Edmonton Journal, Saturday November 13, 1999
Kevin O'Reilly, Research Director of the CARC

To be clear, the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee is not asking the minister to shut the project down. We recognize the need for economic development for the people of the North. In fact, we are often among the first to insist that benefits from resource development remain in the North.

We accept and understand that mining is an important vehicle for that economic development. What we do not accept is that the northern environment, and northern people, must be subjected to unacceptable levels of risk to facilitate mining development.

In the late 1930s, the ``Golden Age'' of mining, it seemed a new gold mine opened up in Yellowknife every other week. Back then, Yellowknife was a collection of shacks, tents and cabins on the north shore of Great Slave Lake. It was a great place to be, full of life and vitality, a boomtown plunked in the middle of a glorious natural setting.

Some years later, the results of that boom started to hit. The bay beside the town was so polluted, people couldn't drink from it or even swim in it. Local people still fear to eat the fish.

Now Yellowknife's Giant Mine is finally closing, its jobs gone. Its side-effects, however, linger on. In mined-out areas underground, 270,000 tonnes of toxic arsenic trioxide are stored. Cleaning up the surface of the mine will cost an estimated $15 million to $20 million. No one knows what it will cost to clean up the mess that lurks below. Estimates are as high as $1.5 billion. The profits are gone. But northerners are left with the environmental headaches. It's a familiar pattern.

Now the government is set to repeat that pattern. The federal minister of the environment has given his approval to a new diamond mine, the Diavik project, about 300 km north of Yellowknife.

Like the absentee landlords of old, David Anderson has ignored the concerns of the local aboriginal people, who wanted a review panel to take on some unanswered questions.

The Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board was set up so northerners could have more of a say in northern development. It has places on it reserved for aboriginal representatives, in fulfilment of constitutionally entrenched land claim agreements.

The board told minister Anderson he should answer their questions or send the Diavik project to a panel review. He did neither.

It is clear that the minister has belied his early promise. Here, we were told, was an environment minister who sincerely cared about the environment. His affection for those cuddly little endangered marmots was lavishly chronicled.

But when it came to making his first hard decision, where business interests might come into conflict with environmental responsibility, the minister caved. He did worse than cave. He issued the decision from the safety of a trip to Germany, so his actions could not even be questioned.

Because Diavik is the second mine in an almost untouched and ecologically fragile area, and because there are more mines proposed for the area, many people wanted a proper analysis of the cumulative or combined effects of these various projects.

The minister is attempting to deny them that opportunity. He is telling them that analysis will come later. If that later analysis proves the mine will have serious effects that can not be mitigated, will he then shut it down? I doubt it.

People also wanted the company to look at alternative methods of mining. Diavik proposes a massive open pit. That method would maximize profits, but also poses the greatest potential harm to the water and surrounding environment.

Diavik dismissed the less intrusive method of underground mining as not providing sufficient shareholder value. The minister is attempting to ensure that the company does not have to revisit its decision.

To be clear, the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee is not asking the minister to shut the project down. We recognize the need for economic development for the people of the North. In fact, we are often among the first to insist that benefits from resource development remain in the North.

We accept and understand that mining is an important vehicle for that economic development. What we do not accept is that the northern environment, and northern people, must be subjected to unacceptable levels of risk to facilitate mining development.

For that reason, our committee is not letting the minister off lightly, nor is it giving up in its efforts to get answers to the lingering questions about the Diavik project.

We want to ensure that our grandchildren won't be sitting here, 60 years from now, writing a column about the northern diamond rush of the 1990s, and the mistakes that were made.

Bryson Burke Diamond Corporation
© 2001 - 2003