Canadian Feds Grossly Underestimate Impact of Gutting Environmental Law

Thanks to Doug Smith

Up to 14,000 projects will evade assessment over the next 2 years

June 26, 2009

CONTACT: Ecojustice
Justin Duncan, Lawyer, Ecojustice (416) 368-7533 ext 22
Stephen Hazell, Executive Director, Sierra Club Canada (613) 241-4611 ext 238; (613) 724-1908 (cell)

Two months after announcing the enactment of controversial regulations that will allow more than 2,000 projects across the country to evade legally required environmental assessments, the federal government has revealed that the number of projects being exempted from assessment will now be up to 14,000 over the next two years.

"It is clear that the Harper government is having troubles with basic mathematics," said Ecojustice lawyer Justin Duncan. "In addition to a spiralling fiscal debt, they're saddling Canadians with an environmental debt that may never be paid back."

In April, Ecojustice launched a lawsuit on behalf of Sierra Club Canada claiming that the federal government acted unlawfully in issuing two federal regulations that gut the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). The Federal Court has just allowed the groups to amend their filings to challenge the expanded exemption of 14,000 projects.

The lawsuit challenges the Exclusion List Regulations that exempt thousands of projects such as highways, bridges, roads and sewer systems from facing the scrutiny of legally required federal assessments over the next two years. The lawsuit also challenges the Adaptation Regulations that unlawfully give powers to the Minister of the Environment to exempt any other project from federal environmental assessment (EA) that is funded under the Building Canada Fund.

"EA is a key tool to identify and assess the adverse environmental effects of development projects so good decisions can be made" said Sierra Club Canada Executive Director Stephen Hazell, "in throwing 14,000 economic stimulus projects out of the EA process, the federal government is effectively saying we don't want to know the environmental effects. Damn the environmental torpedoes, full speed ahead."

CEAA was passed in 1992 to promote sustainable development by ensuring that federal decision makers have good information about the environmental impacts of projects and to ensure public participation in the environmental assessment process.

The government was served with formal notice on Monday that the groups seek to amend the lawsuit to include the expanded exemption list. The case is expected to be heard in Federal Court later this year.

The Transition Initiative | Orion Magazine

http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/4792

If the Transition Initiative were a person, you’d say he or she was charismatic, wise, practical, positive, resourceful, and very, very popular. Starting with the town of Totnes in Devon, England, in September 2006, the movement has spread like wildfire across the U.K. (delightfully wriggling its way into The Archers, Britain’s longest-running and most popular radio soap opera), and on to the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. The core purpose of the Transition Initiative is to address, at the community level, the twin issues of climate change and peak oil—the declining availability of “ancient sunlight,” as fossil fuels have been called. The initiative is set up to enable towns or neighborhoods to plan for, and move toward, a post-oil and low-carbon future: what Rob Hopkins, founder of the Transition Initiative, has termed “the great transition of our time, away from fossil fuels.”

-

Nuclear-plant workers face elevated cancer risk

http://www.canada.com/Nuclear+plant+workers+face+elevated+cancer+risk+report/1724362/story.html

By Jeremy Warren, Canwest News ServiceJune 23, 2009

Saskatoon Star Phoenix

SASKATOON - Those working in, and living near, nuclear-power plants -- such as the one being considered for construction in Saskatchewan -- are more likely than the general population to develop cancer or die from it, according to a research paper being released Tuesday.

The 30-page Exposure to Radiation and Health Outcomes, commissioned by the Saskatchewan Union of Nurses and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, found that chronic exposure to low doses of radiation causes the higher risk.

A 15-country, 12-year, 407,391-person study of nuclear-power workers found the employees are twice as likely to die from all causes of cancer than the general public because of the extra radiation exposure, said the report written by Saskatchewan-based health researcher, Mark Lemstra.

But in Canada, one of the 15 countries studied, reactor workers are 7.65 times more likely to die from all causes of cancer compared to non-employees, said the report. Researchers are unsure why Canadian reactor workers seem to face a higher cancer risk than those in other nuclear countries.

"We don't know why Canadians are more likely to get cancer than others,'' said Lemstra, a former researcher with the Saskatoon Health Region. "We are going to have to consider revising the protection standards of nuclear workers. ''

Another study, which looked only at cancer rates among Canadian workers, concluded nuclear-power workers are still 3.8 times more likely to die from radiation-related cancer than non-workers, said the report. "The results . . . confirm that chronic exposure to low doses of radiation are associated with an excess relative risk of cancer mortality,'' it said.

The report was presented to the Future of Uranium in Saskatchewan stakeholder conference in Regina. Lemstra cited 22 articles in the report, pared down from a review of more than 1,700 articles he found in medical databases, reference lists and on the Internet. The report found that, even outside the workplace, radiation has effects on the human population.

A German study cited in the report found children below the age of five who live within five kilometres of a nuclear facility are 2.19 times more likely to develop leukemia. "There's a simple solution: Keep children more than 10 kilometres away from a nuclear facility,'' said Lemstra.

Children are more susceptible to radiation because, in the early stages of development, their bodies are more sensitive to the effects of inhalation, ingestion and other forms of internal exposure, said the report. "The association between leukemia incidence and mortality from radiation exposure is very strong. The greatest risks are found for youth under the age of 20,'' said the report.

Health effects of nuclear power go beyond radiation. Consistent cost overruns of constructing a nuclear reactor can siphon off government money that could be spent elsewhere, according to the report. If the provincial government is responsible for all, or a percentage of, cost overruns -- a common deal between private and government partners -- there is less money for health or education spending, wrote Lemstra.

In Finland, a reactor under construction has already gone 50 per cent over its $4.2-billion budget and will cost $8 billion to finish. Based on the $10-billion estimate to build a reactor in Saskatchewan, the final tally could rise to $20 billion, and if the province is responsible for a portion of the extra costs, government coffers will be stretched thin to the detriment of other departments, said Lemstra.

``Where will this money come from? In the U.S., the costs are transferred to the public or the ratepayers,'' he said. ``We don't really have the extra money to spend on risky ventures.''

jjwarren@sp.canwest.com

© Copyright (c) Canwest News Service