Baffinland hearing abruptly ends, with sessions cancelled in Pond Inlet

“Inuit have to be part of the process. It affects every part of Inuit lives,” says NTI president

Representatives from Igloolik and Pond Inlet listen as Aluki Kotierk, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.’s president, puts forward a motion to adjourn the Nunavut Impact Review Board’s final public hearing on Baffinland’s phase two expansion on Wednesday, Nov. 6, in Iqaluit. (Photo by Emma Tranter)

By Emma Tranter and Elaine Anselmi

The Nunavut Impact Review Board hearing on Baffinland Iron Mines Corp.’s proposed expansion of its Mary River mine has been abruptly adjourned, with two days of meetings in Pond Inlet now cancelled.

On Wednesday, Nov. 6, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. president Aluki Kotierk brought forward a motion to immediately suspend the final public hearing and defer its continuation for eight months to one year.

Whispers could be heard throughout the room as intervenors turned to their colleagues. Members of the audience turned their heads, looking for Baffinland’s reaction to what was unfolding.

Baffinland officials sat stone-faced, sometimes crossing their arms and looking down at the table as Kotierk spelled out the motion.

“We are concerned that we are going to conclude the public hearing when all things haven’t been finished. The people have to be consulted and have a meaningful discussion. Everyone around the table would like to understand everything that is being presented and how it’s going to affect NTI and organizations,” Kotierk said to a room packed with intervenors and the public.

“Inuit have to be part of the process. It affects every part of Inuit lives,” she said.

The motion was brought forward on the fifth day of the hearing in Iqaluit, an hour before it was scheduled to end.

The NIRB’s original agenda had the hearing continuing to Pond Inlet for community roundtable sessions on Nov. 8 and 9.

The NIRB ruled in favour of NTI’s motion, suspending the hearing and cancelling the Pond Inlet sessions.

All week, Baffinland representatives had gone back and forth with intervenors on their planned construction of a rail line north from the Mary River site to its Milne Inlet port.

The railway, and additional port infrastructure, would make it possible for the company to ramp up their production from the current 6 million tonnes of iron ore per year to 12 million tonnes.

But one sticking point throughout the week was Baffinland’s request for an amendment to its project certificate that would remove its production cap and replace it with a limit tied to transportation of its product, of 20 train trips per day and 176 ship transits per year.

The motion to adjourn was supported by all intervenors, many of whom shared similar concerns about uncertainties over the project.

P.J. Akeeagok, the Qikiqtani Inuit Association’s president, told Nunatsiaq News he had faith in the NIRB’s process to ensure “Inuit would have opportunities to ask good questions in terms of what’s important to them” and “allow community members to really voice their concerns that have been persistent.”

Akeeagok said the motion was not pre-conceived, but came together on the final day of the hearing.

“I think it just boiled down to there’s just too many outstanding questions that haven’t been resolved. From my perspective, if you’re going to make a decision for your future, you’ve got to ensure you have all the information available to make that sound decision. It just wasn’t quite there.”

Representatives from North Baffin communities all agreed with the motion.

“Further information and assessment is needed,” said Amanda Hanson Main, advisor to the Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization. She said the project “has a serious potential to impact the resources we depend on and maintain our sense of purpose and belonging in the world.”

Some groups around the table said they do not oppose the Mary River project in general, and they want Baffinland to continue operating in Nunavut, but they have too many questions and concerns with the proposed expansion.

“The information we’ve been given is watered down and it’s not enough,” said Peter Ivalu, representing the Hamlet of Igloolik. “All of the information given should be translated. You have to make sure everything is transparent.”

Baffinland staff watch as Kotierk introduces the motion to adjourn. (Photo by Emma Tranter)

The Government of Nunavut agreed with the motion, offering a measured response, saying there has been disagreement between intervenors and the proponent that’s created a standstill.

The Government of Canada also supported the motion, but said it was up to the NIRB to determine the appropriate length of the delay.

Through its legal counsel, Baffinland responded that they were opposed to the motion to adjourn for more than eight months and objected that they were given no notice of the motion.

“All parties to this hearing came to the hearing ready to proceed on November 2 when it started,” said Brad Armstrong, legal counsel for Baffinland.

“Not one party indicated to you that they were not ready to proceed on that date. There has been nothing in the course of this proceeding that has made anybody less ready than they were when they got here.”

Megan Lord-Hoyle, vice-president of sustainable development for Baffinland, said delaying the hearing would cause “immediate ramifications” to the business.

“But we will do everything possible to survive and protect the employment of 3,000 Canadians, 476 of which are Inuit. We need to know that Inuit will work with us. We need some time to determine the ramifications on the business,” Lord-Hoyle said.

While the QIA has said that it cannot support phase two, Akeeagok said its work to ensure Inuit are informed about the project and that the project is sustainable will not end.

“We’re not opposed to Mary River at all. We are partners. We own the Inuit-owned lands that they’re on. We support Inuit employment,” he said.

“We invested a lot of our resources and time to ensure the project is sustainable for the long run. So with that mindset, we always have to find the balance. And the balance wasn’t just quite there yet.”

Akeeagok said the communities’ uncertainty around the railway’s impacts on caribou were particularly important to him.

“As an Inuk, those are things that tie right to your culture. And that was very evident with the elders here that they’re not just thinking about themselves, it’s the future generation. That’s what really hits home to me. Any decision I make isn’t about just this moment, it’s the next generation. Did I leave them something better as a foundation that is much better than what I have now? I think that’s the basis of any decision, no matter what culture you’re from,” he said.

In its ruling, the NIRB gave intervenors until Nov. 15 to file written submissions on the motion. Baffinland will then have until Nov. 22 to respond to those submissions. From there, the NIRB will issue written guidance on the motion and the length of the delay.

Share This Story

(54) Comments:

  1. Posted by Peter on

    You made the right choice NTI, QIA and the others, Too many questions and not enough answers. This has great potential to impact the caribou migratory route and the future generations of Inuit who will be impacted. I agree the balance was not there and the concerns need to be answered.

    • Posted by Totally agree on

      When the ore is long gone what jobs will their be to support the community. They have been able to get by with local wildlife which needs protection from destructive practices. Take your time and if Baffinland decides to move on, no problem as there are a dime a dozen of these fly by companies. There is no reason why the environment has to suffer because of GREED!

  2. Posted by Immediate Ramifications on

    Megan Lord-Hoyle, vice-president of sustainable development for Baffinland, said delaying the hearing would cause “immediate ramifications” to the business.

    I thinks that lay offs will happen soon. Immediate is this week or next week or next month.

    I wonder how NTI, QIA and Oceans North will step up to take care of the people that don’t have job anymore?

    Don’t expect Baffinland to take care of them. I think Baffinland will just tell you to figure out!

    George

    • Posted by Ryan on

      Already got mine today. Few hundred more in the works.

    • Posted by A on

      The Immediate ramifications have already started with the layoff of over 500 contractors,inuiut included, that were working based on the expansion. And will mean less new jobs created . The recruiting has been done in all these communities. Reps including some of baffinland own innu employees have visitors the different communities . People need to understand that u cant just hire someone brand new for all the positions. People have to be trained and want the jobs,and respect the rules of employment as well. No drugs at site for instance. Without southerners who would train the innu on the operations of a mine and the equipment and trades required to keep.it running. Dont let pride get in the way and cost baffin island communities a place that will create employment and economy for many many years to come.

      • Posted by Inuit on

        I am hoping they hire Inuit, nothing against First Nation the Innu shouldn’t have priority hiring over Inuit.

      • Posted by Tom on

        It has nothing to do with pride, maybe you should attend the meetings and listen to what the issues are and it has nothing to do with pride.

      • Posted by Are you serious? Wow on

        Are you serious. They have already layed off 500 people in the expansion??? Wow. Well I guess we should have seen that coming. How did we expect to keep them on, if they are not expanding. 8 months is a long time to have people wityh no work…..so 500 peope without a job. Lets see if 500 people make $80,000 a year each that is a total of $40 million dollars no longer feeding families, paying for housing, or going into whatever community they were from. How many Inuit from Baffin? 100? That would be $8million dollars no longer going into Baffin Communities. O.K. QIA time for you to step up. You did not want to support this project. So good thing you have a chest with 45 million dollars in it from royalty payments from the project. Start spending it, and take care of your people. You just ensured they were not working any more. You to NTI. You did not want this to proceed, so take care of your people. They need food, they need houses, they need a future. QIA and NTI bet you will be quiet now………crazy.

      • Posted by Poppy on

        There have been no layoffs for Baffinland employees . Contractors were demobilized one month early

        The communities aren’t accepting , if there are layoffs they will lose the only opportunity for work. Inuits are paid extremely well, for unskilled workers

    • Posted by Pond on

      All of you that look at money money money, your not from pond inlet, that why your only thinking about the very few people from north working. Your not noticing about the wildlife effect pond people big time. Your so bored you just had to comment on this. If you live in pond you would have concerns about this.

      • Posted by Wild life effect on

        I seriously doubt that Pond Inlet knows either to be honest. Its all about money. They just want more of it.

    • Posted by Raven on

      Who cares about Baffinlands ramifications.

      If they layoff any of the 400 Inuit they have employed then they are not concerned about their obligations in the impacts and benefits agreement.

      Clearly they don’t care about the hundreds of Inuit who depend on the sustainability of wildlife. Their lack of care for immediate ramifications to Inuit has been met by the lack of care of Inuit to the ramifications of delaying expansion.

  3. Posted by Qavvigarjuk on

    Good move on the interveners. The future of north baffin caribou which are now in extremely low numbers is at stake here so are our future generations who depend on caribou culturally and spiritually.They also play an important role in our northern home not just for human beings Mining Mary river is just here in a blink of time in the big scheme of things; we must look beyond us and our immediate needs and into the future.

    • Posted by Low Carribou on

      Its not because of Baffinland its because of overhunting lol

  4. Posted by Qavvigarjuk on

    They are just bluffing, they wont be letting go if a bunch of people. If they do come and work at our kivalliq mines. Like your mine, we have not met our Inuit employment goals

  5. Posted by a on

    IS this statement true?

    Through its legal counsel, Baffinland responded that they were opposed to the motion to adjourn for more than eight months and objected that they were given no notice of the motion.

    “All parties to this hearing came to the hearing ready to proceed on November 2 when it started,” said Brad Armstrong, legal counsel for Baffinland.

    “Not one party indicated to you that they were not ready to proceed on that date. There has been nothing in the course of this proceeding that has made anybody less ready than they were when they got here.”

    • Posted by Observer on

      Based on what is being reported as going on, I suspect Baffinland should be happy for a delay in order to get more people on side, because what would be worse for them in the long run? Some months of delay, or NIRB outright saying “No”, as they’ve done before.

      • Posted by Frank Tester on

        This is Baffinland’s legal counsel trying desperately to find a reason for not adjourning. It is as illogical as can be. Just because we come to a hearing with the intention of seeing it through doesn’t mean that when things start to go wrong we should just carry on. If you are eating in a restaurant where you had every intention of having a meal, should you keep eating once you’ve discovered the meat isn’t cooked as it should have been? Baffinland needs time – among other things – to think about its attitude. It needs to listen to everything Inuit are saying, deal honestly with problems (instead of acting like there are none, or none they haven’t taken care of). Baffinland could use more humility and be less certain about what it thinks it knows, and not just pick from what is said, only those things that serve it’s interests. Frank Tester, Technical Advisor, Hamlet of Mittimatalik

      • Posted by Consequences on

        So you think Baffinland will play your games? They will shut everything down and lay everyone off before they feel like the region has them by the throat. That would be no way to operate a business as the communities know nothing about how large mining companies work. Investors will be turned off and will result in a shutdown.

  6. Posted by Ramifications on

    I see Baffinland shutting down everything but a skeleton crew to send a.message. including laying off most of the Inuit workforce.

    Let them explain to the communities why they have no more jobs

    • Posted by Hissy Fit on

      Things don’t go the way that they hoped, so they’re having a tantrum. Baffinland is showing that they’ll do anything to get away with not complying with the laws of the land. Not a good partner.

  7. Posted by This will discourage other companies from investing in the region on

    Expect that this will have long lasting effects.

  8. Posted by Putuguk on

    A year ago when the IIBA was signed for this project, and when the mineral rights were let, that was the time (and even before) for the Inuit orgs to work with affected Inuit and the company to figure out what is needed from all this. This has been accomplished in other regions several times before so not an impossible task.

    It looks like very little of this work was done since then as significant local concerns still exist, and “outstanding questions”. What a condemning admission from our Inuit org, asking for a mulligan at this stage. A southern environmental group spent more time with affected Inuit than they did. No wonder those North Baffin folks keep asking for their own Inuit org.

    For our co-management system to work, Inuit need effective representation. NIRB did its job. The company did theirs. As did – on the face of it- the responsible government departments. Our co-management system has ground to a halt. The system has just taken a giant hit courtesy of NTI and QIA.

    Word is out now that what ordinary Inuit and Inuit orgs say is 2 different things. Investors are listening, as well as every group out there that would like to interject itself into our decisions.

    Come one, come all -please hijack our public hearings for a few days and you will get your wish. Stir the pot enough and our orgs will not have a coherent thing to say. If our orgs had any sense of propriety in allowing this they would compensate all those unfortunate Inuit workers they have suddenly thrown in the ditch.

    • Posted by For the Love of the North on

      Putuguk, thank you for saying what the majority of us think. It is so important for Inuit to work closely with companies, stakeholders and our communities to work together to create a better future for both the environment and economic prosperity for all Inuit in Nunavut.

      NTI and QIA leaders are put in place to be leaders and should not be easily influenced or to take a side that is motivated by their own interests or the interest of a small group. I am 100% for protecting the environment and all of natures beauty to the best of our human abilities. I believe we do need to stand up for what is right and not for political motivation or greed.

      This Baffinland expansion project and the continued success of industries that operate in Nunavut well above environmental expectations should be encouraged and welcomed. Not set back. This sends a terrible message to other business opportunities that Nunavut is not open for economic prosperity I will say this, lets be real, we all rely on money/jobs to survive, housing, heat, food so don’t bit the hand that feeds you and your children .

  9. Posted by There’s iron in those mountains on

    Won’t many future generations of Inuit can’t benefit from the 8 mountains of iron ore on IOL? Baffinland missed every opportunity to listen and get this right. Inuit will have time to adjust and prepare for mining at Mary River. And in the meantime, didn’t QIA just negotiate Tallurutiup Imanga, with 50+ jobs? They not sitting idle…

  10. Posted by Katherine Ouimet on

    I’m in total agreement with the motion. I would go even further as to stop forever any future plans of expansion.

    Two-thirds of the world’s mining companies are headquartered in Canada. They are directly involved in this catastrophic destruction of the environment to the detriment of indigenous populations and for the benefit of the most privileged in our economy (these companies finance your pension funds, for example).

    It should also be noted that in the evolution of ecological discourse, the invisibilization of the first concerned ultimately has the effect of guaranteeing the concentration of privileges within the already most privileged populations: in the early 2000s, the discourse on the need to adopt “daily ecological actions” enabled companies to restore their image around “organic” and “eco-washing”. Today, the aim is still to protect the economic interests of the most privileged by allowing large corporations to continue to adopt the same production methods (again to the detriment of indigenous peoples).

    Naomie Klein, in an interview with Democracy Now, showed that Western states were already adapting to the consequences of climate change, but not in the right way. Measures are already in place to close borders to climate refugees. Instead of responding to climate injustice, States are choosing to strengthen it.

    If, from the outset, the voices of the populations most affected by the climate issue had been put at the centre of the table and listened to, we would have moved much more quickly on the issue of climate urgency. As proof, indigenous peoples have been talking for several decades about the need to change our means of production, but it is only now, through Greta Thunberg, that this discourse is being brought to the highest levels of government. (original article in French here: https://ffq.qc.ca/pourquoi-la-majorite-dentre-vous-na-jamais-entendu-parle-dautumn-peltier/?fbclid=IwAR3xggKXV9H2hTDFJLHy7jChgy1cyI5qiAZYppyHhk9XCOAC3KYURzqhrEQ)

    There’s an opportunity for Inuit to be heard. Abolishing jobs is nothing compared to the earth we’re going to leave our children, not even in 50 years but in less than 10 years if we carry on this way, haranguing everyone about the economic health when the health of human beings are on the board.

    • Posted by So wrong on

      With increased costs of living every year you just assume the canadian federal gov is just going to step hp and cover this for Inuit settlements?

      Such a narrowsighted post

    • Posted by No Moniker on

      I’ve never cared for “Naomie Klein” [sp]. To me her work relies too heavily on sweeping generalizations that reduce the world something out of a marvel comic book, a narrative animated by forces of good versus evil, or in this case privileged versus non- privileged (read: oppressed vs oppressor). Underlying all explanations of actions and actors in the world can be found these simple binaries.
      .
      You’ve done the same here by drawing an analogy between Canadian mining companies working abroad, who have engaged in questionable activities including environmental destruction, no doubt, and Baffinland. Without tying in the relevant information that would make an analogy like this work, you invoke this comparison to compel us to accept that Baffinland is, in fact, working under some dark, nefarious, anti-ecological ethos. They are privileged after all; therefore, they are, ipso facto, an Eco-oppressor, right?
      .
      Your conclusion to all this? Shut it down! People who otherwise live in or close to abject poverty should happily give up their jobs. Don’t worry about feeding your family, because, well… “abolishing jobs is nothing compared to the earth we’re going to leave our children.”
      .
      Interesting leap, considering you’ve made no argument for the contribution of this mine to climate change whatsoever. It’s just a given I suppose, knowable ‘a priori’ because Baffinland = big corporation; big corporations = bad.
      .
      Your argument is absurd.

  11. Posted by Time on

    Maybe it’s time for Inuit to own and operate their own mine. Start small, make mistakes, learn from them, and grow. This is the Inuit way. If not now, when?

    • Posted by Start your own mine on

      Oh I am sure investors would love dropping billions into that idea…..

  12. Posted by iWonder on

    I would encourage everyone to read Putuguk’s comment again. As is most often the case a very insightful analysis. You would make a great journalist.
    .
    Though the ones frothing with a rabid anti-corporatism have some amusement value.
    .
    Be careful Aluki, soon you will be spraying invective to an empty room.
    .
    I wonder what that tune will sound like?

  13. Posted by Tommy on

    Those are alot of “I’s” in your statement Mr. President. WTF were North Baffin Inuit thinking when they made an agreement with a monster? You can’t have the cake and eat it too.

  14. Posted by Terry on

    Baffinland hosted a risk assessment workshop in February for Elders, HTO’s and members from Arctic Bay, Clyde River, Hall Beach, and Pond Inlet residents. Several risk assessment workshops, Qaujimajatuqangit workshops, and working group meetings. Members of the five effected communities were taken to another jurisdiction to have a first hand look at rail operations with presentations on health and safety. Apparently this is still not enough!
    I think first of all we need to ask ourselves whether or not Baffinland could or would continue operating at 6MT/year. if that answer is no, then we have to face the reality of potentially shutting down the largest mining operation in Nunavut, and putting approximately 470 Inuit employees, more in supervisor and higher roles losing their jobs. This is the reality

    • Posted by They will shut down on

      We were warned that this would be the case if they did not sign it.

      They won’t operate at 6mt for long before shutting down operations and demobilizing the site

      • Posted by Good on

        Good. I hope they shut down and then we can all reflect on the short shortsightedness of these orgs who hide their incompetence and lack of preparedness behind anthems of cultural protection and concerns about caribou. It’s a sham but an easy sell to a population so fixated on its own navel.

        • Posted by Fact Checker on

          Yes they are incompetent but QIA cares about their Caribou.

  15. Posted by joe blow on

    I wonder how the communities feel in north baffin? the hearings canceled without them having the chance to hear or express their views on the matter. most impacted either way, and shut out of the discussion with decisions made by others.

    • Posted by Bemused on

      The representatives from those communities were in favour of the motion.

      • Posted by Hmmm on

        Maybe they should of asked the individuals from the communities that work there whay their feelings on the matter was?

        I imagine they did not 🙂

  16. Posted by I live in the Arctic on

    hmmm top baffinland brass possibly demotions or title changes incoming.

  17. Posted by Interested Observer on

    This is what happens when an over zealous mining company (Baffinland Iron Mines) over commits it‘a investors funds on a project without do proper due diligence, in not obtaining local community support first. The company (BIM) is guilty of squandering almost $1 billion without having a project certificate or permits to proceed, and only have themselves to blame. Unfortunately, it is the local community that will suffer as the ramifications of the company’s mid-management are felt across the entire region. It was a very brave but sensible decision to call a halt to the review process and those affected by the impacts of the proposed expansion project should not allow BIM to blackmail them into anything less than what the are entitled too. Of course there will be endless talk of job losses and missed opportunities if the project does not proceed, but the iron ore is not going anywhere, and until a mutually agreed solution is found that protects the interests of the community and the environment, then the right decision is not to allow the project to proceed.

  18. Posted by No Moniker on

    This is a reply to Katherine Ouimet:
    .
    I’ve never cared for “Naomie Klein” [sp]. To me her work relies too heavily on sweeping generalizations that reduce the world something out of a marvel comic book, a narrative animated by forces of good versus evil, or in this case privileged versus non- privileged (read: oppressed vs oppressor). Underlying all explanations of actions and actors in the world can be found these simple binaries.
    .
    You’ve done the same here by drawing an analogy between Canadian mining companies working abroad, who have engaged in questionable activities including environmental destruction, no doubt, and Baffinland. Without tying in the relevant information that would make an analogy like this work, you invoke this comparison to compel us to accept that Baffinland is, in fact, working under some dark, nefarious, anti-ecological ethos. They are privileged after all; therefore, they are, ipso facto, an Eco-oppressor, right?
    .
    Your conclusion to all this? Shut it down! People who otherwise live in or close to abject poverty should happily give up their jobs. Don’t worry about feeding your family, because, well… “abolishing jobs is nothing compared to the earth we’re going to leave our children.”
    .
    Interesting leap, considering you’ve made no argument for the contribution of this mine to climate change whatsoever. It’s just a given I suppose, knowable ‘a priori’ because Baffinland = big corporation; big corporations = bad.
    .
    Your argument is absurd.

    • Posted by Environmental impact on

      They seem to always try and make Baffinland into a nightmarish company when you actually have seen both the communities and site you realize that the communities are a worst environmental hazard than Baffinland is.

      Its all about money. Its just a matter of the number being high enough for them unfortunately

  19. Posted by Sham-ist on

    One day you’ll connect the dots and fully understand that the EIA’s in Nunavut are just formal professes to approve development projects. The Baffinland expansion proposal will eventually be approved in its similar form. There may be a few changes, but at the end of the day proposal will proceed to the licensing phase as requested by the mining giant.

    All of this song and dance is just to make people think they have a meaningful say in what their traditional values are and how they are being affected or how they will be affected and dare I say threatened.

    NIRB doesn’t care, the government’s hand is in their pocket. Neither does NTI care, the government is in their pocket. As you will eventually learn, the system wants you to believe the NIRB is an all powerful body, and that it’s recommendations and decisions are the final say. They are not. You see, major projects in Nunavut must go through and environmental impact assessment (EIA) to do just one thing- determine or ensure there is no lasting harm to the environment and “minimize impact” on the Inuit and their lifestyle. But, they are just basically collateral damage in the big scheme of things. The very bodies born of the Nunavut Agreement that are given one major objective, protect Inuit and their lifestyle are selling them out. The main issue is NTI and the regional Inuit associations are in bed with these big companies, themselves being and or having the same interest as the mining companies are now throwing away of life for “money”. It is in their best interest to be given the same results of their future possible development projects, “a green light”. The EIAs in Nunavut are not worth the paper they are printed on. This project will destroy many irreplaceable wildlife habitat if it hasn’t already. It is definitely threatening the Inuit way of life for the community residents of Pond Inlet. NTI’s motion is just a sham.

    • Posted by ShamWow on

      By Inuit ‘way of life’ are you talking about hunting? When you consider how little land these mine sites take up relative to the massive scale of the territory surrounding them these arguments about irrevocable damage and existential threat seem overblown to me. It’s hard to imagine that the animals that occupy the harshest environment on earth are so fragile and unadaptable that the slightest tweek will lead to population collapse. But who knows, is there any evidence this is happening?

      • Posted by Ukiutaqtumiut on

        The Inuit lifestyle in particular the Thule which Baffin Inuit are known to be associated with are predominately a marine oriented people. Meaning, they relied extensively on the marine ecosystem to survive for thousands of years. Even today, the marine mammals, fish, and seabirds are an important food source and provide oil for fuel. You will also find the skins from marine mammals are still used for clothing, the bones, teeth for carving and tools or weapons. Even to this day, in the smaller communities the main diet may still be seal, fish, whale, Polar Bear and migrating sea birds. All closely connected to that marine ecosystem. Without this connection, their traditional identity be become extinct. To answer your questions yes, it seems the Sham-ist is talking in terms of hunting.

        The residents of Pond Inlet, the marine ecosystems in Milne Inlet and Eclipse Sound are currently attempting to adjust to the current industrial coastal-marine activity. The proposed increase in production will eventually need to reflect an increase in port-shipping activity as well. The local residents and the region have to decide, or will eventually have to decide, at what point is it enough. In reading the Sham-ist’s comment, and if they are true the Inuit organizations have just one goal in mind.

    • Posted by Observer on

      Then the next time there’s an opening on the board at NIRB and the RIAs and NTI, you’re going to put your name forward, right? After all, no better way to expose what’s going on and to back up the accusations than from the inside, right?

  20. Posted by Stephen Petersen on

    When Debeers came into the NT the three First Nation were offered a paltry amount for compensation and a hollow unenforceable hiring/training promise.
    Once the chiefs realized they were duped and wanted to renegotiate the terms DeBeers states that the mine could close on five years instead of 10. Effectively reducing the payments. The hiring never met the percentage and no upward mobility options for First Nations.
    So I agree the extractors need to adhere to local requests. They are not residents of the land.

  21. Posted by Joe on

    Environmental impact is important. The location of the mine is but a small spec of the entirety of the territory of Nunavut. Besides the federal government and the GN where are inuits going to get good paying jobs so they can survive. If you’ve ever lived in the communities, you’ll notice that eight people are cramped into a 3 bedroom house. You’ll see that government employees have it great and the vast majority of the people are living impoverished. All of you, looking from a far makes BIM out to be a monster. They are single handedly doing more to train Inuit, provide opportunities, assist in schooling that any other private entity. Let’s be honest. This is about the Inuit wanting more money and a higher percentage of the work force. All the contractors on site, as well as BIM give Inuit hiring priority. Any of them that apply get jobs! Maybe the numbers are low because some cant work two weeks without drugs or alcohol, they don’t want to be away from their kids and family, or theh have goverment jobs, etc. At the end of the day BIM is changing the lives of the Inuit for the better. Yes this is Inuit land, and BIM needs to appease them, but the Inuit need BIM too. It’s a two way street. Moreover, BIM has been more than fair. I think this is a bunch of political garbage by people living “lavishly” in Nunavut trying to say they care about their people when in actuality they only care about the greed going into their pockets. I hope all these leaders have the balls to personally go explain to some of the Inuit that will, sadly, be laid off why they made their decision when the homeless shelters become even more packed or cant house them.

  22. Posted by Joe on

    Environmental impact is important yes. But, the location of the mine is but a small spec of the entirety of the territory of Nunavut. Besides the federal government and the GN, where are inuits going to get good paying jobs so they can survive? If you’ve ever lived in the communities, you’ll notice that eight people are cramped into a 3 bedroom house is a reality. You’ll see that government doesnt give a shit about “their” people. You’ll see that government employees have it great and the vast majority of the people are living impoverished. The reason the government and staff housing control 91% of available housing in Iqaluit. All of you looking from a far, most never stepped foot on site, are making BIM out to be a monster. They are single handedly doing more to train Inuit, provide opportunities, assist in schooling that any other private entity- probably more than the GN or federal government too. Let’s be honest. This is about the Inuit wanting more money and a higher percentage of the work force. All the contractors on site, as well as BIM give Inuit hiring priority. Any of them that apply get jobs! Maybe the numbers are low because some cant work two weeks without drugs or alcohol, they don’t want to be away from their kids and family, or they have goverment jobs with cushy housing, etc. At the end of the day BIM is changing the lives of the Inuit for the better. Yes this is Inuit land, and BIM needs to appease them, but the Inuit need BIM too. It’s a two way street. Moreover, BIM has been more than fair. I think this is a bunch of political garbage by people living “lavishly” in Nunavut trying to say they care about their people when in actuality they only care about the greed going into their pockets. I hope all these leaders have the balls to personally go to the homeless shelters that will surely spike in population and explain to some of the Inuit that will, sadly, be laid off why they made their decision. It’s now a sad inevitability that the homeless shelters will become even more packed while the greedy pricks that are inhibiting their “next generations” future are enjoying their 6-7 figure salaries without any regard for their own people. Look at what’s really important. BIM feeds more people than the potential loss of a few caribou….

    • Posted by Well said on

      Very well said

      If you look at the salary of those people that made the decisions, they are in the top 2-3% salaries in canada. They want more money.

      Obviously none of them have ever bothered to come to site. Even when we try and get QIA on site to have regular representitives they find every excuse possible. That leaves Baffinland in the drivers seat with little to no support from the orgs that should be helping them.

      I guess then its easy to blame Baffinland for everything.

      BIM has spent more time and resources training Inuit for long term careers that their own GOV has…..

  23. Posted by Fred on

    All these comments worrying about the culture, the caribou, or the environmental impact. Not one is realizing that people are going to go starving, be homeless, unable to have financial growth. Surely drug addiction and depression in the communities will continue to rise.

  24. Posted by Shoplifter on

    No stress, Baffinland partnership with Arctic Coop will solve the issue.

Join the Conversation

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*


Protected with IP Blacklist CloudIP Blacklist Cloud