To the editor,
It is now apparent that residents of South Bruce will be denied the opportunity this year to vote on whether their community will play host to the nuclear industry’s proposed deep geological repository (DGR) near Teeswater.
This, by way of a council resolution passed last month, was decided even before hearing from a delegation representing over 1,200 signatories to a petition that argued to allow for a vote congruent with this year’ municipal election. And although council recognized a referendum as a preferred method to support or oppose the proposed DGR, it will now be left up to the next elected council to do so.
But should it even be the next council’s responsibility to do so?
A vote this year concurrent with the municipal election would basically come at no costs to taxpayers. Why should we foot the bill for a future vote since the postponement of a vote this year, comes at the request of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) as it would not suit their schedule? They argue (or at least council did on their behalf) that we are not yet fully informed on the issue and that more reports and studies need to be done, and that along with the core samples, results won’t be ready for another year or two.
But I have to ask even if a vote were to be held this year, concurrent with the election, would the results even meet the NWMO’s stated criteria for a willing host? That being “a compelling show of support”?
I would suggest that any future vote not held during a municipal election would show a dismal turnout – quite likely not above the 50 per cent threshold required to make it binding on that council to act on. And certainly not decisive enough to indicate “a compelling show of support” for this DGR.
But why, in any case, should the onus now be on this municipality and at the cost of taxpayers to indicate willingness? After all, just last year we shelled out $150,000 to hire a consultant to do just that. And after several months of public input – which was rather apathetic to say the least – the results indicated by a three-to-one margin to hold a referendum. A result that this council did not want to hear and was essentially shelved. What a waste of time and taxpayer’s money.
Proving our willingness is an expensive exercise and we should not be stuck with the bill next time! I would say that if the NWMO needs compelling evidence of a willing host, let it be their responsibility to show it. And any future costs for a referendum, should the next council decide to hold one, be incurred by the NWMO.
In conclusion, I would suggest the results of such a referendum must show a support of more than 60 per cent willingness just to meet the NWMO’s own criteria for what they require of an informed and willing host.
David Wood
Mildmay
