ELECTION 2026

Councillor Candidates

Adam Briggs

Answer: No

Additional comments:

I feel people in this area are having a hard time keeping up with the rates of bills as it is. When it comes down infrastructure upgrades whether that be roads, power related or other areas it always comes at a cost. We would have to ensure the proper funding is in place so we do not place that burden onto tax payers

Leslie Mahoney

Answer: Undecided

Additional comments:

Although the question is presumptive of outcome, I don’t know enough about the project to be nudged towards the negative conclusion it is suggesting. I have read the reports, and have been considering several arguments.
OPG argues that the property sits near existing infrastructure, and next to Lake Ontario, which it uses to cool the steam (after it passes through turbines) condensing it back into water. While that may seem like a feasible option, nuclear power is not a quickly deployed system and Ontario’s energy demands are growing quickly. Our energy security comes into question when we consider that the enriched uranium fuel that would be required, is imported from the U.S. There are plans in action to phase-out our gas-fired power plants and the addition of a Nuclear power plant will slow down the efforts already made. 70% of the the fuel used in those plants is imported from the U.S.
According to Time-to-Triple-Renewables-Report: In 2025, solar power usage rose by 30% and wind power usage by 8%, while Nuclear power usage dropped from 17.5% in 1996 to 9% in 2024.
Renewable power sources like solar and wind are gaining in ease of usability, while energy storage solutions are solving the problem of consistent availability. France and the UK, are already implementing free EV charging in exchange for the power grid to be able to draw back energy to cover shortages during peak-use hours.

Falling costs for solar, wind and battery storage mean that residents would be able to rely on cost-steady electricity bills that would be 1/3 the cost of nuclear-produced energy.

At this time, Canada has no approved long-term storage solutions for spent nuclear fuel. When I consider the implication of storing even more radioactive waste in our country, I want to turn my focus onto using renewable energy sources. However, there is much more to consider. The environmental impact of wind power on birds and bats has proven negative. Environmentalists are now working towards systems that can be shut down during key migratory weeks and at certain times of the evening, when these species are likely to be moving.

I have yet to gather enough reliable information to speak to the effect that either of these options would have on Ontario. The prospect of good employment, energy security, steady costs, and environmental impact are worth considering, so I will continue my research and keep an eye on the project as it moves forward.

Leslie Mahoney

Meagan McLean

Answer: Undecided

Additional comments:

The wording of the information and question assumes a conclusion we do not have enough information to make.
OPG is looking at a nuclear development of up to 10,000 MW at Wesleyville, but the final size hasn’t been determined, the reactor technology hasn’t been selected, and the project is still in the federal impact assessment process.
We also don’t have a final cost or a clear answer on the impact on electricity rates.
Given that, I am not comfortable stating as fact that this project “will drive up electricity rates” when we don’t have the actual numbers yet.
That doesn’t mean cost is not a concern. A development of this scale would be an enormous undertaking. Before I could support or oppose it, I would want to see the actual cost, how it would be financed, what ratepayers would be on the hook for, how the inevitable nuclear waste would be handled, what the environmental impacts would be, how long construction would take, and what a project of this size would mean for infrastructure and communities throughout the county.
I would also expect to see a fair comparison of alternatives.
I generally support renewable energy expansion, storage, and energy efficiency, especially when those options can provide electricity faster and more affordably. But Ontario is also expecting electricity demand to increase significantly over the next few decades, and the IESO isn’t planning for a future powered by one thing. Nuclear, renewables, storage, hydro, and energy efficiency all have roles in Ontario’s current long-term planning.
I am not convinced this needs to be an either/or conversation.
Wesleyville is also already owned by OPG, zoned for electricity generation, and located near major transmission infrastructure. So I don’t think looking at nuclear generation there is inherently unreasonable.
However, looking at it and deciding we should spend tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars are two very different things.
This project could have enormous economic, environmental, and infrastructure impacts on Northumberland County for generations. I want the decision to be based on evidence, not assumptions from people who have already decided nuclear is either the greatest idea in the world or the worst.
Once I have a chance to see the actual project, the actual cost, what happens to electricity rates, the environmental impacts, and what alternatives are available, including what they would cost and realistically produce, then I can tell you whether I think nuclear at Wesleyville is a good use of the site.

Jana Reid

Answer: No

Additional comments:

I am not a supporter of Nuclear power to begin with, and I believe no Nuclear facility should be located close to a city, nor such a large body of water that services so many. As it stands, Trent Hills is paying in part for a second river crossing,( 56 million at present and the design is still undetermined.), a new hospital and this. It’s no wonder people are uprooting and moving to the East Coast! With the proposed future population in Trent Hills, being comprised of 30% senior residents, how will they pay for this on their limited pension?