**
**
Home [1] | | What's New | Contact Us
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fax to Premier of Ontario on energy conservation and supply
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fax to Prime Minister Chretien on Canada's Iraq policy, Feb. 3, 2003
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.
Yours truly,
Walter Robbins
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAX to CNSC on need to clean-up the mess at the Chalk River Nuclear Laboratory
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments to CNSC on Draft Regulatory Policy P-290, Managing Radioactive Waste
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feedback welcomed
[2]
Last revised: 28 October 2016. Conditions of Use.
Copyright © 2001-2016 by The Jack Horntip Collection.
1: http://www.horntip.com
2: mailto:walt@grandfolkies.com