And so there's a
  little bit of concern there that it's -- it's not clear
  to us exactly how that approval process is expected to
  go under the approved adaptive management plan.  And,
  specifically, I am referring to Item 25 of the Part D
  of the amended draft water licence framework.
  MR. QUESNEL:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.
       We just need a couple of minutes.  There was
  reference for a few different plans, so we're just
  trying to find electronic and -- and hard copies.  So
  we just need a few minutes.  Thank you.
  MS. MEADOWS:             Mr. Chair --
       I don't mean to interrupt your thought process, so
  just ignore me.
       But, Mr. Chair, it's -- I've just been advised
  that legal counsel for the Department of Justice has
  just been able to join the call and is now online, if
  there are any questions or responses to him over time.
  Thank you, Mr. Chair.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
  MR. QUESNEL:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Jamie
  Quesnel, Agnico Eagle.
       So related to the comments for communication,
  under Part D, Section 27, based on we have the approval
  of the adaptive management plan -- so we -- we just --
  the -- what we put in Section 27 is the licencee shall
  apply the principles of adaptive management in
  construction and operations.  For greater clarity,
  adaptive management strategy actions identified in an
  approved adaptive management plan may be implemented by
  the licencee upon notice to the Board and do not
  require modification or amendment to this licence prior
  to implementation.
       So there's -- there's a communication piece there
  in -- in -- in that Section 27 as part of Part D.
  Thank you.
  MS. MEADOWS:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Teresa
  Meadows, legal counsel for the Nunavut Water Board.
       I realize that, but the -- the notice provisions
  have no time frame with respect to approved actions, so
  actions that are approved under the plan.  It's only
  with respect to new adaptive management actions that
  there is a 21-day notice period.  So -- but I will move
  on from that.
       Those are -- those are primarily my questions.  I
  think I have an understanding of what Agnico Eagle
  envisions for -- for the process applicable to adaptive
  management.  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  I believe that my
  colleague, the director of technical services, Karén,
  has a follow-up question.
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Karén Kharatyan, Water Board.
  Thank you, Mr. Chair.
       Agnico Eagle just stated that this was kind of
  encouraged by even Nunavut Impact Review Board to
  develop adaptive management actions or approach.  Just
  for your information, this is encouraged by Water Board
  as well.  The question is:  Was there any specific
  reason this adaptive management plan wasn't developed
  during the environmental assessment process or not?
  MR. QUESNEL:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Jamie
  Quesnel, Agnico Eagle.
       We've always worked under adaptive management.
  It's been communicated in different means historically,
  but based on optimization and some of the challenges we
  see, I thought -- we thought it was a good opportunity
  to develop this with a little bit more detail to ensure
  that we can move quickly to be proactive to mitigate
  certain environmental effects by protecting the
  environment.  So this process has been developed over
  time based on our experience operating in the north,
  and it's -- we have this document right now that
  provides a little bit more detail.
       If we look back, maybe it would've been better to
  have this in the early days of the Meadowbank licence,
  but things are -- are growing.  We're looking at
  continuous improvement, we're looking at optimization,
  we're looking at collaboration with our regulatory
  agencies to ensure that we're transparent to be
  effective with proactive measures.  So this is the --
  we -- we're here now with this document, and we're
  ready to move forward with it.
       And I -- we do have some comments just with the
  20-day notice, if I may -- if I can respond to that.
  Would that be okay?
       We understand, you know, dealing with some of
  the -- some of the items we listed in the licence for
  the 20-day notice -- it's related to dewatering, some
  of the infrastructure related to attenuation ponds.  We
  feel some of these could be done in -- in a shorter
  time period.  We understand certain modification -- or
  not modifications, but certain drawings may take longer
  to -- to review.  But we feel -- based on the notice
  we've provided related to some of the infrastructure
  based on the construction window that we have, we feel
  that a shorter time period -- we proposed the 20 days
  based on some discussions -- we -- we would like to
  have those approvals in the shorter period of time just
  based on the -- if we do receive our approval, to
  ensure that we can meet our construction window related
  to some of the assets that we're building within our --
  our approved project.
       So we do have already existing infrastructure
  managing that footprint, and majority of what we're
  proposing is within that footprint, within a controlled
  area.  So this is where we feel this can be implemented
  in a shorter period of time.  So this is why we propose
  the 20 days for the list of items that we provided in
  the water licence.  Thank you.
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Karén
  Kharatyan, Water Board.
       One small follow-up again, Jamie, just to confirm
  whether or not this adaptive management plan was
  communicated at some type of -- or some -- some ways
  with Nunavut Impact Review Board or not.  When saying
  "communicated", I mean different ways of communication,
  not necessarily a formal approval process, but
  communication just.
  MR. QUESNEL:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Jamie
  Quesnel, Agnico Eagle.
       We've had informal discussions with the Nunavut --
  with Nunavut Impact Review Board regarding adaptive
  management.  Thank you.
  MR. KHARATYAN:           I think -- Karén Kharatyan,
  Water Board.
       I think I should ask maybe very -- a little more
  clear.  I don't mean adaptive management generally.  I
  mean just this adaptive management plan, whether or not
  in the scope of this adaptive management plan,
  including the actions -- if different level of actions
  were communicated.
  MR. QUESNEL:             Thank you, Mr. Chair, Jamie
  Quesnel, Agnico Eagle.
       This plan has not been submitted to NIRB, but
  we've had -- there were discussions during the Nunavut
  Impact Review Board's reconsideration process about
  water management and decision trees related to that
  component, so there was some initial discussions.  And
  we had some informal discussions with the Nunavut
  Impact Review Board, but this plan has not been
  submitted to Nunavut Impact Review Board.
       However, as our colleague Christine has mentioned
  that we've completed a self-assessment as per guidance
  by the Nunavut Impact Review Board on developing this
  plan that's in front of the Board at this time.  Thank
  you.
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Thank you, Jamie.  Karén
  Kharatyan, Water Board.  Thank you, Mr. Chair.
       Just another small comments that -- to be clear
  that the understanding is the same.  We are in one
  window regulatory system, and Water Board is the end of
  process or regulatory process.  So while I am not
  saying that the action included within this adaptive
  management plan are not acceptable necessarily, I am
  just trying to make clear that the Water Board doesn't
  and wouldn't try to fetter any of -- discretion of
  other regulatory organizations.  Thank you.
  MR. QUESNEL:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Jamie
  Quesnel, Agnico Eagle.
       Maybe just to provide a little bit more clarity.
  The concept in this plan came from a decision tree
  discussion that was during the Nunavut Impact Review
  Board process.  So that concept has been discussed, and
  this is a little bit more refinement of that concept
  related to activities within our footprint.  So this is
  the way we're looking at it.  It's a little bit more
  refinement just like a typical process where you look
  at environmental effects and environmental assessments.
  Once we get to the water licence stage, there's a
  little bit more refinement of -- of the -- the
  structures, the mitigation.  So we feel we follow the
  typical process to refine a concept that was discussed
  during the environmental assessment stage.  Thank you.
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Thank you, Jamie.  Karén
  Kharatyan, Water Board.
       One clarification, Jamie.  For example, there is
  one item, like meromictic lake formation related to
  underground water disposal in pit.  So I am not really
  sure without any type of approval -- or maybe not
  approval, but notification process because the -- this
  is the Level 3 action after evaluation.  So I am not
  sure this stage that -- whether meromictic lake will be
  formed or no.  Meromictic lake may be formed, and,
  again, there may be some mixing of water.  So this
  should be assessed and evaluated before going forward
  with -- and this is one of these items that I do have a
  little bit concern without seeing additional
  information.
  MR. QUESNEL:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Jamie
  Quesnel, Agnico Eagle.
       Like, earlier we mentioned that that would be part
  of an evaluation in Level 2 related to those details to
  see if that mitigation would have to be triggered or
  implemented.  So there's an evaluation piece before a
  decision is made.  So there is -- we're using all the
  tools to understand and assess at that time in the
  Level 2 before we get to a Level 3 situation.  So
  there's -- there are mechanisms within the -- the
  decision tree before we go into full implementation to
  evaluate that.  We -- so that's the process just to
  understand what's going on, and that's the Level 3
  mitigation that's listed there, maybe one of the
  situations where we would have to implement.  So
  there's assessment at Level 2 and then possible
  implementation of what we have in that mitigation in
  Level 3.
  MS. KUBEISINOVA:         Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Assol
  Kubeisinova, Nunavut Water Board.
       In regards to the safety margin requested on water
  withdrawal rates -- I'll just clarify.  That's
  approximately 117,000 cubic metres per year during
  operations and approximately 2-and-a-half million cubic
  metres per year during closure.  Is Agnico Eagle
  requesting that to come from all sources
  proportionately?
  MR. QUESNEL:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Jamie
  Quesnel, Agnico Eagle.
       We're looking at that as a global number.  We have
  other conditions and restrictions with -- for withdraws
  from different sources, different lakes.  So we'll be
  complying with that.  But it's not proportional, just
  depending where we can draw the water from based on
  complying with the conditions we have and the licence
  with the other agencies.
  MS. KUBEISINOVA:         Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Assol
  Kubeisinova, Nunavut Water Board.
       No more questions.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       So staff is done?  Staff questioning done?
  MR. KHARATYAN:           It's done, yes.
  THE CHAIR:               Okay.  Now, Panel members?
       No?  Okay.
       Thank you, Applicant, for your presentation.
       Let's take a ten-minute break before going to
  intervenors.
  (ADJOURNMENT)
  THE CHAIR:               Okay.  Reconvene.  So, Luis,
  are you ready for your presentation or just ready for
  answering some questions?
  MR. MANZO:               Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Luis
  Manzo, Kivalliq Inuit Association.
       I just want to ask a question if the proponent
  want me to go over the whole entire presentation or the
  Board want me to go over the whole entire presentation,
  or I can just focus any concerns of KIA to respond to
  any questions.  I will -- I will ask the Board if --
  which is the approach you want to take.
  MS. MEADOWS:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Teresa
  Meadows, legal counsel for the Nunavut Water Board.
       So thank you very much to the Kivalliq Inuit
  Association for being so flexible.  We would appreciate
  it, given the time constraints that we have, if you
  focus now our time on questions to the Kivalliq Inuit
  Association, and if there is any follow-up that you
  would like to do with respect to your submissions, if
  you want to start with that, and then we can go to
  questions.
  Presentation by Kivalliq Inuit Association
  MR. MANZO:               Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Luis
  Manzo, Kivalliq Inuit Association.
       As I mentioned in my presentation, Kivalliq Inuit
  Association still have some concern in regard to the
  Technical Comments Number 4 and 7 as mentioned in my
  presentation.  Technical Comment 4 and 7 in regard to
  the seepage for the waste rock pile and -- and climate
  change and project timelines.  Just to make sure we get
  it in record and clear for the proponent responses
  and -- and KIA satisfaction, I will read those two
  slides.
       Agnico Eagle provide additional evidence to
  support the water balance model.  Agnico Eagle has also
  demonstrated that the Quarry 1 and groundwater storage
  pond can provide the requirement capacity to manage
  excess contact water in the first year of the expansion
  project.
       So we have some discussions in regard to -- those
  two items I mention are linked to the adaptive
  management in regard of the 90 percent capacity of
  measures, and -- and we have some understanding that
  the wording will be changed for the satisfaction of the
  KIA.  So if the proponent can confirm that, I think KIA
  have all our issues resolved at this point.
  Agnico Eagle Mines Limited Questions Kivalliq Inuit
  Association
  MR. QUESNEL:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Jamie
  Quesnel, Agnico Eagle.
       Based on Slide 10, which is on the screen right --
  I think it's -- no, that's not Slide 10.  Just dealing
  with the 90 percent, we will -- as we mentioned
  earlier, we will provide those changes to the adaptive
  management plan related to Table 4 based on the changed
  wording.  So we'll provide that if we do receive
  approval of our water licence 60 days after.
       But I just want to go back just to confirm, Luis,
  based on Slide 8 dealing with Term and Condition 4 and
  Term and Condition 7, that those are resolved now, plus
  the change related to the adaptive management plan.
  MR. MANZO:               Yes.  That's related to the
  seepage and the capacity of hauling the seepage into
  the pond, and if that wording can change, we
  comfortable with it, and those two items, 4 and 7, will
  be now resolved.
  THE CHAIR:               Okay.  Thank you.
       Any further questions?
  MR. QUESNEL:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Jamie
  Quesnel, Agnico Eagle.
       No further questions.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Now I'd like to ask the Crown-Indigenous Relations
  Northern Affairs.  If you have questions to Kivalliq
  Inuit Association, you may go ahead.
  MR. DEWAR:               Matna, Mr. Chair.  Spencer
  Dewar, Crown-Indigenous Relations Northern Affairs
  Canada.
       No questions.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Now I'd like to ask the Environment and Climate
  Change Canada.  Go ahead.
  MS. WILSON:              Anne Wilson.  Thank you.
       And we have no questions.
  THE CHAIR:               Now Fisheries and Oceans
  Canada.
  MR. BEATTIE:             Alasdair Beattie with DFO.
       We have no questions, Mr. Chair.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Is there questions from members of public to
  Kivalliq Association?
       Okay.  I think that there is none.
       Board staff.
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Karén Kharatyan, Water Board.
       No question for Kivalliq Inuit Association,
  Mr. Chair.  Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       And Panel members?  Ross?  Makabe?
       Okay.  Thank you.
       Thank you, Kivalliq Inuit Association, for your
  presentation from last night.
       Are you wanting to continue or ...
  MR. MANZO:               That will be all for me.
  Thank you very much.
  THE CHAIR:               Okay.
       Teresa, do you want to take over for a minute?
  MS. MEADOWS:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Teresa
  Meadows, legal counsel for the Nunavut Water Board.
       So, Mr. Chair, similarly, Crown-Indigenous
  Relations and Northern Affairs Canada -- their
  presentation -- their technical presentation was the
  same as the community presentation provided yesterday.
  So, subject to any follow-up that Crown-Indigenous
  Relations Northern Affairs Canada has today, we would
  then suggest that we go into questioning after CIRNAC
  has had an opportunity to provide any follow-up.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you, Teresa.
       CIRNAC, if you have some follow-up, go ahead.
  MR. DEWAR:               Matna, Mr. Chair.  Spencer
  Dewar, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
  Canada.
       We don't have any follow-up, but we're open for
  questions.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       I'd like to start with the Applicants.  If you
  have questions, you may go ahead.
  Agnico Eagle Mines Limited Questions Crown-Indigenous
  Relations and Northern Affairs Canada
  MR. QUESNEL:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Jamie
  Quesnel, Agnico Eagle.
       We just have one clarification on Slide 6 just
  dealing with the cover designs being approved in
  concept only.  It is our understanding that we will be
  submitting our designs for the waste rock storage
  facility, and those are to be considered final -- final
  design as per that submission.  And so I'm just
  wondering if CIRNAC -- Crown-Indigenous Relations and
  Northern Affairs could confirm that's their
  understanding.
  MR. DEWAR:               Matna, Mr. Chair.  Spencer
  Dewar, Crown-Indigenous Relations Northern Affairs
  Canada.
       To be clear, we do support the waste rock storage
  facility design.  I -- I do believe "conceptual" is
  probably a poor choice of words.  What we were trying
  to convey there is that we realize the construction of
  the waste rock storage facility will be subject to
  ongoing monitoring, and we're -- what we're -- we just
  want to make sure that that's considered as the waste
  rock design is developed.  So it's probably best that
  there's a -- there's a view to apply adaptive
  management if it needs it as -- as the waste rock
  storage facility's being constructed.  I hope that
  clarifies our slide.
  MR. QUESNEL:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Jamie
  Quesnel, Agnico Eagle.
       Thanks for that clarification.  And also our
  adaptive management plan has been designed that way to
  include mitigation measures related to the monitoring
  results from the waste rock storage facility, so that's
  all part of the adaptive management plan that's been
  submitted to the Board.  Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Now I'd like to call on Environment and Climate
  Change Canada.
  MS. WILSON:              Thank you.  Anne Wilson, ECCC.
       No questions.
  THE CHAIR:               I've skipped the Inuit
  Kivalliq Association.  If you have a question, you may
  go ahead.
  MR. MANZO:               Luis Manzo, Kivalliq Inuit
  Association.
       No questions at this time.  Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       DFO, if you have a question, go ahead.
  MR. BEATTIE:             Hi.  Alasdair Beattie with
  DFO, Mr. Chair.
       We have no questions at this time.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       I'd like to call on members of the public if you
  have questions to CIRNAC presentation.
       Okay.  I think that there's none.
       So, staff -- Water Board staff, do you have
  questions?
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Karén Kharatyan, Water Board.
  Thank you, Mr. Chair.
       No -- no question for Crown-Indigenous Relations
  and Northern Affair.  Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Panel members, do you have questions?
       Okay.  There's none.
       Thank you, CIRNAC, for your presentation.
       Now I'd like to call Environment and Climate
  Change Canada for your presentation.
       Teresa, go ahead.
  MS. MEADOWS:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Teresa
  Meadows, legal counsel for the Nunavut Water Board.
       Mr. Chair, I have a hard copy of the presentation
  that Environment and Climate Change Canada is about to
  provide, and it is in English and Inuktitut, and I will
  be filing that as the next exhibit in the public
  hearing.  Those are my procedural matters.  Thank you,
  Mr. Chair.
       EXHIBIT 13 - Hard Copy PowerPoint
       Presentation Whale Tail Pit Expansion Project
       Presentation to the Nunavut Water Board by
       Environment and Climate Change Canada
       (Community Session) (English/Inuktitut)
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Climate Change Canada, go ahead with your
  presentation.
  Presentation by Environment and Climate Change Canada
  MS. WILSON:              Thank you, Mr. Chair, members
  of the Board, Elders, other community members, Board
  staff, and parties here today.  Just to set your mind
  at ease, I'm not going to give my full presentation.
  You heard the front end of it last night.  I'm going to
  skip over those concerns that have been resolved with
  the proponent, and basically I will just speak to about
  four slides.  So you're going to get the short version.
       I did want to comment that Agnico Eagle has been
  very proactive in working to resolve the issues that
  have been raised, and the first topic that I'm going to
  mention is fairly minor.  It is more of a wording
  issue, as there seems to be a common understanding.
  I'll just flip over to our FC7.
       Okay.  So Agnico Eagle has proposed a post-closure
  monitoring period of three years.  This is reasonable
  based on the fact that they'll have years of closure
  period monitoring leading up to that.  This should
  provide a good understanding of the water quality as
  they go along.  However, setting the three years as
  cast in stone may or may not be appropriate, depending
  on conditions at the time.  This should be contingent
  on having stable water quality and meeting predictions
  and objectives at that time.
       So while ECCC does not take issue with the
  three-year period proposed, we would recommend that the
  wording be an estimated period consistent with water
  quality and in line with predictions and objectives.
       ECCC has reviewed the draft licence frameworks
  that were provided by Agnico Eagle, both the version
  that came out December 20th, 2019, as well as the
  response to proponent's versions which were included
  with the January 30th submission and had minor
  differences.  There are three main areas that I would
  like to highlight for further consideration, and I will
  avoid wordsmithing as these are more broad-brush areas.
  The first one deals with a proposed removal of total
  dissolved solids as a regulated parameter from both of
  the Type "A" licences.
       The Agnico Eagle response document provided some
  text as rationale for removal of TDS as a regulated
  parameter in Licence Items F3 and F4 between the two
  licences.  I'll just quote what they had written.
  (as read)
       ECCC has not identified TDS as a parameter of
       potential concern, a deleterious substance,
       in Schedule 4 of the Metal and Diamond Mining
       Effluent Regulations.  Further, the only
       mining Type "A" water licences that include
       TDS or total dissolved solids as a regulated
       parameter in Nunavut are the Whale Tail,
       Meadowbank, and Meliadine Type "A" water
       licences.  Therefore, total dissolved solids
       is not considered a parameter of particular
       concern.  Acute toxicity testing of effluent
       required by the water licence and the MDMER
       would ensure that discharges are protective
       of Nunavut waters, and continuing monitoring
       of TDS would ensure that any trends of
       interest are appropriately considered.  It is
       also noted that several of the parameters
       listed in Part F, Item 4 include more
       stringent discharge requirements than ECCC
       has included in Schedule 4 of the MDMER.
  In response to that, ECCC notes that whether or not a
  parameter is listed in the MDMER is not relevant to
  whether it should be regulated under a water licence.
  The MDMER represent a minimum national standard for
  effluent discharge quality.  It does not preclude
  setting more stringent standards where warranted on the
  basis of protection for pristine or sensitive receiving
  environments, which is the case in Nunavut here.  And
  other mines in Nunavut and the NWT do have limits for
  TDS in their water licences or, alternatively, have
  limits on the individual constituents that make up the
  TDS.  ECC [sic] does agree with Agnico Eagle that
  bioassay testing and ongoing monitoring of TDS will be
  important.
       Going specifically to the Whale Tail project, the
  predictions in the effluent quality report for Whale
  Tail appear to indicate the TDS concentrations will be
  under about 500 milligrams per litre.  Similarly,
  discharges from the Vault attenuation pond at ST10 on
  the Meadowbank site should have also very low levels of
  TDS, as that pit did not intercept saline groundwater.
  In discussions with Agnico Eagle, it was stated that,
  given these concentrations, there is no need to
  regulate TDS at Whale Tail or Vault.  ECCC agrees.
       Looking now at the Meadowbank site, discharges
  from the Meadowbank mine site from the tailings
  facility plus the mill effluent are to be discharged
  into the mined-out Goose and Portage pits until closure
  when the pits will be filled.  Predictions from the
  in-pit deposition licence amendment showed total
  dissolved solids levels will be above current licence
  limits, and the main constituent will be sulphate.
       ECC had flagged this issue in the environmental
  assessment and in the licence amendment processes, and
  Agnico Eagle has stated that there would be further
  work done -- done leading up to the final closure and
  reclamation plan to address high sulphate and high TDS.
       This leads me to the concern with the request for
  extending the Meadowbank licence to 2033.  It had been
  initially contemplated that review of the water quality
  for TDS and sulphate would be done in a renewal process
  in 2025 initially, then 2026.  Going past this initial
  period, there would be the potential within this
  current water licence, if amended to 2033, for
  discharge of treated effluent to the lakes.  And at the
  predicted levels of total dissolved solids and
  sulphate, there could be concern if there was no
  regulatory criteria set for this parameter.
       Agnico Eagle correctly notes that all such
  discharges do have to be non-acutely toxic, and ECC
  notes that there should also be an evaluation of
  loadings and the receiving environment capacity to
  assimilate discharges.  So it's not just the end of
  pipe effects of toxicity; it's also what's going to
  happen when it goes into the lakes and how much that
  lake can assimilate.  And that evaluation has not been
  done yet.
       Okay.  The second item I was going to touch on is
  the proposed process for the approval of plans.
  Initially in the first draft, Agnico Eagle had
  introduced the idea of plans being considered as
  approved after a certain period of time unless
  otherwise advised by the Board.  Initially, this was in
  Item B11 and had a 45-day period after which they would
  be deemed approved.
       In the response provided January 30th, the deemed
  approval clause was removed from B11 and put into B15
  with the statement that:  (as read)
       Unless the Board otherwise advises, plans and
       amendments submitted under this licence shall
       be deemed to be approved by the Board within
       15 days of submission by the licence.
  Not only is this wording broader than the plans which
  are specified in that particular section, but it
  attaches what we feel is an unreasonably short time
  frame for approval by default to happen.  And we
  suggest that approval should continue to be explicit
  with practical time frames specified that work for
  everyone.
       Okay.  And the last item I have is regarding the
  proposed extension of the Meadowbank licence.  While we
  have done a thorough review of the proposed draft
  licence terms for Whale Tail and a reasonably in-depth
  look of the Meadowbank ones, it has not been done with
  a view to it being renewed in 2033.  Questions will
  arise on the activities associated with the in-pit
  disposal and water treatment if the licence period
  spans that and development of any closure site-specific
  water quality objectives that are brought forward.
  While there's the opportunity to review items in the
  normal Water Board processes, it would seem unusual to
  have a licence that bridges closure without thoroughly
  reviewing such an amendment.  Just thinking of the
  timing as outlined in the ICRP for Meadowbank, the dike
  opening or reconnection is currently scheduled for
  about 2030.  So that would be three years before the
  end of licence, and active closure and closure
  monitoring also ends in -- goes to 2030.  So I think
  there should be further review of any changes to the
  licence term.
       Okay.  And, with that, I will be happy to try and
  answer any questions.  Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you, Environment and
  Climate Change Canada, for the presentation, and I'll
  open for questions, comments.
       I'd like to start with the Applicant.
  Agnico Eagle Mines Limited Questions Environment and
  Climate Change Canada
  MR. QUESNEL:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Jamie
  Quesnel, Agnico Eagle.
       There may be -- mostly it's going to be
  clarification.  There may be a few questions.  But just
  based on the first comment related to the post-closure
  of three years.  In our approved water licence, we do
  have three years' post-closure monitoring in the
  approved water licence for Whale Tail.  And also part
  of that, we have eight years of monitoring within the
  closure window.
       For the expansion project, the application that's
  in front of us right now, we do have 18 years during
  the closure window primarily for the re-flood of the
  Whale Tail and IVR pits.  So we feel confident that
  during that -- those 18 years and as communicated with
  the intervenors, our monitoring program will exhibit
  stability related to the water quality during that
  time.
       In addition, in the water licence, we have a
  condition that we cannot reconnect or breach the dikes
  until the water quality meets those objectives at that
  time.  So there's another level of control related to
  that.  So it's possible, most unlikely, that the water
  quality would not meet those objectives in the 18 years
  windows -- in the 18-year window, but if it does, we
  would not be able to reconnect or breach the regional
  watershed into the pit lake, and then that window would
  extend until we have stability and then we breach.
  Then we just have the three years' post-closure
  monitoring.  And as per our agreed upon security right
  now for the Whale Tail Expansion Project, this is all
  based on the three years' post-closure monitoring.  So
  I think we exhibit that we have enough -- we have a
  duration of monitoring that would provide us confidence
  with the stability of the water quality within the --
  the pit lake prior to breaching.  So we feel the three
  years' post-closure based on the design of this
  operation is sufficient.
       Dealing with the total dissolved solids,
  appreciate the comments related to Whale Tail and Vault
  regarding the total dissolved solids.  However, I just
  want to provide a little bit more clarity from Agnico
  Eagle's point of view related to total dissolved solids
  and related to Meadowbank comments from Environment
  Climate Change -- Change and Canada [sic].
       Agnico Eagle's been assessing total dissolved
  solids.  We do see that we have measured data that
  highlights a higher number than the regulated number
  than we have right now.  So we're assessing the
  approach to develop this number, which we think it can
  be incorporated at Meadowbank.  We always stated that
  we would monitor total dissolved solids, but we feel it
  should not be regulated as per the licence.  As all
  operations are a little bit different, we always
  started with a number for a total dissolved solids at
  1,400 at the three operations.  So we feel -- we're
  establishing an approach to develop a number related to
  total dissolved solids.
       In addition, as mentioned with Meadowbank, we are
  retaining this water within the pits right now as that
  is our primary tailings deposition, and we will not be
  discharging any water until we get into a final closure
  plan.  So we feel the removal of TDS is still
  applicable for Meadowbank based on the conditions that
  we have right now within the operation at Meadowbank,
  and we -- and an approach can establish a more relevant
  number for total dissolved solids.  We've been -- as
  I've been saying, we've been assessing this.  We do
  have measured data with -- with acute toxicity, which
  is primarily within the footprint, and chronic
  toxicity, which is in -- within the receiver.  So we're
  seeing numbers much higher which is showing no
  environmental effect related to total dissolved solids.
  So I -- we feel our request for removing total
  dissolved solids on the Meadowbank licence is relevant.
       In addition, just for additional clarity, based on
  the comments related to the projected sulphate
  concentrations and also total dissolved solids related
  to the water quality within the pit at Meadowbank for
  our tailings deposition, that was based on an 8-metre
  water head for a full capacity of tailings within the
  pits, which we do not have right now.  We don't have
  that volume of material to process under any licence
  right now.  Even if we do receive approval to go ahead
  with the Whale Tail expansion, we will not meet the
  full capacity.  So the projection related to the volume
  of water, the head of water -- if we do receive
  approval for the Whale Tail project, we would have
  double the water volume as a water column above the
  tailings.  So the projections that was referred to was
  an 8-metre water head.  If we receive approval for the
  expansion, that ore goes through the mill; we produce
  tailings; we deposit in the pit.  At the end of that
  day, we would have approximately 20 metres of water
  over the -- the tailings.  So, basically, the numbers
  that we've -- has been presented or commented on is
  very -- is kind of a -- is a conservative approach
  based on the predictions.
       I just wanted to comment on the duration of the
  licence.  I just have to confer with my colleague.  One
  second -- one minute, please.
  MR. GROLEAU:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Michel
  Groleau from Agnico Eagle.
       So just to clarify the date for the closure of the
  Meadowbank project.  So the sequence is that we are
  completing the end of deposition in 2026.  Flooding
  will occur from 2026 to 2028.  And then the monitoring
  period will be extended until 2033.  So we can find the
  detail of those date within the tailings management
  plan that was issued as part of the project certificate
  reconsideration for the Whale Tail Expansion Project on
  December 2018 on the Nunavut Impact Review Board
  website.  Thank you.
  MR. QUESNEL:             Thank you, Michel.
       Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Jamie Quesnel, Agnico
  Eagle.
       And also part of that for -- for closure, like we
  know, we would have to submit a final closure plan one
  year prior to the closure that would have to be
  reviewed by all parties.  And so there would be more
  details related to the -- the final closure objectives
  and criteria for the Meadowbank licence.
       Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Jamie Quesnel, Agnico
  Eagle.  We're just going to ask Gary Lawrence just to
  add a few things regarding total dissolved solids.
  MR. LAWRENCE:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Gary
  Lawrence, Golder Associates, representing Agnico.
       Thank you, ECC [sic], as well for the thoughtful
  comments.  I just wanted to clarify one thing.  We do
  understand the concern about not having any regulatory
  oversight over the TDS.  However, I also wanted to
  emphasize that the plan that Jamie Quesnel set forth
  effectively replaces a -- a simplistic numerical
  management of TDS with something that we think is
  better, and it has three main components, all of which
  are intended to protect the receiving environment water
  quality.  The first of those is protection against
  acute toxicity at the point of release, which was
  mentioned, and everyone, I think, would agree to that.
  The second component is a demonstration that discharges
  would not result in chronic toxicity at the edge of the
  mixing zone.  The data that have been collected to date
  are informative in that regard.  Additional data could
  be collected on a site-specific basis to strengthen
  that case.  The third component is to provide evidence
  that the assimilative capacity of the receiver would
  not be threatened by the release.
       So, effectively, what is being proposed is to
  replace a simplistic numerical approach to management
  of TDS with a process that is site-specific and that
  protects the three main components of the receiving
  environment that we believe are the basis for effective
  protection of the aquatic environment.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you, Applicant.
       Go ahead, ECCC.
  MS. WILSON:              Thank you, Mr. Chair.  It's
  Anne Wilson, ECCC.
       Thank you for those clarifications, and if I may,
  I -- they give rise to a few questions in my mind, if I
  can just ask those.  And I'll do them one at a time.
       With respect to the Meadowbank site, you've stated
  that the water is going to be retained in the pits
  until reconnection; however, the plan currently is for
  treatment of metals, and will there be any discharge of
  treated effluent anywhere other than the pits?
  MR. QUESNEL:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Jamie
  Quesnel, Agnico Eagle.
       So the -- the only discharge that could occur
  would be from the pit footprint.  Like, the treatment
  would be primarily in situ prior to any reconnection if
  required.  But if we reach -- if we're treating water
  and we meet the requirements, we may -- we may
  discharge that water to the environment before the
  reconnection; however, there -- at this time, based on
  the existing plan at Meadowbank, that would be the only
  location of any -- any potential discharge.  So
  hopefully I answered your question.
  MS. WILSON:              Thank you for that.  Anne
  Wilson, ECCC.
       The treated effluent would not be treated for
  total dissolved solids so conceivably could be quite
  high in both sulphate and TDS, the -- which could be
  parameters for concern, acknowledging, as has been
  pointed out, that it would not be acutely toxic.
       So I was interested in the plan that Gary
  referenced there -- that sounds like an interesting
  approach -- and was just curious as to the timing for
  this plan.  And if I understand correctly, it's
  separate from the adaptive management plan and
  wondering if this is going to be proposed as a
  standalone for -- for Meadowbank as well.
  MR. QUESNEL:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Jamie
  Quesnel, Agnico Eagle.
       Yes.  Like, we do have some time in front of us.
  That's why we still feel our proposal to remove the TDS
  regulated limit is -- is a preferred approach, and we
  do have time in front of us to implement this -- this
  plan based on Gary's comments.  The approach would be
  independent of the adaptive management plan.  And,
  again, we are assessing TDS with measured data.  So we
  have a good understanding of the -- of the approach and
  what the results are showing us, and we would like to
  develop that for -- for Meadowbank.  So it would be an
  independent study related to the Meadowbank situation.
  But we do have time in front of us based on our
  discussion of the timeline up to closure.  So we feel
  we still can remove this TDS regulated limit.  We would
  monitor it, plus we would develop this new approach to
  come up with a more reasonable limit for total
  dissolved solids.
  MS. WILSON:              Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Anne
  Wilson, ECCC.
       I'll just go on to my last two questions.  Thank
  you for clarifying that the predictions for the pit
  water quality are likely to be better than originally
  put out there.  Can you advise whether there will be
  new predictions based on the 20-metre water cover
  provided.
  MR. QUESNEL:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Jamie
  Quesnel, Agnico Eagle.
       The updated water quality forecast will be
  provided in the annual report, which is due end of
  March, early April.  Thank you.
  MS. WILSON:              Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Anne
  Wilson, ECCC.
       And just a question on the ICRP.  Will this be
  updated to reflect the dates that you have provided?
  The dates that I mentioned came from the most current
  version that's been approved and just wondering if
  that's going to be updated as well.
  MR. QUESNEL:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Jamie
  Quesnel, Agnico Eagle.
       Just to confirm, you're referring to the
  Meadowbank ICRP?  Yes, that will be updated.
  MS. WILSON:              Thank you.  Anne Wilson, ECCC.
       And that was all my points of clarification asked.
  Thanks.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       I'd like to move on to Kivalliq Inuit Association.
  If you have a question to ECCC, you may go ahead.
  MR. MANZO:               Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
       I have no questions at this time.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
  Canada.
  MR. DEWAR:               Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Spencer
  Dewar, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
  Canada.
       No questions.
  THE CHAIR:               Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
  MR. BEATTIE:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.
  Alasdair Beattie with Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
       We have no questions.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Is there questions from members of public?
       Okay.  I think that there's none.
       Board staff, you have questions?
  Nunavut Water Board Staff Questions Environment and
  Climate Change Canada
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Karén Kharatyan, Water Board.
  Thank you, Mr. Chair.
       A couple of additional clarification from ECCC.
  Anne, could -- could you confirm the Environment and
  Climate Change Canada position that TDS could be
  removed from Whale Tail Pit as regulated parameter and
  from Vault discharge -- effluent discharge list or
  criteria list but keeping with Meadowbank because we
  have two tables -- yes, we have two, yes, for Portage,
  yes, discharge -- until closure of Meadowbank sites.
  MS. WILSON:              Anne Wilson, ECCC.
       I can confirm that there are no concerns with
  removing TDS as a regulated parameter from the Whale
  Tail site or from the Vault site, but I feel that there
  needs to be further discussion of the Portage
  discharge, ST10, I believe it is.
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Thank you.
       One more question to ECCC.  Karén Kharatyan, Water
  Board.  From my understanding in -- 2021st [sic] will
  be new or updated numbers of effluent criteria under
  MDMER, whether -- whether or not these will be
  applicable to Whale Tail Pit licence, for example, and
  whether or not, if it's applicable, ECCC thinks that
  unionized ammonia should be included as regulated
  parameter.
  MS. WILSON:              Thank you for that.  It's Anne
  Wilson, ECCC.
       In June of 2021, the parameters will change for
  this mine under the MDMER, and that will be an included
  parameter, unionized ammonia.  Yeah.
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Karén Kharatyan, Water Board.
  Thank you, Anne.
       One more clarification for -- maybe from Agnico
  Eagle.  You provided new numbers for closure related to
  the closure of Meadowbank site.  So just to confirm
  whether 2028 was the closure date, yes?  And whether
  you -- Agnico Eagle is planning to submit the final
  closure reclamation plan -- so one year prior will be
  2027.
  MR. QUESNEL:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Jamie
  Quesnel, Agnico Eagle.
       The closure -- the final closure plan for
  Meadowbank would be the end of -- we would have to
  submit that in 2025.  The end of production through the
  through-put -- through the mill will be 2026, and then
  the flooding would occur from '26 to '28.  Thank you.
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Thank you.  Karén Kharatyan.
  Thank you, Mr. Chair.
       Maybe one for clarification from ECCC.  Anne,
  could you confirm that unionized ammonia that we
  mentioned for Whale Tail Pit will be applicable to be
  added to Meadowbank licence as well.
  MS. WILSON:              Anne Wilson, ECCC.
       That is my understanding, that by 2021 all mines
  will be subject to be regulated for unionized ammonia.
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Thank you.  Karén Kharatyan
  for Water Board.  Mr. Chair, Assol has a question for
  Environment and Climate Change Canada.
  MS. KUBEISINOVA:         Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Assol
  Kubeisinova, Nunavut Water Board.
       Could ECC [sic] please clarify if it has a
  position on the potential of Lake D5 for effluent
  discharge considering the initial data that Agnico
  provided?  Thank you.
  MS. WILSON:              Anne Wilson, ECCC.
       We had initially requested that new watersheds not
  be used for waste disposal unless they have no other
  options to do so, and Agnico Eagle was requested to do
  the biological and baseline work to be able to monitor
  change in the event that it was used for effluent
  disposal at some point.  So I think that it is a
  reasonable contingency, but we hope they don't have to
  use it.
  MS. KUBEISINOVA:         Thank you.  Assol Kubeisinova,
  Nunavut Water Board.
       What is ECCC's view in regards to the proponent's
  suggestion and discussion of pH as a monitored
  parameter in effluent from dewatering?  I'm just going
  to quote Agnico Eagle's response in that regard.
  (as read)
       For pH, Agnico Eagle recommends that it is
       retained as a monitored parameter because
       dewatering to the receiving environment
       represents the transfer of water.  That would
       be considered a like-for-like water transfer.
  MS. WILSON:              Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Anne
  Wilson, ECCC.
       We don't have concerns with removing pH as a
  regulated parameter.  It's a reasonable basis to do so,
  and some of the other licences for dewatering do simply
  just have TDS as the regulated parameter -- I'm sorry,
  'T' -- TSS, total suspended solids.
  MS. KUBEISINOVA:         Thank you, Mr. Chair.
       No more questions.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Panel members, do you have questions?  Okay.
  Thank you.
       Thank you, ECCC, for your presentation.
       Move on.  Now, Fisheries -- Fisheries and Oceans
  Canada will have -- I'll ask them to have presentation.
  Before -- before doing so, Teresa, take the floor.
  MS. MEADOWS:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Teresa
  Meadows, legal counsel for the Nunavut Water Board.
       So, Mr. Chair, I have the hard copies of the
  PowerPoint presentation for the technical session that
  are -- that is about to be presented by Fisheries and
  Oceans Canada, and I have a copy in English and
  Inuktitut, and I will be marking those as the next two
  exhibits in this public hearing.  And those are my
  procedural matters, Mr. Chair.
       EXHIBIT 14 - Hard Copy PowerPoint
       Presentation Agnico Eagle Mines Limited's
       "Whale Tail Expansion" Project Presentation
       to the Nunavut Water Board by Fisheries and
       Oceans Canada (DFO) (English)
       EXHIBIT 15 - Hard Copy PowerPoint
       Presentation Agnico Eagle Mines Limited's
       "Whale Tail Expansion" Project Presentation
       to the Nunavut Water Board by Fisheries and
       Oceans Canada (DFO) (Inuktitut)
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Okay.  Thank you.  You may go ahead, DFO.
  Presentation by Fisheries and Oceans Canada
  MR. BEATTIE:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  This is
  Alasdair Beattie with DFO.
       I'm wondering as a -- maybe a question to the
  Chair.  Before I proceed through this entire
  presentation, we had put a lot of this together prior
  to some additional information being provided by the
  proponent since we had to file this with the Board.
  Having said that, I think we could say that last night
  the presentation that I provided at the community
  meeting more accurately represents DFO's current
  position.  If it please the Board, we could let that
  stand and move directly to questions, or I could
  continue to go through.
  THE CHAIR:               Yeah.  Legal counsel.
  MS. MEADOWS:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Teresa
  Meadows, legal counsel for the Nunavut Water Board.
       Mr. Chair, I think we do have time for you to
  present your presentation, if you just want to
  highlight where there are changes to your presentation
  because we do have this as a hard copy on the -- on the
  record, and it's helpful for people following along in
  the transcript, as we know people are wont to do, to be
  able to tell where there may have been changes to your
  presentation and updates in terms of items that have
  been resolved.  It also helps the Board be able to
  track through the resolution of issues as -- as you're
  going through.  So if you wouldn't mind presenting this
  and just flagging where you -- where you've resolved
  issues since.
  MR. BEATTIE:             Well, good morning, then,
  Mr. Chairman.  Thank you.  And members of the Board and
  the staff of the Board.  And thank you to the community
  of Baker Lake.  My name is Alasdair Beattie.  I'm the
  acting team lead with Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the
  Fish and Fish Habitat Protection Program.  And
  accompanying me in the back here are Edyta Ratajczyk
  and José Audet-Lecouffe, biologists with Fisheries and
  Oceans Canada and the Fish and Fish Habitat Protection
  Program.
       Just a quick overview again of what we'll be going
  through, a little bit of our mandate, legislation and
  policy; final comments, submission, and
  recommendations; conclusions; questions and comments.
       If it pleases everybody, I will spare us going
  through most of the legislation and policy pieces since
  a lot of that was covered over last night and move
  directly to the recommendations and what may or may not
  have changed.
       Similar -- similar to last night, we were focusing
  our review at this stage on these three critical areas:
  Fish passage where -- the impact of the road
  widening -- the haul road widening to water crossings;
  water use within the pit during the operations and
  closure; and impacts -- potential impacts to downstream
  environments and accounting for changes in fish habitat
  there.
       Regarding the fish passage issue, we acknowledge
  that the proponent has submitted information related to
  fish passage as part of the current NIRB and NWB
  processes, and we'd acknowledge that they have
  committed to ensuring fish passage requirements are met
  and that discussions regarding fish passage will
  continue during the permitting stage.  DFO notes that
  the proponent has provided the request for review for
  the proposed -- in particular, a culvert of concern in
  this haul road and for the widening of that particular
  area and along with the estimated velocities for fish
  passage.
       Our recommendation to the Board has not changed,
  but we recognize that we have had additional
  information and work with Agnico -- with the proponent
  and will continue to do so.  So our recommendation is
  that the proponent continue to work with DFO to ensure
  that all watercourse crossings over fish-bearing
  watercourses are able to adequately enable fish
  passage.
       Regarding water use, the issue is that the
  calculation of available volumes, monitoring of
  withdrawal from water bodies, and accounting of volumes
  taken from all potential water sources remains
  important to DFO.  DFO is open to continued discussion
  regarding the approaches to calculations consistent
  with approaches and reporting.  DFO will continue
  discussions with the proponent regarding the fish-out
  methodology and data requirements notably given the
  benefits to increasing the knowledge of the northern
  aquatic ecosystems.
       I'd also like to note that currently this week, I
  believe, the MacKenzie Valley Environmental Impact
  Review Board has convened a meeting that DFO is also
  participating in where they will be discussing water
  withdrawal among other issues and potentially different
  approaches from the current guidance that DFO does
  provide; however, our guidance still stands at this
  time.
       Our first recommendation is that the proponent
  commit to meeting with DFO prior to the water
  withdrawals to discuss expectations regarding under-ice
  volume calculations, monitoring withdrawals, and
  communications prior to reporting as part of the
  Fisheries Act authorizations.  I believe they have
  committed to such a meeting.
       We also -- I believe most of the information in
  this recommendation here has been provided by the
  proponent since we've put this together.  So this one
  is no longer -- we consider this one resolved.
       The final recommendation is that they -- the
  proponent commit to meeting with DFO to discuss
  requirements related to fish-outs, including collection
  of data to support the research, for example, conducted
  under the existing Fisheries Act authorization for the
  approved project as well as future initiatives.
       Moving to the downstream -- moving to the
  downstream environment.  DFO's requested quantitative
  information regarding the changes to water levels and
  surface area for downstream water bodies.  Some of that
  information's been provided.  DFO notes adequate
  monitoring is key to verifying the proponent's
  predictions and that impacts will fall within natural
  variation.  DFO is open to continued discussion
  regarding the approaches to calculations, monitoring,
  and reporting, and DFO is supportive of discussions
  related to Fisheries Act authorizations approval
  process.
       We believe that this recommendation in
  particular -- the information has been provided.  We
  consider this resolved.  That's Recommendation 3.3.1.
       We have had ongoing discussions and some other
  information has been provided by the proponent
  regarding 3.3.2 and 3.3.3, and we consider this
  resolved for the purpose of this hearing.
       3.3.4, provide examples of what approaches to
  monitoring are being included in the final offsetting
  plan with regards to verifying predictions in
  downstream percent changes and water levels, surface
  area, and volumes.  We have recently received an
  updated offsetting plan.  After this was submitted, it
  does contain some information, and there are at least
  discussion in there of downstream monitoring.  So for
  the purpose of this, we would like to have that --
  discussions continue but consider this to be resolved
  for the purpose of this hearing.
       3.3.5.  We would like the proponent to clarify
  where the information on the natural variation on
  the surface area and the volume for the lakes listed in
  3.4.7 other than A16 -- Lakes A16, A15, A12 and A67 can
  be located within their submissions.
       However, overall, I think the same message that we
  gave last night would continue.  We've had positive and
  ongoing discussions with the proponent.  We expect the
  ongoing discussions to continue going forward.  We feel
  that should the project be approved, we have a good
  basis for us to continue in our own regulatory process
  following the hearings.  Thank you.  Matna.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.  Thank you, DFO,
  for your presentation.
       Open up for questions, comments.  I'd like to
  start with Applicants.  If you have questions, you will
  do so.
  MR. QUESNEL:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Jamie
  Quesnel, Agnico Eagle.
       We have no questions to Department of Fisheries
  and Oceans, and we'd just like to thank DFO with the
  communication to date, and we look forward to have
  further discussions regarding the offsetting plans and
  the other guidance that is required as per your
  recommendations.  So the conversations have been very
  helpful to date, and we plan to continue with that
  collaboration.  Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       I'd like to ask Kivalliq Inuit Association if you
  have questions.
  Kivalliq Inuit Association Questions Fisheries and
  Oceans Canada
  MR. MANZO:               Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Luis
  Manzo, Kivalliq Inuit Association.
       I -- I have -- I have one comment to DFO in
  respect to the complementary measures in the offsetting
  plans.  I know in the last version of the expansion of
  the Whale Tail project the eDNA research was not
  considered, and I would like some -- some clarification
  from DFO and the conversation with AEM -- I don't know
  whether it's necessary to continue or not with the eDNA
  program.  I know that's not probably, but I wanted to
  make sure we have some -- some clarification with DFO
  in regard to the research.  Thank you.
  MR. BEATTIE:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  It's
  Alasdair Beattie with DFO.
       The eDNA monitoring program is -- is something
  that we could continue to have ongoing discussions with
  both the KIA and the proponent going forward as we move
  into the regulatory phase and discuss what conditions
  may or may not be attached to the authorization should
  the project be approved.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Go ahead, Kivalliq Inuit Association.
  MR. MANZO:               Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
       Thank you, DFO, for responding.  Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Now I'd like to ask the
  Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada.
  If you have questions, go ahead.
  MR. DEWAR:               Matna, Mr. Chair.  Spencer
  Dewar, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
  Canada.
       No questions for Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
  THE CHAIR:               Environment and Climate Change
  Canada, if you have questions, go ahead.
  MS. WILSON:              Thank you.  Anne Wilson, ECCC.
       No questions.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       I'd like to ask the members of public if you have
  any questions or comments.
       Okay.  I think that there's none.
       Board staff, go ahead.
  Nunavut Water Board Staff Questions Fisheries and
  Oceans Canada
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Karén Kharatyan, Water Board.
  Thank you, Mr. Chair.
       Just confirmation for our records.  Could DFO
  confirm that they do not have any unresolved question
  or concern associated with the licencing process.
  MR. BEATTIE:             We have no further questions
  or concerns associated with the licencing process, no.
  MR. KHARATYAN:           No more question, Mr. Chair.
  Thank you.  Karén Kharatyan.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Panel members?
       Okay.  I take that as there's none.
       Okay.  Now we are turning to an opportunity for
  each of the parties to provide us with brief closing
  remarks, but before doing that -- so I'd like to take a
  break now for lunch, and then -- so you have an
  opportunity -- enough opportunity to make your closing
  remarks put in place during the break.  So we'll come
  back here at 1:30 to do our closing remarks then.
  _______________________________________________________
  PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED UNTIL 1:30 PM
  _______________________________________________________
  (PROCEEDINGS RECOMMENCED AT 1:46 PM)
  Discussion
  THE CHAIR:               Good afternoon.  Before we go
  into closing remarks, I think there's some house --
  procedural matters we need to deal with.
       Teresa, take the floor.
  MS. MEADOWS:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Teresa
  Meadows, legal counsel for the Nunavut Water Board.
       So, Mr. Chair, there are a few exhibits that
  remain outstanding to be filed that have been provided
  to me in electronic form and circulated to the parties
  here, and so we will go into those procedural matters.
  But, first, there is a follow-up, I understand, with
  respect to the presentation from Environment and
  Climate Change Canada that Agnico Eagle and Environment
  and Climate Change Canada wish to speak to.  Thank you,
  Mr. Chair.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Go ahead.  Go ahead, Applicant.
  Submissions by Agnico Eagle Mines Limited
  MS. KOWBEL:              Thank you, Mr. Chair.
  Christine Kowbel for Agnico Eagle.
       Yes, Mr. Chair, we would just like to give an
  update to the Board.  Over the lunch break, Environment
  and Climate Change Canada and Agnico Eagle have had
  some further discussions about the outstanding concern
  that Environment and Climate Change Canada talked about
  this morning about removing total dissolved solid [sic]
  from the Meadowbank licence, and -- and I'm pleased to
  report that -- that they've found a path forward that
  would see the total dissolved solid discharge limit
  removed from the Meadowbank licence based on additional
  commitments Agnico has made, as well as some additional
  studies that would be, we would hope, incorporated in
  the water licence.  And so I'll ask Michel Groleau
  to -- to read in those discussions between Environment
  and Climate Change Canada and Agnico Eagle and then
  perhaps give Environment Canada a chance to respond and
  confirm.  Thank you, Mr. Chair.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Any further?
  MR. GROLEAU:             Michel Groleau, Agnico Eagle.
  Thank you, Mr. Chair.
       So we'll read the email we sent to Environment and
  Climate Change Canada during lunchtime.  So Environment
  and Climate Change Canada has agreed to the removal of
  total dissolved solid as a regulated parameters in the
  Whale Tail licence and also to remove all of the total
  dissolved solid in the Vault component of the
  Meadowbank water licence.  However, Agnico Eagle also
  remains committed to their request for removal of total
  dissolved solid as a regulated parameter in general
  from the Meadowbank licence.  Agnico Eagle has
  indicated that there's no planned discharge for the
  mine to the receiving environment until the pits are
  reconnected to the receiving environment.
       In this morning discussion, Environment and
  Climate Change Canada expressed interest in application
  of an alternative process for total dissolved solid
  management for Meadowbank which would be apply in the
  post-closure phase by which a single numerical limit is
  replaced with a site-specific and scientifically based
  process intended to achieve three components of aquatic
  life protection:  1, no acute toxicity at the point of
  discharge; 2, no unacceptable chronic toxicity at the
  edge of mixing zone; and 3, evaluation of assimilation
  capacity in receiving environment.
       Given the schedule for release at Meadowbank,
  there is ample time, at least six to eight years, to
  better understand the chemical composition of the
  discharge effluent, continue research in the total
  dissolved solid toxicity to relevant test organism, and
  to develop a more scientifically defencible discharge
  limit and corresponding site-specific water quality
  objective.  This approach would be consistent with what
  is currently underway for the Meliadine operation.
       It is Agnico intent to continue engagement with
  Environment Climate Change Canada and communicate with
  other regulators and the Board on the design and
  outcomes of these programs.  Would Environment and
  Climate Change Canada now support the removal of total
  dissolved solid from the Meadowbank licence if the
  Board includes licence wording that require Agnico
  Eagle to provide a report which address Items 1 to 3
  above as part of the final closure plan for Meadowbank
  or before?
       So in response to that, Environment Climate Change
  Canada ask the imposition of the discharge limit for
  total dissolved solid is not a concern for effluent
  going into the pits, as the water quality will have to
  meet objective prior to reconnection.  Is Agnico Eagle
  able to commit to no discharge to the receiving
  environment prior to development and approval of the
  described plan?
       And in response to Environment and Climate Change
  Canada, Agnico Eagle commit to not discharge to the
  receiving environment prior to the development and
  approval of the described plan.
       Agnico Eagle would recommend the Nunavut Water
  Board to capture this agreed approach on the definition
  of new total dissolved solid criteria as part of the
  updated water licence.  Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Any comments?  Climate Change -- Environment and
  Climate Change Canada.
  Submissions by Environment and Climate Change Canada
  MS. WILSON:              Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Anne
  Wilson with Environment and Climate Change Canada.
       As alluded to earlier, our concern with the
  removal of the TDS limit pertained to potential
  discharges with the higher sulphate limits and the
  higher TDS that are predicted to exceed the licence
  limits as they stand now.  That had never been assessed
  in the previous water licence or in the environmental
  assessment before.
       So when the proposal was made to switch to a
  site-specific approach, I would support the use of the
  acute and chronic toxicity and, equally importantly,
  the evaluation of effects in the receiving environment.
  And my understanding or hope would be that this plan
  will have to be approved by the Board with review by
  everybody prior to any implementation.  And if there is
  no discharge to the receiving environment between now
  and then, that would alleviate our concerns with the
  removal of the limit.  So if there's any questions on
  that, I'd be happy to answer them.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Any questions?
  MR. GROLEAU:             Michel Groleau, Agnico Eagle.
  Thank you, Mr. Chair.
       We don't have further comment, and we want to
  thanks -- thanks Environment and Climate Change Canada
  for the good discussion we have on that topic.  Thank
  you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       So I think we are ready to moving into closing
  statements.
  Discussion
  MS. MEADOWS:             Mr. Chair?  Thank you,
  Mr. Chair.  Teresa Meadows, legal counsel for the
  Nunavut Water Board.
       Mr. Chair, I still have some -- a few more
  housekeeping procedural matters to address before we go
  into closing remarks, so with your permission.
       So we've received several documents for filing
  proposed to be filed as exhibits in the public hearing.
  The first five documents are electronic copies of the
  resumes or curriculum vitae of Agnico Eagle's experts.
  So that would be CVs for Cameron Stevens, Gary
  Lawrence, John Faithful, Gillian Allen, and Nicola
  Lower, and I have received those electronic copies.
  They have also been circulated amongst legal counsel
  for the parties, and I just ask now if there are any
  objections on the part of any of the parties here to
  filing those electronic copies as the electronic
  exhibits in the public hearing.
       So if I can ask counsel for the KIA whether or not
  you have any objections to filing those exhibits.
  MS. KING:                It's Jennifer King, legal
  counsel for Kivalliq Inuit Association.  I have no
  objection.
  MS. MEADOWS:             And, Mr. Dewar, I don't know
  if you can speak on behalf of the quiet Mr. Kohlenberg,
  who is on the phone, but whether or not the federal
  family would have any objections to filing those
  exhibits.
  MR. DEWAR:               Thank you.  Spencer Dewar,
  Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada.
       We have no objections.
  MS. MEADOWS:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Teresa
  Meadows, legal counsel for the Nunavut Water Board.
       So, Mr. Chair, those exhibits I propose to file as
  the next five exhibits in the public hearing.
       EXHIBIT 16 - Electronic Copy Only Resume of
       Cameron Stevens (English)
       EXHIBIT 17 - Electronic Copy Only Resume of
       Gary Lawrence (English)
       EXHIBIT 18 - Electronic Copy Only Resume of
       John Faithful (English)
       EXHIBIT 19 - Electronic Copy Only Resume of
       Gillian Allen (English)
       EXHIBIT 20 - Electronic Copy Only Resume of
       Nicola Lower (English)
  MS. MEADOWS:             Moving on, this morning, the
  Kivalliq Inuit Association provided a document that
  provides commentary on some terms and conditions of the
  draft water licence.  It was also circulated to
  counsel, and I have an email confirmation from counsel
  for the Department of Justice that the Department has
  no objections to the filing of that material, but
  perhaps if I can get counsel for the Kivalliq Inuit
  Association to just set the table for what that exhibit
  is and -- and then we'll move to Agnico Eagle.  Thank
  you, Mr. Chair.
  MS. KING:                Thank you.  Thank you,
  Mr. Chair.  Jennifer King, legal counsel -- counsel for
  Kivalliq Inuit Association.
       Agnico Eagle's response package dated
  January 30th, 2020, enclosed revised recommended drafts
  of the water licences as we've heard which included
  additional revisions to the drafts that they filed on
  December 20th, 2019.  The Kivalliq Inuit Association
  provided some comments to the Board on Agnico Eagle's
  December 20th, 2019, drafts.  KIA has not
  comprehensively reviewed Agnico Eagle's January 30th
  draft licences.  And, to be clear, whether or not KIA
  has commented on a particular provision in Agnico
  Eagle's draft licences should not be taken to indicate
  support or not support.  That said, we also expect that
  the Board will exercise its discretion in issuing its
  licences and in reviewing the proposed drafts from
  Agnico Eagle.
       KIA does wish to make additional general comments
  regarding Agnico's January 30th drafts which it
  outlines in its proposed exhibit that we have sent to
  the Board legal counsel and to Department of Justice
  and legal counsel for Agnico Eagle.  Having no
  objections to submitting it, we ask that the electronic
  document be marked as the next exhibit.  I won't read
  out the comments in it, and I have seen some responding
  comments from Agnico Eagle, but perhaps we can deal
  with that -- any comments we have on that next.
  MS. MEADOWS:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Teresa
  Meadows, legal counsel for the Nunavut Water Board.
       So perhaps if I can turn to Agnico Eagle, if you
  have any objections to the proposed exhibit being
  entered in the public hearing record, being the
  comments provided by the Kivalliq Inuit Association
  this morning and circulated to legal counsel.
       Thank you, Mr. Chair.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Go ahead, Applicant.
  MS. KOWBEL:              My apologies, Mr. Chair.
  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Christine Kowbel, legal counsel
  for Agnico Eagle.
       Assuming it is the same document that was
  circulated by email this morning by KIA's legal
  counsel, Agnico Eagle has no concerns with KIA's
  comments being marked as an exhibit in this proceeding.
  Thank you.
  MS. MEADOWS:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Teresa
  Meadows, legal counsel for the Nunavut Water Board.
       So, Mr. Chair, with that, we will enter that
  document that was indeed circulated this morning at
  8:11 AM amongst legal counsel and copying
  Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada
  as the next exhibit in the public hearing.
       EXHIBIT 21 - Electronic Copy Only Kivalliq
       Inuit Association Comments on Agnico Eagle
       Mines Limited, January 30, 2010 Draft Water
       Licence Framework (English)
  MS. MEADOWS:             And in response to that
  submission, it's my understanding that Agnico Eagle
  also has a document that they wish to offer to also be
  filed on the public hearing record.  It was also
  circulated just after lunchtime amongst the -- amongst
  legal counsel for the parties, and if I can have
  Ms. Kowbel address what that document is and what's
  being offered for filing.  We will then turn to the
  parties after that.
  MS. KOWBEL:              Thank you, Mr. Chair.
  Christine Kowbel, legal counsel.  I would just like one
  moment to confer with my client.  Thank you.
       Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Christine Kowbel, legal
  counsel for Agnico Eagle.
       So what Agnico Eagle has done -- Kitikmeot
  Inuit -- or, sorry, Kivalliq Inuit Association had
  given their comments in a -- in a document this
  morning, and just for convenience of everybody, what
  Agnico's done in the interest of time is inserted just
  into that same document in bold and underline their
  comments on -- on those submissions of the Kivalliq
  Inuit Association.  We've tried to be constructive in
  those comments.  In some cases we've -- we've agreed
  with the Kivalliq Inuit Association's suggestions,
  and -- and we've tried to be clear about that.  And
  where we don't agree, we've tried to find
  commonplace -- common ground.  But -- but we do want to
  emphasize to the Board that -- that, just as the
  Kivalliq Inuit Association's legal counsel has said, we
  know that the -- the wording of the licence, the final
  wording on the licence is a decision for the Board and
  not for the proponent or -- or any of the parties.
  The -- the important thing for -- for the company is
  that -- I just want to emphasize that timeline is very
  important, that they do want to start work on this
  project if approved and -- in -- as early as May 2020.
  And so -- and so if there are disagreements with how
  the licence should be worded, we -- we don't want that
  to cause any delay.  We'd like the Board to make the
  decision about those things.  So those are my prefacing
  remarks, and -- and thank you very much to the Kivalliq
  Inuit Association for giving their input.  Thank you.
  MS. MEADOWS:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Teresa
  Meadows, legal counsel for the Nunavut Water Board.
       So perhaps we'll turn to the Kivalliq Inuit
  Association first to comment on whether or not you have
  any objections to this material being filed and entered
  as the next exhibit.  And then as a heads-up for
  Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada,
  I don't know if Dale is on the phone right now.  No?
  So I don't have from him a response to filing this, so
  I'm not sure if he's -- if he's got any objection.  So
  maybe if you can just email him, and perhaps we'll just
  mark it as an exhibit if you can't get ahold of him in
  the short term until after the closing remarks.  Thank
  you, Mr. Chair.
  MS. KING:                Thank you.  Jennifer King,
  legal counsel for Kivalliq Inuit Association.  Thank
  you, Mr. Chair.
       The Kivalliq Inuit Association appreciates Agnico
  Eagle's efforts to discuss KIA's comments over the past
  few days.  I have briefly reviewed Agnico Eagle's
  responding comments to KIA's comments.  The document
  comments on Agnico Eagle's beliefs regarding the
  Kivalliq Inuit Association's positions on certain
  matters.  I have not had the opportunity to review
  these responses with my client, and I'm not in a
  position to support Agnico Eagle's characterization of
  KIA's position with regards to a couple of issues
  there.  On that understanding, we do not object to
  these comments being marked as an exhibit at this
  public hearing.
  MS. MEADOWS:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Teresa
  Meadows, legal counsel for the Nunavut Water Board.
       So for the benefit of the parties who have not
  been able to either see these documents or, sort of,
  hear the tone and tenor, there are some statements that
  say "We believe that the Kivalliq Inuit Association is
  aligned with" -- and then -- and then there's a
  response from Agnico Eagle.  So the Board hears that --
  that limitation or notes that that limitation -- that
  there's not necessarily time and ability to confirm or
  deny that at this point.  So we will take that under
  advisement for any limitations that might be contained
  in the document.  But -- and we will, for now, mark
  this as an exhibit, and then I will follow up with --
  with Mr. Dewar if Dale has not been able to get back to
  you yet.
       So with that, Mr. Chair, I will mark it as an
  exhibit, and we'll defer the entry of that exhibit
  until -- until we've been able to confirm with
  Mr. Kohlenberg.
       EXHIBIT 22 - Electronic Copy Only Agnico
       Eagle Mines Limited Response to Exhibit 21
       (Kivalliq Inuit Association Comments on
       Agnico Eagle Mines Limited, January 30, 2010,
       Draft Water Licence Framework) (English)
  MS. MEADOWS:             And so, Mr. Chair, with that,
  those are the final procedural matters before we go
  into closing remarks.
  THE CHAIR:               Okay.  We'll now turn to
  opportunity for each of the parties to provide us with
  brief closing remarks starting with intervenors and
  ending with Applicant.  So start with Kivalliq Inuit
  Association.
  Closing Remarks by Kivalliq Inuit Association
  MR. MANZO:               Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  My
  name is Luis Manzo, Kivalliq Inuit Association.
       First of all, I would like to thank the Board.
  Also, I would like to thank the staff and the
  translators for the perfect work in these two -- two
  days.  It's very impressive how we went through all
  these hearings in very short period of time.  I also
  would like to thanks AEM for all their contribution
  in -- in exhaustive meetings that we cooperate.  Also,
  to the -- to the intervenors.  They also were flexible
  to KIA for any meaningful concerns that we may have and
  issues in which the federal government has
  responsibilities under the specific Acts.
       I would like to say that the Kivalliq Inuit
  Association is pleased at the results of the shared
  efforts and -- during this water licence process.  The
  KIA has worked hard along with the other intervenors
  and parties in this table and, more -- and, more
  importantly, with the community -- with the community
  members to ensure that the expansion of the Whale Tail
  project comply with the existing -- with the -- with
  the existing regulations and mandates.
       KIA will also like to remind AEM the important
  role KIA has as a landowner and in that role, also
  encompasses the comanagement component and
  responsibilities in regard to water.
       And, with that, I would like to rest -- ensure
  that the KIA primary concern is and will always be the
  protection of the people of the Kivalliq, its
  communities, its lands, its waters, and its wildlife.
  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Next to have a closing statement, Crown-Indigenous
  Relations and Northern Affairs.
  Closing Remarks by Crown-Indigenous Relations and
  Northern Affairs Canada
  MR. DEWAR:               Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Spencer
  Dewar, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
  Canada.
       Thank you to the Water Board and the Board members
  for hearing us.  Thank you to the hamlet of Baker Lake,
  my fellow intervenors, and to Agnico Eagle.  I'd also
  like to thank the translators and the transcriber.
       CIRNAC is satisfied with the information provided
  by Agnico Eagle, and we have no further concerns to be
  addressed within the water licencing process.  We would
  be remiss if we didn't speak to the draft water licence
  provided by Agnico Eagle.
       While CIRNAC has not provided detailed comments,
  we would like to speak broadly to a few highlighted
  areas.  We -- we have no objections for what was filed
  by the Kivalliq Inuit Association, and we broadly agree
  with what was provided today.
       The areas I would like to talk to are the
  provisions related to adaptive management.  I just want
  to be clear that CIRNAC believes that this adaptive
  management program should be providing flexibility to
  AEM.  The primary purpose of it is for environmental
  protection; therefore, it should provide as much
  clarity as it can, recognizing it would be limited to
  only allowing them to do things that have been assessed
  or reviewed by the Nunavut Water Board.
       The second thing I'd like to talk about is we just
  want to be cognizant that provisions of the water
  licence must not constrain or fetter the Minister of
  Northern Affairs or the Nunavut Water Board's
  decision-making powers or authority.
       And the third provision I'd like to speak to is
  related to security.  The Nunavut Water Board sets
  security, and it's the Minister that's responsible for
  holding it.  As such, the Minister of Northern Affairs
  takes this role very seriously when considering any
  reductions.  Therefore, in most cases, reductions in
  security would be subject to a water licence amendment.
  However, we would be open for future amendments to
  discuss schedules that were based on milestones to
  either ramp up the security or schedules that reflect
  progressive reclamation to reduce security.  These
  could be incorporated in a water licence for the
  consideration of a Minister.  Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Next to have a closing statement, Environment and
  Climate Change Canada.
  Closing Remarks by Environment and Climate Change
  Canada
  MS. WILSON:              Thank you, it's Anne Wilson
  with Environment and Climate Change Canada.
       And I would like to thank the Nunavut Water Board
  and the Panel for the opportunity to present our
  intervention on the expansion of the Whale Tail mine.
  This has been a constructive and productive process
  with good information exchange and discussion of
  concerns.  Thank you to the Board staff and, as always,
  to the translators and to PIDO for keeping our
  communications going.
       I would like to summarize our main recommendations
  on the few outstanding issues.  Those include basing
  the post-closure monitoring period on confirming stable
  water quality at the time and no unexpected conditions,
  noting that the three years as proposed is expected to
  be appropriate.  Next, retaining explicit approval of
  plans on a time frame that is reasonable all around.
  And, lastly, just to wrap up the discussion on the
  removal of the total dissolved solids limits, as
  mentioned earlier, our concern has been that there
  could be discharges to the receiving environment of
  effluent with high levels of TDS and/or sulphate, and
  that has never been assessed.  AEM has now proposed to
  develop the described site-specific approach to TDS
  discharge management and had asked whether this could
  be a condition of the licence in lieu of regulated
  discharge standards for TDS.
       If there are no discharges going to the receiving
  environment until an alternative approved approach has
  been developed, ECCC does not have concerns with
  removing the TDS limit for that time frame.  Agnico
  Eagle has committed to not discharging to the receiving
  environment and to developing the TDS approach
  described earlier as part of or before the submission
  of the final closure and reclamation plan.  Development
  of this approach will address the concern with
  unassessed TDS inputs into the lakes.  It is also our
  expectation that there will be further information on
  the pit water quality and proposed treatment methods
  for the major ions by that time.
       We hope that ECCC's submissions and presentation
  can be helpful to the Board in drafting the amended
  water licence, recognizing that all the decisions rest
  with the Board.  And in closing, I would like to
  commend the Board on a well-run hearing, as always, and
  particularly for the outstanding hospitality.  Thank
  you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       And, next, Fisheries and Oceans Canada to have its
  closing statement.
  Closing Remarks by Fisheries and Oceans Canada
  MR. BEATTIE:             Thank you.  It's Alasdair
  Beattie with Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
       Mr. Chairman and the Panel members, thank you for
  the opportunity for DFO to present its intervention to
  the Water Board's review of Whale Tail Pit Expansion
  Project as proposed by Agnico Eagle, and we hope our
  interventions have been useful and informative for the
  Board.
       In summary, if the project's approved, DFO will
  work with the proponent to address remaining technical
  aspects of fish and fish habitat protection in detail
  during the Fisheries Act authorization process.  In
  particular, we'll work with the proponent to finalize
  the offsetting plans, mitigate the potential for the
  death or -- of fish or the harmful alteration,
  disruption, or destruction of fish habitat from
  watercourse crossings, water withdrawals, and
  downstream effects.  DFO anticipates this can be done
  including -- by including clear monitoring, reporting,
  and adaptive management of the proposed activities.
       DFO would like to emphasize that we will also
  undertake additional consultations with Indigenous
  groups and take into account their recommendations
  during our regulatory process, including the
  development of Fisheries Act authorizations and the
  associated offsetting plans during our regulatory
  process.
       DFO hopes to continue collaboration and
  communications with the proponent to ensure DFO
  understands the details of the project and that the
  proponent understands the requirement to the Fisheries
  Act authorization process.  We recognize that the
  introduction of a new Fisheries Act can cause confusion
  for regulators and proponents alike; however, DFO hopes
  that new offsetting guidelines and other available
  policies, including those in development now, will
  provide clarity to the proponent in order to ensure the
  proponent can provide DFO the necessary information in
  a timely manner in order to avoid delays in Fisheries
  Act authorization processes.
       Again, we'd like to thank our hosts, the community
  of Baker Lake, the Chairman, the Board members and the
  Panel members, staff, especially the stenographer, and
  the translators.  Thank you.  Matna.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Next Agnico Eagle to have a closing statement.
  Closing Remarks by Agnico Eagle Mines Limited
  MR. QUESNEL:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Excuse
  me.  Jamie Quesnel, Agnico Eagle.
       We want to thank the community of Baker Lake for
  hosting us and for participating in these hearings,
  especially given the delayed start.  We appreciate the
  Mayor's warm remarks and welcome.  Baker Lake is a key
  partner to us in the continuing operation of the Whale
  Tail project.  We would not be where we are today
  without your continuing support.  Thank you for the
  opportunity to present to you on the changes to the
  water licence that are needed to proceed with the Whale
  Tail Expansion Project, and we look forward to
  continuing to work with you for many years to come.
       Agnico Eagle also wishes to thank the Nunavut
  Water Board, the Kivalliq Inuit Association,
  Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs,
  Environment and Climate Change Canada, and Fisheries
  and Oceans Canada for your consideration of this water
  licence amendment application.
       Agnico Eagle has listened carefully to the
  recommendations made by all parties.  Where possible,
  we have incorporated those recommendations into this
  application, and where recommendations are not
  appropriate, Agnico Eagle has provided detailed
  technical rationale for the intervenor and the Board's
  consideration.  We are pleased that we have now reached
  agreement with the intervenors on all of the technical
  issues that were raised by intervenors during -- during
  the amendment process.
       As confirmed by the Kivalliq Inuit Association and
  Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, we
  have reached full agreement and are pleased to jointly
  recommend to the Board a global security amount of
  50,663,508 Canadian dollars for inclusion in the
  amended Whale Tail water licence and 1,200,000 Canadian
  dollars in the amended Type "B" water licence.
       The only remaining areas of disagreement that
  relate to this amendment are different views on the
  wording on some of the amendments to the water
  licences.  We encourage the Board to review the draft
  water licence submitted in January 2020 in detail
  together with the additional updated language we
  suggested during these hearings, as that reflects
  Agnico Eagle's view on the appropriate wording changes.
       In addition, Agnico Eagle has proposed a deemed
  approval clause for consideration in the amended
  licences.  Our proposal is that unless the Board
  advises otherwise, plans submitted to the Board would
  be deemed to be approved 15 days after submission.  We
  anticipate that plans of particular interest would have
  longer review periods, but this would enable routine
  updates and revisions made in response to direction to
  the Board to be approved in a timely way.
       Currently, the Board's timeline for approval plans
  is uncertain, and extended approval timelines for even
  routine updates can mean that Agnico Eagle is not
  operating under the most up-to-date plans possible.
  This is not best practice for site management.  We
  believe a deemed plan approval clause is a procedural
  tool that could significantly improve the current plan
  review process and support all parties in focusing on
  more significant planned amendments.
       Finally, we request that the current total
  dissolved solids discharge limits be removed from the
  Whale Tail, Meadowbank Type "A" water licences as we
  have discussed today.  And as per our discussion with
  Environment Climate Change Canada, we feel we have an
  agreed path forward that would be best suited for this
  parameter.
       Thank you very much to you, Mr. Chair, and to the
  Board and Board staff for holding a well-run,
  productive meeting in challenging circumstances.
       Also, I want to thank the Agnico Eagle team and
  our consultants plus all the intervenors spending
  additional time from their family.  We've sacrificed
  some of the challenges related to weather, but also our
  families at home sacrifice for us to -- with our
  passion in these type of discussions in these hearings.
  So I appreciate the extra efforts by everybody.
       We look forward to your decision and
  recommendations on the final terms and conditions of
  our amended water licence.  Thank you and safe travels
  to those who are travelling home from Baker Lake today.
  Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Before going, I'd like to have legal counsel --
  yeah.  Yeah.  Take at least five minutes' break.
  MS. MEADOWS:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Teresa
  Meadows, legal counsel for the Nunavut Water Board.
       So, Mr. Chair, we're just going to take a
  five-minute break while I try and follow up with Dale.
  Thank you, Mr. Chair.
  (ADJOURNMENT)
  Closing Remarks
  THE CHAIR:               Okay.  As we bring this public
  hearing to a close, on behalf of the Board and my
  fellow Panel members, I would like to thank all the
  parties who contributed to make this public hearing and
  community session a success, especially the Applicant,
  Agnico Eagle Mines Limited; intervenors, Kivalliq Inuit
  Association, Crown-Indigenous Relations Northern
  Affairs, Environment and Climate Change Canada, and
  Fisheries and Oceans Canada; NWB staff and legal
  counsel; interpreters, Ben Kogvik, Alexander Alooq;
  court reporter, Christy Longacre, if I'm pronouncing it
  properly; audio facilitator, Ryan Dempster; and the
  community members and the Elders for their valued
  participation in this hearing.
  MS. MEADOWS:             Mr. Chair.
  THE CHAIR:               Yeah.  Go ahead.
  MS. MEADOWS:             Sorry to interrupt, Mr. Chair.
  I just wanted to confirm before we close the public
  hearing record that we have confirmed from legal
  counsel for the Department of Justice that they have no
  objection to Agnico Eagle's final exhibit --
  THE CHAIR:               Okay.
  MS. MEADOWS:             -- being entered onto the
  record.  And so we will enter that final exhibit onto
  the record, and that will be the final exhibit filed in
  this public hearing.  Thank you, Mr. Chair.
  THE CHAIR:               Yeah.  Now my fingers are
  folded off.  Thank you.
       Thanks also to the caterers and the hamlet of
  Baker Lake for their outstanding hospitality and
  patience with the Board.
       As we are at the end of the hearing, I will make
  some comments to let parties know what happens next for
  the amendment applications.
       The Board will now close the public hearing.  What
  this means is that all evidence with regards to these
  amendment applications is now before the Board, and no
  further information will be considered by the Panel
  before they make their decision about the amendment
  applications.  Now that the record is closed, the Board
  will remit the file to the Panel to decide whether or
  not to grant the amendments to the three water licences
  as requested by Agnico Eagle.
       Within 30 days to 45 days after the public hearing
  closes, NWB will issue its record of proceedings and
  decision to the Minister of Northern Affairs.  If the
  Board's decision is to grant the amendment
  applications, drafts of the amended Type "A" water
  licence and Type "B" water licence will be attached to
  the Board's decision for the Minister's approval.
       That concludes the public hearing component of the
  Nunavut Water Board's consideration of Agnico Eagle
  Mines Limited applications to amend their existing
  Water Licence Number 2AM-WTP1826, 2AM-MEA1526, and
  2BB-MEA1828.  (UNREPORTABLE SOUND) I just hit it once.
       Thank you all.  Good afternoon and everybody have
  safe travel.  Thank you all.  Let's have a closing
  prayer.
  Closing Prayer
  _______________________________________________________
  PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED
  _______________________________________________________
  
  CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPT:
  
       I, Christy Longacre, certify that the foregoing
  pages are a complete and accurate transcript of the
  proceedings, taken down by me in shorthand and
  transcribed from my shorthand notes to the best of my
  skill and ability.
       Dated at the City of Calgary, Province of Alberta,
  this 23rd day of February 2020.

  
  ________________________________
  Christy Longacre, RPR, CSR(A)
  Official Court Reporter