recommendations

Currently,

four

Inuit.

the

additional

results

As

responding

taken

Labrador

workshops

and

development.

establish

municipalities,

the

and

Canadian

The

since

4.

3.

2.

1.

NG

a

asks

violation

other

Additionally,

Labrador

Nunatsiavut

monitoring

Grant result

Establish

place

Negotiate

Fully

the

of

was

of

and

the

the

organizations.

only

peer-reviewed

project

Environmental

and

to

clear

A

the

forced

to

Commission

of

Inuit

of

peer-review

Independent

the

the

Summary

In

address

the

the

(2013),

Nunatsiavut

the

Labrador

consultations

an

an

addition

the

and

from

Federal

joint

recommendations

the

Government

was

to

Independent

Impact lack

establishment

Province

future

partner

management

NG

the

decision

sent

the

and

Despite

of

of

Inuit

science

Assessment

started

to

Government

literature

of

IEAC

Expert

Management fundamental

Muskrat

response

Position

Government: these

to

worked

with

Inquiry

with of

CIMFP

rights

a

(NG)

that

Expert

making

a

the

Newfoundland

five-member

academic

government

Advisory

that

direct

concerted

of were

of

Falls

of

in

could

Make

has

with

of

Concerning

from

Muskrat

the

Act.

the

Labrador

to

Provincial

June Advisory

Exhibit

the

concerns

authority

Agreement

interventions,

dismissed

these

reservoir

been

Joint

the

address The

IEAC

Muskrat

Committee

Nalcor,

researchers

Nunatsiavut

effort 2018

officials,

Falls

three

panel

interventions

NG

involved Review

P-00269

Committee

lnuit’s

and

courts

(#3)

of

over

the

by

intervened

ask

along

Right

the

with

Labrador

Indigenous

of

the

Labrador,

Muskrat

has

the

to

community

#1

concerns

the

Panel

a

Province

in

with

and

the

NG,

campaign, the

Government

with

Joint

and

Nunatsiavut

NG

been

downstream

(IEAC)

and

institutions

NG

the

Muskrat

no

Report

in

Inuit.

the

held

ask

Falls

Review

this

Canada

initiatives,

meaningful

groups,

were Lower

achieved.

of

concerns

members

#4,

dozens

which

process,

Newfoundland

recommendations,

Proiect

Falls

but

valid.

vs

to

to

Panel

Churchill

environmental

and

other

Newfoundland

the

show

the

identified

including

hydroelectric

of

of

and

change

There

Again,

challenged

Province

meetings,

Labrador Nalcor

under

through

affected groups,

Page

project

are

and

the has

the

not

the

to 1 1

transformed

not

and

intensifies

mercury

Reservoirs

Mercury

released

report,

charged

and

process

associated

Churchill

others,

residents

however,

estuary

downstream

channel

headwaters

Since

Background:

been

Muskrat

and

of

faced

Newfoundland

mercury

the

have

a

but

1970,

since

is

the

reoccurring

that

with

in

and

implications

through

Falls

with

River

decomposition have

transformed

most yet

recent

are

the

59-km-long

into

Nunatsiavut

have

effects

the

both

drains

naturally

conducting

the

to

a

Hydroelectric

environment

at

observed

created

of

methylmercury

new

act

Churchill

Muskrat

fish

and

a

been

1970s.

the

the

on

lack

hydroelectric

of

the

source

for

federal

recommendations

Labrador

studies

by

the

present

any

reservoir

controlled

by

Government

Churchill

of

during

changes

the

Inuit

The

bacteria

Falls,

River

Upper

flooding

of

response

development.

of

environmental

and them

CIMFP

Lower

are

have

by

has

mercury

in

the

about

is

in

through

Churchill

power

provincial

in

the

and

River

the

scheduled

substantial.

despite

central

stalled

years

land

wildlife,

documented

to

made Churchill

action

25 accumulated

Exhibit

soil

the

were

but

into

generating

which

the

km

immediately

on

Labrador

being

project

and

approximately

concerns

governments

review.

rather

sea

of

the

not

upstream

creation

responding

to

project

the During

P-00269

boosts

vegetation

begin

ice,

provided

acted

Labrador

on

elevated

with

bacteria

in

The

has

station

water

of

Lake

the of

after

is

in

the

on.

of

the

a

Labrador

the

been

to

Panel

now

2019.

have

30 them

redistribution food

Lake

quality,

environmental

Melville,

the

Sea,

in

the

becomes

natural

at

mercury

Smaliwood

submissions

the

being

diverted

responded

chain.

Churchill

IEAC

in

Melville.

creation

report This

are

water.

Inuit

April

and

process

the

developed

is

recommendations,

largely

Sudden

levels

available

has

during

2018.

a climate,

from

to

large

Reservoir.

of

Flooding

Inuit

Falls

major

to

to

assessment

the

since

a

the

by

the

and

its

There

reservoir

unknown;

the

are

saltwater

flooding

aquatic

and

among project

Page

on

to natural

which

Panel

Panel

been

entire

thus

of

local

The

be

the

the has

its 2 2

the

have

The

mercury

changes

Goose

The

proposed a

the

and

environment,

assertions

indicate

sampling

decision

“..

Bay

disagreed

(eg. downstream

concentrations toxic

ringed

environment

•Nalcor

.evidence

should

haniesting

•

the

the

environment.”

Nalcor’s

Panel

the

significant

Panel

and

Harvard

Bay

importance

lack

and

potential

exposure

that

in

to

seal

Lake

consumption

in

Lower

did

to

also

and

country

place

with

also

Lake

assertion

mercury

of

of

the

including

of

it

increases

University)

Melville

not

and

adverse

a

of

Lake

information

country concluded

contrary.”

long-distance Nalcor.

bloaccumulates

for the

recognized

Melville.”

Churchill

increase

and

the

to

food

carry

then

cumulative

Melville

study

effects

Upper

consumption that

mercury

has

advisories

potential

effects

food.”

consumption

In

in

out

there

disagre

ultimately

boundary

not

drawn

development,

that....

into

methylmercury.

can

particular,

for

Lake

a

the

been

on

effect

that

food,

effects

cross

pathways

would full

CIMFP

the

be

the

Melville

Aboriginal

from

with

advisories.”

in

substantiated.”

required

is

at

assessment

top

from

cultural

pursuit

and from

to

be

the already

of

the

aquatic

previous

Nalcor.

of

the

lnuit.

no

the

for Exhibit

and that

mouth

freshwater

by

Panel

the

The

of

in

and

measurable

Project

human

Churchill

identifying...

Rights

Rigolet could

Goose

traditional

present

The

food

Nalcor

of

and

projects

recreational

Nunatsiavut

of

concluded the

P-00269

independent

the

lead

together

health

to

web,

and

Bay

residents

Falls

river

marine

saline

on

has

fate

activities

effects

to

was

and

Title

the

and

project

effects to

mercury

purposes..

that...

with

environments,

said

of

Lake

Government

likely

animals

land.

therefore

food

of

of

on

mercury

Review

by

other

fishing

in

due

lnuit

levels

Melville,

that

compounded

Labrador

bioaccumu(ation

Methylmercury

estuarine

webs.

.(and

to

sources

such

downstream

there

not

and

of

in

long-term

Panel

and

the

in

mercury

carry

the

the)

as

spite

seal

lnuit,

Methylmercury

species

Project

would

of

other

also

potential downstream

such

out

by

mercury

hunting

of

including

low-level

in

baseline

in

is

Nalcor’s

strongly Nalcor’s

Page experts

of

would

clearly

be

Goose

as

seals

highly

the

for

the

in

to

no 3 3

We

mercury:

cumulatively

30

With

Québec

evidence

Jacobson,

Boucher,

methylmercury.

results

Attention

five between

children

However,

It

Mercury

is

üi)

ii)

year

I)

know

known

times

respect

pulse

Environmental

are

(at

same

Grande

prenatal

2

captured 0.,

Elevated disagree

The

Lower

Nalcor

the

and

Deficit

of

J.L.,

a

more

that

dam

11

Attention

compound

recently

to sub-clinical,

Jacobson,

following

of

human

independent

Muckle,

years

extremely

species

the

The

Churchill

methylmercury

in

likely

has

Hyperactivity

River

methylmercuiy

levels

(NG

in

Quebec.

proposed

reference

of

released

stated

the

Health

health

to

C.

Deficit

in

also

in

have the

age)

S.W.,

of

be

high

development;

relation

La

the

it

(2012)

methylmercury

already

disagrees);

Perspectivesdoi:

that

Non-predatory

review

identified

also

exposed

Grande

mercury Lower La

CIMFP

Plusquellec,

levels

to

Disorder.

Hyperactivity

study

into

Grande

Prenatal

the

there

and

to

demonstrates

present

the

Churchill

of

downstream

panel

study

based

2

ADHD

to

concentrations

by

mercury will

Exhibit

downstream

reservoir.

This

higher

2

teachers

methylmercury,

P.,

were

reservoir;

is:

no

as

10.1

fish

long-range

out

symptomatology

Disorder

study

Hydroelectric

Dewailly,

elevations

well

can

2891ehp.

levels found

P-00269

have

of

that

mercury

The

Nunavik

as

cause

is

as

environment

higher

similar

of

downstream

the

having

there

predatory

sources

among

E.,

1204976

mercury

independent

of

various

first

postnatal

impacts

Ayotte,

Development,

has

mercury

concentrations

to

is

in

problems

to

Inuit

of

the

childhood.

demonstrated

no

pre-natally

identify

fish

human

due

mercury.

P.,

from

related

levels

lead

safe

children

as

caught

to

Forget-Dubois,

experts

the

associated

the

a

health

an

exposure,

a

threshold

found

in

result

Although

La

short-range

than

are

dam

association

relation

in

in

Grande

that

strongly

impacts.

the three

Page

in

of

those

would

Arctic

the

Inuit

with

the

and

La

the

for

N.,

to

to 4 4

concerns

address

the

concerns

The

As

these

Summary

populations,

and

rooted

Melville

disparities

indicators

Friendship

marginalize

reports The

community

Community

Although

methylmercury

reservoir,

a

Muskrat

iv)

its

NG

result

determination

concerns

disadvantages

social

(ULM)

and

the

of

engaged

and

there

(eg.

there

duration

of

Levels

Labrador

of

between

Centre

already

specifically

health

Falls

concerns

literature).

wellbeing

the

issues

the

environment

region.

employment,

(and

is

are

are

of

Smallwood

now

above

project

in

was

in

of ways

mercury

no

is

Inuit of

marginalized

many

Indigenous

all

Thus,

Happy

a

the

of

methods

and

difficult.

Labrador

Community

Labrador

approximately

(related

major

known

have

possible

to

were

Labrador

other

impacts

in

vulnerabilities

any

income, mitigate

in reservoir

CIMFP

Valley

general

been

risk

fish

obviously

Typically,

to

negative

information,

to

Inuit

additional

Inuit.

and

and

forms,

to

from

eliminate

health)

a

well-being

of

Inuit.

education the

—

Inuit

direct

were

30

will

disadvantaged the

Exhibit

non-Indigenous

(Upper

Lake

Goose

mobilization

impact

years.

Any

consultations

culture

not

be

of

large

ones)

proposed

not

result

its

the

Melville

first

Indigenous

appropriate

progress

addressed.

indicators

creation.

Churchill).

and Bay

P-00269

on

Nunatsiavut

and

of scale

through

and

ULM

the

housing).

indicate

increased

of

health.

Lower

people

foremost

interventions

developments

populations

and

methylmercury

As

and

that

put

all

Peoples

The

The

as

a

the

Churchill

Lake

legal

Government that result

together

(this

has

This

no

as

extent

consultation

appropriate

experienced

steps

a

there

Melville

been

is

demonstrates

processes,

in

of

result

of

for

well

this

the

is

the

by development

tend

while

were

made

are

unknown.

a

of

supported

the

development,

communities

Nunatsiavut

raised

Upper

process

the

number

channels.

significant

to

creating

taken

by

Labrador

but

on creation

Page

further

deep-

these

all

Lake

the

the

The

to

of

of

on

by

of

a 5 5 CIMFP Exhibit P-00269 Page 6 6

Government, Labrador Inuit and concerned citizens (including protests), and external scientific and research experts. Despite being presented with the concerns of Labrador Inuit, peer-reviewed literature and specific recommendations from the Nunatsiavut Government, Nalcor and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador choose not to respond or address anything, unless they were forced to. This is unacceptable, puts Labrador mull at a significant disadvantage and cmearmyshows that the process for addressing the concerns and needs of Labrador Inuit have not been a priority during the Muskrat Falls project.