Application for an Investigation Pursuant to Section 115 of the Environment Act submitted 26 September 2008 Nature of Offense Acid Mine Drainage - “Acidic drainage is recognized as the largest environmental liability facing the mining industry and, to a lesser extent, the public through abandoned mines.” - Mine Environment Neutral Drainage (MEND) Program, Natural Resources Canada - “What has been confirmed in the MEND program is that prevention is the best solution for acidic drainage” - The State of Canada’s Environment, 1996 - “In some cases the best prevention strategy may be to not approve development of high risk mine proposals when they endanger valuable waterways, habitat and fisheries.... Prevention of AMD is the only acceptable and responsible strategy.” - Environmental Mining Council of British Columbia - “In Pennsylvania, if a proposed mine site is shown to have the potential for AMD, it is not licensed.” - Review of Canadian and United States legislation relevant to decommissioning acid mine drainage (AMD) sites, 1993 - “Prevention of acid rock drainage: For sites that have been identified as acid generating, reclamation plans to avoid acid rock drainage must be considered at the start of mine planning and carried forward through final rehabilitation and monitoring.” – NSEL Guide for Surface Coal Mine Reclamation Plans, November 2005 - “Pioneer Coal completed a review of CBDC files for background information on groundwater chemistry… The general water chemistry data indicates that all parameters sampled were within Canadian Drinking Water guidelines with the exception of colour which is an aesthetic objective not a health objective.” – Industrial Approval 2006-051995, 2006 - “In this situation, the water being discharged is characterized by a slightly basic pH (>7) and therefore is not acidic. Although the look is not aesthetically pleasing, a bioassay test has shown that mortality or stressed behaviour did not occur in fish exposed to this water.” - Gerard MacLellan, NS Executive Director Environmental Monitoring and Compliance Division, 14 March 2007

Bright orange-colored water and stained rocks are usually tell-tale signs of acid mine drainage that results when sulphur-bearing minerals associated with coal are exposed to air and water and form sulfuric acid and ferrous sulfate. The orange color is caused by ferric hydroxide precipitating out of the water. The precipitate forms as the acid mine drainage becomes neutralized. At low pH values, the metal ions remain soluble. When the pH rises, the iron oxidizes and precipitates out. Depending on the conditions, the orange-colored precipitates may form inside the mine or several miles downstream. The precipitates can be harmful to aquatic life. The clumps reduce the amount of light that can penetrate the water, affecting photosynthesis and visibility for animal life. Futhermore, when the precipitate settles, it blankets the stream bed, smothering the bottom-dwellers and their food resources.  (Photo 1) Documented test results show that Acid Producing Potential of the coal Hub Seam at the Prince Mine site as high as  175.59 kg of H2SO2/t. The limit under Nova Scotia’s Sulphide Bearing Material Disposal Regulations is 12.51 kg of H2SO2/t.  (Photo 2) In its 2005 Environmental Assessment Registration Document, Pioneer Coal claimed that “acid rock drainage (ARD) is not expected to be a problem at the mine site” because “the waste rock is net consuming using the acid-base accounting method”.  However, the omitted scientific facts about the presence of Acid Mine Drainage and other toxic materials at the Prince Mine site in Point Aconi is documented in the "Prince Mine Baseline Environmental Site Assessment" done for PWGSC in 2004, but this federal environmental assessment was not reviewed by NSDE prior to issuing approval of Pioneer’s project. (Photo 3) In response to a Section 115 Application for Investigation last year, NSDE reviewed photographs from 1969, 1983 and 1993 and stated that: “Coal Hollow Brook showed red to orange colours indicative of acid mine drainage”.   As a result of public pressure after thousands of lobsters were killed by the discharge into Coal Hollow Brook, in the 1990's Devco established a water treatment plant to remediate the impacted water. Impacted water was redirected to the Acid Water Treatment Facility via pipes & ditches. This treatment plant was designed to eliminate untreated water from entering surface water streams and the ocean. (Photo 4) Since then the culvert to Coal Hollow Brook was shut off, the brook was cleaned up and adjacent landowners report the presence of fish and ducks in it. Pioneer Coal stated in its Industrial Approval application that a groundwater monitoring well will be installed at Coal Hollow Brook, downstream from Point Aconi Road (downstream from potential site influence) to assess the condition of Coal Hollow Brook. However, CASM’s inspection of the brook from the road to the shore revealed no sign of the existence of the monitoring well marked on the submitted map. (Photo 5) In response to the Section 115 investigation last year, NSDE stated that: “water samples were taken in conjunction with Environment Canada from Coal Hollow Brook and analyzed at Environment Canada's labs, the results did not reveal any scientific evidence of adverse effect. This sampling program will be continuing”.

Pioneer Coal’s EARD states that “East of the five existing entrances to the underground mine (portals), surface water enters bootleg pits, drains into the Water Level Tunnel and gathers at the water pumping station and then directed into the Prince Mine underground workings. This water is highly acidic and cannot be discharged into the environment untreated.” (Photo 6) In response to a question at a meeting in Sydney last January, the Environment Department’s Executive Director stated that they do not know where the underground workings go and to ask Devco.   Between the mine portals and the water pumping station Pioneer Coal has excavated a pit that has filled with obvious evidence of Acid Mine Drainage. (Photo 7) Last spring CASM started receiving complaints from area residents that Pioneer Coal was discharging water during the night from the pump house into Coal Hollow Brook. (Photo 8a) There were heavy rains throughout the summer of 2008. In August 2008, CASM received complaints that Coal Hollow Brook had turned bright orange and a local resident identified the old Devco culvert as the source of the discharge into the brook. (Photos 8, 9, 10)

PH test results taken by CASM with a professional quality digital probe in August and September are highly acidic indicative of Acid Mine Drainage: (Photos 11, 12, 13, 14) DATE LOCATION PH 08/26/08 Coal Hollow Brook at culvert 2.8 09/21/08 Excavated pit east of the mine portals <3.3 09/21/08 Coal Hollow Brook at Point Aconi Rd 6.2 09/21/08 Coal Hollow Brook at culvert 4.7 Evidently Pioneer Coal’s monitoring and mitigation methods have failed to protect the receiving environment from Acid Mine Drainage, and to our knowledge, Pioneer Coal did not report this discharge into Coal Hollow Brook to the Environment Department as required. The obvious discharge of Acid Mine Drainage into Coal Hollow Brook was reported to NSDE in an Application for Investigation pursuant to Section 115 of the Environment Act by an affected area landowner submitted on 14 August 2008 but the department refused to accept it. A month later, there is visual evidence of lime being added to the brook to neutralize it, and Pioneer has installed a new pipeline along the backyards of Forrest Lane from the pump house to above the portals. (Photos 15, 16, 17, 18) Between smoke and dust from the blasting that stings the eyes and Acid Mine Drainage being discharged into the brooks and fishing grounds and salt water intrusion into domestic wells, as a nearby resident says “They’re poisoning us, it should be shut down”. And it was shut down until NSDE approved re-opening the mine site while ignoring the documented scientific facts and the community’s well founded concerns based on decades of experience with strip mining in the region. This is the third brook that has been polluted in this fashion since Pioneer’s “reclamation” of the Prince Mine site began in September 2006 and reported by the public to NSDE. To date, NSDE’s monitoring and compliance has failed to protect our environment from the predictable adverse effects of this strip mine. (Photos 19, 20) Collected water from the mine site is supposed to be pumped to the Prince Mine workings or to the existing Settling Ponds for treatment as required prior to discharge. In response to the Section 115 Investigation into MacDonald Brook last year NSDE stated that the “orange precipitate evident in the upper areas of MacDonald Brook is the result of discharge from the under-drain network below the settlement /surge pond structure… It is possible that a possible leak or breach in the liner are influencing the under drain water chemistry and hence the orange precipitate.” To date there has been no indication that the problem with the leaking settling pond has been fixed.

To the best of our knowledge, based on site inspections and reports from area residents, other Terms and Conditions of the Environmental Assessment and Industrial Approval have also not been complied with or enforced: General Terms and Conditions - Extensions or modifications of the Facility, including the active area, process changes, waste disposal practices, which were not granted under the Approval have not been subject to the Environmental Assessment Regulations or public consultation. For example, the stockpiling and processing of coal, the disposal of sulphide bearing materials and other toxic substances at the Prince Mine site. (Photos 21, 22, 23, 24) - Pioneer Coal has not immediately notified the Department of any incidents of non-compliance with the Approval. For example, destruction of a wetland, discharges into MacDonald Morrison Brook, Coal Hollow Brook, the unmapped brook from the DNR Crown land, the brooks behind the stockpile flowing into Brogan’s old strip mine, etc. (Photos 25, 26, 27) - Pioneer Coal has not ensured that the Terms & Conditions of the Environmental Assessment Approval issued December 28, 2005 under Part IV of the Environment Act are adhered to. For example, posted minutes of the Community Liaison Committee indicate that it has not met since 19 March 2007 and clearly has not established any forum for dialogue of the public’s concerns. Pioneer Coal has done nothing to keep the public informed of the details of the project as required. Construction of Facility - Visual inspection shows that all erosion and sedimentation controls were not in place prior to construction at this Facility and still aren’t. (Photo 28) - Pioneer Coal has not ensured that all site water, surface drainage and excavation pumping is managed as described in the "Industrial Approval Application Supporting Document". For example, visual inspection of the site shows that water from the active pit is not being pumped to the Prince Mine workings or Settling Ponds for treatment as required prior to discharge, the riparian buffer to a watercourse is less than 30 metres, sedimentation control fencing has not been placed at the edge of disturbed areas, a rock lined perimeter ditch has not been constructed around the active work areas, etc. (Photos 29, 30, 31, 32) Particulate Emissions (Dust) - Numerous complaints received by CASM from nearby residents of dust covering their homes indicate that Pioneer Coal has not ensured that Particulate Emissions do not exceed Air Quality Regulations, and coal transport trucks have not been washed as necessary to eliminate the tracking of site materials on local roads. (Photo 33) Sound Levels - Numerous complaints received by CASM from nearby residents disturbed by noises from the site almost 24/7 indicate that Pioneer Coal has not ensured that sound levels do not exceed the approved limits. (Photo 34) Blasting - Numerous complaints received by CASM from nearby residents of their homes being shaken by blasting indicate that Pioneer Coal has not ensured that the air concussion and ground vibration do not exceed the approved limits. The powerful blast and resulting dust that hung over nearby homes on 21 August 2008 indicates that Pioneer Coal blasted despite the obvious weather conditions and thermal inversion that day. (Photo 35) Groundwater - The surface water collection system was not capable of diverting all mine water and site runoff including extreme precipitation events to the underground workings and settling ponds on 7 September 2008 when the area around the pump house flooded, etc. (Photo 36)

Transportation of Coal - Visual inspection at the front gate shows that trucks are not clean and free of loose coal fines or debris prior to leaving the site. There is also evidence of stockpiling and processing of coal at the site which was not included in the environmental assessment and approval process. (Photo 37) Wetlands “This proposed constructed wetland will compensate for the 7.3 ha and 2.2 ha treed bogs with equivalent or better wetland habitat as a commitment in the environmental assessment registration document.” – Pioneer Coal’s IA application, May 2006 “It’s also interesting to note that the dangerous boot-leg mining operations that form part of the reason for the undertaking do not occur in wetland environments, so destroying the wetlands is not required to reclaim the landscape as the proponent appears to be suggesting.” – December 2005 public submission by professional wetland scientist Chris Miller who inspected the site In the beginning, first they said there was “no mapped wetland habitat located within the Mining Blocks”, then they said there is, then they destroyed it. Now the area is a lifeless moonscape devoid of any vegetation with eagles circling the destruction of their habitat and deer tracks in the mud trying to find their way around it. Driven from their habitat, fox and moose are also showing up in people’s back yards. (Photo 38) Pioneer Coal says it’s going to build a bigger and better wetland, but the expense could be prohibitively cumbersome. It would constitute the largest wetland construction project in Nova Scotia Nova Scotia’s new wetlands policy was intended to prevent damages to wetlands but this mitigative sequence has not been followed. Instead of avoiding and minimizing damage to the coastal Crown wetlands at Point Aconi, Pioneer Coal has been allowed to jump to the compensation phase of the mitigative sequence that is only supposed to be used in the very rare situation where damages to wetlands cannot be avoided or minimized.  Constructing wetlands is difficult and requires much more work than simply digging a hole and filling it with water.  Rebuilding wetlands removed by the project will take decades, perhaps generations. (Photos 39, 40, 41) Information on the value of the wetlands restoration bond required by the Terms and Conditions of Approval has been squelched under the province’s Freedom of Information Act. Rehabilitation “Reclamation (also Rehabilitation, Restoration): The process of reconverting disturbed land to its former or other productive uses.” – NSEL Guide for Surface Coal Mine Reclamation Plans After much public ado, on 2 December 2005 NSEL released its new "Guide to Surface Coal Mine Reclamation Plans" saying that the mining industry must adapt to new standards which includes integrating environmental issues with economic planning. Such plans should be practical, achievable and be prepared in conjunction with community input. Plans must be science-based, comprehensive in scope and mitigate against safety hazards and environmental effects. Communication and consultation among all parties should be comprehensive, meaningful and timely. Consultation tools can and should include citizen liaison committees and public information sessions. NSEL will require approval applications for surface coal mines in CBRM to demonstrate that public consultation has occurred, and that public concerns have been considered and addressed by the proponent. Operations will undergo routine inspections to ensure that operators are following their reclamation plan. Visual inspection of the site shows that the excavations are not in accordance with the approved progressive rehabilitation plan. Instead, all the woodlands and wetlands west of the old haul road behind the Prince Mine have been clearcut and excavated and dynamited and mined as fast as possible since “reclamation” activities began in September 2006. (Photos 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49)

The anonymous Citizens Liaison Committee has not met since 19 March 2007, there have been no public information sessions or any public consultation or community involvement whatsoever, the requirements for a reclamation plan have not been submitted while the CLC has publicly refused to meet with the community or our elected representatives.  (CLC letter attached) Information on the value of the reclamation bond required by the Terms and Conditions of Approval has been squelched under the province’s Freedom of Information Act. Site Specific Conditions Despite numerous requests, to date NSDE has been unable to provide a map outlining the approved mine site boundaries or specify the approved size of the area, nor define the meaning of approved “Mining Blocks” marked in yellow on the map. (Photo 50) Visual inspection of the site shows that disturbance has extended beyond the 4 foot boundary stake behind the stockpiles. (Photo 51) The December 2005 “Plan of Action in Response to the Study on Cumulative Environmental Effects of Surface Coal Mines in Cape Breton Regional Municipality” required surface coal mining projects in the CBRM to include an evaluation of potential for cumulative environmental impacts, but to date no such site specific cumulative effects study of the Point Aconi project has been done. The September 2005 Cumulative Effects Study of strip mining in CBRM identified many of the communities’ concerns that remain to this day including: industry competence with regard to environmental management; government’s willingness to consult the public; government’s capacity to monitor and regulate the surface coal mining industry; the effectiveness of the province’s best management practices to avoid environmental impacts and achieve high standards of site reclamation; and the concept of reclamation mining as a beneficial way to remove public hazards. (Photos 52, 53, 54) In House of Assembly on 13 December 2007 the Opposition parties called for a public independent review of strip mining coal on Cape Breton Island. In January 2008 both the Cape Breton Regional Municipality and Victoria County councils unanimously called for a public independent review but the request was denied by the Minister of Environment. (Transcript and Minutes attached) While the mining companies bask in the benefits of the One Window Process what are the rights of the people and wildlife being adversely affected by mining activities in their backyard? Who do landowners call when the Environment Department won’t take our word for it that the brook running through our property has turned bright orange, etc.?   What can the public do to protect our communities and environment and air and water supplies from such ill-conceived developments? Saturday, March 15, 2008 Limited liaison process wasn't first choice Weekend Feedback Cape Breton Post By Paul MACDOUGALL, Chairman of the CLC Fraser Patterson, District 5 councillor for Victoria County, could have saved himself some time by calling me. I would have provided him with a copy of the guidelines for a community liaison committee which he found on the Internet (`Liaison' a Pale Shadow of Model, Weekend Feedback, March 8). His description is quite accurate, and I do agree that there is a major disconnect between what there is and what there should be. But this is not the path we wanted to follow; we had no other choice. Nowhere in that document does it say the members of a CLC are required to put up with being insulted in the media at every turn, or with attempts at harassment, intimidation and vandalism. Patterson talks about dissolving and replacing the CLC for the Point Aconi project. If he or any other member of the opposition feels qualified to do a better job, why did they all refuse to dignify the CLC selection process by not applying for the committee? To the best of my knowledge, the opposition was offered a position on the CLC by the minister and it was refused. The verbal diarrhea from the mouths of the opposition is really something to behold. , Meanwhile, politicians - whether NDP, Liberal, Conservative or Green - all get on their soap boxes and tell people what they want to hear. The goal for all of them is the same: to get your vote. At the end of the day, they will follow the same policies and procedures to the letter of the law. So Patterson may go ahead and get the minister to dissolve the CLC or have him reveal the names of our three anonymous members; that will get rid of us for sure. Should that happen, we would all resign, and wouldn't that make opponents happy. The only problem is there would be nobody standing between the people of that area and total disaster. As for consultations with opposition groups - whether Cape Breton regional municipal council, Sierra Club or whatever - at this -point I would not give them the time of day because they are really not worth the effort. Believe it our not, our group is putting forth a real effort on this issue in the interests of the people of that area. Painful as it may be right now, if our efforts are successful this area will be fully remediated and reclaimed. Our goal is that the generations coming behind us will be able to say: Good job, guys. Paul MacDougall of Sydney Mines chairs the community liaison committee for the Point Aconi surface mine operation.

HANSARD 07-16 DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS Second Session THURSDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2007 [Page 1714] ENVIRON. & LBR. - BOULARDERIE ISLAND/POINT ACONI: STRIP MINING - DECISION RECONSIDER MR. GORDON GOSSE: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure that I rise tonight, or maybe it is not a pleasure that I rise tonight, on this late debate topic on strip mining in Point Aconi and Boularderie Island. I think they call it cleaning up the past mining and I think there has been a little bit of quickness on this government to go ahead and move forward with this project, just days before this land was turned over from Devco to the province, days before. Why this was done days before it turned over, it meant that the federal government's responsibility for the cleanup of the former Devco lands would not have to take place, because jurisdiction for onshore coal and onshore mineral rights belong to the Province of Nova Scotia. So right now, the responsibility - the money was there from the feds, I think at one time it was $6.6 million but, Mr. Speaker, they move ahead with the project anyway. There has been no accountability to the people of Point Aconi and there has been no accountability to the people; 72 per cent of the residents in the Cape Breton Regional Municipality voted against strip mining in Cape Breton. AN HON. MEMBER: 72 per cent? MR. GOSSE: 72 per cent; 100 per cent of the residents in the communities that are most affected by strip mining, voted against this proposal, Mr. Speaker. Let's just say, is there anybody on that side of the House who is listening to these people? AN HON. MEMBER: I don't think so. MR. GOSSE: None. They listen to these people, Mr. Speaker. Digby, the Digby quarry, gone; LaFarge burning tires, gone, but the people in this area of Cape Breton Island have been done disservice by this department and this is a wrongdoing. Let's talk about this, Mr. Speaker. I will give you an example of years gone by. The member for Cape Breton Centre, the honourable member, Dr. Mike Laffin. Dr. Mike Laffin was a member in this Legislature, a member of that government. He is quoted, in his day, in this Legislature that he would resign from politics if they strip mined in his riding. Did they strip mine in Dr. Mike Laffin's riding? No, because he told his own Party he would resign. I will give you another example of the MLA for Cape Breton West by the name of Big Donnie MacLeod who was a member of the Progressive Conservative Party. He said, if they were going to strip mine in his riding, he would resign, Mr. Speaker. He would not be a part of that. And did they strip mine in those ridings? No. They were men of fortitude. They were men who had the guts to stand up and represent the people who they represent in their riding. They stood up in their riding and said (Applause). Now, Mr. Speaker, we, in this Legislature today - if you were to go to the Web site of citizens against Strip Mining, on their Web site it will say the MLAs that are for strip mining and the MLAs that are against it. The MLA for Cape Breton West is against strip mining. The gentleman that sits in that chair should sit down one of these days and take his place in this Legislature and tell them, because he's against strip mining. Why are they still doing strip mining in that area? This is the government - and I'll quote in the Speech from the Throne. The most passionate minister in Canada is for the Department of the Environment and Labour. Why is he doing this to these people in Cape Breton? Why? Explain to me why. Is it possible that - and we will go back to elections - the big corporations donate money to political Parties in the Province of Nova Scotia. Pioneer Coal, Mr. Speaker - Pioneer Coal donated $7,500 to the leadership of that Party, that's a fact. They also donated $2,500 to the fellow that lost the leadership. That's a fact. I'd like to see the minister stand in his place and deny those facts. They are facts. They are facts of this government. These were mines that were owned by the federal government. If the people of Cape Breton don't understand - a week beforehand, when the federal government had the opportunity and had the money to clean up that land, they turned it over to the province. What did the province do? They ignored the citizens. They ignored the citizens of Boularderie Island. They ignored them. Could you imagine the beautiful picture now from the Bras d'Or Look off of that giant hole in - I'm ashamed to go home that way, I drive home on Route No. 4 so I don't have to look at that hole coming down that mountain. It's a shame. It wouldn't have cost the taxpayers of this province a nickel, because it was a federal problem. Now, the tax - you know what, Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you, the people of this province are getting a very big royalty from this coal - $1.00 a tonne. You can imagine the employment, $1.00 a tonne. Can you imagine the environmental damage? Let's see the minister speak about the damage the blasting will cause over there and the people's homes. Let's see him speak to the run-off and the water going into the ocean, killing our fisheries, bald eagles, the beautiful owls, birdwatching, it's gorgeous over there. Speak about the damage to the environment. Speak about those things. This is the second time in 25 years that the people of Boularderie Island and Point Aconi have gone through this. Remediation? Go down to Cape Breton - it looks like a moonscape, that's what it looks like down there. It looks like a moonscape. Get your telescope and have a look at the moon, that's what it looks like. After 12 years of remediation in Reserve Mines, it looks like a moonscape. Is this the kind of thing that we want in our province? Is this the kind of thing that we want? Mr. Speaker, who's getting wealthy on this? Who's getting wealthy? Is it creating massive employment to replace the jobs lost in the steel plant and the coal mines? SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no. MR. GOSSE: Mr. Speaker, what is it doing? One dollar a tonne and the beautiful island of Cape Breton gets destroyed. Destroyed! Was this a misconceived approach to what we're told in Cape Breton? Is this what we're told on our island? Here's this beautiful island - yet the people of Digby, the Digby quarry, they won their battle. The people of Brookfield won their battle. This minister cow towed to those people. He gave in to those people and rightfully so. He rightfully so gave into them. What is he doing in Cape Breton? Destroying our beautiful island, destroying our island. (Applause) The beautiful Cape Breton Island - $1.00 a tonne. How can that minister stand up in his place and say $1.00 a tonne. When they had 72 per cent of the people in Cape Breton Island, in the municipal studies, saying they do not want strip mining. They do not want it. What's going on there today? I challenge anybody in this House to drive over Kelly's Mountain and look at that hole that's there and the damage it's doing to our environment. It's a shame for this government. (Interruptions) Mr. Speaker, why is this happening to us on Cape Breton Island? Could somebody please explain this to me? Maybe the minister will stand in his place and tell me why that beautiful island - the run off from that, the acid drainage, the scalings and everything else. Do you realize that Devco was ear-marked to clean this up? Bootleg mines - it was earmarked to clean this up, and what we're left with there is devastation, twice as bad as it was. Take a drive to Reserve and have a look at that moonscape. There's nothing that grows there. They hydro-seed it and it gets green for the summer and then it looks like a moonscape, like somebody blew it up in the winter and in the Fall. Mr. Speaker, I went to every community meeting, I went to every rally, and I went to everything that they had going on when I was home in Cape Breton, and I support those people. I don't think that I would want to live in that riding - and there's nobody else, it became the silent cause. There are good people there, Donna Stubbert, God bless her, Russell MacDonald, and all these people over there working so hard. So I say to the members on the government side, why have you done this to the beautiful Cape Breton Island? Maybe the minister can stand up in his place tonight and tell me that for $1 a ton we'll destroy that beautiful island, for $1 a ton royalties. I would table e-mails from the Premier, but I'm not like that, Mr. Speaker, I know what he said. He's going to have the people of the Department of Environment and Labour meet with them. The hole is already in there. After two and a half years, the Department of Environment and Labour is going to meet with them? The CLC, maybe the minister can stand up in his place and tell us who is in the private group, the CLC, the Community Liaison Committee. Maybe stand up in your place and tell the people of Nova Scotia who is on that committee. They have their heads in the sand, it's a secret. The government of openness and accountability. Can you imagine? Stand up in your place tonight and tell the people of Nova Scotia who is on that committee and tell the people of Nova Scotia why you are destroying beautiful Cape Breton Island. (Applause) MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Environment and Labour. HON. MARK PARENT: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this issue and for the opportunity to put on the record a few comments which I think are important. I want to begin with the fact that most of the Boularderie Island residents who protested are extremely polite, they have worked very hard, they are concerned about this activity in their community. I have met with them on several occasions, I have gone up to visit the site and I want to commend them. There are a few of the people who I cannot say that of, and I have been extremely disappointed with threats that have been made against me personally, to shoot me. I have been extremely disappointed by comments that have been made, calling my EA a bitch, Mr. Speaker, and e-mails to that effect. So this is some of the behaviour of a very small group, but part of the residents who have complained. I can table those e-mails if you want, Mr. Speaker. I want to put on the record my concern with that type of activity. Most of them have been very thoughtful, passionate, which I applaud them for, and thoughtful about their complaints. I will listen, Mr. Speaker, I will listen always to people who are passionate, who care, who have a different opinion than I may have or the government may have, but those sorts of protests that I mentioned before simply demean the whole process, and I'd like to put that on the record. More importantly, this motion puzzles me because the motion reads like this: that the minister reconsider his decision about the Boularderie Island/Port Aconi area. Mr. Speaker, there has been enormous confusion, and the member opposite must be confused as well. I've tried to explain it time and time again, so I have the opportunity to explain it once more. Even the member to my left, who has hounded me with concerns about this, the member for Victoria-The Lakes, and has been a pain in a certain part of my anatomy which I shall not mention, even he seems to be somewhat confused about this even though I have explained this time and time again to him - I approved the industrial approval. Mr. Speaker, industrial approval is a process that deals with the method of what they're going to do, not with the fact that they're going to do it. The environmental approval was given in 2005. I approved that they do it in a safe manner. So do you want me to undo my approval of doing it in a safe manner? Do you want them to do it in an unsafe manner? That was the approval I gave, Mr. Speaker. That was the approval the Minister of Environment and Labour had before him - on how to do it in a safe manner. I asked them to look at water. I asked them to look at reclamation and I made sure that they had the very safest methods for doing what was approved back in 2005. So does the honourable member want me to undo that? Does the honourable member want me to give an industrial approval in an unsafe manner? Is that what this motion is asking for? AN. HON. MEMBER: We don't want it at all. MR. PARENT: You don't want it at all. Yes, they don't want it at all, but the motion speaks to a decision I made on industrial approval, and the industrial approval, honourable members, is how to do it in a safe manner. The decision to do it was done in 2005. The decision that I made, that this motion refers to, was how to do it in a safe manner. I went through every part of that and made sure, along with my staff, that the conditions that were put on the mining operator there, were to be done in the safest manner. Is that what the member opposite wants me to undo? Does he want me to take away the conditions that I put to protect water? Does he want me to take away the conditions I have put to control noise? Does he want me to take away the conditions that I put on reclamation? If that's what the honourable member wants, stand in his seat and tell me which condition that I put on them, he wants me to take away. I challenge any member opposite, stand in your seat, tell me which of the conditions put on the industrial approval that I put on as minister, which one do you want taken away? The safety ones, the noise ones, the water ones, the ones on the environment, which of those conditions? Have you read the conditions, honourable members? Probably the member opposite has read them at least. Which of those conditions, honourable member, do you want taken away, because that's what the motion is about. It's saying that I could reconsider those safety decisions. So which ones? Environmental decisions, which ones should I take away? Mr. Speaker, I'll talk about some of them if you want a little further in the industrial approval because my staff have been onsite twice a week monitoring this project. We receive numerous complaints and we respond to every single one of them. So let me tell you some of the things that we've had complaints about that we've looked at. We've looked at noise coming at night. So we spoke to the proponents about the noise coming at night and they committed to minimizing working in the vicinity of homes during evening hours. That was one of the things. Mr. Speaker, we looked at site boundaries. That was one of the conditions we put upon the proponent, that there be proper site boundaries and we had complaints about that. We checked back and found that they weren't working outside their approve site boundaries. We put conditions on about water collection systems and we've been onsite monitoring the water collection systems. We put conditions on about technical staff review data and monitoring measurements to ensure compliance in blasting noise and ground vibrations. Is that what the honourable member wants me to take away, the condition about ground vibrations, and say, oh, you don't need any conditions on there about ground vibrations. I mean this motion is very, very confusing, Mr. Speaker. He wants me to take away all the safety conditions that were put on in the industrial approval and that's perhaps where this motion is confused, because the approval that I gave was on the industrial approval. We put conditions on water, on the groundwater, on reclamation, on noise, on site boundaries. Those are all good conditions and yet the honourable member wants me to take them away. It confuses me. He, obviously, doesn't care about protecting the environment. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Kings West. MR. LEO GLAVINE: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to rise in my place to speak for a few minutes on this issue, which has been a longstanding issue for the residents of Boularderie Island as well as the surrounding area of Cape Breton. I have been to Boularderie on two occasions to meet with residents there. I attended a meeting that was organized by the member for Cape Breton North to explore all of the possibilities around this issue. You know, certainly my heart goes out to the people, to the citizens against strip mining, people as were mentioned by the member opposite, people like Donna Stubbard, who invested tremendously of their time, to background and to understand the issue and try to look at all sides and stop and see if there were truly any enormous benefits that could be derived from this project. There were two or three accounts at the meeting in Cape Breton North at Memorial High School, I believe, if I remember correctly, of people who came to the island - one I remember as a tourist and two others as business people, to do business on the island - to hear their accounts of falling in love with Boularderie Island. The reality was that they discovered one of these special places and my own view of having gone around the island on two occasions, I was struck, perhaps more than anything, by the agricultural land, the amount of agriculture on Boularderie Island. Residing in one of the prime agricultural areas of Nova Scotia, I was surprised to see, in fact, that there were these extensive farming areas on Boularderie Island. You know, while the island has a history of mining, and in particular a great deal of bootleg mines, I think a golden opportunity was missed, with the federal dollars, to clean up the entrances and the sites of the bootleg mines and not use this as a rationalization to go ahead with the strip mining project. So it was unfortunate, along the way, that was put aside. You know, we are reaching a point, not only here in Nova Scotia, but throughout the western world, where the people's input, the people's view of whether strip mining or large quarry operations will go forward, is being given very strong consideration. In this case here, the people's view didn't seem to get that kind of an account. They seemed to have been left out of the environmental review process. In other words, they didn't have a panel review, such as they had with Whites Point Quarry on Digby Neck. In my view, it was the people who turned the tide, the leaders of the local community who talked about what, for some, has been a subject of criticism, and that is the core values of the community. I think all of us in this House need to be very careful if we're going to push aside core values and work for manners in which development does take place. So I think we can learn a lot from Whites Point Quarry and the process that went on there and for people rising up in a very informed way. They engaged in a long-term planning process to reverse what was looking like a government decision to do this. I still think the environmental review was really not sufficient. Yes, it addressed the hydrology, it addressed some of the runoff issues, but when I read the review, in my view, I saw that note of uncertainty. There was some uncertainty around what would happen with a full-scale, strip mining operation. I hope that there will be a review. I hope that this is not a completely dead issue, that the residents and the political representatives will reach a point where they will say, Mr. Minister, this is something we need to take a second look at. I'm hoping that process will come forward. If something goes terribly wrong here, if we have an impact on the water and the hydrology of this area - and I speak about that in particular because just recently I read of a novel demonstration agricultural irrigation project of Boularderie Island - I see the member for Victoria-The Lakes nodding his head on this. So, on the one hand, we have a very progressive activity going on and then on the other we have strip mining, which the people were against, possibly could work counter to the agriculture. We have to realize that agriculture and tourism, these are sustainable projects - the history of strip mining in Cape Breton is a scarring and a blight on the landscape that is only in its infancy to be reclaimed properly, and to restore what more and more citizens are expecting. The other aspect here that comes to mind is that we have to take a look at burning coal in this province. We are at a critical time now. All leading experts, scientists, politicians around the world realize that the high rate of carbon CO2 emissions are impacting on global warming. If we can get easy and cheap coal, we seem to be continuing down that path. You know, if we're going to use coal, we have to look at third-generation power plants that will pretty well eliminate CO2 and sulphur emissions; in fact, we may need to be looking at a gasification process if we are going to use coal. We still seem to be subscribing to quick fixes, short-term economics, and not looking at next generations and how we can be doing sustainable economic projects and activities in our communities. I think this is one that could very well come back to haunt this government if something does go wrong. With that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my place. MR. SPEAKER: I would like to thank all the honourable members for taking part in tonight's late debate.

CAPE BRETON REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY Council Meeting - Minutes Tuesday, January 15,2008 Delegation: 1. Citizens Against Strip Mining: Spokesperson Mr. Earl Cantwell Mr. Earl Cantwell addressed Council. A history of the issue was provided. It was noted that last month in the provincial House of Assembly, the Opposition asked the government why there is strip mining permitted in Cape Breton. The Opposition parties have called for a second look and an independent review of strip mining in Cape Breton. Mr. Cantwell stated that under the Environment Act, if the Minister believes that there is a likelihood of an irreparable adverse effect, he may make an order to shut down or stop an undertaking forthwith. It is all at the discretion of the Minister of Environment. The Citizens Against Strip Mining requested that CBRM Council support their call for a public independent review of the province's decision to strip mine the region of Cape Breton before any further destruction of the environment is permitted. Mr. Albert Marshall also addressed Council on this issue. Motion: Moved by Councillor Stubbert, seconded by Councillor Saccary, that Council fully support the people ofBoularderie Island and: • Request a public independent review of strip mining in Cape Breton, as was done with respect to Digby Quarry in Digby Neck • Request that further strip mining of coal in Cape Breton be stopped • Request that the Community Liaison Committee (CLC) conduct a public meeting in the CBRM, and in Bouladerie Island in particular, to address the concerns. • Request that Administrative Staff forward a copy of this motion to the local area MLA's and MP' s advising them of same. Motion Carried VICTORIA COUNTY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL January 21, 2008 STRIP MINING Councillor Patterson brought up the matter of the email included in Council’s correspondence regarding the strip mining issue. Discussion took place. It was moved by Councillor Patterson, seconded by Councillor MacCuspic, that a letter of support be forwarded to the Honourable Mark Parent, Minister of the Environment, requesting that an independent panel review be undertaken for the Point Aconi Strip Mine. Motion carried. This letter will be drafted and sent out to Council members for review prior to it being forwarded.

Home Documents News Status Comments Links Contact Us