Richard Gleeson
Northern News Services

NNSL (Nov 05/99) - Though Northern businesses and public government greeted the approval of the Diavik project with glee, reaction from critics of the review ranged from muted acceptance to defiance.

Dogrib Treaty 11 spokesperson Ted Blondin said the Dogribs have accepted the decision but will be working to address concerns about the project during the regulatory phase and impacts and benefits agreement negotiations.

"The only other way to go about it is to go to court, and that's a last resort. We want to explore the different ways we can solve our concerns."

The day before the decision was released, the Globe and Mail published a long commentary on the review by Treaty 11 land claim negotiator John B. Zoe.

Zoe said the review failed to address Dogrib concerns and reiterated the group's call for a panel review.

Western Arctic MP Ethel Blondin-Andrew said criticisms the Dogribs and other groups have made about the review would not have been addressed by another review overseen by an independent panel.

"If you look at the items that were listed as concerns, it was determined that most of those couldn't be handled through (a panel review)," said Blondin-Andrew. "... You would have more discussion of it, but there probably would not have been the resolution that was wanted by them."

Kevin O'Reilly of the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee said the conditions Environment Minister David Anderson attached to his approval of the project are nothing new.

"They go no further than what was recommended by the regulatory agencies," said O'Reilly.

Anderson included three conditions in his approval:

- implementation of a regional management structure to address concerns about cumulative by April 1, 2001.

- establishment of a monitoring mechanism to address public concerns about the project

- revision and adaptation of the mine abandonment and restoration plan as necessary over the life of the mine.

O'Reilly said CARC has not ruled out any options, including asking for a judicial review of the decision.

Earlier this year, a Federal Appeals Court judge overturned federal environmental approval of a coal mine proposed in Alberta. Known as the Cheviot decision, the ruling came as a result of a judicial review requested by a coalition of environmental groups that argued the environmental assessment of the project was inadequate.

An official of the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board -- the Northern regulatory agency that was highly critical of the review -- said the board has not yet developed a response to the decision.

The project will now proceed to the regulatory phase, which includes assessment of its application for a water license and lease for the property.

Water board hearings are scheduled for Dec. 13-14 in Yellowknife.