Brett Thoms
Pontiac May 26, 2022
The Kebaowek First Nation hosted an online roundtable titled No Consent for Nuclear Waste on Algonquin Lands last Thursday. The roundtable was attended by the chiefs of various Algonquin nations, as well as . . .
several experts on the science, history and law related to the proposed dump site at Chalk River.
The event was started with an Algonquin prayer from Elder Verna McGregor.
McGregor said that the proposed site is located on unceded land, meaning that the Indigenous nations of the area never entered into a treaty with colonial authorities giving up the claim to their land. McGregor stressed that since this is the case, Indigenous sovereignty remains in force in the territories along the Ottawa River as per the Royal Proclamation of 1764, which states that land in North America will remain under Indigenous control unless ceded in a treaty with the British Crown.
“When they built Chalk River, it was the height of our oppression”, said McGregor about the subsequent disregarding of Indigenous land claims.
After McGregor spoke, several chiefs of the Algonquin nations were given time to make remarks. This included remarks from Chief Lisa Robinson of the Wolf Lake First Nation, Chief Tony Wawatie of Barriere Lake, Chief Steeve Mathias of Long Point First Nation, Chief Dylan Whiteduck of Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg and Grand Chief Savannah McGregor. All of the chiefs present expressed opposition to the site, and specifically mentioned their traditions of environmental stewardship as core motivations for their opposition.
After the chiefs concluded their opening remarks, Renée Pelletier, managing partner at the law firm Olthuis, Kleer, Townshend LLP, which represents Indigenous governments, organizations, and individuals, spoke on the legal requirements of the Canadian government to consult and acquire the consent from Indigenous communities before approving a project that may impact them.
Pelletier’s discussion focused on what the conditions need to be for the Canadian government (the Crown) to have a duty to consult with Indigenous groups when considering a project like the one in Chalk River.
To summarize Pelletier’s presentation, she stated that under the law and legal precedent the Crown does have an obligation to consult with Indigenous communities under conditions posed by the proposed Chalk River site, something which hasn’t sufficiently been done.
According to Pelletier the government can claim that the public hearings starting May 31 will serve as consultation. However, she stated that whether or not the government will actually engage in proper consultation that ensures Indigenous concerns have been addressed in a substantive way is another matter.
Pelletier then overviewed the Government of Canada’s responsibilities under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which was adopted by the Canadian government in 2016, albeit in a way that ensures it is non-binding.
Pelletier believed the principles of UNDRIP should underly the approach the government takes with consultations on Chalk River with Indigenous people, namely the principles laid out in Articles 25, 26 and 32 of the declaration. However, Pelletier cautioned that these articles were worded in a way that gives governments ways to not necessarily over abide by the wishes of Indigenous communities.
The article of UNDRIP she singled out as one the federal government’s couldn’t “weasel out of” was Article 29.2 which declares: “States shall take effective measures to ensure 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.”
Pelletier concluded by stating that consent is the right to say no and any process that doesn’t give the Algonquin people the ability to do so on the proposed Chalk River dump site would be counter to the spirit of the UNDRIP.
The next to speak was Dr. Gordon Edwards, who has a long career as a consultant in the nuclear industry.
Edwards started his presentation with an overview of the history of Chalk River, which had its origins in a 1943 meeting between the Allied powers of WW II in Quebec City. At that meeting Canada agreed to provide uranium for the Manhattan Project, which was the title of the project that created the atomic bomb.
The connection between Chalk River and the past development of nuclear weapons was a theme returned to by multiple speakers.
Edwards then explained the dangers associated with the radioactive waste that will be stored at the Chalk River mound, and in particular why radioactive material is so harmful.
“You can’t tell by your five senses that it’s any different from ordinary material, except that when it gets into your vicinity, into your neighborhood or into your body,” said Edwards. “It does damage because the atoms actually explode inside or outside your body, and it’s the shrapnel from those explosions that caused the damage.”
There are three specific ways radiation causes harm to people’s bodies, according to Edwards.
“First of all, it’s carcinogenic, meaning that it can provoke cancers of all kinds, basically by damaging the DNA molecules,” he said. “The harm is not immediate. You don’t see somebody smoke a cigarette, and then drop-down dead. It’s the same thing with radiation.”
“Second, radiation is mutagenic, meaning that it can mutate our egg and sperm cells and cause birth abnormalities in future generations.”
“And thirdly, radiation is teratogenic, meaning that for a pregnant woman it can affect the developing fetus.”
Edwards went on to explain how long these radioactive elements will last, or in scientific terms their half life.
“You have things that have half lives of hundreds of thousands, millions, even billions of years,” said Edwards about elements that will be present at the site. “[The mound] is going to be a permanent source of problems for many generations to come.”
Edwards then added that some of the radioactive elements planned on being contained in the dump site could escape the site though evaporating water carrying them out or leaching into the nearby Perch Lake though the ground.
Edwards then referenced the record of member corporations of the consortium that makes up Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL), which are responsible for constructing, maintaining and monitoring the waste within the mound.
“Every single one of them has been found guilty of fraudulent behavior in the world,” said Edwards. “For example, SNC. Lavalin, as you probably know, was banned for 10 years from even bidding on international contracts because of a pattern of fraudulent behavior.”
Edwards concluded his remarks by trying to temper the fears people should have about the Chalk River site, given that much of seriously radioactive waste will be in small quantities.
“I don’t want people to feel that this is going to create a disaster on the scale of Chernobyl or Fukushima, that’s not the case.” said Edwards. “But it is going to have the potential to contaminate the water unnecessarily, and contaminate the air and the food, and so on.”
The next speaker was Brennain Lloyd, who is a community organizer and public interest researcher and writer from Northeastern Ontario.
Lloyd’s presentation focused on a comparative study of three nuclear waste storage sites in the United States similar to Chalk River, with a focus on each site’s environmental impact. The three sites looked at by the study included the Hanford Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility in Washington, the Fernand On-site Disposal Facility in Ohio and the Oak Ridge National Laboratories Environmental Management Waste Facility in Tennessee.
Lloyd summed up the conclusion of this study highlighting, while each facility had differences, they all had similar characteristics.
“All three examples appeared to be effective at reducing the footprint or the extent, but none were effective at actually isolating radio contaminants from the environment, and all three facilities had their origins and the nuclear weapons complex, which is similar to the origins of the Chalk River nuclear laboratory,” said Lloyd. “Rather than providing examples of success, from the observations from these three sites, they’re operating experience, signal warnings for the near surface disposal facility and any other future similar on-site radioactive waste landfills that the nuclear industry is promoting.”
The next to speak was Ole Hendrickson, who has a long career contributing to the research about clean up efforts at Chalk River. Hendrickson’s presentation was cut short due to time restraints and technical difficulties, however he focused his remarks on the lack of consultation and insufficiency of environmental assessments concerning the project.
“If the CNSC approves this, there will be contamination of the Ottawa River essentially, and perpetuity,” said Hendrickson.
The next speakers were Theresa McClenaghan and Kerrie Blaise, who are lawyers with the Canadian Environmental Law Association.
McClenaghan, the executive director of the Canadian Environmental Law Association, started the presentation by critiquing the format of the upcoming public hearings starting on May 31.
“It is not your typical hearing where there’s cross-examination, or more time for experts to weigh in,” said McClenaghan. “It’s a very simplified hearing process without a lot of the procedural protections we would see in other forums.”
She also pointed out that the environmental assessment of the proposed site was done under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act of 2012, which has since been replaced by stricter The Impact Assessment Act in 2019.
As part of her presentation, she called for a robust environmental assessment of the project and genuine public consultations.
“This is not a one-way dialogue,” said McClenaghan. “There must be engagement.”
After McClenaghan and Blaise finished, Elder Verna McGregor returned to give a presentation which once more highlighted Indigenous rights on unceded land and emphasised the religious duty of the Algonquin to be stewards of the environment.
“One of the arguments is that all these laws that are constructed by non-native people, and it’s onto man’s law, while our understanding was nature’s law,” said McGregor, who stated that the desire to develop and exploit the radioactive material in the first place is the root cause of this problem.
“We have a bigger responsibility to look after this earth,” said McGregor.
The meeting then concluded after McGregor performed a closing prayer and chiefs present gave their concluding remarks.
Public hearings which will determine whether NSDF will be licensed by the CNSC began on March 31 and will end on June 3.
