Elizabeth May with Don Newman, December 20
Previous post: Can someone please send this man a copy of Vision Green?
Next post: Made In Canada. For export only.
picturing life in Aurora, Ontario
picturing life in Aurora, Ontario
Previous post: Can someone please send this man a copy of Vision Green?
Next post: Made In Canada. For export only.
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Glenn,
In Elizabeth May’s latest error ridden and misrepresentative blog entitled “Harper’s Melt-down: Trying to make sense of the nuke fiasco “, she writes: http://greenparty.ca/en/node/3671
The emergency legislation passed did NOT have any independent expert advice. I am not referring to the fact one expert was chair of a Conservative riding association. The lack of independence is that both witnesses to Parliament had long-standing ties to AECL. We believe the other political parties were too scared of angry cancer patients to be capable of thinking clearly.
What exctly is the Green Party saying here? These Professional Engineers are putting the public at risk because of their previous association with AECL, or attempting to mislead parliament? Taken within the context of her other conspiracy theories, it sure looks like it to me.
Here is their testimony before Parliament, Dec 11th, 2007:
Mr. Daniel Meneley (Former Chief Engineer of AECL):
Mr. Chair, Bob Strickert and I were asked a very simple question concerning the safety of NRU if and when it restarts and operates.
We both have a technical background. We do not speak to nor do we know the situation with regard to licensing, specifically. We are talking about safety.
Is NRU likely to be safer or less safe after it restarts than it was before? Clearly, with the addition, as I understand it, of the single seismically qualified power supply to one of the pumps, the safety of the plant should be improved relative to what it was at the time of shutdown.
Therefore, the question is this. How does the risk of that potential operation compare with the standard? It appears, according to the literature we have read, that the plant satisfies the prior licence conditions, but let us leave that one there.
Therefore, the new requirement that is placed on the plant to improve the reliability of the power supply to these pumps is an improvement, we feel, and in the long term should be an enhancement of the safety of the plant.
We come to then a comparison between the risk of continued plant operation versus the risk of the lack of medical isotopes to a large number of people. In our judgment and in our opinion, our judgment says that the risk of operation of NRU is very much less than the risk of not operating NRU.
That completes my statement.
…
Mr. Robert Strickert (Former manager of Pickering and Site VP of Darlington):
Mr. Chair, we were provided with the AECL case on NRU operating with the extra pump and we were provided with a copy of AECL’s letter. We were not provided with a copy of the licensing issues, so we looked at the safety side of it with respect to the safety case and not with respect to the past licensing track. We are not into the legal licensing issue at all. We were looking at the safety.
Having reviewed that case, we thought it was prudent to restart the reactor, that it appeared to be a reasonable case, certainly on our background knowledge. Dan, in particular, has had a background in nuclear safety review at NRU. I have been quite involved over the years with a number of submissions at various plants on nuclear safety. I was the signing authority for Ontario Hydro for a number of plants, for a number of years. It was my name on the document in terms of what was submitted.
Our understanding was the reactor was capable and safe before it was shut down, and that there has been an enhancement made that will give it an additional level of safety. We believed, based on the information we were provided, that this plant could operate for a short period of time, up to the 16 weeks that was mentioned, with the required level of safety and a better level of safety than it had operated for in the past 50-odd years.
That was the opinion we put forward based on the information we were provided, which was the AECL submission.
Are you, as a PEng, responsible for upholding the reputation of the profession, going to allow these inferences by E May to go unchallenged within the GP?
——————————————————-
Having just re-read Elizabeth’s blog in it’s entirety, yes, I will let it go unchallenged because I do not believe that you have properly portrayed the context of her comments, not to mention the intent of her comments. I believe her post, in combination with the various news releases from the Green Party, raises legitimate concerns about the Conservative governments handling of this whole issue which ought to be addressed. You can pick apart her words if you like, but that does not detract from the validity of the questions raised.
First, Mr Harper himself raised the issue of partisanship when he accused Linda Keen of being a “Liberal Appointee”, as if to offer this as explanation of her incompetence or her deliberate efforts to undermine the government. To then rely on the testimony of experts who had ties to the Conservative Party and/or AECL seems to me to be a colossally stupid move.
Second, I do not believe that Elizabeth called into question the reputation of the witnesses, or questioned their ethics. She merely pointed out that they were not, in fact, “independent” experts. She is entitled, as are we all, to have a difference of opinion with these gentlemen since nuclear safety is in many cases a judgment call about what is an acceptable level of risk. As Elizabeth stated, these plants operate at a very small risk of a very catastrophic event. Some people believe that we take more precaution than necessary, while others believe that all nuclear is unacceptable since the results of an accident are too unthinkable at ANY level of risk.
Third, as I’ve said before and I’ll say again, Linda Keen, and indeed the entire CNSC, is not responsible for ensuring the delivery of medical isotopes. Their mandate, their entire responsibility in fact, is the safe operation of nuclear plants in Canada. End of story.
I do not claim to know whether the operation of Chalk River was in fact in violation of their license. The CNSC seemed to believe that it was while AECL clearly does not. I also do not claim to be qualified to judge the increased level of risk in operating without the equipment that the CNSC required but that AECL had not installed. This too is an area of disagreement between the CNSC and AECL. (That said, as an engineer I’m likely more qualified than the majority of MP’s in the House of Commons.)
But surely there must be a way to determine the answers to these questions without accusing the chair of the CNSC of partisanship, incompetence, or dereliction of duty in not considering the impact of medical isotope supply when in fact that is NOT the CNSC’s mandate.
Oh, and for the record, I do not accept your premise that posts on Elizabeth’s blog are ever error ridden or misrepresentative. I think informative and thought provoking are better descriptions.
– Glenn
Had you listened to the testimony, at Committee, of the Deputy Minister (as E May had) you would know it was her that elected to contact these individuals on short notice. She testified that she had no knowledge of any political affiliation. For you to suggest “To then rely on the testimony of experts who had ties to the Conservative Party and/or AECL seems to me to be a colossally stupid move” is , quite frankly, equally offensive.
Secondly, by most definitions, “independent” means not being a member of the three parties within the dispute – AECL , CNSC or NR Can. This would be one step removed from, for example, AG Sheila Frasier who is independent of Gov’t while remaining its employee.
When req’d to provide “expert” testimony on short notice on a complex issue such as Chalk River safety, (the very narrow issue they were asked to comment on) it would be incumbent for any PEng to be familiar with the facility. And to have any nuclear experience in Canada and to be available to render an expert opinion in front of the HofC on short notice is a tall order.
Can you reasonably identify any such individual with nuclear expertise in Canada who would not have “independence” from AECL/CNSC/NRC?
Your suggestion of “colossally stupid” I would suggest is equally if not more so.
E May’s characterization has to be put in context. In the past, she (and subsequently others) have suggested CNSC (under L. Keen) was “rubber stamping” and had a too cozy relationship with AECL. They apparently made decisions that she did not agree with. I raised this on an earlier blog of yours, and you agreed with my assessment that this was improper. This is no different.
May has suggested (or speculated) a conspiracy of AECL (principally by inference its Professional Engineers) to put the public at risk by creating an artificial health risk crisis to Canadians – the motive being that it was profit driven to meet some commercial commitment. Equally offensive with no proof. Just throw as much mud out there and eventually something may stick.
At the beginning of her blog, she claimed Canada was now equivalent to Iran in terms of the nuclear industry self regulating – which she described as ” “An impossible and dangerous precedent of nuclear fox watching over radioactive chicken coop.” A complete fabrication of the situation and fear mongering.
Glenn, I don’t think you are being honest here – perhaps you remain too charged up from campaign school – your blind partisanship is showing.
(and btw – since you hadn’t responded for some time,I have already raised the issue elsewhere – and will continue to whenever E May makes such improper statements and smears)
My professional training on ethics seems to be at odds with yours. And I’m sure I have taken the same courses and exams as you, if not more.
————————————————————————————-
Interesting. Question: Do you also monitor and comment on the (alleged) “improper statement and smears” of other politicians? I’m sure I can find you a lengthly list from Stephen Harper, Peter Van Loan, and John Baird if you need them. If you already do this, please send me the links to add to my collection.
Yes, my use of the phrase “colossally stupid” may be a bit extreme, but it was stated in context. The Conservatives accused Linda Keen of partisanship and I would expect, in that context, that when choosing experts to call in to counter the position of the CNSC they might want to go to extreme lengths in their efforts to avoid even the appearance of partisanship. Perhaps it’s just me.
No, I can’t identify individuals who would be experts and not have these affiliations but again, in the absence of true independence I would expect that non-independence could be balanced by hearing the testimony of parties with affiliation to more than one of the parties in the dispute.
Are Elizabeth’s statements about Canada and Iran now having this in common incorrect? I don’t know. Are you aware of other jurisdictions where nuclear licensees are allowed to regulate themselves? Before you say it, yes, I am aware that the CNSC is still in existence and performing it’s function, but the I would think that it’s pretty hard to deny that the authority of the regulator has been seriously undermined by this entire series of events.
Elizabeth is not alone in suggesting that there is more than meets the eye in this whole event. There are many other politicians and news agencies saying much the same thing. It was completely avoidable. As to whether there was some specific P.Eng. involved in knowingly misleading people or placing the public at risk, I cannot say and nor did Elizabeth in any of her writings.
Me? Blind partisanship? That’s a good one. None of what I have expressed has ever been dishonest. I may, from time to time and like every other human being, be wrong. And when faced with new facts or new ways to look at something, I own up to it. But please don’t ever accuse me of dishonesty if you want me to consider anything else you have to say.
I can’t comment on your professional training on ethics since I don’t really know anything about you. Mine is typical for my engineering education. But I would have to say that any courses I took never really presented any surprises in how to behave with honesty and integrity. And in almost 20 years since graduation I certainly have never pulled out a text and said, “Oh damn, I have an obligation to be honest? What’s up with that?”
In the end of course, all of this discussion is steering away from the main points, which are:
1: that Linda Keen has been fired for doing her job, since the mandate of the CNSC is nuclear safety, not the provision of isotopes or the financial considerations of corporations.
2: that the authority of the CNSC, a quasi judicial independent body, has been undermined by political interference. And with that the independence of all of our other quasi judicial regulators could be equally considered to be at risk.
– Glenn
Interesting. Question: Do you also monitor and comment on the (alleged) “improper statement and smears” of other politicians?
A brief reply to this one question which basically covers off everything else you have written.
The GPC under the leadership of E May has said – it will do things differently, in a non-partisan way, and won’t sling mud or smear people. Fear mongering and innuendo don’t fit under that definition in most dictionaries. E May constantly repeats” I am not a politician – I always tell the truth” yet her performance, if you look at it objectively (as I do), fails to meet her own standards, not just once, but constantly.
But, carry on. These things tend to boomerang…
A favourite quote of the GPC:
“Be the change that you want to see in the world.” Mohandas Gandhi
GPC rhetoric or reality?
From today’s G&M discussion:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080205.wlivesimpson0206/BNStory/specialComment/home/?pageRequested=all
Edward Vickers, Edmonton: Mr. Simpson, there is a sense that U.S. voters are fed up with partisan bickering, gotcha politics, reputation-smearing, and so on, and are looking to politicians who can “reach across the floor.”
Do sense that there is a similar mood in Canadian politics?
Jeffrey Simpson: Edward, the short answer is no. Our politics is fiercely adversarial.[ahem]
There have been a few examples of multi-partisanship in this minority parliament, but not many.
Benjamin Teitelbaum, Montreal: There are a number of paradoxes in Canadian politics which have always intrigued me and are interrelated to my question.
First, why Canadians are so anti-American and so smug about American culture/people?
Second, whilst they are basically utilitarian/conservative, why are they so undisposed to say they are in fact “conservative” and so disposed to attach the small “liberal” label to themselves.
At least our neighbours to the South are more honest about their own self-appraisal.
Jeffrey Simpson: Benjamin, yes, there is an “anti-American” element in the country, mostly on the far political left, as reflected in the books by Linda McQuaig, Maude Barlow, Naomi Klein and various academics [repeated oftentimes by Elizabeth May].
In this way of seeing the world, American is the principal source of all the world’s ills and the main obstacle to progress.
Following along, the argument is that Canada is an appendage to this empire, and should resist by all means available. [ahem- GPC rhetoric on SPP/NAU - have you noticed how Ron Paul is doing in the US running on this platform?]
This kind of thinking has an audience, but it’s actually quite small as a share of the population.
It is, alas, deeply embedded in the New Democratic Party [and the GPC], as any survey of speeches, resolutions and other manifestation of NDP [and GPC] thinking makes clear.
But I like Richard Gwyn’s phrase in his excellent biography of Sir John A. MacDonald that — rather than being “anti-American,” most Canadians are “un-American” in the sense that they simply do not want to be American.
That is what drove Canada from the beginning and it drives Canada today.
It means taking what is good, and rejecting that which is not wanted.
We share a continent. We shares many values. We share a continental economy. Many share family.
Whether we like their politics or government, or the way they organize this or that aspect of their society, we live beside them, and we should try to have constructive relations with them, which does means neither feeling compelled to agree nor to disagree with them just to make a point.
Anti-Americanism, to me, has always been a silly crutch. And it leads to the deadliest of all Canadian sins: unfounded moral superiority. [ahem]