Treaty #3 and Lac des Mille Lacs say regulators omitted them from impact assessment while advancing contradictory plans for deep geological repository
Two Indigenous nations whose traditional territories encompass the proposed site of Canada’s Deep Geological Repository for nuclear waste have submitted sharply worded letters to federal and provincial regulators accusing the Crown of procedural failures that threaten to violate Aboriginal and Treaty rights.
Grand Council Treaty #3, the traditional government of the Anishinaabe Nation in Treaty #3, and Lac des Mille Lacs First Nation raised separate but overlapping concerns in July correspondence regarding the proposed repository near Revell Lake, Ontario. While Grand Council Treaty #3 focused on its exclusion from federal consultation lists and contradictory government positions on the project’s scope, Lac des Mille Lacs warned that invasive site characterization work was advancing before the nation had the capacity or funding to meaningfully assess it.
Grand Council Treaty #3: ‘The Exclusion of GCT3 From the IAA’s Consultation Processes Is Unlawful’
In a July 24 letter to the Major Projects Office, Grand Council Treaty #3 Territorial Planning Unit Director Chris Herc warned that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada’s Indigenous Engagement Partnership Plan “omits the Anishinaabe Nation in Treaty #3, as represented by GCT3, from its list of ‘Indigenous Nations and communities.'” Herc wrote that if uncorrected, “the Anishinaabe Nation in Treaty #3, as represented by GCT3 will not be consulted by IAAC and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (‘CNSC’) throughout the DGR impact assessment under the Impact Assessment Act (‘IAA’).”
Herc stated: “The exclusion of GCT3 from the IAA’s consultation processes is unlawful. Canadian courts have already found this kind of exclusion to be legally deficient.” The letter cited a 2011 British Columbia Court of Appeal decision, Nlaka’pamux Nation Tribal Council v. British Columbia, in which the court found that an environmental assessment order was defective because it omitted a First Nations tribal council from its consultation list. The court rejected the argument that offering separate consultation outside the assessment could substitute for inclusion within the process.
Explainer: Why Being Left Off the List Matters
Under Canada’s Impact Assessment Act, certain Indigenous nations must be consulted as part of the formal review of major projects.
Being listed in an Indigenous Engagement and Partnership Plan determines who receives formal notice, funding, and a seat at the table during technical reviews. Grand Council Treaty #3 argues that omission from this list does not simply inconvenience the nation—it risks making the entire federal assessment legally invalid because the Crown cannot discharge its constitutional duty to consult if a directly affected nation is excluded from the very process designed to facilitate that consultation.
A Contradiction at the Heart of the Project’s Scope
Beyond exclusion, Grand Council Treaty #3 identified what it called contradictory regulatory frameworks.
The federal government’s June 2026 Nuclear Energy Strategy recognizes the proposed repository as a pillar of Canada’s nuclear expansion, committing to “long-term management solutions” that are “advanced for all radioactive waste in Canada.” Yet the Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines released July 3, 2026, rely on the 2005 NWMO Final Study, which was expressly limited to used fuel from then-existing reactors and any refurbishments—a range of 3.6 to 4.4 million used fuel bundles.
Herc noted that the independent NWMO Advisory Council’s final report, attached to the 2005 study, stated: “However, we emphasize, as did many other participants in the process, that any significant change in the amount or type of used fuel to be managed (whether due to phase out or expansion of the nuclear program) should trigger a review of the work undertaken by the NWMO to date.”
This created what Herc described as two contradictory options. Under the first option, the assessment covers only used fuel from reactors that existed in 2005, consistent with the 2005 study.
Under that scenario, Herc wrote, “the DGR does not address the future nuclear reactors set out in the 2026 Nuclear Strategy,” giving “no basis to designate the DGR as a” Project of National Interest (PONI). Under the second option, the assessment includes used fuel from new reactors consistent with the 2026 strategy, but then “the DGR may be a PONI, but cannot proceed under the current impact assessment because this assessment is scoped to include only used fuel from existing reactors, as set out in the 2005 Final Study.”
Why the Scope Dispute Matters
A project of national interest, or PONI, under the Building Canada Act receives streamlined federal coordination and priority status. But designation requires the project to have national significance. If the repository is only for legacy nuclear waste from reactors already operating in 2005, Grand Council Treaty #3 argues it cannot simultaneously serve the federal government’s new nuclear expansion strategy. If it is meant to serve that expansion, GCT3 contends the current impact assessment is too narrow and cannot legally rely on a 2005 study that explicitly excluded new reactor waste.
GCT3 Cites Supreme Court Conditions for Consultation
Herc also grounded part of the nation’s argument in the Supreme Court of Canada’s 2017 Clyde River decision. He wrote that while the Crown may rely on regulatory processes to discharge its duty to consult, three conditions must be met: affected Indigenous peoples must receive notice of the Crown’s intention to rely on the process; the process itself must align with the Honour of the Crown; and where the process is inadequate, the Crown must take further measures.
“These conditions are not present here,” Herc wrote. “It is inconceivable how the Crown can rely on any of the applicable statutory processes to address the duty to consult where the Crown ignores a party required to be consulted.”
Lac des Mille Lacs: Seismic Testing Advances Without Adequate Oversight
While Grand Council Treaty #3 focused on the top-level regulatory framework, Lac des Mille Lacs First Nation (LDMLFN) raised urgent concerns about a proposed 3D seismic survey at the Revell Site. In a July 13 letter to the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, and Ontario’s Ministry of Natural Resources, Executive Director Quentin Snider stated the survey would involve “the drilling and detonation of at least 4,500 shallow shot holes across an area of approximately five square kilometres.”
Shot-hole blasting is a standard technique used in seismic exploration to map underground rock formations. Small, narrow holes are drilled into the ground, typically a few to several metres deep, and each hole is loaded with an explosive charge. The charges are detonated one at a time according to a carefully planned sequence, creating seismic waves that travel through the earth. Sensitive instruments called geophones record how those waves reflect and refract through different layers of rock, allowing geologists to produce a three-dimensional image of the subsurface without excavating it.
Although the explosive charges are generally much smaller than those used in mining or quarry blasting, a survey involving thousands of shot holes raises environmental and cultural concerns. The drilling, repeated detonations, vehicle access, and associated clearing may disturb wildlife, vegetation, wetlands, archaeological resources, and culturally significant areas.
Snider wrote: “A physical disturbance program of this scale and intensity is not, in LDMLFN’s view, a minor or routine field activity.” The letter stated the program “carries the potential for significant environmental, cultural, social, and rights-based effects, including impacts on surface and subsurface hydrology, soils and terrain, wildlife and habitat, cultural and heritage resources, and the exercise of LDMLFN’s Aboriginal and Treaty rights throughout the affected area.”
The nation rejected the characterization of the work as a “low impact site study,” stating: “Rather this study is being characterized as a low impact site study, which it is not.”
What Is Project Segmentation?
Project segmentation is the practice of breaking a large project into smaller pieces to avoid triggering full regulatory review of the whole.
Lac des Mille Lacs argues the seismic survey is not an isolated scientific exercise but “one component of a broader site characterization program intended to generate information that will ultimately support preparation of the Impact Statement, future regulatory applications, and decision-making throughout the federal Impact Assessment.”
If regulators treat the survey as a minor, standalone activity, the nation fears the cumulative impacts of the entire repository project will never be assessed as a whole.
‘A Procedural Exercise Rather Than a Meaningful Component of Decision-Making’
Lac des Mille Lacs emphasized that its concerns were not about blocking scientific research but about sequencing and capacity. Snider wrote: “The Crown’s duty to consult is intended to occur before decisions are made and before regulatory discretion has effectively been exercised.” He warned that “consultation undertaken after critical project-related decisions have already advanced risks reducing Indigenous participation to a procedural exercise rather than a meaningful component of decision-making.”
The letter also criticized the funding offered for independent review.
The Nuclear Waste Management Organization had provided $15,000 in interim funding for a technical review of the seismic program. Snider wrote: “We do not know how this figure was arrived at. However, and regretfully, we are doubtful that professional advisors would be able to undertake the amount of work needed for a review for such a nominal amount.”
Indigenous-Led Assessment vs. Proponent-Controlled Process
A core tension raised by Lac des Mille Lacs is the difference between Indigenous-led assessment and proponent-managed consultation.
Under an Indigenous-led model, nations design their own studies, choose their own experts, and define the scope of investigation. Snider wrote that the NWMO’s framework “appears to require the proponent to determine the scope of Indigenous-led studies and approve the work to be undertaken.”
The nation submitted that “this creates an inherent tension with the concept of Indigenous-led assessment.”
Broken Commitments and the Honour of the Crown
In a separate July 7 letter to the Major Projects Office, Grand Council Treaty #3 detailed what it described as a breach of trust by the NWMO. After 13 years of dialogue under formal agreements—during which the nation had consistently communicated that consultations must follow Manito Aki Inaakonigewin, the Anishinaabe Great Earth Law—the NWMO allegedly withdrew from engagement shortly after selecting the Revell Lake site in November 2024.
“It was a shock to GCT3 when, following 13 years of dialogue under the subsequent agreements, the NWMO chose to unilaterally withdraw from engagement and commitments with GCT3,” Herc wrote. The nation had sent a draft harmonization agreement in February 2025, but said it received only silence before the NWMO released its Initial Project Description in January 2026 without the harmonized process the nation believed had been negotiated.
Both nations demanded immediate responses from regulators.
Grand Council Treaty #3 asked for “immediate clarity” and recognition of Anishinaabe jurisdiction. Lac des Mille Lacs asked seven specific procedural questions, including how the Impact Assessment Agency intends to coordinate between the federal impact assessment, the Building Canada Act process, and CNSC regulatory reviews to ensure Indigenous participation “remains integrated rather than fragmented across multiple parallel processes.”
Snider closed the Lac des Mille Lacs letter by stating: “LDMLFN wishes to emphasize that our objective is not to delay project activities or create unnecessary procedural complexity. Rather, we seek to ensure that the federal Impact Assessment proceeds in a manner consistent with the principles established by IAAC itself.”
