Agnico Eagle Mines Ltd.’s Whale Tail Pit Expansion Project NIRB Final Hearing Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada August 26-29, 2019 Baker Lake, Nunavut

Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC)’s Role in the Nunavut Impact Review Board’s (NIRB) Process Responsible Minister: Has a decision-making role under the Nunavut Agreement (NA), Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act (NuPPAA), and Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act (NWNSRTA) Intervenor: Provides expert advice Regulator: Administers permits for Crown land, enforces and inspects Project approval conditions.

CIRNAC’s Participation in the Proposed Whale Tail Pit Expansion Project Scoping and Information Sessions Attended NIRB Community Information Sessions in all the seven (7) Kivalliq Communities Review of Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) Addendum Submitted nine (9) Information Requests (IRs) and eleven (11) Technical Review Comments (TRCs) Participated in Technical Meeting Provided Final Comments (FCs) Participating in the Final Hearing

Final Comments: Resolved Concerns

FC#1: Comparative Analysis of Water Quality Modeling Results Concern AEM did not provide a comparative analysis of the water quality impacts of the Proposed Expansion vs. the Approved Project. Recommendation AEM should provide a quantitative comparative analysis of water quality impacts as well as an explanation of any substantive differences between the Proposed Expansion and the Approved Project. AEM’s Response AEM provided the requested analyses, which supported AEM’s conclusion that the Proposed Expansion will not result in significant environmental impacts. Status: Resolved

FC#2: Effluent Mixing Zone Delineation and Impacts Concern AEM did not characterize the spatial extent of effluent mixing zones in receiving waterbodies, and the severity of impacts within those zones. Recommendation AEM should provide the spatial extent of effluent mixing zones for all receiving waterbodies where concentrations of potential contaminants may exceed Surface Water Quality Objectives (SWQO) as a result of both controlled & uncontrolled discharges Based on the findings of this evaluation, AEM was also asked to identify and characterize potential ecological impacts. AEM’s Response Based on the additional information provided in response to Commitment #26, CIRNAC supports AEM’s conclusion that predicted effluent discharges will be sufficiently mixed and will not result in additional ecological impacts. Status: Resolved

FC#7: Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Concern Insufficient information in the Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HHERA) - FEIS Addendum Summary to support AEM’s conclusion that the Proposed Expansion will not result in incremental human or ecological risks. Recommendation AEM should provide a full copy of the HHERA in support of its conclusions. AEM’s Response AEM provided a copy of the full HHERA report as well as responses to Technical Review Comment #7. Based on this information, CIRNAC concurs with AEM's conclusions. Status: Resolved

FC#5: Requirements and Impacts for New Water Discharge and Intake Points Concern The Proposed Expansion will require discharging treated mine effluent to surface water bodies that do not receive similar discharges under the Approved Project, and which may approach or exceed applicable water quality criteria. Recommendation AEM should justify all proposed changes to water intake/discharge infrastructure and operational practices AEM should also explicitly identify and describe the environmental impacts associated with any incremental chemical loadings caused by the Proposed Expansion. AEM’s response AEM provided sufficient information in its Technical Review Submission, responses to CIRNAC TRC #1 and 5, and Commitments #26, 27 and 28. Status: Resolved

FC#10: Community Involvement Concern CIRNAC wanted clarification on how issues identified through AEM’s Community Liaison System are monitored and reported. Recommendation AEM should confirm how public concerns identified through its Community Liaison System are managed. AEM’s response AEM described how public concerns identified through its Community Liaison System are managed. CIRNAC and AEM discussed this concern and agreed that community involvement measures are adequately captured in both AEM’s Socio-economic Management and Monitoring Plan and the Kivalliq Projects Socio-economic Monitoring Program. Status: Resolved

FC#11: Socio-economic Monitoring Program Concern It was unclear to CIRNAC if AEM submitted a Socio-economic Monitoring Program pursuant to Term and Condition No. 46 of the Approved Project Certificate. Recommendation AEM should ensure a Socio-economic Monitoring Program is developed in accordance with Project Certificate requirements. AEM’s response AEM confirmed the monitoring program was submitted to the NIRB in June 2019. Status: Resolved

Resolved with Recommended Conditions Final Comments: Resolved with Recommended Conditions

FC#4: Contamination of Waste Rock Covers and Other Mine Infrastructure by Waste Rock with Elevated ARD/ML Potential Concern Water quality predictions assumed that waste rock covers and mine infrastructure will be constructed exclusively of materials with low acid rock drainage/metal leaching (ARD/ML) potential. CIRNAC is concerned that this would be difficult to achieve. Recommendation AEM should conduct a sensitivity analysis to assess the water quality impacts associated with 1% contamination of waste rock covers, and other mine infrastructure, with ARD/ML material. AEM’s Response AEM provided the requested sensitivity analyses, concluding that 1% cover contamination would result in only a minor increase of arsenic concentrations and would remain below the SWQO for arsenic. The water quality predictions were limited to 30 years and did not extend far enough into the future to determine long term water quality impacts

FC#4:Contamination of Waste Rock Covers and Other Mine Infrastructure by Waste Rock with Elevated ARD/ML Potential This is CIRNAC’s primary concern regarding the Proposed Expansion. CIRNAC is seeking assurances that efforts are made to reduce the uncertainty surrounding the Waste Rock Storage Facility design. Status: Resolved with the following recommendation: CIRNAC is recommending AEM provide in their Interim Reclamation and Closure Plan an outline explaining the work and/or research that has been done to minimize the uncertainty regarding post-closure water quality impacts due to the Waste Rock Storage Facility. CIRNAC is open to discussing collaboratively with AEM and other interested parties to identify research opportunities to reduce this uncertainty.

FC#9: Socio-economic Closure Planning Concern Further preparation is needed to manage socio-economic impacts that will result when the Meadowbank and Whale Tail projects eventually close. Recommendation AEM develop a stand-alone Socio-economic Closure Plan. AEM’s response AEM is preparing for closure through its Conceptual Socio-economic Closure Plan. CIRNAC and AEM have discussed the need for continued socio-economic closure planning and agreed to recommend a revised Term and Condition of the Approved Project Certificate. Status: Resolved with revised Term and Condition

Resolved with regulatory follow-up Final Comments: Resolved with regulatory follow-up

FC#6:Pre-Development Groundwater Characterization Concern There are still gaps in knowledge about the groundwater regime of the Amaruq site for both the Proposed Expansion and Approved Projects; particularly groundwater quality, hydraulic conductivity and hydraulic gradients. Recommendation AEM should perform additional sensitivity analyses to quantitatively show that these knowledge gaps will not result in significant changes to the predicted environmental performance of the Proposed Expansion. AEM’s response Through discussions during the Technical Sessions in Baker Lake and in a bilateral meeting between CIRNAC and AEM on June 12th, CIRNAC concurred with AEM’s view that the requested sensitivity analyses were not necessary for the Environmental Assessment (EA) process. Status: Resolved, contingent on submission of robust water quality monitoring and management plans during Water Licence Amendment process

FC#3: Water Quality Predictions - Margin of Error Concern AEM did not quantify the conservatism associated with its water quality predictions. CIRNAC was concerned there was insufficient margin of error between predicted water quality concentrations in receiving water bodies and applicable environmental quality criteria. Recommendation AEM should perform quantitative sensitivity analyses of its water quality modelling. The analyses should systematically quantify potential variability in all major source terms and associated pathways, in order to support AEM’s conclusion that their modeling results are highly conservative and that they likely over-predict any potential impacts. AEM’s response AEM provided revised water quality predictions in support of its conclusion. On this basis, no further action is necessary to address this concern at the EA stage. Status: Resolved for EA process - CIRNAC will further evaluate the revised water quality predictions during the Water Licence Amendment process

FC #8:Revised Management Plans Concern CIRNAC conducted detailed reviews of AEM’s Management Plans for the Approved Project, and recommended changes to address potential environmental impacts. It was unclear to what extent CIRNAC’s input was incorporated into the revised submissions for the Proposed Expansion. Recommendation AEM should provide a disposition table summarizing if and how CIRNAC’s input on prior versions of Management Plans for the Approved Project have been incorporated into the revised submissions for the Proposed Expansion. AEM’s response AEM requested that further evaluation of the revised Management Plans be deferred until the Water Licence Amendment process, and that the Management Plans submitted to NIRB in December 2018 should be considered sufficient for the EA process. Status: Resolved for EA process- CIRNAC will pursue the concern further during the Water Licence Amendment process

Conclusions In general, the information, analysis and presentation of the material within the Final Environmental Impact Statement is adequate. In our final written submission, CIRNAC identified eleven (11) concerns pertaining to the assessment of biophysical and socio-economic aspects of the Proposed Expansion. AEM’s responses and commitments have addressed CIRNAC’s concerns for the EA process. However, CIRNAC will follow up on certain concerns during the Water Licensing process. If approved, CIRNAC will continue to review and provide input on updated plans, through the regulatory process, to help minimize potential impacts on people and the environment.

ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ Lcᓇ Koana Thank you Merci