Uranium seminar Narsaq 2016: Hilu Tagoona & Jack Hicks – Nunavut

On May 8, 2015 the Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB) released its recommendation that AREVA Resources Inc.’s proposed Kiggavik uranium mine should NOT be allowed to proceed.

 

The NIRB’s recommendation was made on basis of deficiencies in the proponent’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and did not reference the strong opposition to the proposal in the community of Baker Lake and the Kivalliq region generally.

 

The final decision rests not with the people of Baker Lake or the Government of Nunavut, but with the federal government’s Minister of Indigenous Affairs. More than a year later, the new Minister has yet to accept or reject the NIRB’s recommendation – so the story may not be over yet.

 

—–

 

The story of proposed uranium mining in the Kivalliq region is an important part of Nunavut’s history and politics.

 

In the 1970s, the artificially inflated world price for uranium resulted in an exploration boom in the Kivalliq region west of Hudson’s Bay. Inuit organizations responded with legal action which resulted in an important aboriginal rights court judgement, the 1979 Bake Lake case. The case answered several unanswered or partly answered questions surrounding aboriginal title, and helped spur the political push for the settlement of a land claims agreement and the creation of Nunavut. It also resulted in what are known today as ‘caribou protection measures.’

 

—–

 

In 1989 the German company Urangesellschaft proposed to build an open pit uranium mine at the Kiggavik site, 80 kilometres west of Baker Lake.

 

My mother, Joan Scottie, was one of the leaders of the resistance to the proposal. Every imaginable Inuit organization, from the community level to the national level, opposed the company’s plan. Even ICC passed a motion of solidarity with the community.

 

In March 1990 a community plebiscite was held in Baker Lake, and more than 90% of the votes cast said NO. Shortly afterwards, the company withdrew the proposal.

 

—–

 

My home town of Baker Lake has a population of about 2,000, of whom 90% are Inuit.

 

It is Canada’s only inland Inuit community. We are called the Caribou Inuit for a reason – our culture and our well-being is based on the caribou.

 

Baker Lake cannot be said to be an ‘anti-mining’ community, as we supported the construction of a gold mine 110 kilometres to the north – and connected by an all-season road. At last count 31% of the workforce at the mine were Inuit.

 

—–

 

Concern in Baker Lake about proposed uranium mining has consistently been about:

  • The stability of the large volume of radioactive tailings that would be left behind in the permafrost, which would have to remain securely in place essentially forever.
  • Possible impacts on water and wildlife from roads, dust, noise, etc.
  • The knowledge that there are other uranium deposits in the region, so approval of one uranium mine could result in a pattern of development that we could not control – with the risk of significant cumulative impacts on the wildlife and the environment.
  • Moral issues regarding the end use of uranium – be it for nuclear power plants or for nuclear weapons. We know that once uranium leaves Canada we would have no control over how it gets used in India or China.
  • Aspects of the environmental assessment and other decision-making processes.

 

—–

 

Our NGO, Nunavummiut Makitagunarningit (‘Makita’), was formed in December 2009 to ensure that important questions were asked during the review process for the second effort to exploit the Kiggavik deposit, this time by the French nuclear giant AREVA.

 

Makita petitioned the Government of Nunavut to hold a formal public inquiry into the possibility of opening the territory to uranium mining, but our request was refused. The government also refused to hold a public plebiscite on the question. Instead, the government decided internally to support uranium mining – without a vote in the Legislative Assembly.

 

Meanwhile, Makita engaged in public education and participated vigorously and critically in the environmental review process.

 

—–

 

We watched as AREVA splashed money around the community – for example by sponsoring sports teams and school events.

 

We listened as they provided one-sided and sometimes inaccurate information to the community.

 

We watched as they took community representatives on trips to uranium mines in northern Saskatchewan, where they heard only good things and met no opponents of the developments there.

 

We listened as government officials assured the community that there was nothing to worry about.

 

And we spoke with many independent experts…

 

—–

 

In 2013 Makita made a detailed submission to the United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on the Rights o Indigenous Peoples on extractive and energy industries in and near indigenous territories.

 

The submission, and all our other documents, are available on our website at http://makitanunavut.wordpress.com

 

—–

 

However imperfect, the Canadian model of environment and social impact assessment gave Makita an opportunity to have meaningful input into the decision-making process.

  • We were able to comment on the draft guidelines for the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIS) guidelines, although not all of our requests were incorporated
  • We were able to submit detailed comments on AREVA’s EIS – comments which were circulated to all the organizations and government departments involved in the review process, and which became a part of the public record
  • We were able to participate vigorously in all Nunavut Impact Review Board’s public meetings held in Baker Lake

 

We are a volunteer organization, and did our work on a very limited budget. We feel that we made a difference.

 

—–

 

I would like to raise three issues from our experience that you may wish to consider:

  • What would happen if Greenland Minerals and Energy (GME) were to sell its interest in the Kvanefeld deposit? How many of GME’s promises have been made by the company itself, and how many are binding commitments on whichever company were to develop a mine?
  • What would be required (in terms of specialized expertise, and the budget to hire them) of the Greenland Government to adequately monitor and manage uranium mining?
  • Would GME be willing to post a significant (for example 2 billion DKK) bond to guarantee that the Greenland Government could not be stuck with the cost of cleaning up an environmental disaster, such as the one that happened recent in British Columbia? Because accidents sometimes DO happen…

 

—–

 

Thank you for the invitation to visit Narsaq and speak at this seminar. It is an honour and a pleasure to be here with you today.

 

We urge to you not to take anything that the nuclear industry says at face value. Seek advice from independent experts!

 

And above all, insist on your right as citizens to decide your own future – and the future of your children and grand-children. No community should have a uranium mine, a nuclear waste disposal facility (which is what tailings are…), or a nuclear power plant forced on it by industry or government.

 

We wish you all the best – now, and in the future.