Background briefer on nuclear waste in Canada
by Ole Hendrickson, Ph.D.
A key takeaway from this briefer is that because they use unenriched uranium as fuel, Canadian nuclear reactors produce roughly ten times more radioactive waste per unit electricity generated, than US nuclear reactors.
La politique canadienne en matière de déchets radioactifs est un fiasco et une gifle à la démocratie
5 avril 2023
Analysis of Canada’s Policy for Radioactive Waste Management and Decommissioning
by Ole Hendrickson, Ph.D. CCRCA researcher
April 20, 2023
Canada’s Policy for Radioactive Waste Management and Decommissioning
Background: In 2017, civil society groups were trying to understand how three irresponsible radioactive waste projects (the giant Chalk River mound and two legacy reactor entombments), could be undergoing environmental assessment in Canada. The lack of a substantive federal radioactive waste policy was noted as a serious problem that had allowed the projects to proceed. The policy vacuum was brought to the attention of the IAEA, the Prime Minister, the Auditor General and many other Canadian officials. In September 2019, an international peer review team from IAEA flagged Canada’s lack of a radioactive waste policy as a serious problem. In response, Natural Resources Canada began a review process which took place from 2020 to 2023. The review included extensive involvement from civil society groups and concerned individuals across Canada. The new policy, released in March 2023, is a huge disappointment to many people who, in good faith, worked hard to provide many valuable suggestions only to find their input virtually ignored by the captured bodies (CNSC and NRCan) that developed the policy. In the words of our Quebec colleagues at Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive, the policy is “a fiasco and a slap in the face to democracy.” What follows is a detailed analysis of the many serious failings of Canada’s new “modernized” radioactive waste policy.
Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) uses “ensure” in its various forms 28 times in the final version of its new radioactive waste policy, up from 14 times in the draft.
Use of “ensure” in a policy context represents an empty promise – a promise that is not associated with any specific action and that lacks a verifiable, measurable, time-bound target. Reliance on such language indicates an intent to avoid further discussion.
For example, NRCan’s claim that Canada could “ensure nuclear non-proliferation” if plutonium reprocessing were to be allowed (and plutonium-fueled reactors were to be exported to other countries) demonstrates the policy’s superficial and specious nature.
The closest thing to a target in the policy is found in one of the “vision” statements:
By 2050, key elements of Canada’s radioactive waste disposal infrastructure are in place, and planning is well under way for the remaining facilities necessary to accommodate all of Canada’s current and future radioactive wastes.
This begs the questions, “What are those “key elements?” and “What are the remaining facilities?” To achieve this rather weak and vague vision:
The federal government accordingly ensures… that responsibility for maintaining institutional controls over the long term, including the preservation of records and knowledge management of radioactive wastes, is assigned, in an open and transparent manner, to an appropriate entity.
It appears that the federal government is unprepared to accept responsibility at this time for managing radioactive waste, even the waste that it has generated. The federal government created the nuclear industry and generated a massive (~ $16 billion) waste liability through R&D work carried out by the crown corporation Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) over the past 75 years. AECL continues to receive annual appropriations exceeding a billion dollars.
The policy only promises that at some indefinite time in the future the government will “ensure” that an “appropriate entity” is created to maintain institutional controls over the long term. This side-steps the key issue of governance. A public entity to oversee radioactive waste management is urgently needed. Hundreds of submissions on the draft policy called for the government to establish an independent oversight body now.
Although the policy gives the nuclear industry free rein in managing its waste, with no oversight, it assigns no real responsibility to the industry, either. It calls upon the industry to develop “conceptual approaches” and to submit an “Integrated Strategy for Canada’s radioactive waste to the federal government for review and consideration.”
An International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report prompted the government to undertake a radioactive waste policy review. The IAEA specifically recommended that the government “enhance” the principles contained in its previous Radioactive Waste Policy Framework. The most important principle was “polluter pays”:
The waste producers and owners are responsible, in accordance with the principle of “polluter pays”, for the funding, organization, management and operation of disposal and other facilities required for their wastes.
Rather than being enhanced, this principle was deleted from the new policy. This opens the door to subsidies from the federal government for management of radioactive wastes produced by non-federal entities.
The policy lacks acceptable language regarding assessment of radioactive waste management facilities. NRCan rejected the following civil society proposal:
Amend the Physical Activities Regulations under the Impact Assessment Act to include construction and operation of new nuclear reactors, decommissioning of nuclear reactors, and all phases in the development, operation and closure of long-term waste management facilities.
Instead, NRCan said:
The Policy recognizes and is aligned with federal legislation, particularly the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, the Impact Assessment Act and the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act, as well as other legislation, associated regulations, and other policy tools that further support radioactive waste management,
These policy tools are regularly reviewed and updated by the federal government, as required, to ensure they remain relevant and effective.
This is a dubious claim, given that the government had not reviewed or updated the previous waste policy “framework” for 27 years, and has not reviewed or updated the Nuclear Safety and Control Act for 26 years.
Stating that the new policy “is aligned with” the Impact Assessment Act fails to mention that the Physical Activities Regulations under this Act exempt decommissioning of reactors and other nuclear facilities, new radioactive waste storage facilities, fuel waste reprocessing facilities with an annual production capacity of less than 100 tonnes of plutonium per year, and construction and operation of small modular reactors (and management of their wastes).
Hence, nearly all major nuclear activities are exempted from assessment.
Most current nuclear decommissioning activities are occurring on federal lands owned by AECL. In theory, impact assessment is required for all projects occurring on federal lands under section 82 of the Impact Assessment Act.
AECL, despite being a federal authority under the Act, ignores decommissioning projects, and delegates the determination of the significance of other waste-related activities (such as a new intermediate-level waste storage facility) to its private contractor, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories. This is not allowed under the Act.
With regard to health, safety and environmental aspects of radioactive waste management, NRCan rejected the following civil society suggestions on the policy draft:
Radioactive waste will be contained and monitored to ensure it remains isolated from the accessible biosphere for the time frame relevant to the category of waste;” and “Prioritize the health, safety and security of people and the environment by requiring that radioactive wastes are kept contained and isolated from the biosphere.”
These suggestions were based on the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safety standard for radioactive waste disposal. The IAEA says:
The specific aims of disposal are:
(a) To contain the waste;
(b) To isolate the waste from the accessible biosphere and to reduce substantially the likelihood of, and all possible consequences of, inadvertent human intrusion into the waste;
(c) To inhibit, reduce and delay the migration of radionuclides at any time from the waste to the accessible biosphere;
(d) To ensure that the amounts of radionuclides reaching the accessible biosphere due to any migration from the disposal facility are such that possible radiological consequences are acceptably low at all times.
The new policy does not contain the words “biosphere”, “isolation”, “migration” or “intrusion”, instead substituting vague phrases such as “ensure protection of the environment”. The policy’s failure to commit to isolating waste from the biosphere allows the nuclear industry to use the environment – particularly water bodies – as a way of diluting and disposing of its radioactive waste.
The policy’s failure to commit to isolating waste from the biosphere allows the nuclear industry to use the environment – particularly water bodies – as a way of diluting and disposing of its radioactive waste.
Dilution is the strategy employed by the “NSDF project”, announced by a consortium of multinational companies immediately after the Harper government contracted them to deal with the 75-year accumulation of radioactive waste at AECL’s nuclear sites across Canada. The NSDF would be Canada’s first permanent disposal facility for radioactive waste from nuclear reactors – a million-cubic-meter mound of waste next to the Ottawa River, including a pipeline that would discharge partially-treated leachate from the mound into a lake that drains into the river. It would set a terrible precedent for future facilities.
First Nations have expressed serious concerns about the NSDF project and two other permanent disposal projects that involve entombing AECL prototype reactors in concrete and grout and abandoning them next to the Ottawa and Winnipeg Rivers.
After the public comment period on the draft policy, a new section was added entitled “Canada’s commitment towards building partnerships and advancing reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.” It calls for “early, continuous and meaningful engagement” in future radioactive waste projects. However, the policy is silent on the question of whether the current disposal projects – announced without that early engagement – could be approved without the free, prior and informed consent of First Nations. Nor does the new policy commit to First Nations “consent” for future projects.
Another new section, entitled “Scope of the Policy,” adds confusion about reprocessing and fails to address Canada’s experimental work with plutonium fuels. The language on reprocessing says:
Reprocessing, the purpose of which would be to extract fissile material from nuclear fuel waste for further use, is not presently employed in Canada, and so is outside the scope of this Policy.
However, the federally-owned Recycle Fuel Fabrication Laboratories have been conducting plutonium fuel research for many years. Furthermore the government has given a private company $50.5 million to develop a commercial reprocessing facility under the guise of waste “recycling”.
Despite thousands of letters requesting a ban on plutonium reprocessing in the policy and noting the dangers of this technology for nuclear weapons proliferation, the word “plutonium” appears nowhere. Claiming that reprocessing is “outside the scope” of a radioactive waste policy is irresponsible. Furthermore, a new phrase in section 1.7 of the final policy encourages “recycling and reuse of materials.” This could be read as promoting “recycling” of used fuel to extract plutonium.
Also highly problematic is the following phrase in the new policy:
The government of Canada remains deeply committed to the 1970 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which remains the only legally binding global treaty promoting nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.
The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) entered into force on 22 January 2021. State Parties to this treaty “undertake never under any circumstances to… Develop, test, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess or stockpile nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.”
While Canada may refuse to acknowledge the existence of the TPNW, this does not alter the fact that the international community has acted to ban nuclear weapons.
The section on “Scope of the Policy” also contains contradictory and confusing wording on naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM). The IAEA says NORM is “Radioactive material containing no significant amounts of radionuclides other than naturally occurring radionuclides.” The IAEA definition explicitly includes “Material in which the activity concentrations of the naturally occurring radionuclides have been changed by a process.”
In contrast, the new policy defines NORM as “material found in the environment that contains radioactive elements of natural origin.” This would appear to exclude from the policy the waste that is created when NORM is extracted from the environment and then processed.
The CNSC regulates many facilities that process NORM (using the internationally agreed definition): uranium mines, Cameco’s processing facilities in Blind River and Port Hope, fuel fabrication facilities, etc. The new policy also says:
“this Policy does not address NORM other than those associated with the development, production or use of nuclear energy or technologies and those associated with the transport and import/export of nuclear substances.”
This statement is both grammatically incorrect (NORM refers to “material”, not “materials”) and does not adequately address the contradiction inherent in defining NORM in a manner that excludes the many processing activities occurring in Canada, and the wastes they generate.
The terms “process” and “processing” appear nowhere in the policy. Even the word “uranium” is absent from the policy, further illustrating the superficial nature of the new policy.
Also problematic is the reference to “an independent nuclear regulator that makes decisions using inclusive, open, and transparent public hearings.” Self-serving promotion of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission does not belong in a radioactive waste policy. Claims of transparency and openness do not match reality. The real issue is that the CNSC invariably dismisses public input in making its decisions.
Public input has also been dismissed in this new policy. It reads as if it was written by the CNSC, which may be true. The CNSC is widely considered to be completely “captured” by the nuclear industry, with a revolving door between CNSC, the nuclear industry, and Natural Resources Canada.
The policy rejects the demand by civil society organizations for a ban on imports of radioactive waste from other countries. It says that the federal government:
is committed to the principle that radioactive waste generated in other countries are [sic] not to be disposed of in Canada and radioactive waste generated in Canada will be disposed of in Canada, with the exception of certain radioactive wastes subject to return arrangements.
The policy lists as exceptions the “repatriation of disused sources to Canada.” It adds that “radioactive sources that were not from Canada may be brought to Canada.”
This is a clear admission that Canada is importing radioactive waste from other countries and intends to continue doing so. The ownership of this waste is eventually transferred to the Government of Canada, and the waste is stored at the federally owned Chalk River Laboratories of AECL.
The financial arrangements involved in these waste transfers are completely non-transparent. In this way, the waste imports could be adding to the liabilities recorded in the Public Accounts of Canada. Canadian taxpayers may be subsidizing not only Canada’s own nuclear industry, but the nuclear industry of foreign nations as well.
Plutonium extraction promotes the proliferation of nuclear weapons
January 16, 2023
by Dr. Gordon Edwards, president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
There are two kinds of proliferation of nuclear weapons – vertical proliferation, whereby a nuclear weapons state expand its nuclear arsenal or its nuclear weapons delivery capabilities, and horizontal proliferation, whereby a non-nuclear weapons state acquires a nuclear weapons capability.
In the past, Canada has contributed to both vertical proliferation by selling uranium and plutonium to the USA for weapons use and horizontal proliferation by giving India the technology needed to produce and extract plutonium for weapons use.
Canada is not in a position to contribute to vertical proliferation except in very indirect ways, and no nuclear weapon state wishing to expand its nuclear arsenal would be depending on Canada for that purpose,
However there are many non-nuclear-weapons states that have a desire to acquire a nuclear weapons capability. Canadian technology and nuclear materials could play a key role in helping them to acquire that capability.
Canada could play a very important role in horizontal proliferation by making plutonium production and its extraction that much easier.
If Canada develops nuclear reactors that depend on producing and extracting plutonium as fuel, (e.g. Moltex or ARC) and proceeds to sell those reactors to other countries around the world (as is the intention), then those countries that acquire the Canadian technology will be very much closer to building an arsenal of nuclear weapons.
By far the most difficult part of building a nuclear weapons is simply acquiring a sufficient quantity of nuclear explosive material.
Building a nuclear explosive device, once the necessary weapons-usable explosive material is available, is not nearly as difficult as people think. The best testimony to this fact comes from men who were directly involved in building nuclear weapons themselves, such as the people who expressed their concerns in the TV program whose transcript is found here: www.ccnr.org/Peaceful_Atom.html
Giving a commercial value to plutonium as a fuel, as proponents of “small modular” nuclear reactors want to do, makes it virtually inevitable that it will fall into criminal hands.
Unlike uranium, all plutonium is weapons-usable; no “enrichment” is required as is the case with uranium.
There is a great danger in making plutonium into a commercial fuel because anything that is commercially traded will end up, to a small but significant extent, in the hands of criminals and/or terrorists. We cannot keep drugs, money, guns or diamonds out of the hands of criminals, and there is no reason to think that we can keep plutonium out of the hands of criminals either.
It is entirely credible for a subnational group to make a devastatingly powerful nuclear explosive device that could be delivered in the trunk of a car parked on a downtown city street and detonated by remote control.
In the meantime, as more states acquire nuclear weapons materials, they will also build nuclear arsenals and then any military conflict in any part of the world can turn into a nuclear war. It is foolish to think that a country that is losing a conventional war will refuse to use the most powerful weapon in its arsenal.
The photo below by Japanese military photographer Yosuke Yamahata shows the extent of the devastation of Nagasaki, one day after the plutonium bomb was dropped on it by the United States.
Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area supports the Campaign to Ban Plutonium Reprocessing in Canada. Visit the campaign website for more information and suggestions for adding your voice to the campaign.
Chalk River Labs ~ Comprehensive Preliminary Decommissioning Plan (CPDP)
This document, dated 2014 is the current version of the plan developed over many years for decommissioning and cleanup of the Chalk River Laboratories property. It is a requirement under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act that licensed nuclear facilities have decommissioning plans in place.
The plan was developed as part of the multimillion dollar “Nuclear Legacy Liabilities Project” prior to privatization of CRL in 2015. The work outlined in this plan will cost billions of dollars, possibly close to $16 billion which is a recent government of Canada estimate for the cost of cleaning up its federal nuclear legacy liability, the bulk of which is at Chalk River.
Interestingly, the CPDP includes no mention of a “Near Surface” disposal facility, aka the giant Chalk River Mound that has caused so much consternation on the part of Indigenous communities, downstream municipalities, and civil society groups over the last six years.
The private sector consortium that owns Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) and is now running Chalk River Laboratories and other Canadian federal nuclear facilities, does not appear to be following this CPDP, and the plan is not publicly accessible on the CNLwebsite.
We are posting the CPDP here because it is an important document that should guide decision making about Canada’s largest federal environmental liability and we believe it should be publicly available.
There is a Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission requirement (in REGDOC 2.11-2, Decommissioning) that a Preliminary Decommissioning Plan shall include… a public consultation plan. The IAEA also says that planning for decommissioning includes activities for public consultation in accordance with national requirements.
The photo above is the “active area” at Chalk River Laboratories on June 24, 2022, showing some of the buildings and structures that need to be decommissioned. The NRU reactor, closed in 2018, is the red brick building in the foreground. The Plutonium Tower – the grey structure to the left of the “Molybdenum-99 Stack” – is also visible in the photo,
ARC-100 SMR: Does the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada do anything other than recommending not to do impact assessments?
December 23, 2022
The ARC-100 reactor is a proposed sodium-cooled “small,” “modular,” nuclear reactor (SMR). It is one of two nuclear reactors comprising a proposed demonstration project at the Point Lepreau nuclear site in New Brunswick along with a Moltex Energy molten salt SMR and spent fuel reprocessing unit.
In July 2022, a coalition of groups from New Brunswick, and other provinces asked environment minister Steven Guilbeault to designate the Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Demonstration Project at the Point Lepreau nuclear site for assessment under the Impact Assessment Act. Small modular nuclear reactors have been on the drawing board for decades. Serious accidents have occurred in prototype reactors. Spent fuel reprocessing is highly controversial due to attendant risks of serious accidents and nuclear weapons proliferation.
Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area provided a letter in support of the designation request, in part because Canadian Nuclear Laboratories in Chalk River is conducting work to produce fuel for the ARC-100 reactor.
On December 22nd Minister Guilbeault denied the request for impact assessment, following an analysis done by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada.
One must ask: Does the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada do much anything other than recommending not to do impact assessments?
In November 2022 the Agency provided the following information about all its completed assessments under the new Act (which entered into force in August 2019):
|Phase or Assessment Type||Highway and Roads||Mines and Minerals||Oil and Gas||Ports and Harbours||Bridges||N/A||Total|
|IA by Agency||2||2||1||0||0||0||5|
|IA by Integrated Assessment||0||0||1||0||0||0||1|
|IA by Review Panel||0||0||1||1||0||0||2|
|IA by Substitution||0||0||2||0||0||0||2|
So the answer to the question is no, the Agency doesn’t appear to do much in addition to recommending against doing impact assessments. It has completed an average of eight assessments per year since 2019.
According to the Government Electronic Directory Services there are 360 staff in the Agency.
As outsiders with a keen interest in seeing the serious impacts of nuclear energy and radioactive waste thoroughly assessed, it appears that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada might be a tad overstaffed for its underwhelming performance.
Given the numerous serious potential impacts, we find it to be irresponsible that the Agency recommended against an assessment of the Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Demonstration Project at the Point Lepreau nuclear site.
The Agency also recommended in 2021 against a regional assessment of radioactive waste management in the Ottawa Valley, despite a very clear need and a call for one by the City of Ottawa and many civil society groups.
The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada is a disappointment. It appears to be yet another government body prioritizing the needs of industry over the safety and well-being of Canadians and their supporting ecosystems.
Further ~ Dec 24/2022 per the comment added below, the Agency appears to turn down dozens of requests every year, and to ONLY do assessments that are required by the legislation and captured by the seriously flawed project list.
Chalk River Mound (NSDF) would release plutonium to the Ottawa River in “treated effluent”
June 7, 2022
It is clear that The NSDF would not contain and isolate radioactive waste from the accessible biosphere. One only needs to look at the table in the proponent’s Environmental Impact Statement entitled “Maximum concentrations of radionuclides in the treated effluent and east swamp stream.” (reproduced below)
Just above the table is the statement “both aquatic and terrestrial species will be exposed to contaminated surface water and sediment in the East Swamp stream, perch lake, perch creek, and Ottawa River.”
The table lists 29 radionuclides that would be present in the treated effluent. These are the “maximum concentrations” that CNSC expects, and the CNSC license would approve. They include a large quantity of tritium and four isotopes of plutonium. The maximum concentration of Pu 241 increased 50 fold between the draft EIS and final EIS. It would be good to know the reason for that and why the tritium more than doubled.
Table 5.7.6-2 is excerpted from CNL’s Environmental Impact Statement pages 5-698 – 5-699
As Dr. Gordon Edwards, President of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility said in his intervention at the licensing hearings last week:
“CNSC and CNL may say these levels are negligible, but why should any citizens of Ontario or Quebec be exposed to any amount of plutonium in their drinking water?”
Thursday June 2 is INDIGENOUS Day at the hearings for the Chalk River Mound (NSDF)
Junes 2 is a special day at the hearings for the Chalk River Mound.
It is the day the Commission will consider Indigenous issues. Five Algonquin First Nations delegations will address the tribunal. The Five Algonquin First Nations intervening are; Algonquins of Pikwàkanagàn First Nation, Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg, Kebaowek First Nation, Wolf Lake First Nation, Mitchikanibikok Inik Algonquins of Barriere Lake. All five of the Indigenous delegations are coming to Pembroke to make their interventions. The Indigenous presentations will begin at 9:00 am. One Non-Indigenous delegation, The Kitchisippi Ottawa Valley Chapter of the Council of Canadians will also intervene.
Here is the schedule for tomorrow:
9:00 Smudging Ceremony9:30 Algonquins of Pikwakanagan First Nation
10:45 Kitigan Zibi Anishinabe (Elder Verna McGregor)
Drumming (Mitchikanibikok Inik Algonquins of Barriere Lake)
Kebaowek First Nation,
Wolf Lake First Nation,
Mitchikanibikok Inik Algonquins of Barriere Lake.
Kitchisippi Ottawa Valley Chapter of the Council of Canadians
Please join us in the hearing room for part or all of the day, if you can!
We are suggesting that you bring a piece of paper with FPIC on it for Free Prior Informed Consent, which refers to the requirement under the UN Convention on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples for states to ensure that no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples without their free prior and informed consent.
We may hold up our signs at certain points during the hearing. The aim is to quietly and respectufully show our support for our Indigenous friends and allies. Some of us will put signs with FPIC on our cars while they are parked at the hotel.
If you can’t join us in person, please send one or more messages to decision makers to let them know that five Algonquin First Nations say they have not been adequately consulted and do not support the proposal to build the giant radioactive waste mound on their unceded territory. For more info and sample messages start here.
Photo below of Kitchi Sibi September 20. 2019
Sample messages for NO CONSENT day of action
More information about the No Consent Day of Action here.
Sample email message
Dear (add the name of your elected official)
I would like to request your urgent attention to licensing hearings for a giant radioactive waste mound on traditional unceded Algonquin land alongside the Ottawa River upstream of Ottawa-Gatineau and Montreal.
These licensing hearings are being held by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, widely perceived to be a captured regulator and in need of reform. The hearings are proceeding despite serious problems with the dump proposal and specific requests by four Algonquin First Nations that the hearings be suspended.
The First Nations in question say they have not been adequately consulted or in some cases not consulted at all and are not prepared to give their consent to the project.
Please do what you can to ensure that the proposed radioactive waste facility does not receive a license at this time, and that the rights of Indigenous communities are respected.
Support Algonquin Nations’ rights on #NoConsent Day. Tell feds no #nuclearwaste on First Nations lands! Here are words of 5 First Nations who do not consent to #ChalkRiver dump: concernedcitizens.net/2022/05/28/algonquin-nations-do-not-consent/ @JustinTrudeau @MarcMillerVM @PattyHajdu @Rvelshi @CNSC_CCSN @GGCanada
Protect Kitchi Sibi Ottawa River and Mother Earth! Send messages of support to Kebaowek, Barriere Lake, Wolf Lake and Algonquins of Pikwàkanagàn First Nations here: bit.ly/3wY5B0u #NoConsent
#NoConsent to nuclear waste on Algonquin lands! @CNSC_CCSN hearings today must listen to First Nations. Free prior and informed consent. @MarcMillerVM @PattyHajdu @Rvelshi @SophieChatel1 @JonathanWNV @s_guilbeault @GGCanada @Laurel_BC @kyleseeback @ElizabethMay @m_pauze #cdnpoli
MPs: #FirstNations do not consent to #ChalkRiver nuclear dump @SophieChatel1 @GregFergus @stevenmackinnon @Yasir_Naqvi @anitavandenbeld @DavidMcGuinty @MonaFortier @mflalonde @AryaCanada @JennaSudds @Francis_Drouin @PierrePoilievre @cherylgallant @seblemire @stephanelauzon5 #CNSC
Ottawa/Gatineau #water comes 100% from the #OttawaRiver. Listen to #Indigenous allies: Algonquin First Nations are saying #NoConsent to #radioactivewaste next to a major river. #WaterIsLife @CNSC_CCSN @RVelshi @JonathanWNV @s_guilbeault @Laurel_BC @ElizabethMay @m_pauze #cdnpoli
Where to send your emails and tweets
|Twitter Tags for Decision-makers and MPs|
|Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission||@CNSC_CCSN|
|President and CEO of CNSC Rumina Velshi||@RVelshi Email: firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Minister of Natural Resources Jonathan Wilkinson||@JonathanWNV Email: email@example.com|
|Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault||@s_guilbeault Email: firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations Marc Miller||@MarcMillerVM Email: email@example.com|
|Minister of Indigenous Services Patty Hajdu||@PattyHajdu Email: MinistreSA-MinisterIS@sac-isc.gc.ca|
|Prime Minister Justin Trudeau||@JustinTrudeau Email: firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Governor General of Canada Mary Simon||@GGCanada|
|Opposition Critics in Parliament|
|Laurel Collins – NDP Critic for Environment and Climate Change||@Laurel_BC|
|Richard Cannings– NDP Deputy Critic for Natural Resources||@CanningsNDP|
|Charlie Angus – NDP Critic for Natural Resources||@CharlieAngusNDP|
|Kyle Seeback – Conservative Shadow minister for Environment and Climate Change||@kyleseeback|
|Greg McLean – Conservative Shadow Minister for Natural Resources||@GregMcLeanYYC|
|Elizabeth May, MP, Green Party of Canada||@ElizabethMay|
|Monique Pauzé, Députée et porte-parole de l’environnement pour le Bloc Québécois||@m_pauze|
|Tag your Member of Parliament||Regional (Eastern Ont./West Que.) MPs|
|Email addresses – Members of Parliament and Ministers||The standard Parliamentary address is: FirstName.LastName@parl.gc.ca |
Or you can look up your MP here: https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/search