Curmudgeon's Corner, 2003 Archives
. Fax & E-mails to Provincial political party leaders, Sept. 18, 2003 re: obscene auto insurance rate increases . Fax, Sept. 16, 2003 to PC and CA parties re: need to form effective coalition to restore democracy to Canada . Letter to Kingston Whig-Standard on Ontario Liberal Party plan to build more nuclear plants, Sept. 9, 2003 . Comments to CNSC on Draft Regulatory Policy P-290, Managing Radioactive Waste, July 22, 2003 . Fax to CNSC on need to clean-up Chalk River nuclear lab mess, Mar.6,2003 . Fax to Prime Minister Chretien on Canada's Iraq policy, Feb. 3, 2003 . Fax to Premier of Ontario on energy conservation and supply, Jan.23,2003 2007 Current 2006 Archives 2005 Archives 2004 Archives 2002 Archives 2001 Archives
January 23, 2003
Dear Premier Eves,
Your decision to retain Hydro-One under public ownership is a good one. I hope your decision signals that your government accepts the fact that public goods assets (e.g., electricity, water), should never be sold to private organizations which are motivated by profit, and return on investment. The negative consequences to the public of such privatization should now be quite apparent from experience, not only in Ontario, but in other political jurisdictions.
However, some central issues surrounding electricity in Ontario are still in question.
The supply of electricity is at the top of the list.
Obviously, we must continue to rely upon the existing centralized generation infrastructure for some period of time until new solutions are a reality. However, the transition to a new infrastructure must be accelerated. We need to minimize the possibility of shortages, more cost overruns, increased debt load and risks to public health, security and the environment that accrue from the continued utilization of the existing generation system.
But, in the long term we cannot rely on coal, oil, or nuclear power generation. The goal must be to phase out these sources as quickly as possible.
The conversion to a decentralized energy conservation and renewable energy economy must begin immediately. I would hope this becomes the central energy policy initiative of your government. As the highest priority, conservation will provide the fastest and most economical results, with relatively short-term consumption reductions. The government must provide incentives to stimulate energy conservation.
But there is also a major role for the private sector in both energy conservation and alternative energy generation, as there are many existing companies and individuals in Ontario that can develop, install and maintain the varied appropriate technologies.
Long-term contracts could be let to private organizations to provide such services with high standards and at the lowest possible costs. These contractors would not be biding against or competing with the existing, large-scale, subsidized power generators. Of course the government must develop an effective contract administration system, including criteria for the selection of potential contractors.
Also, the government must be willing to set realistic, specific achievement targets for new renewable electricity supply using such contractual arrangements. I understand that some political jurisdictions expect as much as a 20 percent per decade increase in renewable supply.
I suspect that the public would be willing to underwrite the extra costs for a conservation and alternative supply program, as long as everyone understands the potential benefits, (cleaner air, decentralized job creation, lower energy bills, etc.).
Hopefully, your next public energy announcement will be to the effect that Ontario is dedicated to a policy of energy conservation and renewable energy supply.
Thank you for the opportunity to present these views.
February 3, 2003
Prime Minister Jean Chretien
Dear Prime Minister,
At this moment in time, Canada's position that it will not engage in military action against Iraq except within the framework of the United Nations, is, in my view, the correct policy. If the U.N. finds that Iraq is not in material breach of its' resolution, then Canada should not join in any multilateral coalition to engage in military action against Iraq.
However, If the U.N. finds that Iraq is definitely not in compliance with its' latest resolution, then Canada should be willing to join in any U.N. led effort to bring Iraq into full compliance; hopefully through peaceful means, but through military action if all else fails. In that regard, I urge that our forces be used exclusively in peacekeeping and humanitarian roles.
The only condition I can see for a change in the above policy would be in the very unlikely event that the U.N. fails to act at all, in the face of incontrovertible evidence that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction, (chemical, biological, nuclear). In such a case, Canada must be prepared to join in a multilateral coalition outside of the U.N., to disarm Iraq. Especially, since it is quite possible that Iraq is or could become a supplier of these materials to various terrorist groups.
Peace is the priority, but not at any price. As one who lived through the years leading up to World War II, I urge that you not ignore the lessons of those times.
Commissioners,
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
Atten: Sunni Locatelli
Fax: (613) 995-5086
March 6, 2003
Dear Commissioners,
The time has come to clean up the mess at Chalk River Laboratories. No more than a one year licence renewal should be granted to Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd. (AECL) at this time. A full- scale Canadian Environmental Assessment process should be undertaken, including major public hearings.
AECL must also be required to submit a decommissioning plan for clean up of the facility; hopefully one that is substantially superior to the incredibly flawed one established for the Whiteshell facility in Manitoba.
Radioactive wastes have been contaminating the facility and the surrounding eco-system for years. Systematic monitoring and public disclosure of water, land and air quality should be established now, and carried out on a regular basis.
It is indeed unfortunate that AECL has been permitted to escape the provisions of the Canadian Federal Access to Information regulations. One can only assume that it has some reason to hide information from the public. The rather flimsy excuse of "commercial confidentiality" must take a back seat to public health and safety. Drinking water quality for millions of people is at stake here.
CNSC has been derelict in its responsibilities to the public by permitting the Chalk River Lab contamination to develop to it's present levels. Do the right thing this time and see to it that the mess at Chalk River Laboratories is cleaned up.
A copy of my fax is being forwarded to the Auditor General of Canada
Walter Robbins
796 Hillside Drive
Kingston, Ontario
K7M 5Y8
To: Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission: (consultation@cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca)
From: Walter Robbins
796 Hillside Drive, Kingston, Ontario, K7M-5Y8
613-384-8324
July 22, 2003
referencing file 1-8-8-290.
Following are my comments on the Draft Regulatory Policy P-290, Managing Radioactive Waste.
My comments relate to Section 5 of the Draft: “Policy Statement,” (see below).
Principle One: I am in full accord with the principle that radioactive waste should be minimized to the extent practicable by such measures as indicated in this paragraph. However, I suggest the addition of a broader measure for radioactive waste reduction involved in the nuclear fuel chain; one that is commensurate with the emergence of essentially non-waste producing energy options. As the use of such options increases, it should be a guiding principle that the production of spent nuclear fuel should decrease, with the long-term objective of zero radioactive waste production.
Principle Three: As a result of further research and experience, it is possible, if not likely, that “currently permissible in Canada” radioactive waste impacts on public health and environment are incorrect. More stringent management safeguards may be required. If such a determination is made, a new and higher protection standard may be adopted. Yet, the principle, as it now reads, seems to tie the future to the present, and does not seem to take the possibility of such a change into account. Future management practices should not be slavishly tied to the “current” or present level of anticipated impacts, but rather must reflect new realities that may emerge.
Principle Four: Funding of measures needed to protect the
environment and persons from radioactive waste should not be linked
solely to members of future generations.
For example, some significant safety and security measures may
be required to better protect current generations from exposure
to radioactive wastes. Also, the principle that implementation
“...should not be deferred unduly so as not to impose a burden
on future generations” could easily be used (and has been
used) as an argument for undue haste in promoting a particular
radioactive waste management option to the exclusion of other
options.
Principle Five: The period of future impact assessment should, as stated, include the period over which maximum impacts are anticipated. But, it should be clarified that the impact assessment must include the entire period over which any negative effects on the environment, health and safety can be anticipated.
Principle Six:I am not at all sure that Canada has the moral
right to unilaterally decide the level of trans-border effects.
It is conceivable that some countries may set higher standards
concerning the allowable impacts from radioactive waste management.
Perhaps principle six should acknowledge the right of other political
jurisdictions to make their own decisions about such matters.
Additional Principle:
None of the above principles directly and forthrightly addresses one of the most important issues of our time; namely, the many potential ways that radioactive waste could be used as a weapon of mass destruction by domestic or international terrorists. It is not enough to simply subsume this principle in general statements about safety and security. A specific principle is needed, calling for a requirement to continuously upgrade and improve the security of radioactive waste to the highest levels possible within the best available technological standards. This principle is of special importance to Canada, as one of the nations involved in the international “war on terrorism.”
Walter Robbins
July 22, 2003
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 Policy Statement
It is the policy of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission that,
when making regulatory
decisions concerning the management of radioactive waste, the
CNSC will seek to achieve its
objects by considering the following key principles, in the context
of the facts and circumstances
of each case:
The generation of radioactive waste should be minimized to the
extent practicable by the
implementation of design measures and operating and decommissioning
practices;
Radioactive waste should be managed in a manner that is
commensurate with its
radiological, chemical and biological hazards to the environment
and to the health and
safety of persons;
The anticipated impacts on the environment, and on the health
and safety of persons, from
the future management of the radioactive waste should not be greater
than those that are
currently permissible in Canada;
The establishment of arrangements to fund any measures needed
to protect the
environment and persons from the radioactive waste, and the implementation
of such
measures, should not be deferred unduly so as to impose a burden
on future generations;
The period over which the future impacts of radioactive waste
on the environment and the
health and safety of persons are assessed should include the period
over which the
maximum impacts are anticipated; and
The trans-border effects on the health and safety of persons and
on the environment that
could result from the management of radioactive waste in Canada
should not be greater
than the effects experienced in Canada.
Letter to Kingston Whig-Standard on Ontario Liberal Party plan to build more nuclear plants
Editor,
Kingston Whig Standard
6 Cataraqui St. P.O. Box 2300
Kingston ON, K7L 4Z7
Fax613-530-4118
September 9, 2003
The Ontario Liberal Party's reported new policy to build additional nuclear power plants is---irresponsible in the extreme. Nuclear power may bring us more electricity, but at what price? Costs in the billions, operational unreliability, safety and security problems, and a continued buildup of deadly radioactive waste.
The existing nuclear plants, (when they run), have already put the Ontario taxpayer billions of dollars into debt. These plants, together with their stockpiles of nuclear waste, are "sitting ducks" for terrorist attacks, with potential catastrophic results. Nuclear energy is a 20th century dinosaur and it is high time it was phased out of existence.
What is needed now is an aggressive public power initiative based on energy efficiency coupled with a program for the development of a comprehensive, decentralized, clean alternative energy supply system. The technologies exist, the contractors are out there, the public is ready. Lacking, is political will!
Walter Robbins
Fax to PC and CA parties re: need to form effective
coalition to restore democracy to Canada
September 16, 2003
Mr. Stephen Harper, M.P.
Leader, Canadian Alliance Caucus
Mr. Peter MacKay, M.P.
Leader, Progressive Conservative Caucus
Dear Sirs:
We believe that Canada is facing a political emergency: the real prospect of the continuation of a one party State. We cannot wait for yet another election cycle to seriously try to change this deplorable situation. Emergencies require emergency response.
We implore you to sequester yourselves and your assistants in a room containing a large map of Canada and its Federal political ridings. We would ask you to remain in that room as long as it takes to agree upon a single slate of M.P. candidates for all of Canada, selected from among your two parties to run in the upcoming Federal election.
The task must be to place the best possible person you can collectively identify in each Federal riding — people you believe can win, or, at the very least, can make a good showing. Together, proudly, you would offer these candidates to the Canadian public and together, proudly, you would back them to the hilt! Call it what you will, your candidates would essentially represent a coalition which we see as a "conservative alliance."
We want to see democracy restored to Canada. That cannot happen unless and until there is an effective opposition to the government of the day. You are the only two people in the country with the power to bring this about.
We implore you to settle what differences you can, to respect those differences which cannot be settled, and to act for the common good of all Canadians.
Sincerely,
Phyl and Walt Robbins
Fax & E-mails to Provincial political party leaders re: obscene auto insurance rate increases
September 18, 2003
Fax to the Premier of Ontario, and Leaders of the Liberal and New Democratic Parties of Ontario
Over the past 18 months, my wife and I have seen steady increases in our automobile insurance premiums representing approximately a twenty five percent rise. During that period, we have made no claims on our insurance company. Indeed, over the 15 years with the present company, we have made no claims.
The insurance premium notices over the past 18 months have been utterly shocking. Why should drivers with our records be penalized by these astronomical rate hikes? Why should we continue to underwrite the bad habits of persons with poor driving records? And most significantly, why should we underwrite the losses from speculative and poor investments made by insurance companies?
Would that we, as seniors, on a modest fixed income, could reap a twenty five percent gain in such a short period of time. Our annual cost of living pension increases are a pittance; a few dollars, which might cover the cost of a lunch and a cup of coffee.
According to the September 18th, Globe and Mail newspaper, "Canadian insurance companies have netted more than $1.1 billion in profits (first and second quarters of this year) while instituting premium increase that have jacked up rates by up to 70 per cent." This is over a 500% increase in profits over last year according to the Globe article. If that is not illegal, it certainly should be!
It is most revealing that in his form letter covering our most recent policy premium notice, the President and C.E.O. of our insurance company was careful not to mention the issue of investments and recent profits. Instead he placed the burden of the blame for rate increases on poor drivers and higher medical costs.
As former residents of Manitoba, we enjoyed the benefits of the public "Autopac" insurance system. We never encountered a major premium rip-off of the kind now being experienced by drivers in Ontario. This situation is simply unacceptable. The only logical answer is the immediate institution of a public automobile insurance plan in Ontario. We demand that all candidates (including the present Premier) announce such a plan during the present election campaign! AND, follow through on appropriate legislation, once elected.
Walt Robbins