• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

August 11, 2020 Kaviq Kaluraq Chairperson c/o Karen Costello Nunavut Impact Review Board Cambridge Bay, NU Sent via Email: [email protected] Re: North Baffin Community Group Reply to Baffinland Iron Mines (“Baffinland”) August 4, 2020 Motion Re Setting of Hearing Dates for Mary River Phase 2 Assessment Dear Ms. Kaluraq: In response to the Motion circulated by the Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB) or Board) with a request for replies, the North Baffin Community Group, made up of the Hamlets and Hunters and Trappers Organizations of the five communities potentially affected by the Mary River Phase 2 proposal, submit based on the grounds below, that the August 4, 2020 Notice of Motion filed by Baffinland, should be dismissed. Baffinland suggested in its motion that it is fair to all parties for the Board to reconvene the Public Hearing for the Phase 2 Proposal on October 30, 2020. We submit that it would be premature to schedule a Hearing until such time as a Technical Meeting and Pre-Hearing Conference are held to determine whether the proposal is sufficient to be heard at a hearing, and to determine issues such as the timing, location and format of a Hearing. It would also be inappropriate for the NIRB to determine next steps based on a mo- tion from Baffinland. It is not fair to all parties to reconvene the Public Hearing in October. Many organizations par- ticipating in the ongoing assessment of Phase 2, including our Hamlets and HTOs, have suf- fered significant limitations on our ability to engage in a normal workload while still remaining vigilant in addressing Covid-19 related safety measures. This is evident on the public record for the project assessment, as filed in comments to the NIRB in March and April 2020. The Technical Meeting is supposed to allow for the presentation of resolutions by parties, and provides an opportunity for all Interveners and their technical experts to submit questions and engage in discussions with other Interveners and technical experts around resolutions and the pathways used to reach them. It would not be fair to our organizations to remove this step in the process. The PHC and Community Roundtable session promote the identification of issues to be dealt with at the Hearing and to solicit and consider input from community members related to the technical matters and Proponent commitments under consideration prior to the Hearing. It would not be fair to our communities to remove this step in the process. On or around April 23, 2020, the Arctic Bay Hunters and Trappers Organization, Hamlet of Clyde River, Igloolik Working Group, Hamlet of Pond Inlet, Hamlet of Sanirajak, Hunters and Trappers Organization of Sanirajak, and EcoJustice on behalf of the MHTO, provided corre- spondence to the NIRB outlining the grave unfairness to community organizations from pro- !1 ceeding with haste, and via a teleconference format for Technical Meetings. This has not changed. On April 24, 2020 the NIRB indicated that “prior to proposing a modified process, the Board will solicit comment from prospective participants to ensure their views are fully considered be- fore charting a path forward for this assessment.” This has not happened, however on July 7, 2020, the Qikiqtani Inuit Association wrote to the NIRB and suggested it may be appropriate to recommence the assessment. On July 7, 2020 Baffinland also wrote to NIRB asking for a recommencement of the process, owing to the signing of the Inuit Certainty Agreement (the “ICA”) with the QIA and supposed resolution of many technical issues. On July 24, Baffinland again wrote to the NIRB asking that it move forward with scheduling the Hearing, foregoing the Technical Meeting and PHC. On July 29, 2020, the NIRB provided direction regarding the recommencement of its process. On July 31, 2020 the NIRB provided correspondence indicating that the Minister had directed it to recommence the process. On July 31, and August 6, letters from the North Baffin Community Group were provided to the NIRB outlining concerns related to process steps, and proceeding at this time. We submit that these points all remain relevant to the current discussion around scheduling a Hearing in Octo- ber, and the submissions are enclosed to inform the decision on this Motion. We submit that the community voices and our concerns are being drowned out by the Propo- nent, and now the Minister. We submit that scheduling further process steps absent input from communities, while at the same time demonstrating a responsiveness to the Proponent’s re- quests, represents a major misstep in the NIRB's process. Our communities have not had nine months to review information as suggested by Baffinland in its July 24, 2020 correspondence. Five of the last nine months have been spent under or- ders of a Public Health Emergency, which has significantly changed and limited the way people work and has not allowed for normal progress toward review of information as Baffinland sug- gests. Baffinland’s procedural history references the ICA and resolution status of technical issues it developed with the QIA. We submit that these resolutions and the ICA must be subject to questions and discussion among technical experts at a Technical Meeting and possibly considered at a Pre-Hearing Conference. Furthermore, Baffinland has not demonstrated that all technical issues are re- solved, or that any issues of high importance have been resolved. We submit that a Technical Meeting and Pre-Hearing Conference are required prior to scheduling a Hearing. A Community Roundtable was scheduled to be held in March 2020, in order to hear input from potentially impacted communities around technical concerns and issues relevant to the current stage of the assessment. In correspondence filed July 24, 2020, Baffinland suggests a Com- munity Roundtable would be included in the Public Hearing it requests to have scheduled in October 2020. We submit our concern that that this would mean only one Community Roundtable session would be held, during the Public Hearing as proposed for October 2020. We suggest that this is an unacceptable modification to the process, and one that adversely prejudices community members, and unfairly limits the amount of community input to the NIRB process. !2 Baffinland has not provided evidence of any significant or meaningful community engagement undertaken since the adjournment of the November 2019 Public Hearing. Baffinland has not provided evidence of recently improved community comprehension around the Phase 2 proposal. Baffinland has not provided evidence of recently expressed community support for Phase 2 proposal. We are unaware if the QIA or Baffinland have adequately presented any aspect of the ICA to communities. It is unacceptable to levy the ICA without adequate and informed consultation and consent of communities to its use in limiting assessment process steps. The prejudice to the Hamlets and HTOs from expediting the process will greatly outweigh any alleged benefit to the proponent. The ICA has not addressed the concerns of the HTOs or im- pacted communities. In order for the NIRB to uphold their duties to consult these communities and organizations, the previously scheduled Technical Meeting and PHC are significant and cannot be avoided. In summary, we note the following as grounds to dismiss Baffinland’s Motion: 1. Outstanding technical issues have not been addressed adequately. The ICA was signed without any consultation or agreement of community organizations or residents. 2. The previously scheduled Technical Meeting and Pre-Hearing Conference and associat- ed Community Roundtable are no less important now, given the amount of time that has passed since adjournment of the November 2019 Hearing. The risk of this project and the costs that communities and Inuit would face if the assessment process follows anything other than the highest level of engagement and thoroughness, is too high, and modifications which threaten engagement or thoroughness, are entirely unacceptable. 3. All things are not equal, that is, a nine month delay in the NIRB’s process does not re- flect nine months of effort to address technical issues and develop commitments for a path forward. The request to reschedule the NIRB Hearing does not take into account the major issues the Covid-19 pandemic have caused, and continues to cause for the public and for organizations operating in Nunavut. We were granted a very short time to respond to Baffinland’s motion. We have been unable to contact the Mayors or HTO Chairpersons in Arctic Bay to discuss it with them. As a result, their names are not on this letter. However, this does not indicate that they support Baffinland’s mo- tion, and we reserve the option to follow up with an Addendum in the coming days at such time as their agreement with this Reply can be confirmed. Sincerely, Enookie Inuarak, Vice-Chairperson, Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization Joshua Arreak, Mayor, Pond Inlet David Irngaut, Chairperson, Igloolik Hunters and Trappers Organization !3 Merlyn Recinos, Mayor, Igloolik Sandy Kautuq, Chairperson, Clyde River Hunters and Trappers Organization Jerry Natanine, Mayor, Clyde River Jopie Kaernerk, Chairperson, Hall Beach Hunters and Trappers Association Jaypetee Audlakiak, Mayor, Sanirajak Enclosed: July 31, 2020 correspondence from North Baffin Community Group to NIRB August 6, 2020 correspondence from North Baffin Community Group to NIRB !4 1 | Page July 31, 2020 Marjorie Kaviq Kaluraq Nunavut Impact Review Board P.O. Box 1360 Cambridge Bay, NU X0B 0C0 We, the elected officials of the five communities in the North Baffin Region, are writing to you to today to inform you of serious problems with the proposed timelines for the review of Baffinland’s Mary River Phase 2 proposal. As we have explained in several previous submissions, we are not in favor of resuming meetings and hearings until issues related to COVID are resolved and face-to-face meetings can take place.

Load more

  10

Copy Link