planned-northvolt-plant

The battle to stop
Northvolt plant heats up

Quebec Environmental Law Centre leads the fight to save forests and wetlands

By Irwin Rapoport

February 22, 2024

Serious questions about the $9 billion Northvolt battery plant project, to be located on 172 hectares of a former CIL factory site that manufactured explosives in Saint-Basile-le-Grand and McMasterville, were asked the moment the project was announced last September to the fanfare of the federal and provincial governments contributing $3 billion to its construction.

The land is currently in the process of rewilding itself and is now home to more than 14,000 trees and key wetlands that provide crucial habitat for many species of flora and fauna. The project, should it proceed, would result in numerous wetlands being destroyed and most of the trees being cut down.

Opposition to the project continues to increase with legal challenges initiated by Centre québécois du droit de l’environnement, residents of the area calling out the lack of consultation, the Mohawk Nation getting involved, and Premier Francois Legault’s CAQ government changing the regulations to shield the project from a BAPE environmental analysis and public hearings.

[Thomas Gerbet’s] report provided details about… how environmental concerns are being set aside, and how the provincial government rejected a residential development project on the site several months earlier based on environmental issues.

Radio-Canada’s Thomas Gerbet prepared a hard-hitting and thorough investigative report entitled Northvolt : Québec a retiré des arguments scientifiques de son analyse / L’an dernier, le ministère de l’Environnement justifiait par la science le refus d’un projet sur le même site that was published on February 20. The report provided details about the project from its beginning, communications between the provincial government and Northvolt, how environmental concerns are being set aside, and how the provincial government rejected a residential development project on the site several months earlier based on environmental issues.

This report led to many questions being asked in the National Assembly on February 21 and the opposition parties hammering away at the government. The CTV News Montreal report Premier Legault on defensive about Northvolt project includes a video report and a Canadian Press (CP) article.

former CIL land McMasterville

Part of former CIL land in McMasterville – Image: Radio Canada archives

The question period was intense as was the action outside the chamber. States the CP report:

Premier François Legault displayed a banana, an orange and an apple on Wednesday to justify a more lenient scientific analysis of the Northvolt battery plant project in Montérégie. He was reacting to a Radio-Canada report revealing that scientific justifications had disappeared in the Ministry of the Environment’s analysis of this controversial project.

The official Liberal opposition considers that these alterations have all the appearance of a “political order” and even evoke a “falsification of documents.”

The Parti Québécois is asking the Auditor General to look into the matter while Québec solidaire (QS) wants to hear from the head of Northvolt.

Radio-Canada’s report reveals that the scientific references used a few months earlier in an analysis to reject a real estate project on the same site disappeared in the analysis that approved the Northvolt project.

“These are two totally different projects that cannot be compared,” argues the government.

On his way to the cabinet meeting at noon on Wednesday, Legault addressed the parliamentary press with an orange, an apple and a banana in his hands to illustrate his point. “In the Northvolt dossier, we must not mix a real estate project with an industrial project,” he declared.

“It’s the same land, yes, which is excessively vast, but we’re talking about two different projects with two different locations,” Environment Minister Benoit Charette clarified during Question Period.

“The first residential project involved the massive destruction of habitats of interest while the second preserves them, notably through a financial contribution of $5 million and also by protecting several dozen hectares,” he added. He mentioned the example of the Least Bittern, a bird designated as vulnerable, but whose habitat, wetlands, would have been 66 percent destroyed by the real estate project, whereas in the case of Northvolt, there will be no destruction of its habitat.

“It’s starting to smell bad,” said Liberal MNA Monsef Derraji, who sees two reports: one containing the scientific arguments the government used to say no to the developer and the other, written by the same person, removing the scientific arguments say yes to Northvolt.

“Who ordered the change in these documents? Who ordered the change?” he asked. “It borders on falsification of documents.”

“It has all the appearances of a political decision, political pressure that would have been put on the Ministry of the Environment,” echoed interim Liberal leader Marc Tanguay at a press briefing. “For us, it has all the appearance of a political order.”

The Parti Québécois (PQ) is asking the Auditor General, through the associated Sustainable Development Commissioner, to examine this case of differentiated reporting. The PQ wants to know “whether the Sustainable Development Act is truly being applied, whether the principles of sustainable development have been taken into account, in particular, the strong principle of protecting the environment and biodiversity,” explained MNA Joël Arseneau.

Québec solidaire (QS) called for Northvolt CEO Paolo Cerruti to appear before the National Assembly in the name of transparency. Legault dodged the request but invited his opponent, Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois, to have coffee with Cerruti.

“I’ve never met a businessman for whom the environment and the energy transition are so important,” said Legault. “He did extraordinary things in Germany. He lived in Stockholm. In Sweden, he’s appreciated because he respects the environment.”

Before the federal government announced it would give $1.37 billion for the project, Daniel Green of the Federal Green Party railed against the project and federal funding.

‘This factory will be constructed on a site along the banks of the Richelieu River. The site was polluted by the CIL company for over a century. Shockingly, this decision is being made without any environmental assessment.’

– Daniel Green, Federal Green Party

Stated Green in a press release:

“This factory will be constructed on a site along the banks of the Richelieu River. The site was polluted by the CIL company for over a century. Shockingly, this decision is being made without any environmental assessment.”

“During construction, contaminated groundwater could leech into the Richelieu River. The endangered Quebecois copper redhorse fish may bear the brunt of these toxic discharges. Eventually, the contamination will flow into the Saint Lawrence River. This puts the endangered beluga whales that live there at risk.”

“This decision to invest in Northvolt and accept the contaminated site came after intense lobbying efforts by Federal Minister of Innovation, Science, and Industry, François-Philippe Champagne. It seems Mr. Champagne lucked out because the wildlife affected don’t have the right to vote!”

“The contaminated site that Northvolt will inherit contains a frightening mix of pollutants: aromatic mono and polycyclic hydrocarbons, petroleum hydrocarbons, Trinitro-2,4,6 toluene (also known as TNT – yes, that means Dynamite), cadmium, chrome, phenolic compounds, lead, zinc. Some of these substances are carcinogenic to both humans and fish. This list of pollutants on the Northvolt site came from the polluter, CIL. The site likely contains other dangerous pollutants that have yet to be identified.”

“The Northvolt factory will occupy 172 hectares, but the contaminated area spans 375 ha. That’s the equivalent of over 570 Canadian football fields! This contaminated land is made up of sand and gravel deposits on the surface, which are highly permeable. The groundwater is contaminated. Heavy machinery used during the factory construction will move the sand and gravel, and cause vibrations. This could spread the contamination towards the Richelieu River as well as into nearby agricultural and urban areas.”

“The polluted Northvolt site includes over 1.8 km of the Richelieu River’s shoreline. There are 49 watercourses and flow areas that cross the site. At least eleven potential points for contaminated water to enter the river have been identified.”

Green demanded that the project “must undergo a public environmental assessment. Quebec refuses to conduct this assessment. When the federal government invests taxpayer money in infrastructure projects it must, by law, evaluate the environmental impacts. This is especially true in this case. The fish in the Richelieu River and the belugas in the Saint Lawrence River are protected by federal laws on fisheries and endangered species.”

former CIL McMasterville plant

Former CIL McMasterville plant – Image: Autour du Mont-St-Hilaire d’autrefois

In the following Q&A, Marc Bishai, a lawyer with the Centre québécois du droit de l’environnement, responded to questions about the project.

WM: Could you describe the wilderness area that Northvolt wants to build on and, in terms of destruction to the site, how many trees will be cut down and what type of wetlands will be eliminated? How much land will be lost if the factory and associated buildings and roads are constructed?

Bishai: The site in question is brimming with biodiversity and this type of area has become rare in the regional county municipality of Vallée-du-Richelieu. It contains 92 wetlands that provide essential functions for ecosystems and humans alike. Wetlands mitigate the effects of climate change. Although industrial activities took place on this site in the past, years of decontamination work and revegetation have allowed this place to become a refuge for many species.

Nature has reclaimed this area. The preliminary work underway by Northvolt will permanently impact 138,162 square meters of wetlands, and 14,000 trees will be removed. The impacts of the construction and operation of the manufacturing plant remain unknown for now.

WM: What type of flora and fauna are found on the site? Are there any threatened and endangered species?

Bishai: The documents of the Ministry of the Environment list an impressive diversity of birds, amphibians, reptiles, turtles, bats, and small mammals. The reports indicate that approximately twenty at-risk species may depend on these areas. The Ministry’s analysts, therefore, conclude that the work will have “major” impacts on fauna, which has few potential habitats in the region.

‘The site in question is brimming with biodiversity and this type of area has become rare in the regional county municipality of Vallée-du-Richelieu. It contains 92 wetlands that provide essential functions for ecosystems and humans alike. Wetlands mitigate the effects of climate change.’

– Marc Bishai, lawyer, Centre québécois du droit de l’environnement

WM: How did your organization get involved? Were you contacted by concerned citizens in McMasterville and Saint-Basile-le-Grand?

Bishai: Ever since the Northvolt project was announced last September, the Quebec Environmental Law Center (QELC) has been asking for full public participation in decision-making. Among other things, we have publicly asked that the project be submitted to public hearings before the BAPE for a more complete assessment of its impacts. Each week, our organization received many messages from citizens who are preoccupied by this project, many from locals in the region in question but also from across the province.

Three citizens from Saint-Basile-le-Grand and McMasterville are co-plaintiffs in the litigation launched by the QELC.

WM: What is the basis of the legal challenge? How does it fit with the provincial government exempting the project from a BAPE environmental assessment?

Bishai: The Quebec Environmental Law Center is asking the Court to examine the decisions of the Minister of the Environment and the City of Saint-Basile-le-Grand to allow the preliminary, which is currently underway.

By carefully analyzing the documents about his project, the Minister’s decisions appear unreasonable to us because they allow the destruction of wetlands that are essential to the regional biodiversity without having all of the information needed to ensure its adequate protection. For instance, the compensation measure for habitat loss will be proposed by Northvolt in the 36 months following the authorization.

‘An assessment, which would include a public hearing before the BAPE, would enable informed decision-making after having better explained the project and having heard from the population and various experts. ‘

– Marc Bishai, lawyer, Centre québécois du droit de l’environnement

As for the City, it is responsible for protecting wetlands identified by the Communauté métropolitaine de Montréal in its interim control by-law. The City nevertheless permitted the destruction of wetlands that are protected by that by-law.

An assessment, which would include a public hearing before the BAPE, would enable informed decision-making after having better explained the project and having heard from the population and various experts. It would reveal all of the impacts of the project, both positive and negative, and would quite likely improve it, as is often the case, thanks to the BAPE’s report.

WM: Where does the legal case stand in terms of court actions and rulings? What are the next steps?

Bishai: In January, we applied for a provisional injunction to ask that work on the site be suspended until the Court could analyze the authorization and the permit granted respectively by the Minister of the Environment and the City of Saint-Basile-le-Grand. The application for a provisional injunction was refused by the Superior Court of Quebec and the company has quickly resumed the work.

In February, we applied the merits of the case to examine the validity of the Minister’s authorization and the municipal tree-cutting permit. In general, hearings on this type of application are set in the following months. The QELC is working hard to move this case along quickly in the interest of all concerned.

WM: Could you provide some details on the provincial government blocking a proposed residential development on the site due to environmental concerns?

Bishai: In March 2023, the Minister refused a housing development project submitted by Quartier MC2 Inc. on part of the site, citing the importance of biodiversity of its wetlands and habitats. The Ministry’s documents then indicate that on March 21, 2023, two weeks after the refusal of Quartier MC2 Inc.’s project, discussions took place within the government about another project at the same place.

‘It is legitimate and logical to ask for more transparency and public participation in the presence of a project that has been qualified as “historical” and in the interest of all Quebecers. Shouldn’t those same Quebecers have a chance to understand this project’s impacts and be consulted?’

– Marc Bishai, lawyer, Centre québécois du droit de l’environnement

WM: What is your response to the premier’s comment that Quebecers should reconsider their views on opposing megaprojects like the Northvolt plant?

Bishai: More and more voices are coming together to ask for something quite reasonable, which is to treat this project like any other big industrial project, and that means bringing it before the BAPE. It is legitimate and logical to ask for more transparency and public participation in the presence of a project that has been qualified as “historical” and in the interest of all Quebecers. Shouldn’t those same Quebecers have a chance to understand this project’s impacts and be consulted? The energy transition and the ecological transition must be democratic and respectful of our usual way of evaluating industrial projects. It is to be expected – it is reassuring – that we live in a society where citizens actively seek to exercise their rights and participate meaningfully in important decisions that impact them and their environment.

WM: Could you tell us more about your organization and what it does, and provide some details on its actions in the past few years? Have you been working with environmental groups in the greater Montreal area?

Bishai: As a guardian of environmental law, the QELC has played an active role in Quebec for 35 years by participating in important environmental debates which shape current events. It contributes to governmental consultations about various provincial and federal law reforms to ensure effective environmental protection. Recently, it participated in consultations on Bill 41 about the environmental performance of buildings and on Bill 20 relating to the Blue Fund, which secures the principle of transparency for data on water takings, one of our long-standing demands.

The QELC is also in touch with citizens and groups who are active in their communities, for instance, through a collaboration with Future Ground Network. We offer free legal information to citizens, journalists, and elected officials, most notably through Obiterre, the first free environmental law database in Quebec designed for the public.

Finally, when appropriate, the QELC goes to Court.

The Northvolt case is one example, but another is the recent case between the citizen Marc Nantel and the Horne Foundry to improve access to environmental information in Quebec. Our organization’s work is province-wide. In the Greater Area of Montreal, the QELC has litigated to protect the critical habitat of the Western chorus frog in La Prairie in 2015 and in Longueuil in 2021.

WM: How can people help the organization in terms of donations and as volunteers?

Bishai: The Quebec Environmental Law Center is an entirely independent non-profit and a registered charity. It relies in part on the support of generous members and individual donors to bolster its outreach and allow it to take on big cases, such as the one about the public’s role in the Northvolt project. To support us, go to:

acces.cqde.org

The QELC also encourages citizens to share the content it disseminates to promote a broader understanding of legal issues of environmental protection.

    *     *     *     *     *

Here are some media links in French and English to learn more about the issue:

English

theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/30/indigenous-canadians-activists-northvolt-protest

cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/northvolt-injunction-ev-battery-plant

youtube.com

French

tvrs.ca/actualites/dossier-northvolt-la-decision-du-juge-tres-attendue

youtube.com

radio-canada.ca/info/breve/8185/northvolt-injonction-cqde-environnement

lenouvelliste.ca/affaires/2024/01/18/northvolt-le-centre-quebecois-du-droit-de-lenvironnement-sadresse-aux-tribunaux-pour-arreter-les-travaux

Feature image: projected Northvolt plant in McMasterville, courtesy of NorthvoltBouton S'inscrire à l'infolettre – WestmountMag.ca

Other articles by Irwin Rapoport
Other recent articles


Irwin RapoportIrwin Rapoport is a freelance journalist with Bachelor’s degrees in History and Political Science from Concordia University.

 

 



There is 1 comment

Add yours
  1. Georges R. Dupras

    Well said and well researched but only the tip of the iceberg. Northvolt is but one of many developments that manage to evade environmental impact studies and public consultation.

    In recent years, environmental concerns have been hot topics with authorities and business tycoons shedding crocodile tears while waiting for these 9 day issues to pass. Business as usual.

    Once a new hot-topic has grabbed the attention of the fourth estate, industry and their political supporters, are off and running. Transparency, once a popular political battle cry, has been appropriately filed under nuisance. Across this country, the concerns of Canadians are being ignored, dismissed by elected officials as unfounded. Decisions are made behind closed doors, and if public consultation is tolerated, the cut-off dates for submission are unrealistic.

    The concerns of marginal ridings must be addressed, but not at the expense of the majority or of open and transparent government.


Post a new comment