Battle for non-disclosure of documents | The Horne Foundry abdicates

The Horne Foundry in Rouyn-Noranda surrenders in its fight to prevent the disclosure of documents showing the contaminant content of the materials it receives from its supplier customers.

The company belonging to the Anglo-Swiss multinational Glencore will not appeal the judgment of the Court of Quebec, which confirmed in December the decision of the Commission d’access à l’information (CAI) of Quebec forcing it to make these documents public, learned The Press.

The case arose from the request of a citizen, Marc Nantel, member of the Regroupement Vigilance Mines de l’Abitibi-Témiscamingue (REVIMAT), who sought to know the quantities of copper concentrates delivered to the Horne Foundry, as well as their concentration. in arsenic, bismuth, antimony, lead, cadmium and mercury.

This information was transmitted to it until 2018 by the Ministry of the Environment, the Fight against Climate Change, Wildlife and Parks (MELCCFP), but the Horne Foundry opposed its disclosure in 2019 – the Ministry then transmitted the 2020 data.

The data for the year 2019, as well as those for 2021, were transmitted to Mr. Nantel by the MELCCFP on January 19, after the abdication of Glencore.

Arsenic attributable to a minority of suppliers

Most of the arsenic which enters the Horne Foundry, and part of which is released into the city’s air during the processing of the concentrates, comes, as in the past, from a minority of suppliers, who are not identified. , show the data that The Press was able to consult.

In 2021, a single supplier was responsible for 19% of all arsenic sent to the smelter during the year, while its materials represented only 0.2% of total inputs.

For the year 2019, 69% of the arsenic that entered the smelter came from three suppliers, whose materials represented only 2.6% of the total inputs.

But the interest in this data goes well beyond this simple observation; they make it possible to concretely evaluate the effectiveness of the processes implemented by the foundry to reduce its release of contaminants into the air, explains Marc Nantel.

It is also in the company’s interest to disclose this information to demonstrate that the measures it is putting in place are working, believes Mr. Nantel.

“But it is certain that if this is not the case, I understand that they do not want [le faire] “, he says, assuring that he intends to request this data every year, now that the court has ruled that it must be made public.

The Foundry lectured by the judge

Marc Nantel is delighted to have won his case, but deplores that it took “three years to have documents which are clearly in the public domain”.

Judge Serge Champoux also scolds the Horne Foundry in his decision rendered in December, writing that information which is only transmitted after “endless procedures” loses relevance, estimating that “the mere passage of time is equivalent to a denial of access.”

The multinational Glencore spent “several hundred thousand dollars” in legal costs to avoid the publication of this data, which takes up two pages, adds Marc Nantel, who for his part benefited from the support of the coalition Pour que le Québec a Meilleur Mine and the Quebec Environmental Law Center (CQDE).

The case will have positive repercussions for access to information, believes lawyer Marc Bishai, of the CQDE, who represented Marc Nantel before the Court of Quebec.

“This is a decision that could certainly be invoked in future cases,” he said, noting that it mentions the importance of obtaining the requested information quickly and that exceptions to the right of access to the The information has “fairly significant limitations”.

“It’s a great citizen victory for access to environmental information,” added Mr.^e Marc Bishai.

The Horne Foundry has confirmed to The Press that she will not appeal the judgment rendered in December.

“We will comply with the Court’s decision,” said company spokesperson Cindy Caouette, reiterating the reasons for the initial objection.

“Information relating to our inputs is very sensitive,” she said. We therefore have a duty to protect our industrial intellectual property in order to avoid jeopardizing our competitiveness. »