Support strong Canadian climate journalism for 2025
An independent toxicologist says a federal assessment of the contaminated Fort Chipewyan dock site failed to consider how community members use the land to fish, swim and harvest traditional plants.
Numerous studies found the soil and waters around the Transport Canada dock (known locally as “Big Dock”) had toxic hydrocarbons, metals and compounds including arsenic, nickel and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons exceeding provincial guidelines. According to 2017 reports conducted by Millennium EMS Solutions Ltd., this contamination is likely due to long-term use and operation of boats, loading and unloading petroleum, creosote-treated infrastructure and spills at the former bulk fuel tank farm.
Transport Canada says the federal health and ecological risk assessment done in 2017 shows the contamination is unlikely to pose any risks to human health and that it “considered a variety of uses such as, swimming and fishing.”
However, Mandy Olsgard, an environmental toxicologist hired by the nations to review the federal report, told Canada’s National Observer the risk assessment did not account for how the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (ACFN), Mikisew Cree First Nation and Fort Chipewyan Metis Nation use the land to harvest food like fish and plants.
“It's an inaccurate risk assessment that is essentially useless for informing decisions around remediation and understanding health risks,” said Olsgard, who is currently doing consulting work for the three nations to investigate and study the Transport Canada dock contamination.
The risk assessment found “it is not anticipated that commercial users or occasional recreational users of the property would be foraging the Site for plants” because it is a small and gravelly area. The contractor, Millenium EMS Solutions, only looked at potential exposure through drinking groundwater and inhaling vapours from the soil and water.
ACFN Chief Allan Adam previously told Canada’s National Observer community members who don’t have access to a boat, including kids, regularly fish off the Big Dock and “fry them up, depending on the size.”
The area around Big Dock is also the closest place to the community where locals harvest sage, raspberry and juniper, he added.
Local First Nations obtained a copy of the risk assessment and shared it with the media. Transport Canada previously did not respond to Canada’s National Observer’s request to see a copy of the document. Department spokesperson Sau Sau Liu sent an emailed statement to Canada’s National Observer that did not answer questions about the 2017 risk assessment’s failure to assess Indigenous use of the area.
The 2017 risk assessment used a “commercial exposure” scenario to assess how much people (including toddlers, children, teens and adults) would be exposed to contamination in the water and sediment. This assumes people are coming onto the property for eight hours a day to do their work, with minimal exposure to contaminants, Olsgard explained.
“We don't have an ‘Indigenous use’ category … in the work I do, we often define one,” she said.
But even without creating a dedicated category for Indigenous use, there were still other, more appropriate options for the contractor (Millenium EMS Solutions) to apply, according to Olsgard.
“If you know humans or people are interacting a lot with a site, getting their foods and medicines, you would call it an agricultural or natural use, and that should have been applied here,” Olsgard said. Agricultural use is much more sensitive than commercial use because it accounts for more interaction with the environment and food sources, and therefore, there is more opportunity for people to get exposed to contaminants. It isn’t as good as properly assessing how First Nations and Métis people use the land, she said, but it's better than assuming only commercial use of the site, which doesn’t account for people ingesting fish and plants on and near the site.
It’s “really concerning” to hear federal ministers, namely Transportation Minister Anita Anand, repeating that the contamination is unlikely to pose health risks when that “is not confirmed by the actual risk assessment,” Olsgard said.
“They're saying, unfortunately, false statements about the level of health risk.”
Transport Canada did not explain why these public statements did not reflect the health and ecological risk assessment.
“It makes it even more complex, and it breaks down that trust between the parties when you hear, ‘We assessed the risk of consuming fish,’ but then you open it up, and you see it's an inoperable pathway they didn't [assess],” Olsgard said.
The gaps in the 2017 risk assessment mean more research is needed to understand the potential risks to community members — something Transport Canada said it’s planning on doing.
“Acknowledging community concerns, Transport Canada is actively reviewing the previous environmental assessments to determine necessary updates,” read Liu’s emailed statement.
The statement did not say whether Transport Canada followed-up on questions raised by the 2017 risk assessment.
For example, the 2017 risk assessment said, “The only human health risks predicted were from the ingestion of groundwater beneath or within 60 metres of the site. There are no existing wells at the site, the location of the nearest water well is not known.”
It is unknown whether Transport Canada identified the wells nearest to the contaminated site. The department did not answer questions posed about water wells.
Liu said the department has initiated discussions with the ACFN, Mikisew Cree First Nation and Fort Chipewyan Métis Nation to involve them in scoping future studies and developing work plans and timelines.
"Last week we finally spoke with Transport Minister Anand, and I have to say that we are very encouraged,” Adam said in an emailed statement to Canada’s National Observer. According to Adam, Minister Anand apologized and the department and nations are now “collaborating on a path forward that includes Transport Canada paying to remediate the harbour and dock, establishing a temporary dock for egress purposes during construction and a new Indigenous-led environmental assessment all within a year.”
Although this is a positive step, Adam said he remains “vigilant and skeptical” of federal promises and says “the depth of this cover-up goes long past what we originally thought” and there's “a lot more” for Transport Canada to answer for.
"We were dismayed, however, to learn that there wasn't just two reports that Transport Canada hid from us, but eight, going all the way back to 1997 … That's 27 years of Transport Canada hiding this problem from us. A lot of people will have to be held accountable,” Adam said.
"If it weren't for the three Nations sticking together to uncover this, Transport Canada never would have volunteered this information,” he said, referring to Mikisew Cree First Nation and Fort Chipewyan Métis Nation.
NDP MPs sent a letter to federal ministers on Oct. 22 saying the federal government’s failure to communicate about the contaminated site and lackluster response to community concerns can be interpreted as undermining reconciliation efforts.
“Leaders from these communities have made it clear that for the First Nations and Métis Nations in this region, the land and water are not just sacred, they are medicine,” reads the letter, signed by NDP MPs Lori Idlout, Laurel Collins, Taylor Bachrach, Blake Desjarlais and Heather McPherson.
“People rely on bush foods and medicines as their grocery store and pharmacy, and on the water from snowpack, lakes, rivers, and muskeg as a source of drinking water. The contamination of the dock on Lake Athabasca poses a threat to traditions that have been practiced since time immemorial and are protected rights.”
Natasha Bulowski / Local Journalism Initiative Canada’s National Observer
Comments