From Saskatchewan’s Green Party, whose policies outflank those of the federal Green Party by leaps and bounds!


For Release: Saskatoon, Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Bruce Power announced they will begin conducting a feasibility study for the development of a nuclear reactor in Saskatchewan, stating nuclear power is clean, affordable, and reliable. On the same day, Atomic Energy Canada Ltd. addressed the Regina Chamber of Commerce promoting nuclear energy.

At a time when the Saskatchewan Party Government proclaims at every opportunity Saskatchewan is “Open for Business”, the Green Party of Saskatchewan (GPS) questions whether nuclear is clean, affordable and Saskatchewan’s only option to conserve power consumption and diversify its energy sources. The GPS wants to ensure that a healthy debate on all alternative energy sources ensues before any nuclear project is considered.

“Bruce Power has proven in the past their projects are neither affordable nor reliable,” says Amber Jones, leader of the GPS, referring to the 2003-2004 nuclear plant refurbishments that saw cost overruns of 130% in Ontario. “I’m curious as to why the Sask Party wishes to be associated with an industry that nearly bankrupted the province of Ontario? Does Brad Wall want Saskatchewan residents to have to pay the same “fee” that all Ontario residents have to pay on their power bills?” asks Jones.

Duncan Hawthorne, President and CEO of Bruce Power, stated on John Gormley Live today the need to increase Saskatchewan’s power production from 3500 to 4500 megawatts for a province of 1 million people and little population growth in 20 years. Hawthorne then went on to suggest that a Bruce Power nuclear plant could service Alberta and the USA.

The GPS is calling for the government to complete an environmental impact assessment that studies the effects of nuclear power production from beginning to end, considering the effects of mining, processing, reacting, and waste disposal. They are also calling for the government to consult with all stake-holders that will be involved in any proposed development.

“We don’t have a problem with Bruce Power completing a feasibility study in our province, or AECL promoting nuclear power to the Regina Chamber of Commerce at the same time, but we do have a problem with the Sask Party sitting by – giving the silent nod of approval to nuclear but offering Saskatchewan residents no plan or insight into changing environmental demands.” Jones said, referring to the silent presence of Minister Ken Cheveldayoff at Bruce Power’s press conference. “Where is the study about the feasibility of all large-scale or small-scale renewable energy projects in the province?”

The GPS is also opposed to the development of nuclear power in Saskatchewan due to production of long term radioactive waste that cannot be disposed of, and that might end up in weapons.


For More Information:

Amber Jones – Leader, GPS

Kelly Patrick – President, GPS



  1. Whooee! I ain’t sure why you’re sayin’ the GPS has a stronger policy than the GPC. GPC policy calls for a complete moratorium on uranium mining and for an end to nuclear power in Canada. The GPC has problems with any new nuclear development, including EA’s and solicitations to local councils and Chambers of Commerce. The GPC policy wrt nuclear energy states:

    Green Party MPs will:

    * Work with Provinces to phase out existing nuclear power, to stem the buildup of nuclear
    wastes, and to institute a Canada wide moratorium on uranium mining and refining.

    * Call for the federal government to stop subsidizing all phases of the nuclear industry and
    Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) and stop promoting CANDU reactors. Federal
    insurance will no longer cover the risk of nuclear accidents.

    * Demand that the operations of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) and
    AECL are transparent and at arms length from government and require the disclosure of the
    minutes of all meetings with AECL.

    * Seek an amendment to the Nuclear Liability Act, increasing maximum insured liabilities
    from $75 million to $13 billion (the amount for which US reactors are insured). Federal
    legislation will no longer limit the liability of the nuclear industry to a minuscule portion of
    potential costs of a nuclear accident.

    Seems fairly comprehensive and unequivocal to me.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s