Grassy Narrows First Nation is going toe to toe with Kinross Gold, a mining company seeking to start work in their territory. Kinross Gold has applied for two permits from the Ontario government, one a Permit to Take Water (PTTW) and the other an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA). The PTTW would allow Kinross to pump water from the environment for use in their work, and for that water to then be released. The ECA would allow for the development of an industrial sewage works system for the project. The permits to conduct mineral exploration work have already been approved by the provincial government and allow for activities like drill tests and test pits to be dug.
But what does this have to do with Grassy’s Treaty litigation and mercury justice? A lot actually. Here are the top 3 reasons this is important and how they relate to the case:
1. The mercury in the ecosystem is exacerbated by sulphates when they enter the water. And guess what will release sulphates into the ecosystem? This mining project.
The sulphates, when released into the water, interact with the inorganic mercury to turn it into methylmercury, which can be ingested by organisms and bioaccumulate through the food chain, causing mercury poisoning in the people of Grassy Narrows and other nearby communities. It is through this bioaccumulation of mercury already released into the watershed that is causing the ongoing mercury poisoning of the people of Grassy Narrows, and further releases of sulphates will only make it worse.
2. Grassy has already called for a moratorium on mining in their territory, but it isn’t being respected. Every permit applied for by Kinross and other mining companies adds up to additional legal bills that Grassy must pay in order to ensure they don’t receive permits that will exacerbate the mercury poisoning.
The two permits currently under consideration by the provincial government aren’t the first from Kinross. In fact, Grassy has already gone to the Ontario Land Tribunal once this year, to appeal the decision of the Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks to grant a PTTW for Kinross. In that decision, the Tribunal agreed with Grassy that no reasonable person could have properly granted the permit in considering the precautionary principle, crucial to our system of environmental protection, or the cumulative effects of mercury poisoning in the ecosystem. Grassy’s appeal of the permit was granted, and Kinross withdrew that permit. The precautionary principle is the idea that where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, a lack of scientific certainty can not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation and that where there is uncertainty, environmental policies must act to protect the environment.
However, the permit for the ECA is still awaiting decision, and Kinross has filed a new PTTW, which is under review. These permits continue to grow the legal bills of Grassy Narrows in efforts to simply prevent more contamination of their rivers.
3. How many times does Grassy need to say enough is enough? Grassy doesn’t need the risk of more contamination to their rivers when they haven’t received justice for past harm and damages. Not to mention, new project reviews are looking murky…
Kinross has a record that leaves something to be desired. It has violated the Clean Water Act in Washington more than 3,500 times, according to reports of the mine’s industrial discharges filed in a Washington court. Kinross has left contaminated water leaking from a now-closed mine in Washington state since 2008. With a record like this, and one appeal already granted on a permit, it is important to make sure that Kinross is being held accountable and has the safety standards in place if any permits are granted going forward.
With Ontario’s new Bill 5 passed into law, focusing on a One Project, One Process structure, and Special Economic Zones that exempt projects from requiring certain review, Grassy and other First Nations will be facing a new process for review of permits like these in the future. The questions raised by this new process, and the possibility of decisions being made with less information, increase the likelihood that Grassy will need to make more appeals to continue ensuring that their rivers and waters stay safe.
