Don’t give me ‘absolutely safe’

Posted on November 18, 2002 by Other News Sources

National Post
November 18, 2002

I have to agree with Lawrence Solomon (Relatively Safe; Absolutely Ridiculous, Nov. 13). I’m a (PhD!) professional geologist who spent many years wandering around rock formations in Saskatchewan which host uranium ore, many so radioactive to our handheld Geiger counters (scintillometers, to be technically precise) they went offscale. Back in the 1980s I was at a nuclear conference in Calgary where one of Mr. Solomon’s government experts was talking about how safe mining was and the excellent federal government safety controls. I got to quiz him, and after much beating around the bush he admitted the government measured radon once a month at the exhaust gas stack! In other words, no one had the vaguest idea of radon, or any other radioactive material, underground at the active face where people actually worked! The same applied at exploration camps where there were (maybe still are?) tents so crammed with cores from uranium exploration that scintillometers howl. I’ve been there. So don’t give me “Absolutely Safe.”

Now don’t make me into an anti-nuke. I have no problem with the “Death by Power” table and would sooner live beside a nuclear plant than a coal plant. And I’d really like to see abandoned Saskatchewan uranium mines used as repositories for ex-Russian weapons. But I’m now 58 and remain curious if radiation hazards are hype or real. I watch for my colleague’s obituaries, so far nothing unusual. To me there’s a simple solution, get government right out of the nuclear business except for its regulation. Then litigation can handle the consequences.

Robert J. Munday, Lumsden, Sask.

Posted in Energy | Leave a comment

Absolutely ridiculous

Posted on November 13, 2002 by Other News Sources

Lawrence Solomon
National Post
November 13, 2002

“The nuclear industry has never claimed to be ‘absolutely safe’,” says AECL PhD Jeremy Whitlock. Never? I guess no one could be that dumb, certainly no one in the worldwide nuclear industry that I wrote about last week. OK, Jeremy. I apologize. And I apologize to you, too, John Sutherland. You sure nailed it. “No one that I know in the industry” would ever, ever say nuclear power was “absolutely safe.” What a fool I was John, not checking with you first, to confirm the nuclear industry’s precision and rectitude. How could I think the brain-trust that keep the lights on and us safe – how could I think that even a single one of you noble nuclear folk – could be reckless with language when you’re so cautious – too cautious, you tell us – safeguarding us from radiation. Nothing is absolute. Everyone in the nuclear industry knows that. Now I understand that, too.

Oh, wait! Oliver Kingsley, the vice-president of Exelon Corporation, America’s largest nuclear power operator, told PBS NewsHour last year. “These plants are absolutely safe,” Maybe it was a slip of the tongue. Wait! He said it again – “absolutely safe.” Maybe his tongue slipped twice in the same interview. Or maybe he meant it. “So we maintain these plants in top-like conditions; we cut no corners at all with these plants. These plants are absolutely safe,” he said for the third time.

But Exelon is only a private corporation. In Canada, real industries are run by governments. Maybe Jeremy and John meant no one in the nuclear industry working for governments could ever be so naive as to say nuclear power is “absolutely safe.” Oops. “Absolutely safe,” pronounced Dale Klein, a leading consultant to the U.S. federal government. “Absolutely safe,” echoed Ed Helminski, who helped develop U.S. federal policy while in several government posts and is now a nuclear consultant and editor of an industry newsletter.

Maybe Jeremy and John meant no one in the worldwide nuclear industry outside America could be so ignorant as to say the nuclear power industry is absolutely safe. “Absolutely safe,” say the Japanese. “Absolutely safe,” say the Russians. “Absolutely safe,” say the Czechs. And the Indians and the Pakistanis?: “Absolutely safe.” Even the Turks, eyeing cut-rate Candus that Jeremy’s AECL was offering, called nuclear technology “absolutely safe.” But they wouldn’t have heard that from Jeremy or John or any one else in the nuclear industry.

Jeremy and John, I hate to break this to you, but your colleagues are positively, absolutely letting you down. Check them out for yourselves using Google: Key in “absolutely safe” and your favourite country and watch Google go. Not only do your colleagues say nuclear power generation is “absolutely safe,” they say nuclear mining is “absolutely safe” and that nuclear waste disposal is “absolutely safe” and that nuclear-powered submarines are “absolutely safe.” Our own federal government – your boss, Jeremy – says transporting plutonium is “absolutely safe.” It’s almost a reflex with these guys. Say “nuclear” and out comes “absolutely safe.”

But don’t be too hard on them, because they mean well. And really, is there any difference between their formula and yours? When you say “Absolutely no human endeavour is absolutely safe” or that nuclear power is “only relatively safe” you really mean that just about nothing is safer than nuclear. Not coal, not oil, not hydro-electricity, not even solar energy, because, nuclear statisticians say, people die like flies installing it. Those in Jeremy and John’s “nuclear-is-not-absolutely-safe” camp say that you get more radiation from sleeping next to your wife than from living next to a nuclear plant. Thanks for putting the risk in perspective, guys. I feel safer, just knowing that my welfare is in your hands.

John, you wonder why the public isn’t clamouring for liability protection from all of the other energy generating options? Because, John, as Jeremy knows, the public is already protected from reckless behaviour by other energy producers. Only nuclear needed government shielding. That’s why it’s called the Nuclear Liability Act, not the Coal Liability Act, not the Hydro or Oil or Windmill Liability Act. Only the GEs and the Westinghouses refused to stand behind their nuclear plants, from fear that a serious accident could bankrupt them.

Jeremy, I’m sure you’re a great nuclear physicist but you have an even greater talent for PR. I like the way you stand logic on its head, say by declaring consumers the winners when the nuclear industry gains protection at the consumers’ expense. A PR flack with a mere BA could never have come up with that one. Or calling the new liability regime “no fault insurance” when consumers wouldn’t be entitled to 1 cent on the dollar in compensation for the property a nuclear accident would destroy. Brilliant. I guess we will save money from all that litigation you refer to. But Jeremy, you still need to explain why, if the reactors are so all-but-absolutely safe, and if accidents are so very unlikely to occur, all that litigation would occur in the first place?

Letters re: Nuclear Risk: Make ’em Pay, Lawrence Solomon
Nov. 6

The nuclear industry has never claimed to be “absolutely safe,” and it would be interesting to know if Mr. Solomon has evidence for his allegation to the contrary.

Absolutely no human endeavour is absolutely safe, but some are safer than others. The nuclear industry’s record is exemplary; in all probability it is the best of any large-scale electricity generation technology.

The industry’s confidence in the technology is embodied in its capital investment, and the indemnification thereof. A shoddy and unsafe practice will first and foremost lead to loss of assets: about a billion bucks per reactor. Larger utilities (e.g. Ontario Power Generation) self-insure this risk; smaller utilities (e.g. NB Power) obtain private insurance. Suppliers to the nuclear industry are not absolved of liability if their product causes plant damage.

In the case of off-site consequences, the Nuclear Liability Act (NLA) channels all public liability to the operator, and coverage is “no fault.” This avoids a lengthy litigious process and thus directly benefits the consumer. It’s a good deal you’d be hard-pressed to find elsewhere.

In return, the operator’s liability is capped, currently at $75-million per reactor. While the level itself is debatable (and currently under review), the requirement is quite clear: Without restraint, public perception in a litigious society can destroy a good industry. One need only look at the farcical aftermath of Three Mile Island, despite its zero direct off-site consequences, for an example. For obvious reasons, anti-nuclear activists favour an open-ended free-for-all that leverages the fear and loathing they trade in.

The NLA places public damages exceeding the limit in the hands of the government, as would be the case for any large-scale disaster. So the public is most definitely insured against nuclear accidents, although you won’t find it in your homeowner’s coverage. This is often reported, as Mr. Solomon did, as trepidation on the part of the insurance industry, whereas the reasoning lies more in the industry’s distaste for insuring somebody twice.

Jeremy Whitlock, PhD, reactor physicist, AECL.

Death by power

Approximate relative human impact of most energy producing options as derived from world data over several decades (for the same energy output).

Energy Source Relative Human Fatalities*
Nuclear Power 1
Natural Gas 9
Hydro power 80
Wind 100
Solar-Photovoltaic 110
Oil 360
Liquefied Propane 3,100
Coal 3,200

* For the same energy generation

Source: International Atomic Energy Agency (Except Data for Wind and Solar Energy).

Mr. Solomon should be ashamed of himself for attempting to frighten and misinform the general public about nuclear power.

He is only one of several unaccountable so-called environmentalists who are fond of suggesting that the nuclear industry is fond of saying that nuclear power is absolutely safe. What a pity that what he says is not true. No one that I know in the industry says that, as they know that it is only relatively safe, although much safer than any other energy alternative. Many reputable studies over the last few years of collecting data on all significant sources of energy, as well as wind and solar, clearly show that nuclear energy is the safest (relative) source of energy that we have. But having invented this “absolute” straw man, he proceeds to call a group of unidentified, non-existent people outside of his own imagination, scaremongers, ignorant and fools.

When you consider the relative safety of all of our energy options as shown in the table, Mr. Solomon should be asking why the public is not clamouring for liability protection from all of the other energy generating options that are notably much less safe for the public than nuclear power. He won’t of course, as they don’t need any of it, as he well knows. However, that dose of honest perspective would totally defeat the purpose of his emotional diatribe and he would be unable to scare people witless, and thus raise funds for more mayhem for groups like Energy Probe.

John K. Sutherland, a consultant health physicist, is an adjunct professor in engineering at the University of New Brunswick, Fredericton.

The nuclear industry says it never claimed nuclear power is ‘absolutely safe,’ just safer than other sources. Lawrence Solomon says that’s absolute nonsense.

Mr. Solomon has made a number of errors and misrepresentations of fact regarding the nuclear industry and nuclear liability. The topic he addresses is supposedly Bill C-4, but Mr. Solomon in fact devotes most of his attention to the Nuclear Liability Act.

For the record, Bill C-4 has nothing to do with the Nuclear Liability Act or the safety of nuclear power plants, nor does it serve in any way to weaken the obligations placed upon nuclear operators by the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. All it does is to reinforce the Nuclear Liability Act by ensuring that nuclear operators remain solely liable for the consequences of their activity, and that liability cannot be deflected onto creditors. If creditors were required to absorb liability from all activity of those to whom they lend capital, the banking industry would not exist.

The purpose of Bill C-4 is to allow the nuclear industry to function as a normal commercial enterprise, and hence to succeed or fail as any other commercial enterprise. To do so, whether it is in public or in private ownership, any industry must have access to capital which is currently denied to the nuclear industry by Subsection 46(3) of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.

In fact the only reliable opinion in Mr. Solomon’s column was stated in the first sentence in his description of nuclear energy critics as “scaremongers, the ignorant and fools.”

Colin G. Hunt is director of research and publications at the Canadian Nuclear Association.

Jeremy Whitlock, PhD, reactor physicist, AECL.

To read Lawrence Solomon’s article, “Nuclear risk: Make ’em pay,” click here.

Click here to read a readers response, ” Don’t give me, Absolutely safe”

Posted in Energy | Leave a comment

Re: Less Government, Less Greenhouse Gas

Posted on November 11, 2002 by Other News Sources

National Post
November 11, 2002

Mr. Solomon points out that Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions contributed by the agriculture sector is about 10%. What he neglects to indicate is that, in fact, the agriculture sector will address 20% of Canada’s target emissions now that agricultural soils are recognized as carbon sinks.

Mr. Solomon also describes “large, mechanized farms, whose crude tillers deplete carbon from topsoil.” It is obvious that he is unaware that several years ago, many prairie farmers adopted a production management system, called direct seeding or zero tillage, that enables farmers to seed directly into the previous crop’s standing stubble. In this management system, the only time the soil is disturbed is at the time of seeding, drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Sound science has proven that soil carbon (organic matter) actually increases in this system. The Prairie Soil Carbon Balance Project, conducted by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, measured the change in soil carbon over a three-year period for 150 commercial farm fields that had just been converted to direct seeding. In that time, there were statistically significant increases in their carbon content.

In direct seeding or zero tillage systems, farmers eliminate tillage-based black fallow from their rotations. Leguminous crops such as pulses and short-term forages are often added to the rotation. Another farming practice that serves to maintain a healthy environment is the establishment of permanent forages on marginal cropland. Perennial forage plants remove large amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Once established, forages are left in stands for several years resulting in an accumulation of soil organic carbon. Perennial forages also stabilize fragile, marginal soils, leaving them less susceptible to the forces of wind and water erosion.

A second benefit to a direct seeding or zero tillage system is the reduction in the use of fossil fuels. As fewer tillage operations are required, fossil fuel usage declines. Many farmers report a drop in total tractor hours by as much as 60%, a dramatic reduction in the farm’s fuel consumption. In fact, the capture of one tonne of carbon dioxide in the soil is the equivalent of removing the emissions created by burning 725 litres of fuel. This combination of reduced fuel usage and removal and storage of carbon dioxide in soils makes a major contribution in reducing the nation’s emissions inventory.

Don Horsman, president
and Blair McClinton, PAg, executive manager
Saskatchewan Soil Conservation Association

Click here to read Lawrence Solomon’s article, “Less Government, Less Greenhouse Gas.”

Posted in Agriculture (Rural) | Leave a comment

Federal electoral Boundaries commissions 2002

Posted on November 8, 2002 by urbanrenaissanceinst

Fair  Voting BC

November 8, 2002

The single-seat district system violates charter rights far more profoundly than any inequality of numbers between districts.

COMMISSIONERS

Honourable Mr. Justice Robert Hutchison

Mr. R. Kenneth CartyMs. Lynda Erickson

CONTENTS

Recommendations                                              2
Commission’s Mandate                                      2
First Principle:One person, One vote              3
Second Principle:Effective Representation     5
Practical Problems                                              6
Summary                                                              9
End Notes                                                            10
Appendix: About Fair Voting BC                      11

RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDATIONS

(1)             That future Electoral Boundaries Commissions be specifically mandated that their considerations be guided by both the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

GROUNDS

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees Canadian citizens the right to vote in federal and provincial elections. This right has been interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada in a manner that sets constitutional criteria for the drawing of electoral boundaries which are additional to the criteria presently contained in the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.

Some boundaries commissions acknowledge the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a guide, others do not.

(2)             That, the House of Commons place the matter of electoral reform before the citizens of Canada for public debate and a referendum much like the process that preceded New Zealand’s recent switch to a more democratic electoral system.

GROUNDS

Boundaries Commissions must meet two objectives – votes of equal worth (within certain limits, Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act), and effective representation of minorities (Charter of Rights and Freedoms). Neither objective can be met by means of a single-seat district, electoral system.

The inequalities inherent in the voting system are so great, they trivialize the task of redrawing boundaries.

COMMISSION’S MANDATE

The commission’s mandate and enabling legislation does not occur in a complete legal, political, and constitutional vacuum. The full meaning of the commission’s instructions contained in Sec. 15 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act must be read within the context of court rulings aimed at understanding and protecting voter’s rights. In 1964, while the U.S. Supreme Court forced American states for the first time to address malapportionment, the Canadian Parliament brought in legislation creating independent electoral commissions, and the prohibition against deviations greater than 25 % of the provincial average quotient. The federal example of independent electoral boundaries commissions soon caught on among the provinces and a certain history developed about balancing the liberal, democratic ideal of one person, one vote, and the more conservative impulse to preserve fair representation for smaller, usually rural, communities of interest.

These practices became more formally entrenched following a number of court rulings defining more precisely the full meaning of the Charter-right to vote. These court rulings, particularly Carter v. Saskatchewan (A.G.), S.C.C. June 6, 1991, have a bearing on the mandate of any electoral boundaries commission.

Accordingly, the current federal Electoral Boundaries Commission of Nova Scotia states in its Proposed Report, “In conjunction with the provisions of the Act (Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act), the Commission’s decisions must be guided by the Constitution Act, 1982, in particular the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, …” In addition, some provinces have amended their relevant legislation to mandate that provincial boundaries commissions be guided by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. For example, Alberta’s legislation contains the following, “… the commission … must take into consideration the requirement for effective representation as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” Prince Edward Island has a similar provision and Nova Scotia includes minority representation. (Compendium of Election Administration in Canada, by Alain Pelletier, 1999, Elections Canada.)

Following Carter v. Saskatchewan academics and interested observers suggested that no electoral boundaries commission can ignore the court’s findings. R. E. Fritz, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Saskatchewan wrote:

In defining the Charter-protected right as requiring “effective representation,” the Court has mandated the consideration of such factors as community interest, rate of growth, special geographic features etc., where they are present. This has altered significantly the job of those who draw constituency boundaries in the future. Each constituency’s boundaries must be measured against those factors and failure to consider them will open the boundaries to challenge. Justice McLachlin’s comment related to giving deference to the conclusion, but only where the proper balancing of considerations is shown to have taken place. Those who are responsible for the drawing of the boundaries, be they commissioners, members of legislative committees, representatives of the governing party, or members of the bureaucracy, may find themselves being called to testify about how they carried out their task. Ideally the detailed reasons should be provided in any reports they produce. Failing that, prudence would suggest that such reasons should be available in records detailing their deliberations.1

And Andrew Sancton, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Western Ontario wrote:

The Court’s decision seems to have been written in such a way as to encourage extensive future litigation, or at least threats of such litigation directed at the hapless boundary-drawers. Numerous groups will inevitably want to argue that “effective representation” means boundaries must be drawn to take account of their particular concerns.2

As the commission fulfils its mandate it must take into consideration and be guided by the court’s decisions related to the meaning of Sec. 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The burden of this submission is that the meaning of Sec. 3 as understood by the recent court decisions cannot be attained through single-seat constituencies.

FIRST PRINCIPLE, ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE

The principle of one person, one vote derives from liberal political theory according to which society consists of individuals whose equality and equal treatment before the law are of paramount importance. This view attaches less importance to communities of interest or group-rights. It is based on the premise that a modern democracy should treat all citizens equally. This principle is reflected in the various court rulings related to section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which suggest that the ideal is for every MP to be elected by and to represent the same number of citizens, and that exceptions to this rule require justification.

Section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms reads:

Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election to the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly, and to be qualified for membership therein.

Three cases, one heard by the Supreme Court of Canada, have elucidated the meaning of this section for electoral systems. British Columbia’s electoral boundaries legislation was the first to be tested against section 3 in what came to be known as the Dixon case. Chief Justice McLachlin of the BC Supreme Court, as she then was, delivered her judgment on April 18, 1989.3 The argument centred on the urban/rural split whereby some urban MLAs represented 15 times the population of the least populous rural riding under the then current BC legislation. This suggests that the vote of some was 15 times more powerful, than the vote of others. McLachlin observed:

The purpose (of the right to vote) cannot be less than to guarantee to citizens their full democratic rights in the government of the country and the provinces.

And,

…the right to vote and participate in the democratic election of one’s government is one of the most fundamental of the Charter rights.4

Such a fundamental right must not be diluted for some citizens by giving greater weight to the vote of others. Therefore, to ensure equality of voting power, representation must be by population in equal numbers. The electoral system must protect the equal worth of each citizen. Without equality of voting power, the popular will cannot be determined. The essence of democracy is that the people rule. Anything less than direct, representative democracy risks attenuating the expression of the popular will and hence risks thwarting the purpose of democracy.5

The court elaborated on why equality of voting power is so important. After observing that elected representatives have both a legislative and an ombudsman role, the court wrote:

In the legislative role, it is the majority of elected representatives who determine who forms the government and what laws are passed. In principle, the majority of elected representatives should represent the majority of the citizens entitled to vote. Otherwise, one runs the risk of rule by what is in fact a minority.6

Voting power means that a citizen’s vote should be capable of making a difference in determining who forms the government and what laws are passed. And in particular that this power should not be greater for some than for others.

Following the Dixon case, the Saskatchewan government referred its Electoral Boundaries Commission Act to the province’s Court of Appeal for an opinion on its constitutionality.7 The Court of Appeal interpreted section 3 to embody principles very similar to the Dixon case. One person – one vote, also means ‘a vote of equal worth’. To give full effect to this charter-right, electoral laws must “strive to make each citizen’s portion of sovereign power equal.” This will lead to ‘fair and effective representation’. In devising electoral boundaries the controlling and dominant principle is equality in the numbers of citizens each representative represents. By way of explanation, the court wrote:

This is so because most citizens can participate (in government) only as qualified voters through the election of legislators to represent them. …Voter’s rights merit constitutional safeguards in this way because the proportionate share of voting power enjoyed by each elected member of the Legislative Assembly. Any malapportionment with respect to voter population, and the subsequent dilution of a person’s vote, is reflected in the exercise of power in the legislature. The array of powers enjoyed by the legislature are exercised through the aforementioned voting scheme in our democracy. Since these powers touch the lives of each and every citizen in one way or another, the preservation and growth of our democratic process is not furthered by electoral practices which offend the worth of a person’s vote.8

The court held the legislation to contravene section 3. This was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, which delivered a decision on June 6, 1991, reversing the opinion of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.9 This ruling, known as the Carter case, did not eliminate votes of equal worth as the paramount guiding principle, but found that in addition to equality of voting power Section 3 also guarantees “the right to effective representation”. Mathematical equality between districts, even if it could be perfectly attained, may still not be fair in that boundaries could be drawn so as to give partisan advantage, or exclude from effective representation politically significant interests, such as, gender parity, the representation of First Nations, ethnic minorities, and political groups. Hence, the principle of effective representation must balance any unfairness strict adherence to the one person, one vote rule might engender. So, now there are two principles to guide boundaries commissions.

SECOND PRINCIPLE, EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION

Canadian political history and culture is a mixture of both a liberal concern for individual rights and a conservative regard for the protection of community and diversity. This conservative respect for community, and the realism that representation necessarily applies to groups, since groups of voters elect representatives, individual voters do not, are both embodied in the concept of effective representation. John A. Macdonald said of the 1872 readjustment of constituency boundaries:

It will be found that, … while the principle of population was considered to a very great extent, other considerations were also held to have weight; so that different interests, classes and localities should be fairly represented, that the principle of number should not be the only one.10

The 1964 federal Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act mandates boundaries commissions to be guided by the need to represent “communities of interest”. Mostly these considerations have been applied to justify smaller rural ridings. Carter, like previous cases held that smaller populations for rural ridings is justified since, “it is more difficult to represent rural ridings than urban”.11 That access to one’s representative is more difficult in rural ridings, is a concern familiar to every electoral boundaries commission. But recent court decisions go beyond the traditional concerns by broadening the scope of factors that fall within the concept of effective representation.

Factors like geography, community history, community interests and minority representation may need to be taken into account to ensure that our legislative assemblies effectively represent the diversity of our social mosaic. These are but examples of considerations which may justify departure from absolute voter parity in the pursuit of more effective representation; the list is not closed.12(emphasis added)

If sparsely populated, remote areas are worthy of special consideration to ensure they will be represented effectively, then by this judgment so should ethnic, religious, economic, professional, gender, and perhaps many other interests, including partisan political interests. Analysts note that this places a burden before electoral boundaries commissions that goes beyond traditional concerns.

Fair and effective representation seems to require giving “deserving” groups or “communities of interest” (including but not limited to political parties) an appropriate degree of electoral influence. This goal can be undermined intentionally through explicit gerrymandering, or inadvertently through independent commissions paying too much attention to a standard of population equality.13

And the Alberta Court of Appeal following Carter wrote:

We foresee the possibility of minority claims for effective representation that, if accepted, might have an impact not just on the boundaries of specific districts but also on the total number of districts, the idea of single-seat constituencies, and the tradition of contiguous boundaries.14

PRACTICAL PROBLEMS

In drawing electoral boundaries the commission must be guided by two principles – votes of equal worth (within some limitations), and effective representation. Under single-seat districts neither principle can be attained. The single-seat district system is intentionally designed to not give equal power to all votes, and to not represent all parts of the public. With single-seat districts voting power and representation is only for those who vote for the winning candidate in each district, which is usually a minority of the voters. In practice, Canadians have the right to vote, but they do not have the right to have their vote count, nor do they have the right to be represented by the person or party of their choice.

For example, in 1993 the riding of New Westminster was won by less than 30% of the vote. The losing remnants that together make up 70% cannot be added to similar remnants in adjoining districts. Instead, the system discarded, or wasted 70% of the New Westminster votes. Such votes did not in anyway contribute to the outcome. Such voters are without power, and without representation. In this instance 70% of voters did not enjoy the benefits of either of the two charter-guaranteed voting rights. That 70% cast votes of no worth, and were denied representation of their choice.

Nor is this deprival of charter-rights restricted to the electors of New Westminster in 1993. In a typical election the majority of votes are for losing candidates. Such votes are wasted, in the sense that they have no effect on the outcome. Country-wide in 2000, 51.8% of the voters voted for losing candidates. The system of single-seat districts eliminated their choices. Their interests and political views are without representation in Parliament. The representation they do have is not of their choosing. Single-seat district electoral systems have an inherent democratic deficit.

It is imperative to recognize that inequality of voting power is not restricted to the variation in population between districts, and misrepresentation of communities of interest is due only marginally to where boundaries are drawn. Violation of both principles is an inherent feature of the single-seat district system. Given such constraints, the best boundaries commissions can do is hold both principles in an uneasy balance, leaving neither principle realized, and both largely frustrated. Today, after a number of Charter rulings which mandate electoral boundaries commissions to consider both principles, the dilemma all boundaries commissions face is that these two principles are unattainable, and irreconcilable given the constraints of single-seat constituencies. Boundaries commissions claim that their work will result in votes of equal worth, but the voting system renders such claims hollow.

It need not be this way. For example, adopting any proportional voting system such as multi-seat districts with preferential balloting, or the Mixed Member Proportional system Germany has used since 1949 and which New Zealand, Scotland and Wales recently adopted, will attain more fully both the principle that each MP is elected by and represents the same number of citizens, and the principle that each politically significant interest, or community is entitled to be represented effectively. The electoral system should facilitate the attainment of both principles. Why choose between them, or settle for their partial attainment when it is possible to remove the conflict and have both?

If we are to take the instructions of recent court rulings regarding the full meaning of Section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms seriously, we must design the mechanics of the electoral system such that the principles enunciated by the courts and the democratic ideals Canadians increasingly yearn for can be met and fully accommodated.

Given the constraints of single-seat districts the Commission faces two practical problems.

(i)      First, there is a conflict between the principle of votes of equal worth and the principle of fair and effective representation for all politically significant communities of interest. This commission like its predecessors, will be asked to increase the representation of the province’s densely populated and fast growing areas, while the northern districts will plead to maintain their few MPs. The first request appeals to the principle of equality of votes, the latter, to the principle of effective representation. Given the constraints of single-seat districts neither principle will be satisfied. The more the commission leans toward the first principle the greater the deviation from the second, and visa versa. But single-seat districts are not inevitable. Voting systems are human constructs, they should serve human ends.

In addition, the principle of votes of equal worth would be violated even if every district had the exact same population by number. Why? Because in each district the only votes that count, that have weight, that contribute to the result, are those cast for the winning candidate, and this is usually a minority. Votes for losing candidates are deprived of all weight, worth, influence, or power.

In Dixon the court wrote:

In principle, the majority of elected representatives should represent the majority of the citizens entitled to vote. Otherwise, one runs the risk of rule by what is in fact a minority.15

The court seems unaware that single-seat districts regularly, consistently, and by design produce majority governments from a minority of the votes. Compromise of the principle of voter equality is an inherent feature of the single-seat system, and is not restricted to the unequal populations of electoral districts.

The court correctly notes that the majority of MPs should be elected by a majority of voters, however, had the court drawn out the logical implication of its principle, the single-seat district system itself would have been judged to contravene section 3. Given our system, any exhortation that a majority of MPs should be elected by a majority of votes cast, is bereft of any possible practical meaning.

The basic flaw of the single-seat district voting system is that it cannot represent most voters, except in a two-party system. The system is intentionally designed to represent only some of the voters – those who vote for the winning candidate. All others – usually the majority – get no representation. Under single-seat district rules Canadians have the right to vote, but not the right to have their vote count, and hence no right to be represented, in spite of what the courts claim the charter promises.

(ii)      The second practical difficulty is that single-seat districts cannot be used to represent non-territorial interests, as noted by the Alberta Court of Appeal. The single-seat voting system is designed to represent the political interests that adhere to a particular geographic locality. This may have been adequate when citizens lives were largely enclosed within the confines of the local community and one’s place of residence. In the computer, information-highway age representation of territorially-based interests is increasingly of less significance. No doubt the citizens of the Peace River region have political interests that are different from those who live in West Vancouver, but what is the political significance of living on one side of Vancouver’s Kingsway as opposed to living on the other side?

So long as effective representation for “communities of interests” was limited to favouring geographically distinct areas, the single-seat district system was the appropriate mechanism, but single-seat districts cannot accommodate non-geographical political interests. For example, the under-representation of women, First Nations, adherents of smaller political parties such as the Progressive Conservative, NDP and Green parties, and ethnic minorities cannot be addressed. Organizations representing women’s interests have long abandoned the hope that single-seat districts can accommodate their concerns adequately.16 Today, more Canadians are joined in communities of interest not defined by where they live, but instead by what they think and believe about public policy issues.

Apart from our social mosaic even our political diversity cannot be fairly and effectively represented by single-seat districts. In the 1993 election, it took 1,093,211 votes to capture one Progressive Conservative seat, but only 31,730 votes for each Liberal seat. In that election, a Liberal vote was 34 times more powerful than a Progressive Conservative vote. Even for our traditional political diversity representation is neither fair nor effective.

The courts in recognizing that modern society has political interests other than the traditional territorial ones have mandated that citizen’s charter-guaranteed voting rights includes the effective representation of Canada’s social mosaic, yet the courts have failed to understand that such political interests cannot be represented within the restrictions of single-seat districts.

Where the courts have failed, parliament can succeed. However, parliament needs to be nudged. There is no incentive for the ruling Liberals to reform a system so advantageous to them. Asking the Liberals to change the voting system is akin to asking turkeys to vote for an early Thanksgiving.

The court’s failure to note that neither the principle of votes of equal worth nor the principle of effective representation for politically significant communities of interest can be accommodated within the single-seat district electoral system leaves electoral boundaries commissions to do a job with tools not designed to accomplish the job. In fact, the tools are biased against doing the job. With single-seat districts, effective representation can at best be made available to some voters, and be partially available to some territorially defined communities of interest at the expense of violating the one person, one vote rule, while the majority of voters, and non-geographical communities of interests cannot be accommodated at all. If there is a charter-right to votes of equal worth, and to fair and effective representation, single-seat districts must be abandoned.

SUMMARY

The right to vote means more than placing an X on a ballot. Canadians have charter-protected voting rights. The courts talk about votes of equal power and effectiveness, but wasting most votes is considered normal. We sent international observers around the world to monitor for electoral fairness, but forget that Canadian women and natives are among the world’s most under-represented. We quibble about whether the district boundary should be one block north or south of Kingsway, but ignore that most people’s political concerns today no longer relate to place and geography. The single-seat district system violates charter rights far more profoundly than any inequality of numbers between districts.

Former MP, author, and long-time commentator, Patrick Boyer, Q.C. writes:

Why battle over fairness about where the constituency boundaries are drawn… if simultaneously we employ such a blunt system for calculating voting out-comes that it trivializes and even mocks these other refinements in our democratic electoral system?17

END NOTES

1  &nbspR.E. Fritz, “The Saskatchewan Electoral Boundaries Case and Its Implications,” in Drawing Boundaries, by J.C. Courtney et al eds., (Saskatoon: Fifth House Publishers, 1992), p 85.

2   A. Sancton, “Commentary”, Ibid., p 93.

3   Dixon v. B.C. (A.G.), 91989) 4 W.W.R.

4   Ibid. p 404.

5   Ibid. p 406.

6   Ibid. pp 413-14.

7   Reference Re: Provincial Electoral Boundaries (1991) 3 W.W.R. (Saskatchewan Court of Appeal).

8   Ibid. p 609.

9   Reference Re Provincial Electoral Boundaries (1991) 5 W.W.R. p 1 (Supreme Court of Canada) McLachlin was elevated to the Supreme Court of Canada shortly after the Dixon case, and wrote the majority opinion, which Norman Ruff has dubbed McLachlin II. Courtney J.C. et al., eds. Drawing Boundaries, Saskatoon: Fifth House Publishers 1992, p 128.

10   Dixon v. B.C. (A.G.), (1989) 4 W.W.R. p 410.

11   Ibid. p 20.

12  &nbspIbid. pp 12-13.

13   R.Knopff, F.L. Morton, Charter Politics (Scarborough, Ont., Nelson Canada), p 361.

14   Reference Re: Electoral Boundaries Commission Act (1992) 1W.W.R., p 481 (Alberta Court of Appeal).

15   Ibid. pp 413-14.

16   Rule, W. “Electoral Systems, Contextual Factors and Women’s Opportunity for Election to Parliament in Twenty-Three Democracies,” Western Political Quarterly. Vol. 40, No 3 (1987).

17   Loenen, Nick. Citizenship and Democracy, Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1997, p 9.

APPENDIX

Fair Voting BC was incorporated April 2, 1998 as a non-profit, non-partisan citizens organization under the BC Society’s Act.

Its purposes are:

(1)     To serve as a catalyst for a programme of political and legislative reforms, with the objective of fostering a renewed political environment in the province.

(2)     To educate interested citizens about the democratic process and the responsibilities of citizenship.

In particular, Fair Voting BC aims to accomplish its purposes by advocating fair voting through a more proportional voting system.

                             BOARD OF DIRECTORS

JOHN VEGT, President
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT

ROBERT RANSFORD, Vice-president
BUSINESSMAN

STUART PARKER, Secretary
CONSULTANT

PIETER ZEEMAN, Treasurer
BUSINESSMAN

PATRICK CONWAY
SYSTEMS ANALYST

KARIN ETHERIDGE
SOFTWARE ENGINEER

AARON JASPER
TOUR GUIDE

STEVE KISBY
COMPUTER TECHNICIAN

NICK LOENEN
FORMER MLA

DAVID MARLEY
LAWYER

ROWAN SHAW
STUDENT

DAVID SCHAUB
SOFTWARE DEVELOPER

JULIAN WEST
MATHEMATICIAN

              ADVISORY BOARD

GERRY ENSING
FORMER DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF
INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

DAVID SUZUKI
ENVIRONMENTALIST AND BROADCASTER

NORM LEVI
FORMER CABINET MINISTER

ANDRE MOLNAR
BUSINESSMAN

Posted in Cities, Regulation | Leave a comment

Nuclear risk: Make ’em pay

Posted on November 6, 2002 by Other News Sources

Lawrence Solomon
National Post
November 6, 2002

Nuclear power is absolutely safe, the nuclear industry is fond of saying. Only scaremongers, the ignorant and fools think otherwise, it maintains.

Canadian governments have fallen for the nuclear industry’s assurances but, thankfully, Canada’s private sector lenders haven’t. Knowing that the risk of nuclear contamination is real, and that they could be on the financial hook in the event of radioactive contamination, banks and other private financiers have refused to back nuclear facilities.

Soon that will change, the nuclear industry believes, thanks to an innovation designed to make investments in nuclear power safe enough for banks. The innovation is not a tightened safety technology, but a weakened Nuclear Safety and Control Act. With the passage of Bill C-4, which is now wending its way through Parliament, banks and other lenders will be absolved of worrisome liabilities in the event of a mishap.

To make nuclear power safe for other nervous Nellies – such as General Electric, Westinghouse, and other nuclear reactor manufacturers – the federal government took other measures. In the nuclear industry’s early days, GE et al. were worried sick that something small could go wrong – a broken valve, a malfunctioning alarm – and the consequences could be big. One meltdown could lay waste an entire city, the manufacturers explained, adversely affecting them and their shareholders. Legislators in Canada took the manufacturers’ concerns to heart, and took steps to ensure that a simple meltdown that inadvertently took out Toronto wouldn’t also take out a nuclear manufacturer. Canada passed the Nuclear Liability Act in the 1970s to guarantee that no harm whatsoever could come to a GE should any of its nuclear parts fail. To further ease the manufacturers’ nuclear paranoia, the legislation protects them even if an accident results from defective products that they had knowingly shipped, or safety documents that they had knowingly falsified.

The government failed to allay the fears of insurance company executives, who didn’t accept the claim that nuclear plants were virtually risk-free. As a result, insurance policies do not cover our homes and property in the event of a nuclear accident. The risk of a worst-case accident – which some U.S. studies have estimated at more than $400-billion – is just too calamitous to the bottom line for any insurer to contemplate.

Everyone is now reasonably safe in Canada – the lenders, the operators, the manufacturers, the insurers. Everyone, that is, except members of the public, who can neither insure themselves beforehand nor sue for compensation afterwards.

Despite these protections, the worldwide nuclear industry wants more. Although private nuclear companies feel safe at home, they worry that a meltdown in one country would expose them to liability laws in neighbouring lands. As would exports of nuclear goods, should an accident occur during shipping. In the belief that you can never be too safe, the industry is lobbying to make the world a Nuclear-Liability-Free Zone. The industry’s goal is an international protocol, governing all countries, that eliminates any untoward risk to private companies in the nuclear industry.

The state-run portion of the nuclear industry has no great liability concerns. Not so the nuclear industry’s private-sector players. Their concerns were voiced at an international symposium hosted by the Uranium Institute in 1999 by Washington lawyer Omer F. Brown, a member of the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency Contact Group on Liability and the counsel to two major nuclear industry groups: the Contractors International Group on Nuclear Liability and the Energy Contractors Price-Anderson Group.

“It is important to reiterate the fundamental factor that underlies the concerns of privately owned contractors and suppliers: Private – as distinguished from state-owned – companies have a fundamental obligation to protect the assets of their shareholders,” he explained.

“Private companies are exposed to tort and other liabilities to the full extent of their assets. The greater the assets of a private company, the greater its liability concerns are. Private companies ordinarily do not enjoy the immunities that governments and state-owned entities do. Company directors and officers even can be sued by shareholders for imprudent business decisions.”

To the relief of Mr. Brown and his clients, serious efforts are now underway to create the Nuclear-Liability-Free Zone that they wish. Various states are passing legislation that would further an international protocol, and the OECD’s Nuclear Energy Agency has taken up the cause of establishing a Nuclear-Liability-Free Zone. The logic of the Kyoto Protocol also gives governments a reason to lessen the nuclear industry’s international liability, just as it gives Canada’s Natural Resources Minister, Herb Dhaliwal, a rationale for weakened domestic safety legislation.

Solving the nuclear industry’s remaining liability concerns gives governments a warm feeling of accomplishment, and it makes the nuclear industry feel better. But it will leave the public out in the cold, should the accidents everyone in the industry expects but denies come to pass.

Posted in Energy | Leave a comment