Submission on draft guidelines

Mother, wife, daughter, lawyer, from Fort William First Nation. I made comments on the initial project description with 1000 of others through the LAND initiative. We were collectively counted as 1 out of the 600 people who made comments on the Initial Project Description.  The majority of comments, you must have noticed, clearly voiced opposition and concerns. This round, to get counted properly, I am making my own comments below.  

First off, the draft guidelines do not require enough information about the NWMO’s project.

There needs to be a detailed description of the long-distance transportation.

For example: What route is the NWMO planning for the transportation of nuclear waste near Thunder Bay, on Fort William First Nation's traditional territory? Will it be by road or rail? Who knows? The NWMO is keeping everyone in the dark. The lack of details has a chilling effect on public participation, while the proponent continues to benefit from the ambiguity.

Every day to get home from town, I drive on hwy 11/17 and then cross the James St. bridge over the Kaministiqua river, parallel to the CN railway. Will the trucks be passing me by on my way to work for the rest of my life? Will I be stopped at the tracks, while nuclear waste on a train crosses in front of me? Or, when I drive out to my summer camp on Loon Lake in Shuniah, will the trucks I pass be carrying nuclear waste? Or when the highway closes, could I be stuck behind a transport carrying high-level nuclear waste for hours on end?

My family and I participate in seasonal harvesting practices on my traditional territory, which is in the vicinity of highway 11/17 and the CN railroad. We make maple syrup, pick berries, medicine, hunt, tan hide, and fish. How would an accident impact my family and my communities’ way of life which are recognized and affirmed by Section 35 of the Constitution?

The Impact Statement needs to provide a detailed description of ALL parts of the project and the potential effects.

Fort William First Nation has not provided its FPIC nor has it been consulted. It needs to be added to the list of indigenous communities in the Indigenous Engagement and Partnership Plan. Other First Nation communities, who’s traditional territories are on the proposed route must also be on the list.  It would be an error to exclude them.  

Additionally, the guidelines must require a detailed description of the NWMO’s nuclear waste packaging plant and DGR. This is where much of the risk lies. This risk is also near sensitive wild rice fields, which is a very special place for the anishinaabe, who have survied for 1000s of years off of this food that grows on water. 

My family attends the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation powwow and we stock up on our annual supply of wild rice, which is harvested by locals. It is our bread basket and it is being threatened.

The guidelines need a detailed impact statement.

In the face of widespread opposition, the guidelines needs to examine alternatives. Everyone around here states: “Why can’t it be kept above ground where it is produced, where it can continue to be monitored on an on-going basis, as opposed to burying it and forgetting about it?

I am aware of many First Nations along the north shore of Gitchi Gami (Lake Superior) and throughout the province that have passed resolutions which state their opposition to the transportation of nuclear waste through their communities. (Red Rock Indian Band, Pays Platt, Lac De Mille Lac, Fort William First Nation, Chiefs of Ontario, Anishinabek Nation, Grand Council Treaty 3, Grassy Narrows, Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug, Wapekeka First Nation, Neskantaga, Muskrat Dam, Ojibways or Onigaming, Gull Bay First Nation, Netmizaaggamig Nishnaabeg, Shoal Lake 40, Gakijiwanong Anishinaabe Nation, Ojibway Nation of Saugeen, Pic Mobert First Nation, Anishinaabeg of Kabapikotawangag Resource Council, Lac Seul First Nation). See We the Nuclear Free North’s website for the links to them all. wethenuclearfreenorth.ca/nuclear-waste-resolutions/

There is an in-land sea of opposition. It’s unfortunate, that the ONE and only First Nation community (Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation) who has agreed to move forward, also received $145,000/per band member, as a first payment and will continue to receive future payment as they continue to play along.

A history of the NWMO’s efforts to seduce Wabigoon members has been persistent and on-going. To give you an idea of the NWMO's relentlessness with their inducement efforts of Ignance citizens, review  With Chéla Inc. Ignace Willingness Study Final Report. https://www.ignace.ca/images/willingnes/IgnaceReport.pdf

WLON has clearly been bribed and will continue to be bribed by the NWMO. In the 2025 Kebaowek decision, the Federal Court held the Commission breached the Crown’s constitutional obligations to Kebaowek by failing to consider UNDRIP, including the principle of free, prior and informed consent, in determining whether the duty to consult had been met. 

FPIC cannot be met when bribery has occurred. That’s the whole free part ;)

The impact assessment needs to be paused, until there is a decision in Eagle Lake First Nation judicial review.

The guidelines need to consider cumulative impacts looking forward and backwards (past and future), and up and down stream. The Wabigoon watershed has been through a lot, however, what cumulative impacts are being considered?  Also, what is the forecast for future impacts? If the NWMO can get a DGR at the Revell site, there is no doubt they will want to continue importing more and more nuclear waste from all over, for many more years into the future. 

Finally, the assessment needs to be conducted by individuals who are arms-length from the nuclear industry, to limit the biases of those involved and for the process to be more credible.