3 forwarded ELECTION messages...

Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 07:39:40 -0400 (AST)
From: Paul A Falvo <pfalvo@chebucto.ns.ca>
To: Sustainable Maritimes <sust-mar@chebucto.ns.ca>
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: <sust-mar-mml-owner@chebucto.ns.ca>

next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects


1. Jan Slakov: MOX (nuclear reactor fuel)
2. Peter Davison: petition for a national referendum on forcing Stockwell
		Day to change his name to "Doris"
3. John Pearce: transportation policy of several federal Parties

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:	jslakov@TartanNET.ns.ca (Jan Slakov)

Dear Sust-Mar list, Climate Change Caucus and others,

I've never met Gordon Edwards but I greatly admire his work. Canada's
support for the nuclear industry is truly scandalous. (We SPEND huge amounts
of money promoting a technology that is unsalable in democratic countries.
So we end up selling to corrupt dictators and sometimes even bribes have
been involved.)

all the best, Jan
**********************************************
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 00:19:23 -0800
To: earth@islandnet.com
From: Gordon Edwards <ccnr@web.net> (by way of Rycroft & Pringle
<rycroft@islandnet.com>)
Subject: Earth/Peace.ca-- Info on the MOX project

Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 04:24:16 -0500
From: Gordon Edwards <ccnr@web.net>
Organization: CCNR/RSN

Hello Joan Russow. [Leader of the Green Party of Canada]

Best of luck in your election campaign efforts.

I was tonight telephoned by two of the Green candidates in Quebec,
both of whom were referred to me by Judy Berlyn: Lorraine Craig
in Verdun, and Eric Squire. They told me you are coming to
Quebec and that you are also looking for info on the MOX project.

The Chretien government has made a policy decision to promote
the selling of CANDU reactors abroad as a way for Canada to meet its
international commitments re greenhouse warming. In other words,
Canadaand a few other nuclear bullies are going to international
meetings on greenhouse warming and lobbying very hard for nuclear 
power. They want to be able to avoid their own domestic commitment 
to cutting green-house gas emissions by taking credit for nuclear 
reactors sold overseas reducing hypothetical greenhouse gas 
emissions in other countries that would have occurred had they not 
gone nuclear.

This is an act of political piracy as well as environmental
irresponsibility, for at no time has the Liberal party sought or 
got any kind of political mandate to promote nuclear power. They 
are looting the treasury to the tune of billion of dollars per shot 
to finance overseas sales of CANDU reactors, while trampling on 
Canada's own Environmental Assessment Act in the process, thus 
robbing Canadians of their political rights in two different ways 
at once.

Meanwhile, there is no reasonable likelihood that many of our client
countries have the financial or technical resources to maintain these
reactors in safe operating condition -- even Ontario Hydro, with all 
its expertise and access to capital, has been unable to do so. 
Think of Canada's nuclear clients of the past -- India, Pakistan, 
Argentina, Taiwan, Romania, Korea -- and of the present and future 
-- China, Turkey?, Russia?, Indonesia?, Egypt ? -- and ask yourself, 
what are they going to do when their aging CANDU reactors start 
falling apart? And how are they going to safely manage the high-level 
radioactive waste? And the decommissioning problems? AECL has 
estimated the cost of a geologic repository to be about $17
billion (probably much more!) -- and even that concept has not been 
found to be environmentally acceptable to Canadians. Are our client 
countries going to succeed where we have failed? Or are we going to 
be importing all this nuclear garbage back to Canada for a fee? 
Whose grandchildren are going to curse us more, ours or theirs?

Here at home, government policy continues to promote the plundering 
of Canada's uranium reserves at dirt-cheap prices by international
corporations strongly linked to the nuclear weapons business. 
Canadians are thus inheriting more than 200 million tons of 
dangerously radioactive uranium mining wastes which will remain 
dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years, so that a handful of 
companies can transfer Canada's uranium holdings out of the
country for next to nothing. And let us not forget that uranium 
is still the raw material from which all nuclear weapons are made 
-- either directly, through enrichment, or indirectly, through 
conversion into plutonium.

The hypocrisy surrounding Canada's anti-democratic efforts to import
tons of weapons plutonium from Russia and the US in the guise of 
reactor fuel (MOX) is so thick you could cut it with a knife. First 
of all, the Chretien cabinet says they want to help the world get 
rid of plutonium. Nothing could be further from the truth. So-called 
"civilian" stockpiles of plutonium are already larger than the
military stockpiles, and are growing much faster. All of this
"civilian" plutonium can be used for nuclear weapons if desired -- 
the designation is largely arbitrary. Yet Canada explicitly permits 
client countries who purchase Saskatchewan uranium to convert it into 
plutonium in nuclear reactors, to have that plutonium separated
from the rest of the radioactive garbage and to have it stockpiled 
as separated plutonium for future use. Because of Canada's bilateral 
"nuclear cooperation agreements", Canada must give explicit permission 
for this plutonium stockpiling to continue, which permission Canada 
provides unhesitatingly.

If Canada were truly concerned about the dangers of stockpiled
plutonium, it would have a coherent policy against ALL stockpiled 
plutonium. Instead, it is using the Russian military stockpile of 
50 tons of excess weapons plutonium (out of a total of 1300 tons of 
seperated plutonium world-wide) as an excuse and an opportunity
to demonstrate the CANDU reactor's ability to run on a full core of
plutonium-based fuel; this will be used in several ways (1) it will 
help to promote CANDU reactors overseas as a flexible energy source 
that can switch from uranium fuel to plutonium fuel at any future 
time, thus catering to client countries' military ambitions as well
as their desire for long-term energy self-security; (2) it will help 
the moribund nuclear power industries in Canada, Russia, and the US, 
to keep geriatric reactors operating domestically for the next quarter 
of a century, which is how long it will take to run through the 50 
tons of Russian and the 50 tons of American excess weapons plute; 
(3) it will pave the way for ultimate acceptance of Canada importing
a variety of nuclear wastes, including high-level nuclear waste, from
other countries as a way of "solving" overseas problems of radioactive 
legacies by saddling Canadians with those problems in perpetuity; 
(4) it will give Canada an even greater sense of self-importance in 
the international nuclear community, which already regards Canada as a 
model of how to anaesthetize its population and carry out unpopular
nuclear policies by simply never bringing them to public attention in
any official way, or at least not in any official way that has any 
teeth to arrest or reverse those policies.

Meanwhile, more than half of the plutonium used to fuel CANDU reactors
will remain in the spent fuel, and will remain weapons-usable for
countless millennia into the future, thus becoming a security burden 
as well as a toxic burden for our great grandchildren. Meanwhile, by 
the time a quarter century has elapsed, the amount of stockpiled 
plutonium in the world will be much larger than it is today,
because so-called civilian production has far outstrippedthe ostensibly
military production, and Canada will have helped to put the 
infrastructure in place to allow for the continual recycling of 
plutonium (the plutonium economy) that has been the dream of nuclear 
technologists since the dawn of the nuclear age. I agree with my
colleagues that this dream is pie-in-the-sky fantasy which is in fact
unrealizable, but nevertheless, enormous damage can be done along 
the way both in terms of world peace (spreading the bomb), 
unsustainable energy policies, emasculated environmental policies, 
and enormous additions to the national debt of numerous countries.

For all these reasons, Canadians must begin to speak out loud and 
clear for a policy of phasing out nuclear power and uranium mining 
in Canada. This of course requires ending all governmental subsidies 
that are aimed in any way at perpetuating and/or expanding the nuclear 
industry. It also involves Canada playing a leadership role 
internationally in calling for the outlawing of plutonium
production and use worldwide as a necessary pre-requisite for a world
without nuclear weapons, as Trudeau noted back in 1978 in his 
"strategy of suffocation" speech to the UN Special Session on 
Disarmament.

I'm tired and I wanna go to bed. I tried to pass on some specifically
Quebec-oriented nuclear issues to your colleague Eric Squire. 
Check out our web site at http://www.ccnr.org as well as that of the 
Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout at http://www.cnp.ca.

Good luck in your campaign.

Best wishes, Gordon Edwards.



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:	Peter Davison <PDavison@chebucto.ns.ca>
Subject: Too funny Petition Vote from This Hour has 22 minutes

I don't often circulate mass emails but this is to funny and a
delightful way to exercise the franchise.
Peter

Dear Fellow Canadians:

One of the recently leaked once-hidden agenda items in the Canadian
Alliance Party platform is the holding of referendums on any issue.
Apparently, when 350 000 people sign a petition, there can be a
referendum.

So, let's not even wait for the Alliance to take office.  If you want to
see Stockwell Day forced to change his first name to Doris, then go sign
this petition:

http://www.22minutes.com

This is really important. I think.
Exercise your rights as a Canadian!

PS Forward this on to all your friends!  ;)


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:	johnkaren pearce <jk.pearce@ns.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Environment & Transport Election Policy

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Paul's note: Ironically, they didn't ask the Green Party of Canada!
Environmentalists lobby political parties to take strong positions on the
environment. When one finally does, they ignore that Party. 
You don't have to: http://green.ca for Green Party platform.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-


The following is from Dr. John Bakker, retired professor of engineering
and transportation at U. of Alberta. (address at conclusion)
John Pearce, Transport 2000 Atlantic  902-469-3474

The following analysis was made after examining the various party
websites.
Sources for Election Platforms:
Liberals: www.liberal.ca and Redbook III downloaded in Word Format;
Canadian Alliance: www.canadianalliance.ca;
NDP: www.ndp.ca;
PCParty: www.pcparty.ca
The Bloc Quebecois does not run candidates in Western Canada, so I did
not
analize their website.

VIARail

Alliance Party - would eliminate subsidy (because it does not serve much

of
the country)and privatize VIA
Liberal Party - continue operating subsidy of $ 170 million per year
plus
an
investment of $ 402 million over 5 years for new equipment and
infrastructure. VIA is looking into commercialization options for some
VIA
operations.
NDP - It does not mention VIA in its platform. The NDP does mention
commuter
rail and transit as part of a national transportation strategy.
PC Party - It does not mention VIA in its platform

[Comment: The Liberals tried to privatize VIA, but found that the
proposals
received would require a greater subsidy then is now being paid. The UK
found that franchising doubled the subsidy, the increase was translated
into
dividends for the private companies. The UK has given up hope that
subsidies
in total can be reduced, because of additional investments needed in
infrastructure. The proposal by the Alliance Party would mean the
elimination of VIA. None of the parties addresses the fundamental
problem
of
public roads financed from taxes used by trucks and buses and private
infrastructure of the railways paid for by the railways. Also railways
pay
tax on infrastructure, while roads do not. The depreciation rates of
railways are different compared to other modes. In other words there is
no
level competitive playing field.]

Fuel Taxes and Sulphur in Fuel

Alliance Party - will eliminate "tax on tax" by cutting the GST on top
of
other federal and provincial fuel taxes, and will eliminate the
"temporary"
1.5 cent increase in federal excise tax ( savings of at least 3 cents
per
litre ) The Alliance will also cut the federal excise tax on diesel fuel

by
50% to help Canadians, including farmers and truckers, cope with high
fuel
costs. No mention of sulphur content in gasoline.
Liberal Party - will give relief through tax credits to low income
earners
and otherwise not interfere in the market. The liberals will insist that

the
oil-refining industry cut sulphur in gasoline by more than 90% in the
next
five years.
PC Party - would remove the GST on home heating fuels for a period of
one
year and would immediately suspend, for one year, the 1.5 cents/litre
surtax
on gasoline. The PC Party would encourage drivers to purchase low
sulphur
fuels by reducing the federal excise tax by four cents per litre on
those
fuels for a two-year period and it would remove the GST on home heating
fuels for a period of one year.
NDP - No or lower taxes for low income Canadians, otherwise no position.

Put
mandatory limits on sulphur content in gasoline.
[Comment: See pages 4 and 5 of Western Newsletter November 2000]

City Transit

Alliance Party - Subject not mentioned
Liberal Party - will work with provincial and municipal partners to help

improve public transit infrastrucure.
PC Party - Subject not mentioned
NDP - will invest as partners in integrated, co-ordinated and affordable

public transit and commuter rail service in and around our major urban
centres.

Highway Infrastructure

Alliance Party - wants modern infrastructure: open skies, open roads,
open
seas. One area where government investment can genuinely help economic
growth is infrastructure investment. To compete internationally, Canada
needs a modern integrated network of road, rail, air, and marine
transportation. We need to rebuild Canada's crumbling highway system,
and
especially develop trade corridors linking Canada with our NAFTA
partners,
the United States and Mexico.
Liberal Party -  will invest $600 million to improve provincial highways

in
first 5 years.
PC Party - A Progressive Conservative government would establish a
National
Highway Policy in partnership with the provinces to ensure the long-term

viability of our national highways.
NDP - says good roads and accessible transit are essential to strong,
healthy communities.

[Comment: None of the parties address the issue of who should pay for
infrastructure or alternate forms of transport that would relieve the
highway system. Roads are assumed to be free and should be provided from

taxes. All the parties see transport in one mode or another and fail to
see
that the heavy subsidies to highways have an impact on more efficient
forms
of transport. The relationship between emissions and trucks or the urban

car
is not seen in relation to less polluting forms of transport like trains

or
buses. That does not mean that there are safety cases for highway
improvements].

Airline Merger

Alliance Party - promotes choice and competition in Canada's airline
industry. The Canadian Alliance does not believe that a regulated
monopoly
is in the interests of Canadian business or consumers. The Alliance
would
negotiate a liberalized Air Services Agreement with the United States
and
other countries to increase foreign competition on Canadian routes.
Liberal Party - No position other then watch and see, regulate if
necessary.
PC Party - would broaden and enhance the Airport Capital Assistance
Program
(ACAP) to ensure community airports are sustainable.
NDP - No position

[Comment: Like in the bus industry profitable routes support remote
routes.
Competition on the profitable routes will make travel prohibitively
expensive on remote routes. Party leaders and the elite no doubt only
travel
on the main routes.]

Municipal Infrastructure

Alliance Party - Subject is not mentioned
Liberal Party - will invest $2 billion in new money to improve municipal

infrastructure - bringing the total investment in municipal
infrastructure
to more than $14 billion in 10 years.
PC Party - would ensure investment is channelled into green municipal
infrastructure to ensure safe drinking water and more effective wate
management systems.
NDP - want to set up a Clean Water Fund to upgrade municipal water and
wastewater treatment plants to improve water quality, water conservation

and
effluent management.

[Comment: The PC Party does not say where the investment comes from.]

Climate Change and Environment

Alliance Party - would rely on community-based stewardship programmes
and
stakeholder consensus. Where incentives or voluntary measures are
inadequate, it supports the regulation of critical habitat with fair
market-value compensation. The Alliance will encourage business and
industry
to develop conservation solutions and will recognize those who deliver
improvements in environmentally efficient production. The Alliance will
work
with the provinces in setting national standards and negotiating
international agreements.
Liberal Party - would promote increased energy efficiency in industry
and
the transportation system. It will  invest $135 million in programs that

help other countries reduce pollution affecting Canada
by committing nearly $1.1 billion in programs that develop innovative
technologies and fight global climate change. It will invest in the
development of new energy technology, such as fuel cells, and help
farmers
to reduce agricultural emissions through improved farming methods. It
will
increase Canada's use of renewable energy such as electricity from wind
and
ethanol from biomass. It will encourage consumers to buy more energy
efficient products by providing information and setting high product
standards.
P.C. Party - would introduce a Safe Air Act legislating acceptable air
quality standards for Canadians that would be harmonized with the
provinces
and territories. It would achieve sector-by-sector agreements with
industry
to set targets to reduce emissions of various types of pollutants. The
agreements would be negotiated and binding.
NDP - would assert a strong federal prescence in both environmental
monitoring and regulatory enforcement.  It would develop a national
water
strategy, including national safe water standards and a ban on bulk
water
exports. It would give environmental protection precedence over trade
agreements in trans-boundary movement of hazardous wastes and dangerous
goods.

[Comment: Actually the various policies are rich on motherhood
statements
and poor on specific solutions]

Grain Transportation

Alliance Party - will make the grain transportation system more
efficient
and cost-effective by introducing commercial accountability.
Liberal Party - will make Canada's grain-handling system more
competitive
and accountable.
P.C. Party - would open up the Canadian Rail System to competition by
and
between all competent railway operators to create a more competitive and

efficient rail transportation system that will benefit Canadian farmers.

It
would support the development of a commercial and contractual grain
handling
system.
NDP - This subject is not mentioned.

[Comment: The railways have either closed branch lines or converted
branch
lines into short lines. These short lines are entirely dependent on one
of
the two freight railways. What is needed as a minimum, that each
shortline
has running rights to reach the other freight railway, or the line to
Churchill. The proposals of Alliance and the Liberals are not clear]]

You may find these comparisons useful.

John
J. J. Bakker
4119 Reid Road, P.O. Box 247
Eagle Bay BC V0E 1T0
Phone: (250) 675-4779
Fax: (250) 675-4129




-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
The preceding message was posted on the Sustainable Maritimes
mailing list (sust-mar).  http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/lists/sust-mar
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

Volunteer moderator: Paul Falvo  mailto:sust-mar-owner@chebucto.ns.ca

To submit a message to sust-mar, please send it to:
mailto:sust-mar@chebucto.ns.ca

PLEASE SEND MESSAGES TO SUST-MAR IN PLAIN TEXT ONLY
MESSAGES CONTAINING HTML (MIME) CANNOT BE POSTED


next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects