To the editor,
In our local papers, full-page ads continue to incite us to “imagine the possibilities” that will be coming our way should South Bruce become Canada’s chosen nuclear waste headquarters. Other ads regarding exciting new modular homes coming our way seem to piggyback on the same exciting concept. In both cases, they seem to echo the campaign speeches we heard last fall during our municipal elections. Those promising speeches proved quite effective as those spouting them won by an overwhelming vote.
But before we get too excited about all the wonderful possibilities of economic growth this nuclear waste project could bring to South Bruce, or before this municipality becomes too dependent on the millions that have flowed into their coffers courtesy of a wealthy industrial benefactor, we would be wise to consider other voices.
Others who have no skin in the economic gains of the proposal but fear the risk this brings to the Great Lakes.
It would appear that our neighbours to the south of us are not too keen on “Canada’s plan for nuclear waste.” And our neighbours to the south, by way of transboundary Great Lakes treaties, may have some hefty legal, if not political, clout to put a halt to the whole proposal.
Last week, several U.S. newspapers, including the Detroit News, reported that there is mounting political opposition to the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s proposed site in South Bruce (“Measure opposes Canadian plan to store nuclear waste long term near Lake Huron,” March 22). Senators of states around the Great Lakes have formed a bipartisan committee that is pressuring President Joe Biden to put a halt to any permanent disposal of nuclear waste within the Great Lakes basin. They also stated that Biden should convey their opposition during his talks with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
To quote the aforementioned story:
“A bipartisan group of Great Lakes lawmakers introduced a resolution in Congress on Wednesday to oppose a Canadian proposal to permanently store spent nuclear fuel waste in the Great Lakes Basin. The move comes ahead of President Joe Biden’s first trip to Canada as president this week to meet with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.”
A few paragraphs later, the story states, “The resolution says that Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken should ensure that the government of Canada does not permanently store nuclear waste in the Great Lakes Basin.”
This opposition is not unlike the same heard from the International Joint Commission’s water quality committee, which noted in a full report in March 2022 that there exists today some 38 nuclear waste hot spots in and around the Great Lakes. And that all of them should be cleared out and by no means should a permanent disposal site be established within the Great Lakes basin.
These voices of opposition should both be taken seriously before we go too far down the road on “imagining the possibilities.”
David Wood
Mildmay
