CAPE helps take legal action against Minister McKenna over Volkswagen scandal

CAPE and Environmental Defence, with legal support from Ecojustice, are taking legal action against Federal Environment Minister McKenna, to force the federal government into investigating and punishing Volkswagen for their illegal importation and sales of emissions-cheating diesel vehicles in Canada.

In 2015, approximately 105,000 Volkswagen vehicles were sold in Canada that were capable of emitting up to 35 times the legal level of nitrogen oxides (NOx). The vehicles which did not comply with Canada’s emission standards were imported into the country with illegal software that would prevent emission testing devices from identifying the problem. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency prosecuted Volkswagen, and the company agreed to pay a $15 billion settlement. In the same period of time, Canada has failed to conclude their investigation and no punitive measures have yet been taken.

“Volkswagen has already admitted that it perpetuated fraud against the public and put human health at risk by selling emissions-cheating vehicles,” said Amir Attaran, lawyer with Ecojustice’s law clinic at the University of Ottawa. “In taking zero enforcement action and levying no fines as other countries have, the Canadian government is leaving billions of dollars on the table – money that it could use to clean the environment.”

In 2008, the Canadian Medical Association estimated that 21,000 Canadians die every year from heart and lung diseases from polluted air. The Medical Officers of Health in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA) have also estimated that traffic-related air pollution is responsible for 700 premature deaths and over 2800 hospital admissions for heart and lung conditions, per year, in the GTHA alone. The pollutant that Volkswagen’s illegal diesel vehicles were emitting –  NOx – is one the major ingredients in smog.  Once in the air, NOx are transformed into ground level ozone and fine particulate matter – the two air pollutants most clearly linked to hospital admissions, premature deaths, and chronic heart and lung diseases.

“Traffic-related air pollution is a huge problem in Canada. It is responsible for thousands of deaths and hospital admissions each year,” said Kim Perrotta, executive director of CAPE. “Volkswagen exceeded the legal standards and they tried to hide it with emissions-cheating devices. The federal government has to take action to demonstrate that companies cannot get away with this type of blatant disregard for Canada’s emission standards and human health.”

The federal government needs to put Canadian health interests first, and punish companies that do not follow emissions regulations. The inefficient investigation underway with Volkswagen sets the standard that Canada’s environment and health standards do not need to be upheld. Instead, a more transparent and proactive approach needs to be taken on by the Ministry of the Environment that will protect Canadians and their health for years to come.

Ontario’s Nuclear Emergency Response Plan Is Far from Adequate

Above: Darlington Nuclear Station on the shore of Lake Ontario, via Óðinn

Nuclear energy provides as much as fifty percent of Ontario’s electricity. It is extremely expensive, produces radioactive waste for which there is no safe disposal or storage, and carries the risk of catastrophic accident (far more serious in Ontario than anywhere else in the world due to our reactors’ proximity to a large population and source of drinking water). Ontario’s nuclear emergency plan is outdated and inadequate.

This summer, the Ontario Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services will be hearing the public’s comments on proposed changes to the province’s Nuclear Emergency Response Plan. This is an excellent opportunity for health professionals to voice concerns about the safety of the nuclear industry in Ontario, and its emergency response plan in particular.

Pickering Nuclear Station, via ilker

Historically, there has been a major nuclear accident every decade since the 1970s. The most recent one occurred in Fukushima, Japan in 2011 when 400,000 residents living 50 kilometres from the Fukushima reactors were evacuated. Half of Ontarians, and one in six Canadians, live within 60 kilometres of Darlington and Pickering nuclear stations, which is why Ontario needs a robust and detailed emergency response plan.

The tragic disaster in Fukushima demonstrated the critical importance of a strong nuclear emergency plan, the value in having clear measures in place to deal with immediate mass health issues among workers and citizens, and the importance of monitoring to prevent long term health effects. International reports and Japanese officials have stated that none of these conditions were adequately in place in Japan prior to the Fukushima accident. Japanese authorities increased permissible dose limits so that workers’ and citizens’ doses would remain in the “acceptable” range. Many important issues had not been addressed as part of an emergency plan, such as knowledge of emergency responders of decontamination methods, adequate transportation of contaminated patients to hospitals, capacity of local hospitals to deal with incoming patients from hospitals within the primary zone that had to be evacuated, malfunctioning of water and electricity supplies in these hospitals, emergency lodging facilities, and secure food supplies.

In Ontario, we believe the current nuclear emergency plan should be designed to respond to a nuclear accident of the same severity as Fukushima. Instead, the Plan is designed for an accident several times less severe. It does not address the needs of vulnerable populations such as the elderly, hospital patients, and children. Nor are there measures in place for training health professionals to deal with large numbers of contaminated patients who would arrive at clinics and hospitals.

Ontario’s nuclear reactors, which are some of the oldest in the world, are all adjacent to the Great Lakes, the source of drinking water for tens of millions of Canadians and Americans. Large quantities of radionuclides would flow into the Great Lakes in the case of a catastrophic accident, and despite the large volume of water, this could affect safety of the drinking water of millions of residents. An adequate emergency plan must include the provision of clean drinking water for the tens of millions of people presently reliant on the Great Lakes.

Aerial view of Pickering Nuclear Station on the shore of Lake Ontario, via Joe Mabel

Public awareness needs to be improved regarding instructions to follow in the case of a nuclear accident as well. For example, iodine pills, which should be ingested within four hours of radiation exposure and preferably before exposure if possible, are needed to prevent thyroid cancer. In Ontario, they are pre-distributed to residents living within a 10 kilometre radius of the reactors. The pills are available to people living within a 50 kilometre radius but most people are unaware of this important preventative measure. Ontario should consider pre-distribution of pills to all residents living within at least 20 kilometers of a nuclear reactor, in keeping with international best practices, as is the case in New Brunswick for the Point Lepreau nuclear reactor.

In order for Ontario to be ready for a major nuclear disaster, an emergency plan should be implemented that is based on a Fukushima-level accident, that includes training and preparation of emergency responders and health professionals, clear communication with the public on an ongoing basis, adequate pre-distribution of iodine pills, and a plan to provide sufficient clean drinking water to the tens of millions of residents reliant on the Great Lakes for their water.

CAPE urges the Ontario government to create a detailed, comprehensive, and transparent emergency plan to protect the health of Ontarians in the case of a catastrophic Fukushima-level nuclear accident.

 

Prepared by Dr. Cathy Vakil, CAPE Board Member, June 2017

A National Cycling Strategy: A Triple Win for Public Health

On June 1, 2017, CAPE participated in the National Bike Summit organized by Canada Bikes where we declared our support for the development of a National Cycling Strategy. Here is why.

A National Cycling Strategy would be a triple win for public health. It would help us to reduce the rate of chronic diseases in Canada. Chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease are escalating at alarming rates across the country. They place a heavy burden on the health care system while also producing pain, disability, and premature deaths for hundreds of thousands of Canadians each year. For example, cardiovascular disease alone costs $12 billion each year in Canada.

Physical activity is one of the most effective “treatments” for chronic diseases. We know that one hour of moderate to vigorous activity per week can reduce the risk of premature death by 4 to 9%. And yet, most Canadian do not get the 2.5 hours of physical activity required to maintain good health. Time—or the lack of it—has been identified as the number one barrier to physical activity.

Active modes of transportation—such as cycling—overcome this barrier. They allow people to get the “exercise” they need while travelling to work or school. One study found that people who cycle or walk to work reduce their risk of developing a chronic disease by 11%. But we know that most people, particularly women and children, will not ride to school or work unless cycling routes feel safe. Experience in other jurisdictions has demonstrated that many people will cycle for travel if they have protected bike lanes that look and feel safe.

A National Cycling Strategy would reduce acute and chronic health impacts associated with air pollution. In 2008, the CMA estimated that air pollution produces 21,000 premature deaths each year in Canada. We know these deaths are the tip of the iceberg. They represent a broad array of adverse health impacts including lung cancer, asthma, stroke, and heart disease. The CMA estimated that air pollution costs Canadians $10 billion per year in direct health care costs and lost time, and that was based on a limited number of health impacts for which the evidence was the strongest.

The transportation sector is one of the most significant sources of air pollution in Canada, particularly in large urban centres and along major traffic corridors. Modelling studies have demonstrated that we can significantly reduce air pollution, adverse health impacts, and health care costs by getting residents to use their bikes, instead of their cars, for short trips.

A National Cycling Strategy would also reduce greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. The World Health Organization (WHO) has called climate change the most significant public health threat of the 21st century. It has estimated that 250,000 people will die prematurely each year by 2030 from climate change unless dramatic action is taken to significantly reduce our carbon emissions. Climate change is already claiming the lives of tens of thousands of people each year from heat stress, diarrhea, malaria, and malnutrition. Many of the victims are children and the elderly living in some of the poorest countries in the world. While Canadians will not experience the worst of these impacts, we are not be immune to the impacts of climate change.

Already, in Canada, we are experiencing health impacts from wild fires, floods droughts, heat waves, and severe storms that are increasing in frequency and intensity; from insect-borne diseases such as West Nile Virus and Lyme Disease that are spreading as the climate warms; and from injuries and deaths resulting from melting permafrost and shifting snow cover. The transportation sector in Canada is responsible for about one quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions. Modelling studies have demonstrated that we can significantly reduce these emissions by getting people to replace short car trips with bike trips.

A National Cycling Strategy is the holy grail of public health; the public policy the serves many public health goals with one investment. It is an investment that will pay for itself many times over in health care savings alone.

Prepared by Kim Perrotta, CAPE Executive Director, June 2017

Read more:

Canada Bike’s National Cycling Strategy

Prescribing Active Travel for Healthy People and a Healthy Planet: A Toolkit for Health Professionals

CEPA Review: A Chance to Reduce Human Suffering & Health Care Costs

On May 29th, the newly created Coalition for Action on Toxics held an event on Parliament Hill to draw attention to the changes needed to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) to ensure that it protects Canadians from highly toxic substances.

This new coalition—which is housed by Tides Canada, and includes EcoJustice, Environmental Defence, Équiterre, and CAPE—wants decision-makers to understand what changes are needed and how important they are.

“As a palliative care physician, I have spent too much of my career caring for people who are dying prematurely from diseases caused by toxic substances,” offered Dr. Jean Zigby, President of CAPE. “Our environmental regulations must be strengthened to prevent these avoidable deaths and diseases.”

These toxic exposures are costly to society in financial terms as well as human terms. One study published in The Lancet in 2016 estimated that toxic substances that disrupt the endocrine system alone cost the United States $340 billion per year in health care costs and lost wages (Attina et al., 2016). This figure represents 2.33% of the GDP!

CEPA, the backbone of environmental laws federally, has not been revised since 1999. The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, which has been consulting the public on the revisions needed to CEPA since the fall of 2016, is expected to release its report in the coming weeks.

The coalition has identified a number of key priorities that must be addressed if human health and the environment are to be properly protected from toxics in the environment and in consumer products. We believe that CEPA should be revised to:

  • Reverse the burden of proof for substances for highly toxic substances so that industry must prove that they are safe to use;
  • Require assessment of alternatives and make it mandatory to substitute highly toxic substances with less hazardous substances;
  • Increase protection for populations that are particularly vulnerable to toxic substances such as children;
  • Require risk assessments that consider exposures from different sources and from different substances and products;
  • Create national air quality standards that are health protective, legally binding, and enforceable;
  • Strengthen timelines to ensure that risk management options are assessed and implemented in an expeditious manner;
  • Improve enforcement and provide the funds needed to properly enforce;
  • Extend the right to know to consumers with mandatory labelling of toxic substances;
  • Ensure that the chemicals are re-assessed in response to new scientific evidence, regulatory action in other jurisdictions, or public concerns; and
  • Improve the review and approval process for new substances to make it truly protective of human health and the environment and transparent.

This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to prevent chronic diseases in Canada, reduce health care costs, and protect the environment. Click here and let your Member of Parliament (MP) know that this is an important issue to you.

Prepared by Kim Perrotta, May 30, 2017

Reference:

Attina, Teresa M et al. “Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the USA: a population-based disease burden and cost analysis.” The Lancet Disease and Endocrinology. Vol. 4. No. 12. December 2016.

Chalk River: Un Projet Très Inquiétant / A Project of Great Concern

UN PROJET TRÈS INQUIÉTANT: LE PROJET DE DÉPOTOIR DE DÉCHETS NUCLÉAIRES DE CHALK RIVER

Ci-dessus: Chalk River LNC, vu de la rivière des Outaouais. Photo grâce à Padraic Ryan via Wikimedia Commons.

[English version below]

Les Laboratoires Nucléaires Canadiens (LNC) ont proposé récemment aux gouvernements du Canada, de l’Ontario, et à la Commission Canadienne de Sécurité Nucléaire (CCSN) de construire un gigantesque dépotoir de déchets nucléaires à Chalk River en Ontario. Nous croyons qu’il faut absolument s’opposer à ce projet. Voici pourquoi.

Ce dépotoir de déchets radioactifs serait le plus grand jamais construit au monde. Il aurait une superficie de 11 hectares et 25 mètres de hauteur. Il contiendrait un million de mètres cubes de déchets radioactifs de faible et moyenne activité. S’il est approuvé, ce dépotoir serait créé sur les berges de la rivière des Outaouais aux Laboratoires Nucléaires Canadiens de Chalk River, à 100 Km en amont de Ottawa.

Le site proposé, pratiquement entouré d’eau, se trouve dans un marécage qui s’écoule vers de nombreuses municipalités du Québec et de l’Ontario. Les fuites provenant de cette installation pourraient contaminer de façon importante l’eau potable en aval. D’ailleurs dans le projet proposé, la surface du site sera constamment exposée à la pluie et à la neige jusqu’en 2070, date de la fermeture prévue. On prévoit que l’eau qui y en ruissellera sera partiellement récupérée et renvoyée dans le dépotoir, mais le tritium sera libéré dans la rivière. Il est pertinent de souligner que tous les projets d’enfouissement de tels déchets actuellement sont conçus dans des régions désertiques, avec sarcophage de béton autour des déchets. C’est évidemment loin d’être le cas à Chalk River.

Le site de Chalk River est situé dans la zone sismique de l’ouest du Québec. Selon Ressources naturelles Canada, un petit tremblement de terre survient à tous les cinq jours en moyenne dans cette zone. Le plus grand de ces séismes peut avoir une magnitude de 6 sur l’échelle de Richter. Dans les années 90, les élus de 50 municipalités québécoises et ontariennes avaient adopté des résolutions contre un projet de stockage des déchets radioactifs à Chalk River en raison de ces caractéristiques.

En plus des déchets accumulés pendant plus de 50 ans d’exploitation des laboratoires nucléaires de Chalk River (débris de démolition, sols contaminés, déchets entreposés), des déchets radioactifs pourraient être transportés de partout à travers le Canada vers ce site. Les déchets dits «mixtes» (qui peuvent inclure des BPC, de l’arsenic et du mercure) pourraient également être stockés dans cette installation. 

Les déchets radioactifs seraient entreposés au-dessus de deux revêtements en plastique comme ceux utilisés dans les dépotoirs municipaux. Ces «géomembranes», ne sont pas étanches. Les causes de fuites pourraient être nombreuses et liées à une installation incorrecte, une détérioration physique, des perforations par des objets tranchants ou lourds, une détérioration chimique, l’activité sismique, les inondations ou le sabotage. D’ailleurs l’entreposage est si superficiel que l’on pourra avoir accès aux déchets au moyen d’une simple pelle (voir graphique ci-dessous).

Le dépotoir proposé à une durée de vie de 50 ans, tandis que les déchets radioactifs de moyenne activité restent radioactifs pour des dizaines de milliers d’années. Durant la période de 50 ans et plus, les déchets seraient donc exposés à la pluie et la neige. L’échec ou un bris de fonctionnement de la station d’épuration proposée pourrait entraîner une contamination rapide de la rivière des Outaouais. On prévoit remplir ce dépotoir jusqu’en 2070, mais on précise aussi que toute activité de surveillance cessera dès 2100, ce qui est un non-sens lorsque l’on sait que la radioactivité sur ce site durera pendant des milliers d’années. Il faut souligner ici que le consortium est arrivé à la solution actuelle car il estimait que toutes les autres solutions plus sécuritaires coûteraient des dizaines voire des centaines de fois plus cher.

POURQUOI IL EST IMPORTANT D’AGIR MAINTENANT

La CCSN, organisme non élu, est seule responsable de l’approbation des projets. La commission a démontré une incapacité à protéger l’environnement et une tendance à favoriser les intérêts de l’industrie nucléaire par rapport à la sécurité publique. À la suite d’une demande de plusieurs citoyens et groupes, la CCSN a finalement permis au public de commenter l’évaluation environnementale du IGDPS jusqu’au 16 août 2017. Nous vous encourageons à offrir vos commentaires sur leur site web ou par courriel à Nicole Frigault, Agente de l’évaluation environnementale, cnsc.ea-ee.ccsn@canada.ca

Nous demandons l’annulation pure et simple du projet et croyons que le consortium doit repenser de fond en comble son concept de gestion des déchets. Il est certainement préférable de les stocker de façon temporaire que d’avoir l’illusion de les enfouir de façon sécuritaire pour les siècles à venir. Nous avons écrit récemment à la Ministre de l’Environnement, Mme McKenna afin qu’elle se saisisse de cette question. Nous en sommes actuellement à définir la meilleure stratégie afin de bloquer ce projet, avec plusieurs autres organismes canadiens, et groupes des Premières Nations.

 

Préparé par Dr Éric Notebaert, membre du conseil d’administration de l’ACME

 


A PROJECT OF GREAT CONCERN: CHALK RIVER’S PROPOSED NUCLEAR WASTE SITE

Top: Chalk River CNL, seen from the Ottawa River. Photo courtesy of Padraic Ryan via Wikimedia Commons.

Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) recently proposed to the Federal Government, Ontario, and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) that it would build a giant nuclear waste site in Chalk River, Ontario. We strongly believe that this proposal must be opposed. Here’s why.

This radioactive waste site would be the largest ever built in the world. It would have an area of ​​11 hectares and be 25 meters in height. It would be build to contain one million cubic meters of low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste. If approved, this site would be built on the banks of the Ottawa River at the Chalk River CNL, 100 km upstream from Ottawa.

The proposed site is located in a swamp that flows to many municipalities in Quebec and Ontario. Leaks from this facility could significantly contaminate drinking water downstream. The surface of the site would be constantly exposed to rain and snow until 2070, the date of the planned closure. It is expected that the water would be partially recovered, and returned to the dump, but the tritium would be released into the river. It is pertinent to point out that all landfill projects of this type are currently planned for desert areas and designed with concrete enclosures around the waste. This is not the case at Chalk River.

The Chalk River site is located in the seismic zone of western Quebec. According to Natural Resources Canada, a small earthquake occurs, on average, every five days in this area. The largest of these earthquakes can have a magnitude of 6 on the Richter scale. In the 1990s, elected officials from 50 municipalities in Quebec and Ontario adopted resolutions opposing a radioactive waste storage project in Chalk River because of these characteristics.

In addition to the waste accumulated over more than 50 years of operation of the Chalk River CNL such as demolition debris and contaminated soil, radioactive waste could be transported from across Canada to this site. Mixed waste, which may include PCBs, arsenic and mercury, could also be stored in this facility.

Radioactive waste would be stored over two plastic liners such as those used in municipal dumps. These “geomembranes” are not waterproof. The causes of leakage could be numerous and related to incorrect installation, physical deterioration, perforations by sharp or heavy objects, chemical deterioration, seismic activity, flooding or sabotage. Moreover, the storage is so superficial that one can access the waste by means of a simple shovel (see image below).

The proposed dump has a planned life time of 50 years, while radioactive waste of medium activity remains radioactive for tens of thousands of years. During the 50+ years, the waste would be exposed to rain and snow. Failure of the proposed waste site would result in rapid contamination of the Ottawa River. This waste site is scheduled to be used until 2070, but it is also stated that any monitoring activity will cease in 2100, which makes no sense when it is known that the radioactivity at this site will last for thousands of years. It should be emphasized here that the CNL has arrived at the current solution because it believed that all other safer solutions would be tens or even hundreds of times more expensive.

WHY IT IS IMPORTANT TO ACT NOW

The non-elected CNSC is solely responsible for approving such projects. The CNSC has demonstrated in the past a tendency to favor the interests of the nuclear industry over public safety. Following a request from several citizens and groups, the CNSC has finally agreed to receive public comments until August 16, 2017. We encourage you to offer your comments on their website or by email to Nicole Frigault, Environmental Assessment Officer, at cnsc.ea-ee.ccsn@canada.ca

In summary, CAPE is calling for the cancellation of this proposed project. We believe that the CNL must totally rethink its concept of nuclear waste management. We believe that it is better to store the waste temporarily, rather than creating the illusion of burying them safely for centuries to come. We recently wrote to the Minister of the Environment asking her to intervene. We are currently working with several other Canadian organizations and First Nations groups to try to stop this project from proceeding.

 

Prepared by Dr. Éric Notebaert, CAPE Board Member

CAPE Calls for Moratorium on Fracking in B.C.

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) has been a hot topic of conversation in British Columbia for several years now, but many people still don’t realize that the vast majority of LNG will be coming from hydraulic fracturing (fracking) projects. Because of that, it is important to take a look at the emerging research around fracking as we debate LNG.

Technological developments in the fracking industry have outpaced health and environmental research. We are only now starting to get studies that tell us about the health impacts associated with fracking. The information is still preliminary, but overwhelmingly raises red flags for health. One study, which looked at all the health-oriented research on fracking, found that 80% of all studies had been done between 2013 and 2015. Of the ones that looked at public health outcomes, 84% identified potential problems.

Preliminary studies on the human health effects of fracking have identified concerns with the hormone-disrupting properties of fracking fluids and their potential for reproductive and developmental toxicity, increased asthma rates, and congenital heart disease with greater proximity to natural gas development.

Development can bring new jobs to a community, but it can also bring an influx of male workers. A recent report has shown that this may increase violence against Indigenous women and girls in northeastern B.C.

Very few studies have examined longer-term health outcomes with longer latency periods such as cancer or developmental outcomes. To quote a review of the literature: “This is a clear gap in the scientific knowledge that requires urgent attention.”

Additionally, even the single Pacific Northwest LNG project and the greenhouse gas emissions associated with it will make it virtually impossible for B.C. to meet its 2050 greenhouse gas emissions targets. Given that the World Health Organization has identified climate change as the greatest health threat of the 21st century, failure to meet greenhouse gas targets must be viewed as a risk to human health.

In the face of incomplete information, the best approach is to act in accordance with the precautionary principle. As stated by the World Health Organization: “in the case of serious or irreversible threats to the health of humans or the ecosystem, acknowledged scientific uncertainty should not be used as a reason to postpone preventive measures.” CAPE Doctors in B.C. believe that this approach should be applied to fracking in B.C.

Both the New Brunswick and Newfoundland/Labrador chapters of the College of Family Physicians of Canada have urged fracking moratoria in those provinces in the interest of public health. Over 180 physicians and health professionals recently signed a letter asking that no new projects which increase the level of hydraulic fracturing in British Columbia, or in Canada as a whole, go ahead until the health risks are understood, communicated to communities, and mitigated.

Let the candidates in your riding know that you are concerned about the health impacts associated with fracking and LNG in B.C.: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/who-s-running-in-the-2017-british-columbia-election-1.3786771

If you would like to see public health protected by a moratorium on further fracking projects in B.C., please click here to add your name to our petition.

Prepared by Dr. Courtney Howard and Dr. Larry Barzelai, B.C. CAPE Volunteer Committee, April 18, 2017

 

Join us in Vancouver on Friday April 28th for a discussion panel about the health impacts of fracking featuring environmental scientist Judi Krzyzanowski, PhD, Dene environmental activist and lawyer Caleb Behn, and CAPE board members Dr. Courtney Howard and Dr. Warren Bell.
Click here for more information and free registration.

The Fight for a Bike and Pedestrian Highway Overpass in Montreal

[version français ici]

Above: Félix Gravel, Sylvie Bernier, and Dr. Eric Notebaert at a rally in support of the Turcot Dalle-Parc project in June 2017.

A MAJOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGE FOR MONTRÉAL: THE RETURN OF THE ‘DALLE-PARC’ IN THE TURCOT INTERCHANGE

This spring, the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment is partnering with the Conseil Régional de l’Environnement de Montréal and several environmental groups in a major campaign to promote active transportation: the Return of the Turcot Dalle-Parc project.

Dr Éric Notebaert, CAPE board member, speaking at the campaign’s launch event.

The Turcot Interchange, a major highway interchange in southwest Montreal, is currently under renovation. This is a major infrastructure project—costing more than $4 billion—which originally included a large, green overpass connecting two zones of Montreal in the plans. This overpass, the “Dalle-Parc”, is a project that connects the upper part of the city (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce–Westmount) and the lower part (Verdun–Pointe-Saint-Charles). This slab that passes over the highway and the railway is a structure that can allow pedestrians and cyclists to cross this area in a safe way. It is a great project that greatly benefitspedestrians and cyclists, and is also connected to a rail shuttle service to the Montreal airport in Dorval.

Dalle-Parc Turcot
Image of the planned overpass for pedestrians and cyclists from the 2010 project plan.

This Dalle-Parc project not only greatly favours active transportation, but it will give people in many neighbourhoods easier and safer access to hospitals and other employment and development centers. If it is not implemented, cyclists will have to make a 10km detour to traverse a distance of barely 1km. The Dalle-Parc project will also significantly reduce pollution and greenhouse gases emitted by the city.

In the initial project to renovate the Turcot Interchange in 2010, this Dalle-Parc was the only truly interesting environmental aspect of this huge construction site. The Dalle-Parc therefore had the support of all the environmental groups and citizens of the city. However, in the latest version from the Quebec Ministry of Transport (MTQ) in 2015, the Dalle-Parc was simply gone. No one at the MTQ seems to be able to explain this decision. It is important to note that the cost of the Dalle-Parc is estimated at $40 million, or 1-2% of the total cost of refurbishing of the interchange.

Left: 2010 project plan, including the Dalle-Parc. Right: 2015 project plan, the Dalle-Parc has disappeared.

We are asking the MTQ for the reinstatement of the Dalle-Parc. The current campaign has several components: meeting with municipal, provincial and federal politicians; social, festive, cultural, and sporting events; meeting with local groups; meeting with the media; etc.

This campaign will certainly last several months. But it will last as long as it takes. We are absolutely determined to win this battle for the health of the population… and the planet.

Dr Éric Notebaert 21.03.2017