Documents Related to the CANDU Sale to China (November 1996)

Documents Related to the CANDU Sale to China

(November 1996)

[ pour la version française ]

  • Media Release: November 26/96

  • Press Conference: November 6/96

  • Media Advisory: November 4/96

  • Exporting Disaster: Executive Summary

  • Press Conference & Media Advisory: October 11/96

  • Ten Reasons Why Chrétien Should Say 'No CANDU' to Li Peng

  • Media Release

    For release November 26, 1996

    Ottawa -- The Sierra Club of Canada and other public interest groups are planning a legal challenge in the wake of 11th hour changes intended to allow the quick sale of CANDU reactors to China.

    Earlier this month, the federal cabinet met in a hastily arranged special session to make changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The regulations were given the force of law the next day without the usual regulatory procedure of a sixty day public comment period. The regulations are still not available to the public in the Canada Gazette or any other public listing of regulations. They will be published for the first time tomorrow (Wednesday, November 27th) after the sale has been completed. The new regulations will effectively exempt all future federally funded overseas projects from environmental assessment.

    Responding to the federal cabinet regulations and to the signing of contracts today in China, Elizabeth May, Executive Director of the Sierra Club of Canada stated, " We believe that the government has violated its own Environmental Assessment Act. By passing regulations in cabinet, in the middle of the night, the government has shanghaied the democratic rights of Canadian citizens."

    May added, "In the process of trying to sell CANDU reactors at any cost to China, the government has jettisoned parliamentary procedure and public accountability in Canada. The Prime Minister says that he's concerned about human and democratic rights in China. Reducing the democratic rights of Canadians is a strange way of showing it."

    Norman Rubin, Director of Nuclear Research at Energy Probe, echoed this concern, "This deal, from the start has ignored the human rights of the Chinese people. Now it's also threatening the legal rights of Canadians."

    The Sierra Club believes that the government has failed in its obligation to conduct a preliminary screening prior to irrevocable decisions being made. Environment groups are calling upon the federal government to undertake a comprehensive environmental assessment of the project pursuant to sections 21 through 24 of the Environmental Assessment Act . "If the Government of Canada is unwilling to live up to its responsibilities under the Environmental Assessment Act , then a legal challenge to the changes in the act may be the only recourse that the public has", noted Elizabeth May. Contrary to assertions by Minister for International Trade, Art Eggleton, internal documents prove that the government had planned to require environmental assessments for Projects Outside Canada.

    Environment groups are concerned about several other aspects of the CANDU deal, including the following:

    • China is not a signatory to the Vienna Convention on third-party liability. This means that, "financial accountability in the event of a multi-billion dollar accident has not been clearly assigned. AECL and thus the Canadian public could be liable for any accidents associated with the operation of CANDU reactors in China", says Kristen Ostling, Coordinator of the Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout. Major accident scenarios studied in connection with the CANDU reactors near Toronto (Pickering) project extensive property damage in the billions of dollars. These kinds of issues would emerge in a comprehensive environmental assessment.

    • By undertaking this sale, the federal government is undermining its stated historical commitment to nuclear non-proliferation. In contrast, the United States has not allowed its nuclear industry to sell nuclear reactors to China because of China's nuclear dealings with countries having clandestine nuclear weapons programs, such as Pakistan.

    • The Government of Canada claims that the Chinese have agreed to strict safeguards to prevent nuclear proliferation. However, "plutonium produced by CANDU reactors will last for tens of thousands of years, long after any current government or safeguard agreement has expired," states Dr. Gordon Edwards of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility.

    • Contrary to government claims, the sale of CANDU reactors to China creates few if any new jobs in Canada. "At best it will extend 2500 jobs for three to five years" said Dave Martin of the Nuclear Awareness Project.

    • Nuclear generated electricity is not -- as is often asserted by proponents of the deal with China -- a sustainable alternative to coal. The hazards posed by day-to-day operations, the potential for catastrophic accidents, and the inevitable problems associated with radioactive waste disposal mean that Canada is bequeathing a legacy of environmental problems to the people of China. The federal government appears to have wilfully ignored the cost advantages and environmental benefits of renewable energy and conservation measures both at home and abroad.

    • Nucleonics Week, the insider newsletter of the nuclear industry reported that China opted for the CANDU deal because Canada was the only country that would provide such favourable financial terms in a short timeframe. The financial terms of this deal are unprecedented. At $1.5 billion, this is the largest single loan in the history of Canada to for an overseas project.

    • Since the 1950s over $13 billion of public funding has been devoted to maintaining the Canadian nuclear industry. Federal subsidies to AECL are responsible for $33 billion (1995$) of Canada's current national debt. Canadians are now being asked to assume another $1.5 billion in debt on behalf of the nuclear industry.

    Canadians are increasingly voicing their opposition to the CANDU China deal. Demonstrations against the deal have already taken place in Halifax, Vancouver, and Saskatoon. Anne Lindsay of Concerned Citizens of Manitoba says that their group will take its message of protest to downtown commuters during the rush hour today outside Foreign Affairs Minister, Lloyd Axworthy's Winnipeg office.

    - 30 -

    For more information, contact:

    [ Feeding the Nuclear Dragon ] [ Nuclear Sunset ]

    [ Industry Sub-Directory ] [ COMPLETE DIRECTORY ]

    Media Advisory

    November 4, 1996

    CANDU Exports Study to be Released:

    Document critical of imminent CANDU export deal to China

    Ottawa ~ The Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout (CNP) will release a new study entitled "Exporting Disaster: The Cost of Selling CANDU Reactors" at a news conference on November 6, 1996. The news conference will be held at 10:00 AM in the Charles Lynch Press Conference Room (130S Centre Block, House of Commons, Ottawa).

    The release of "Exporting Disaster" anticipates the conclusion in November of a deal to sell two CANDU reactors to China. AECL (Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., a federal crown corporation) has been negotiating with the Peoples Republic of China for two years.

    "Exporting Disaster" argues that the sale of reactors to China cannot be justified on financial or ethical grounds, and looks at AECL's CANDU marketing campaigns around the world. The study examines Canadian financing and subsidies of reactor exports, as well as questions of human rights, corruption and nuclear weapons proliferation.

    "Exporting Disaster" addresses a number of important questions, including:

    • Is Canadian financing of the reactor sale to China a straight "commercial" deal, as claimed by Natural Resources Minister Anne McLellan?

    • Why doesn't the United States allow its nuclear companies to sell reactors to China?

    • How many millions of dollars has AECL paid in bribes to secure past CANDU sales?

    • How many CANDU customers have initiated nuclear weapons programs in addition to their "peaceful" nuclear power programs?

    [ Feeding the Nuclear Dragon ] [ Nuclear Sunset ]

    [ Industry Sub-Directory ] [ COMPLETE DIRECTORY ]

    News Conference

    Exporting Disaster:

    The Cost of Selling CANDU Reactors

    • Dave Martin, author of "Exporting Disaster",
      Research Director of Nuclear Awareness Project

    • Elizabeth May, Executive Director,
      Sierra Club of Canada

    • Marc Chenier, Spokesperson,
      Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility.

    • Kristen Ostling, Coordinator,
      Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout

    Time: 10:00 AM

    Date: Wednesday November 6, 1996

    Location: Charles Lynch Press Conference Room,
    130 S Centre Block, House of Commons, Ottawa

    For more information, contact:
    Kristen Ostling, Coordinator,
    Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout

    Exporting Disaster:

    The Cost of Selling CANDU Reactors

    ~ Executive Summary ~

    by David H. Martin,
    Nuclear Awareness Project

    for Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout

    November 1996

  • Economics

  • CANDU and the Bomb

  • Human Rights

  • Corruption

  • Conclusion

  • End Notes

  • Executive Summary

    Canadian CANDU exports have entailed extraordinarily high costs for Canadians, both in financial and in human terms.

  • Canada's nuclear program has cost the Canadian treasury over thirteen billion dollars to date. Yet domestic sales have dried up, and export sales are scarce. Any sales that occur cannot possibly recoup the value of the nuclear subsidies already received from Canadian taxpayers.

  • The dark underside of nuclear power has always been its potential to aid in the production of nuclear weapons, through the production of plutonium -- an inevitable byproduct of reactor operation. Of all commercial reactors, the CANDU design produces the most plutonium per unit of energy, and is the most difficult to safeguard.

  • The ethical cost of CANDU exports has also been high, as CANDU sales have repeatedly involved bribery, and have contributed to Canada's abandonment of an effective human rights policy.


    In a February 1996 publication by the Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout entitled "Nuclear Sunset: The Economic Costs of the Canadian Nuclear Industry", it was demonstrated that Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL) 1 received federal taxpayer subsidies totalling $13 billion up to the end of March 1995.

    Reactor sales cannot hope to recoup that massive subsidy. Indeed, the proceeds from reactor sales may not even keep pace with ongoing annual federal subsidies -- AECL will receive a subsidy of $174 million for 1996-97 (up from $172 million in 1995-96). The amount of the annual subsidy is supposed to drop to $132 million in 1997-98, and to $100 million in 1998-99 -- presumably it will then remain at that level.

    Since Canadian utilities are clearly not interested in building more reactors, AECL maintains that prospects for reactor exports justify ongoing subsidies from Canadian taxpayers. However, nuclear prospects are not numerous. The number of nuclear power reactors under construction around the world is at its lowest level in 25 years. Installed nuclear capacity worldwide has remained relatively flat throughout the 1990s. 2 Given the intense competition for reactor sales, the scarcity of sales opportunities, and the domination of the existing world market by other reactor types, AECL cannot realistically expect to achieve a large number of sales, or even to capture a significant market share.

    The likelihood of market success is further reduced by the CANDU's worsening international performance. Contrary to the myth of CANDU superiority, in 1995, the load factor for CANDU reactors worldwide was 61.4% -- the worst of all the major reactor types. 3 The growing trend towards more competitive electricity markets worldwide will also discourage CANDU sales, because nuclear power is a high cost, high risk option.

    Early CANDU sales involved concessionary financing, which entailed some combination of low prices, outright grants, low or no interest, and long repayment periods. Occasionally other perquisites were made available, including outright bribes or trade concessions. The full extent of hidden incentives and subsidies for these past sales, as with current CANDU deals, may never be known.

    In the case of CANDU sales to China, Natural Resources Minister Anne McLellan claims that financing for the CANDU sale to China will be on a commercial basis. However, the loan, thought to be about $1.5 billion, will go through a crown corporation (the Export Development Corporation) on its "Canada Account", which is carried on the books of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. The reason for this is that the loan is too big and too risky for the EDC alone, or for the private sector financial community. The EDC typically provides cheaper loans (i.e. at lower interest rates), for longer periods than commercial banks. There is some doubt as to whether the rules of the OECD 4 Consensus Agreement will be observed by AECL and its partners in the sale of CANDUs to China. Indeed, in the recent past, the OECD Consensus Agreement has been violated by one of AECL's partners.

    In addition, there are serious questions about:

    • the absence of political risk insurance on the loans;

    • the degree to which AECL will 'give away the store' through technology transfer;

    • the consequences of serious cost overruns; and

    • the cost of possible performance guarantees or warranties.

    On the other hand, CANDU deals with other financial structures, such as Build-Own-Operate-Transfer (BOOT) potentially carry even greater risks, as AECL would become the owner and operator, relying on electricity sales to recoup its investment.

    The minimum political requirement for CANDU deals should be transparency and disclosure. AECL traditionally keeps its nuclear financing deals secret, but if the China deal is strictly commercial as the government claims, then the details should be made public. AECL is after all a crown corporation, and CANDU sales to China have the economic and political support of the federal government.

    CANDU and the Bomb

    The explosion of an atomic bomb by India in 1974, using plutonium from a Canadian-supplied reactor, demonstrated the very real contribution that Canadian reactors can make to nuclear weapons proliferation. Canada promptly discontinued nuclear cooperation with India. Within a few years, Canada also broke off nuclear cooperation with Pakistan because of that country's determination to pursue a nuclear weapons program in response to India's demonstrated capability.

    Despite Canadian and international non-proliferation agreements, CANDU sales carry an inherent risk of proliferation ~ purchasers can simply ignore their commitments, as India did. All of our past CANDU customers (India, Pakistan, Taiwan, Romania, Argentina, and South Korea) have at one time or another pursued a nuclear weapons program.

    In recent years, without any public discussion or parliamentary debate, Canada has allowed its non-proliferation policy to be eroded. Since 1989, Canada's nuclear boycott of India and Pakistan has been abrogated by quietly allowing AECL and other Canadian companies to provide nuclear assistance to both countries.

    Because China has given aid to 'threshold' nuclear weapons states like Pakistan, the United States government will not allow its privately owned nuclear companies to sell reactors to China. The Canadian government has no ethical compunctions about selling reactors to China ~ it is eager and willing to take advantage of the absence of American competition.

    Human Rights

    Human rights violations are particularly severe in countries which AECL has targeted as its highest priorities for CANDU sales. China, Indonesia, Turkey and South Korea, among other AECL customers, have consistently been identified as among the world's worst human rights violators. The Canadian government has argued that through a policy of 'constructive engagement', i.e. by establishing even stronger commercial relations, Canada can encourage improvements in human rights. However, such a policy of appeasement is self-serving and hypocritical. If Canada is serious about improving human rights (or discouraging proliferation), it should impose trade sanctions, rather than expanding trade.


    Corruption is particularly entrenched in countries such as China, Indonesia, South Korea, and Turkey, all of which are CANDU marketing targets. AECL already has a history of using bribes to secure CANDU sales. Over $22 million in bribes -- disguised as agent fees -- was paid by AECL to secure sales to Argentina and South Korea. As recently as 1994, AECL's agent in South Korea was arrested and jailed for paying bribes to the head of South Korea's nuclear utility. Since AECL was first compelled to disclose "Agent Fees" in 1977, about $60 million has been paid out for dubious purposes. If bribery and corruption are the price of CANDU sales, Canada should get out of the business.


    AECL's most promising customers are all located in countries that exhibit serious human rights problems, and suffer from extensive corruption. Some are developing countries with oppressive and dictatorial governments (eg. China, Indonesia). Some are governments that have recently shifted to more democratic systems, but still suffer from the heritage of a dictatorial past (eg. South Korea, Romania, and Turkey). The absence of democracy, or the existence of a fragile democracy replete with human rights violations, invariably means that public debate and consultation on nuclear programs are non-existent or severely limited. Even in developed countries such as Canada the nuclear industry is secretive, democratic processes are rare, and information is often inaccessible. In developing countries these problems are far worse.

    Given the fact that the prospects for foreign sales of CANDUs are minimal, the ongoing subsidization of the Canadian nuclear industry cannot be justified. In particular, the financing of CANDU sales should not be supported by the federal government. Canadian taxpayers should not be expected to assume the risks of reactor sales.

    End Notes

    1. A federal crown corporation that designs and markets the CANDU reactor as well as other nuclear technology and services.

    2. Safe Energy Communication Council, "International Nuclear Power", Myth Busters # 10, Spring 1996.

    3. 1995 average load factors were as follows:

    PWR = 75.2%;   BWR =76.6%;   PHWR (CANDU) = 61.4%;
    Magnox = 65.6%;   and   AGR = 69.5%.

    See: Laurie Howles, "Load Factors: 1995 annual review", Nuclear Engineering International, May 1996, p. 30.

    4. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

    Press Conference


    October 11, 1995, 11:30AM
    Charles Lynch Press Conference Room
    130S Centre Block


    Gordon Edwards, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Reponsibility
    Elizabeth May, Sierra Club of Canada
    Kevin Jardine, Greenpeace
    Kristen Ostling, Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout
    Michelle Hseih, Formosan Association for Public Affairs

    The Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout (CNP) and the Coalition Against Nuclear Testing (CANT) will be co-hosting a press conference on October 11th at 11:30 AM in the Charles Lynch Press Conference Room (130S Centre Block). The conference will raise issues related to this week's visit to Canada by China's Premier Li Peng. Conference participants will discuss China's continued nuclear testing and Canada's proposed sale of CANDU reactors to China.

    On the occasion of Li Peng's visit, the Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout will release an exerpt from a study in progress on Canada's nuclear industry. The exerpt is entitled "Feeding the Nuclear Dragon: CANDUs for China?" (Copies will be available at the press conference.) CNP will also issue its list of top ten reasons Jean Chrétien should say "NO CANDU" to Li Peng.

    Following the press conference, an event on Parliament Hill at 12:00 noon will feature the unveiling of a message urging Li Peng to end China's nuclear testing and Chrétien to stop the sale of CANDUs to China. The Coalition Against Nuclear Testing's "Li Peng Welcoming Committee" will attempt to deliver the message to Li Peng in person.

    For further information, Contact:
    Kristen Ostling, Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout (613) 789-3634
    or The Coalition Against Nuclear Testing, (613) 241-7444.

    - 30 -

    Media Advisory

    October 11, 1996


    The Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout calls on Prime Minister Jean Chrétien to stop the sale of CANDU reactors to China. China is an international outlaw in its nuclear policies, as well as in its abysmal record of human rights abuses. Mr. Chrétien implicitly condones China's deeds by refusing to condemn them.

    China's Premier Li Peng will be arriving in Canada on October 12. He will meet with Jean Chrétien in Ottawa, and will dine with Mr. Chrétien and the provincial Premiers in Montreal on Friday evening. Part of the agenda will involve discussing and possibly finalizing the sale of two CANDU reactors.

    Many Canadians are deeply ashamed to see their chief elected representatives granting respectability to one of the most repressive regimes on the earth by dining with Li Peng -- the butcher of Tiananmen Square -- and treating him as an honoured guest. Many Canadians resent the ignoble image of Canada being projected: that we judge profit for the Canadian nuclear industry as more important than human rights, nuclear proliferation, or world peace.

  •    Here are CNP's top 10 reasons for Jean Chrétien to say "NO CANDU" to Li Peng:

      10. Canada should not be using tax money to breathe life into this dying industry.

       9. By exporting CANDU reactors, we burden others with our unsolved problems.

       8. Making nuclear waste is inconsistent with a sustainable development strategy.

       7. Ontario Hydro can't keep its CANDU reactors safe -- so how can China do it?

       6. China has refused to repay hundreds of millions of dollars in legitimate debts.

       5. China has imprisoned thousands of its citizens for advocating democracy.

       4. China practices harsh repression, including sterilization and forced abortion.

       3. We owe it to our own citizens and to the world not to honour cruel dictators.

       2. China has sold nuclear reactors and guided missiles to Pakistan and Iran.

       1. China continues to test nuclear weapons in defiance of global public opinion.

    The Campaign has decided to release a particularly relevant excerpt from an ongoing review of Canada's Nuclear Industry that it has commissioned, even though the study is not yet completed. The excerpt, entitled "Feeding the Nuclear Dragon: CANDU exports for China?" documents why the pending CANDU deal is bad for both Canada and China. Copies have been sent to the Prime Minister and to the provincial Premiers, as well as to the Ministers of Environment, Natural Resources, and Foreign Affairs & International Trade. Copies will be made available to interested members of the press.

    CNP's Top Ten Reasons
    Why Jean Chretien Should say 'No CANDU'
    To Li Peng

      10. Canada should not be using tax money to breathe life into this dying industry.

  • if the Chinese deal exceeds the $3.5 billion estimated, who pays the balance?

  • Canada will finance up to 2/3 of the cost, which will require borrowing $2 billion;

  • why can't this industry finance its own deals if the terms are truly reasonable?

  • AECL currently receives about $200 million annually in federal subsidies;

  • any overseas sales will necessitate a continuation of these federal subsidies;

  • Ottawa has already given the CANDU industry over $13 billion since 1948;

  • economist George Lermer estimates another $70 billion in opportunity costs;

  • AECL will make at most $200 million over several years from the China deal.

  •    9. By exporting CANDU reactors, we burden others with our unsolved problems.

  • official reports concede that catastrophic accidents in CANDUs are possible;

  • there is no proven solution to the problem of radioactive waste disposal;

  • routine emissions of radioactive tritium from CANDUs endangers health;

  • premature aging of reactor components can seriously compromise safety;

  • dismantling the radioactive structures of old reactors is a major problem;

  • use of heavy water or plutonium for military purposes cannot be prevented;

  • lengthy shutdowns and exorbitantly expensive repairs are a CANDU curse.

  •    8. Making nuclear waste is inconsistent with a sustainable development strategy.

  • the radioactive wastes will remain dangerous for tens of thousands of years;

  • plutonium in the nuclear waste will be usable for atomic bombs for millenia;

  • dismantling old reactors will yield 1000 s of truckloads of radioactive rubble;

  • the high cost of nuclear prevents investments in sustainable energy options;

  • the future costs of nuclear will frustrate the hopes of generations to come;

  • acts of war directed against a reactor can precipitate a Chernobyl-like disaster;

  • nuclear power is the ultimate embodiment of the throwaway society.

  •    7. Ontario Hydro can't keep its CANDU reactors safe -- so how can others do it?

  • Ontario Hydro is $30 billion in debt, all of it related to nuclear investments;

  • Ontario Hydro can no longer afford to keep its reactors in prime condition;

  • Hydro is shutting down a large reactor this year, 20 years ahead of schedule;

  • Hydro may be forced to shut 8 Pickering reactors if safety doesn't improve;

  • serious unpredicted nuclear accidents happened at three reactors in 1994-95;

  • repairs to two Pickering reactors cost $700 million, during a 4-year shutdown;

  • Hydro has not put aside any money for waste disposal & dismantling.

  •    6. China has refused to repay hundreds of millions of dollars in legitimate debts.

  • Chinese state enterprises have defaulted on $600 million in bank loans;

  • banks in Japan, Germany & Italy have been left "holding the bag" by China;

  • China International Trust & Investment Corp (CITICO) won't pay its debts;

  • CITICO owes $40 million to the London Metal Exchange, but refuses to pay;

  • two Chinese state companies owe $100 million in losses to Lehman Brothers;

  • huge cost overruns, typical of CANDU projects, may offer a pretext for default;

  • when Deng Xiao-Ping dies, a new regime may not feel bound by "his" debts.

  •    5. China has imprisoned thousands of its citizens for advocating democracy.

  • Li Peng is the engineer of the Tiananmen Square massacre on June 4 1989;

  • he called out the tanks, and hundreds of peaceful demonstrators were killed;

  • he labelled the pro-democracy movement "a counter-revolutionary riot";

  • after the massacre, he had thousands of pro-democracy activists arrested;

  • many are still in prison because they embrace democracy & the rule of law;

  • Amnesty International says "dissent in any form continues to be repressed";

  • why should our elected representatives honour such a man & such a régime?

  •    4. China practices harsh repression, including sterilization and forced abortion.

  • China routinely uses forced prison labour to manufacture goods for export;

  • will slave labour be used in China, as in Roumania, to build CANDU reactors?

  • torture & other forms of ill-treatment are reported by Amnesty International;

  • China dumps nuclear waste in Tibet, where atrocities are also frequent;

  • in 1994, Jean Chrétien said the world community must denounce such acts;

  • M. Chrétien wrote that China's "human rights violations are not acceptable";

  • M. Chrétien added, to get that message across, "words are clearly not enough".

  •    3. We owe it to our own citizens and to the world not to honour cruel dictators.

  • experience has shown that tolerating injustice does not help to eliminate it;

  • Canada spoke out against apartheid, and thereby played a role in ending it;

  • when Canada acted to protect ocean fisheries, the world sat up and took note;

  • appeasement is a policy showing moral bankruptcy and political cowardice;

  • dictators thrive on pomp & privilege; they wither under exposure & censure;

  • Jean Chrétien is supposed to represent the electorate, not the nuclear industry.

  • China's hard line threatens not only its own citizens but the entire world;

  •    2. China has sold nuclear reactors and guided missiles to Pakistan and Iran.

  • Canada can not turn a blind eye to the insidious spread of nuclear weapons;

  • Canada gave a nuclear reactor to India, who used it to make an atomic bomb;

  • Pakistan is developing its own nuclear weapons capability clandestinely;

  • Iran & Iraq have both revealed a determination to obtain nuclear weapons;

  • since we refuse nuclear exports to Pakistan & Iran, how can we sell to China?

  • if we sell nuclear reactors to China, how can we justify saying no to others?

  • selling CANDUs to China makes a farce of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

  •    1. China continues to test nuclear weapons in defiance of global public opinion.

  • Canada has promised that if the NPT were renewed nuclear testing would end;

  • maintaining silence on China's nuclear testing incites contempt for the NPT;

  • the message to other nations is that nuclear weapons confer respectability;

  • never has the world been closer to containing and eliminating nuclear arms;

  • how many countries will be nuclear-armed? all, or none? the choice is ours;

  • Canada, too small to be a military force, can become a leader for world peace;

  • if Canada can act to protect ocean fisheries, can we not act to protect the planet?

    [ Feeding the Nuclear Dragon ] [ Nuclear Sunset ]

    [ Industry Sub-Directory ] [ COMPLETE DIRECTORY ]

    Since March 27th 1996, there have been over
    100,000 outside visitors to the CCNR web site, plus

    (counter reset July 2nd 1998 at midnight)