NORTH BAFFIN
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) Minister Bernard Valcourt last week sided with Premier Peter Taptuna, Pond Inlet hamlet council, and Baffinland Iron Mines (BIMC) in granting the company an exemption to the North Baffin Regional Land Use Plan (NBRLUP), as requested May 21.

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada Minister Bernard Valcourt has granted Baffinland Iron Mines Corp. an exemption from the North Baffin Regional Land Use Plan for its proposed operation of the Mary River mine, shown here. - photo courtesy of Baffinland Iron Mines Corp.

Valcourt's decision goes against the Nunavut Planning Commission's (NPC) April 8 decision to forbid the company from using icebreakers to ship iron ore from Mary River, near Pond Inlet, 10 months per year, as opposed to shipping only without icebreakers during the ice-free season, or less than three months per year. The company's plan will now go to the Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB) for consideration.

In making the exemption, Valcourt supported the premier's assertion that the mine is too valuable to the community and the territory.

"Delays are costly for all of us, and good opportunities can disappear," Valcourt stated in a July 13 letter addressed to NIRB chairperson Elizabeth Copland, NPC chair Hunter Tootoo, and Baffinland vice president Erik Madsen. "In Premier Taptuna's letter to me on May 8, 2015, he stressed the importance of 260 jobs, millions of dollars of wages and benefits, as well as other future benefits that might flow from this project proposal. Premier Taptuna was concerned that any delay may put these benefits at risk. We must consider not only the risks of proceeding, but also the risks of not proceeding."

The Qikiqtani Inuit Association, which was representing its own interests and the interests of Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., had called for an amendment to the land use plan instead of an exemption.

"QIA is disappointed that the minister has not allowed for an amendment process as the most appropriate way forward to ensure optimal participation in the BIMC proposal with significant impact to the people of Pond Inlet," stated a July 15 release from the Inuit organization.

But the amendment process would be "unwieldy" and unnecessary duplication, Valcourt stated, and not appropriate in the context of a single project.

"That approach risks creating an unwieldy and unnecessary system of double regulation, where a land use plan amendment process resembles an ecosystemic and socio-economic impact assessment process in all but the name, only to be followed by the actual impact assessment process (by NIRB)," he stated. "This would entail undergoing two subsequent sets of public hearings and inquiries into essentially the same issues, creating an unnecessary burden for institutions of public government, the proponent and all other interested parties, including Inuit organizations and individuals."

QIA president PJ Akeeagok told Nunavut News/North last month he was concerned an exemption would set a dangerous precedent that would undermine the existence of the planning commission.

"I've heard directly from the communities during the other IPG (Institutions of Public Government) processes that they want to ensure their voices have an opportunity to be heard right from the start to the last portion," Akeeagok said at the time. "We totally understand the minister has a clause within the land claims (to grant an exemption), but a project of this magnitude shouldn't go through there. I think it goes against the spirit and intent of the land claims itself."

But Valcourt stood by his belief that NIRB was an effective firewall against bad proposals, and will make an appropriate decision if the proposed icebreaking will be a hazard to wildlife and the affected communities.

"If that project proposal cannot be carried out in a manner that is compatible with the requirements of the environmental and socio-economic impact assessment regime," Valcourt stressed, "the project proposal will of course fail at that stage."

The NPC's decision that the plan did not conform to the land use plan was its first negative conformity decision, and was made on the basis that navigation through ice does not conform with the land use plan.

In particular, the ice-breaking would open the water between Pond Inlet and Bylot Island as part of breaking the ice between the port at Milne Inlet and Baffin Bay. The effects of ice-breaking on the early degradation of the floe edge, critical to the hunting culture, were also considered in the decision.

NPC chair Hunter Tootoo said the commission did its job and has no role after making its decision.

"We get a proposal in from somebody, and we look at it based on the approved land use plan. In this case, the commission unanimously determined that the proposal didn't comply with the approved land use plan. We outlined the options, one of them being asking the minister for an exemption. Baffinland, the proponent, chose to ask the minister for an exemption. The minister is allowed to give the exemption, that's his prerogative, and he did.

"We did our job. We did our job properly," Tootoo said. "Whatever happens after that is beyond our control."

In a July 15 release, Baffinland stated that the company would continue to work with governments and Inuit organizations to make the project work, noting that the long-term success of the mine requires increased extraction and delivery to clients on a consistent basis.

We welcome your opinions. Click here to e-mail a letter to the editor.