Willing Host Community? Says Who?

The biggest hurdle facing Bruce Power’s bid to build a nuclear power plant in Nanticoke is to obtain the consent of the community. Yet, this is not what you’ll hear if you ask most of our local councillors. Back in 2007 when the idea of a nuclear plant seemed far-fetched to those few Haldimand and Norfolk residents who were aware of such rumblings, both Haldimand and Norfolk County councils passed unanimous resolutions endorsing an Enviroinmental Assessment (EA) for a nuclear plant in Nanticoke.

Despite the fact that 97% of EAs result in an approval, Norfolk’s mayor and some of Norfolk’s councillors feel they’ve absolved themselves of responsibility by endorsing the assessment. Most are adamant that their endorsement of an EA did not indicate that they were endorsing the construction of a plant or that they were indicating that Norfolk is a willing host. Yet, Bruce Power has been portraying the endorsements for an EA as indications that they’d jumped their biggest hurdle. Here’s how they categorize those resolutions:

Both Haldimand County and Norfolk County have indicated they were willing host communities through resolutions to the Minister of Energy favouring proceeding with an environmental assessment at this time.
(Pages 27 and 28, http://www.brucepower.com/uc/GetDocument.aspx?docid=2817 )

There’s nothing open to interpretation in that statement. Bruce is stating that the endorsements of the EA indicate willing host communities. It’s plain English.

Yet, when the issue of this blatant misrepresentation of Norfolk council’s resolution was brought up at a council meeting, Deputy Mayor Jim Oliver stated that he is “not offended by any information that’s been published.” Furthermore, he said “I don’t interpret the material as implying we are willing hosts.”

They’re not implying it. They’re stating it outright. How can the statement be open to interpretation? It’s very clear and nobody needs read anything into it that isn’t there in black and white.

Yet, when contacted by the Simcoe Reformer for a comment on the matter, Bruce Power spokesman Steve Cannon said, “I think they’re reading into it a bit too much.”

No. Anyone with a grasp of simple English can understand exactly what the statement says.

Why is the “willing host community” label so important? It’s simple. Nearly all EAs result in a recommendation for the projects to be approved. The EA process may cost $30 million but it will not stand in the way of getting the plant built. Indeed, spending $30 million ensures that all environmental obstacle addressed by the EA will be surmounted.

One thing that can stop the juggernaut is an unwilling host community. That is why it was so important for Bruce Power to declare victory before the battle had even begun.

In talking with local residents, gathering some of the 1400+ signatures on the “Not so fast” petition and making presentations to local groups, I’ve found myself in agreement with MPP Toby Barrett. Barrett has surveyed both Haldimand and Norfolk counties three times over the past three years and his surveys indicate that 76% of residents are opposed to a nuclear plant in Nanticoke. That sure doesn’t sound like a willing host community to me.

Threat of Nuclear Plant is Hurting Local Economy

On June 28, the Ontario government suspended plans to deploy two new nuclear reactors at Darlington. Even with a bottomless public purse, the costs were deemed too high.

On July 1, the largest energy company in the US, Exelon, dropped plans to build a two-reactor plant in Victoria, Texas. The costs were too high.

In April, another large American energy company, St. Louis-based AmerenUE suspended work on a reactor in Missouri. Costs were too high.

On July 2, New Brunswick revealed that the refurbishment project at the Point LePreau nuclear station was eight months behind schedule and more than $100 million over budget.

On June 8, secret papers left at a CTV studio revealed that the refurbishment of reactors at Bruce Power’s Kincardine plant is over a year behind schedule and between $300 and $600 million over budget.

On June 11, Prime Minister Harper’s chief spokesman, Kory Teneycke, said Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. is a “dysfunctional,” $30-billion “sinkhole” that will not get any more federal funding.

As of July 1, Areva’s Olkiluoto nuclear energy project in Finland was 42 months behind schedule and 60% over budget.

The new generation of nuclear development is proving to be a lot like the previous generation: too costly to deserve either private or public investment. The much-touted “nuclear renaissance” is proving to be just so much hype from a highly polished and well-heeled sales force intent on lobbying for a dubious, if not absurd, new round of fruitless investment.

Here in Haldimand-Norfolk, we are being lured with the same empty hook. Bruce Power’s bid to build a two-reactor plant with private capital is every bit as financially ill-advised as the aforementioned projects. The pie-in-the-sky promise of 1000 high paid jobs is as believable as the promises that the new generation of reactors would be built on time and on budget.

About three weeks ago, Ontario Energy Minister George Smitherman reiterated in no uncertain terms that Ontario is not supporting Bruce’s Nanticoke proposal and that the province has no intention of purchasing any electricity that might be created at a possible Nanticoke nuclear plant. We simply do not need it. Ontario already has a surplus of baseload nuclear energy and on over 200 occasions in 2009, we’ve actually paid industrial customers to use it… after we paid the nuclear plants to produce it.

Last week, a Bruce Power spokesperson told Saskatchewan residents that a nuclear plant could not be built in their province without the support and stability offered by a firm provincial government commitment. Indeed, no nuclear project has ever been built without massive taxpayer support.

Despite the lack of financial backing and the strong probability that no plant will ever be built at Nanticoke, Bruce Power continues to press on with the Environmental Assessment it began last November. The nuclear Sword of Damocles continues to damage our local economy by scaring away potential new residents and driving away long time citizens.

Surveys taken by MPP Toby Barrett over a three year period indicate that 76% of H-N residents are opposed to a new nuclear plant. New residents echo the same sentiment over and over; if they’d been aware that a nuclear plant was being proposed 6 km from downtown Port Dover, they would have bought their retirement homes elsewhere. Instead of helping our local economy with future jobs, jobs, jobs, the threat of a nuclear plant is stifling growth and curtailing employment for our existing local tradesmen and businesses.

Both Bruce Power and Premier McGuinty have assured us that they will not pursue nuclear development in anything but a “willing host community”. We can permanently remove the growth-inhibiting threat of a nuclear plant by urging our municipality, through resolutions by Norfolk and Haldimand County Councils declaring that we are not a willing host.

Haldimand and Norfolk residents can contact their democratic representatives on county councils and tell them to remove this threat that is already damaging our local economy. The hollow promise of future jobs relies on nuclear investors being hoodwinked into investing here when they are dropping the nuclear hot potato everywhere else. If it won’t happen, let’s make it clear to real investors that were driving unprecedented growth in Port Dover before the spectre of a nuclear plant loomed on the horizon.

Petition Seeks Moratorium on Nanticoke Nuclear Proposal

For immediate release: November 18, 2008

Grand Erie Energy Quest, a grassroots group of concerned residents of Haldimand and Norfolk Counties, is launching a petition requesting a moratorium on nuclear development in Nanticoke, Ontario.

Without any formal public consultation, the Municipal Councils of Haldimand and Norfolk Counties have endorsed a Bruce Power proposal for an Environmental Assessment. Resolutions passed by both councils in the spring of 2007 have supported the first stage in Bruce’s proposal to build two nuclear reactors at Nanticoke.

The group’s petition requests that there be a complete moratorium on nuclear development until the issues of contamination, costs, security, and public consultation are adequately addressed.

The lack of public consultation by local municipalities is one of the main points addressed by the petition. Haldimand Council has refused three times to approve a citizen’s delegation regarding concerns about the nuclear proposal.

In addition to the problem of a lack of public input, citizens’ worries revolve around issues such as radioactive waste, cost overruns, social and biotic impact. Some residents feel that competitive alternatives to nuclear power have not been adequately addressed or explored by local political leaders.

“A big concern is that we feel that we’ve been completely left out of a decision-making process that will affect not only our own lives but the lives of our grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren,” said Jim Elve, one of the authors of the petition. “Now that Bruce Power has committed $30 million to the first stage of construction, the snowball is rolling downhill and it won’t be easy to stop.”

Copies of the petition will be available for signing at MPP Toby Barrett’s Energy Symposium in Jarvis this Thursday evening, November 20th.

– 30 –
For more information contact:

Grand Erie Energy Quest
Jim Elve – 519-443-8085 – P.O. Box 490, Waterford, ON N0E 1Y0 – email: jelve(at)jelve(dot)com
www.energyquest4nanticoke.ca

Nuclear Option for Nanticoke Moving Full Speed Ahead

Bruce Power is pushing forward with a request for a site preparation license to begin construction of a new nuclear plant with two reactors to be located next door to the existing Nanticoke coal-fired generating station. The application for a license will automatically trigger an Environmental Assessment (EA). Bruce Power is prepared to invest $30 million into the 3-year assessment process.

Haldimand blogger Donna Pitcher has been following the developments with interest and has a good blog post today.

Haldimand Council over the past two years has taken their time as our “elected representatives” to meet with MP Diane Finley and Bruce Power but has denied us the residents our right to have our say! We were told it was premature. Now if I am not mistaken when council is together as a “whole” this is “official” business?

When I was asked about what Haldimand County Council could have done differently, I didn’t have a problem with a list of things they could have done to inform us and then ultimately ask us if we would join them (Council) in announcing that “We are a Willing Host”. I am sure that some of you could come up with more suggestions for council.

Here are a few things that could have been done;

Public Announcements! Every week Haldimand County has an ad in “every” local paper that is paid by our tax dollars!

Public Meetings! Haldimand County has public meetings in chambers on a regular basis in regards to “Development”, it is part of the process, is this not a major development?

Town Hall Meetings; Each council member could have taken the time to have their own town hall meetings, after all some did promise that if they were elected they would do this anyway!

An Insert in Our Tax Bills! This is a very cost effective way to inform the residents. Our tax bills are already sent out on a regular basis. Some of us even get them more often then others! One of these inserts could have been a simple “Ballot type Question“.

Now as we all are aware none of the above has taken place. Why? Well up until this news article came out I would have said that council didn’t want to hear what we had to say, but it seems that it is much deeper than that!

It looks like we have been given a “one way ticket“. All thanks to our duly elected Municipal Council Members!

Haldimand Council has a reputation for not listening to the local residents it purports to represent. Recently, there was a controversy over the sale of Haldimand Hydro without adequate consultation with stakeholders. Indeed, Donna’s blog was created just to address the lack of consultation by her elected representatives.

Norfolk Council has a similar problem and is facing a backlash over a decision to sell a major municipal asset, the Port Dover marina.

Both municipal councils have been courted by Bruce Power and Bruce has lobbied and hosted tours of its Kincardine facility. Negotiations have been obviously proceeding apace behind closed doors while citizens have been silenced.Donna Pitcher points us to a very informative article in the Dunnville Chronicle.

“We’ve always been told by the province that there wouldn’t be a nuclear facility built if a community was not a willing host,” said (Haldimand Councillor Buck) Sloat.

“We feel we are a willing host and the environmental assessment process will prove it one way or another,” he The county will have an opportunity for giving input but will have no decision making role.”

Huh? He feels we are a willing host? As Donna pointed out above, there are many ways our municipal councils could have attempted to determine just how much support the nuclear option enjoys. After doing no consultation whatsoever, we have our elected representatives determining the future of our region based on how they feel about it.

It’s not like residents opposed to the nuclear plant have not attempted to make their concerns heard. Cayuga resident Janet Fraser made three formal applications to appear before Haldimand Council to talk about the drawbacks of nuclear development. at eachj juncture, Janet was denied her application to make a citizen’s delegation to council. Finally, she was informed that her request was “premature.”

The big fiction here is that we citizens will get our say during the EA. Too late. If Bruce has decided it’s worth spending $30 million and applying for a license, the snowball is already rolling downhill. Local residents were denied a voice in the decision, so far. Local councils have ridden roughshod over the democratic process and had no mandate to endorse nuclear investment in Nanticoke without first determining that there is a “willing host” community.

Along with Janet Fraser and a few other concerned Haldimand and Norfolk county residents, I have been involved with a grassroots group called Grand Erie Energy Quest. We have a website where we’ve posted literally hundreds of articles and links on matters concerning nuclear development. We have an email mailing list and we’ve been keeping ourselves up to date on a wide range of nuclear issues.

Anecdotally, I’ve had conversations with literally dozens of local residents about the possibility of a nuclear plant replacing the coal-fired Nanticoke station. I would peg the anti-nuke side at about 90% of the people I’ve spoken to directly. I’ve actually found it difficult to get anyone to say they are all in favour of the nuke plant. Scientific polling? Not by a long stretch but at least as accurate as Buck Sloat’s gut feeling.

War Resisters Day of Action Today, June 2nd

“Canada should be welcoming Americans who flee to our country to escape Bush’s illegal war in Iraq,” said Green Party leader Elizabeth May. “In accordance with a motion passed by the House of Commons Citizenship and Immigration Committee, conscientious objectors and their immediate family members should be granted refuge in Canada.”

GPC Press Release, May 23, 2008

Hear! Hear!

One of the six fundamental Green principles is non-violence: “We declare our commitment to non-violence and strive for a culture of peace and cooperation between states.”

Parliament votes tomorrow on an historic motion to support U.S. Iraq War Resisters in Canada.

The War Resisters Support Campaign has declared today, June 2^nd as War Resisters Day of Action. Visit www.resisters.ca for info on signing a petition and writing to your MP as well as to Immigration Minister Diane Finley. In my case, that’s the same person.

The pacifist stance of the Green Party is an important reason why I’m a member. This issue touches me, personally. In 1970, I was a Vietnam War resister. Born and raised in New York State, my mother was a Canadian from Port Dover, Ontario. I was drafted to serve in the US military in September 1970. Instead, I moved to Canada and was welcomed by my Canadian relatives. It was probably the most life-changing and positive decision of my life. I was only 21.

Canada has a rich history of welcoming and providing a safe haven for war resisters. I was very proud to become a Canadian citizen. Lately, I’ve not been very proud of the performance of our federal government on issues like the Khadr case, anti-death penalty advocacy, offensive operations in Afghanistan and, now, this capitulation to US pressure to deport war resisters.

Let’s do the right thing.

Elizabeth May Asks Tough Questions on AECL, NRU, Maples, Chalk River

Green Party leader Elizabeth May posted a blog item yesterday dealing with the recent announcement that Atomic Energy Canada Limited (AECL) is scrapping the development of the Maple 1 and Maple 2 reactors. The reactors were intended to replace the 50 year old NRU at Chalk River. The NRU was at the centre of last December’s “Isotope Crisis” and reportedly supplies 40% of the world’s supply of medical isotopes used in cancer tests.

Ms. May is asking some tough questions.

For any enterprising journalists who want to build on this mess with some content-rich investigations, here are a few questions that beg for response:

1. Why was CNSC President Linda Keen fired from her role and yet no one at AECL is apparently facing repercussions for this waste of hundreds of millions of taxpayers dollars?
2. Urgent question to the Government of New Brunswick. Are you sure you want to buy a reactor from AECL that so far is only at the design stage? That’s what the MAPLE reactors were. Reactors on paper. Why would anyone have confidence in AECL? Why go with a nuclear reactor when New Brunswick has so many other options?
3. What are the contingency plans for the next NRU malfunction/shut-down? A malfunction or shut down is not a hypothetical. It is a certainty. Where will the medical community get its diagnostic radio-nuclides? Chalk River’s NRU reactor makes about 40% of the world’s supply of Molybdenum 99. Isn’t it time to start alerting the producers of the other 60% that they would be well advised to boost production, just in case? Or is government more concerned with the commercial reputation of MDS Nordion and AECL than with the security of supply of Molybdenum 99?

The Chalk River nuclear situation has been mis-handled for decades, but to Gary Lunn and the Harper government go the unique distinction of shooting (and firing) the messenger while rewarding the agency which has so blithely failed to serve the public interest.
(Source)

The rest of Elizabeth’s blog post is a good read, too. In 2006, the Government of Canada entered into a 40 year contract under which we are obligated to supply medical isotopes to MDS Nordion, a for-profit corporation that markets isotopes to healthcare providers. The NRU is limping along and is 10 years past its “best before” date. The Maples were to have replaced NRU in 2000.

How are we going to honour that 40 year contract with NRU?

Commenter Erich Jacoby-Hawkins adds two interesting points. He notes that it is not only New Brunswick that should be skeptical of AECL but also Ontario, which has earmarked $40 billion for nuclear development. Erich also points out that the NRU needs Highly Enriched Uranium to manufacture its isotopes. This is bomb-grade uranium which must currently be imported from the US under a special export permit.

Dion’s Carbon Tax

Unless you’ve been living in a cave or off on another planet for the past week, you’ve been hearing about “Dion’s carbon tax.” Stephane Dion, who has previously spoken out against a carbon tax and made assurances that he would not impose a carbon tax, has apparently changed his tune. Now that Dion has embraced this long time tenet of Green Party fiscal policy, he’s being conferred ownership of the idea. It’s “Dion’s” carbon tax, according to the media.

So, maybe a few Greens might feel like Dion “stole” a top plank in our platform. What can be done about it? Even if we stage an all-out campaign to remind people that the Green Party has embraced a carbon tax for years, it’s doubtful the media or anyone else will cease and desist with the label or the notion that the carbon tax is Dion’s baby.

Already, even before any hard details of the Dion version have been disclosed, the debate is raging. Nearly all of CTV’s Question Period on Sunday morning was devoted to the carbon tax. The Canadian blogosphere and op-ed pages are abuzz with pro’s and con’s. The parties are staking out their positions. We hear that Dion plans to spend the summer getting the word out and selling “his” carbon tax.

Fine. Let him sell it. Let the Grits sell Green Party policy. There are more of them, they’ve got more money than we do and they seem to be prepared to do the hard selling. Either we sold it to them or they took it from us. Now, they can sell it to Canadians and I propose that they get not too much help from us. They’ve got everyone from Andrew Coyne to David Suzuki in their corner, after all.

With all due respect to and notwithstanding Elizabeth’s unique non-compete deal with Dion; there are 306 ridings in which Greens will be competing with Liberals. Even though they have embraced one of our big policies, they are not the Green Party. At least one prominent Canadian Liberal blogger has divvied up the prospective vote and thinks the Liberals can use the carbon tax to siphon off 50% of our Green Party support.

Not long ago, Elizabeth posted an excellent blog item defining the uniqueness of the Green Party. She listed 31 policies that were GPC-only. I’m taking the liberty of quoting those here.

1. A carbon tax, an indispensable step in getting the prices right in energy choices and allowing reduced income and payroll taxes.
2. “Income-splitting” to reduce the tax burden on middle class couples.
3. A continuing role in Afghanistan but within a transformed U.N. mission, legalizing and regulating the poppy trade for medicinal use, and bringing in more Islamic nations into the peace-keeping, security efforts in Southern Afghanistan through the U.N.
4. An end to asbestos mining and export to developing countries. (truly outrageous that for all the talk about asbestos, only the Green Party is prepared to call for banning mining and export.)
5. The phase out of nuclear power and uranium mining.
6. The reform of the Divorce Act to make family law less of a battleground.
7. To launch a national dialogue toward a Guaranteed Livable Income.
8. The legalization of marijuana, to be controlled, regulated and taxed.
9. The six month notice to get out of NAFTA with immediate re-negotiation of key provisions.
10. Support for open source software and net neutrality.
11. National shift to GE-free, organic agriculture and regional food self-sufficiency.
12. A moratorium on new projects in the tar sands.
13. Creation of a federal Department of Tourism
14. Protect drinking water at its source (no other party will do this–the BC NDP jailed citizens for trying to protect drinking water).
15. Amend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to enshrine the right of Canadians to an ecological heritage that includes breathable air and drinkable water.
16. Pass federal legislation to prohibit bulk water exports.
17. Establish a National Parks completion budget; protect at least half of Canada’s Boreal Forest in a network of large interconnected protected areas as called for in the 2003 Boreal Forest Conservation Framework
18. Zero waste, including laws requiring lifetime stewardship of products
19. A cancer prevention strategy that includes a toxic-free Canada — taxing toxics and pollution; ending the production and use of the most dangerous toxic chemicals by 2012.
20. Pan-Arctic waste management strategy.
21. Shift funding from mega-freeway projects like Pacific Gateway that encourage urban sprawl and use the funds instead for public transit.
22. Implement Genuine Progress Indicator (or Index of Well-being)
23. Enact “living will” legislation to give person the choice to die with dignity.
24. Explore establishing a new crown corporation to bulk purchase and dispense generic drugs – to bring down the costs of pharmacare.
25. Pass pay equity legislation; immediately implement full pay equity for women employed in the federal sector and develop tax incentives for companies to meet gender and pay equity.
26. Press professional societies to remove unnecessary barriers recognizing the professional credentials of immigrants.
27. Canada must support and implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
28. Revamp CIDA to focus on developing community-based green economies, poverty alleviation and programmes to combat and adapt to climate change.
29. Declare Canada a nuclear free zone.
30. Reform WTO, IMF and the World Bank, placing these under the authority of the UN General Assembly and shift the direction of international trade away from free trade to fair trade.
31. Scrap the SPP (Security and Prosperity Partnership).

And they call us a one-issue party!

We can strike the top item off of the list of uniquely GPC policies but there’s plenty more meat on that bone. There is a wide gulf between Green Party policies and Liberal policies despite attempts by opposition parties to portray us as peas in a pod. We need to be ready to define the differences and convince voters that there is a lot more to the GPC than one purloined policy.

The so-called Red-Green deal applies to one riding only. It indicates a high level of mutual respect between the two party leaders. Neither Red-Green nor Dion’s carbon tax change the fact that there is myriad of issues on which GPC and the LPC are diametrically opposed. Dion is not pulling any punches when he woos would-be Green voters. Here’s a quote from the March 17th by-elections.

In a news conference, Dion acknowledged the Green party’s gains in Vancouver Quadra.

“It took a lot of our vote. And to me it’s a very welcome challenge. It’s for us to show that the best way to be green at the next general election will be to vote red.”

(Source CBC)

The carbon tax is how he’s attempting to show that. A cynical type might think Dion is merely fishing for GPC votes with his new conversion. Liberal commitment and follow-through are not exactly their strong points, so it will be up to environmentally conscious and concerned voters to determine if Dion’s embrace of a carbon tax is sincere or merely a vote grab aimed at getting half of the GPC’s 10% support. Thankfully, now that the Liberals have adopted this policy, we can count on the Conservatives and NDP to remind voters of Dion’s flip-flop and those “13 years of Liberal inaction” we’re always hearing about. Even if Dion can successfully sell the idea of a carbon tax, he still needs to convince voters that he’ll “get it done.”

While the old-liners are busily tossing mud at one another, we can remind voters, when necessary, that a carbon tax has been central to GPC policy for years (no flip-flopping) and that it is just one good Green policy among many.

Some of our unique positions will resonate better than others and some may appeal strongly to specific regions. Here in Haldimand-Norfolk, for example, we have the Nanticoke generating station. The idea of building a new nuclear plant to replace the coal-fired station is being actively pursued by local councils and Bruce Power. Our unique stand on nuclear power will win votes in this riding.

In certain ridings, our marijuana policy may be the clincher. In manufacturing regions, our position on the SPP, NAFTA and our push for green collar job creation may be the best selling points.

If Dion is able to sell his new policy to voters, he’ll have pre-sold one Green Party policy. We can thank him for that and proceed to sell the other ones ourselves.

This article was also posted to my Green Party blog.

Food Crisis Blame Game: Plenty to Go Around

As the world slips into a food crisis of epic proportions, analysts, politicians, producers, investors, purveyors, scientists, economists and pundits are weighing in with opinions on causes. Faced with the morbid spectacle of millions upon millions of deaths by starvation, many special interest sectors are eager to point the finger of blame. Those fingers are generally not pointed back at themselves.

Who are the blameholders? It depends on who is doing the blaming.

George Bush threw an additional $770 million at the problem just last week. In doing so, he pointed the finger of blame squarely at India’s rising middle class and their newfound ability to add a bit of meat to their still largely vegetarian diet. As one might expect, Bush’s finger-pointing isn’t going down too well in India.

The Indian press is pointing the finger of blame right back at the US and its push for biofuels. Indeed, 30% of the 2008 US corn crop is destined for ethanol production. Government-mandated ethanol content in auto fuel has, unarguably, been one factor in the rise of global grain prices.