Editor’s note: The following is a letter from South Bruce Coun. Mike Niesen addressing his comments during the Jan. 11 council meeting, where Protect Our Waterways was a delegation presenting a petition calling for a referendum in October on the proposed deep geological repository project.
To the editor,
Most of you will know me by now from the Protect Our Waterways (POW) flyers that you have received in the mail and letters in the newspapers. I have chosen to break a personal rule of mine since becoming a South Bruce councillor seven years ago, “to speak no evil until facts are known” and respond to these. The recent reference to “this timeline has been public knowledge since August” (“POW-NNW ask council to rescind motion, proceed with October referendum” – Jan. 20 issue) was exactly that, and was directed to the timeframe in which the willingness study and the borehole drilling will be completed. This comment in the flyers and newspaper was misconstrued and misrepresented in the intent that it was meant. If my comments were not clear, my apologies.
Furthermore, yes, you (POW) have come to council four times previously and all four times you were informed at those meetings that council will not make a decision on the willingness to host the project until BOTH the results of the willingness study AND the borehole drilling were complete. We have now completed the willingness study, which points to a referendum, but the second part of the equation – the borehole assessment – is not yet completed. Therefore, council is not willing to make a decision because not all of the information has been gathered to make an informed decision to host the project.
POW have come to council for a fifth time, for the same reason, this time with an alleged signed petition – we can only call it alleged because POW is not willing to make it public information but wanted to bring this petition forward in a closed meeting to apparently protect those that have signed this petition. Even though, when signing a petition, that is a public document or were they promised something different? Ironically, POW are requesting this private meeting to authenticate this petition, yet they are the same people who have been continually accusing council of hosting secret meetings behind closed doors. Good thing council have never been accused of being hypocritical either!
POW has also come before council claiming that the names that were collected and the canvassing they completed was done in an informed, professional manner. My personal experience would disagree with this claim. After being approached on two separate occasions, by different canvassers, none of them knew that I was a South Bruce councillor (even though I have been one now for seven years). Shouldn’t they know who they are speaking to if they are asking for support? We let them in our home to hear them out – keep in mind they did not know who they were talking to – we heard the following statements:
“Council has been paid off.”
“Council are getting the wool pulled over their eyes.”
“Council doesn’t know much.”
“They are drilling holes all over the place.”
There comments were made, along with other healthy discussion and bantering. In the end, we agreed to disagree and move on, or so I thought. On a separate occasion, my wife was approached by the same canvasser at a CLC meeting and aggressively accused us of being “devious people” because when they were at our house we did not say who we were; we assumed they should have known whose house they were entering. They put two and two together after the fact when they saw our names on the mailbox. Now, I’m going out on a limb here and say if this is your idea of “well informed and professional,” it leads me to believe council is moving forward in the right direction.
POW also stated at the Jan. 11 council meeting that, “The NWMO and the municipality can be pressed to deliver all the most critical studies sooner. It’s just about hiring consultants and having them go to work.” I honestly did not know it was that easy. Can you pass this kind of information along through the CLC or even the project manager so we can access it in a timelier manner? If so, I’m willing to listen. However, with safety at the forefront, do we really want to rush science? Would you buy a car without all the safety testing being completed or taking medication without all the pharmaceutical testing being done ahead of time, much less having it rushed and for what? What’s the hurry? I would be sooner take the time and have all the safety documentation completed before deciding.
POW also raised concerns about this nuclear project being a sole issue at election time and “nothing else will matter.” Personally, I give South Bruce more credit than that and more level heads will prevail. If you are willing to vote for someone against the project, in favour of a referendum, who has no prior knowledge of the current municipal issues or even cares, rather than who is in favour of the project, willing to have a referendum and fully understands the scope of municipal issues at hand, then that is your choice and you have made it a sole issue.
I have also repeatedly heard how council is dividing the community. I did not realize that a difference in opinion made people enemies or that it’s council’s fault for this. I am proud to a councillor and to call my neighbours my neighbours, knowing not all are on board with this project, but I respect that and I also know that they have my back as well, if ever need be.
Respectfully,
Mike Niesen
Councillor for all of South Bruce
