Last Tuesday's stop at Meadowbank gold mine in Baker Lake, Nunavut, owned by Toronto-based Agnico-Eagle, provided the forum for the Prime Minister to nonchalantly brush aside concerns about environmental degradation in the name of unfettered mining operations and massive revenues amidst peaking global metal prices.
Speaking to local workers at the Meadowbank operation, Mr. Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.), in response to a media question, acknowledged the damaging effects of mining, saying, "Obviously, when you dig holes here, you create some environmental issues." He then defended resource exploitation by adding that those issues "can't stop development."
Liberal MP Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Ont.), her party's environment critic, told The Hill Times that while Mr. Harper's emphasis on economic gains over environmental impacts was no secret, the statement was nonetheless "surprising and deeply troubling." Ms. Duncan added that the Liberal Party "clearly opposes" the government's approach.
Matt Horne, a director at the Pembina Institute, saw the announcement in much the same light, calling it "short sighted," and that because environmental impacts of mining are so numerous, "we can't turn our backs on those and forge ahead without thinking about them."
Mr. Harper said that economic initiatives shouldn't be held back in Canada's North due to environmental concerns, "no more than we would let that stop development in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver," suggesting that since his government has green-lit harmful environmental practices in one place, there should no longer be obstacles anywhere else in Canada.
"Our government remains focused on the economy, job growth and expanding new opportunities from coast-to-coast-to-coast," Mr. Harper said in a press release. "Canada's North is full of economic potential and innovators continue to unlock development possibilities that bring with them real economic benefits and long-term jobs for local residents."
Mr. Harper also announced support for the establishment of an office for the N.W.T. and Nunavut Chamber of Mines in Iqaluit.
The potential benefits of mining, on both local and national levels, are attractive, and not just for economic gains, but in terms of accomplishing Mr. Harper's goal of bolstering Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic as well—neither of which is lost on representatives of the Inuit communities directly affected.
Udloriak Hanson, special adviser to the president of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK) said that in terms of sovereignty, "it comes down to maintaining sustainable communities— because the permanent presence in the arctic of Inuit and other aboriginal peoples is this country's greatest claim to sovereignty of its Arctic regions."
It then becomes important to utilize areas of potential prosperity, such as natural resource extraction, as a means to boost the economic development of the communities—but in a responsible way.
"Mining is important to our communities for reasons of economic development as well as employment and training," Ms. Hanson acknowledged, but said that Inuit communities "must be cautious in [our] approach to such initiatives."
Ms. Hanson pointed to a May 2011 report, entitled A Circumpolar Inuit Declaration on Resource Development Principles in Inuit Nunaat (which is the circumpolar Inuit homeland), signed by Inuit leaders from Canada, Alaska, Russia and Greenland. The document "notes that resource extraction must be conducted in a sustainable and environmentally responsible way," said Ms. Hanson.
The report is couched in terms laid out in the United Nations Declarations on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).
The federal government endorsed the UNDRIP in November 2010, after refusing to do so for three years. In its statement endorsing the declaration, the government admitted that its concerns about the declaration "are well known and remain" but that it has "since listened to aboriginal leaders who have urged Canada to endorse the declaration."
The government's concerns at the time were the declaration's provisions on "lands, territories and resources; free, prior and informed consent when used as a veto; self-government without recognition of the importance of negotiations; intellectual property; military issues; and the need to achieve an appropriate balance between the rights and obligations of Indigenous peoples, States and third parties."
Despite these, however, the government said in its statement that it is "now confident that Canada can interpret the principles expressed in the declaration in a manner that is consistent with our constitution and legal framework."
Ramsey Hart, Canada program director for MiningWatch Canada, said that while there are many environmental impacts associated with mining projects, it does not mean they should be stopped. They do, however, need to be "carefully evaluated," he said. This includes "the pros and cons, the long-term risks, and the contribution to sustainable development of mining projects ... all of those aspects appear to be lacking from the Prime Minister's statement," said Mr. Hart.
Mr. Harper's comments therefore raised red flags not only about the government's commitment to responsible resource development, but perhaps more importantly, shed light on a set of amendments to the Fisheries Act, quietly passed in 2008. The changes to the act allow for mining operations to reclassify natural bodies of water as dumping ponds for tailings waste from mining activities.
Most pertinent in this respect to Mr. Harper's visit to Nunavut's Meadowbank mine is the northwest arm of Second Portage Lake, an important local fish habitat, which in July 2008 was officially redesignated as a tailing pond. At the same time, a second Nunavut location, Tail Lake, was also reclassified to serve Newmont Mining Corp's waste.
Mr. Hart said that while managing waste is "one of the biggest challenges" of mining projects, alternatives to dumping into natural bodies of water do exist; they just cost more.
Mr. Hart referred in particular to a method known as impoundment, in which a physical enclosure is built to house the waste from a mine. "Companies don't like to do that because it's expensive," he said, adding that decisions to pollute local lakes and habitats is "largely about saving money."
Mr. Hart said MiningWatch Canada has been aware of the amendments the Canadian government has been making to the Fisheries Act for some time, saying they have "normalized the use of natural water bodies for waste dumps," which, in doing so "provides huge cost savings to the industry."
According to the UNDRIP, the development of natural resources can only go ahead with "free, prior and informed consent of the Inuit of that region"—a key component that, according to an elder in the community of Baker Lake, was not fulfilled.
Joan Scottie, community elder and member of the Hunters and Trappers Organization, told the Northern News Service in a 2008 interview, "there's a lot of questions because we don't even know when it was classified in the first place as a toxic dump site for mines."
Ms. Scottie also said that members of the local community were concerned about the one-sided information they had been given from representatives of the mining companies. She said members of her community "need to be educated in terms of meanings of technical words," including information from independent sources.
"We don't understand, as simple hunters," Ms. Scottie said, adding that the community was not "getting any help from our government."
The Circumpolar Inuit Declaration on Resource Development itself contains at least four clauses (5.4, 8.7, 8.8 and 8.9) that appear to negate the reclassification of lakes into tailing ponds. One overt reference to mining operations in clause 8.8 states that they "should involve zero-volume discharge onto land and into Arctic waters."
Whether this document, or the UNDRIP, was taken into account by the Harper government before unabashedly advocating the use of natural bodies of water as dumping ponds in the name of economic gains is unknown.
Ms. Duncan said the government's actions are indicative of a "deeply disturbing pattern" of turning a blind eye to environmental concerns and blindly pursuing economic gains.
"I think the reality is that Canadians are deeply concerned about the environment, and I think it's very sad that the federal government does not share those concerns," she said.
Environment Minister Peter Kent (Thornhill, Ont.) did not respond to calls from The Hill Times.
Origin
Source: Hill Times
No comments:
Post a Comment