NTI endorses uranium mining on Inuit-owned land

SARA MINOGUE

Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. has reversed its previous ban on uranium mining on Inuit-owned lands, according to a new draft policy released to several groups for review and obtained by Nunatsiaq News.

NTI disallowed mining for uranium on Inuit-owned lands after the hamlet of Baker Lake successfully rallied support against the proposed Kigavvik uranium mine in the late 1980s.

Currently, NTI does not grant uranium rights to mining and exploration companies who apply to mine subsurface Inuit-owned lands.

That ban was initially put in place during a wave of protest against uranium mining and its possible negative effects on the environment, including caribou herds.

The draft policy re-interprets that ban to mean that NTI retains the rights to uranium on Inuit owned lands, and suggests that NTI could participate in future uranium mining projects, or extract additional royalty payments from mining and exploration companies who apply to work with uranium on these lands.

The document shows enthusiasm for uranium mining in Nunavut, and calls for a “thorough compilation and analysis of the uranium potential on all IOL [Inuit-owned lands].”

And even though NTI only controls the mineral rights to two per cent of Nunavut’s land mass — lands known as subsurface Inuit-owned lands — NTI believes that they should adopt a general approach to uranium mining “that applies to all lands in Nunavut, not just to IOL [Inuit owned lands].”

That could be difficult in the Kivalliq region, where the Keewatin Land Use Plan, published by the Nunavut Planning Commission, has been in effect since 2000.

That plan contains a term prohibiting uranium mining in the region until Nunavut’s environmental management boards review the health and environmental issues particular to uranium. A second term in that plan states: “Any future proposal to mine uranium must be approved by the people of the region.”

NTI’s draft uranium policy purports to speak for all Nunavummiut, yet anyone who is opposed to nuclear energy or concerned about the inevitable radioactive nuclear waste, will find little that reflects this thinking.

The draft policy accepts the notion that nuclear power is more environmentally friendly than other means of generating power, because it does not release greenhouse gases to produce electricity.

Yet this view does not deal with concerns about what happens to hazardous waste that is left behind after nuclear power plants use uranium for fuel.

Canadian nuclear power plants produce about 85,000 used nuclear fuel bundles each year. By 2001, Canada had enough nuclear fuel waste to fill a soccer field to a height of 1.3 metres, and no permanent place to store it.

That waste is dangerous to human health and the environment, and will remain so for the next 250,000 years. Some people believe that if the cost of storing this waste is factored into the cost of nuclear energy, then nuclear power would not be considered a clean or cheap alternative to oil and gas.

The draft policy also postpones the issue of where nuclear waste should be stored — suggesting that this issue be dealt with outside of the uranium policy — while reaffirming NTI’s position against storing any nuclear waste in Nunavut.

NTI rejected the possibility of storing nuclear waste anywhere in Nunavut in a resolution in 1999. NTI maintains this position, and states in the draft policy that responsibility for nuclear waste should lie with the provinces that benefit from its use as fuel — which now include Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick.

NTI cites the example of Saskatchewan, which produces all of Canada’s uranium without having taken on any of the waste so far — except for radioactive tailings produced at the mine sites.

The draft policy acknowledges that the Inuit Circumpolar Conference called for a ban on uranium mining in Nunavut in 1983, but notes that a later resolution in 1998 recognized the potential economic benefits of uranium, and reduced the concerns to “potential environmental impacts.”

The policy calls for ICC to “review, clarify and update its position on uranium mining.”

The policy acknowledges the need for strict rules and regulations to protect human health and the environment from radiation from any potential uranium projects.

It also states that NTI will only support uranium mining if it is used for nuclear power production, and not to make bombs.

This principle already exists in Canadian export policy, though it’s not clear how this can be enforced; uranium is sold as a commodity, which erases its country of origin, and even spent uranium (already used for its fuel) can be used in weapons.

NTI’s Land Policy Advisory Committee — which includes representative from each of the three regional Inuit associations — sent the draft policy to several groups for review on March 5, with a request for comments by the end of April.

After compiling those comments, NTI “hope[s] to see a presentation of the consultation document and draft uranium policy to stakeholders in Baker Lake and Kugluktuk,” reads a cover letter signed by Bob Aknavigak, the LPAC chair.

The NTI and regional Inuit association boards will make the final decision, the letter said.