Make nuclear waste an issue in the Saskatchewan election!

[Oscar]

ACTION ALERT: Make nuclear waste an issue in the Saskatchewan provincial election

http://canadians.org/action/2011/sask-election.html

October 17, 2011

With three weeks to go until the people of Saskatchewan head to the polls on November 7 to elect a new government, there’s a critical issue that isn’t getting the attention it deserves: the threat of a nuclear waste dump being located in Saskatchewan.
Please take action to ensure that party leaders and local candidates can’t avoid this issue, by calling on them to make their position on nuclear waste clear during the election.

WHAT YOU CAN DO

Since the leaders aren’t talking about a nuclear waste dump in Saskatchewan, we need grassroots pressure to put the issue on the election agenda.
We want all candidates, and especially the leaders to answer one simple yes or no question: If your party wins the election, will your government commit to legislating a ban on the importation, transportation and storage of nuclear waste in Saskatchewan?

Here are a few ways you can ask the question and force the parties to tell the people of Saskatchewan where they stand:

Public Election Debates/Forums

Check your local media to find out when and where candidates forums are being held in your constituency. Many of these forums allow people to ask questions or submit questions to the moderator. Make sure nuclear waste is one of them!

Contact Your Local Candidates

Email or call the candidates in your riding to ask them their party’s position on nuclear waste in Saskatchewan. The more candidates that hear about it, the more likely they will be to talk about the issue on the campaign trail and with their party.

Contact information for Saskatchewan Party candidates, including email addresses and phone numbers, can be found here:
http://saskparty.com/index.php?pageid=Candidates

Contact information for Saskatchewan New Democrats candidates can be searched either by constituency or candidate’s name here:
http://www.saskndp.com/constituencies

Contact information for Green Party of Saskatchewan candidates can be found here:
http://www.greenpartysask.ca/prospectiv ... uency-2011

Contact information for the Saskatchewan Liberals candidates can be found here:
http://www.saskliberals.ca/candidates

Contact Party Leaders

Contact the leaders of the major parties in the election and voice your opposition to a nuclear waste dump in Saskatchewan, tell them you expect this to be an issue discussed during the election, and ask them: If your party wins the election, will your government commit to legislating a ban on the importation, transportation and storage of nuclear waste in Saskatchewan?

Here is the contact information for the party leaders:
Brad Wall (Sask Party): brad.wall@saskparty.com
Dwain Lingenfelter (NDP): dwain@saskndp.ca
Victor Lau (Greens): votelau@gmail.com
Ryan Bater (Liberals): rbater@saskliberals.ca

Televised Leaders Debate

Unless plans change, only Saskatchewan Party leader Brad Wall and NDP leader Dwain Lingenfelter will be taking part in the televised leaders debate, which will air on Tuesday, October 25 from 6:05 – 7:00 pm on CBC, CTV and Global outlets across the province, with simulcasts on CBC Radio One in Saskatchewan.

Listeners and viewers will be given the opportunity to pose questions live via email and Twitter, so tune in on October 25 and ask: If your party wins the election, will your government commit to legislating a ban on the importation, transportation and storage of nuclear waste in Saskatchewan?

Twitter

If you’re on Twitter, you can use the following hashtags to ask about the nuclear waste issue (shorten the message to something like: Will you commit to legislating a ban on the importation, transportation & storage of nuclear waste in SK? or Will @PremierBradWall commit to legislating a ban on the importation, transportation & storage of nuclear waste in SK?)
Election hastags (from most to least used): #skvotes, #skpoli, #sk2011, #saskvotes, #skelxn
Brad Wall: @PremierBradWall
Dwain Lingenfelter: @linkndp
Saskatchewan Party: @SaskParty
Saskatchewan NDP: @Sask_NDP
Saskatchewan Greens: @saskgreen
Saskatchewan Liberals: @SaskLiberals

(Don’t know what any of this means? Try reading this:
http://michaelhyatt.com/the-beginners-g ... itter.html)

Spread the Word!
Forward this message to friends and family and promote it through social media to encourage other residents of Saskatchewan to tell candidates from all parties that they are opposed to a nuclear waste dump in Saskatchewan, and ask candidates to commit to a legislated ban.

BACKGROUND

The industry-based Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) is currently looking for what it calls a “willing community” to be the site of a long-term underground waste dump for all of Canada’s nuclear waste from reactors in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick. NWMO is currently looking at three potential sites in Saskatchewan: Pinehouse, Creighton and English River First Nation.

To transport the 1.8 million spent fuel bundles totaling 40,000 tonnes that had accumulated in eastern Canada by 2004 would require thousands of truckloads over several decades. And the industry estimates that double this amount, 3.6 million fuel bundles, will be created by the time existing nuclear plants are shut down. With less than 200 fuel bundles to a load this would require nearly 20,000 truckloads of high-level wastes. The likelihood of nuclear accidents and the carbon footprint from moving these wastes makes a mockery of the nuclear industry’s claim to be “clean energy.”

Because of the risks posed, we believe that the decision to bring nuclear waste to Saskatchewan is a provincial issue, not just a local one. Manitoba and Quebec already have bans in place against the importation of nuclear waste.

Both Saskatchewan Party leader Brad Wall and the Saskatchewan New Democrats have acknowledged that the people of Saskatchewan don’t want to be Canada’s nuclear dumping ground. In April, over 5000 petitions opposing a nuclear waste dump were presented to Premier Wall, and through the efforts of the 20-day, 820-km 7000 Generations Walk through Saskatchewan, another 10,000 petitions have since been signed saying that it’s time Saskatchewan followed the lead of Manitoba and Quebec and legislated a ban.

In an April 15, 2011 interview with the Saskatoon Star Phoenix, Sask Party leader and Premier Brad Wall was quoted as saying, “This would be very much a provincial issue and while we would respect the fact that different communities do want this, there should be a sense that the province in general is supportive and I don't have that sense." On the issue of a legislated ban, the article goes on to state, “Wall said it is not something the government has contemplated but he would not rule out such a law on nuclear waste in Saskatchewan.”

The March, 2011 Saskatchewan New Democrats policy A Rooted and Growing Vision: The Final Report of the NDP Policy Review Task Force states that “Saskatchewan people want a New Democratic government to refuse to pursue the establishment of a radioactive waste dump due to the significant long-term environmental concerns, including irreversible groundwater contamination. As well, prohibit the transportation of radioactive waste within our province.”

[Oscar]

PREMIER WALL CAN’T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS

For R-Town News Oct. 28, 2011

BY Jim Harding

We could finish this election campaign without serious issues even being raised, which isn’t the way to practice democracy. One such issue is whether thousands of truckloads of highly radioactive nuclear wastes will be brought from Ontario’s nuclear plants to a nuclear dump in our north.

Premier Wall sidesteps the issue; there was no concern expressed when Pinehouse, Patuanak and Creighton were targeted as potential sites for a nuclear dump. On April 14th North Battleford groups delivered 5,000 signatures of people opposed to such a dump. Afterwards the Premier publicly acknowledged the “negative public opinion about a nuclear waste facility”, adding “I don’t think the mood of the province has changed, and frankly, what’s happening in Japan has got people thinking…” This left an impression that his government didn’t support a nuclear dump, but the industry-run Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) carried on with its monetary inducements in the north.

7,000 GENERATIONS WALK

The northern-based Committee for Future Generations then organized an 820 KM walk from Pinehouse to Regina to express its opposition to a radioactive dump. After 20 days on the road, the respectful thing would have been for Premier Wall to greet these hardy citizens. The walk got front page coverage in both big city dailies, but when the walkers got to the Legislature August 16th Premier Wall was nowhere to be seen. Not even the Deputy Premier or a Sask Party MLA turned out to welcome those who had just made Saskatchewan history with their marathon. Only a staffer came to receive the letter to the Premier.

By August end there was still no response. At the Legislature rally August 16th the NDP opposition took a position against a nuclear dump. And the northern Committee continued collecting petitions, now having an additional 10,000 signatures in addition to the 5,000 presented to the government in April. People across the province are apparently eager to say “no!” to a nuclear dump; private party polling will confirm the widespread opposition.

THE PREMIER’S LETTER

Wall’s advisors may have thought it ill-advised to continue ducking the issue, for on Sept. 6th Committee Chair, Max Morin, finally received a letter. Premier Wall “apologized for the delay in my response”; though he didn’t apologize for not greeting the walkers. He reiterated the industry position about the NWMO looking for “a suitable location for the storage of used nuclear fuel”, without mentioning that it would be far safer to keep the wastes close to where they are created. No mention that a main reason the industry wants central storage is to reprocess nuclear wastes to get plutonium in the future.

YEARS DOWN THE ROAD

What is Premier Wall actually up to? The clincher sentence in his letter is, “The Government will not make a decision on a particular proposal by a willing host community until a proposal has been developed and put forward…which could be years down the road.” If Premier Wall meant what he said in April, when he acknowledged the “negative public opinion” about a nuclear dump, then why is the industry-run NWMO continuing with its insidious process for “years down the road”? Does this explain why Wall’s government recently signed an agreement with GE and Hitachi, Cameco’s partners in uranium enrichment technology, to do research on nuclear waste fuel with the University of Saskatchewan?

Politically, Premier Wall can’t appear to be completely in the hands of industry. So his letter continues with the “on the other hand” answer to the northern Committee. His wording is deceptive. It is perhaps encouraging that he says “the decision on whether to host a site” will be decided “in relation to the level of support from the Saskatchewan people more generally”. However, he said that this is in addition to “the NWMO assessment and level of community support”. Premier Wall has already admitted what the polls show, that there is not any significant support for a nuclear dump here. So, again I ask, why is the industry being allowed to continue to animate, that is, try to buy “community support”?

ON CONTRADICTIONS

Premier Wall’s letter includes the seemingly unambiguous statement that “The Government will not support a proposal unless there is clear support from the people of Saskatchewan.” If he sincerely means this, if this is the government’s position, he doesn’t need to wait for “years down the road” to make a decision. There should be a process underway right now to see if “there is clear support from the people of Saskatchewan” for a nuclear dump. If not, he should tell NWMO to cease their monetary inducements in the north. He can’t have it both ways.

The burning question is: which comes first for Premier Wall? Is it Saskatchewan democracy? Or is it nuclear industry expansion? If Premier Wall was true to his words he’d already have come out against a nuclear dump. He talks as though he respects “the level of community support”, meanwhile a petition in Pinehouse has already shown that community support for a nuclear dump doesn’t exist there. So why is the “NWMO assessment”, with only one goal, of creating a nuclear dump, being allowed to proceed?

Premier Wall’s appeal to “community support”, like his appeal to “clear support from the people of Saskatchewan”, is apparently political rhetoric to buy more time for industry to penetrate the north. That way, by the time Saskatchewan democracy comes into play “years down the road”, the industry might have signed contracts and its dump be underway. Their strategy has always been incremental so the public doesn’t know their end-game.

PUBLIC BE DAMNED

We know from Manitoba that the “feasibility research” was inextricably tied to the actual planning of a dump. When people caught on and government changed hands legislation banning waste storage was passed. Why isn’t Premier Wall following the example of Manitoba in 1987 or Quebec in 2008 when they said flat out, “we won’t take Ontario’s nuclear wastes”?

The Wall government isn’t being proactive or protective because it wants the nuclear industry-driven process to succeed. It considers a nuclear dump to be “adding value” to the uranium industry, as was advocated by its own Uranium Development Partnership (UDP) in 2009. Though over 90% of the thousands participating in the UDP’s public consultations opposed a nuclear dump, the public be damned.

If Premier Wall meant it when he says in his letter that a nuclear dump “is not a priority to the province” and it is already clear that there is not “the support of provincial residents” for this, why is he being so permissive with the industry? Why is Premier Wall so interested in remaining “informed and engaged” with the nuclear industry, when he is unwilling to do this with the Saskatchewan public?

Premier Wall’s letter to the northern Committee appeals to rhetoric about popular democracy, but unless his government is challenged, it’s clear it will let the industry get its way. We can’t allow such smoke and mirrors to operate with an issue so vital to our future. The Premier and other Sask Party candidates need to be called on their “double-speak” on nuclear wastes.

More on nuclear wastes at:

http://crowsnestecology.wordpress.com/c ... ar-wastes/

[Oscar]

THE LEADER’S DEBATE: STIFF, PREDICTABLE AND EVASIVE

BY Jim Harding

For R-Town News November 4, 2011

On Oct. 25th the Premier and Leader of the Opposition squared off in the leader’s debate for the Nov. 7th election.

I listened closely and then watched an internet replay later to be sure what was said and Not said. It was a debate, of sorts, though it was stiff, contrived and skirted fundamental matters. Several questions were about vulnerable groups – low income seniors, First Nations, students with huge debts and street people. The event was so scripted that spontaneous, honest, communication was impossible. Premier Wall answered by referring to his 4-year record, while Lingenfelter stressed what the NDP would do if elected.

SUBTLE DIFFERENCES

There were some subtle differences which the journalists present barely explored. Wall Talked of “targettng help” for the needy whereas Lingenfelter talked of creating overall Services to help the community. Lingenfelter stressed that all seniors, regardless of income, would benefit from a rebate on property tax, that all renters would benefit from rent control and that all students would benefit from his proposed tuition freeze. Wall talked of removing seniors from income tax, providing subsidies for low-income renters and providing student scholarships. The dots weren’t connected.

When CBC reporter Stefani Langenegger asked Lingenfelter why better-off seniors would get the rebate, he responded that there weren’t many wealthy seniors and he wanted to avoid “red tape”. But he didn’t defend universal services. Whenever possible Wall stressed reducing provincial debt and balancing the budget, rather than intervening to see wealth more equitably distributed.

POTASH ROYALTIES

Lingenfelter called for an increase of potash royalties from 5 to 10 cents on each dollar of sales. He contrasted the low salary increases going to Saskatchewan workers with the high salary increases of company heads and shareholders. Wall never bit, staying on his macro message about economic progress. Wall finally opposed a royalty hike because it would upset the business climate, so the two party leaders did disagree on potash royalties. The NDP seems to have selected this as the strategic issue that could prevent them from being routed at the polls. Wall tried to get the NDP’s promise to share royalties with First Nations into the debate. Lingenfelter stuck with his point that First Nations get far less resources for education than do other children in the province, and decried the increasing use of food banks during an economic boom. The two leaders were clearly targeting their messages to different voters.

When Lingenfelter raised ongoing school closures, Wall responded that these could be stopped if the local economy were “rebounding”. Tying universal services like access to education to the state of the local economy is an unprecedented position and Wall wouldn’t dare argue this in relation to healthcare. But Lingenfelter let this slip by as if he didn’t realize what the Premier had said. There was to be little debate on matters of principal. Wall often argued his case by pointing to previous NDP government policy, and he had a point. Lingenfelter was highly selective in making his points; if potash is a problem, so too is uranium. Of the $1.3 billion dollars of sales in 2009 only 105 million came to the province as royalties.

The last question was on the issue ranked # 1, healthcare, but there wasn’t any opportunity to explore this in depth. Different stats on wait-lists were presented but nothing was said on the importance of protecting environmental health as part of health promotion and cutting healthcare costs. Lingenfelter proposed 100 primary healthcare clinics across the province, arguing that the “team approach” would be cost-saving. Wall did not respond to this idea, preferring instead to talk of reducing wait lists by increasing “training seats” for doctors.

NOTHING ON ENVIRONMENT

The leaders went “toe to toe” on whether or not to distribute more corporate-controlled wealth to Saskatchewan people. But they never acknowledged that all the people, whose votes they were trying to win, needed clean water, air, land and energy to survive. Then I realized there was no mention of the environment at all. There are two kinds of questions that should be asked of those wanting to control our government. The first set is about the nature of the wealth being produced and how it is or isn’t being distributed within society. The second is about the impacts of production and consumption on the environment and whether existing practices are sustainable. Of the questions asked during the debate none addressed the second; six addressed how the wealth is distributed, two addressed the wealth itself. The other one addressed the popularity of the leaders.

POLITICS OF ENERGY

Both leaders side-stepped energy! The only mention of renewable energy was when Wall accused Lingenfelter of not costing his proposal to put more wind power on the electrical grid. Lingenfelter didn’t reply. There was no mention of climate change or what Saskatchewan is going to do to lower its record-breaking carbon footprint (nearly twenty times the global per capita). No mention that at present two-thirds of our electricity comes from fossil fuels. No mention that the ongoing nuclear catastrophe in Japan involves uranium fuel from here. The environment was made invisible. One might conclude there was collusion to avoid the politics of energy. With Walls’s endless talk of “responsible spending” I wondered why Lingenfelter didn’t ask him why Sask Power was spending $1.2 billion to sequester carbon from a 100 Megawatt coal plant at Boundary Dam, when many times this capacity of renewable energy could be produced with much less cost to the taxpayer.

The journalists were partly to blame; they could have insisted that serious environmental questions were addressed. One could have asked what the leaders’ position was on bringing nuclear wastes from Ontario to a dump in the north. There were, after all, several northerners outside the CBC studio raising this issue, while the leaders “debated” inside. However when CBC reporter Langenegger got to ask her second question it was about how important the party leaders thought their popularity was in the campaign. Wall and Lingenfelter differed on whether and how to distribute wealth, including how much royalty companies should pay. But they pretty much agreed on how wealth should be produced. Tommy Douglas used to refer to the Conservatives and Liberals as “tweddle dee” and “tweddle dum”; the same thing might soon be said of the Sask Party and the NDP. With the Greens excluded no one was likely to ask whether corporate-driven economic growth was even sustainable. The only time that the Premier even used the term “sustainable” was when he questioned whether a program had a “sustainable plan”. There was no indication that either he or his opponent grasped and/or cared enough to raise the matter of ecological sustainability.

IGNORING THE NORTH

In his closing statement Lingenfelter called for a “better balance between the wealthy and those having trouble making ends meet”. Wall claimed that Saskatchewan “leads this nation in quality of life”. This reflected their underlying differences. But the debate remained highly abstract, attempting to court particular voters to the polls. With all their campaign-generated concerns for people facing hardship, neither leader mentioned that the north, where much of the resource wealth comes from, remains Canada’s second poorest region. Saskatchewan will likely need a new generation of political leaders to grapple with the justice and environmental challenges we now face.