Colonialism and Reconciliation in DGR Planning

Have people raised colonialism? What are commenters saying about Reconciliation?

The public registry for the Revell Site Deep Geological Repository (DGR) reveals that concerns regarding colonialism and the integrity of the Reconciliation process are central to the opposition voiced by Indigenous Nations and concerned citizens. Commenters argue that the project, as currently proposed, represents a continuation of colonial land-use practices that prioritize industrial development over the inherent rights and traditional laws of the Anishinaabe Nation.

Colonialism and Jurisdictional Authority

A recurring theme in the public registry is the assertion that the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) and the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) have failed to respect Indigenous jurisdiction. The Grand Council Treaty #3 (GCT3) has explicitly stated that the project is proposed within Treaty #3 Territory and that the current regulatory process ignores the Crown’s constitutional and statutory duties [Comment Ref: 705]. Commenters argue that the proponent’s approach is ‘random, ad hoc, and lacking transparency,’ reflecting a perceived disrespect for the Nation’s inherent authority and laws [Comment Ref: 705]. Furthermore, the exclusion of the Nation’s traditional laws, specifically the Manito Aki Inaakonigewin (MAI), from the Impact Assessment Act (IAA) framework is cited as a major red flag [Comment Ref: 660].

Reconciliation and Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC)

The concept of Reconciliation is frequently invoked by commenters to challenge the project’s legitimacy. Many submissions argue that the NWMO’s engagement process is a ‘sham’ that lacks meaningful discussion and sound science [Ref: 592]. A primary concern is the failure to obtain Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) from the broader Nation, as required by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) [Ref: 660, 627]. Commenters assert that the NWMO has attempted to treat FPIC as a ‘generic consultation outcome’ rather than a mandatory decision standard [Ref: 627].

Evidence from Public Registry

• Systemic Exclusion: Several commenters highlight the systematic exclusion of specific First Nations, such as Eagle Lake First Nation and Grassy Narrows First Nation, from the consultation process, arguing that this violates constitutional obligations [Ref: 610, 607, 439].
• Environmental Racism: Some submissions characterize the site selection process as ‘environmental racism,’ alleging that the project unfairly targets marginalized communities in Northwestern Ontario that did not benefit from the electricity produced by the nuclear industry [Ref: 604, 450].
• Spiritual and Cultural Trauma: Commenters emphasize that the project ignores the spiritual and cultural value of the land to the Anishinaabe people, with some drawing parallels between the project and the historical trauma of residential schools [Ref: 608, 263].

Technical Deficiencies & Gaps

Our internal analysis [Analysis: Section Name] indicates that the proponent’s handling of these concerns has been largely procedural rather than substantive. The NWMO’s Initial Project Description (IPD) is criticized for having significant omissions regarding the Nation’s role, laws, protocols, and ceremony [Ref: 660]. The proponent has failed to harmonize the project with Anishinaabe law, creating a significant legal and ethical gap in the assessment process.

Recommendations & Mandates

We strongly recommend that the NWMO and the Crown move beyond aspirational language regarding Reconciliation and establish a formal, legally binding framework for Indigenous co-governance. This must include the integration of Manito Aki Inaakonigewin (MAI) into the project’s regulatory and safety case. Furthermore, we strongly recommend that the proponent provide adequate resourcing and multi-year funding to ensure First Nations have the technical, legal, and administrative capacity to participate meaningfully in the assessment process without being constrained by the proponent’s timelines [Ref: 627]. Finally, the proponent must explicitly address the Nation’s identified deficiencies, including scoping issues and information gaps, to ensure that the impact assessment reflects the legal realities of the Treaty #3 Territory [Ref: 705].

Conclusion

The concerns raised regarding colonialism and Reconciliation are not peripheral; they are central to the opposition of the Revell Site DGR. The path forward requires a fundamental shift from a proponent-led consultation model to one that recognizes Indigenous jurisdiction and adheres to the standards of FPIC. Without addressing these fundamental issues of law, authority, and safety, the project lacks the necessary authorization to proceed within the territory.

About the Author

Art Borups Corners

Administrator

Art Borup’s Corners is a northern arts incubator based in Melgund Township, Northwestern Ontario, where community-led creativity, land-based practice, and digital innovation come together. Rooted in the cultural rhythms of the boreal forest and shaped by years of grassroots organizing across Ontario, Manitoba, Nunavut, and Minnesota, Borup’s Corners supports artists, youth, and community members through participatory storytelling, climate-focused projects, and creative entrepreneurship. From wild blueberry walks to immersive exhibitions and applied AI research, our seasonal programs and artist residencies foster connection, skill-building, and self-determined expression—all grounded in place, culture, and care.

Author's website Author's posts