Sign All Letters

If you want to sign all letters now, use the forms below. Click on “Read the Petition” if you would like to edit the letter before you send it. To learn more about the background of each letter, use the “Sign a Letter” navigation menu above. If you want to write your own letter, instructions are here.

Add your Signature to the Letter on Flame Retardants Read the petition First Name Last Name Email City State / Province Dear Ministers, The Government of Canada recently announced that new regulations for the toxic flame retardant chemicals known as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) will come into effect December 23, 2016. This new regulation adds decaPBDE, a commonly used PBDE, to an existing ban on the manufacture, sale, use and import of PBDEs. But this new ban has no bearing on any PBDEs already embedded in manufactured items. In fact, a regulatory exception permits toxic PBDEs to continue to circulate in consumer goods such as upholstered furniture, electronics, and vehicles. In effect, this new regulation does little to make Canadians safer: it continues to put those living today and future generations at increased risk of exposure to toxic chemicals. Moreover, the Government’s justification for the regulation of PBDEs, and another common flame retardant, Hexobromocyclododecane (HBCD), explicitly recognizes that industry will replace these banned chemicals with alternative flame retardant chemicals. Research conducted in the US and Canada has shown that these alternative flame retardant chemicals, which have not been thoroughly tested for toxicity, are becoming common sources of exposure in homes and workplaces. State-of-the-science research on endocrine disrupting chemicals has demonstrated that low doses of some flame retardants can have significant health effects on bodies when exposures occur at pivotal windows of development, including fetal development, infancy, and puberty. If 92% of Canadian women tested in our national biomonitoring program have PBDEs in their breastmilk, our regulatory system is clearly failing. How will the Canadian government address these regulatory failures? Toxic by Design, a recent report by a coalition of Canadian researchers (http://endocrinedisruptorsaction.org), asks the government to address these regulatory failures and makes a series of policy recommendations that would better protect Canadians from new and intensified exposure to toxic chemicals. This report shows that while some of the most common flame retardant chemicals in use today have been declared “toxic” by the federal government and their manufacture has been prohibited in Canada, regulatory exceptions allow PBDEs already embedded in products and components of products to continue to circulate widely through the Canadian consumer markets. Thus, without a regulation that bans PBDEs from all products, including their components, whether they are imported or assembled in Canada, Canadians will continue to be exposed to these toxic and persistent chemicals on an ongoing basis. Toxic by Design emphasizes how, despite recent regulatory measures, the problem of flame retardant chemicals may be compounded in the future. New flammability standards, if passed through the Standards Council of Canada without robust public scrutiny, may promote the increased use of flame retardants. Even with the complete prohibition of PBDEs, alternative chemicals, not yet subjected to rigorous study, will proliferate to replace regulated chemicals. We are asking that the Government of Canada: 1) Prohibit consumer products and the components of consumer products containing any flame retardant chemical for which there is evidence of harm, including alternative flame retardants, and those that have no environmental health assessment confirming their safety. Such action recognizes that the current substance by substance approach under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) and the slow timeline of assessment cannot adequately address the proliferation and distribution of replacement flame retardant chemicals. It also recognizes that the product by product approach of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CCPSA) cannot adequately address the widespread use of flame retardants in many kinds of products and materials. 2) Develop a strategy on the use of alternative flame retardant chemicals that meaningfully implements the precautionary principle. This requires, at minimum, that the government address the way that flammability standard-setting processes work at cross-purposes to the aims of CEPA. The government must integrate decision-making across these domains so as to address the problem of Built-in Exposures This letter has been drafted by concerned members of the public as part of the Write2Know Project (http://write2know.ca), a campaign that aims to mobilize public awareness and inquiry into federal research and policies on environmental and public health and safety. Our questions arise out of genuine concerns about the health and well-being of Canadians. We look forward to your response. Sincerely, [signature] Send Your Letter Now 80 signatures Share this with your friends:	Sign the letter against plastic tags in our food web This petition is now closed. End date: Dec 01, 2016 Signatures collected: 64 64 signatures
Add your Signature to the Letter on Endocrine Disruptors Read the petition First Name Last Name Email City State / Province Dear Federal Scientists and Ministers, cc Dr. Hing-Biu (Bill) Lee, Research Scientist, Canada Centre for Inland Waters, Environment Canada Dr. Mark McMaster, Research Scientist, Environment Canada Dr. Joanne Parrott, Research Scientist, Environment Canada Dr. Mark Hewitt, Canada Centre for Inland Waters, Environment Canada Dr. Derek Muir, Research Scientist, Environment Canada Dr. Sean Backus, Environmental Scientist, Section Chief\Great Lakes Watershed, Environment Canada Thomas E. Peart, National Water Research Institute, Environment Canada Gerald Tetreault, Research Technician, Ecosystem Health Assessment Hon. Catherine McKenna, Minister of Environment and Climate Change Hon. Jim Carr, Minister of Natural Resources Hon. Jane Philpott, Minister of Health Hon. Patty Hajdu, Minister of Status of Women Hon. Hunter Tootoo, Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard Hon. Kristy Duncan, Minister of Science Hon. Navdeep Bains, Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Thank you for your research investigating the presence of endocrine disruptors in Canadian environments. While we are grateful that the government has acknowledged the toxicity of Bisphenol A, and has regulated its use in baby bottles, Canadians remain concerned about the ubiquity of this substance in consumer goods and in the industrial waste circulating through our environments. We are especially concerned about the impacts of ongoing exposures to Bisphenol A (and its substitute Bisphenol S) on wildlife and people. Based on your expertise, we are writing to ask: What kinds of monitoring programs are in effect for measuring the amount of BPA in our bodies? Given these recent connections between Bisphenol A exposure and paper products, how is the release of this substance from industry is being monitored? While there have been some efforts to control this ubiquitous chemical, how effective have these interventions been? Are the similarly toxic substitutes to BPA, such as BPS being, monitored? I am writing this email as part of Write2Know (http://write2know.ca), a letter-writing campaign that aims to mobilize public awareness and inquiry into federal research programs. We want to let you know that we value federal science and scientists, and that our questions arise out of genuine concerns about the health and well-being of Canadians. We remain concerned about the legacy of constraints on access to federal scientists and the results of their research, the elimination of essential research programs, and the closure of libraries and archives. These constraints and closures have impacted what Canadians can and cannot know about the health of their bodies, communities, and environments. We are hopeful that a new government will address our concerns. We are posing questions to federal scientists about their research and findings, and forwarding our letters to federal Ministers and Members of Parliament to call attention to serious gaps between scientific evidence and government policy. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, [signature] Send Your Letter Now 171 signatures Share this with your friends:	Add your Signature to the Letter on Resource Extraction and Biodiversity Read the petition First Name Last Name Email City State / Province Dear Scientists, cc Dr. Lisa Venier, Research Scientist, Natural Resources Canada Dr. Ian Thompson, Research Scientist, Natural Resources Canada Dr. James Brandt, Research Scientist, Natural Resources Canada Hon. Carolyn Bennett, Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Hon. Jim Carr, Minister of Natural Resources Hon. Catherine McKenna, Minister of Environment and Climate Change Hon. Kirsty Duncan, Minister of Science Caribou are now listed among Canada's top species at risk. Many caribou herds have been decimated, and some are on the brink of extinction. Research shows that the major threat to caribou is loss of habitat to industrial development such as logging, oil and gas extraction, hydroelectric dams, oil sands operations, and mining. These operations not only destroy caribou habitat, they open up new avenues for caribou predators, like wolves, to access wider terrains. In effect, industrial development has created the conditions that make it easier for wolves to hunt caribou. The former federal and current provincial governments have initiated massive wolf culls in BC and Alberta in attempt to save the threatened caribou. To date, hundreds of wolves have been shot from helicopters and poisoned with strychnine, and more extensive culls are planned. Are there better ways to protect caribou? See below for more information. [blockquote type="left"]Your Letter to Federal Scientists and Ministers[/blockquote] Dear Scientists, Your research on biodiversity in Canada’s boreal forest is shedding crucial light on the serious threats posed by expanding industrial development, including logging, oil and gas extraction, and mining on caribou and other species (Venier, et al., 2014). This research makes it clear that industrial development is the root cause of caribou decline. According to your findings, what are the distinct impacts of different industries on caribou survival? What are the greatest threats to caribou populations? Would caribou rehabilitation be fostered by better regulation of particular industries? How would you integrate the results of your research into a caribou rehabilitation plan? I am writing this email as part of Write2Know (http://write2know.ca) a letter-writing campaign that aims to mobilize public awareness and inquiry into federal research programs. We want to let you know that we value federal science and scientists, and that our questions arise out of genuine concerns about the health and well-being of Canadians. We remain concerned about the legacy of constraints on access to federal scientists and the results of their research, the elimination of essential research programs, and the closure of libraries and archives. These constraints and closures have impacted what Canadians can and cannot know about the health of their bodies, communities, and environments. We are hopeful that a new government will address our concerns. We are posing questions to federal scientists about their research and findings, and forwarding our letters to federal Ministers and Members of Parliament. I look forward to your response.  Sincerely, [signature] Send Your Letter Now 455 signatures Share this with your friends:
Add your Signature to the Letter on Uranium Mining Read the petition First Name Last Name Email City State / Province Dear Dr. Jing Chen and Ministers, cc Patsy Thompson, Director General of Environmental and Radiation Protection and Assessment Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Hon. Carolyn Bennett, Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Hon. Catherine McKenna, Minister of Environment and Climate Change Hon. Jim Carr, Minister of Natural Resources Hon. Jane Philpott, Minister of Health Hon. Hunter Tootoo, Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard Hon. Kristy Duncan, Minister of Science Hon. Navdeep Bains, Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Thank you for your research monitoring the human health impacts of exposure to radiological material. As a research scientist and the Director of Radiological Impact Section, Health Canada, I am sure you are aware of the numerous studies outlining the potential adverse health risks, such as an increase in the likelihood of cancers, associated with frequent exposure to radon and low doses of ionizing radiation (e.g. The National Academies, 2002). In a study measuring the levels of toxicity loads in northern caribou populations who graze near the mines, a group of scientists found significantly enhanced levels of radionuclides in their bodies compared to other caribou populations, making those who consume the caribou at risk for increased exposure (Thomas and Gates, 1999). A more recent case study of the uranium waste rock piles at Key Lake mine showed the potential for long-term surface and groundwater contamination, which could directly impact the communities who hunt, fish, trap, collect berries and medicine in the area (Singh and Hendry, 2013). These findings suggest a need to continually monitor and assess the environmental health impacts from uranium mining in Northern Saskatchewan, particularly over the long term and at the community level. Based on your expertise, we would like to know: Is there a comprehensive plan in place to study and monitor the health impacts for the communities whose traditional hunting and fishing grounds intersect with the boundaries of the mines and exploratory sites? What research is being done to monitor the contaminants generated by the uranium mining? What are the known effects of these contaminants on human health? What are the findings of epidemiological studies conducted among community members who live near the uranium mines? If such studies have not been conducted, why not? We believe that the thirty-two northern communities directly impacted by uranium extraction deserve to have accurate and reliable information on matters foundational to their long term health and well being. We are concerned that this lack of clear information is part of a broader trend in Canada that leaves northern and Aboriginal communities under-serviced when it comes to providing the health care and information they need make decisions about the well-being of their families and communities. These gaps need to be addressed by Health Canada. I am writing this email as part of Write2Know (http://write2know.ca), a letter-writing campaign that aims to mobilize public awareness and inquiry into federal research programs. We want to let you know that we value federal science and scientists, and that our questions arise out of genuine concerns about the health and well-being of Canadians. We remain concerned about the legacy of constraints on access to federal scientists and the results of their research, the elimination of essential research programs, and the closure of libraries and archives. These constraints and closures have impacted what Canadians can and cannot know about the health of their bodies, communities, and environments. We are hopeful that a new government will address our concerns. We are posing questions to federal scientists about their research and findings, and forwarding our letters to federal Ministers and Members of Parliament to call attention to serious gaps between scientific evidence and government policy. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, [signature] Send Your Letter Now 261 signatures Share this with your friends:	Add your Signature to the Letter on Contaminants in the Far North Read the petition First Name Last Name Email City State / Province Dear Dear Ministers and Head of CHARS, cc Hon. Carolyn Bennett, Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Hon. Jane Philpott, Minister of Health Hon. Jim Carr, Minister of Natural Resources Hon. Hunter Tootoo, Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard We are pleased to hear about the launch of the Canadian High Arctic Research Station (CHARS) and its mission to support research on the environmental monitoring of ongoing resource development in the Far North. This research priority is crucial as environmental problems are likely to increase with further resource development in the Far North. We are happy to see that many of the research projects included in CHARS Science and Technology Plan for 2014 to 2019 focus on environmental monitoring, with the aim to establish a baseline for contamination. However, what is clear is that current contamination levels in the region are well above the baseline elsewhere. In addition to monitoring, is there a plan for how the Canadian High Arctic Research Station will address the high concentrations of contaminants to which those living in the Far North are disproportionately exposed? How will CHARS's research priorities address the environmental justice challenges that already exist in the region, including high concentrations of POPs in human and marine ecosystems? I am writing this email as part of Write2Know (http://write2know.ca) a letter-writing campaign that aims to mobilize public awareness and inquiry into federal research programs. We want to let you know that we value federal science and scientists, and that our questions arise out of genuine concerns about the health and well-being of Canadians. We remain concerned about the legacy of constraints on access to federal scientists and the results of their research, the elimination of essential research programs, and the closure of libraries and archives. These constraints and closures have impacted what Canadians can and cannot know about the health of their bodies, communities, and environments. We are hopeful that a new government will address our concerns. We are posing questions to federal scientists about their research and findings, and forwarding our letters to federal Ministers and Members of Parliament to call attention to serious gaps between scientific evidence and government policy. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, [signature] Send Your Letter Now 593 signatures Share this with your friends:
Add your Signature to the letter on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls Read the petition First Name Last Name Email City State / Province Dear Ministers and Members of Parliament, cc: Hon. Carolyn Bennett, Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Hon. Jane Philpott, Minister of Health Hon. Patricia Hajdu, Minister of Status of Women Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould, Minister of Justice, Attorney General What research is being conducted by federal agencies to investigate the epidemic of missing and murdered Aboriginal women and girls? Canada’s best social scientists, historians, and policy analysts are conducting federally-funded research to examine the impact of colonialism, assimilation, and residential school systems on Aboriginal peoples, factors that experts agree have led to inter-generational trauma and social fragmentation. What government research is being conducted to assess the social, economic, cultural, and historical factors that are putting Indigenous women and girls at such disproportionately high risk of injury and violence? What strategies is the government considering to develop a more effective, culturally sensitive, historically informed, long-term research program to address the social issues affecting First Nations, Metis and Inuit in Canada, both on and off reserve and in urban areas? I am writing this email as part of Write2Know (http://write2know.ca) a letter-writing campaign that aims to mobilize public awareness and inquiry into federal research programs. We want to let you know that we value federal science and scientists, and that our questions arise out of genuine concerns about the health and well-being of Canadians. We remain concerned about the legacy of constraints on access to federal scientists and the results of their research, the elimination of essential research programs, and the closure of libraries and archives. These constraints and closures have impacted what Canadians can and cannot know about the health of their bodies, communities, and environments. We are hopeful that a new government will address our concerns. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, [signature] Send Your Letter Now 754 signatures Share this with your friends:	Add your Signature to the Letter on DFO Library closures Read the petition First Name Last Name Email City State / Province Dear Ministers, cc Hon. Hunter Tootoo, Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard Hon. Catherine McKenna, Minister of Environment and Climate Change Hon. Kirsty Duncan, Minister of Science We value the long-term data generated by Department of Fisheries and Oceans Researchers. We are concerned about the loss of that data in the recent consolidation of DFO Science Libraries. Despite an affirmation on the DFO library website, which states that, “There has been no change to the size or scope of the collection” post-consolidation, there are numerous, separate, and validated accounts of individuals simply taking valuable data and records from closing libraries. What was taken out of these collections? The DFO has claimed that only “content not required to support the department’s mandate” was removed. Yet there is no indication of what that constitutes. What it is the value of the loss of this data in financial terms? What are the costs to scientific and historical knowledge? A publicly available list of the removed data is necessary for full accountability in this consolidation effort. I am writing this email as part of Write2Know (http://write2know.ca) a letter-writing campaign that aims to mobilize public awareness and inquiry into federal research programs. We want to let you know that we value federal research, and that our questions arise out of genuine concerns about the health and well-being of Canadians. We are concerned about constraints on access to federal scientists and the results of their research, the elimination of essential research programs, and the closure of libraries and archives. These constraints and closures impact what Canadians can and cannot know about the health of their bodies, communities, and environments. We are posing questions to federal Ministers and MPs to call attention to serious gaps between federal research and government policy. We want to see action on these issues today. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, [signature] Send Your Letter Now 566 signatures Share this with your friends:
Add Your Signature to the Letter on Marine Plastics in Food Webs Read the petition First Name Last Name Email City State / Province Dear Scientists and Ministers, cc. Dr. Craig E. Hebert, Research Scientist, Environment Canada Dr. Brad Hill, Research Scientist, Environment Canada Dr. Kim Fernie, Research Scientist, Environment Canada Dr. Doug Crump, Research Scientist, Environment Canada Dr. Neil Burgess, Research Scientist, Environment Canada Dr. Lisa Bradley, Research Scientist, Environment Canada Dr. Sean Backus, Research Scientist, Environment Canada Dr. Daryl McGoldrick, Research Scientist, Environment Canada Hon. Navdeep Bains, Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Hon. Jane Philpott, Minister of Health Hon. Catherine McKenna, Minister of Environment and Climate Change Hon. Hunter Tootoo, Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard Hon. Kirsty Duncan, Minister of Science Dear Scientists, Thank you for your research monitoring toxins and their movements through animals and the environment. Canadians are concerned about the impacts of marine plastics on their health and the health of marine ecosystems. Given your expertise in this area, I want to ask: How are marine plastics contributing to the accumulation of contaminants in individual animals? In what ways are marine plastics complicating current methods of analysis for bioaccumulation? How are contaminants being magnified as they move through marine and human food chains? What do your findings tell us about the implications of marine plastics for human health? I am writing this email as part of Write2Know (http://write2know.ca) a letter-writing campaign that aims to mobilize public awareness and inquiry into federal research programs. We want to let you know that we value federal science and scientists, and that our questions arise out of genuine concerns about the health and well-being of Canadians. We remain concerned about the legacy of constraints on access to federal scientists and the results of their research, the elimination of essential research programs, and the closure of libraries and archives. These constraints and closures have impacted what Canadians can and cannot know about the health of their bodies, communities, and environments. We are hopeful that a new government will address our concerns. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, [signature] Send Your Letter Now 516 signatures Share this with your friends:	Add your Signature to the Letter on Effects of the Oil Sands on Water Quality Read the petition First Name Last Name Email City State / Province Dear Scientists, cc. Dr. Marlene Evans, Research Scientist, Environment Canada Dr. Jane Kirk, Research Scientist, Environment Canada Dr. Derek Muir, Section Head, Aquatic Contaminants Research Division, Environment Canada Dr. James Sherry, Chief, Aquatic Contaminants Research Division, Environment Canada Dr. David Boerner, Director General, Water Science & Technology, Environment Canada Hon. Catherine McKenna, Minister of Environment and Climate Change Hon. Jim Carr, Minister of Natural Resources Hon. Carolyn Bennett, Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Hon. Jane Philpott, Minister of Health Canadians are concerned about the impact of oil sands development on their access to safe drinking water and on the health of our waterways for the plants and animals living downstream. We are grateful that federal scientists like you have been tracking water pollution in lake ecosystems in and around the oil sands. Your recent findings published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences show that water pollution in northern Alberta lakes is a result of oil sands development (Kurek et al. 2013). These findings are concerning. We understand that these pollutants include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which are known carcinogens affecting both humans and animals. Environment Canada states that, “No matter the source, Environment Canada works to track, control and reduce pollutants in our environment.” Are the pollution levels you found high enough to cause negative health impacts for humans and wildlife? How would you apply your findings towards improving protections for Canada’s vulnerable aquatic ecosystems and the people and animals living downstream? I am writing this email as part of Write2Know (http://write2know.ca) a letter-writing campaign that aims to mobilize public awareness and inquiry into federal research programs. We want to let you know that we value federal science and scientists, and that our questions arise out of genuine concerns about the health and well-being of Canadians. We remain concerned about the legacy of constraints on access to federal scientists and the results of their research, the elimination of essential research programs, and the closure of libraries and archives. These constraints and closures have impacted what Canadians can and cannot know about the health of their bodies, communities, and environments. We are hopeful that a new government will address our concerns. We are posing questions to federal scientists about their research and findings, and forwarding our letters to federal Ministers and Members of Parliament. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, [signature] Send Your Letter Now 607 signatures Share this with your friends:
Add your Signature to the Letter on Forest Management and Climate Change Read the petition First Name Last Name Email City State / Province Dear Scientists, cc. Dr. Pierre Bernier, Research Scientist, Forest Productivity, Canadian Forest Service Dr. Evelyne Thiffault, Research Scientist, Forest Biomass, Canadian Forest Service Dr. Werner Kurz, Senior Research Scientist, Canadian Forest Service Glenn Mason, Assistant Deputy Minister, Canadian Forest Service Hon. Navdeep Bains, Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Hon. Jim Carr, Minister of Natural Resources Hon. Catherine McKenna, Minister of Environment and Climate Change Hon. Kirsty Duncan, Minister of Science Climate change poses a real threat to the health of Canadian forests and we are grateful that federal scientists are conducting research on this issue. We are also pleased to see that the Canadian Forest Service provides information to the public on its website outlining how its research programs are responding to climate change. One video explains how climate models and carbon budgets are being used as the basis for developing Canadian forestry policy. These models suggest that young, managed forests may be better carbon sinks than mature, old growth forests. The implication however is a forestry policy that promotes harvesting old growth forests and replacing them with managed forests. While climate change is undeniable, available climate models and modeling techniques are plagued with uncertainty. How do your findings account for the ongoing debates in the climate modeling literature around best practices for the inclusion of forests in global carbon budgets? Are there uncertainties in your data or models that might cast doubt on a policy that promotes managed forests over protecting old growth forests? In other words, are these carbon budget models reliable enough to be used as the basis for forestry policy, especially when they appear to promote a policy of increased resource extraction from Canadian forests? Such a managed forest policy seems to contradict well-established scientific evidence on the role of old growth forests in maintaining biodiversity, plant and animal habitat, water and nutrient cycling, and soil stability. In that regard, do you feel that the full range of your research, and the research of your colleagues, is being considered in formation of Canada’s forestry policy? In this case, are climate models and carbon budgets being used uncritically by the government to promote industry-friendly policies? I am writing this email as part of Write2Know (http://write2know.ca) a letter-writing campaign that aims to mobilize public awareness and inquiry into federal research programs. We want to let you know that we value federal science and scientists, and that our questions arise out of genuine concerns about the health and well-being of Canadians. We remain concerned about the legacy of constraints on access to federal scientists and the results of their research, the elimination of essential research programs, and the closure of libraries and archives. These constraints and closures have impacted what Canadians can and cannot know about the health of their bodies, communities, and environments. We are hopeful that a new government will address our concerns. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, [signature] Send Your Letter Now 506 signatures Share this with your friends:	Add your Signature to the Letter on Cuts to Aboriginal Health Read the petition First Name Last Name Email City State / Province Dear Dr. Nicolas Gilbert, cc Hon. Jane Philpott, Minister of Health Hon. Carolyn Bennett, Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Hon. Patty Hajdu, Minister of Status of Women Your research on stillbirth and infant mortality rates within Aboriginal communities in Quebec highlights some of the unique challenges facing researchers charged with understanding and communicating health risks and best practices to Canadian Aboriginal populations. As your work points out, Aboriginal communities “are disadvantaged in relation to the rest of the province’s population” (Gilbert et al. 2015: 6) in terms of maternal and infant health. Your research comes at a troubling time when Aboriginal issues seem to be underrepresented in Canadian health research. With recent cuts to funding for the National Aboriginal Health Organization and the Institute for Aboriginal Peoples Health, it is unclear how systemic issues such as poverty, education, lack of access to public health resources, and other social determinants of health can be addressed and overcome if Aboriginal community members are not actively engaged in the research process itself. Given your role as a senior epidemiologist working for the Public Health Agency of Canada, what are the impacts of these cuts on your efforts to include of Aboriginal expertise, opinions, lived realities, values, and traditional practices in your research? With these cuts how can we guarantee that Aboriginal community members are actively involved in the process of defining both health risks and best practices in Canadian health research? I am writing this email as part of Write2Know (http://write2know.ca) a letter-writing campaign that aims to mobilize public awareness and inquiry into federal research programs. We want to let you know that we value federal science and scientists, and that our questions arise out of genuine concerns about the health and well-being of Canadians. We remain concerned about the legacy of constraints on access to federal scientists and the results of their research, the elimination of essential research programs, and the closure of libraries and archives. These constraints and closures have impacted what Canadians can and cannot know about the health of their bodies, communities, and environments. We are hopeful that a new government will address our concerns. We are posing questions to federal scientists about their research and findings, and forwarding our letters to federal Ministers and Members of Parliament to call attention to serious gaps between scientific evidence and government policy. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, [signature] Send Your Letter Now 452 signatures Share this with your friends:
Add your Signature to the Letter on Abandoned Mines Read the petition First Name Last Name Email City State / Province Dear Canadian Mines Ministers and Ms. Blancher-Smith (Chair, NOAMI), cc. Cindy Blancher-Smith, Chair, National Orphan/Abandoned Mines Initiative Communities across Canada have been left with hundreds of abandoned mines, exploration sites, and other toxic spaces as a result of resource extraction. In many cases, corporate bankruptcy ensures that the federal government must assume liability for these sites. In other cases, the provinces and increasingly the territories take the lead. We appreciate the work that federal scientists and researchers have undertaken, including CANMET’s research on improving safety and environmental health around abandoned and orphaned mines, and the research conducted through the Mining Environment Neutral Drainage (MEND) program. However, policies, programs, and research on abandoned mines and toxic sites are fragmented across jurisdictions and we remain concerned. Based on your expertise, we are writing to ask: • When will the National Orphaned and Abandoned Mines Initiative’s inventory be completed and made available to the public? How will it be connected to other government databases such as the Federal Contaminated Sites Inventory, the National Pollutant Release Inventory, and the Canadian Arctic Northern Contaminants Program (CANCP)? • What kinds of monitoring programs are in effect for tracking the status of decades-long remediation works across Canada, including the north? • Given that funding for the Federal Contaminated Sites Program will conclude in 2018, what measures do you recommend for ensuring funding for ongoing remediation works (such as Faro Mine) and “new” abandoned mines that have lately been placed under the Contaminated Sites Program by default such as Nunavut’s Jericho Mine? What are the estimated costs of these initiatives? • How much will it cost to reclaim them or provide perpetual care for those sites that cannot be reclaimed? What are their health effects now and in the future? • Why were roughly 1000 sites left off of the Federal Contaminated Sites Inventory? How can communities living near these sites learn more about specific pollution mitigation efforts in their area? We are writing this email as part of Write2Know (http://write2know.ca) a letter-writing campaign that aims to mobilize public awareness and inquiry into federal research programs. We want to let you know that we value federal science and scientists, and that our questions arise out of genuine concerns about the health and well-being of Canadians. We remain concerned about the legacy of constraints on access to federal scientists and the results of their research, the elimination of essential research programs, and the closure of libraries and archives. These constraints and closures have impacted what Canadians can and cannot know about the health of their bodies, communities, and environments. We are hopeful that a new government will address our concerns. We look forward to your response. [signature] Send Your Letter Now 16 signatures Share this with your friends:	Add your Signature to the Letter on Lead Toxicity Read the petition First Name Last Name Email City State / Province Dear Federal Scientists and Ministers, cc Dr. Jiping Zhu, Research Scientist, Health Canada Dr. Suzanne Beauchemin, Research Scientist, Natural Resources Canada Hon. Jane Philpott, Minister of Health Hon. Navdeep Bains, Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Hon. Kristy Duncan, Minister of Science Hon. Jim Carr, Minister of Natural Resource Thank you for your research as scientists with Health Canada. We are especially interested in your studies investigating lead, mercury, and cadmium contamination in household dust in Canadian homes, which found “significantly higher concentrations” inside homes than in the soil outdoors. While Canadians can be reassured that blood lead levels have declined significantly from the 1980s with the phasing out of leaded gas, there is still a great deal of ambiguity in regards to what is considered a safe level of lead exposure. We are particularly interested in how your research engages with the World Health Organization’s conclusion that there are no safe levels of lead (WHO 2010: 11-12). A 2013 report issued by Health Canada confirmed that a series of studies “clearly document adverse health effects – including neurodevelopmental, neurodegenerative, cardiovascular, renal and reproductive effects – at blood lead levels below 10 micrograms per decilitre (µg/dL), the current Canadian blood intervention level” (Health Canada, 2013b: 4). The report goes on to state that there “is sufficient evidence that blood lead levels below 5 µg/dL are associated with adverse health effects,” and that “adverse health effects have also been associated with blood lead levels as low as 1-2 µg/dL” (4). By funding and issuing this 2013 health report, Canada was poised to be the first country to recognize the full significance of this new evidence by formulating new standards, policies, and practices to further prevent children from being exposed to lead. Unfortunately, such efforts were stalled and now Health Canada is in this contradictory position of having an outdated policy that does not coincide with current scientific evidence or with the health policies of other countries. Based on this new evidence, the Centers of Disease Control (CDC) in the United States cut their accepted blood lead level in half, moving from an intervention level of 10 µg/dL to 5 µg/dL (www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/). But Health Canada, despite this evidence and the actions on the part of other countries to lower their levels of acceptability, has failed to issue lower thresholds. Based on your expertise, we would like to know: What does your research indicate about threshold doses at which lead becomes harmful to children? Does your research support a particular dose, or even the concept of acceptable doses? Are children at risk of harm if their blood lead level is below the current intervention level of 10 μg/dL? In your opinion, does Health Canada’s current policy put Canadians at risk? I am writing this email as part of Write2Know (http://write2know.ca), a letter-writing campaign that aims to mobilize public awareness and inquiry into federal research programs. We want to let you know that we value federal science and scientists, and that our questions arise out of genuine concerns about the health and well-being of Canadians. We remain concerned about the legacy of constraints on access to federal scientists and the results of their research, the elimination of essential research programs, and the closure of libraries and archives. These constraints and closures have impacted what Canadians can and cannot know about the health of their bodies, communities, and environments. We are hopeful that a new government will address our concerns. We are posing questions to federal scientists about their research and findings, and forwarding our letters to federal Ministers and Members of Parliament to call attention to serious gaps between scientific evidence and government policy. We look forward to your response. Sincerely, [signature] Send Your Letter Now 176 signatures Share this with your friends:

Disclaimer: Any emails you send to a government email address potentially remain on file. Any contact information you provide, including your name, email address, IP address, and geographic location may be kept and used by the government institution you contact.

Add your Signature to the Letter on Flame Retardants

Sign the letter against plastic tags in our food web

Add your Signature to the Letter on Endocrine Disruptors

Add your Signature to the Letter on Resource Extraction and Biodiversity

Add your Signature to the Letter on Uranium Mining

Add your Signature to the Letter on Contaminants in the Far North

Add your Signature to the letter on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls

Add your Signature to the Letter on DFO Library closures

Add Your Signature to the Letter on Marine Plastics in Food Webs

Add your Signature to the Letter on Effects of the Oil Sands on Water Quality

Add your Signature to the Letter on Forest Management and Climate Change

Add your Signature to the Letter on Cuts to Aboriginal Health

Add your Signature to the Letter on Abandoned Mines

Add your Signature to the Letter on Lead Toxicity

Share this:

Follow me on Twitter