Ontario’s proposed nuclear waste repository must obtain consent from all affected First Nations

In January, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) initiated an assessment of a proposed nuclear waste repository in northwestern Ontario. The repository is being advanced by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), which is charged with finding a long-term solution to Canada’s mounting nuclear fuel waste. The NWMO has proposed building an underground repository at a site near the Township of Ignace and the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation. The proposal has received support from the township and First Nation, but it remains deeply contentious with other First Nations. The impact assessment process recently began with the NWMO filing an initial project description, followed by a public commenting period. Nearly 900 comments were received, including written submissions from 22 First Nations, five regional and treaty organizations, and the Assembly of First Nations. Many of the responses from First Nations hinge on differing interpretations of free, prior and informed consent. The NWMO sought the consent of one First Nation near the proposed repository site. However, Indigenous submissions argue that NWMO should also seek consent from all First Nations whose rights, interests, territories and watersheds could be affected by a repository. Our research includes a focus on the administrative, regulatory and legal processes being used to make decisions about nuclear waste disposal. We’re especially concerned that Indigenous consent is being framed in a way that excludes many First Nations whose members and territories could be affected by the proposed repository. Ontario’s proposed nuclear waste repository poses millennia-long ethical questions

Free, prior and informed consent In 2005, the NWMO publicly committed to a consent-based siting process, including finding a “willing host” for its proposed waste repository. In 2018, it committed to seeking free, prior and informed consent from affected Indigenous Peoples. The principle of seeking Indigenous consent is enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). It states that governments should seek input and consent from affected Indigenous communities for any developments that take place on their territories. In particular, Article 29 of UNDRIP states that “no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of Indigenous peoples without their free, prior and informed consent.” The NWMO began its site selection process in 2010. In 2024, the municipality of Ignace signed a hosting agreement with the NWMO. Later that year, Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation members voted in favour of “in-depth environmental and technical assessments” to determine a suitable site. Shortly thereafter, the NWMO announced that it had selected a site in northwestern Ontario, with Ignace and Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation as host communities.

First Nations criticize the process The site selection process was contentious, with several potentially affected municipalities, First Nations and regional/treaty organizations voicing opposition. Many First Nations were critical of the NWMO’s site selection process, particularly their approach to seeking Indigenous consent. Eagle Lake First Nation is challenging the NWMO’s site selection decision in court, arguing that the repository site is on its traditional territory and that the project cannot proceed without its free, prior and informed consent. The NWMO said the repository site was chosen “following extensive technical study and community engagement,” and that Eagle Lake is an “important community in the region” it wants to work with. The NWMO’s initial project description made no mention of regional and Indigenous opposition to its proposed repository. Instead, it emphasizes the consent of adjacent communities and its engagement with Wabigoon First Nation’s laws and processes. Nipissing First Nation expressed concern that “consent is treated as a local regime, while the risk is region-wide and intergenerational.” As a result, “one nation is positioned as a moral and political shield for a project that affects many others.” Other First Nations raised concerns with the large monetary payments NWMO made to host communities. Lac Des Mille Lacs First Nation noted: “The magnitude of these expenditures far exceeds what is reasonably required to support neutral engagement or capacity building and appear to have been a decisive factor in securing local acquiescence.” Eagle Lake First Nation and Ojibway Nation of Saugeen — both First Nations with territorial claims to the repository site — emphasized that their nations have not consented to the NWMO’s proposal.
NWMO recently released a response to various comments from project stakeholders. However, the response does not acknowledge these criticisms from First Nations. Consent for widespread risk First Nations called on the NWMO to seek the free, prior and informed consent of all affected First Nations, including those with overlapping territorial claims to the repository site, those whose territories encompass other essential project activities like nuclear waste transportation and repackaging and those situated downstream of project activities. Considering the scale and scope of project activities and the potential for widespread harm should something go wrong, the Indigenous understanding of consent offers a standard that recognizes interconnectedness, interdependence and ecological reality. Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation called on the IAAC to require NWMO to develop a strategy “that addresses all potentially impacted First Nations, including those impacted by used nuclear fuel repackaging at existing storage sites and along transportation corridors.” Kebaowek First Nation also called for the recognition of FPIC rights of “all First Nations whose lands, territories and/or other resources may be affected.” Several Indigenous communities argued that the NWMO must engage with the laws, processes and protocols of affected First Nations. Grand Council Treaty #3’s submission asserted that the impact assessment process should be put on hold until it is harmonized with the grand council’s laws and protocols. Eagle Lake First Nation and Ojibway Nation of Saugeen also called for the impact assessment process to be put on hold until territorial disputes to the repository site are resolved and the NWMO obtains their consent. NWMO’s recent response to comments on the initial project description did not directly address whether additional First Nations and Treaty organizations also have a right to provide or withhold consent to the proposed repository. Given the positions of many First Nations, NWMO must seek input from all First Nations affected by the repository project before it goes any further. And the IAAC should carefully examine the impact assessment process to ensure engagement with First Nations and treaty organizations focuses on obtaining their free, prior and informed consent.

Larissa Speak has received research funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. She is affiliated with Niniibawtamin Anishinaabe Aki, an Indigenous-led group concerned with the disposal of nuclear waste on Anishinaabe territory. She is a member of Animikii-wajiw or Fort William First Nation. John Sinclair receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. He is a long time member of the Canadian Environment Network's Environmental Planning and Assessment Caucus. Warren Bernauer receives funding from the Canada Research Chair program. He is affiliated with Niniibawtamin Anishinaabe Aki, an Indigenous-led group concerned with the disposal of nuclear waste on Anishinaabe territory.