Voisey's Bay Joint Environmental Assessment Panel
Voisey's Bay Mine and Mill Environmental Assessment Panel Releases Environmental Impact Statement
Panel Announces Start of 75-day Review Period
NAIN, Labrador, December 17, 1997 - The joint environmental assessment panel reviewing the proposal for the Voisey's Bay mine and mill announced today that it has received the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared by the Voisey's Bay Nickel Company in response to the Guidelines issued by the panel in June 1997. The EIS is now available for public review. A 75-day review period begins today, December 17, 1997, and ends on March 1, 1998 as required by the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) established by the Labrador Inuit Association, the Innu Nation, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Canada.
The panel is inviting the public, government agencies and technical specialists to study the EIS and comment on whether the document adequately addresses each requirement of the Guidelines by providing sufficient information to support meaningful discussion at public hearings. Written and/or oral comments must be received by the end of the day on March 2, 1998. Those making oral comments are asked to submit a quality recording.
At this stage of the review, the panel is not inviting comments on the merits of the opinions and conclusions of the studies, nor on the overall proposal as put forth by the proponent. Such comments should be made at the time of the public hearings.
After reviewing the comments received, the panel will determine if the ElS is sufficient to proceed to public hearings. The panel will announce its adequacy determination by April 1, 1998. If the EIS is deemed to be sufficient, the schedule for hearings will be announced by April 8, 1998.
If further information is required, the panel will request the information from the proponent by April 1, 1998. When received, this additional information will then be subject to a further 45-day public review period.
Copies of the written EIS summary in English, Innu-aimun, and Inuktituk are available upon request. Audio and video versions of the summary in all three languages are also available. An English electronic version of the complete EIS can be found on the proponent's Internet site at www.incoltd.com. Paper copies of the complete EIS are available for review at the information centres on the attached list. A CD-ROM version of the EIS is also available.
Please send written and oral submissions to Mr. Brian Torrie, Panel Manager, at the mailing address, electronic mail address or fax numbers listed below. Submissions will also be accepted by Ms. Mary Webb at the panel's Information Office fax number and address listed below. If you have any questions about the review process, please contact Mr. Torrie or Ms. Webb. To facilitate distribution, submissions made electronically or on computer disk would be appreciated.
For more information or for a copy of the written EIS summary (English, Innu-aimun or Inuktituk version) please contact:
Brian Torrie
Panel Manager
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
200 Sacre-Coeur Blvd
Hull, Quebec
K1A 0H3
Tel.: (819) 997-6364 or
(819) 953-6727 (call collect)
Fax: (819) 994-1469 or
(819) 997-4931
e-mail: brian.torrie@ceaa.gc.ca
Ms. Mary Webb
Information Officer
Environmental Assessment Office
P.O. Box 416
Nain, Labrador
Tel: (709) 922-2407
Fax: (709) 922-2409
(Also available in Innu-aimun and Inuktituk)
(Aussi disponible en francais)
---------------------------------
From the St John's Evening Telegram..
The Supreme Court and land claims 12/17/97
(The Evening Telegram)
Last week the Supreme Court of Canada ordered a new trial for the native land claims of the Gixtan Wet'suet'en in British Columbia. Although the ruling directly affected the claims of the 100,000 native people in British Columbia, it also affects native people in every part of the country where treaties have not been signed with native groups. What the Supreme Court means in practice is more difficult to define.
One of the major parts of the ruling is the insistence that oral histories of occupation and land use be taken into account when judges make decisions. In the B.C. case, the lower court judge refused to hear any oral history testimony and that was one of the main reasons for its overturning.
In Newfoundland, the situation with regard to oral histories is mixed. The environmental assessment in Labrador for Voisey's Bay has already agreed to take oral histories into account, and one would assume that oral histories would also be part of the evidence that will be used to flesh out the tentative land claims agreement with the Inuit. One would also assume that virtually all of the native land claims work in Labrador will now take into account oral histories.
On the island part of the province the situation is less clear. Currently the only recognized native land claim is in Conne River. The other 10 native groups have received some support from quasi-governmental agencies, but they have made little progress beyond that.
Part of their problem has been the lack of written historical evidence to support their claims. If oral history must now be taken into account, then the 10 native land claims on the island may have received a major boost. If these claims are pursued in court, they are likely to have a much better chance of success.
The other part of the Supreme Court ruling is perhaps even more important. Ever since the Sparrow decision in 1990, native groups could claim the right to hunting and gathering on their lands, along with the right to subsistence fishing and other ceremonial uses. Under last week's court decision that right appears to have expanded exponentially.
Following this logic, it now appears land claims that were once of marginal value have just increased in value considerably. When the Innu could claim some hunting and gathering rights to Voisey's Bay, their's was a more modest claim than that of the Inuit.
If now the Innu can claim more uses, they should be able to demand compensation for the extraction of minerals as well. Given that ruling, the Tobin government's threat to take the Innu to court to determine just what their claim actually is may not be the slam dunk the province once thought it was.
Some observers of the native land claim scene argue that the Supreme Court has just "leveled the playing field" between the government of Canada and the native groups. If that is the case, negotiations to settle land claims have just been raised to a new, and for developers and governments, a potentially more expensive level.
-----------------------------------
Publication The Financial Post
Date Thu 18 Dec 1997
Edition Daily
Section/category 1, News
Page Number 4
Byline Paul Bagnell, Mining Reporter
Inco willing to curb Voisey's shipments
Inco Ltd. says it is willing to limit winter shipments of nickel concentrate from its Voisey's Bay nickel project in Labrador to ease disruption to hunting and travel by natives.
The company said it will not ship through "landfast ice" near the project during the freeze-up in early winter or in early spring, when most seal hunting occurs.
The pledge is contained in the impact statement Inco has submitted to the environmental panel studying the giant Voisey's Bay project.
For the two native groups living near Voisey's Bay, ice breakers clearing routes for ships could hamper winter travel and hunting.
Natives often use snowmobiles to travel along the ice from community to community, or to hunting grounds.
Inco says it will also study the effects of the shipping activity on caribou movement in the area and develop a way to keep residents up to date on shipping activities.
The company, which has had a difficult time winning the support of natives for its plans at Voisey's Bay, says the effect of winter shipping will be "negligible."
Its submission is about 2,000 pages long, plus 4,000 pages in technical background documents, said Brian Torrie, manager of the environmental panel studying the project.
It deals with numerous environmental and social questions.
The federal and provincial governments and the two native groups concerned -- the Labrador Inuit Association and the Innu Nation -- have agreed to have a single panel evaluate the project. The panel is now giving the public 75 days to comment on whether Inco has provided enough information in its statement. If the information is considered adequate, the panel will schedule public hearings in which the merits of Inco's opinions and conclusions will be debated, Torrie said.
If the company is not required to provide more information, public hearings would probably begin in May or June. |
