next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
What*s Happening INFORMATION BULLETIN For the most up-to-date information, check our website: www.ndpcaucus.ns.ca DATE: April 8, 1999 RE: Debate on NDP*s Bill 94 - An Act to Prohibit the Transportation of Weapons-Grade Plutonium in or through Nova Scotia LIBERALS SAY, *DON*T WORRY ABOUT WEAPONS GRADE PLUTONIUM COMING INTO N.S. -- IT*S SAFE* On Wednesday, April 7, 1999 the House considered the NDP*s bill to ban the transportation of weapons grade plutonium from the U.S. and Russia through Nova Scotia. Robert Chisholm, who tabled the bill, reminded the House that the bill was tabled in response to the federal government*s intention to import weapons grade plutonium into Canada. Under that plan, the Port of Halifax is a potential entry point for the material, which would then be shipped by road or rail to Ontario where it will be burned at the Chalk River nuclear reactor. Mr. Chisholm also noted, *The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has examined this question and there is not enough evidence to suggest that this process will, in fact, do what it is that AECL claims it will. Only a tiny portion of the plutonium is eliminated in this process, Mr. Speaker, meaning that Canada will be left with 40 per cent to 70 per cent of the original amount and we will still need to find a solution to the nuclear waste disposal problem. I think it is important, given the seriousness of this issue, that we understand, that we put up whatever protections we can as a provincial jurisdiction and that we understand what it is that could potentially happen, instead of all of a sudden we get a report that there are unmarked vans travelling through Nova Scotia from the U.S., full of weapons-grade plutonium. There has been no discussion in public about this issue. There has been no discussion publicly about this happening and yet they have already approved the test burns going on in Ontario, Mr. Speaker. They are already beginning to make commitments. The public is worried and we have to do something about it to protect Nova Scotians from this hazard and that is why we introduced this bill.* Don Chard, the NDP Environment critic, noted that safety and security are real problems, since plutonium is a highly valued military commodity. Transportation Minister Cliff Huskilson and Environment Minister Michel Samson spoke to the bill for the Liberals. However, the government was more interested in shooting down an NDP bill than discussing the safety of Nova Scotians. Their take on plutonium in Nova Scotia is *What, me worry?* The following excerpt from Hansard clearly indicates the seriousness with which the Liberals are treating the possibility of Nova Scotians being exposed to weapons grade plutonium: Michel Samson: Mr. Speaker, that is an insult to the intelligence of Nova Scotians. I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to go to one of our many leading institutions, our universities, and sit there and tell them, look, this issue came before me Nova Scotians and what was my decision? Did I study it? Did I wait for a proposal? I said no. Ban it and play fear-mongering. Play on the fears of the people. Mock their intelligence and say, let's ban it. Let's not study it. Let's not see what we, as Nova Scotians, can do to help a global problem. Let's not assess it and let's not wait for a concrete proposal, ban it. Don't do anything. Don't study it. Don't look at it. On pure ignorance and on pure fear-mongering and pure politics, let's pass the bill, which is only one page long, which is a disgrace to Nova Scotians. The following excerpt from the statement of Don Chard better demonstrates the true aim of the NDP bill, and its importance: MR. DONALD CHARD: Mr. Speaker, this has, indeed, been an interesting debate. Unfortunately, what we have heard from the government side and from the Third Party has sounded too much like the character in Shakespeare who spoke full of sound and fury but signifying absolutely nothing. Mr. Speaker, I can recall in the relatively short period of time that I have lived in Halifax, two gypsum carriers that in spite of a radar navigation system, ran aground. One of them ran right into Georges Island, which houses one of the radar domes that controls the system. The other one was so badly damaged on a shoal off McNab's Island that it had to be scrapped. We have also seen oil drilling rigs break loose from their moorings and nearly take out the Macdonald Bridge. We have seen Navy vessels get stranded on the shoals off Point Pleasant Park. Yet it is suggested to us that we can handle this, we can take the 50 to 500 tons of plutonium that Russia would be shipping to North America if the test this year suggests that either Chalk River or the Bruce nuclear power plant can deal with these materials. I would also like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we have not really dealt with what is going on here. I would suggest that this government is extremely embarrassed at the lack of knowledge it has demonstrated on this issue. Mr. Speaker, this issue was explored two nights in succession on local television, before a member of the Third Party raised it in the House, only to get a response from the government that they really didn't know what this was all about. Well, why don't they know what this is all about? This scheme has been in the works for years and years. It is not good enough for this government to sit back and say, well, we don't really know what is involved here. Why don't they know? Why aren't they taking steps to deal with this? Why haven't they consulted with the federal government? Why haven't they responded to the fact that as the Leader of the Official Opposition has mentioned, this scheme was rejected by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons, which said that this is an unwarranted risk. There is absolutely no question that it is a risk. One individual who has spoken on this issue to the Foreign Affairs Committee, Professor Franklyn Griffiths of the University of Toronto has pointed out that the proposal raises a number of serious risks; these related to the integrity of the Canadian environmental and regulatory process which, as he suggested, will be very severely strained if this proposal goes through and we actually have to conduct an assessment on what will be, as he put it, an utterly unique international security proposition. Why doesn't the government want to deal with this? Could it be that it is embarrassed by the fact that this scheme represents a massive subsidy for the nuclear power industry in this country, at a time when the federal government is withdrawing its support for the coal industry in Nova Scotia? (Applause) In spite of the pious words from the member for the Third Party who has spoken on this, about the noble intentions of the Canadian Government to do its share in dealing with nuclear disarmament, one has to ask why, with all of their capability in western Europe, aren't the Russian materials, being disposed of there? The fact is that they recognize that their industry would have problems dealing with this. The fact is that in the early 1970's there was a major scandal revealed over the British nuclear reprocessing plant which was dumping nuclear materials in the Irish Sea under a Tory Government in that country. It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that some years ago this proposal was discussed with the Russians and it was reported that they seemed pleased with the symmetry of the proposal to bring th