On May 6, 2015, the Joint Review Panel made its final report and recommendation to proceed with the DGR project. This seems to be a good occasion to take a look at the review process itself. Most of our other pages go into depth on a single issue. To take a look at how the overall process works, we’ll be following a single proponent through the process. This can give us an idea about which parts of the process were successful, and which were not.
For this case study, we will be looking at the Saugeen Ojibway Nation (SON). It is by far the most prolific responder, so we can follow its testimony through many different topics and phases of the hearings in a way that we can’t for other responders. The Crown has a duty to consult with First Nations on any activity that may impact them or their lives. SON spent quite a bit of effort reading into the record the various ways the DGR would impact them, obligations that the Crown has in relation to these impacts, and the ways that these impacts and obligations have played out in other situations. This has made for many pages of documentation emanating from SON.
Likewise, due to SON’s relationship with the federal government, the panel has had to specifically consider SON interests, and write these up for the record also. So throughout the review process, SON’s claims, needs and responses have received more documentation than those of any other responder.
SON’s relationship with the land
SON made it quite clear at the outset of the hearings that their relationship with the land and with the review process is unique:
It was explained above that SON cultural and spiritual identity is defined by its connection to the lands and waters of its territory…. “And if our people start to fear developments in the Territory, if we become anxious about the safety of our lands and waters, if we develop a dread of accident in the future – a deep and fundamental connection will be severed. It will be a deadly blow to our cultural existence.”
These are not simply the “views” of SON. As the Aboriginal people of the land, this is the foundation of their culture, connection to the land and identity as a people.
… while OPG was and is required to fully address these SON concerns, OPG cannot be expected to do so unilaterally. SON submits that the only way to appropriately address these matters is through full collaboration with the SON communities. Only the SON communities can identify how these matters ought to properly be resolved. It is not for OPG, or this Panel, to make final assessments on the significance of the potential harms of the DGR Project to SON cultural and spiritual connection to their territory, or whether those harms have or can be mitigated.
Submissions of the Saugeen Ojibway Nation—Hearings for Deep Geologic Repository Project for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste — CEAA Ref. No. 06-05-17520, August 16, 2013. pp. 62-4
The JRP, on the other hand, seems quite confident in its competence and prerogative to make exactly those sorts of decisions on its own. As part of its final report, outlining its recommendation to proceed with the project, the JRP stated:
The Panel is of the view that it conducted its review in a manner that permitted it to obtain information and evidence about the adverse effects the project may have Aboriginal interests and on potential or established Aboriginal rights, title or Treaty rights as identified to the Panel by the Saugeen Ojibway Nation and other Aboriginal groups. The Panel notes that Aboriginal groups were provided with many opportunities to address potential or established Aboriginal rights, title or Treaty rights, and to provide information on their understanding of the potential environmental effects of the project both before the Panel’s appointment in 2012 and at every stage leading up to the preparation of this report.
The Panel concludes that the biophysical changes caused by the project will not cause significant adverse effects on Aboriginal interests.
Joint Review Panel Environmental Assessment Report – Deep Geologic Repository for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste Project, CEAA Reference No. 17520, May 6, 2015. p. 303
Similarly,
The Panel has conducted a thorough assessment of all biophysically-based potential effects of the project on human health and the environment…. These are effects associated with predicted measureable changes in air quality, noise, water quality, water quantity, plants, and animals caused by the project. The Panel does not share the Saugeen Ojibway Nation’s view that there remains considerable uncertainty regarding the effects of the project on the waters of Lake Huron and MacPherson Bay or that there are deficiencies or uncertainties in information that would prevent the Government of Canada from reaching conclusions regarding impacts the project might have on potential Aboriginal rights and interests.
Joint Review Panel Environmental Assessment Report – Deep Geologic Repository for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste Project, CEAA Reference No. 17520, May 6, 2015. p. 300
This is quite similar to behavior that SON characterized at the beginning of the review process:
OPG has even documented that SON had raised these concerns with OPG during their early engagement, that is, the appropriateness of placing waste in Mother Earth. While OPG acknowledges these concerns, it does not address them. There is no indication that OPG took these concerns or worries into consideration as needing further assessment, mitigation or accommodation. The conclusion that the Project would not have any serious residual impacts on aboriginal interests demonstrates that the concerns expressed by SON members about the harms the Project could cause to their spiritual view of the land, or their cultural identity with the land were not considered by OPG as determinative, meaningful or serious.
This is unacceptable.
Submissions of the Saugeen Ojibway Nation—Hearings for Deep Geologic Repository Project for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste — CEAA Ref. No. 06-05-17520, August 16, 2013. p. 143-4
Indeed, in SON’s Closing Statement, it emphasized this problem:
OPG’s assessment of significance of the DGR’s residual adverse effects on aboriginal interests has a fundamental flaw – the aboriginal perspective was not considered in determining significance.
…. It is self evident that the significance of impacts to culturally and spiritually important sites and activities cannot be credibly or meaningfully assessed except by the Aboriginal people, the SON communities, themselves.
These are not mere issues of “perception”. As the Aboriginal people of the land, their understanding of and connection to the land is the foundation of their culture and identity as a people.
Closing Remarks of the Saugeen Ojibway Nation – Hearings for the Deep Geologic Repository Project for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste – CEAA Ref. No. 06-05-17520, October 9, 2014. pp. 3-4
And likewise:
Both CEAA and the Guidelines required that, in these circumstances, OPG adopt a more robust and precautionary and approach than was taken. There is near universal consensus that where a proponent or government plans to construct a nuclear waste facility in the territory of an Aboriginal people, those people must consent. As the Seaborn Panel concluded:
Any approach to managing nuclear waste that involves lands inhabited, claimed or used by Aboriginal people will affect them in particularly acute ways. Aboriginal people rely on the land for sustenance and hold deep beliefs about humankind’s relationship with and responsibility for the natural environment. Hence their active involvement, consent and cooperation are essential throughout all phases, from acceptance of the concept through its implementation. (Seaborn Panel Report, Section 5.3(d) (emphasis added)
The requirement of consent stems from a fundamental recognition of the seriousness of the impacts such a development will have on the rights, well being and future of Aboriginal peoples. This is a core principle in all adaptive phased management approaches: that those most affected be given the right to understand fully and clearly accept the risks and harms of the Project. The consent of SON has not yet been given.
Submissions of the Saugeen Ojibway Nation—Hearings for Deep Geologic Repository Project for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste — CEAA Ref. No. 06-05-17520, August 16, 2013. pp. 73-4
Ignoring the Foundations
The current JRP derives its mandate in part from the Seaborn Panel, quoted by SON above. The Seaborn Panel hoped that with its recommendations after its hearing of an earlier failed DGR project, the same mistakes would not be made again. Most relevantly, the panel recommended that the proponent converge on the correct technical solution through long-term consultation and involvement with and by the host community, especially the Aboriginal communities. Moreover, it calls for the Aboriginal communities to be deeply involved in this process from its very beginning.
Aboriginal Participation Process
Despite the fact that Aboriginal people may be among those most affected by a concept for managing nuclear fuel wastes, their involvement to date has been inadequate. An Aboriginal participation process would enable them to participate fully in building and determining the acceptability of a concept. Such a process would allow them to thoroughly understand and assess the waste management problem; to help develop options and the ethical and social assessment framework in Phase II; and to participate in all relevant steps and decisions thereafter. Aboriginal people should design and execute the process so that it will be appropriate to their value systems and decision-making processes.
Seaborn Report, Section 6.1.1
Note that being involved from the very beginning and participating “in all relevant steps and decisions thereafter” would hopefully mean that the public review process would be much simpler and positive, given that the proposal would have been developed by all parties. Instead, the proponent has pursued a strategy of developing its technical solution in isolation. This was allowed to proceed uncontested by the regulating authority, and (as we will see) it was actually endorsed by the JRP in its final report, even though developing a technical solution without aboriginal input is expressly against the charge of the regulating authority as spelled out in the Seaborn Report.
Splitting the Responsibilities – Dividing the Parties
One of the results of the proponent developing its proposal (with the attendant technical documentation) in isolation from SON and other local residents is that the proponent has been allowed to point to the pile of technical documents it has developed and more or less claim to have a monopoly on the scientific aspects of the proposal. This was enshrined in the regulator’s final report, which for instance titled one section “Science-based and Aboriginal Points of View” as if the two are opposed, and completely different things. This section states
The Panel notes that the information provided by OPG and Aboriginal groups regarding potential effects on Aboriginal interests illustrates a divide between a strictly science-based approach and an approach that incorporates Aboriginal world views. The science-based assessment conducted by OPG focused on measureable changes to aspects of the natural environment such as air quality and noise and then evaluated whether those changes would affect Aboriginal communities, heritage resources or traditional uses of the land. Submissions by Aboriginal groups, while including reviews and comments on the science-based assessment, also presented information arising out of their world views and history.
Joint Review Panel Environmental Assessment Report – Deep Geologic Repository for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste Project, CEAA Reference No. 17520, May 6, 2015. p. 325
First of all, let’s note that “an approach that incorporates Aboriginal world views” is the approach that is mandated by the government entities that set the current process in motion. As the Seaborn Report says,
Clearly, the development of an approach to managing nuclear fuel wastes must be based on sound physical science. While this is necessary, it is not sufficient. The approach must equally be based on sound social science and traditional Aboriginal knowledge. Without these complementary bases, there can be no assurance that public safety issues have been comprehensively identified, nor that they have been adequately addressed….
Seaborn report, Section 5.2.2.2d
So when the JRP says that one approach “incorporates Aboriginal world views” and OPG’s doesn’t, it means one thing while bearing witness to the opposite. Since the final decision rubber-stamps OPG’s proposal as “safe” and ignores the continued objections of SON, it seems to mean that OPG’s approach is the right way to go. But since its whole mandate from the government requires it to incorporate traditional Aboriginal knowledge, it is actually bearing witness that OPG (and the panel’s decision supporting it) is wrong.
Secondly, essentializing the proponent’s approach as “science-based” makes it seem as if the proponent is doing it right. In fact, the proponent’s science has been shown to be untrustworthy in many instances, which is discussed elsewhere in this website.
Many responders have interrogated OPG’s scientific assumptions and methodology. SON itself has submitted hundreds of pages of Information Requests and other interventions probing troublesome technical issues. OPG’s response to all but a few of these scientific challenges has been dismissive and evasive.
The Seaborn Panel noted such a dynamic in the previous attempts to implement the DGR:
…it [R-Public] fails to assess the real content of [citizens’] concerns, and their actual merit. Public concerns are never matched to those expressed by the scientific community, for example. By failing to present the debate as also a feature of current medical and social scientific analyses, the authors wrongly characterize it as a battle between pro-nuclear experts and anti-nuclear laymen. . . .**
Anna Cathrall, Mary Lou Harley, Brenda Lee and Peter Timmerman [Anna Cathrall et al, A Report to the FEARO Panel, Volume 2, p. 47.]
We concur with this view.
Seaborn report, Section 5.2.2.2d
When the Seaborn Panel recommended involving local people from the very beginning of the planning process, one of its reasons was to avoid a repeat of this situation. But the proponent and the regulator have ignored these recommendations, and the same sort of dysfunctional dynamic has resulted.
Attempts at Involvement
SON has attempted to have more of a role in the process, just as the Seaborn Panel recommended. For instance, in SON’s feedback to the draft agreements establishing the JRP, it attempted to write its concerns into the raison d’être of the panel, thus adding some people with a better understanding of SON concerns to the board.
Re Preamble: The following to be added:
WHEREAS the Project is within the traditional territory of the Saugeen Ojibway Nations (SON).
WHEREAS the Project may cause adverse impacts to SON Aboriginal and Treaty rights, and the application for the Project therefore triggers a Crown duty to consult and accommodate.
WHEREAS SON and the Parties to this Agreement have agreed that a review of the Project by a joint review panel will be a primary mechanism to develop the information required for meaningful consultations respecting the Project.
WHEREAS SON intends to participate fully in the joint panel review of the Project.
Re Constitution of the Joint Review Panel: We propose the following nomination and appointment structure to replace section 3.1 in the current draft:
The Joint Review Panel will consist of five members. Panel members, including the Chair, will be appointed by the Minister of the Environment.
Two members will be appointed from members of the Commission nominated by the Commission, and two members will be appointed by persons nominated by SON. CEAA, the Commission and SON will consult each other prior to the submission of nominations.
The Chair will be appointed from persons nominated jointly by CEAA, the Commission and SON.
SON Proposals re Draft Agreements, CEAA Deep Geologic Repository Project for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste Document 56949E, February 7, 2008. p. 3
It is hard to know what the practical chances would be to reconstitute the panel in this manner, but it does make it clear that the SON think that the panel’s actual composition and mission statement are far from representing its interests appropriately.
Likewise, although we have noted above SON’s declaration that the JRP does not understand Aboriginal attitudes towards the earth, we also note that United Chiefs and Councils of Mnidoo Mnising tried to remedy this situation by inviting the JRP to a visit where it could learn about (and indeed experience) the Aboriginal connection to the land for themselves:
The United Chiefs and Councils of Mnidoo Mnising would like to take this opportunity to invite you again to Mnidoo Mnising. We are requesting your presence here in order for you to begin an understanding of our relationship with our mother and all of creation which is spiritual and physical….
UCCMM humbly requests the joint review panel to “experience” our mother through teachings, and different ceremonies which will be conducted by appropriate persons so you may have a real experience to draw upon before any approval is made that would allow a “Deep Geological Repository” or what we perceive as the injecting of nuclear waste into our mother. This meeting would allow us to demonstrate our duties and responsibilities to our mother so that when public hearings begin you are able to understand what we may be discussing with you. Without this meeting we believe the joint review panel will have no basis or understanding to draw upon to make an informed decision regarding our concerns should we bring our concerns to the panel.
United Chiefs and Councils of Mnidoo Mnising Letter to JRP, CEAA Deep Geologic Repository Project for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste Document 86241E, February 14, 2013. p.1-2
In this case, the panel explicitly turned down the request, saying “We must respectfully decline your offer… as one-on-one interaction between the Panel and a participant or group in the review is not possible.” (Response to United Chiefs and Councils of Mnidoo Mnising Letter, CEAA Deep Geologic Repository Project for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste Document 87787E, March 28, 2013. p. 1)
The regulator seems not to have made any specific reply to SON’s proposal to name two members of the panel.
While SON and the UCCMM have made various efforts to include the JRP and to be included, the same cannot be said going in the other direction. SON has repeatedly spoken of and demonstrated its interest and willingness to be a part of the conception and formation of the concepts and proposals around the DGR. SON has also been quite consistent about the importance it places on the DGR and the issues that it raises.
It should not surprise anyone when SON maintains communication with actors involved in the project, including education and assertion concerning SON’s rights and positions. Specifically, it should surprise no one that OPG should promise SON not to proceed with the project without SON approval. Yet the JRP reacted in a way that was incredulous, hostile, authoritarian. We quote it in full:
On August 21, 2013, the Deep Geologic Repository Joint Review Panel received from the Saugeen Ojibway Nations a letter dated August 7, 2013 from Mr. Mitchell, President, Ontario Power Generation Inc., to Chiefs Kahgee and Chegahno of the Saugeen Ojibway Nations. This letter will be posted to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry Internet Site for the project as soon as possible, along with other documents received by the Panel from the Saugeen Ojibway Nations yesterday.
The Panel regards the submission of such a letter so close to the public hearing in the most serious of terms. The Panel is deeply committed to the integrity and fairness of the joint review panel process. The Panel requires assurance from Ontario Power Generation that any and all evidence regarding relevant and pertinent information required for the review be provided in a manner that ensures transparency and fairness to all interested parties.
The Panel requires answers to the following questions from Ontario Power Generation regarding the possible existence of other evidence, on or before August 27, 2013:
- Which Aboriginal groups are currently engaged in discussions and/or negotiations with Ontario Power Generation?
- Which other interested parties are currently engaged in discussions and/or negotiations with Ontario Power Generation, including, but not limited to, municipal governments? If individuals are being engaged, simply state that this is occurring and provide a general geographic location (e.g., local study area, regional study area). The Panel does not require individuals to be identified.
The Panel may request additional information and make decisions regarding the review depending upon the response to the above questions and depending upon the nature and significance of any other late submissions. If Ontario Power Generation does not provide the information requested, there could be a delay in all or in part, of the public hearing.
The Panel wants to make it clear that its recommendations at the end of the hearing process will be based on evidence and not on the basis of various agreements from outside parties.
Letter to OPG, CEAA Deep Geologic Repository Project for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste Document 93837E, August 23, 2013
This last paragraph is especially strange. It is calling SON and OPG “outside parties.” OPG is the proponent of the project, and SON is a First Nation whose inclusion is required by federal law. If they are “outside parties”, it is hard to imagine who is an ‘inside party’.
More importantly, the panel says that its decision “will be based on evidence and not on the basis of various agreements” between the parties. But (as discussed above) agreements and consensus between the parties are supposed to be the foundation of the current process.
As per the Seaborn Panel’s Report, the current review process ought to foster continuous communication and cooperation between parties involved, and for First Nations in particular “to participate in all relevant steps and decisions” in that process. The JRP’s statementputs it on the record as not just ignoring the mandate for cooperation and consensus, but actively opposing it.
No Safety Where There is No Listening
SON has repeatedly expressed the concern also voiced by the United Chiefs above that “without this meeting we believe the joint review panel will have no basis or understanding to draw upon to make an informed decision regarding our concerns.” This was also expressed in various ways by the Seaborn Panel. It emphasized that the proponent cannot possibly be aware of all the safety cases on its own, so it must get input from the local people to fill in the gaps:
AECL’s proposal deals with a nuclear mega-project that presents a unique social and political challenge. Many communities along transportation routes, or potential host and other communities, might be affected. Clearly, the development of an approach to managing nuclear fuel wastes must be based on sound physical science. While this is necessary, it is not sufficient. The approach must equally be based on sound social science and traditional Aboriginal knowledge. Without these complementary bases, there can be no assurance that public safety issues have been comprehensively identified, nor that they have been adequately addressed in the concept as presented.
Seaborn report, Section 5.2.2.2d
The JRP’s fundamental misunderstanding – and even mishearing – of SON concerns can be seen in ways that the JRP characterizes the SON and other Aboriginal groups in its final report. It is again, as SON wrote at the beginning of this round of the process, that the JRP “acknowledges these concerns, [but] it does not address them.” The panel’s final report touts the stance of SON:
The Saugeen Ojibway Nation emphasized the Panel’s obligation under Treaties, including a relationship of government to government based on mutual respect. The Saugeen Ojibway Nation also emphasized the importance of free, prior, and informed consent.
Joint Review Panel Environmental Assessment Report – Deep Geologic Repository for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste Project, CEAA Reference No. 17520, May 6, 2015. p. 325
This sounds quite nice, but it glosses over the fact that the Panel has failed to live up to the relationship it invokes, of “obligation under Treaties… of government to government” as this very report is a declaration that it will proceed unilaterally, in defiance of SON’s wishes. Likewise, it does the panel no credit to invoke SON’s emphasis on “free, prior, and informed consent” when SON’s own closing statement says: “The consent of SON has not yet been given.”
Finally, there is a very strange phrase in the JRP’s final report that perhaps conveys even more the depth of the divide between SON and the JRP. In its final report, the JRP characterizes the SON position in the following way:
The Panel notes that some people, particularly Aboriginal people, may have concerns about effects on Lake Huron that are based upon their worldview and accompanying spiritual requirements regarding showing respect for the earth. This would include asking permission of the earth to construct the DGR.
Joint Review Panel Environmental Assessment Report – Deep Geologic Repository for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste Project, CEAA Reference No. 17520, May 6, 2015. p. xii
The panel also repeats this assertion verbatim on p. 411. Somehow the JRP feels that it’s very important to emphasize “asking permission of the earth to construct the DGR.” It’s almost as if it wishes that’s what the SON would do.
The SON’s account of the DGR does not mention this at all. The SON’s account, very consistently, across thousands of pages, documents the harm that the DGR may do to the environment, and how this will harm the SON. The SON’s account documents the economic harm that would befall the SON from having their fishery stigmatized. And the SON speaks of the harm caused by injecting nuclear waste into their mother, the Earth. (United Chiefs and Councils of Mnidoo Mnising Letter to JRP, CEAA Deep Geologic Repository Project for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste Document 86241E, February 14, 2013., p. 1). The SON submissions speak of specific, concrete harm caused by the DGR project.
It is not clear where the JRP’s notion of “asking permission of the earth” came from. It is not mentioned in SON’s opening or closing statements, in any of its technical documents, or the voluminous testimony by Chiefs Kahgee and Jones. It is very strange that the JRP emphasizes this notion so much, while leaving out topics that the SON actually says are crucial, and which the SON documents at such great length.
The United Chiefs and Councils of Mnidoo Mnising have spoken quite starkly of the situation from their point of view in their own oral intervention.
Situations that have happened to our mother earth are devastating.
There is evidence right now in Japan as to how dangerous nuclear accidents are contaminations of the waters which is currently making the water life impossible to recover from the human intellectual mistakes. It has left the water poisoned…
Oral intervention from United Chiefs and Councils of Mnidoo Mnising Elders Circle, August 14, 2013, CEAA Deep Geologic Repository Project for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste Document 93231E, p. 2
and they invoke historical obligations to request support for their opposition to the DGR:
The Anishinaabe prophecy is that we are free people with no authority to command to others. We are equal, we are sovereign people.
The new arrivals to our land would learn quickly to receive help from the Anishinaabe when they needed shelter, food, and medicines.
The Anishinaabe medicine men learned that the new arrivals had illnesses that were difficult to get rid of; the Anishinaabe medicine men helped them to recover using traditional medicines.
Once the new arrivals were able to recover, they wanted to pay for the help they received from the Anishinaabek; they asked the Anishinaabek how they could repay for the helped they received. The Anishinaabe thought about it and said; there will be a time when we would need help. That is when the new arrivals made a promise, that when the time came that the Anishinaabe needed help they would come good with that promise.
We are now at that time, where the promise must be kept. We the Anishinaabek do not want to see harm done to mother earth with the Ontario Power Generation Deep Geologic Repository project for low and intermediate level nuclear waste.
Oral intervention from United Chiefs and Councils of Mnidoo Mnising Elders Circle, August 14, 2013, CEAA Deep Geologic Repository Project for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste Document 93231E, p. 1-2
Again, it is hard to see any point of connection with the JRP’s assertion that SON’S concern is to propitiate the earth. However, the JRP mentions this concept a third time in its final report, and here it seems like it is mentioning a source for this idea. It also provides a bit more detail about what it thinks is going on with this “asking permission of the earth” thing.
Section 12.3.4
The United Chiefs and Councils of Mnidoo Mnising provided a written submission to the Panel for the 2013 public hearing and gave an oral presentation. Their submissions spoke of their sacred teachings and their proclamation for the care and protection of mother earth. They stated that they did not want to see harm done to mother earth. Their written and oral presentations included references about not taking creation for granted and that the journey of life is centered on respect for mother earth. The United Chiefs and Councils of Mnidoo Mnising stated that mother earth was being asked to take care of the waste and suggested that there could be ceremonies to ask for permission and appease the spirits.
Joint Review Panel Environmental Assessment Report – Deep Geologic Repository for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste Project, CEAA Reference No. 17520, May 6, 2015. p.320
The UCCMM have indeed made a single written submission to the panel. And it does mention sacred teachings, a “proclamation for the care and protection” of the earth, and it includes multiple statements about the care we must take of Mother Earth and the care that Mother Earth takes of us:
This journey of life that is centered on the respect for mother earth and all living things is so that we can live in harmony with the powers of the universe guided by our creator.
Mother earth is a women most respected by the Anishinaabek. We give testimony to the harmony of the entire creation, the stars, moon, sun, the plants, and all life on mother earth which were placed here in a sacred order. We cannot take creation for granted.
We the Mnidoo Mnising elders provide the appropriate teachings that reflect our cultural sensitive manner, with safe environmental supportive position for mother earth which have proven beneficial for all citizens. This is an integral part of the treatment that allows for the understanding of the respect that all human mankind must have for the mother earth.
The Mnidoo Mnising elders are an essential link to the past and to the future which continually completes the “circle of life” that is an essential part of protection for mother earth.
We are indebted to mother earth, we equate her to motherhood and that all human mankind are the children. We are the children that must show love and gratitude. The Anishinaabek when performing the pipe ceremony offer the whiff of tobacco smoke in thanksgiving to mother earth. Every plant, animal, birds, fish, insects, and the blades of grass have a place within the universe.
Oral intervention from United Chiefs and Councils of Mnidoo Mnising Elders Circle, August 14, 2013, CEAA Deep Geologic Repository Project for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste Document 93231E, p. 2-3
This makes it all the more striking that the passage the JRP quotes in its final report about the Mnidoo Mnising chief and elders having a “proclamation for the care and protection of mother earth” comes from the following sentence:
The Anishinaabe sacred teachings are intact where we have a proclamation for the care and protection of mother earth, which is our foremost priority when hearing of a plan to rape mother earth. (Oral intervention from United Chiefs and Councils of Mnidoo Mnising Elders Circle, August 14, 2013, CEAA Deep Geologic Repository Project for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste Document 93231E, p. 2)
This is a very different perspective on the DGR than the feel-good scenario provided by the JRP. The UCCMM does mention ceremonies when it invites the JRP to come visit and learn about the Aboriginal relationship with the earth, but these experiences are educational, not propitiatory:
UCCMM humbly requests the joint review panel to “experience” our mother through teachings, and different ceremonies which will be conducted by appropriate persons so you may have a real experience to draw upon before any approval is made that would allow a “Deep Geologic Repository” or what we perceive as the injecting of nuclear waste into our mother. This meeting would allow us to demonstrate our duties and responsibilities to our mother so that when public hearings begin you are able to understand what we may be discussing with you. Without this meeting we believe the joint review panel will have no basis or understanding to draw upon to make an informed decision regarding our concerns….
Oral intervention from United Chiefs and Councils of Mnidoo Mnising Elders Circle, August 14, 2013, CEAA Deep Geologic Repository Project for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste Document 93231E, p. 2
Looking at the JRP’s representation of the UCCMM’s communication, one cannot help but feel that the elders’ and chiefs’ concerns about the JRP having “no basis or understanding … to make an informed decision” has come true.
Summing Up
The problems faced by SON in the current review process are manifold, but most responders to the project face similar problems: not having their concerns taken seriously, and being disregarded in the setup of the process. The panel’s ignoring (or misrepresentation) of SON’s testimony stands out in higher relief because of its tremendous diligence in documenting its concerns and requirements, and because it had to keep addressing issues arising from its history and status as a First Nation.
The current review process was set up in response to failures in implementing a similar nuclear waste project about thirty years ago as identified by the Seaborn Panel. The report it issued identified problems in the old process and suggested ways that these should be remedied in the future.
A large part of the problem with the previous process is that there came to be widespread perception that the regulatory agency overseeing the project acted instead as an advocate for the proponent. Its recommendations therefore started with the creation of a new regulatory agency:
If there is to be any confidence in a system for the long-term management of nuclear fuel wastes, a fresh start must be made in the form of a new agency. The agency must be at arm’s length from the producers and current owners of the wastes. Its overall commitment must be to safety.
The Joint Committee is concerned that this body have high public credibility and considers that this requires detachment from the organizations which have been closely associated with the generation and handling of nuclear fuel waste.
Joint Committee of the Canadian Academy of Engineering and The Royal Society of Canada [Joint Committee of the Canadian Academy of Engineering and The Royal Society of Canada, Presentation, Phase I, p. 2.]
The Seaborn Panel further recommended that this new agency adhere to the following principles in order to avoid the failures of the previous attempt:
1) encourage and facilitate Aboriginal participation in all steps and decisions;
2) develop a plan for, and initiate, public participation in all steps and decisions;
3) develop options for managing nuclear fuel wastes;
4) develop an ethical and social assessment framework;
5) develop technical considerations;
6) prepare and present a comparison of the options, as measured against the assessment framework, revised AECB requirements and technical considerations; and
7) closely track social and technical developments in other countries to stay aware of those that might be relevant to Canada.
Seaborn report, Section 6.1.2.1
Unfortunately, except for item 5 and perhaps a bit of item 7, the federal agencies concerned with this project have completely ignored these recommendations. As a result, the project is again mired in the same problems it ran into 30 years ago. For everyone’s sake, maybe the next time things can be done better.