Peace River Nuclear Power Project

Comment Search Mobile

Comment Search

Skip to filters

868 results

Attachment IAAC Funding Deficiencies

  • Peace River Nuclear Power Project
  • Author: Administrator on behalf of Chris Nel
  • Reference number: 623
  • Submitted: 2026-03-26 - 7:54 PM
  • Project phase: Planning
  • Participation notice: Public notice - Public Comments Invited and Information Sessions on the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and Draft Public Participation Plan
  • See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe
  • Attachment included
  • From: To: Peace River Nuclear Power Project (IAAC/AEIC) Subject: IAAC Funding Deficiencies Date: Thursday, March 26, 2026 7:54:34 PM Hallo Joe   RE: Peace River Nuclear Power Project — IAAC Registry #89430 — Formal Submission on the Structural Impossibility of Meaningful Participation — Request for Agency Response   I write as a registered intervenor in the impact assessment of the proposed Peace River Nuclear Power Project (IAAC Registry #89430) and as a resident of the Peace River region of Treaty 8 territory in northern Alberta. This letter raises a formal challenge to the adequacy of the consultation and participation process conducted to date in the planning phase of this impact assessment. It sets out six interlocking grounds on which the process has been, and continues to be, structurally incapable of producing meaningful participation as that term is defined in Canadian constitutional law. At the conclusion of this letter I ask the Agency a direct question and request a direct answer.   1. THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF MEANINGFUL PARTICIPATION   The word “meaningful” in the phrase “meaningful consultation” is not aspirational. It carries precise legal content established by the Supreme Court of Canada. In Haida Nation v British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 2004 SCC 73, the Court held at paragraph 46 that consultation must be meaningful “in the sense that there is a possibility of influencing the Crown’s decision.” The word the Court used was “influence.” Not attend. Not comment. Not receive information. Influence the decision. In Rio Tinto Alcan Inc v Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, 2010 SCC 43, the Court confirmed that consultation must allow the affected party “to put forward its views and have ...

Report

Attachment CONSOLIDATED REPLY TO IAAC RESPONSE — MARCH 18 AND MARCH 20 EMAILS — MATERIAL ADMISSIONS, UNANSWERED QUESTIONS, SHOW STOPPER FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES, AND FORMAL NOTICE — REGISTRY #89430

  • Peace River Nuclear Power Project
  • Author: Administrator on behalf of Chris Nel
  • Reference number: 624
  • Submitted: 2026-03-24 - 8:05 PM
  • Project phase: Planning
  • Participation notice: Public notice - Public Comments Invited and Information Sessions on the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and Draft Public Participation Plan
  • See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe
  • Attachment included
  • REGISTERED INTERVENOR CONSOLIDATED RESPONSE — IAAC Registry #89430 | Page 2 of 11 3. The failure to answer Question B has a specific legal consequence, because as a registered intervenor I am entitled to know whether IAAC regards the participation process as having met its statutory obligations. Without that answer I cannot make an informed decision about whether to seek judicial review. 4. The invitation to describe what meaningful participation will only end in disputes as to who said what and I ask that you please formally give a written answers to my questions. PART II — FOUR MATERIAL ADMISSIONS IN IAAC'S RESPONSE Admission 1 — Post-Closure Consultations With No Capacity to Influence the TISG 5. IAAC's response contains four admissions that I place formally on the record. 6. IAAC confirmed that: a. The formal comment period on the draft Integrated Guidelines closed on July 23, 2025. b. Two months after the TISG closure, the in-person sessions in Peace River and Manning took place September 25 to 28, 2025. c. IAAC confirmed that staff at those sessions were present only to explain the process and answer questions. d. The comments received outside the formal period will not be guaranteed to be incorporated into the TISG. 7. These statements above confirms my position that the September IAAC consultations were informational theatre, not substantive participation. 8. The consequence is direct. 9. IAAC consulted the Manning community and registered intervenors on their requirements and concerns after the process for incorporating those requirements into the TISG had already closed. REGISTERED INTERVENOR CONSOLIDATED RESPONSE — IAAC ...

Report

Attachment Peace River Show Stoppers - 18 to 22

  • Peace River Nuclear Power Project
  • Author: Administrator on behalf of Chris
  • Reference number: 599
  • Submitted: 2026-03-13 - 10:52 AM
  • Project phase: Planning
  • Participation notice: Public Notice - Public Comments Invited on the Summary of the Initial Project Description
  • See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe
  • Attachment included
  • IAAC COMPLAINT ADDITIONS Energy Alberta Peace River Nuclear Power Project March 2026 SHOW STOPPER 18 The Project Without a Reactor The Panel is being asked to assess a project whose defining physical parameter — the reactor technology — has not been decided. An assessment of an undefined project is a legal nullity. 17.1 The Indeterminacy on the Record Energy Alberta filed its Initial Project Description in April 2025 nominating two to four CANDU MONARK reactors. On 21 October 2025 — six months into the IAAC process — it signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Westinghouse to explore deploying AP1000 pressurised water reactors at the same site instead. Its own project website now lists both technologies as “under consideration.” The CNSC’s project page for the Peace River Nuclear Power Project continues to describe the facility as CANDU MONARK. These are not minor design variations. The CANDU MONARK is a pressurised heavy water reactor fuelled by natural uranium with on-power refuelling. The AP1000 is a pressurised light water reactor requiring enriched uranium with batch refuelling. They produce categorically different radioactive emission profiles, different tritium outputs, different spent fuel compositions and volumes, different accident scenario sets, different emergency planning zone requirements, and different cooling water demands. Every show stopper in this submission — and every finding the Panel will be asked to make on health, environmental, and Indigenous rights grounds — is technology-specific. An assessment conducted across two incompatible technologies is not an assessment of either. 17.2 Neither Technology Has Regulatory Clearance The CANDU ...

Report

Attachment Beaver First Nation, Dene Tha' First Nation, Little Red River Cree Nation, and Tallcree First Nation (collectively, the “Nations of North Peace”) : Comments on the IEPP and TISG

  • Peace River Nuclear Power Project
  • Author: Beaver First Nation, Dene Tha' First Nation, Little Red River Cree Nation, and Tallcree First Nation (collectively, the “Nations of North Peace”)
  • Reference number: 523
  • Submitted: 2025-10-20 - 7:09 PM
  • Updated: 2026-02-11 - 2:58 PM
  • Rationale: Comment updated at the author's request
  • Project phase: Planning
  • Participation notice: Public notice - Public Comments Invited and Information Sessions on the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and Draft Public Participation Plan
  • To whom this may concern, We are legal counsel for Beaver First Nation, Dene Tha' First Nation, Little Red River Cree Nation, and Tallcree First Nation (collectively, the “Nations of North Peace”). I am submitting the following document on behalf of the Nations of North Peace. This includes a letter detailing the Nations of North Peace's comments on the TISG and IEPP, and a table compiling comments on the TISG. Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you, Kayla Simovic JFK Law LLP Legal Administrative Assistant
  • Attachment included
  • Nations of North Peace Submissions on Peace River Nuclear Power Project: Draft Indigenous Engagement and Partnership Plan and Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines October 20, 2025 I. INTRODUCTION Beaver First Nation, Dene Tha' First Nation, Little Red River Cree Nation, and Tallcree First Nation (collectively, the “Nations of North Peace”) provide the following submissions in relation to the draft Indigenous Engagement and Partnership Plan (“IEPP”) and the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines (“TISG”) prepared for the Peace River Nuclear Power Project (the “Project”). The Project stands to significantly impact the Peace River and all that relies on it. The Peace River flows through the Nations of North Peace’s traditional and Treaty Territory (“the Nations of North Peace Territory”) and nourish our land and our People. This project threatens to impact our inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty rights (“the Nations of North Peace Rights”). Our Peoples, which together number over 13,000 members, continue to rely on our lands and waters to hunt, fish, trap, gather, and support other important cultural practices and activities. The Peace River and surrounding lands and tributaries have shaped our unique identity and way of life, including our language, economy, culture, and spirituality. The Crown sought the agreement of the Nations of North Peace’s ancestors to enter into Treaty 8 to open the region up to non-Indigenous settlement. The purpose of Treaty 8 was and remains to provide for the peaceful coexistence of our Peoples and settlers. Our Nations did not surrender the use and care of the waters in our Treaty. In fact, our reserve lands were ...

Report

Attachment Supplementary Comments on the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines - Peace River Nuclear Project

  • Peace River Nuclear Power Project
  • Author: Administrator on behalf of Otipemisiwak Métis Government
  • Reference number: 525
  • Submitted: 2025-10-20 - 5:52 PM
  • Project phase: Planning
  • Participation notice: Public notice - Public Comments Invited and Information Sessions on the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and Draft Public Participation Plan
  • See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe
  • Attachment included
  • 1 Otipemisiwak Métis Government Supplementary Comments on the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines: Gender-Based Violence and Industrial Work Camps Energy Alberta Peace River Nuclear Power Project October 20, 2025 Summary This document provides comments on the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines (Document #251), put forward by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada on June 9, 2025. The Otipemisiwak1 Métis Government Consultation Department thanks the regulators and proponent for their engagement efforts so far, and reiterates that the Energy Alberta Peace River Nuclear Power Project (“the project”) will have impacts on the ability of Citizens of the Métis Nation within Alberta to exercise their rights as an Aboriginal people, as protected by s. 35 of the Canadian Constitution Act, 1982, and therefore engages the Crown’s Duty to Consult with the Otipemisiwak Métis Government. Building on our previous submissions (Comments on the Initial Project Description (Document #250), Comments on the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and the Draft Indigenous Engagement and Partnership Plan (Doc #376)), our priority in this submission is to highlight potential impacts – specifically related to gender-based violence – resulting from the industrial work camps required for construction of the project which should be addressed in the Impact Statement. We also present recommendations to expand the required mitigation measures to be identified in the Impact Statement in order to address those impacts, as well as measures to help ensure that Métis women can safely share in the economic benefits of the project through employment. Overview of ...

Report

Attachment Lakeland Métis Nation Comments on the Peace River Nuclear Power Project

  • Peace River Nuclear Power Project
  • Author: Administrator on behalf of Lakeland Métis Nation Association
  • Reference number: 526
  • Submitted: 2025-10-20 - 2:47 PM
  • Project phase: Planning
  • Participation notice: Public notice - Public Comments Invited and Information Sessions on the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and Draft Public Participation Plan
  • See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe
  • Attachment included
  • Lakeland Métis Nation Association P.O. Box 929 Lac La Biche, AB T0A 2C0 Email: 1 Impact Assessment Agency of Canada Attn: Peace River Nuclear Power Project Assessment Team 160 Elgin Street Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Email: peacenuclear-nucleairepaix@iaac-aeic.gc.ca Claudette Bois Crown Consultation Coordinator Email: October 20th, 2025 RE: Peace River Nuclear Power Project – Summary of Preliminary Concerns through the Assessment Planning Phase Dear Sir/Madam, Please accept this letter outlining our concerns, recommendations, and interests related to the Initial Project Description (IPD), draft Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines (TISG), and draft Indigenous Engagement and Partnership Plan (IEPP) for the Peace River Nuclear Power Project. Energy Alberta (the Proponent) is proposing the construction and operation of two twin CANDU MONARK nuclear reactors near the town of Peace River, Alberta (the Project). This Project is located upstream and in proximity to lands and waters historically and actively used by the Lakeland Métis Nation (Lakeland Métis or LMN) for the purpose of exercising rights described under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. As a result, the Project holds the potential to adversely impact the rights and interests of the LMN. OUR BACKGROUND The LMN is a historic and contemporary Métis community with deep ties to the lands and waterways of what is now northern Alberta. Lakeland Métis members trace their ancestry back to unions between Indigenous people in the Lac La Biche area and the earliest fur traders associated with the North West Company in the late 1700s. The extended families established from these bonds ...

Report

Attachment FCMN TISG Submission - Peace River Nuclear Project

  • Peace River Nuclear Power Project
  • Author: Administrator on behalf of Fort Chip Métis Nation
  • Reference number: 518
  • Submitted: 2025-10-07 - 10:54 AM
  • Project phase: Planning
  • Participation notice: Public notice - Public Comments Invited and Information Sessions on the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and Draft Public Participation Plan
  • See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe
  • Attachment included
  • UNCLASSIFIED - NON CLASSIFIÉ Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines PEACE RIVER NUCLEAR POWER PROJECT JUNE, 9 2025 DRAFT VERSION IMPACT ASSESSMENT AGENCY OF CANADA DRAFT INTEGRATED T ISG – PEACE RIVER NUCLEAR POWER PROJECT ii UNCLASSIFIED - NON CLASSIFIÉ Contents Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines ............................................................... i Contents ............................................................................................................................ ii Abbreviations and Short Forms .........................................................................................vi 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Site Evaluation and Site Preparation for New Nuclear Reactor Facilities .................. 2 1.2 Factors to be considered in the integrated assessment ............................................ 4 1.3 Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA Plus) .................................................................. 5 1.4 Preparing the Impact Statement ................................................................................ 6 1.5 Format and accessibility ............................................................................................ 7 2 Proponent Information ............................................................................................... 8 2.1 The proponent ........................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Qualifications of individuals preparing the Impact Statement .................................... 9 2.3 Management System ...

Report
Date modified: