Bill C-16 Nebulous and Reckless

May 26, 2016   ·   0 Comments

On behalf of the Institute for Canadian Values and its 105,000 members and like minded people across Canada, we wish to express grave concern over the proposed bill C-16.

We all recognize that those who seek to change their gender do experience higher levels of personal difficulties and are need of care.  To this this end we applaud anyone who offers assistance for those in need. However, we believe Bill C-16 will do the opposite.

Dr. Charles McVety, President-ICV, says “Bill C-16 is so vague, it is unenforceable.  The fluid nature of gender identity is so nebulous that people can change their gender identity moment by moment. In that the Bill seeks to change the Criminal Code of Canada, people may be sent to prison for two years over something that is ill-defined, and indeterminable. One of the defenses included in Section 319 is if the communication is established to be true. This is impossible with fluid gender identity.

“It is also reckless as the proposed law will establish universal protection for any man who wishes to access women’s bathrooms or girls showers with momentary gender fluidity. Every Member of Parliament should examine their conscience over the potential of their vote exposing women and girls to male genitalia and even being sexually violated, not by a “transgender” person but by the sexual predator protected by Bill C-16.”

Dr. Charles McVety

Energy East Pipeline

The Energy East pipe line proposal threatens the water supply of communities across the country. Canadians are being asked to bear the risk of the Energy East proposal while the benefits largely go to foreign corporations.  The risks are being underestimated by the proponent (Trans Canada Pipeline), to gain political support and profit. The employment benefits to Canadians are grossly exaggerated. This extensive proposal, involving 4500 kms of aged pipeline, threatens the ecology, the water supply of 5 million Canadians, their communities, and their futures.

The Energy East pipe line proposal lacks best practice evidence and engineering science to make it safe!

Bitumen in gas pipeline is a failed technology. This is what happens to a gas line when it transports bitumen (Kalamazoo Spill)

To transport thick, crude oil, called bitumen, in the aged, gas pipeline, it is diluted with toxic carcinogens (i.e., naptha). The weight of bitumen is 18 times natural gas, adding new stresses to the old pipeline, especially at contours, where the pipe drops down under rivers.

In open rivers or under ice, a bitumen leak could travel hundreds of kilometers, laying a layer of bitumen that will leach toxic chemicals for decades. On the existing gas pipelines across Canada, there have been 12 major breaks (1700 leaks in total), over a 20 year period. (google ŒPipeline map: CBC News, Michael Peveira)‰.

The leak detection technology has proven inadequate. In two major bitumen leaks in Kalamazoo, Michigan and the May Flour spill in Arkansas, leak detection failed outright. The claims made by the pipeline companies on the effectiveness of leak detection systems and their response times, have been proven false.

There is no publicly accountable cleanup procedure or standards and so there is little possibility of adequate compensation for major pipeline ruptures. In Canada the pipeline corporation is responsible for the cleanup, and if you are not happy with the spill in your community, you can take the pipeline corporation to court. In their clean up estimates, there is no value placed on displacement, such as costs of people moving away, property devaluation due to a spill, and economic loss due to business or community shut-downs. Water supply replacement (if possible), caused by toxic, carcinogenic contamination from bitumen is lacking in their clean-up and liability plans.

Historically, pipeline corporations‚ liability claim funds, have been inadequate. If the pipeline is not making a profit, which is possible in a declining oil market, funds for cleanup will be very scarce.

What will people do when their water supply is declared unfit for human use as a result of chemical contamination? Why not ask your Chief, Mayor, MPP and MP?

Ambrose Raftis

Charlton Ontario

Readers Comments (0)

Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.