Pressure appears to be ramping up as Agnico Eagle seeks political support for its proposed extension of the Meliadine gold mine outside Rankin Inlet.
“We believe if we can show unity in the need to have the Meliadine life of mine extended, it can help the case to have the mine continue for many more years to help Rankin and the Kivalliq benefit and thrive,” wrote Pujjuut Kusugak, Agnico Eagle’s director of Nunavut Affairs, to Rankin Inlet Mayor Harry Towtongie in an email Tuesday, Dec. 5.
His correspondence with the hamlet was included in the agenda package for the council’s final meeting of 2023 on Monday, Dec. 11.
On Nov. 17, the Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB) issued a news release recommending that Agnico Eagle’s extension proposal not be allowed to proceed at this time. That followed a public hearing in Rankin Inlet in September, where proponents, stakeholders and community members discussed the company’s plans to extend the life of the mine by 11 years to 2043.
Of chief concern during the hearing was Agnico Eagle’s proposed windfarm, including up to 11 turbines, and the effect it could have on caribou.
During the hearings, as detailed in a letter from NIRB chair Kaviq Kaluraq to Minister of Northern Affairs Dan Vandal, Agnico Eagle had indicated that due to concerns about the wind farm, the company was willing to move the proposed turbines to a different location — to be chosen in the future — in consultation with the Kivalliq Inuit Association. But because there was not sufficient information regarding the relocated wind farm plans at that time, the NIRB board did not include those plans in its assessment of the extension proposal, which it ultimately recommended against.
In Kusugak’s email to Towtongie, he said the extension proposal “was intended to increase the life of mine from 2032 to 2043, create 205 new jobs and continue to sustain socio-economic growth and the company’s 15-year history of environmental commitments in the region, all while operating largely within the existing mine footprint.”
He noted that the original proposal included an airstrip, which the company removed from its plans due to feedback, and that Agnico Eagle expressed openness to locating the proposed windfarm in a more desirable place.
Despite those concessions, Kusugak noted, NIRB recommended against the extension due to potential negative impacts.
“If approved by Minister Vandal, the negative recommendation will have consequences for Agnico Eagle in Nunavut, as well as for the community of Rankin Inlet and the entire Kivalliq region,” wrote Kusugak.
Recommending against the project at this time affects the timeline of proposed developments, according to Kusugak, including the amount of work and activity that will proceed over the next eight years.
“This directly impacts the number of jobs, amount of training, business opportunities and other associated community economic development benefits that Rankin Inlet and the Kivalliq region would receive from Agnico Eagle mining gold at Meliadine,” Kusugak stated.
As Agnico Eagle told Kivalliq News previously and Kusugak wrote in this letter, the company is aware that “it is not uncommon in the course of permitting for an initial negative recommendation from NIRB to still be successful in getting the permit.”
But on that path forward, Kusugak wants the hamlet’s support early in the new year. He said the company is committed to attending a council meeting to present its position and said a letter of support from the hamlet would “strengthen our proposed approach.”
In response to Kusugak’s email, senior administrative officer Darren Flynn wrote that, “Council was both surprised and shocked with the (NIRB) recommendation” for the extension proposal not to proceed, “and is very interested in meeting with (Agnico Eagle) to discuss moving forward and how the council might be able to assist in this matter. Concern is high as this will have significant impacts on Rankin Inlet.”
He stated that council is prepared to meet with the company anytime representatives are available.
ᐊᒃᓱᕈᓕᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᔫᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᒡᓃᑯᒃᑯᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᔪᒪᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑐᒃᓯᕋᐅᓯᐅᖅᑕᖓᓂᑦ ᐅᐃᒍᒋᐊᕈᒪᑉᓗᒍ ᑕᓯᕐᔪᐊᕐᒥᑦ ᒎᓗᒧᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᒃᑕᕆᐊᖅ ᓯᓚᑖᓃᑦᑐᖅ ᑲᖏᖅᖠᓂᐅᑉ.
“ᐅᒃᐱᕈᓱᒃᑐᒍᑦ ᑕᑯᒃᓴᐅᑎᑦᑎᔪᖕᓇᕋᑉᑕ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᐅᖃᑎᒌᖕᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᑕᓯᕐᔪᐊᕐᒥᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᒃᑕᕆᐊᖅ ᐊᐅᓛᕐᓂᖓ ᐅᐃᒍᒋᐊᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ, ᐅᔭᕋᒃᑕᕆᐊᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᖃᑉᓯᒃᑲᓐᓃᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᓄᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᓂᐊᕐᓗᓂ ᑲᖏᖅᖠᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑭᕙᓪᓕᕐᒥᑦ ᐃᑲᔫᑎᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᕈᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᖕᓇᕐᓗᑎᒃ,” ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑐᖅ ᐳᔾᔫᑦ ᑯᓱᒐᖅ, ᐊᒡᓃᑯᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᔨᖓᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕐᓂᕆᔭᖏᓐᓄᑦ, ᑲᖏᖅᖠᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᒪᐃᔭᒧᑦ ᕼᐃᐅᕆ ᑕᐅᑐᙱᒧᑦ ᖃᕆᑕᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ ᑎᑎᖅᖃᑎᒍᑦ ᑐᒡᓕᐊᓂᑦ ᐋᒡᔪᓕᕐᕕᑦ 5-ᒥᑦ.
ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᖓ ᕼᐋᒻᓚᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᑎᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ ᑲᑎᒪᔾᔪᑎᒃᓴᓄᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔩᑦ ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᓂᖓᓐᓂᑦ 2023-ᒥᑦ ᓴᓇᑦᑕᐃᓕᐅᕌᓂᒃᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᒪᓐᑎᒥᑦ ᐋᒡᔪᓕᕐᕕᒃ 11-ᒥᑦ.
ᑲᑕᒑᕆᕝᕕᒃ 17-ᒥᑦ, ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑐᓴᒐᒃᓴᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᒡᓃᑯᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᐃᒍᒋᐊᖅᓯᔪᒪᑉᓗᑎᒃ ᑐᒃᓯᕋᐅᓯᐅᖅᑕᖓᑦ ᒫᓐᓇᐅᔪᖅ ᐊᔪᖅᑎᑕᐅᖁᑉᓗᒍ. ᑭᖑᓂᐊᒎᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ ᑭᑐᑐᐃᓐᓇᓂᒃ ᑲᑎᒪᑎᑦᑎᖅᖄᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑲᖏᖅᖠᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐊᒥᕋᐃᔭᕐᕕᖕᒥᑦ, ᐱᓕᕆᐊᓖᑦ, ᐃᓚᒋᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᓇᓕᖕᒥᐅᑕᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᑲᒻᐸᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᐃᒍᒋᐊᖅᓯᔪᒪᓂᖓᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᐅᓛᕐᓂᕆᔭᖓᑕ ᐅᔭᕋᒃᑕᕆᐊᑉ 11-ᑲᓐᓃᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᓄᑦ ᑎᑭᓪᓗᒍ 2043-ᒧᑦ.
ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑕᐅᓗᐊᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ ᑲᑎᒪᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐊᒡᓃᑯᒃᑯᑦ ᑐᒃᓯᕋᐅᓯᐅᖅᑕᖓᑦ ᐊᓄᕆᒧᑦ ᑲᐃᕕᑎᑕᐅᔪᓄᑦ ᐃᓂᒋᔭᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ, 11-ᓂᒃ ᑲᐃᕕᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐱᑕᖃᕐᓗᓂ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᒃᑐᐃᔪᖕᓇᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᑐᒃᑐᓄᑦ.
ᑲᑎᒪᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ, ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᖅᓯᒪᓂᖓᑐᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᔪᒥᑦ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖓᑕ ᑲᕕᖅ ᑲᓗᕋᖅ ᒥᓂᔅᑕᒧᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᑖᓐ ᕙᓐᑕᓪ-ᒧᑦ, ᐊᒡᓃᑯᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᖃᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᑉᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᓄᕆᒧᑦ ᑲᐃᕕᑎᑕᐅᔪᓄᑦ, ᑲᒻᐸᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᓯᐊᓄᑦ ᓅᑦᑐᒪᔭᖏᑦ ᐃᓂᒋᓂᐊᓚᐅᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᑦ - ᐃᓂᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᓂᕈᐊᖅᑕᐅᓗᓂ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᒥᑦ - ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒋᓗᒋ ᑭᕙᓪᓕᕐᒥᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᒃᑯᑦ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᓈᒻᒪᒃᑐᓂᒃ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᔾᔪᑎᓂᒃ ᐱᑕᖃᓚᐅᖏᒻᒪᑦ ᐊᓯᐊᓄᐊᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᓄᕆᒧᑦ ᑲᐃᕕᑎᑕᐅᔪᓄᑦ ᐃᓂᒋᔭᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᒧᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎᓂᑦ, ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᑎᓚᐅᖏᑕᖏᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑏᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐃᓂᖓᓐᓂᑦ ᐅᐃᒍᒋᐊᖅᓯᔪᒪᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑐᒃᓯᕋᐅᑎᒥᑦ, ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᖏᓕᓚᐅᖅᖢᓂ.
ᑯᓱᒐᐅᑉ ᖃᕆᑕᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᖓᓂᑦ ᑕᐅᑐᙱᒧᑦ, ᐅᖃᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ ᐅᐃᒍᒋᐊᖅᓯᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑐᒃᓯᕋᐅᑎ “ᐅᑭᐅᑦ ᐅᒥᓱᙳᕆᐊᕐᓂᐊᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᐅᓛᕐᓂᖓᑕ ᐅᔭᕋᒃᑕᕆᐊᑉ 2032-ᒥᑦ 2043-ᒧᑦ, 205-ᓂᒃ ᓄᑖᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᓂᒃ ᓴᖅᕿᑦᑎᓗᓂ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ-ᐱᕈᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖏᓐᓂᑦ ᐱᕈᐃᑎᑦᑎᓗᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑲᒻᐸᓂᒃᑯᑦ 15 ᐅᑭᐅᓂᑦ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᓯᒪᔭᖏᑦ ᑭᕙᓪᓕᕐᒥᑦ, ᐊᑕᐅᑦᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᐅᓛᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᐅᔪᒥᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᒃᑕᕆᐊᑉ ᐃᓂᒋᔭᖓᓂᑦ.”
ᐅᖃᖅᖢᓂ ᑐᒃᓯᕋᐅᑕᐅᖅᖃᐅᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᒥᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᔪᖅ ᒥᑦᑕᕐᕕᒃ, ᑲᒻᐸᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐲᓚᐅᖅᑕᖓᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎᖓᓂᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᔪᑦ ᑕᒪᑐᒧᖓ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᑉᓗᒋᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᒡᓃᑯᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᑎᑦᑎᑉᓗᑎᒃ ᐅᒃᑯᐃᖓᖕᒪᑕ ᐊᓯᐊᓄᐊᕐᓂᐊᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᔭᐅᔪᒪᓂᖅᓴᐅᔪᒧᑦ ᐃᓂᐅᔪᒧᑦ ᐊᓄᕆᒧᑦ ᑲᐃᕕᑎᑕᐅᔪᑦ.
ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇᐃᖓᒐᓗᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᑯᓱᒐᖅ ᐅᖃᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ, ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᖁᔨᓚᐅᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐅᐃᒍᒋᐊᖅᓯᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐱᑦᑕᐅᖏᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᓯᓂᖃᕈᖕᓇᕐᓂᖓ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᑉᓗᒍ.
“ᓈᒻᒪᒋᔭᐅᒃᐸᑦ ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᒡᕙᓐᑕᓪ-ᒧᑦ, ᐃᑲᔪᐃᖏᑦᑐᖅ ᐱᖁᔭᐅᔪᖅ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᑎᑦᑎᓂᖃᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᒡᓃᑯᒃᑯᓐᓂᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᓇᓕᖕᒧᑦ ᑲᖏᖅᖠᓂᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑭᕙᓪᓕᓗᒃᑖᒧᑦ,” ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑐᖅ ᑯᓱᒐᖅ.
ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᖁᔨᖏᓐᓂᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕐᒥᑦ ᒫᓐᓇᐅᔪᖅ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᓯᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᖃᖓᒃᑰᖓᔪᓂᒃ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᔭᐅᔪᒪᔪᓄᑦ, ᑯᓱᖓᖅ ᐅᖃᖅᑐᖅ, ᐃᓚᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᖏᑎᒋᓂᖓᑕ ᐱᓕᕆᓂᐅᑉ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ 8 ᐅᑭᐅᓂᑦ ᖃᐃᔪᓂᑦ.
“ᐊᒃᑐᖅᓯᔪᖅ ᖃᑉᓯᐊᕐᔪᖕᓂᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᓂᒃ, ᐊᔪᕈᖕᓃᖅᓴᐃᓂᓃᑦ ᖃᑉᓯᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂᑦ, ᓇᖕᒥᓂᓖᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᓄᑦ ᐱᕕᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᓂᒃ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᓕᖕᒥᑦ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᑲᔪᐃᔪᓂᒃ ᑲᖏᖅᖠᓂᐅᑉ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑭᕙᓪᓕᐅᑉ ᐱᓇᔭᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒡᓃᑯᒃᑯᑦ ᒎᓗᒧᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᒃᑕᕆᐊᕐᒥᑦ ᑕᓯᕐᔪᐊᕐᒥᑦ,” ᑯᓱᒐᖅ ᐅᖃᖅᑐᖅ.
ᐊᒡᓃᑯᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᖃᓚᐅᕐᓂᖓᑐᑦ ᑭᕙᓪᓕᕐᒥᑦ ᑐᓴᒐᒃᓴᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑯᓱᒐᐅᑉ ᑕᒡᕙᓂ ᑎᑎᖅᖃᒥᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᖓᓂᑦ, ᑲᒻᐸᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔪᑦ “ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᒐᔪᒃᑐᑦ ᐱᔪᖕᓇᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᓕᕆᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐳᒥᑦᓂᒃ ᐃᑲᔪᐃᖏᖁᔨᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᐊᓂᑦᑎᐊᕈᖕᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᓱᓕ ᐱᔪᖕᓇᖅᑎᑦᑎᔾᔪᑎᒥᒃ ᐳᒥᑦᒥᑦ.”
ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᓯᕗᒻᒧᒃᐸᓪᓕᐊᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ, ᑯᓱᒐᖅ ᕼᐋᒻᓚᒃᑯᓐᓂᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᖁᔨᔪᖅ ᓄᑖᖅ ᐅᑭᐅᖅ ᐱᒋᐊᓵᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ. ᐅᖃᖅᑐᖅ ᑲᒻᐸᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᕼᐋᒻᓚᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᕐᓂᒍᑎᓯᒪᔪᖕᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᑐᓂᓯᓂᐊᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᓇᓃᓐᓂᕆᔭᖏᓐᓂᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑎᑎᖅᖃᖅ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᔪᖅ ᕼᐋᒻᓚᒃᑯᓐᓂᙶᖅᑐᖅ “ᓴᙱᒃᑎᒋᐊᖅᓯᔪᖕᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᑐᕈᒪᔭᑉᑎᖕᓂᑦ.”
ᑭᐅᑉᓗᓂ ᑯᓱᒐᐅᑉ ᖃᕆᑕᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᖓᓄᑦ, ᐊᖓᔪᖅᖄᖅ ᑎᐅᕆᓐ ᕕᓕᓐ ᑎᑎᕋᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ, “ᑲᑎᒪᔩᑦ ᓂᕆᐅᓚᐅᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖁᒃᓴᓪᓚᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ (ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ) ᐱᖁᔨᓂᖓᓐᓂᒃ” ᐅᐃᒍᒋᐊᖅᓯᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑐᒃᓯᕋᐅᑎ ᑲᔪᓯᖁᔭᐅᖏᑦᑐᖅ, “ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑲᑎᖃᑎᒋᔪᒪᑦᑎᐊᖅᑕᖏᑦ (ᐊᒡᓃᑯᒃᑯᑦ) ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᓂᐊᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᓯᕗᒻᒧᒃᐸᓪᓕᐊᓃᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᖅ ᕼᐋᒻᓚᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕈᖕᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᑉᓗᒍ. ᐊᖏᔫᔪᖅ ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑕᐅᔪᖅ ᐊᖏᔪᒥᒃ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᓯᓂᖃᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᑦ ᑲᖏᖅᖠᓂᕐᒧᑦ.”
ᐅᖃᖅᖢᓂ ᕼᐋᒻᓚᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ ᑲᑎᖃᑎᖃᕈᖕᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᑲᒻᐸᓂᒥᑦ ᖃᖓᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᖅᑎᖏᑦ ᒪᓂᒪᓕᖅᐸᑕ.