Referendum sees razor-thin support from South Bruce residents to hosting Canada’s nuclear waste

Ontario Construction News staff writer

A slim majority of voters in the Municipality of South Bruce say they’re open to the idea of Canada’s used nuclear fuel being permanently entombed hundreds of metres below their community.

Voting in a week-long by-election on the matter concluded Monday night, with unofficial results showing a razor-thin majority in support for a plan to have a $26 billion deep geological repository built near Teeswater, Ont., about 170 kilometres north of London.

The referendum question asked voters if they were in favour of the municipality declaring itself a willing host, 51.2 per cent of voters, or 1,604 people, said they were, compared to 48.8 per cent against. To be binding, a yes vote of 50 per cent plus one was required.

South Bruce Mayor Mark Goetz said the result shows the need for the municipality to move forward.

“It’s time now to accept the results and for the community to start rebuilding itself and bonding together again, mending those fences, so to speak,” Goetz said.

The mayor said he did not expect the vote to be that close, but the results were binding on council as long as there was at least 50 per cent voter turnout. Nearly 70 per cent of eligible residents cast a ballot.

“The results are the results, and it’s what the municipality has to live with now,” Goetz said.

The Nuclear Waste Management Organization plans to select a site this year for the $26-billion project where millions of bundles of used nuclear fuel will be placed in a network of underground rooms connected by cavernous tunnels.

Two sites, Ignace in northern Ontario and South Bruce, are being considered and the organization has said both the local municipality and the First Nation in those areas will have to agree to be hosts.

Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation in northern Ontario and Saugeen Ojibway Nation have not yet voted on becoming a host site.

Proponents of the project have said it is a great opportunity for jobs and economic development, while opponents are concerned about environmental and health impacts.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

I accept the Privacy Policy