NIRB Final Hearing Report on Kiggavik uranium project

8/9/2019 NIRB Final Hearing Report on Kiggavik uranium project

1/322May 2015

Nunavut Impact Review Board

Final Hearing ReportKiggavik Uranium Mine Project

AREVA Resources Canada Incorporated

NIRB File No. 09MN003


2/322

i

INSIDE COVER PAGE

The Nunavut Impact Review Board’s Primary Objectives under the Nunavut LandClaims Agreement, Article 12, Section 2.2.5:

In carrying out its functions, the primary objectives of NIRB shall be at all times to protect andpromote the existing and future well-being of the residents and communities of the Nunavut

Settlement Area, and to protect the ecosystemic integrity of the Nunavut Settlement Area. NIRBshall take into account the well-being of residents of Canada outside the Nunavut Settlement Area.

Contact Information:Nunavut Impact Review BoardPO Box 136029 Mitik StreetCambridge Bay, NU X0B 0C0Telephone: (867) 983-4600Facsimile: (867) 983-2594

Cover Photo Credits: NIRB Staff


3/322

ii

SIGNATURE PAGE

Photo 1: Board Members: (from left) Guy Alikut, Jaypootie Aliqatuqtuq, Phillip Kadlun, Elizabeth Copland,Marjorie Kaviq Kaluraq, Henry Ohokannoak, Joe Ohokannoak

THIS REPORT IS SUBMITTED TO THE HONOURABLE BERNARD VALCOURT, MINISTER OF ABORIGINA

AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT BY THE NUNAVUT IMPACT REVIEW BOARD ON THIS 8TH

DAYOF MAY, 2015

Elizabeth Copland, Chairperson Phillip Kadlun, Board Member

Kaviq Kaluraq, Board Member Henry Ohokannoak, Board Member

Guy Alikut, Board Member Joe Ohokannoak, Board Member

Jaypootie Aliqatuqtuq, Board Member


4/322

iii

COVER LETTER

NIRB File No.: 09MN003May 8, 2015

The Honourable Bernard ValcourtMinister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development10 Wellington, 21 st FloorGatineau, QC K1A 0H4

Sent via email and courier: [email protected] ; [email protected]

Re: Final Hearing Report for the Nunavut Impact Review Board’s Assessment ofAREVA Resources Canada Incorporated’s “Kiggavik Uranium Mine” ProjectProposal

Dear Bernard Valcourt:

As required under Section 12.5.6 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA) please findenclosed the Final Hearing Report of the Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB or Board) withrespect to AREVA Resources Canada Incorporated’s Kiggavik Uranium Mine Project Proposal,

NIRB File No. 09MN003. The enclosed Final Hearing Report contains the NIRB’s assessmentof the potential ecosystemic and socio-economic effects of the Kiggavik Project Proposal andconcludes that the Project should not proceed at this time. The Board does not intend that thisProject not proceed at any time. The Board intends that the Kiggavik Project may beresubmitted for consideration at such future time when increased certainty regarding the projectstart date can be provided. This may enable the Board to make more definite and confidentassessments of potential ecosystemic and socio-economic effects having regard to the enduringsignificance of caribou, fish and marine wildlife for Nunavummiut, especially the residents andcommunities of the Nunavut Settlement Area, and the potential for project-specific andcumulative effects which could adversely affect these. The Board makes recommendations toyou about actions which may assist the NIRB in considering any future proposal in respect ofthis Project.

Translated versions of the Final Hearing Report will be prepared in Inuktitut and French, andwill be made publically available as soon as possible. Please contact the undersigned in writingif you have questions regarding this matter.

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


5/322

iv

Sincerely,

Elizabeth CoplandChairperson

Nunavut Impact Review Board

cc: The Honourable Gail Shea, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, GOCThe Honourable Greg Rickford, Minister of Natural Resources, GOCThe Honourable Lisa Raitt, Minister of Transport, GOCThe Honourable Leona Aglukkaq, MP for Nunavut

Cathy Towtongie, President, Nunavut Tunngavik IncorporatedDavid Ningeongan, President, Kivalliq Inuit AssociationThe Honourable Peter Taptuna, Premier, NunavutThe Honourable Johnny Mike, Minister of Community and Government Services, NunavutDiane Martens, AREVA Resources Canada IncorporatedTammy Van Lambalgen, AREVA Resources Canada IncorporatedKiggavik Distribution List


6/322

v

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Project Proponent: AREVA Resources Canada Incorporated

817 – 45th Street West

Saskatoon, SK S7K 3X5

Date Project DescriptionReceived:

November 25, 2008

Positive ConformityDetermination Received fromthe Nunavut PlanningCommission:

January 16, 2009

Dates of Hearings: Day 1: March 3, 2015, Baker Lake, NUDay 2: March 4, 2015, Baker Lake, NUDay 3: March 5, 2015, Baker Lake, NUDay 4: March 6, 2015, Baker Lake, NUDay 5: March 7, 2015, Baker Lake, NUDay 6: March 9, 2015, Baker Lake, NUDay 7: March 10, 2015, Baker Lake, NUDay 8: March 11, 2015, Baker Lake, NU Day 9: March 12, 2015, Baker Lake, NUDay 10: March 13, 2015, Baker Lake, NUDay 11: March 14, 2015, Baker Lake, NU

Board Members Present: Elizabeth Copland, Chairperson

Guy Alikut, MemberPhillip Kadlun, MemberMarjorie Kaviq Kaluraq, MemberHenry Ohokannoak, MemberJoe Ohokannoak, MemberJaypootie Aliqatuqtuq, Member

Board Staff: Executive Director R. BarryDirector, Technical Services T. ArkoTechnical Advisor H. RasmussenAssistant Technical Advisor A. Hizaka

Senior Finance Officer P. EvalikSecretary/Receptionist L. Atatahak

Board Legal Counsel: K. Lambrecht

Interpreters: J. Tucktoo-LacasseT. TiktakJ. Ayaruak


7/322

vi

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Court Reporters: S. Anderson, Dicta Court ReportingK. McLeod, Dicta Court Reporting

Sound Technician: R. Dempster, PIDO Productions

Parties:Proponent:AREVA Resources Canada Inc. J. Corman, Vice President (Operations and Projects)

D. Huffman, Vice President (Safety, Health, Environment)D. Martens, Regulatory Process ManagerB. McCallum, Manager, Nunavut AffairsN. Drake, Environmental EngineerA. Rosaasen, Manager, Environmental SciencesB. Schmid, Supervisor, Environmental Geosciences

J. Beckett ,Consultant (Nunami Stantec)P. Bennett, Consultant (Bennett Environmental Consulting)S. Fernandes, Consultant (SENES Consultants)J. Kirkaldy, Consultant (SENES Consultants)S. Ross, Consultant (Golder)M. Setterington, Consultant (Environmental Dynamics Inc.)T. Hamai, Partner, JCU ExplorationB. Armstrong, Legal Counsel

Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.: C. Towtongie, PresidentJ. Eetoolook, Vice PresidentJ. Arreak, Chief Executive OfficerP. Irngaut, Director, Department of Wildlife and EnvironmentB. Dean, Assistant Director, Department of Wildlife and EnvironmentH. Uniuqsaraq, Director, Policy and PlanningK. Morrison, Senior Advisor, Department of Lands and ResourcesA. Dunford, Policy Analyst, EnvironmentS. Omik, Legal Counsel

Kivalliq Inuit Association: D. Ningeongan, PresidentR. Ningeocheak, Vice PresidentS. Hartman, Executive DirectorL. Manzo, Director of Lands

K. Poole, Head of WildlifeJ. Tulugak, Lands DepartmentJ. Hart, Lands DepartmentT. van der Vooren, Air QualityB. Stewart, Marine Wildlife and Marine Shipping AssessmentA. Sexton, Geology and Mining DevelopmentN. Hutchinson, Water Quality and HydrologyB. Parlee, Traditional Knowledge


8/322

vii

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS S. Lister, Socioeconomics and Community EngagementL. Oolooyuk, Communications and Community OfficerL. Niego, Environment CoordinatorK. Gilson, Legal Counsel

Government of Nunavut: S. Pinksen, Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of EnvironmentB. MacIsaac, Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of EconomicDevelopment and TransportationD. Baikie, Project Manager for Impact Assessment, Department ofEnvironmentS. Atkinson, Wildlife Consultant, Department of EnvironmentT. Cousins, Environmental Assessment Coordinator, Department ofHealthL. Kamermans, Acting Manager, Environmental Assessment andRegulation, Department of Economics Development and

TransportationS. Le Blanc, Territorial Archeologist, Department of Culture andHeritageJ. Rogers, Environmental Assessment Coordinator, Department ofEconomic Development and TransportationM. Wilson, Ecosystems and Environment Assessment BiologistL. MacKenzie, Regional Director, Kivalliq RegionM. Baikie, Chief Medical Officer of HealthD. Albahary, Legal Counsel

Canadian Nuclear SafetyCommission

H. Harpell, Environmental Assessment SpecialistS. Mihok, Environmental Risk Assessment SpecialistM. McKee, Lead Technical AdvisorT. Barr, Radiation and Health SpecialistD. Schryer, Uranium Mines and Mills SpecialistG. Su, Geoscience Technical SpecialistS. Eaton, Project OfficerR. Lane, Radiation and Health Science Specialist

Aboriginal Affairs andNorthern DevelopmentCanada:

S. Traynor, Regional Director General, Nunavut RegionJ. Neary, Manager of Impact AssessmentM. Sewchand, Senior Environmental Assessment CoordinatorF. Ngwa, Environmental Assessment Coordinator

T. Fast, Regional Socio-Economic AnalystA. Fleisher, Communications OfficerT. Simmons, Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency

Department of Justice(Canada):

N. Cavanagh, Legal Counsel

Environment Canada: D. Fox, Head, Air Quality


9/322


10/322

ix

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Individual Intervenor Paula Kigjugalik Hughson

Community Representatives:Baker Lake J. (Joseph) Scottie

M. PerkisonD. OvyukE. Elytook

Chesterfield Inlet L. (Leo) MimialikE. TautuA. TautuL. MimialikR. Qiyuk

Rankin Inlet T. Irwin

A. KabvitokJ. TaipanaJ. Tayoana

Whale Cove R. EnuapikE. VoiseyV. SituratP. KabloonaM. Nangmalik

Arviat P. AlareakM. AhmakD. Aglukark

Repulse Bay (Naujaat) S. MallikiM. TuktudjukL. HaqpiE. HaqpiD. Mablik

Coral Harbour C. AngootealukD. MatooM. Matoo

NOTE:For access to complete records of sign- in and attendance at all Hearing venues please visit the NIRB’s publicregistry at http://ftp.nirb.ca .

http://ftp.nirb.ca/http://ftp.nirb.ca/http://ftp.nirb.ca/http://ftp.nirb.ca/


11/322

x

CHAIRPERSON’S FOREWARD

This report has been prepared by the Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB or Board) for the review andconsideration of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (the Minister) asset out in Article 12, Section 12.5.6 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. This report contains the

Board’s assessment of the Kiggavik Uranium Mine Project proposed by AREVA Resources CanadaIncorporated, and its determination of whether or not the project should proceed based on thisassessment.

In carrying out its functions, the Board took into account the matters in section 12.5.5 of the NunavutLand Claims Agreement (NLCA), the information contained in the Public Registry maintained by theBoard for this Project, including the Final Environmental Impact Statement, and the evidence andsubmissions received at the Final Hearing conducted in Baker Lake, Nunavut, in March of 2015.

The Minister’s letter of February 23, 2010, sent this Project to NIRB for review pursuant to section12.4.7(b) of the NLCA. Pursuant to section 12.5.1 of the NLCA , the Minister’s letter also (i) highlighted

specific issues for the Board to pay particular attention to during the course of its review, and (ii)encouraged the Board to undertake its review in such a way as to enable meaningful participation of thepublic and thorough public consultation. The Board’s review had regard for these specific issues, andwas undertaken in a manner which complied with the Minister’s direction to enable meaningfulparticipation of the public and thorough public consultation.

As regards public consultation, the Board’s process is routinely documented in the NIRB Public Registryand this is accessible via the internet. The Board’s routine process also includes communityconsultations. For this Review the NIRB held public information meetings in each of the sevencommunities of the Kivalliq region of Nunavut -- Arviat, Baker Lake, Chesterfield Inlet, Coral Harbour,Rankin Inlet, Repulse Bay (Naujaat) and Whale Cove – and in three communities of northernSaskatchewan -- Wollaston Lake, Black Lake, and Fond du Lac. For the Kiggavik Project, specifically, aparticipant funding program to support public participation in the NIRB review of the Project was madeavailable to individuals, Aboriginal organizations, municipal governments of Nunavut, and incorporatednot-for-profit organizations interested in participating in the Review. The participant funding programwas administered by the federal department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), and couldcover eligible expenses, such as travel costs and fees for experts to support participation, but may nothave covered all expenses incurred by a participant. Numerous individuals or organizations tookadvantage of this funding to participate in the NIRB Review, including technical reviews, the pre-hearingconference and/or the Final Hearing. The Final Hearing was held in Baker Lake, Nunavut, the nearestcommunity to the proposed Project, and the Board sat extended hours so that members of the publicmight have the most opportunity to attend and ask questions. The NIRB further supported publicparticipation by enabling the seven communities of the Kivalliq region of Nunavut to each send up to

five representatives to attend the whole of the Final Hearing, ask questions and make submissions.Recognizing that the Inuit languages, Inuinnaqtun and Inuktitut, do not have terms associated withuranium or its development, the Board also encouraged the Government of Nunavut, via the Office ofthe Language Commissioner for Nunavut and then the Inuit Uqausinginnik Taiguusiliuqtiit (InuitLanguage Authority), to develop and establish language standards specific to uranium in order toincrease effective communications between Nunavummiut and the parties to the Board Review.


12/322

xi

After reviewing the Kiggavik project proposal, and after taking into account all matters that are relevantto its mandate , the Board has concluded that the Project should not proceed at this time. The KiggavikProject as presented has no definite start date or development schedule. The Board found that thisadversely affected the weight and confidence which it could give to assessments of future ecosystemicand socio-economic effects.

At the same time, the Board heard concerns respecting the enduring significance of caribou, fish andmarine wildlife for Nunavummiut, especially the residents and communities of the Nunavut SettlementArea, and the potential for project specific and cumulative effects which could adversely affect these.The Board’s view is that the Kiggavik Project may be resubmitted at such future time when increasedcertainty regarding the start date for the project can be provided, and so enable the Board to makemore definite and confident assessments having regard to the enduring significance of caribou, fish andmarine wildlife for Nunavummiut, especially the beneficiaries of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement,and enable the Board to make more definite and confident assessments of eco-systemic and socio-economic effects.


13/322

xii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Report is the culmination of the Nunavut Impact Review Board’s (NIRB or Board) review of theKiggavik Uranium Mine Project (Kiggavik Project), proposed by AREVA Resources Canada Incorporated(AREVA).

The Kiggavik Project involves a proposed uranium ore mining and milling operation located in theKivalliq region of Nunavut. The Project consists of two separate mine sites, the Kiggavik site and theSissons site, together with the Baker Lake Dock facility. The proposed mining sites are located to thewest of Baker Lake, while the Dock facility is proposed to be in Baker Lake. Uranium ore deposits at theKiggavik site would be mined using open pit mining methods, while uranium ore deposits at the SissonsSite would be mined using open pit and underground methods. Ore from the mines would be stockpiledprior to processing in a mill located at the Kiggavik site. In addition to the mill, the Kiggavik site wouldinclude storage and utility facilities, main accommodations and a nearby registered aerodrome. Minedout pits at the Kiggavik site would serve as tailings management facilities. Uranium product producedthrough the milling process (also known as “yellowcake”) would be sealed in drums and transported via

aircraft to Points North in Saskatchewan, for distribution internationally via transportation networks insouthern Canada. To link the Kiggavik and Sissons sites with the dock facility, AREVA sought approval ofboth a winter road and an all-season access road. AREVA indicated that its preferred course of action isto operate the mine with only the winter access road, but it sought approval of an all-season access roadat this time should this become necessary for operational reasons. AREVA estimates a construction timeof 3-4 years, a mine operational life estimated at 12 years, decommissioning estimated at 5 years, andpost decommissioning monitoring lasting an additional 10 years. The life of the mill could also beextended should AREVA obtain approval to develop other uranium ore resources in the Kivalliq region.

On November 25, 2008 AREVA submitted its Kiggavik project proposal to the NIRB for consideration. OnJanuary 16, 2009 the NIRB received a positive conformity determination from the Nunavut PlanningCommission for this Project under the Keewatin Regional Land Use Plan. The NIRB proceeded to screenthe Kiggavik Project in accordance with Part 4 of Article 12 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement(NLCA), and on March 13, 2009, issued a Screening Decision Report to the Responsible Minister, thenthe Honourable Chuck Strahl, recommending a review under Part 5 or 6 of Article 12 of the NLCA. OnMarch 2, 2010, pursuant to Section 12.4.7 of the NLCA, the Minister referred the Project to the NIRB fora review pursuant to Part 5 of Article 12 of the NLCA. In addition, pursuant to Section 12.5.1 of theNLCA, the Minister identified particular issues or concerns for the NIRB to consider during its Review ofthe Kiggavik P roject. On March 3, 2010 the NIRB distributed the Minister’s decision and commenced itsReview of the Kiggavik Project. The progress of review process from 2010 to 2015 is documented in theNIRB Public Registry. The Review process concluded in March of 2015 with Final Hearings held in BakerLake, Nunavut.

Over the course of the NIRB Review of this Kiggavik Project, the NIRB heard from AREVA, NunavutTunngavik Incorporated, the Kivalliq Inuit Association, Government of Nunavut, Aboriginal Affairs andNorthern Development Canada, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Environment Canada, Fisheriesand Oceans Canada, Health Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Transport Canada, the Baker LakeHunters & Trappers Organization, the Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board, theAthabasca Denesuline Né Né Land Corporation, Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation, NunavummiutMakitagunarningit, Paula Kigjugalik Hughson, representatives of all of the seven communities in the


14/322

xiii

Kivalliq region of Nunavut, and many members of the general public including elders, youth, women,hunters and trappers, and municipal representatives.

The Board is required to consider matters defined in section 12.5.5 of the NLCA. These matters, theevidence and submissions received, and the views of the Board, are described in this Report underheadings of Ecosystemic Effects, Socio-economic Effects, and Other Matters.

AREVA stated at the outset of the NIRB’s Final Hearing that the world price of uranium made the projectuneconomic at the present time. Further, AREVA could not provide a definite start date for the Project.AREVA did express confidence that, at some point in the future, the demand for uranium would lead toan increase in price and so to development of the project. During the Final Hearing, numerous partiesoffered their views on the length of time before the predictions in the Final Environmental ImpactStatement might need to be revisited, in whole or in part. When performing its functions, the Boardfound that the absence of a definite start date for the project, and the admitted necessity of revisitingthe predictions in the Final Environmental Impact Assessment in future, adversely affected itsconsideration of the weight and confidence which it could give to assessments of project specific andcumulative effects.

The Board was also influenced by Inuit Qaujimaningit respecting caribou, fish and marine wildlife, theenvironment in which these live, and the importance of preserving the integrity of these in the event ofuranium mining development in the Kivalliq region. No party disputed the enduring significance ofcaribou, fish and marine wildlife for Nunavummiut, especially the residents and communities of theNunavut Settlement Area. This was symbolized by the closing submissions of the Baker Lake Huntersand Trappers Organization at the Final Hearings:

The Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization is not necessarily against Kiggavik. We justwant to make sure that we have the best possible protection for our caribou and that mining isdone responsibly … we do not want this proposal approved but still hanging over our heads for

decades to come, not knowing what the future of our community will be. We would be sittingand waiting for decades totally powerless to control our own future. This would not beright….The company can return when they have a start date, when they are serious aboutgetting this project off the ground. Then we can talk about it.

These submissions corresponded to the Final Written Submission of the Baker Lake Hunters andTrappers Organization, which stated as follows:

To allow AREVA to get approval today but build the mine at some undetermined time in thefuture may make AREVA ’s Environmental Impact Statement outdated by the time the mine isbuilt. If AREVA’s mine is approved based on studies done today, but not built for 10 or 20 years,the information in the studies will be badly outdated. This could make a mockery of the entireassessment process that the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement created.

With respect to the safety of uranium mining to human health, in particular, AREVA was confident thatthe project could be undertaken safely. The CNSC was confident that it could regulate the project withinthe confines of its jurisdiction, and that this mining and milling activity could be undertaken safely. Acontrary view, expressed by Nunavummiut Makitagunarningit [Makita], represented that uraniummining could not be undertaken safely. The Board did not find Makita’s evidence in this respect to becompelling, and rejects it.


15/322


16/322

xv

ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔨᓄᑦ ᑐᕌᖓᔪᑦ ᓇᐃᓈᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᒃ

ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐊᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑲᑎᖅᓱᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᕈᑕᐅᕗᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᓐᓂᒃ (ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓗᓐᓃᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔩᑦ) ᕿᒥᕈᐊᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑭᒡᒐᕕᖕᒥ ᔪᕇᓂᔭᒻᒥᒃ ᓄᖑᔪᐃᑐᓕᖕᓂᒃ

ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᕕᒃᓴᒥᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᔪᒪᔪᓂᒃ (ᑭᒡᒐᕕᖕᒥ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᐃᑦ), ᐱᒋᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᒪᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᕇᕙᒃᑯᑦ ᓄᓇᒥᐅᑕᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑯᐊᐳᕇᓴᖏᓐᓄᑦ (ᐊᕚᕆᒃᑯᑦ).

ᑭᒡᒐᕕᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᔪᒪᔭᖏᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᑐᑦ ᐱᒋᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᔪᒪᓂᖅ ᔪᕇᓂᔭᒻᒥᒃ ᓄᖑᔪᐃᑦᑐᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓃᑐᓂᒃ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕈᒪᓂᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᖃᓕᑎᕆᕕᖃᕈᒪᓂᖅ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᒃ ᑕᐅᕙᓂ ᑭᕙᓪᓕᕐᒥᐅᑦ ᐊᕕᒃᑐᖅᓯᒪᓂᖓᓐᓂ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ. ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᐃᑦ ᐃᓚᖃᕐᓂᐊᖅᑑᒃ ᒪᕐᕈᖕᓂᒃ ᑲᑎᖓᖏᑦᑑᖕᓂᒃ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᕕᒃᓴᐅᓇᔭᖅᑑᖕᓂᒃ, ᑕᐃᑲᓂ ᑭᒡᒐᕕᖕᒥ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᐅᕙᓂ ᓯᓴᓐᔅ ᐃᓂᖓᓂ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᒪᓂᑐᐊᕐᒥ ᑐᓚᒃᑕᕐᕕᖃᕋᔭᖅᑐᒥᒃ. ᐱᒋᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᒪᓂᖏᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᕕᒃᓴᐃᑦ ᐱᖓᖕᓇᖅᐸᓯᐊᓃᓐᓇᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᕿᒪᓂ’ᑐᐊᑉ, ᑕᐃᓐᓇᓗ ᑐᓚᒃᑕᕐᕕᒃᓴᖅ/ ᑭᓴᖅᓯᒪᕝᕕᒃᓴᖅ ᖃᒪᓂ’ᑐᐊᕐᒥᓂᓐᓇᔭᖅᑐᖅ. ᔪᕇᓂᔭᒻᖃᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᓄᖑᔪᐃᑦᑐᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐅᔭᕋᖃᕐᕕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᑭᒡᒐᕕᖕᒥ ᐃᓂᖃᕋᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᓇᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᒪᑐᐃᖔᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᓄᓇᒥᒃ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᕕᖃᕐᓗᑎᒃ, ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊᓗ ᔪᕆᓂᔭᒻᒥᖃᖅᑐᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᖏᑦ ᓄᓇᒦᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᑕᐃᕙᓂ ᓯᓴᓐᔅᓂ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᓇᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᒪᑐᐃᖓᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᓄᓇᒥᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᓇᐅᑉ ᐃᓗᐊᓃᓐᓂᓇᔭᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᒨᖃᐃᕕᖃᓗᑎᒃ. ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᓂᒃ ᓄᖑᔪᐃᑐᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓴᓂᕐᕙᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᖃᑦᑕᕋᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᕐᒦᑦᑎᑕᐅᓗᑎᒃ ᖁᓕᕇᓕᖅᑎᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂ ᓯᕗᓂᐊᒍᑦ ᓯᖃᓕᑎᕆᕝᕕᖕᒧᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᒋᐊᓚᐅᖏᓐᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᑕᐅᕙᓂ ᑭᒡᒐᕕᖕᒦᓐᓇᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᒥ. ᐊᒻᒪᑕᐅᖅ ᓯᖃᓕᑎᕆᕕᖃᕐᓗᑎᒃ, ᑭᒡᒐᕕᖕᒥ ᐱᖁᑎᖃᕋᔭᕐᒥᔪᖅ ᑐᖁᖅᓯᓯᒪᕕᖕᒥᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓴᓇᕝᕕᒃᓴᖃᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᒡᓗᖁᑎᓂᒃ, ᑐᔪᕐᒥᕕᖃᕐᓗᑎᒡᓗ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓂᒋᔭᖓᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᑎᓕᐅᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᒥᒃ ᒥᑦᑕᕐᕕᖃᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᑕᐅᕙᓂ.ᐊᒨᖃᐃᕕᐅᕌᓂᒃᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᖅᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᓄᓇᐅᑉ ᐃᓗᓕᖏᑦ ᑭᒡᒐᕕᖕᒥ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᒥ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᓕᕋᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᐊᒥᒃᑯᕕᓂᕐᓂᒃ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᕕᐅᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐅᔭᕋᕕᓂᕐᓂᒃ ᓯᖃᓕᑎᖅᑕᐅᕌᓂᒃᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᐊᒃᑕᑯᓂᒃ. ᔪᕇᓂᔭᒻᖑᓂᕋᖅᑕᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᓄᖑᔪᐃᑦᑐᓖᑦ ᓴᓇᔭᐅᓯᒪᓇᔭᕐᒪᑕ ᓯᖃᓕᑎᖅᑕᐅᓚᐅᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐸᓚᐅᒐᒃᓴᔭᕈᖅᑎᑕᐅᓗᑎᒃ (ᖃᓗᓈᑎᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᔭᐅᕙᒃᑐᓂᒃ ᑐᑭᖃᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᖁᖅᓱᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐸᓚᐅᒐᐅᔭᐃᑦ

yellowcake- ᒥᒃ), ᐴᖃᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕋᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᖃᑦᑕᐅᔭᕐᔪᐊᕐᓄᑦ, ᐊᐅᓪᓚᖅᑎᑕᐅᖃᑕᕐᓗᑎᒡᓗ ᑎᖕᒥᓲᑯᑦ ᐅᐊᖕᓇᖅᐸᓯᐊᓄᑦ ᓴᔅᑳᑦᓱᐊᓐ, ᐊᐅᓪᓚᖅᑎᑕᐅᖃᑕᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᑕ ᑕᐃᑲᖓᑦ ᓄᓇᕐᔪᐊᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᐅᓪᓛᕈᑕᐅᕙᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᖃᓗᓈᑦ ᓄᓇᖏᓐᓂ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. ᑎᑭᓯᒪᕝᕕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖃᑕᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᑕ ᑭᒡᒐᕕᑯᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᓴᓐᔅᑯᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᕕᖏᑦ ᑐᓚᒃᑕᕐᕕᖕᓄᑦ, ᐊᕇᕙᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᖏᖅᑕᐅᔪᒪᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᓴᓇᔭᐅᑎᑦᑎᔪᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᖅᑯᑎᒋᔭᐅᕙᖕᓂᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᕐᕋᒍᓕᒫᖅ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᑎᑭᑕᕝᕕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᑕᐃᑯᖓ ᐊᖅᑯᓯᐅᕈᒪᓪᓗᑎᒃ. ᐊᕆᕙᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᐃᓚᐅᕐᒥᔪᑦ ᐱᑕᖃᖔᖁᔨᓂᖅ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᕈᒪᓂᖅ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᓯᐅᑏᓐᓇᕐᒥᒃ ᐊᖅᑯᑎᖃᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ, ᐊᖏᖅᑕᐅᓇᓱᒃᓯᒪᓚᐅᕐᒥᔪᑦ ᐊᕐᕋᒍᓕᒫᖅ ᐊᖅᑯᓯᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ,ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᐅᕆᐊᖃᓕᕋᔭᕐᓂᕈᑎᒃ ᐊᐅᓚᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖏᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᑕᐅᓗᑎᒃ. ᐊᕇᕙᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᓚᐅᑦᑖᖅᓯᒪᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᓴᓇᔭᐅᓇᔭᕆᐊᖏᑦ ᐱᖓᓱᓂᒃ−ᓯᑕᒪᓄᑦ 3-5- ᓂᒃ ᐊᕐᕋᒍᓄᑦ,

ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᕕᓕᐊᕆᓇᔭᖅᑕᖓᓪᓗ ᓇᓚᐅᑦᑖᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᓂ ᐊᐅᓚᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓ 12−ᓂᒃ ᐊᕐᕋᒍᓄᑦ,ᐊᑐᕈᓐᓂᖅᑎᑕᐅᕙᓪᓕᐊᓗᑎᒃ ᐲᔭᖅᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᑕᓪᓕᒪᓂᒃ 5−ᓂᒃ ᐊᕐᕋᒍᓂᒃ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑭᖑᓂᐊᒍᑦ ᒪᑐᔭᐅᓯᒪᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓇᐅᑦᑎᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᕋᔭᕐᓂᖓᓂᒃ ᖁᓕᓂᒃ 10- ᓂᒃ ᐊᕐᕋᒍᓂᒃ.ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᓯᖃᓕᑎᕆᕕᖓᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓᑦ ᐅᖓᕙᕆᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓐᓇᕋᔭᓚᐅᕐᕆᕗᖅ ᐊᕇᕙᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᖏᖅᑕᐅᓇᔭᕈᑎᒃ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃᑕᐅᖅ ᓄᖑᔪᐃᑦᑐᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᕕᒃᓴᓂᒃᓯᒪᓐᓂᕈᑎᒃ ᐱᑕᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑭᕙᓪᓕᕐᒥ ᐊᕕᒃᑐᖅᓯᒪᓂᕐᒥ.


17/322

xvi

ᓄᕕᐱᕆ 25, 2008 −ᖑᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᐊᕇᕙᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᐃᑦᑎᓕᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᑎᑎᖃᓂᒃ ᑭᒡᒐᕕᖕᒥ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᓂᒃ ᐱᒋᐊᖅᑎᑦᑐᒪᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᑕᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ. ᔭᓄᐊᕆ 16, 2009 −ᖑᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑐᓂᔭᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᓈᒻᒪᒋᔭᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᒪᓕᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑐᑭᓕᐅᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐸᓇᐃᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᒥᓯᓇᒃᑯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᕆᔪᒪᔭᖏᓐᓄᑦ,ᐋᕿᐅᒪᔭᐅᕌᓂᒃᑐᓂᒃ ᒪᓕᖕᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑭᕙᓪᓕᕐᒥ ᐊᕕᒃᑐᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᓄᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᑑᑎᒃᓴᖏᓐᓄᑦ

ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎᓕᐊᕆᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ. ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᔪᓯᒋᐊᓕᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᑭᒡᒐᕕᖕᒥ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᓂᒃ ᒪᓕᒃᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᓗᓕᖏᑦ 4−ᖓᓃᑦᑐᑦ, ᐊᕕᒃᑐᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂ 12 ᐃᓚᒋᔭᖏᓐᓂ, ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᓄᓇᑖᕈᑎᓂᒃ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᓃᑦᑐᓂᒃ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᓱᐃᓛᒃ ᒫᔾᔨ 13, 2009 −ᖑᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᑐᓂᓯᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑎᒋᓯᒪᔭᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᕈᑎᒋᓯᒪᓕᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐊᒥᓂᒃ ᑲᒪᔨᐅᔪᒧᑦ ᒥᓂᔅᑕᐅᔪᒧᑦ, ᑕᐃᔅᓱᒪᓂ ᑕᐃᓐᓇᐅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓂᕈᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᑦᓴᒃ ᓯᑐᕌᓪ, ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔨᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᐊᖅᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᖁᔨᓂᖅ, ᒪᓕᒃᑕᐅᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᓗᓕᖏᑦ 5ᐅᕝᕙᓗᓐᓃᑦ 6 ᐊᕕᒃᑐᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ 12−ᖓᓃᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᓄᓇᑖᕈᑎᓂᒃ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᓂᒃ.ᒫᔾᔨ 2, 2010 −ᖑᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᒪᓕᒃᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᓗᓕᖏᑦ ᓈᓴᐅᑎᓖᑦ 12.4.7 −ᒥ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᓄᓇᑖᕈᑎᓂᒃ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᓂᒃ (ᓄᓇᑖᕈᑎᓂ) ᒥᓂᔅᑕᐅᔪᖅ ᑐᓂᕐᕈᑎᖃᓕᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᕆᕙᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᕆᔪᒪᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᐊᖅᑕᐅᖁᓕᖅᓱᒋᑦ, ᐊᑐᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐃᓗᓕᖏᓐᓂᒃ 5 −ᖓᓃᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᑖᓂ ᐊᕕᒃᑐᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᓇᓴᐅᑎᓕᖕᓂᒃ 12- ᒥᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᓄᓇᑖᕈᑎᓂᒃ

ᐊᖏᕈᑎᓃᑦᑐᓂᒃ. ᐊᒻᒪᑕᐅᖅ ᓱᓕ, ᒪᓕᒃᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᓗᓕᖏᑦ 12.5.1 −ᖏᓃᑦᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᓄᓇᑖᕈᑎᓂ, ᒥᓂᔅᑕᐅᔪᖅ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᐃᓯᒪᓚᐅᕐᒥᔪᖅ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐃᓱᒪᓘᑎᒋᔭᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ, ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᑎᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᐊᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑭᒡᒐᕕᖕᒥ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᔪᒪᔪᑦ.ᒫᔾᔨ 3, 2010 −ᖑᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑐᓂᐅᖃᐃᓕᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᒥᓂᔅᑕᐅᑉ ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐊᕆᓚᐅᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ,ᑲᔪᓯᑎᑦᑎᒋᐊᓕᖅᓱᑎᒡᓗ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᐊᖅᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑭᒡᒐᕕᖕᒥ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᔪᒪᓂᖏᑦ.ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓇᒃᐸᓪᓕᐊᖃᑦᑕᐃᓐᓇᓕᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ 2010−ᒥᒃ 2015- ᒧᑦ, ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊᓗ ᑎᑎᕋᕈᑕᐅᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᖅᓱᑎᒃ ᐃᓄᓕᒫᓄᑦ ᑕᑯᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᕙᒃᑕᖏᓂᒃ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᕐᕕᖓᓂᒃ ᑎᑎᖃᖃᕐᕕᖕᒥ.ᕿᒥᕐᕈᐊᖅᑕᐅᕙᓪᓕᐊᓚᐅᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐃᓱᓕᑎᑕᐅᓕᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᒫᔾᔨ 2015−ᒥᖑᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᕆᔭᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐃᓄᓕᒫᓂᒃ ᓈᓚᒋᐊᖅᑐᕐᕕᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᖃᒪᓂ’ᑐᐊᕐᒥ, ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ.

ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᕿᒥᕈᓇᒃᑕᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑭᒡᒐᕕᖕᒥ ᐱᓕᐊᕆᐊᖑᔪᒪᔪᑦ, ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑐᓴᖅᓯᒪᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐅᑯᓇᓐᖓᑦ: ᐊᕇᕙᒃᑯᓐᓂᒃ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒃᑯᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ, ᑭᕙᓪᓕᕐᒥ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖏᓐᓂᒃ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᓐᓂᒃ, ᓄᓇᖃᖄᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, ᑲᓇᑕᒥᐅᑕᐃᑦ ᓄᖑᔪᐃᑦᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑐᖃᕆᐊᖃᖏᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᑲᒥᓯᓇᒃᑯᖏᓐᓂᒃ, ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, ᐃᖃᓗᓕᕆᔨᕐᔪᐊᒃᑯᑦ ᑕᕆᐅᕐᒥᐅᑕᓕᕆᔨᓪᓗ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ,ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖃᖏᑦᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, ᓄᓇᒥᐅᑕᑐᖃᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ,ᐊᐅᓛᕈᑎᒃᓴᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ/ ᐃᖏᕐᕋᔪᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, ᖃᒪᓂ’ᑐᐊᕐᒥ ᒪᖃᐃᑏᓪᓗ ᒥᑭᒋᐊᕐᓂᐊᖅᑏᓪᓗ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖏᑦ, ᖃᒪᓂᕐᔪᐊᕐᒥ ᑐᒃᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔨᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᓂᒃ, ᐊᑖBᐋᔅᑲᒥᐅᑦ Dᐊᓂᓱᓕᓐᑯᑦ ᐊᓪᓚᐃᑦ ᓂᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᑯᐊᐳᕆᓴᖏᓐᓂᒃ, ᓗᑦᓱᓪᑮᒥᐅᑦ ᐊᓪᓚᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖄᖅᑐᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖏᓐᓂᒃ, ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᒪᑭᑕᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ, ᐸᐅᓚ ᑭᒡᔪᒐᓕᒃ ᕼᐃᐅᓴᓐᒥᒃ, ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔨᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓂᒃ 7−ᖑᔪᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓂ ᑭᕙᓪᓕᕐᒥᐅᑦ ᐊᕕᒃᑐᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥᒃ, ᐊᒥᓱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓗᖕᓂᒃ ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓅᖃᑕᐅᔪᓂᒃ, ᐃᓚᖃᓚᐅᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐃᓐᓇᑐᖃᕐᓂᒃ, ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᓂᒃ, ᐊᕐᓇᓂᒃ,ᐊᖑᓇᓱᒃᑎᓂᒃ/ ᒪᖃᐃᑎᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒥᑭᒋᐊᕐᓂᐊᖅᐸᒃᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓂ ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔨᓂᒃ.

ᑲᑎᒪᔨᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᑎᖃᕆᐊᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᒐᒥᒃ ᑐᑭᓕᐅᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᒪᓕᒋᐊᖃᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᓈᓴᐅᑎᓕᖕᓂ12.5.5−ᒥᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᓄᓇᑖᕈᑎᓂᒃ. ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᓂᖏᑦ, ᓴᕿᑎᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᖅᑐᓪᓗ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗᖃᐃᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᒃᓴᕆᔭᐅᕙᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓱᒪᔭᖏᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᑦ, ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᖅᑕᐃᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᒫᒃ ᐊᑖᒍᑦ: ᓄᓇᐃᑦ, ᓄᓇᒥᐅᑦ, ᐆᒪᔪᐃᑦ, ᐱᕈᖅᑐᓪᓗ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᑦ,


18/322

xvii

ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒌᒃᑐᓄᑦ−ᐃᓅᓯᒃᓴᖃᕈᑕᐅᕙᒃᑐᑦ/ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᕙᒃᑐᓪᓗᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᐊᓯᖏᑦ ᐱᓕᐊᒃᓴᐅᖕᒥᔪᓂ.

ᐊᕇᕙᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᖃᑲᐅᑎᒋᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᒋᐊᓕᓴᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᕆᓕᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓈᓚᒋᐊᖅᑐᕐᕕᖃᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ, ᓄᓇᕐᔪᐊᕐᒥ ᐊᑭᑐᑎᒋᓂᖏᑦ ᔪᕇᓂᔭᒻᒧᑦ ᓄᖑᔪᐃᑦᑐᓕᖕᓄᑦ

ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒃᓴᑦᑎᐊᕙᐅᔪᓐᓃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᒐᓗᐊᕈᑎᒃ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕋᔭᖏᓐᓂᖏᑦ ᒫᓐᓇᐅᔪᖅ ᒫᓐᓇᐅᓗᑎᒃ. ᐊᒻᒪᑕᐅᖅ, ᐊᕇᕙᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᖃᓪᓚᕆᒍᓐᓇᓚᐅᖏᓐᓂᖏᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐱᒋᐊᕐᕕᒋᓇᔭᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᕆᔪᒪᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᐊᕇᕙᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᖃᓚᐅᖅᑑᒐᓗᐊᑦ, ᖃᖓᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᒥ, ᐱᔪᒪᔭᐅᖃᑕᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᓄᓇᕐᔪᐊᕐᒥ ᓄᖑᔪᐃᑦᑐᓖᑦ ᔪᕇᓂᔭᒻᓖᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᑕᐅᔪᒫᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᑭᑦᑐᕆᐊᕈᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ ᐊᑭᒃᓴᖏᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᔾᔪᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᓇᔭᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᓄᑦ.ᑕᐃᒪᓕ ᑕᐃᑲᓂ ᓈᓚᒋᐊᖅᑐᕐᕕᐅᔪᓂ, ᐊᒥᓱᒐᓴᐃᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᑯᓂᐅᑎᒋᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓇᓚᐅᑦᑖᕈᑎᒃᓴᐃᑦ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᒥᒃ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᓇᓂ ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐸᕆᔭᐅᔪᓂ ᐊᕙᑎᒥᒃ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᓛᕐᒪᖔᑕ, ᑕᒪᕐᒥᒃ ᐅᕝᕙᓗᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᓚᐃᓐᓇᕋᓗᐊᖏᓂᒃ. ᐱᓕᕆᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑲᑎᒫᔨᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐱᑕᖃᓚᐅᖐᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᔪᒪᔪᑦ

ᐱᒋᐊᕐᕕᒃᓴᕆᓇᔭᖅᑕᖏᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᖃᓚᐅᖅᓱᑎᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᑎᐊᑲᓐᓂᕆᐊᖃᕈᒫᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᒥ ᓇᓚᐅᑦᑖᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᒃᑕᐅᓗᑎᒃ ᑕᐃᑯᐊ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᕕᒃᓴᖏᑦ ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᕙᑎᒥᒃ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓂᒃ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐊᖏᑦ, ᐱᐅᖏᑦᑐᒥᒃ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᓯᓯᒪᓚᐅᒪᑕ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᑐᖓᕕᐅᔪᓇᑦᑎᐊᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓱᓕᔪᕆᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᓯᒪᓂᕋᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑲᔪᓯᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᒃᑐᓯᓯᒪᔪᓐᓇᓂᕋᐃᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᕙᑎᒥᒃ ᓴᓇᔪᒪᔭᖏᑦ.

ᑲᑎᒫᔨᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓚᐅᕐᒥᔪᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᖏᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᓄᖓ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᑐᖃᖏᓐᓄᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑐᒃᑐᓂᒃ, ᐃᖃᓗᖕᓂᒃ, ᑕᕆᐅᕐᒥᐅᑕᓂᒡᓗ ᐆᒪᔪᓂᒃ, ᐊᕙᓗᒋᕙᒃᑕᖏᓪᓗᓇᔪᐸᒃᑕᖏᓪᓗ, ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓂᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐸᐸᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᑦᖃᓄᐃᓕᔭᐅᑕᐃᓕᒪᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ ᖃᖓᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᓄᖑᔪᐃᑦᑐᓕᖕᒥᒃ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᓂᕐᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᖃᕐᓂᐊᖅᐸᑦ ᑭᕙᓪᓕᕐᒥ. ᑭᓇᒧᑦ ᐊᐃᕙᑕᐅᓚᐅᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐸᒡᕕᒃᓴᒃᑕᐅᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᓂᖏᓪᓗ ᑐᒃᑐᐃᑦ, ᐃᖃᓗᐃᓗ, ᑕᕆᐅᕐᒥᐅᑕᐃᓪᓗ ᐆᒪᔪᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥᐅᓂ, ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥᒃᐃᓄᖁᑎᒋᔭᐅᔪᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓄᓪᓗ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᓄᓇᑖᖃᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓄᑦ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᖅᓯᑎᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᖕᓂᒃ ᒪᑐᔭᐅᓂᐊᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐅᖃᕐᕕᒃᓴᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ, ᐅᖃᕐᒪᑕ ᖃᒪᓂ’ᑐᐊᕐᒪᖃᐃᑏᓪᓗ ᒥᑭᒋᐊᕐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᕆᕙᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᓇᓚᒋᐊᖅᑐᕐᕕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ:

ᖃᒪᓂ’ᑐᐊᕐᒥᐅᑦ ᒪᖅᑲᐃᑏᓪᓗ

ᒥᑭᒋᐊᕐᓂᐊᖅᑏᓪᓗ

ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᖏᖏᑦ

ᐊᑭᕋᖅᑐᓪᓗᐊᕕᖏᑦᑑᒐᓗᐊᑦ

ᑭᒡᒐᕕᖕᒥᒃ .

ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᑦᑎᐊᕈᒪᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᒍᑦ

ᐱᐅᓚᑦᑎᐊᖑᓂᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ

ᓴᐳᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᑦ

ᑐᒃᑐᖁᑎᕗᑦ ,

ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᖅᑐᖃᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖅᐸᓪᓗ

ᑲᒪᑦᑎᐊᔪᓴᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᕐᓗᑎᒃ ...ᑕᒪᓐᓇ

ᐊᖏᖅᑕᐅᖁᖏᑕᕗᑦ

ᐱᒋᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᒪᔪᖅ

ᑭᓯᐊᓂ

ᐃᓱᒪᓘᑎᒋᓐᓇᕈᒪᖏᓇᑉᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᒥᓱᓂᒃ ᐊᕐᕋᒍᒐᓴᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᒡᒋᖅᑐᓂᒃ , ᖃᐅᔨᒪᖏᓕᕐᓗᑕ ᖃᓄᐃᓐᓂᐊᓕᕐᒪᖔᑦᑕ

ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᖓᑦ

ᓄᓇᑦᑎᓐᓂ

.ᐃᒃᓯᕙᑐᐃᓐᓇᕈᒪᖏᓇᑦᑕ

ᐅᑕᕿᓗᒋᑦ

ᐊᒥᓱᓂᒃ

ᖁᓖᑦ ᐊᕐᕋᒍᐃᑦ

ᐅᖓᑕᓅᑦ

,ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔨᐅᔪᖕᓇᐃᕐᓗᑕ

ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ

ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᓂᕆᐊᖅᑕᑉᑎᓐᓂ

.

ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇᐃᓕᖓᓇᔭᕐᓂᖅ

ᓈᒻᒪᒋᔭᖏᒻᒪᑦ ...ᑲᒻᐸᓂᖏᓪᓕ

ᑖᑉᑯᐊᑦ

ᐅᑐᕈᓐᓇᕈᒫᕐᒥᖕᒪᑕ

ᐱᒋᐊᕐᕕᒃᓴᖃᑦᑎᐊᓕᕈᑎᒃ ,ᐱᓪᓗᐊᕕᐅᑎᑦᑎᒋᐊᓕᕈᑎᒃ

ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᓂᒃ

ᑲᔪᓯᒋᐊᑦᑎᑦᑎᔪᒪᓂᖅ

.

ᑕᐃᑯᖓ ᑎᑭᒻᒥᒍᑉᑕ

ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᒫᓕᖅᐸᕗᑦ

.


19/322

xviii

ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᒃᓴᕆᔭᐅᕙᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᒪᓕᑦᑎᐊᕐᒪᑕ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᕆᔭᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᑎᒍᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᒃᓴᓕᐊᕆᔭᐅᕙᓚᐅᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᖃᒪᓂ’ᑐᐊᕐᒥᐅᑦ ᒪᖅᑲᐃᑏᑦ ᒥᑭᒋᐊᕐᓂᐊᖅᑏᓪᓗ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖏᓄᑦ,ᐱᒋᐊᕈᑎᖃᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕ ᐅᖃᐅᒃᓯᓴᖏᑦ ᐃᒪᓐᓇ:

ᐱᔪᓐᓇᖅᑎᑕᐅᓐᓂᕈᑎᒃ ᐊᕇᕙᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᖏᖅᑕᐅᓗᑎᒃ ᐅᑉᓗᒥ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᕕᓕᐊᕈᒫᕐᓗᑎᒃ

ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᖏᑦᑐᒥᒃ ᖃᖓ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᒥ, ᑭᖑᕙᓯᓗᐊᕈᑕᐅᓕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᕇᕙᒃᑯᑦ ᓴᓇᓯᒪᓕᐊᓂᒃᑕᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᐊᕙᑎᒥᒃ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᐃᔾᔪᑎᓕᐊᕆᓯᒪᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ, ᐱᑐᖃᐅᓕᕋᔭᕐᒪᑕ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᕕᓕᐅᕆᐊᓕᑕᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᕈᑎᒃ.ᐊᕇᕙᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᕕᒃᓴᖓᑦ ᐊᖏᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᕙᒌᕐᓂᕈᓂ ᑐᖓᕕᖃᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᓪᓗᒥᐅᔪᖅ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓴᓇᔭᐅᒋᐊᕐᓂᐊᖏᑉᐸᑕᐅ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᕕᒃᓴᖏᑦ ᖁᓕᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ 10- ᖑᓂᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ 20- ᖑᓂᐊᖅᑐᓂᒡᓗᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᓪᕋᒎᔪᒫᖅᑐᓂᒃ, ᑕᐃᑉᑯᐊᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔾᔪᑎᒋᔭᐅᓇᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᐱᑐᖃᐅᓗᐊᓕᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᑕ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᒥᑕᐅᑎᒃᓴᐅᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᓕᕋᔭᖅᐳᖅ ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓂᓗᒃᑖᖅ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᐅᓯᕆᔭᐅᖁᔭᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖁᔭᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᒪᓕᒐᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᓇᑖᕈᑕᐅᓯᒪᓚᐅᖅᑐᓂᒃ,ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᓄᓇᑖᕈᑎᓄᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ.

ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᓪᓗᒋᓪᓗ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᕈᑕᐅᑕᐃᓪᓕᒪᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᓄᖑᔪᐃᑦᑐᓖᑦ ᐃᓄᖕᓄᑦ, ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥᐊᕇᕙᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᕋᐃᓚᐅᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖃᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑐᖃᖏᑦᑐᒥᒃ. ᑕᐃᒃᑯᑲᓇᑕᒥᐅᑕᐃᑦ ᓄᖑᔪᐃᑦᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑐᖃᕆᐊᖃᖏᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᑲᒥᓯᓇᖏᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᑦᑎᐊᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᐅᓇᔭᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔨᐅᕝᕕᒋᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ,ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊᓗ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᕖᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᖃᓕᑎᕆᕝᕕᖕᒥ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᓇᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᑲᔪᓯᑎᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕋᔭᖅᓱᑎᒃ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑐᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᖏᑦᑐᓂᒃ. ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᔪᖃᓚᐅᖅᐳᖅ, ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥᐅᑦ ᒪᑭᑕᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ( ᒪᑭᑕᑯᓐᓂᒃ), ᐅᖃᐅᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕ ᓄᖑᔪᐃᑦᑐᓖᑦ ᔪᕆᓂᔭᒻᖃᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᔪᓐᓇᖏᓐᓂᖏᓂᒃ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑐᖃᕈᓐᓃᕈᓐᓇᖏᑦᑐᒥᒃ. ᒪᑭᑕᒃᑯᑦ ᓴᕿᑎᓚᐅᖅᑕᖏᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᑐᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᓄᑦ ᓱᓕᔪᕐᕆᔭᐅᓗᐊᓚᐅᖏᑦᑐᑦ, ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓐᓂᕐᒧᓪᓗ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᓚᐅᖅᑕᖏᑦ ᖁᔭᓈᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓗᑎᒃ.

ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ, ᑐᑭᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᑲᐅᑎᒋᖏᓐᓂᕗᖅ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᖃᓚᐅᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓱᒪᓘᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᓄᖑᔪᐃᑦᑐᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᔪᕇᓂᔭᒻᒥᒃ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᖅᑐᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᓐᓂᐊᖃᖏᓐᓂᖏᑦ, ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᑕᐅᓚᐅᖏᓐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ.ᓲᕐᓗ ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ, ᐊᒥᓱᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕ ᐃᓱᒪᓘᑕᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓱᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᓄᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓕᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᓂᖀᑦ ᐆᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᐱᕈᕐᓗᖏᓐᓂᖔᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐆᑕᕐᓇᑐᖃᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᒥᖔᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓇᔭᖅᑐᓂᒃ. ᐊᕇᕙᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᖃᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐳᔪᕐᓗᖑᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᐃᓐᓇᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓴᕿᐅᓇᖃᑦᑕᕋᔭᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᕖᑦ ᐃᓂᒋᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᓇᖑᐊᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᑐᑭᓕᐅᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᖃᓄᑎᒋ ᓇᐅᑦᑎᖅᑐᐃᕕᐅᑎᑦᑎᓇᔭᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᑕᒪᑯᐊ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓐᓇᐃᓕᖓᓂᐊᕋᓱᒋᔭᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑐᖓᕕᖃᖅᓱᑎᒃ. ᑕᐃᑉᑯᐊᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓐᓇᐃᓐᓂᐊᕋᓱᒋᔭᐅᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᔭᖏᒻᒥᔪᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᑐᖃᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᓄᑦ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᓐᓄᑦ, ᓴᕿᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕ ᓂᐱᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥᐅᓂᒃ,ᓇᓚᐅᑖᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ ᓂᕈᑐᓂᖅᓴᒻᒪᕆᖕᒧᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓇᓚᐅᑦᑖᕈᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓴᓂᐊᓂᒃ, ᐳᔪᕐᓗᐃᓪᓗ ᓴᓂᕐᓗᐃᓪᓗ ᐱᔾᔪᑕᐅᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓴᖏᔫᕙᖕᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑯᓂᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᓄᕆᕙᖕᓂᖏᑦ ᑕᒫᓂᕿᑎᖅᐸᓯᖕᒥᐅᑕᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐊᕕᒃᑐᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓂᒋᔭᖏᓐᓂ ᓄᓇᖏᑦ.


20/322

xix

ᑲᑎᒪᔨᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᖅᓯᒪᒐᓗᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖃᕈᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᑲᔪᓯᔭᕆᐊᖃᖏᓐᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᒫᓐᓇᐅᓕᖅᑐᖅ,ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᑐᑭᓕᐅᑲᐅᑎᒋᖏᓐᓂᕗᖅ ᐱᓕᐊᒃᓴᐃᑦ ᑲᔪᓯᔪᓐᓇᐃᓪᓕᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᖃᖓᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ.ᑲᑎᒪᔨᑦ ᐱᓂᐊᕐᓂᖃᖅᐳᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᑭᒡᒐᕕᖕᒥ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᐃᑦ ᖃᐃᑕᐅᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᕈᒫᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᖃᖓᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᒥ ᓇᓗᓇᖏᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᕈᑎᒃ ᐱᒋᐊᕐᕕᒃᓴᕆᔭᐅᓇᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᒍᑎᒃ, ᑕᐃᒫᒃ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᔪᒫᕐᒪᑕ

ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓇᓗᓇᖏᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᑦᑎᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᒫᕐᒪᑕ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᑕᐃᒪᖓᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᑕᐅᖏᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᑐᒃᑐᓂᒃ, ᐃᖃᓗᖕᓂ, ᑕᕆᐅᒥᐅᑕᓂᒡᓗ ᐆᒪᔪᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥᐅᓂ,ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᐃᓄᖁᑎᒋᔭᐅᔪᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᓄᓇᑖᖃᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂ.

ᐊᕇᕙᒃᑯᑦ ᓂᕈᐊᕋᔭᕈᑎᒃ ᖃᐃᑦᑎᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᒫᕐᓂᖅ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᕆᔪᒪᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᒥ, ᑲᑎᒪᔨᑦ ᐊᒥᓱᒐᓴᖕᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᖁᔨᓕᖅᐳᑦ ᐃᑲᔫᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕋᔭᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᒥ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᑎᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐱᒋᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᐃᑦ ᐱᐅᓯᕚᓪᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓴᐳᓐᓂᐊᖅᓯᒪᓂᖅᓴᐅᔪᓐᓇᕋᔭᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᒫᓐᓇᐅᓕᖅᑐᖅ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᒥᓗ ᖃᓄᐃᖏᔾᔪᑎᒃᓴᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᓄᖁᑎᒋᔭᐅᔪᓪᓗ ᓄᓇᓕᖏᓪᓗ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᓄᓇᑖᕐᕕᐅᓯᒪᔫᓃᑦᑐᓂᒃ,ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᓗᑎᒡᓗ ᐃᓚᒋᔭᐅᓗᑎᒡᓗᑕᐅᖅ ᐊᓯᖏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥᐅᑕᐃᑦ; ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᐃᑦ ᐱᐅᖏᑦᑐᒥᒃ

ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᕈᑕᐅᓕᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᓄᓇᓄᑦ, ᓄᓇᒥᐅᑕᓄᑦ, ᐆᒪᔪᕐᓄᑦ, ᐱᕈᖅᑐᓄᓪᓗ ᐱᐅᔫᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᓄᓇᑖᕐᕕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂ; ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊᓗ ᐱᒋᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᐃᑦ ᐃᓚᖃᕋᓗᐊᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᓯᒪᖃᓯᐅᔾᔭᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓯᕗᓪᓕᐅᑎᑕᐅᕙᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᑕᐅᕙᒃᑐᓄᑦ ᐃᓄᖁᑎᒋᔭᐅᔪᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᓄᓇᑖᕐᕕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓃᑦᑐᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᓗᑎᒃ ᓴᓇᔪᒪᔫᑉ ᐱᒋᐊᖅᑎᑦᑐᒪᔭᖏᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᓯᑕᐃᓕᒪᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᐅᖏᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᒃᑐᐃᓂᕐᓗᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓈᒻᒪᖕᒪᖔᑕ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᕐᓗᑎᒃ. ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑕᒡᕙᓂ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓗᓕᖏᓐᓂᒃ 7−ᖓᓂ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᓂᐊᒃᑕᐅᖅ ᐃᒪᓐᓇᐃᓕᖓᖕᒥᖕᒪᑕ:

ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᓄᖑᔪᐃᑦᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᔪᕇᓂᔭᒻᒥᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᖑᔪᐃᑦᑐᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᔪᕇᓂᔭᒻᒥᒃ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᑕᐃᑯᓄᖓ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᕆᔨᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔨᓄ;

ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑕᐅᑲᓐᓂᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᓚᐅᖏᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓱᓕ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᕙᒌᕈᑎᒃᓴᐃᑦ ᑐᒃᑐᐃᑦ ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ ᐊᒥᓲᓂᖏᓐᓂᒡᓗ ᖃᓄᐃᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᓚᐅᖏᓐᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᓱᓕ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔾᔪᑎᒃᓴᐃᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᓇᓚᐅᑦᑖᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᔪᒪᔪᓄᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᖓᔾᔪᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᔪᑦ ᑕᕆᐅᕐᒥᐅᑕᓄᑦ ᐆᒪᔪᕐᓄᑦ ᐱᑕᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓂᖃᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐃᓄᖕᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᖏᓄᓪᓗ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᓄᓇᑖᕐᕕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂ;

ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᖏᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕈᑎᒃᓴᓄᑦ ᐊᑐᒐᒃᓴᐃᑦ ᐃᓄᖕᓄᑦ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᕈᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᓄᑦ,ᐱᖃᑕᐅᕝᕕᒋᔪᓐᓇᖅᑕᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ, ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᓄᑦ ᓴᕿᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᕕᒃᑕᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓄᖑᔪᐃᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᔪᕇᓂᔭᒻᒥᒃ, ᐅᖓᑕᓃᑐᓐᓇᖅᓯᓗᑎᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᔨᖏᑦ ᐱᒋᐊᓕᓴᕈᑎᒃᓴᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᖏᓐᓂᖅᓴᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᕝᕕᒃᓴᖃᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ; ᐊᒻᒪᓗ

ᓇᐅᑦᑎᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᐱᓕᐊᒃᓴᐃᑦ ᓴᕿᐅᒪᑎᑦᑎᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐃᓄᖕᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᓄᓇᑖᕈᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᓂᒃ ᑐᖓᕕᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᒃ ᐃᓅᔾᔪᑎᒃᓴᒥᓄᒃ ᑐᒃᑐᓂᒃ,ᐃᖃᓗᖕᓂᒃ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᕆᐅᕐᒥᐅᑕᓂᒃ ᐆᒪᓂᒃ ᓂᕿᒃᓴᖃᕆᔭᐅᖏᓐᓇᕈᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᐊᖏᒻᒪᑕ ᐊᖏᔪᒥᒃ ᓴᓇᕝᕕᖃᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᓂᒃ ᓄᖑᔪᐃᑦᑐᓕᕆᔪᓂᒃ ᔪᕇᓂᔭᒻᒥᒃ ᐊᕕᒃᑐᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂ.


21/322

xx

SOMMAIRE EXÉCUTIF

Ce rapport met le point final à l’examen effectué par la Commission du Nunavut chargée de l’examendes répercussions (la CNER ou la Commission), du projet de mine d’uranium Kiggavik (Projet Kiggavik),proposé par AREVA Resources Canada Incorporated ( AREVA).

Le projet Kiggavik implique l’exploitation minière et le traitement de minerai d’uranium dans la régionde Kivalliq du Nunavut. Deux mines distinctes seront aménagées, l’une sur le site Kiggavik et l’autre surle site Sissons et une installation de transbordement sera construite à Baker Lake. Les gisements deminerai d’uranium du site Kiggavik seront traités à ciel ouvert et ceux du site Sissons le seront à cielouvert et par extraction souterraine. Le minerai extrait de ces mines sera st ocké avant d’être traité dansune usine installée sur le site Kiggavik. Outre l’usine, le site Kiggavik regroupera des entrepôts et desinstallations de services publics, l’hébergement principal et un aérodrome enregistré, tout proche.Quelques puits de mine serviront à gérer les résidus. L’uranium produit dans l’usine de traitement(également appelé le « gâteau jaune ») sera emballé dans des barils et expédié par avion jusqu’à PointsNorth Landing en Saskatchewan pour être ensuite internationalement acheminé via les réseaux detransport du sud du Canada. Pour relier les sites de Kiggavik et de Sissons à l’installation detransbordement, la compagnie AREVA a indiqué qu’elle préfèrerait exploiter la mine en n’utilisant que laroute d’accès hivernal mais a toutefois sollicité la permission de construire une route toutes saisonspour pallier à toute nécessité opérationnelle, le cas échéant. Selon AREVA, la construction de la mineprendra 3 à 4 ans, sa durée d’exploitation sera de 12 ans, son déclassement d e 5 ans et la surveillancepost- déclassement devrait encore durer 10 ans de plus. L’usine de traitement pourrait rester en placeau cas où AREVA serait autorisée à exploiter d’autres gisements de minerai d’uranium dans la région deKivalliq.

Le 25 novembre 2008, AREVA a soumis sa proposition de projet Kiggavik à la CNER aux fins d’étude. Le16 janvier 2009, la CNER recevait de la Commission d’aménagement du Nunavut, une détermination deconformité positive en vertu du Plan d’aménagement de la région de Keewatin. La Commission a alorsentrepris un examen préalable du projet Kiggavik en vertu de la partie 4 de l’article 12 de l’ARTN et, le13 mars 2009 elle a transmis ses conclusions au ministre de l’époque, l’honorable Chuck Strahl,recommandant que le projet soit soumis à un examen tel que prévu aux parties 5 ou 6 de l’article 12 del’ARTN. Le 2 mars 2010, conformément aux dispositions du paragraphe 12.4.7 de l’Accord sur lesrevendications territoriales du Nunavut, le ministre a renvoyé le projet à l a CNER aux fins d’examen, telque prévu aux parties 5 ou 6 de l’article 12. De plus, conformément au paragraphe 12.5.1 de l’ARTN, leministre a soulevé certaines questions ou préoccupations à prendre en considération lors de l’examen.Le 3 mars 2010, la CNER a distribué la décision du ministre et a commencé l’examen du projet Kiggavik.La progression de cet examen, entre 2010 et 2015, est consignée dans le Registre public de la CNER.L’examen s’est terminé en mars 2015 par une audience finale qui a eu lieu Baker Lake, Nunavut.

Au cours de l’examen, la CNER a entendu les témoignages d’AREVA, de la Fédération de Tunngavik deNunavut, de la Kivalliq Inuit Association, du gouvernement du Nunavut, du ministère des Affairesautochtones et du Développement du Nord, de la Commission canadienne de sûreté nucléaire,d’Environnement Canada, de Pêches et Océans Canada, de Santé Canada, de Ressources naturellesCanada, de Transports Canada, de la Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization, du Conseild’administration de la Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou, de l’Athabasca Denesuline Né Né Corporation,de la Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation, de Nunanummiut Makitagunarningit, de Paula Kigjugalik Hughson, de


22/322

xxi

représentants des sept communautés de la région Kivalliq du Nunavut, de nombreux citoyens, incluantdes aînés, des jeunes, des femmes, des chasseurs et des trappeurs et des représentants municipaux.La Commission est tenue d’examiner toutes les questions définies au paragraphe 12.5.5 de l’ARTN. Cesquestions, les preuves et les soumissions reçues ainsi que les points de vue de la CNER, sont décrits dansce rapport sous les titres Effets écosystémiques, Effets socioéconomiques et Autres questions.

D’entrée de jeu, lors de l’audience finale, AREVAa déclaré qu’à cause du prix mondial de l’uranium, leprojet actuel perdait de sa rentabilité. De plus, la compagnie ne pouvait indiquer de date définitive dedébut des travaux. Elle était toutefois certaine qu’à un moment donné ou à un autre dans l’avenir, lesdemandes d’u ranium engendreraient une hausse des prix et, par conséquent, déclencheraient ledéveloppement du projet. Lors de l’audience finale, les nombreuses parties intervenantes ont donnéleur point de vue sur la période requise avant que les prévisions de l’Éno ncé définitif des incidencesenvironnementales (EIE définitif) aient besoin d’être réexaminées , complètement ou en partie. Aucours de l’exécution de ses fonctions, la Commission a estimé que l’incapacité de fixer une datedéfinitive de démarrage du pr ojet et la nécessité reconnue de réexaminer les prévisions de l’Énoncédéfinitif des incidences environnementales, pourraient négativement influer sur le poids et la confiancequ’elle pourrait accorder aux évaluations des effets spécifiques et cumulatif s du projet.

La Commission a également été guidée par les principes Quajimaningit inuit respectant les caribous,poissons et mammifères marins ainsi que l’environnement dans lequel ils évoluent et l’importance depréserver leur intégrité en cas de dével oppement d’une mine d’uranium dans la région de Kivalliq.Aucune des parties intervenantes n’a contesté l’importance durable des effectifs de caribous, poissonset de la faune marine pour les Nunavummiut, notamment les résidents et les collectivités de la régiondu Nunavut. Et cela a été incarné par la Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organisation qui, dans sadernière soumission a déclaré lors de l’audience finale:

La Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization ne s’oppose pas nécessairement au proje tKiggavik. Nous voulons tout juste nous assurer que nos effectifs de caribous seront bien protégés

et que l’exploitation minière sera effectuée de manière responsable….Nous ne voulons pas quecette proposition soit approuvée et que, pendant les futures décennies, elle continue à planerau- dessus de nos têtes , sans savoir ce que l’avenir réserve à notre collectivité. Nous serions là,à attendre, totalement impuissants et sans aucun contrôle sur notre propre avenir. Ce n’est pascorrect….La compag nie pourra revenir quand elle aura fixé la date et quand elle envisagerasérieusement de faire démarrer le projet. Et alors là, nous pourrons en discuter.

D’autres soumissions s’apparentaient à la soumission finale écrite de la Baker Lake Hunters andTrappers Organization; leurs auteurs ont souligné :

Accorder aujourd’hui l’autorisation à AREVA mais lui permettre de construire la mine à unedate indéterminée peut rendre l’Énoncé des incidences environnementales désuet au momentde la construction. Si la mine d’ARENA est approuvée en fonction des études actuelles, il va desoi que dans dix ou 20 ans, les données de ces études seront lamentablement périmées. Tout leprocessus de consultation créé au titre de l’Accord sur les revendications territoria les duNunavut, sera tourné en dérision.

En ce qui a trait à la sécurité de l’extraction d’uranium, principalement en matière de santé humaine,AREVA était sûre que le projet pourrait être réalisé sans danger. Certaine de pouvoir réguler le projetdans les limites de son champ de compétence, la Commission canadienne de sûreté nucléaire (CCSN) a


23/322

xxii

soutenu que l’exploitation minière et le broyage pourraient s’effectuer sans risque. Mais laNunavummiut Makitagunarningit (Marika) a opposé un avis contraire , estimant que l’exploitationd’uranium ne pourrait se faire en toute sécurité. La Commission n’a toutefois pas trouvé ses argumentssuffisamment probants et les a rejetés.

La Commission est loin d’avoir pensé que d’autres effets de l’exploitation d’uranium sur la santéhumaine avaient été occultés. Ainsi, pour de nombreux intervenants, l’éventuelle contamination de lachaîne alimentaire par la poussière d’uranium était fort préoccupante. Mais AREVA a déclaré que ladissémination de cette poussière aurait une envergure limitée autour des sites miniers et, à partir decette hypothèse, a défini l’ampleur de son programme de surveillance. Mais cette hypothèse ne seconforme pas aux principes Qaujimaningit inuit autour desquels s’articulaient les affirm ations desNunavummiut. Ces derniers ont en effet prédit qu’à cause de la force et de la durée des vents danscette région centrale de l’Arctique, la dissémination de la poussière serait beaucoup plus vaste que celleprévue.

Même si la Commission a décidé que ce projet ne pouvait actuellement être approuvé, cela ne signifiepas qu’il ne pourra être réalisé dans l’avenir. La Commission soutient en effet que le projet Kiggavikpourra être à nouveau soumis lorsque la date de début des travaux sera établie avec beaucoup plus decertitude. La Commission pourra alors évaluer de manière plus définitive et plus notable lesrépercussions de ce projet sur l’importance durable des effectifs de caribous, poissons et mammifèresmarins pour les Nunavummiut, et p lus particulièrement pour les bénéficiaires de l’Accord sur lesrevendications territoriales du Nunavut.

Au cas où la compagnie AREVA déciderait à de soumettre à nouveau son projet, la Commission a dégagécertains points qui pourraient guider tout futur examen visant à déterminer sa capacité d’améliorer etde protéger l’actuel et futur bien -être des résidents et des collectivités de la région du Nunavut et detenir compte des intérêts des autres Canadiens : est-ce que le projet causerait un préjudice excessif àl’intégrité écosystémique de la région du Nunavut? Est -ce que la proposition traduirait les priorités et

les valeurs des résidents du Nunavut? Est-ce que les mesures proposées par le promoteur pour éviterou atténuer les répercussions négatives seraient appropriées? Ces recommandations sont ci-aprèsmentionnées et le sont également au chapitre 7 du rapport :

développement de langues inuites applicables à l’uranium et à son exploitation minière parl’Inuit Language Authority;

production de renseignements de base supplémentaires concernant les tendances des effectifsde caribous ainsi que de renseignements de base relatives aux prévisions sur espèces de lafaune marine importantes pour les résidents et les collectivités de la région du Nunavut;

mise sur pied de programmes éducatifs pouvait aider les Inuit à se qualifier pour les emplois liésà l’exploitation minière de l’uranium, et à profiter de ces possibilités au -delà des postes depremier échelon.

mise en vigueur de programmes de surveillance pouvant fondamentalement prouver auxrésidents et aux collectivités visées par l’Accord sur les revendications territoriales du Nunavutque leur dépendance alimentaire envers les caribous, les poissons et la faune marine ne seranullement affe ctée par le développement industriel de l’exploitation d’uranium dans la région.


24/322

xxiii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INSIDE COVER PAGE ................................................................................................................................................ I

SIGNATURE PAGE .................................................................................................................................................. II COVER LETTER ...................................................................................................................................................... III

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ..................................................................................................................................... V

CHAIRPERSON’S FOREWA RD ................................................................................................................................. X

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................... XII

TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................................... XXIII

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 PROJECTOVERVIEW .......................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 PROCEDURALHISTORY ....................................................................................................................................... 3 1.3 PURPOSE OF THISREPORT ................................................................................................................................... 9 1.4 JURISDICTION OF THEBOARD ............................................................................................................................... 9 1.5 THEMANDATE OF THEBOARD ............................................................................................................................. 9 1.6 EVIDENTIARYISSUES ........................................................................................................................................ 10 1.7 SCOPE OF THENIRB’S ASSESSMENT ANDENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTGUIDELINES........................................ 12 1.8 KEYISSUES ..................................................................................................................................................... 16

2. PROJECT SETTING ........................................................................................................................................ 19

2.1 DESCRIPTION OFPROJECTLOCATION .................................................................................................................. 19 2.2 PROJECTDESCRIPTION..................................................................................................................................... 23

3. INVOLVEMENT OF INTERESTED PARTIES ..................................................................................................... 29

3.1 ENGAGEMENTOPPORTUNITIES.......................................................................................................................... 29 3.2 THEPARTICIPANTS.......................................................................................................................................... 30

4. ECOSYSTEMIC EFFECTS ................................................................................................................................ 44

4.1 AIRQ UALITY.................................................................................................................................................. 46 4.2 CLIMATE(INCLUDINGCLIMATECHANGE) ANDMETEOROLOGY................................................................................. 56 4.3 NOISE ANDVIBRATION ..................................................................................................................................... 59 4.4 TERRESTRIALENVIRONMENT(INCLUDINGLANDFORMS, SURFICIALGEOLOGY ANDGEOMORPHOLOGY ANDSOILS) ............. 66 4.5 PERMAFROST ANDGROUNDSTABILITY................................................................................................................ 70

4.6 GEOLOGY ...................................................................................................................................................... 73 4.7 HYDROLOGY ANDHYDROGEOLOGY..................................................................................................................... 76 4.8 GROUNDWATER ANDSURFACEWATERQ UALITY................................................................................................... 81 4.9 SEDIMENTQ UALITY......................................................................................................................................... 94 4.10 FRESHWATERAQUATICENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................................... 96 4.11 VEGETATION ................................................................................................................................................ 107 4.12 TERRESTRIALWILDLIFE ANDWILDLIFEHABITAT .................................................................................................. 111 4.13 BIRDS ANDBIRDHABITAT ............................................................................................................................... 128


25/322

xxiv

4.14 MARINEENVIRONMENT ................................................................................................................................. 134 4.15 MARINEWILDLIFE......................................................................................................................................... 140

5. SOCIO-ECONOMIC EFFECTS ....................................................................................................................... 151

5.1 ECONOMICDEVELOPMENT ANDOPPORTUNITIES................................................................................................. 153 5.2 EMPLOYMENT .............................................................................................................................................. 157 5.3 EDUCATION ANDTRAINING ............................................................................................................................. 165 5.4 CONTRACTING ANDBUSINESSOPPORTUNITIES.................................................................................................... 170 5.5 BENEFITS, ROYALTIES, ANDTAXATION............................................................................................................... 174 5.6 POPULATIONDEMOGRAPHICS......................................................................................................................... 180 5.7 TRADITIONALACTIVITY ANDKNOWLEDGE .......................................................................................................... 184 5.8 NON-TRADITIONALLANDUSE ......................................................................................................................... 197 5.9 CULTURAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL ANDPALEONTOLOGICALRESOURCES........................................................................ 201 5.10 INDIVIDUAL ANDCOMMUNITYWELLNESS.......................................................................................................... 205 5.11 COMMUNITYINFRASTRUCTURE ANDPUBLICSERVICES.......................................................................................... 211 5.12 GOVERNANCE ANDLEADERSHIP....................................................................................................................... 216

5.13 HEALTH AND

SAFETY

(INCLUDING WORKER AND PUBLIC SAFETY

) ............................................................................. 221 6. OTHER MATTERS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT .................................................................................................. 229

6.1 HUMANHEALTH ANDRISKASSESSMENT........................................................................................................... 229 6.2 ACCIDENTS ANDMALFUNCTIONS..................................................................................................................... 241 6.3 ALTERNATIVESANALYSIS................................................................................................................................ 253 6.4 CUMULATIVEEFFECTS .................................................................................................................................... 257 6.5 REGULATORYCAPACITY.................................................................................................................................. 267 6.6 OPERATIONALVARIABILITY.............................................................................................................................. 274 6.7 PERFORMANCEBONDING ............................................................................................................................... 278 6.8 TRANSBOUNDARYEFFECTS.............................................................................................................................. 278

7. RECOMMENDATION TO THE MINISTER ..................................................................................................... 288 8. SUMMARY OF BOARD CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................... 289

APPENDIX A: LIST OF EXHIBITS FROM THE KIGGAVIK PROJECT FINAL HEARING ..................................................

APPENDIX B: LIST OF ACRONYMS .......................................................................................................................... 1


26/322


27/322

1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Overview

The Kiggavik Project (NIRB File No. 09MN003) consists of the proposed construction, operation, closure,and reclamation of a uranium ore mining and milling operation approximately 80 kilometres (km) westof Baker Lake, in the Kivalliq region of Nunavut. The proponent for the Kiggavik Project is AREVAResources Canada Incorporated (the Proponent or AREVA).

The Kiggavik Project includes three main development areas: the Kiggavik site, the Sissons site, and theBaker Lake dock facility (collectively referred to as the Kiggavik Project, or the Project). The Kiggavik andSissons sites are located approximately 17 km apart, and would be connected by a 19.6 km mine haulroad. The Kiggavik site encompasses three uranium ore deposits: East Zone, Centre Zone, and MainZone, which would be accessed using open pit mining techniques. A uranium mill and related facilities,main accommodations for Project personnel, and a landing strip would be located at the Kiggavik site.Two uranium ore deposits, Andrew Lake and End Grid, would be accessed from the Sissons site using a

combination of open pit and underground mining methods.

Total mineral resources for the Project are estimated at approximately 51,000 tonnes of uranium (133million pounds U 3O8) at an average grade of 0.46% uranium. Ore extracted from the Kiggavik andSissons mine sites would be processed through a mill at the Kiggavik site using hydrometallurgicalprocesses. Mined out pits at the Kiggavik site would sequentially be used as tailings managementfacilities (TMF) with the East Zone pit potentially serving as the initial TMF, followed by the Centre Zoneand Main Zone pits. The uranium product refined through the milling process (also known asyellowcake) would be packaged into barrels at the Kiggavik site and transported via aircraft to PointsNorth, Saskatchewan, and onward to ground transportation networks in southern Canada.

The Project would be resupplied annually using a purpose-built dock and fuel storage facility in BakerLake, with mill reagents, fuel, and other supplies transported from southern Canada by ship and bargeannually during the open water season. Project materials would be transported from the dock facility inBaker Lake to the Kiggavik and Sissons sites using a seasonal winter access road, AREVA ’s preferred roadoption. AREVA is also seeking approval for an optional all-season access road between Baker Lake andthe Kiggavik Site in the event that the proposed winter access road proves to be incapable of adequatelysupporting the Project through its full life-span.

Figure 1 shows the locations of major project components, including both access road alternatives.

Based on existing resources and studies, AREVA has outlined four general Project life phases:

Construction — the construction phase is estimated to take three to four years, including thecomplete construction of the Kiggavik and Sissons sites, mill facilities, the dock facility on BakerLake, access roads, and tailings management facilities.

Operations — the operational life for the mine is estimated at 14 years, based on currentresources at the proposed mine sites. AREVA has noted, however, that should additionalresources be encountered, the life of the Project could be extended to allow for extraction andprocessing of the additional resources.


28/322

2

Figure 1: Project Location Map, FEIS Figure 1.0-1


29/322

3

Decommissioning — decommissioning of the Project is projected to last five years and wouldinclude the demolition of the site and reclamation of any contaminated areas. Closure of thetailings management facilities would involve covering and then blending the final cover withthe existing topography. Mine rock piles would be covered and re-graded to promotevegetation growth and to provide wildlife access.

Post-decommissioning and monitoring — post-decommissioning and monitoring for theProject is projected to last for up to 10 years. AREVA notes that detailed decommissioningplans and financial securities would be required for the Kiggavik Project, should it be approvedto proceed.

1.2 Procedural History

1.2.1 Key Procedural Steps in the Screening and Review of the ProjectProposal

Table 1 below provides a summary of the key procedural steps associated with the Nunavut ImpactReview Board’s (NIRB or Board)Screening and Review assessments for the Kiggavik Project,commencing with the receipt of the original project proposal from AREVA on November 25, 2008 andcontinuing through to the completion of the Board’s Final Hearing in Baker Lake on March 14, 2015.Table 1 also identifies key milestones, opportunities for public participation, and involvement ofparties and intervenors throughout the NIRB’s Screening and Review processes and associatedtimelines.

As this summary is not exhaustive, parties wishing to develop a more complete understanding of theactivities associated with the Board’s assessment for this project proposal are encouraged to consultthe complete listing of all associated documentation available from the NIRB’s public registry for theKiggavik Project (NIRB File No. 09MN003). Copies of the specific documents referenced in the listingand associated with the NIRB’s Review of the P roject can be accessed online from the Board’s publicregistry at the following location: http://ftp.nirb.ca .

http://ftp.nirb.ca/http://ftp.nirb.ca/http://ftp.nirb.ca/http://ftp.nirb.ca/


30/322

4

Table 1: Procedural History

ScreeningStep Party Timeline Process Steps Notes a

1

Screening

AREVA ResourcesCanadaIncorporated(AREVA orProponent)

November 25,2008

Nunavut Impact Review Board(NIRB or Board) receives KiggavikProject Proposal from AREVA

Proposal also submitted to:Nunavut Planning Commission (NPC), Nunavut Water Board (NWB),Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), Indian and Northern AffairsCanada (INAC), Kivalliq Inuit Association (KIA)

NPC January 16,2009

NPC issued a positive conformitydetermination for the Kiggavikproject proposal

Correspondence noted that, with respect to sections 3.5 and 3.6 of theKivalliq Regional Land Use Plan which require review of all issues relevantto uranium exploration and mining by the NPC, as well as approval of thepeople of the region, the NPC has concluded that these requirementshave been met.

NIRB January 20,2009

NIRB request public comment Distribution list includes Hunter and Trappers Organizations (HTO),Hamlet offices of 7 communities in the Kivalliq region, relevant Federaland Territorial Agencies, Inuit Organizations, Transboundary communitiesand groups, and interested parties.

Public/Parties February 18,2009

Comments on project proposalprovided to NIRB

Comments from: KIA, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (NTI), Governmentof Nunavut (GN), CNSC, INAC, Environment Canada (EC), Fisheries andOceans Canada (DFO), Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), Parks Canada(PC), Transport Canada (TC), Baker Lake HTO, Athabasca DenesulinéNegotiation Team (ADNT), Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation (LKDFN), Beverlyand Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board (BQCMB), Baker Lake

Concern Citizens Committee, Barbara Mueller (Baker Lake), PaulaHughson, (Baker Lake), Mary Jo Cullen (Toronto), AREVA CommunityLiaison Officer, Forum Uranium Corp., Mining Watch Canada, and TheCommunity Coalition Against Mining Uranium.

NIRB March 13,2009

Screening decision report issued tothe responsible Minister

Project recommended for review under NLCA Part 5 or Part 6 of Article 12of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA) 1

Ministerresponsible (INAC)

February 23,2010

Minister issued decision Project referred to the NIRB for review under Part 5 of Article 12 of theNLCA2. Minister makes special reference to the need for publicparticipation in the review process, including intervenor funding.


31/322

5

Review Step Party Timeline Process Steps Notes a

NIRB March 3,2010

Minister decision distributed andNIRB review commences

1 Communityscoping

NIRB March 12,2010

Draft scope released for comments Correspondence included summary of first steps of review process andavailability of intervenor funding

NIRB April 25,

2010-May 10,2010

Public scoping meetings Meetings held in all seven Kivalliq communities: Arviat, Baker Lake,

Chesterfield Inlet, Coral Harbour, Rankin Inlet, Repulse Bay (Naujaat),Whale Cove

NIRB June 14, 2010 Public scoping meeting reportreleased 3

Report summarized community scoping sessions

INAC August 3,2010

Participant funding awarded forintervenor applications

Funding awarded to: BQCMB, Canadian Arctic Resources Committee(CARC), Nunavummiut Makitagunarningit (Makita), AD, Baker Lake HTO,LKDFN, and the Hamlet of Baker Lake

2 GuidelinesDevelopment

NIRB November 15,2010

Revised draft scope and Draft Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) Guidelines released forcomment

Public/Parties/Intervenors

January 25,2011

Comments on the Revised DraftScope and Draft EIS Guidelinesprovided to NIRB

Comments from: NTI/KIA, GN, CNSC, INAC, EC, DFO, EC, DFO, HealthCanada (HC), NRCan, TC, ADNT, BQCMB, CARC, LKDFN, Makita, LauraBowman (private citizen)

NIRB February 9,2011

Final scope released 4 and RevisedDraft EIS guidelines released forcomment


March 2,2011

Comments on the Revised Draft EISGuidelines provided to NIRB

Comments from: KIA/NTI, GN, CNSC, INAC, EC, DFO, HC, NRCan, BakerLake HTO, BQCMB, Makita, and AREVA.

NIRB March 21,2011

Community information session Information session held in Baker Lake to discuss the Kiggavik project.

NIRB March 22-24,2011

EIS guidelines developmentworkshop

Held in Baker Lake. Parties in attendance: NTI, KIA, GN, CNSC, INAC, DFO,EC, TC, BQCMB, Makita, CARC, AREVA


32/322

6

Review Step Party Timeline Process Steps Notes a

Inuit UqausinginnutTaiguusiliuqtiit

March 21-25,2011

Uranium language terminologyworkshop

NIRB attended language workshop in Baker Lake.

NIRB May 3, 2011 EIS guidelines issued to Proponent 5

3 Draft EIS AREVA December 21,2011Proponent develops and submitsDraft EIS to NIRB

4 ConformityReview of DEIS

NIRB January 18,2012

Notification given that the DEIS didnot conform to EIS guidelines

Requested that AREVA address deficiencies identified and resubmit.

3a Draft EIS AREVA April 25, 2012 Proponent develops and submitsrevised Draft EIS

4a ConformityReview of DEIS

NIRB May 4, 2012 DEIS conforms to E IS Guidelinesand parties requested to submitinformation request

NIRB May 22-31,2012

Community information sessions Meetings held in all seven Kivalliq communities: Arviat, Baker Lake,Chesterfield Inlet, Coral Harbour, Rankin Inlet, Repulse Bay (Naujaat),Whale Cove

NIRB June 4, 2012 DEIS distributed and informationrequests solicited


June 29, 2012 Parties submit informationrequests (IR) to NIRB

IRs from: KIA/NTI, GN, Aborigi

NIRB Final Hearing Report on Kiggavik uranium project

Documents