'A sad day for caribou': Major Nunavut policy shift dismayed environment staff, emails show

The Government of Nunavut released its new position on protecting caribou calving grounds last year against the advice of its own wildlife staff, according to internal emails.

The heavily-redacted emails — obtained by WWF-Canada through Access to Information — show dismay among environment staff on the day they learned cabinet had gone from wanting to ban development on caribou calving grounds to reviewing proposed developments on a case-by-case basis.

• Nunavut reverses position on protection of caribou habitat
• Nunavut meetings could seal the fate of Canada's barrenground caribou

"It's a sad day for caribou today," wrote Gabriel Nirlungayuk, then-deputy minister of Environment, on March 3, 2016, the day the news broke internally.

"It's probably too late, and no one would listen anyway since [Economic Development and Transportation] and [Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs] know more about caribou than us," replied Conor Mallory, now the assistant director of policy, planning and legislation at Environment.

"But it might be worth pointing out to someone that this position doesn't make sense."

Environment officials were then left scrambling to try and justify the new position, only four days ahead of a Nunavut Planning Commission workshop on caribou.

"How are we not supposed to get laughed out of the caribou workshop next week with a position like this?" Mallory wrote.

Evolution of 'The Caribou Paper'

The emails also show just how involved the Departments of Economic Development and Transportation (ED&T) and Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs (EIA) were in shaping the resource material given to cabinet.

In the days leading up to the decision, Mallory and Lou Kamermans — of ED&T — worked together on what's being called "The Caribou Paper" to present to cabinet. The paper itself was not included in the ATIPP documents, because it's a cabinet document.

David Akeeagok, then deputy minister of EIA and cabinet secretary (now deputy minister of Environment), requested the paper be "short and simple."

Late Sunday night on Feb. 28, Kamermans sent a 12-page draft to ED&T deputy minister Sherri Rowe, indicating Mallory had some concerns with it.

Rowe replied: "David [Akeeagok] wants [redacted]. If they have a problem with that they will have to deal with David. He wrote out [redacted] and that is what he is expecting to see."

Meanwhile, Rowe forwarded the draft to Robbin Sinclaire, an outside consultant, saying she was "freaking out."

Rowe's last email of the night went to Akeeagok, where she said she was disappointed with the draft of the paper.

"This paper will not be done tomorrow and after seeing the [Department of Environment] portion, I don't believe we can come to a mutual agreement," Rowe wrote.

The next day, Rowe wrote to Akeeagok saying, "I can re-write, but then Environment will probably not be happy."

A last-minute appeal for more time

Mallory and Kamermans again tried to revise the paper, but by late afternoon Kamermans told ED&T officials he and Mallory "are at a standoff, neither of us wanting to give in."

Rowe also tapped Sinclaire, the outside consultant, to work extensively on the paper, to the point where Sinclaire admittedly "deleted some large sections and added my own slant and additional wording."

By nightfall on March 2, the night before cabinet reversed its position, the 12-page document was five pages long.

In a mostly redacted email sent at 9:11 p.m. Nirlungayuk made a last-ditch appeal to an unknown recipient for more time to review the position paper, stressing that the issue was too important to rush.

In response, an unknown sender — whose name was redacted citing cabinet privilege — appears to shoot down that idea.

"Wow I guess Gabe got told !!! [sic]" Sinclaire wrote to Rowe, after being forwarded the mostly redacted exchange.

"I'm just trying to stay out of the crossfire," Rowe replied.

Anticipating a planning process 'derailed'

In the days following the policy reversal, the Department of Environment quickly moved to come to terms with their position, both ahead of the NPC caribou meetings and from the anticipated blowback from media and Inuit organizations.

"Let's think of a communications strategy as bad as it is," Nirlungayuk wrote to his team. "I have none… but let's think deep."

Ahead of the caribou meetings, Nirlungayuk looked to Akeeagok at EIA for advice on how to field questions they anticipated being "unable to answer given the short timelines and new direction."

"Most other stakeholders have been developing their own positions or caribou protection relative to the GN's," wrote Nirlungayuk. "With the new GN position, this whole process will likely be significantly derailed.

"Many stakeholders [are] travelling to Iqaluit to attend the workshop at significant cost and may be frustrated and feel that they have wasted their time and money."

Akeeagok replied that the various GN departments could weigh in to help provide answers, while looping Rowe into the mix.

WWF-Canada worried biologists are being muzzled

WWF-Canada launched its access to information request in May to get to the bottom of how the GN came to changing its position.

"That decision to change that position [on caribou] was not done with any public consultation, it was done behind closed doors," said Paul Crowley, director of WWF-Canada's Arctic Program.

"We should be able to understand fully what those concerns are from the biologists, and they should not be told what to say."

Based on the latest emails, WWF-Canada says it fears the GN will muzzle its biologists on future projects, like the Grays Bay Road and Port Project.

Government defends position, process

In an interview with CBC News, Akeeagok and ED&T assistant deputy minister Bernie MacIsaac defended the GN's handling of the issue.

CBC News also asked to speak with someone who was with the Department of Environment at the time, but the request was denied. Nirlungayuk, now a director with Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., also declined to comment.

"At the end of the day, we [ED&T and Environment] both had to be satisfied that our mandates were covered," MacIsaac said. "And at the end of the day we were satisfied that we could indeed protect the environment and protect wildlife, and attract investment in this territory."

Asked if there was reluctance among environment staff to accept the new position, Akeeagok said reluctant or not, everyone has to follow that position.

"Some people might not be happy with the outcome of it, but at the end of the day we have a government position," MacIsaac added.

"And the subject matter experts and all these departments are satisfied that this position accurately reflects, and allows that particular department to carry out, its mandate."

As for whether biologists are being muzzled, both refuted those concerns.

"I would say it's going to be exactly the opposite to muzzling," MacIsaac said, referring to the upcoming screening on the Grays Bay project.

"They're actually going to be empowered to understand first-hand, and as a proponent, what the issues are related to the impacts created by this particular project."