Revell DGR: Indigenous and Transboundary Risks

Why is it important to include other Indigenous peoples ie: transboundary issues, unresolved lands claims and traditional land use? What concerns have been raised on this topic? Why is it important?

The Revell Site Deep Geological Repository (DGR) project, proposed by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), is situated within the unorganized territories of Northwestern Ontario, directly adjacent to the Trans-Canada Highway (Highway 17). The project’s scope and its potential long-term environmental and social impacts necessitate a rigorous inclusion of transboundary Indigenous issues, unresolved land claims, and traditional land use (TLU) to ensure both legal compliance and social license.

The Importance of Inclusive Indigenous Engagement

Including other Indigenous peoples—beyond those immediately designated as ‘host’ communities—is critical for several reasons:

• Jurisdictional Integrity: The project is located within Treaty #3 Territory. The Grand Council Treaty #3 (GCT3) asserts inherent authority and jurisdiction over these lands, which the current regulatory process often fails to fully harmonize with the Impact Assessment Act (IAA) [Comment Ref: 705].
• Transboundary Impacts: Radioactive waste management involves risks that do not respect municipal or provincial boundaries. Indigenous Nations downstream, such as those within the Winnipeg River watershed, face potential long-term contamination risks that must be addressed to uphold the ‘Honour of the Crown’ [Comment Ref: 660, 607].
• Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC): Under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), FPIC is a mandatory standard. Proponents attempting to treat FPIC as a generic consultation outcome rather than a decision-making standard face significant legal and ethical red flags [Comment Ref: 627].

Concerns Raised by Indigenous Nations

Public registry comments reveal profound dissatisfaction with the current scoping of the project:

• Exclusion of Transportation: Multiple Nations, including the Nishnawbe Aski Nation (NAN) and the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation (MSIFN), argue that excluding the 50-year transportation phase from the Impact Assessment is a violation of the IAA. They contend that the movement of high-hazard materials across treaty territories is an incidental activity that must be fully assessed [Comment Ref: 485, 627].
• Disregard for Traditional Law: The GCT3 has explicitly raised concerns regarding the failure to harmonize the project with Manito Aki Inaakonigewin (MAI), the Nation’s traditional laws regarding land and resource development [Comment Ref: 705, 660].
• Lack of Distinction-Based Engagement: The Manitoba Métis Federation (MMF) has criticized the NWMO for a ‘pan-Indigenous’ approach that neglects the specific governmental status and constitutionally protected Section 35 rights of the Red River Métis [Comment Ref: 517].

Technical Deficiencies and Gaps

Our internal analysis identifies that the NWMO’s current approach suffers from ‘project splitting.’ By isolating the repository site from the transportation corridors, the proponent avoids independent scrutiny of the most significant risks to Indigenous territories. Furthermore, the lack of baseline data regarding the health, social, and economic conditions of Treaty #3 First Nations renders the NWMO’s conclusions about ‘low environmental risk’ premature and unsupported [Analysis: Section 15.9].

Recommendations and Mandates

We strongly recommend that the NWMO and the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) immediately expand the project scope to include all transportation corridors as a core Valued Component. This is essential to address the concerns of Nations whose territories are traversed by the proposed routes. Furthermore, we strongly recommend that the proponent establish a formal, independent Indigenous-led Impact Assessment panel. This panel should have the authority to verify technical work and ensure that Indigenous Knowledge is not merely ‘incorporated’ but serves as a primary driver for project design and mitigation. Finally, the proponent must provide adequate, multi-year capacity funding to all impacted Nations to ensure they can participate meaningfully without being constrained by the proponent’s timelines [Analysis: Section 18].

Conclusion

The Revell Site DGR project cannot proceed within Treaty #3 territory without addressing the fundamental issues of jurisdiction, law, and safety raised by Indigenous Nations. The current reliance on a narrow definition of ‘host community’ is insufficient to meet the Crown’s constitutional duties. A path forward requires a shift from consultation to true co-management, ensuring that the rights and traditional land use of all impacted Indigenous peoples are protected for the one-million-year lifespan of the waste.

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