Minister’s Five-Year Report on the English and Wabigoon Rivers Remediation Funding Act, 2017

Background

English and Wabigoon Rivers

The area of interest spans approximately 260 kilometres and includes a vast portion of Ontario’s boreal forest landscape between the City of Dryden and the Ontario-Manitoba provincial border. The rivers are located within traditional lands of several Indigenous communities, including members from Wabaseemoong Independent Nations (One Man Lake, Swan Lake and White Dog) and Asubpeeschoseewagong Netum Anishinabek (Grassy Narrows First Nation), as well as participant communities on the panel, who indicate that they have, and continue to, depend on the rivers for their economic and cultural sustenance.

Historical contamination

Between 1962 and 1971, approximately 10 metric tonnes of mercury from a chlor-alkali plant at the Dryden paper mill site were released in effluent into the Wabigoon River. At the time, mercury was used to produce chemicals in the bleaching of paper. Early in 1969, mercury concentrations in fish from the English and Wabigoon Rivers downstream from Dryden were found to be substantially higher than fish found in lakes and rivers elsewhere in Ontario. The source was traced back to the operations of the mill in Dryden.

Since the facility was decommissioned in 1971, mercury levels in fish in parts of the English and Wabigoon Rivers have declined; however, levels in fish remain high enough that fish consumption advisories for mercury remain in place. Studies have shown that generally, mercury levels in fish are highest within the English and Wabigoon river system to approximately 150 kilometres downstream from the paper mill in Dryden and higher in top predators such as walleye.

Impacts on Indigenous communities

Indigenous communities have suffered health, cultural, spiritual and economic impacts related to the contamination of fish in the English and Wabigoon Rivers.

Wabaseemoong Independent Nations and Asubpeeschoseewagong Netum Anishinabek continue to suffer the human health and cultural impacts caused by mercury poisoning. Contamination in the English and Wabigoon Rivers is complex and detailed scientific work is needed to determine appropriate remediation options.

Mercury builds up (or bioaccumulates) in fish living in mercury-contaminated water. People who rely on fish as part of their diet are especially at risk for exposure and the ongoing cultural practices of fishing and consuming contaminated fish from the rivers has impacted Indigenous communities.

Establishment of the English and Wabigoon Rivers Remediation Funding Act, 2017

In December 2017 the Act established a co-operative management framework for the $85 million English and Wabigoon Rivers Remediation Trust to fund the remediation of mercury in the English and Wabigoon Rivers. The panel directs how funds from the trust are distributed. Under the Act, trust funds may be used for:

• monitoring activities prior to, during and after remediation
• preventing or reducing the risk of a discharge of mercury
• reducing the presence, concentration or bioavailability of mercury, including its presence in fish in the English and Wabigoon Rivers through the assessment of the extent of mercury in the rivers, the development and consideration of remediation options, and remediation activities
• administrative costs of the panel and trust
• costs related to Indigenous community engagement

The panel is comprised of equal membership from:

• Wabaseemoong Independent Nations (two members)
• Asubpeeschoseewagong Netum Anishinabek (two members)
• Ontario (two members)

In addition, other Indigenous communities who have a historical relationship with the rivers are able to participate in meetings of the panel in a non-voting role. Participant status has been granted to:

• Wabauskang First Nation
• Migisi Sahgaigan First Nation (Eagle Lake First Nation)
• Waabigonii Zaaga’igan Anishinaabeg First Nation (Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation)

Minister’s Five-Year Report requirements

Five years after the Act came into force, the Act requires that a report is prepared on the success of the Act in achieving its purpose, together with any recommendations the Minister wishes to make. The Act requires consultation with Asubpeeschoseewagong Netum Anishinabek, Wabaseemoong Independent Nations and any other persons considered advisable, which includes Indigenous communities that participated in the work of the panel (i.e., Migisi Sahgaigan First Nation, Wabauskang First Nation and Waabigonii Zaaga’igan Anishinaabeg First Nation). A consultation summary is provided in this report.

This report is a review of how the Act has supported the efforts to remediate the English and Wabigoon Rivers and evaluate progress towards fulfilling the purposes of the Act. The report provides an opportunity to take stock of what’s happened since the establishment of the trust and the panel and an opportunity to look towards the future.

Achievements

Since the creation of the panel, the panel has approved funding from the trust for pre-remediation assessment work led by Indigenous communities to characterize mercury contamination, including evaluating how mercury moves through the rivers and the aquatic food chain. In addition, funding from the trust has provided capacity for Indigenous communities to meaningfully participate in panel activities and contribute/share essential community and traditional ecological knowledge. Furthermore, capacity and knowledge are also being built within each community through effective community engagement activities to learn about the scientific assessments being conducted on the rivers.

Funding of the remediation of contaminants in the English and Wabigoon Rivers

Approved funding from the trust has been focused on pre-remediation scientific assessments led by Indigenous communities to determine the extent and location of mercury contamination, identifying how mercury moves throughout the food chain, and providing capacity funding to Indigenous communities.

A comprehensive understanding of the current state of mercury contamination is needed prior to developing remediation options. The panel has advised, through recent panel annual reports, that the findings from the pre-remediation scientific assessments will provide a more comprehensive understanding of the current state of the environment to help inform remediation objectives and goals, as well as future remediation options. Remediation objectives are desired outcomes from remedial action, while remediation goals are numerical measures to determine whether objectives have been achieved.

Cooperative management (how decisions are made)

The Act requires that the panel attempt to reach consensus on funding decisions brought forward for consideration.

The panel’s governance documents (its Practices and Procedures and Criteria for Payment) include language to help guide the panel in making funding decisions. Specifically, the language within the Act states that the panel shall strive to make decisions by consensus, and where this is not possible, a majority vote will be undertaken. Where consensus cannot be achieved, the Practices and Procedures outline specific parameters for a member calling for a vote, along with administrative aspects of recording votes in the panel meeting minutes. Throughout the first five years of the panel, most decisions have been reached via consensus but some differences in positions have been expressed regarding the priority, scientific approach and governance of certain proposals.

It can be challenging for independent governments to reach consensus, especially on funding decisions that will ultimately inform the development of remediation options that may have different impacts on each community and stakeholder and that are relevant to future generations. Despite increasingly complex scientific work required to complete the pre-remediation phase of the project, the panel has shown a desire to work collaboratively, although differences in positions have also been expressed during the development of panel advice to the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (Minister). Despite the presence of these complexities, the panel has worked diligently to uphold its responsibilities.

Building capacity and understanding

The panel approves funding from the trust for capacity budgets annually, which allows all Indigenous communities to meaningfully participate in panel business. The allocation of funds is provided to member and participant communities to allow for community engagement (including youth), scientific advisory and support, remuneration of panel members and participant representatives, along with associated travel expenses to attend in-person meetings.

Indigenous communities have highlighted that this funding has aided in training their members in aquatic field work, supported their participation in panel and technical subcommittee meetings and engagement of their local community youth and Elders.

Examples of how this funding has been put to work by member and participant communities include:

• local panel coordinators
• youth coordinators
• community engagement (community newsletters, traditional knowledge holder engagement, etc.)
• technical subcommittee liaison services (a liaison appointment by an Indigenous community to provide updates to the panel on the technical work the subcommittee is reviewing and advising the panel on)
• contaminant coordinator
• youth camps (day and overnight camps geared towards educating local Indigenous youth on the history or mercury contamination on the rivers and the work the panel is funding to remediate the rivers)
• external expert advisory services

Capacity funding allocated by the panel is detailed in the panel annual reports, available online via the English and Wabigoon Rivers webpage.

The Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (ministry) also provides the panel, including all its subcommittees and working groups, with ‘in-kind’ administrative panel Secretariat support. The Secretariat supports the panel and each of the represented governments with meeting logistics, administration of funding decisions, scheduling, maintenance of panel materials/submissions, trust activity tracking, drafting of panel annual reports/agendas/meeting minutes and many other administrative and organizational functions.

Balance of the trust

As of July 31, 2024, the balance of the English and Wabigoon Rivers Remediation Trust was $58,668,704.29.

Technical subcommittee

The panel has established a technical subcommittee comprised of representation from panel members and participant governments, including traditional knowledge holders, that:

• support the panel by providing technical advice to make informed decisions regarding funding proposals
• strive for a common understanding on research, science and data interpretation
• share information related to field work and sampling
• support the panel in providing advice to the Minister on remediation objectives and goals

The group is facilitated by a liaison to the panel, appointed by the technical subcommittee, who provides regular updates to the panel along with coordinating agenda items and leading discussions at each technical subcommittee meeting.

The group schedules approximately eight meetings a year (either in-person or virtually), with additional virtual meetings added as needed to support ongoing technical discussions on funding proposals before the panel. The group focuses their efforts on:

• assessing remediation funding proposals and technical reports produced through funded work
• applying common standards and methodologies
• providing technical guidance to the panel and their respective governments to facilitate an informed decision-making process
• incorporating traditional knowledge holder advice and input
• developing preliminary remediation objectives and goals for the panel

Annual technical subcommittee meeting details are highlighted in the panel annual reports located on the ministry’s webpage. Overall, the technical subcommittee members, by contributing their traditional and scientific knowledge, are helping advance the purpose of the Act.

Responsible party working group

The working group was established by the panel in September 2018 and is a representative group comprised of individuals from each government. The working group is facilitated by ministry staff, with in-kind administrative support from the panel Secretariat. The purpose of the group is to develop advice for the Minister on an entity to coordinate future assessment and remediation work. There is consensus from the panel that such an entity be established as soon as possible.

Assessment on the success of the Act in achieving its purpose

We now have several years of panel work and funding decisions. This work, and the trust and panel structures have been considered in the context of whether the Act’s purposes are being achieved.

Funding of the remediation of mercury in the English and Wabigoon rivers

The establishment of the trust and the panel has allowed Indigenous communities to lead pre-remediation assessment work.

Indigenous leadership of the work completed to date and the cooperation involved in refining complex scientific characterization proposals is encouraging. Opportunities for youth and community employment have also been realized through panel-approved funding. Specifically, First Nations members and panel coordinators have been employed to work on scientific projects and within communities. In addition, capacity has been built within communities geared towards educating community youth, including day and overnight camps on the English and Wabigoon Rivers. Furthermore, funding has allowed for traditional ecological knowledge from community Elders to be incorporated into pre-remediation scientific project design and reporting. Finally, each Indigenous community on the panel provides meaningful community engagement on an ongoing basis through community workshops, open houses and newsletters.

The funding of scientific studies aimed at the characterization of mercury contamination in the rivers has provided enough information for the panel to begin work on developing advice to the Minister related to preliminary remediation objectives and goals. (Objectives are seen as descriptions of the desired outcome of remedial action, while goals are associated with numerical values for determining whether the objectives are achieved.) The ministry looks forward to receiving consensus-based advice from the panel on remediation objectives and goals.

There is important work currently being funded to further characterize and understand mercury contamination in the system. This includes the development of a conceptual site model and an evaluation of all the scientific information/data collected thus far is seen by all involved with the panel as an iterative process that must be adaptive to what new science is revealing. It’s important to understand that such work is not linear, and options/paths forward can shift as updated science is collected to help inform future work. Also, assessment and remediation options can be accomplished in stages, within priority areas of the rivers, and that decisions based on the best available science and modelling projections can be adapted to meet remediation objectives and goals.

Cooperative management of funding by Asubpeeschoseewagong Netum Anishinabek, Wabaseemoong Independent Nations and Ontario

Scientific proposals typically include a preliminary project overview document that is supported by the panel prior to the development of a funding request, followed by scientific reviews and input from the technical subcommittee. Once a sponsoring government has considered input, the proposal can be brought to the panel for a funding decision. The panel’s ‘criteria for payment’ guidelines help panel members in making decisions on funding proposals. There are improvements that can be explored by the panel in terms of evaluating processes used to guide funding decisions.

The Act requires that decisions be made by consensus whenever possible. Generally, this process has worked for the panel but can take more time and requires compromise when panel members have different opinions regarding how much and what type of pre-remediation study must be conducted before remediation can safely begin.

An analysis of panel decisions since the inception of the Act indicates a trend towards more consensus-based decisions. This is encouraging as the path leading to the successful remediation of the English and Wabigoon Rivers is one that all involved must walk together. Voting has taken place after the best efforts of all panel members to compromise have not resulted in consensus.

The Act requires the co-operative management of trust funds. As the panel moves forward with funding decisions related to remediation activities, it is crucial for panel governments to work together to achieve the purposes of the Act. This will require an ongoing commitment by Asubpeeschoseewagong Netum Anishinabek, Wabaseemoong Independent Nations and Ontario to consensus-based decision making. Ontario will continue to work with fellow panel members to ensure the perspectives of all panel governments are reflected in funding decisions.

The Panel should focus on funding priority pre-remediation work to characterize mercury contamination in the rivers. An example of this is a system-wide monitoring program that is science-based and includes input from panel members and participants.

Opportunities for involvement

Under the Act, the Minister can authorize a representative from an Indigenous community with a historic relationship with the English or Wabigoon Rivers to participate in meetings of the panel. Three requests have been granted for panel participation (Migisi Sahgaigan First Nation, Wabauskang First Nation and Waabigonii Zaaga’igan Anishinaabeg First Nation). Migisi Sahgaigan First Nation and Wabauskang First Nation have been participants on the panel since its inception in 2018. Waabigonii Zaaga’igan Anishinaabeg First Nation was granted participant status in 2019.

In further evaluating how participants can actively participate in meetings of the panel, two main areas were evaluated: the process of receiving input from participant communities related to funding decisions; and if annual capacity budget allocations are allowing participant communities to have meaningful community engagement.

Process for receiving input related to funding decisions

• Currently, the panel chair calls on participant communities to discuss and provide input into funding decisions. In addition, participant communities provide input on funding proposals through the technical subcommittee and also actively contribute to discussions at the responsible party working group.
• The process is mostly working as intended with processes in place to allow for meaningful dialogue to be exchanged at panel meetings by participant communities.
• Granting participant status to communities with a historic relationship with the rivers has had positive impacts on the operation of the panel. It has brought additional perspectives and insight to the panel and has allowed for expanded participation by Indigenous communities, including leading pre-remediation scientific work, as well as affording the opportunity for a participant community to provide leadership at the technical subcommittee through the liaison position.

Do annual capacity budget allocations allow participant communities to have meaningful community engagement?

• Participant communities are involved annually in capacity budget allocation discussions and can submit proposals for funding and participate in discussions with respect to decisions on funding requests.
• Annual proposals for funding have provided participant communities with funding towards meaningful community engagement. The ministry heard from some that annual capacity funding allocations are sufficient and allow for effective contributions to the panel, while others feel that annual participant budget allocations are not at the same level as member communities. The ministry also heard that participant capacity budgets are more elevated than they need to be to meet the intent of the Act.
• The difference in funding required for member and participant communities due to the difference in legislative responsibilities outlined in the Act is recognized.

Other: expanded panel membership requests

Participant communities have made requests for expanded panel membership beyond the current memberships listed in the Act. The importance and value that participant communities bring to the panel and the discussions surrounding pre-remediation scientific assessments and remediation objectives and goals is recognized. The important pre-remediation assessment work and database development/management that has been led by participant communities is also important to note. The intent of the Act is to recognize the specific and well-documented harm Asubpeeschoseewagong Netum Anishinabek and Wabaseemoong Independent Nations have suffered and is reflected through the membership outlined in the Act. It is anticipated that participant communities will play important roles in helping define remediation option(s) and remediation planning.

Other: panel’s practices and procedures

Pursuant to subsection 3(2) of the Act, the panel provided advice in 2019 related to updates to the panel’s Practices and Procedures. The recommended updates included administrative changes, efforts to streamline operations/transparency, offer clarifications, along with suggestions to better align with the intent of the legislation. It is also understood that the panel is currently considering further updates to the Practices and Procedures related to ongoing work and engagement.

Consultation summary

Approach

In preparing the report, the ministry consulted panel members (Ontario, Asubpeeschoseewagong Netum Anishinabek and Wabaseemoong Independent Nations), and participant communities (Wabauskang First Nation, Migisi Sahgaigan First Nation and Waabigonii Zaaga’igan Anishinaabeg First Nation). The ministry consulted by means of one-on-one consultation sessions, meetings to obtain input from Indigenous communities, followed by an opportunity for written input to be submitted to the ministry.

Following consultation, a draft report was provided to panel members and participants for a one-month opportunity to submit comments on the content of the draft report.

What was heard

The ministry heard differing opinions on how the panel has functioned, along with options for finding efficiencies and equity amongst panel members and participants.

Panel members were generally supportive of the current structure and operation of the panel, while panel participant communities were supportive of expanded roles for themselves, with voting powers.

Some members and participants agreed that the panel is nearing the stage to recommend remediation objectives and goals advice, along with developing remediation option(s) for select areas of the rivers. It was also felt that capacity funding through the trust has allowed for meaningful community engagement.

Funding the remediation of contaminants in the English and Wabigoon Rivers

• General support that the funding allocated to date has allowed the panel to complete studies to better understand the current state of mercury contamination in the English and Wabigoon Rivers.
• Most members and participants are of the opinion that sufficient pre-remediation scientific assessment information is available to inform panel advice regarding preliminary objectives and goals. Furthermore, some are of the opinion that specific segments of the rivers could be targeted for remediation options within the near term.
• Agreement that timelines are currently unclear; however, most support that pre-remediation scientific assessments should be completed within the next two years.
• Mixed opinions on when the panel will be in a position to provide an accurate estimate on the cost of remediation and long-term monitoring. Some feel that cost estimates for certain segments of the river could be drafted as early as the next two years, while others estimate it may take up to five years to provide more accurate estimates. Mixed opinions also exist as it relates to the complexity of the river system and existing gaps in understanding how mercury cycles within the rivers; therefore, it is difficult to provide an accurate estimation on when the full cost of remediation will be known.
• Some panel members are concerned about the amount of time it has taken to make funding decisions and complete pre-remediation scientific assessments. Further concerns that remedial action in the rivers has not begun and a remediation plan is not in place have also been voiced. Others have communicated that a clear path to successful remediation has yet to be identified and that further studies and pre-remediation work are needed.

Cooperative management of funding by the membership

• Mixed opinions on the Act’s goal of achieving funding decisions by consensus. Members generally feel the process is working, but that it is not always efficient.
• Broad support for transition to an entity to coordinate the development of remediation objectives, goals and option(s).
• Some First Nations also noted:
  • the slow pace of remediation activities
  • concern that some First Nations oppose remediation
  • the ministry should use its vote to ensure timely remediation
  • that while panel meetings have greatly improved recently, historical concerns remain related to conduct and respect at past panel meetings
  • significant funds have been spent on projects not directly associated with remediation

Opportunity for other Indigenous communities that have a historic relationship with the rivers to be involved in discussions in respect of that funding

• Agreement from members and participants that Indigenous communities with a historical relationship with the rivers have the opportunity to be involved in discussions related to funding. However, mixed opinions on how those voices are heard:
  • Indigenous members are satisfied with the current structure of the panel
  • Participants would like a stronger voice at the panel, including voting powers
• Generally, participant communities have found their annual capacity funding allocations sufficient to allow for meaningful community engagement and participation in panel activities.

Summary of minister recommendations

Recommendation 1a

The panel should strive to continue discussions in the coming months and provide consensus-based advice to the Minister related to preliminary remediation objectives.

Recommendation 1b

Following the submission of advice related to preliminary remediation objectives under recommendation 1a, the panel should strive to provide consensus-based advice to the Minister associated with remediation goals for the English and Wabigoon Rivers as well as an update on their progress through future panel annual reports.

Recommendation 2

The Panel should focus on funding priority pre-remediation work to characterize mercury contamination in the rivers. An example of this is a system-wide monitoring program that is science-based and includes input from panel members and participants.