Resident

"No taxation without representation."

I do not support the insertion of nuclear waste into the ground around which I live. I live in Dryden and to this point residents of Dryden have not been asked their opinion of the project. This is wrong.Both reserves have had their say as well as Igance a village, whos's water would not be effected by any failure at the site, as they are up stream of he project.

Regardless of any deal signed by our city hall the residents of Dryden should have a opportunity to cast their votes either in favour or in opposition to the project. We pay taxes. We have not been asked to vote on the matter: this is wrong.

This unproven project, not demonstrated in a working model  in any other durisdiction or municipality, comes to us with no financial or environmental protection in case of failure. In case of an accident or leak at the site, what compensation is being offered to the residents? I suggest our properties will be worth nothing in the aftermath of an accident as there is no remediation available for such a circumstance. We will become the " terminal" location for the project and it's potential failure. Why is there not a remote site selected straight north of the waste production? Why is government willing to allow potential waste leakage or fall out to travel cross country to Lake Winnipeg? If there is a site to be chosen it should be in a remote location adjacent to the ocean, not in the middle of the continent. We should not be the site of this hazardous waste material because it is convenient for the government. We live here. Take it somewhere else.

With respect to transportation of the waste, from Bruce to here, the prospect is outrageous. In the past nuclear waste was processed or stored at the site of its production. The risks have been understood to be too great. I believe nothing has changed in this regard. Nuclear waste should not be travelling through all the communities on its way here on Highways that are clearly not safe enough. The distance being considered is roughly the same as travelling from the Manitoba border to Calgary, to a site that is home to two major railway lines, the Tans Canada highway, the trans Canada pipeline, on highways that are regularly closed in the winter to dangerous conditions. For example the section of highway between Kenora and Vermillion Bay is considered to be the 5th most dangerous in Canada ( as per the Globe & Mail). It would be the route for waste transported from Manitoba's reactor located at Pinawa.

I noticed in the purposed project details, that AECL will not be monitoring the project. Why is the Federal Government's crown corporation not given the responsibility of monitoring all the going's on at the site? The idea that this project could be considered and we local people are not participating in it's monitoring and the government's own agency designed to protect us from unsafe practices and conditions is wrong. The self monitoring purposed by the North West organization leading the project is not acceptable. The AECL may have started the project to investigate the project but we are told they will not be part of any on going monitoring: this is wrong and highly suspicious.

I think that this purposed project is not for the greater good or in the interest of the majority of people who live here. There are a few people who would undoubtedly stand to make money from from the project, but not the the rest of us: not the majority of us. 
My argument is not for more money.

My argument is that it is a unproven technology. That the risks fall disproportionately on a large number of people and the benefits to very few. We live here, we don't want it. There are remote areas of Canada with few or no people adjacent to Hudson Bay. 
 

Finally, given the present status of the free trade agreement, what makes any body think we won't be forced to take waste from the states? They don't have a repository. Who will decide what levels of waste are safe? What will the effects be of over saturation of the site?

Remember Grassy Narrows? They told us that it was looked after and safe. We know that no one monitored the river for years and that pollution from the plant still pollutes the water way.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on this issue.