A physician's objection to the NWMO Deep geological repository in Treaty 3

I am submitting this comment in strong opposition to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project by Nuclear Waste Management Organization within Treaty 3 territory.

I am opposed on the basis of irreversible environmental risk, violations of Indigenous sovereignty, and deeply flawed consultation processes.

I write not only as a resident of this region, but as a physician who works closely with Indigenous people and families in communities that would be directly affected by this project. I see firsthand how environmental insecurity, water safety concerns, and chronic exposure to uncertainty impact physical health, mental health, and intergenerational wellbeing. These harms are not theoretical.

This project places long-lived radioactive waste within a watershed that sustains countless downstream communities and ecosystems. The premise that such a repository can remain fail-safe for thousands of years is not credible, particularly in a region defined by interconnected surface water, groundwater, and geologic uncertainty. Any contamination would be permanent and transboundary.

Equally concerning is the manner in which this project has been advanced. What has been described as “community consent” has in reality relied on financial inducements, selective engagement, and agreements made without broad, transparent, and informed consultation. Decisions affecting Treaty 3 lands and waters cannot be legitimized through hush payments, political pressure, or engagement processes that marginalize dissenting voices.

Public engagement sessions have repeatedly failed to meet the standard of good faith dialogue. The presence of bad actors, the framing of opposition as misinformation, and the exclusion of critical perspectives have undermined trust and distorted public understanding.

Treaty 3 is not a sacrifice zone. Our waters are not expendable, and our rights are not procedural hurdles.

As a physician, I am obligated to prevent harm where foreseeable and irreversible. From that lens, this proposal fails. The risks to water, health, and trust are permanent; the benefits are not. This project should not proceed.

I formally request that this proposal be rejected.