I am writing to express my support for an independent public inquiry of Victoria Gold’s Eagle Mine disaster as a next step, following YG’s prudent decision to put the mine into receivership and oversee remediation efforts. I would like to share my recent experience that influences this preference in hopes that it is helpful.
I draw some parallels from my time in leadership at Raven Recycling to the decisions before you. I led a very public-facing organization through a pandemic and a government-led regulatory process that would change the recycling landscape entirely, with insufficient human and financial resources and a backdrop of polarized public opinion about Raven’s operations. There was, and is an overwhelming lack of understanding of the recycling system both from the public and within the public service, making it near impossible to communicate the changes we were making and the reasons for them. The pandemic gutted our human resources, leaving us all wearing too many hats. We were working with crumbling and woefully insufficient infrastructure. Government was writing a regulation to please two entirely different perspectives and Raven was the only voice at the table speaking for the environment. I was new to the issue and not considered an authority. It was a job that required an intense focus on detail, which stripped away my ability to see beyond what was directly in front of me, and around my own biases at times. I think many of these dynamics are at play for YG in the case of the Eagle Gold Mine.
During my time at Raven, we commissioned four independent reviews: an examination of Raven’s operating environment and of our social and environmental impacts, an analysis of a new business venture which Raven had made a major investment in, and an audit of our financial records, which was actually a demand made by government as a condition of considering our request for an increase in funding when the markets crashed and Raven no longer had the revenue from the sale of cardboard to keep the program going. We supplied raw data, access to our records and tours of our facility. We answered questions with fact-based information. It was not a comfortable process at times, but it was fair and unbiased.
All four reviews alleviated pressure on me and my co-workers, helped us shape good policy and saved the organization money in the long run. We learned much and, while we didn’t love all of the conclusions that were drawn, or when past mistakes became transparent, the reviews helped us communicate more clearly with the public and other stakeholders. I believe they helped our stakeholders retain some trust in the organization and they helped me gain some credibility as a leader. We could not have gleaned such an unbiased perspective of our strengths and weaknesses without those independent reviews, and we could not have advocated for a more effective recycling system.
I am concerned about the future of mining in the territory because mining affects so many people and systems, especially when it is unchecked and when it goes wrong. We are at a fragile point in governance and in the protection of what remains of biodiversity, food security and decent standards of living. Mining legislation, if done right, can alleviate so many economic and environmental pressures. I believe you have a much more critical issue in your hands than recycling and there is no time to waste. An independent public inquiry could help you.
I wish for YG to use an independent public inquiry as the backbone for better legislation and policy. I feel it is time to take this step.
With much respect for the difficult positions you have stepped up and into, and with hope for the integrity of the decisions you make in the near future,
Heather Ashthorn
Whitehorse
