A remediation budget for Giant Mine that has more than quadrupled sparked concern in Parliament in recent months.
A motion for the auditor general to investigate the Giant Mine Remediation Project was passed unanimously in the House of Commons on Feb. 3.
Bob Zimmer, MP for Prince George-Peace River-Northern Rockies and the Conservative shadow cabinet minister for Northern Affairs and the Northern Economic Development Agency, originally brought the motion forward on Dec. 3.
“We were going to Yellowknife and hearing different issues around the Giant Mine Remediation Project,” Zimmer said. “It started off at $1 billion, we were hearing different numbers, and they were all over the place. The final amount that we managed to discover was the current budget of $4.4 billion.”
In response to questions from NNSL Media, Jacinthe Goulet, a spokesperson for Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) noted that the $1 billion figure quoted by Zimmer was an early estimate that did not include detailed design and engineering, subsurface studies, and the environmental assessment.
“While the current approved cost estimate for the Giant Mine Remediation Project is approximately $4.38 billion to $4.4 billion, it is misleading to frame this as a ‘budget blowing up’ from $1 billion,” she stated. “The independent Giant Mine Oversight Board has reported that the project ‘remained on schedule and on budget in 2024.’”
The remediation project first became the subject of potential investigation when Zimmer and his team were tipped off by some unnamed informants.
“Some local sources have given us some information that sort of says, hey, there is a problem here, and you might want to do something about it,” he said.
Zimmer noted concerns raised by the 2024 Giant Mine Oversight Board Annual Report, calling attention to the quadrupling of the original budget, $202 million dollars paid to consultants and a figure noting that less than 50 per cent of the training dollars went towards employees working on the project.
The GMOB’s 2024 annual report stated that it “… also discovered that over 50 per cent of the reported training hours were logged by individuals who had no recorded work hours with the Project.”
Zimmer’s inquiry began through order paper questions, wherein members of Parliament submit formal, written questions to the respective government ministers, seeking specific technical information.
However, Zimmer was not satisfied with the responses.
“It made me a little suspicious of what was going on,” he said. “That’s what brought us to this point, where we had the motion of asking for the auditor general to look into the matter, and do a deep dive on it.”
Zimmer is also dissatisfied with the level of Indigenous and local participation in the project.
The GMOB cited the actual percentage of Indigenous participation at 13 per cent, notably lower than its goal of 25 to 35 percent.
Participation of Northern residents was noted at 31 per cent, whereas the initial goal for Northern participation was set at 55 to 70 per cent.
“We stand up for Northerners,” says Zimmer.
He emphasized that when he hears questions regarding the project’s hiring practices, and who is potentially being overlooked, the local economic and social impact of these decisions remains at the core of his concern.
“I know that Yellowknife is… there’s a lot of unemployment, and a lot of folks struggling to put food on the table. With these kinds of issues, we want to at least make sure that locals are getting put to work, and participating in the project.”
Goulet did agree that a project of this scale should receive scrutiny, but not at the cost of comprehensive analysis
“Canadians should expect rigorous scrutiny of projects of this scale (and) they should also expect like-for-like comparisons grounded in the independent oversight record, not selective contrasts that misrepresent what the numbers actually reflect,” she stated.
By Kody Ferron, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter
Original Published on Feb 11, 2026 at 09:58
Recent Comments