News Nov 6, 2019 – 5:56 pm EST
Nunavut review board adjourns Mary River hearing to consider NTI motion
The Nunavut Impact Review Board brought its final hearing on Baffinland’s proposed expansion of the Mary River mine to an abrupt halt on Nov. 6, the fifth day of the hearing. That’s because the board needs time to consider a motion from Aluki Kotierk, the president of Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., to adjourn the hearing for eight to 12 months. Kotierk said many questions are still unanswered and not enough time has been provided to properly review information. NIRB chair Kaviq Kaluraq said the board asks intervenors and others to file written submissions by Nov. 15 on the NTI motion and that Baffinland will have until Nov. 22 to respond. Kaluraq said NIRB will issue written guidance on the motion some time after that date. Also, two community roundtables planned for Pond Inlet on Nov. 8 and 9, part of the public hearing, have been cancelled for now. See nunatsiaq.com later for more on this late-breaking story. (Screenshot)
By Nunatsiaq News
Dear Nunatsiaq News,
It is certainly not my place, and I don’t want to come across as trying to tell you how to run a newspaper. I appreciate Nunatsiaq News and I rely on it almost daily to stay up to speed on what is happening in Nunavut.
That said I was disappointing in your chosen approach to covering the NIRB hearings in Iqaluit this week. Your paper published a lot of stories, and everyone of them was slanted negatively against Baffinland.
I understand there are many concerns, and I understand Nunavummiuit’s desire to be included in a process. I was just shocked that you could not report on one positive thing that Baffinland has accomplished or done.
It would appear to me that your reporters including Mr. Bell are opposed to the project, and slanted their stories in a way to ensure that was the only message that got across.
Reporting on things like 14% Inuit employment in 2018, without going to Baffinland for a comment where they would have informed you that it is closer to 25% now. (470 Inuit Employees) Way closer then it has ever been is misleading to readers. The university professor researched the mine 2 years ago. A lot changes in business in 2 years.
Reporting on Baffinland’s poor efforts of community consultation without even getting facts on how many times they visited the communities and held open houses is again misleading. I am pretty sure Baffinland has been in most communities 3 times in the last 30 days all for different reasons, HR, Contracts, and Phase 2. I attend every visit. I see good things. Not perfect, but good things.
Not one negative report on QIA or NTI and their failure to be a partner in this project the way they committed to being in the IIBA. Interesting that you feel only Baffinland is to blame? And, you post circulars and confidential information which under the securities act may actually be against the law. Shocking.
I was saddened by this approach to reporting, and was hoping for so much more from what I consider my community newspaper. I hope Baffinland does not shut down. If it does it will negatively impact Nunavut. Your paper will be partly to blame.
A concerned Iqaluit reader.
Issues like this have been a longstanding thing with Nunatsiaq. The philosophical camp that much of their journalism seems to come from is often slanted toward simple binaries such as Inuit v non-Inuit (read oppressed vs oppressor), similarly Inuit vs big companies, who are always to be suspect and always to be considered a source of oppression. I attribute the simplistic use of these motifs to a couple factors; 1 that many of the writers for this paper have little long term experience in the territory, so this is the easiest, and often the most acceptable lens to apply. The second factor is that these basic themes are popular in modern social theories, such as postcolonial and postmodernism, which seems to have a firm grip on progressive narrative making. Of course not all the writers for this publications are newbies, and some have much deeper, interesting and useful insights to offer.
Well, I’m not sure the problem is biased coverage — the paper is simply reporting what Inuit organizations and community groups presented at the hearings.
470 ÷ 3000 = 15.6% Inuit employment, not 25. NN reports well on what it heard, not on opinion of the day … thanks NN!
Please get your numbers straight “All”. There are not 3000 employees at Baffinland. Not even close. Maybe 2000 and that would be pushing it with contractors. Do your math again.
Post colonial? Some of Inuit have left that behind. We have left the box long ago. Unlike southern Canada, NIRB has a place where Nunavut can make comments whether you support the project or not . Nunatsiaq News it’s good to hear the news of the day. Balanced example of the freedom of the press.
Aluki always looks mad.