Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The environmental assessment hearings for the Giant Mine Project were held in September. The Mackenzie Valley Environmental Review Board heard testimony on the plan to stabilize the vast stores of arsenic and conduct limited surface remediation. On the first night of public presentations alone, 50 people sat through a 45-minute power outage to share their concerns. Seventeen people spoke, most staying well past 11:00 p.m. People care deeply about the Giant Mine cleanup.

Based on my observations, people spoke of the lack of a funded perpetual care plan, lack of a legally binding independent oversight mechanism, the proposal to dump arsenic-laden water into Back Bay in new ways, lack of commitment to research the final elimination of the arsenic, concerns that the frozen block method won’t work over the long term, the consistent failure to proactively communicate project information, and many other misgivings. Besides individual residents, the Yellowknives Dene First Nation, Alternatives North, and the North Slave Metis present thorough and learned submissions.

Weeks later, the project co-proponents – Canada and the GNWT – sent closing comments to the board. Reading their final comments, I have to wonder if the governments were hearing the same input I was or if they just weren’t listening. Consider the quotation, “The project team concludes that the remediation plan is not the source of the long-standing concerns about Giant Mine.” Dismay and skepticism with the remediation proposal, its delivery and monitoring are exactly what the public, Aboriginal government and NGO concerns are all about. The co-proponents’ comments demonstrate the adoption of virtually nothing from the concerns expressed so strongly by public interest groups and citizens.

This week we had more evidence of this deafness. The proponents gave public registry notice that they will proceed with demolition of the roaster complex, exempting the most arsenic-contaminated portion of the site after the underground vaults from the authority of the environmental assessments. Rather than make an effort to inform the public or allay concerns, they are seeking board approval to do it without public oversight.

I will table the co-proponents’ letter today and will question the Minister of the Environment on this government’s role in these disappointing developments and pronouncements.