Some 'no' voters seek recount in 'tight' nuclear waste referendum

The results were tighter than almost everyone thought they’d be in a vote on if South Bruce would be a willing host to the Canada’s first permanent nuclear waste storage

“I wasn’t expecting it to be that close,” acknowledged South Bruce Mayor Mark Goetz.

A week of internet and phone voting, ended with less than 80 votes between those in favour and those against plans to bury Canada’s used nuclear fuel under 1,500 acres of farmers’ fields north of Teeswater. So tight, some of those who voted “no,” want a recount.

“A 2.4 per cent difference between the yes and no. That's very close. Had there been a paper ballot, there would have been a recount. Seventy-eight ballots difference between the yes and the no. That's tight,” said Anja Van ver Vlies, who helps lead the No Nuclear Waste-Protect our Waterways citizen’s group in South Bruce.

A recount, or retabulation can be ordered by South Bruce council, but that appears unlikely.

Although the vote was tight, 51.2 per cent in favour, and 48.8 per cent against, 3,130 of 4,525 eligible referendum voters cast a ballot, that’s a whopping 69.3 per cent voter turnout, far exceeding the 50 per cent threshold set out by The Municipal Elections Act to make the referendum results binding.

“The results were very close, but there was 51.2 per cent in favor of the project, and more than 50 per cent voter turnout, so that makes it binding on council to implement at its November 12 meeting,” said Goetz.

Jim Gowland has led South Bruce’s Nuclear Waste Community Liaison Committee for the past 12 years. He is buoyed by the number of residents who cast a referendum ballot.

Unofficial results reported by Municipality of South Bruce for the community’s referendum on a proposed nuclear waste project. Oct. 28, 2024. (Source: Municipality of South Bruce)

“That number really demonstrates that our youth participated to get to that type of number. And when I talk youth, I mean, 40 and under, but I think that’s great. Whether it was a yes or no vote that they put forward, it was a situation that they were voting about their future, because this is a multi-generational project,” he said.

South Bruce is now considered a “willing host” to an underground facility that would house 6.1 used nuclear fuel bundles, forever. The controversial plan and subsequent debate about it, that lasted for nearly five years, absolutely divided the community.

“My biggest concern right now is really the community. To get the community to rebuild itself and work together and move together as one. So, I want to make sure that the people with concerns, you know, they're looked after,” said Goetz.

Tony Zettel voted in favour of the proposed project that would see hundreds of jobs and millions of dollars invested in the community. He hopes, like Goetz, with the referendum behind them, South Bruce residents can move forward as one.

“I think the community has had different opinions on it. But at the end of the day, we're a close, tight-knit community and, we agree on more things than we disagree on. So, we're glad to have this vote behind us and have the decision in,” said the Mildmay resident.

“They’re motivated in this community no matter which way you vote. And [at] the end of the day, we are a community. We'll move forward,” said Gowland, a lifelong resident of South Bruce.

But the razor thin referendum results will likely do more to divide the community than unite it, believes Bill Noll.

“It's so close. Seventy-eight votes are not a sufficient margin to give anybody a mandate one way or the other,” said Noll, one of the leaders of Protect our Waterways-No Nuclear Waste.

“The results are extremely close. I am not sure if having a 2.4 per cent difference between yes and no really indicates a willing host,” said Michelle Stein, also a core member of Protect our Waterways-No Nuclear Waste in South Bruce.

With “willing host” votes from South Bruce and Ignace, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization awaits approvals from the Wabigoon Ojibway Nation, surrounding Ignace, and Saugeen Ojibway Nation, surrounding South Bruce, before selecting a preferred site for the underground nuclear vault, by year’s end.

“I hope that they're a little smarter than the people of South Bruce, and that they will vote it out. And when that will happen, we don't know. The sooner the better, because then we can put this behind us, but time will tell,” said Teeswater area farmer and project opponent, Van der Vlies.

“They've been the stewards of the land for you know, thousands of years prior to any of our ancestors showing up. So, I think we need to show them some respect and let them do their, their work, whatever that looks like,” said Goetz.

Leaders with the Saugeen Ojibway Nation (SON) released the a complete statement in reaction to South Bruce’s willingness referendum vote, saying in part, "SON has not yet decided on whether we agree to be considered a willing host. South Bruce’s referendum does not impact SON’s process or undermine SON’s right to decide." 

While the Nuclear Waste Management Organization plans on naming a preferred site by year’s end, last word from the Saugeen Ojibway Nation was that a community vote on the project would not happen until next year.

In it's statement, SON indicated that the conversation is ongoing, "We will continue to thoroughly examine the potential impacts and benefits that hosting such a project may have on our Territory and on our People through our independent process, as the rights holders of the Territory and as an authority within our Territory. We will continue to work with NWMO in good faith to ensure mutual commitments in this regard are upheld."

Their complete statement is available below. 

The Joint Chiefs and Councils statement on South Bruce’s willingness to host the NWMO Deep Geological Repos... by ctvnewslondon on Scribd