letters

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission enabled Chalk River debacle in the making ~ Hill Times letter to the editor

hendricksonjones Leave a comment

Published in the Hill-Times on Mar 4, 2024

https://www.hilltimes.com/story/2024/03/04/canadian-nuclear-safety-commission-has-enabled-this-debacle-in-the-making-at-chalk-river-protesters/412986

Dear Editor

The “NSDF,” a giant, above-ground landfill beside the Ottawa River, for one million tonnes of radioactive waste, approved by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission on January 9, is a debacle-in-the-making. 

The NSDF fails to meet International safety standards according to experts who for years were in charge of the waste at Chalk River. Industry veterans say much of the waste is too long-lived for permanent emplacement in an above-ground mound.  

The facility is expected to leak during operation and break down and release its contents to the environment after 550 years, while many of the dangerous, post-fission, man-made radioactive toxins in the mound will remain hazardous for many millennia. Plutonium and other radioactive pollutants will leak into the Ottawa River that drains into the St. Lawrence River at Montreal. This leakage will contaminate drinking water for millions of Canadians. All radioactive contaminants increase risks of cancer, birth defects and genetic mutations in exposed populations. The larger the population exposed, the greater the incidence of maladies.

Ten out of 11 Algonquin First Nations that have lived in the Ottawa River watershed for millennia say they do not consent to the NSDF on their unceded territory. The Assembly of First Nations and more than 140 municipalities including Ottawa, Gatineau and Montreal have passed resolutions of concern and/or opposition to the facility.

We wonder who the beneficiaries of the NSDF would be, besides shareholders of the three multinationals involved: SNC-Lavalin (now called Atkins Réalis), and two Texas-based multinationals, Fluor and Jacobs. The three multinationals comprise the “Canadian National Energy Alliance,” contracted by the Harper government in 2015 to quickly and cheaply reduce Canada’s multibillion dollar federal nuclear waste cleanup liability.

Canada’s deficient nuclear governance regime and its “nuclear-industry-captured” regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, have enabled this debacle-in-the-making to be taken seriously and to receive a license for construction.

Two legal challenges to the CNSC’s decision have been launched in Federal Court. More may follow if a species-at-risk permit to clearcut the NSDF site is approved .

There is a positive way forward for the Liberal government. The Federal Cabinet could request an ARTEMIS review by the International Atomic Energy Agency. ARTEMIS reviews are expert peer reviews, available to all member states of IAEA.

An ARTEMIS review could provide the Government of Canada with valuable advice about how to manage its legacy radioactive waste. Responsibility for managing this waste was handed over to profit-seeking multinationals in 2015 by the Harper government. Costs to taxpayers have ballooned since then. An ARTEMIS review could advise the Government of Canada on how to get value for money in its radioactive waste management projects while ensuring that safety is the top priority.

House of Commons e-petition 4676 calling for an ARTEMIS review garnered 3000 signatures in 30 days over the recent Christmas and New Years holiday period. The petition also called on the Government of Canada to uphold the principle, from the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, that “free, prior and informed consent” must be obtained before hazardous waste is stored in the territory of Indigenous people.

We and others have written to the Prime Minister and several Cabinet Ministers urging Cabinet to request an IAEA ARTEMIS review as soon as possible for the benefit of all Canadians and future generations.

Gordon Edwards, PhD, Montreal

Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility

Lynn Jones, MHSc, Ottawa

Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area

Letter to CCRCA members and friends

hendricksonjones Leave a comment

Ottawa River radioactive waste dump ~ license approved by the CNSC

January 13, 2024

Dear Friends

Yesterday afternoon Canada’s captured nuclear regulator, the CNSC, announced its approval of the license to build the giant above-ground radioactive waste mound beside the Ottawa River, aka the NSDF. See below a few links to good coverage of reactions to the announcement. 

There was never any doubt that the CNSC would approve the license. The surprise is how long it took them to do so — seven and a half years! That is a testament to the incredible opposition that mobilized to fight the ill-conceived plan. In a David and Goliath battle, opponents effectively derailed the original plan of the CNSC and the consortium to have shovels in the ground six years ago, in January 2018. That is an accomplishment worth celebrating!

The battle is not over. It will move to the courts now. And along with our allies, we will continue to push for an international ARTEMIS review of the proposal. On that note, thank you to everyone who signed and shared House of Commons e-Petition 4676; the petition just closed for signatures today having been signed by well over 3000 Canadians in just 30 days. A meeting with MP Sophie Chatel about how to move the request for an ARTEMIS review forward will take place soon. Other next steps are in the works and we will keep you posted about them as the plans crystalize. 

We are very grateful to our Algonquin brothers and sisters for their strong stand against irresponsible nuclear waste projects in their unceded territory. We look forward to continuing to work with them toward an ultimate victory at some point down the road. 🙂

This seems a good time to share the inspiring words of Algonquin Elder Claudette Commanda, delivered during a press conference at 50 Sussex Drive on August 10, 2023. The press conference can be viewed at this link and Claudette’s statement begins at 13 minutes. Here is some of what she said that day, to rousing applause:

“This nuclear waste facility will damage the water and we all know that. 

Conscientious people are rising. We must rise together, we are all in that medicine wheel. No matter our colour, our creed or our title, we are all related in the human family and we must stand together

We have a responsibility to our brothers the animals, to our sisters the animals. To the water life and to the land.

We cannot stop the thunder.

We cannot stop the rain from falling.

We cannot stop the lightning from shining

We cannot stop the rivers from flowing

But together as human beings, as brothers and sisters, we can certainly stop the nuclear waste facility from coming here on the Ottawa River.Meegwetch”

Thank you everyone for your ongoing interest and support. Please feel free to forward this message to anyone you think might be interested. Good overviews for people new to the issue are here and here. 

Best wishes,

Lynn

concernedcitizens.net

Facebook https://www.facebook.com/RadWasteAlert

X https://twitter.com/RadWasteAlert

Photo above of Kitchi Sibi on November 15, 2023, by Bev Moses

Radioactive waste site in Chalk River a go (National Observer, Natasha Bulowski)

Déchets nucléaires à Chalk River : « aucune surprise » pour Dylan Whiteduck, (Radio Canada)

Une installation de déchets nucléaires autorisée à Chalk River | Radio-Canada (Julien David-Pelletier, Radio Canada)

Kebaowek First Nation condemns CNSC decision to license the Chalk River nuclear waste dump and calls on the federal government to intervene

Hill Times ~ Canada’s failed radioactive waste policy is no surprise given our country’s deficient nuclear governance regime

hendricksonjones Leave a comment

This letter to the editor was published on June 12, 2023~ 

Canada’s failed radioactive waste policy is no surprise given our country’s deficient nuclear governance regime: letter writers

Natural Resources Canada recently announced the release of a new federal radioactive waste policy. It was three years in the making and was only undertaken because of pressure from civil society groups and criticism from an international peer review team who visited Canada in September 2019 under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

In our view, the new radioactive waste policy is a failure on several counts. For example:

  • It fails to include a requirement to keep radioactive waste out of the biosphere;
  • It fails to incorporate input from thousands of Canadians who participated in good faith in the review process. For example, the policy does not include a prohibition on plutonium extraction and it also fails to address calls from citizens and NGOs from across Canada for an independent authority to oversee nuclear waste management and decommissioning;
  • It fails to address serious problems identified by the IAEA in 2019; eg. the IAEA explicitly said defunct nuclear reactors should not be entombed in place except in extreme circumstances, yet the new policy allows for this and enables projects to abandon reactors beside the Ottawa and Winnipeg Rivers to move forward;
  • It fails to require that “free prior and informed consent” be obtained before radioactive waste is stored or disposed of on lands or territories of Indigenous Peoples as laid out in Article 29(2) of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In 2021, Canada affirmed the UN Declaration as a universal international human rights instrument with application in Canadian law. However a proposed giant radioactive waste mound alongside the Ottawa River in unceded Algonquin traditional territory is close to approval and would violate this principle. The new policy will do nothing to stop this. The final licensing hearing is scheduled for June 27.

Canada’s new radioactive waste policy appears to provide the nuclear industry with exactly what it wanted – license to abandon radioactive waste quickly and cheaply –  and to afford Canadians with little protection from radioactive wastes that will remain hazardous for thousands of years.

Our letter of March 2021 to the Hill Times noted that Canada’s nuclear governance regime is inadequate, consisting of one captured, pro-industry regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, and one pro-nuclear government department, Natural Resources Canada. Other OECD countries have much more robust nuclear governance regimes that include checks and balances, and multiple, multidisciplinary oversight committees and councils, often including high ranking officials such as the President in the case of France. A detailed review of shortcomings in Canada’s nuclear governance was provided to the Auditor General in 2019 in the form of Petition 427 from our respective citizens’ groups, Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area and Concerned Citizens of Manitoba and colleagues in Quebec.

We should not be surprised that Canada’s new radioactive waste policy is a failure, as it is the product of a sorely deficient nuclear governance regime. 

In 2021 we asked who would fix Canada’s nuclear governance gaps. Now we must also ask “Who will correct the serious deficiencies in Canada’s new radioactive waste policy?”  If these problems are not corrected, the nuclear industry in Canada will proceed to implement bargain basement nuclear waste projects that are out of step with international safety standards. This will lead to permanent radioactive contamination of major Canadian water bodies including the Ottawa and Winnipeg  Rivers. 

Lynn Jones, MHSc
Ottawa, Ont., Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area

Anne Lindsey, OM, MA

Winnipeg, Man., Concerned Citizens of Manitoba


City of Ottawa urges CNL and its regulator, the CNSC, to take action on the City’s concerns about the Chalk River mound, Rolphton Reactor tomb and related activities

hendricksonjones 5 Comments

May 3, 2021

In this letter Mayor Jim Watson urges CNL and the CNSC to take action on Ottawa’s concerns about the giant radioactive waste mound (NSDF) proposed for Chalk River and the entombment of a nuclear reactor beside the Ottawa River at Rolphton.

Specifically the letter and the resolution on which it is based calls on CNL/CNSC to:

  • stop current and future import or transfer of radioactive waste to Chalk River from other provinces
  • increase safeguards to protect the Ottawa River
  • prevent precipitation from entering the Chalk River Mound (NSDF)
  • provide timely environmental monitoring data
  • commit to prompt notification of spills/releases
mayor-letter-to-cnl-and-cnsc-re-canadian-nuclear-laboratories-chalk-river-nuclear-waste-near-surface-disposalDownload

City of Ottawa requests a regional assessment of radioactive waste disposal projects in the Ottawa Valley

hendricksonjones 1 Comment

The City of Ottawa is requesting a regional assessment of radioactive waste disposal projects in the Ottawa Valley under Canada’s new Impact Assessment Act. This review, if undertaken as requested, would address cumulative impacts of radioactive waste projects planned for the Ottawa Valley. It would be conducted by a committee appointed for the task by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change or by the Impact Assessment Agency.

mayor-watson-letter-to-federal-ministers-re-canadian-nuclear-laboratories-chalk-river-nuclear-waste-near-surface-disposalDownload

Reforms needed at Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission ~ Hill Times letter to the editor

hendricksonjones 18 Comments

April 12, 2021

https://www.hilltimes.com/2021/04/12/reforms-needed-at-canadian-nuclear-safety-commission/292381

(en français ici)

Canada’s nuclear regulatory agency, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission says it’s the “World’s best nuclear regulator” on its website. That “self-image” of the CNSC’s is inconsistent with statements made in recent years by international peer reviewers, high-ranking Canadian officials, international nuclear proponents and others.

The International Atomic Energy Agency recently reviewed Canada’s nuclear safety framework. It identified numerous serious deficiencies including: not following IAEA guidance on nuclear reactor decommissioning, failure to justify practices involving radiation sources, inadequate management systems for transporting nuclear materials and allowing pregnant nuclear workers four times higher radiation exposures than IAEA would permit.


In testimony before the House Standing Committee on Natural Resources, in November 2016, Canada’s Environment Commissioner said:

“the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission… was quite difficult to work with… I would say that the commission was aggressive with the auditors.”

In April 2017, the Expert Panel on reform of environmental assessment, in its final report noted that it had heard many concerns about lack of independence at the CNSC:

“There were concerns that these Responsible Authorities (CNSC and NEB) promote the projects they are tasked with regulating…The term “regulatory capture” was often used when participants described their perceptions of these two entities.”

Counter to Expert Panel recommendations, the CNSC is the agency responsible for making environmental assessment and licensing decisions for three controversial radioactive waste disposal projects on the Ottawa and Winnipeg rivers. 


The nuclear industry publication, Nuclear Energy Insider, recently touted Canada’s “benign regulatory environment” as a reason for SMR developers to come to Canada to experiment with and promote “small”, “modular”, nuclear reactors.


A Globe and Mail article in November 2018, revealed that CNSC officials had engaged in backroom lobbying to exempt small modular nuclear reactors from environmental assessment. 


A June 2020 briefing session for MPs and media,“Sham regulation of radioactive waste in Canada,” by the Canadian Environmental Law Association and other NGOs, outlined several ways in which the CNSC was creating “pseudo regulations” to benefit the nuclear industry and allow cheap and ineffective nuclear waste facilities to receive approval and licensing.

A recent petition to the Auditor General from our respective public interest citizens’ groups and Quebec colleagues, entitled “Nuclear governance problems in Canada,” noted that the CNSC has a mandate to protect health but lacks a health department.  A review of CNSC’s organizational chart reveals that the word health does not appear on it.


We believe the CNSC is in need of serious reform if Canadians want it to become a world-class nuclear regulator that prioritizes the health of Canadians and the environment over the health of the nuclear industry. The Government of Canada should address regulatory capture and other serious problems at the CNSC as soon as possible.

Lynn Jones, MHSc, Ottawa, Ontario, Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area

Anne Lindsey, OM, MA, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Concerned Citizens of Manitoba

~~~~~

The images below are screen shots from the CNSC website, on April 13, 2021, illustrating that the word “health” does not appear on the organizational chart, despite the fact that CNSC’s primary legal mandate is to protect the health of Canadians from the adverse effects of exposure to ionizing radiation.

Who will fix Canada’s nuclear governance gaps?: citizens’ groups (Hill Times)

hendricksonjones 7 Comments

The following letter to the editor was published in the Hill Times, March 3, 2021 (en français ici)

See also “Reforms needed at the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission” – Hill Times letter to the Editor

https://www.hilltimes.com/2021/03/03/who-will-fix-canadas-nuclear-governance-gaps-citizens-groups/285921

Our respective public interest citizens’ groups from Manitoba and Ontario along with colleagues in Quebec submitted Petition 427 to the federal auditor general in June 2019 to flag serious problems in Canada’s nuclear governance regime and recommend solutions. The concerns raised in our petition are shared by many other groups from across Canada.

Our research into nuclear governance was sparked by a desire to understand why and how substandard radioactive waste projects have come to be planned for sites on the Winnipeg and Ottawa Rivers. OECD documents allowed for comparisons between Canada and other OECD countries on many aspects of nuclear governance.

Canada came up short on many metrics. For example, Canada has:

  • Weak and outdated primary legislation with purposes that do not explicitly aim to protect the public from the detrimental effects of ionizing radiation;
  • No legislation dealing with the vast majority (by volume) of nuclear reactor wastes in Canada;
  • Delegated almost all nuclear oversight to one agency, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, resulting in a lack of checks and balances found in other OECD countries;
  • A serious and ongoing perception of regulatory capture of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, reported by the Expert Panel on environmental assessment reform. The CNSC promotes the projects it is tasked with regulating;
  • A serious conflict of interest in the reporting relationship of CNSC to the minister of natural resources, who has a mandate to promote nuclear energy under the Nuclear Energy Act;
  • Delegated to a nuclear industry group, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), the job of developing strategies for radioactive waste, counter to guidance from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA);
  • A serious policy vacuum on radioactive waste and nuclear reactor decommissioning, currently being addressed but with problems that include leadership by the minister of natural resources who has a conflict of interest as noted above, and delegation to the NWMO, counter to IAEA guidance.

Why does it matter that Canada has one of the least robust systems of nuclear governance in the world? The nuclear business comes with risks of catastrophic accidents and produces dangerous and potentially deadly wastes. There is no safe level of exposure to the radioactive substances produced in nuclear reactors. These materials remain hazardous for many millennia. Robust nuclear governance is needed to protect humans, other life forms, and the environment from these risks.

We believe that Canada’s weak nuclear governance regime is a root cause of the substandard proposals to build a giant radioactive waste mound upstream of Ottawa-Gatineau and to entomb highly radioactive nuclear reactors in concrete beside the Ottawa and Winnipeg Rivers.

In our view, Canada’s weak nuclear governance regime also makes federal funding for new nuclear reactors risky and liable to compound serious existing nuclear waste problems and liabilities in this country.

Remedies are offered for many of these problems in Petition 427, but to our knowledge, no one in government is considering them. A letter sent to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau 11 months ago, on April 3, 2020, requesting urgent attention to these matters and others raised by a recent IAEA peer review of Canada’s nuclear safety framework has gone unanswered. It appears that no one is minding the shop.

It’s a vexing conundrum: in a country with a weak nuclear governance regime consisting of a “one-stop shop,” “captured regulator” that reports to a minister responsible for promoting nuclear energy, who will take responsibility for fixing Canada’s nuclear governance gaps?

Anne Lindsey, OM, MA
Winnipeg, Man., Concerned Citizens of Manitoba

Lynn Jones, MHSc
Ottawa, Ont., Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area

LETTRE OUVERTE au premier ministre Justin Trudeau et au Conseil des ministres fédéral ~ ARRÊTEZ le dépotoir radioactif de Chalk River

hendricksonjones 1 Comment

Le 25 janvier 2021


Monsieur le Premier Ministre et mesdames et messieurs les Membres du Conseil des Ministres,

La rivière des Outaouais est une rivière du patrimoine canadien qui coule au pied de la Colline du Parlement. Sa valeur comme site naturel et comme trésor historique est inestimable. La rivière est sacrée pour le peuple algonquin, dont elle définit le territoire traditionnel.

La rivière des Outaouais est menacée par un dépotoir géant, d’une hauteur de sept étages, conçu pour abriter un million de tonnes de déchets radioactifs. Un consortium multinational (SNC-Lavalin, Fluor et Jacobs) prévoit construire ce monticule sur les terrains des Laboratoires nucléaires canadiens (LNC) près de Chalk River, en Ontario, à 150 km au nord-ouest d’Ottawa.

Les scientifiques indépendants et le public n’ont pas eu d’occasion de s’exprimer officiellement sur le projet depuis août 2017, alors que des centaines de commentaires critiques ont été soumis à la Commission canadienne de sûreté nucléaire (CCSN). La CCSN est l’« autorité responsable» en vertu de l’ancienne Loi canadienne sur l’évaluation environnementale et prévoit tenir une audience sur l’émission d’un permis cette année. Un Comité d’experts recommandait en 2017 que la CCSN ne soit pas chargée de l’évaluation environnementale des projets nucléaires. Le Comité avait aussi noté que la CCSN était largement perçue comme un « régulateur captif » des entreprises plutôt qu’un organisme indépendant.

L’Assemblée des Premières nations et plus de 140 municipalités du Québec et de l’Ontario ont adopté des résolutions s’opposant au dépotoir nucléaire de Chalk River.

Voici six raisons d’ARRÊTER ce projet:

1. Le site proposé est tout simplement inapte à recevoir un dépotoir, de quelque type qu’il soit. Le site est à moins d’un kilomètre de la rivière des Outaouais, qui forme la frontière entre l’Ontario et le Québec. La rivière fournit l’eau potable à des millions de Canadiens. Après avoir passé les LNC, elle coule entre Ottawa et Gatineau, au pied de la colline du Parlement, puis jusqu’à Montréal. Le site est exposé aux risques de tornades et de tremblements de terre; la rivière des Outaouais constitue d’ailleurs une ligne de faille géologique majeure. Le site est partiellement entouré de milieux humides et le substrat rocheux est poreux et fracturé.

2. Le monticule prévu contiendrait des centaines de matériaux radioactifs, des douzaines de produits chimiques dangereux et des tonnes de métaux lourds. Parmi les matériaux radioactifs destinés au monticule, on trouve du tritium, du carbone 14, du strontium 90, quatre types de plutonium (un des matériaux radioactifs les plus dangereux lorsqu’inhalé ou ingéré), et jusqu’à 80 tonnes d’uranium. Vingt-cinq des 30 radionucléides cités dans l’inventaire de radionucléides pour le monticule ont une longue durée de vie. Ces renseignements donnent à penser que le dépotoir demeurerait dangereusement radioactif pour quelque 100 000 ans.

La très grande quantité de cobalt 60 dans le dépotoir émettrait tellement de radiation gamma que les travailleurs devraient utiliser un blindage en plomb pour éviter une exposition dangereuse. L’Agence internationale de l’énergie atomique (AIEA) considère le cobalt 60 à haute activité comme un « déchet de moyenne activité », qui doit être stocké en profondeur.

Le dépotoir recevrait aussi des dioxines, des BPC, de l’amiante, du mercure, jusqu’à 13 tonnes d’arsenic et des centaines de tonnes de plomb. Il contiendrait aussi des milliers de tonnes de cuivre, de fer et 33 tonnes d’aluminium, des métaux qui pourront amener des voleurs à creuser dans le monticule après la fermeture du site.

3. Le monticule laisserait s’écouler des matériaux radioactifs et dangereux dans la rivière des Outaouais durant son opération et après sa fermeture. L’énoncé des incidences environnementales décrit plusieurs des façons dont le monticule pourrait laisser fuir son contenu. On prévoit que le monticule se désintégrera avec le temps, un processus qualifié d’« évolution normale ».

4. Il n’existe pas de niveau sécuritaire d’exposition aux radiations qui s’écouleraient du monticule de Chalk River dans la rivière des Outaouais. Chacun des matériaux radioactifs qui s’échapperait du site augmenterait les risques de malformations congénitales, d’altérations génétiques, de cancer et d’autres maladies chroniques. L’AIEA considère que les déchets radioactifs doivent être soigneusement stockés à l’écart de la biosphère et non dans un monticule en surface.

5. Les normes internationales de sécurité n’autorisent pas l’utilisation de dépotoirs pour disposer des déchets radioactifs. L’AIEA considère que seuls des déchets de très faible activité peuvent être placés dans une installation en surface, comme un dépotoir. Le Canada se déroberait à ses obligations internationales comme État membre de l’AIEA et signataire d’un traité international sur les déchets nucléaires s’il autorisait ce dépotoir à obtenir sa licence.

6. Le monticule géant de Chalk River ne réduirait pas la responsabilité légale du Canada face aux déchets nucléaires, qui s’élève déjà à 8 milliards de dollars. Il pourrait au contraire l’alourdir. La remise en état de cette colline de déchets radioactifs serait très difficile. Les coûts d’assainissement pourraient dépasser ceux de la gestion des déchets s’ils n’avaient pas été mis dans le monticule.

Monsieur le Premier Ministre et mesdames et messieurs les Membres du Conseil des Ministres: Retirez à la CCSN le pouvoir de décision en cette matière et arrêtez le dépotoir nucléaire de Chalk River. Protégez la rivière des Outaouais pour les générations actuelles et futures de Canadiens.

Veuillez recevoir l’expression de nos sentiments les plus sincères,


Gordon Edwards, Regroupement pour la surveillance du nucléaire, Montréal, QC

Éric Notebaert, Association canadienne des médecins pour l’environnement, Montréal, QC

Réal Lalande, Action Climat Outaouais, Gatineau, QC

Paul Johannis, L’Alliance pour les espaces verts de la capitale du Canada, Ottawa, ON

Lynn Jones, Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area, Ottawa, ON

Johanna Echlin, Old Fort William (Quebec) Cottagers’ Association, Sheenboro, QC

Robb Barnes, Écologie Ottawa, Ottawa, ON

Beatrice Olivastri, Les ami(e)s de la terre Canada, Ottawa, ON

Ole Hendrickson, Ottawa River Institute, Ottawa, ON

Eva Schacherl, Coalition Against Nuclear Dumps on the Ottawa River, Ottawa, ON

CC:
Hon. Erin O’Toole, Chef de l’opposition

Yves-François Blanchet, chef du Bloc québécois

Jagmeet Singh, Chef du Nouveau Parti démocratique

Annamie Paul, Chef du Parti vert du Canada