�ݺ�ߣ

BY MAIL AND FACSIMILE
March 11, 2010
Linda Nagel
President and CEO
Advertising Standards Canada
175 Bloor St. East
South Tower, Suite 1801
Toronto, ON M4W 3R8
Fax: 416-961-7904
CC: Mr. Gord Miller, Environmental Commissioner of Ontario
Dear Ms Nagel:
Re: Contravention of the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards
Please ﬁnd enclosed a complaint pursuant to Advertising Standards Canada’s Special Interest
Group Complaint Procedure. This submission is made in response to an advertisement for the
Power Workers’ Union that appeared in the Globe and Mail on December 11, 2009. If you have
any questions or comments about this submission, please do not hesitate to contact our
counsel, Joanna Bull, at 416-861-1237 or Joanna@waterkeeper.ca.
Yours truly,
Mark Mattson
Waterkeeper & President
600 Bay Street, Suite 410. Toronto, ON M5G 1M6
T 416-861-1237 admin@waterkeeper.ca www.waterkeeper.ca
Proud member of Waterkeeper Alliance
1

Part I - Overview
[1] Lake Ontario Waterkeeper (LOW) is a grassroots environmental charity that uses research,
education, and legal tools to protect and restore a fishable, drinkable, swimmable Lake Ontario.
We are a non-political organization focusing on research and justice issues in the general public
interest. LOW has extensive experience working on issues related to the nuclear industry, which
is one of the most significant sources of pollution on Lake Ontario. The shores of the lake are
home to nuclear fuel processing plants, nuclear power plants, and nuclear waste sites. Nuclear-
related pollution is well documented throughout the Lake Ontario watershed, particularly in
communities like Port Hope that have hosted the industry for decades. LOW’s concerns focus
on the impacts of nuclear pollution on the integrity of the lake as aquatic habitat, a place for
recreation, and a source of drinking water for millions of people.
[2] Advertising Standards Canada (ASC) is a national not-for-profit body that provides self-
regulation for the advertising industry in Canada. Created by the industry in 1957, ASC works
on behalf of its members, the public, and the industry to ensure the integrity and viability of
advertising in Canada. ASC aims to foster confidence in the advertising that is presented to
Canadians. To fulfill its mandate, it applies and enforces the Canadian Code of Advertising
Standards (the Code).
Appendix A: Canadian Code of Advertising Standards, online: Advertising Standards Canada
<www.adstandards.com/en/Standards/canCodeOfAdStandards.aspx> [Code].
[3] The Code classifies complaints as either “Consumer Complaints” or “Special Interest Group
Complaints”. “Special Interest Group” is defined as an identifiable group, representing more than
one individual and/or organization, expressing a unified viewpoint that is critical of the content of
an advertisement, and/or the production method or technique, and/or the medium, used to carry
the advertisement and convey its perceived message. As a charity working in the public interest,
Lake Ontario Waterkeeper qualifies as a “Special Interest Group” under the Code.
Appendix A: Code, supra.
Appendix A: Special Interest Group Complaint Procedure, online: Advertising Standards Canada
<http://www.adstandards.com/en/ConsumerComplaints/SIGComplaintProcedureMay2003.aspx> at
Definitions [Special Interest Complaint Procedure].
[4] When ASC receives a “Special Interest Group” complaint, staff perform an initial evaluation of
the advertisement. If the complaint raises a potential Code issue, the advertisement is reviewed
by the National Consumer Response Council (the Council). The Council includes business
professionals and members of the public. It is supported by, but independent from, ASC. For its
review, the Council will request a response from the advertiser. If the Council concludes that the
Code has been violated, it will request that the advertiser amend or withdraw the advertising
2

without unreasonable delay.
Appendix A: Special Interest Group Complaint Procedure, supra.
[5] On December 11, 2009, an advertisement created by the Ontario Power Workers’ Union (the
PWU) appeared in the printed version of the Globe and Mail. The advertisement claimed that
CANDU nuclear reactors, which are currently used to produce electricity at Ontario’s three
nuclear power plants, are “emission-free”. Ontario Power Generation (OPG) is a provincial crown
corporation that owns and operates two nuclear power plants on Lake Ontario. Their
employees are represented by the PWU.
Exhibit 1: The Globe and Mail (11 December 2009), CC2 [Power Workers’ Union Advertisement].
[6] Lake Ontario Waterkeeper submits that this advertisement violates section 1 of the Canadian
Code of Advertising Standards by containing an inaccurate, deceptive claim that nuclear power
production, speciﬁcally the operation of a CANDU reactor, is “emission-free”. The general
impression conveyed by the advertisement, as received or perceived by the public, is that the
operation of CANDU reactors results in no emissions to the environment. LOW has compiled
evidence to demonstrate that the representation in question is an advertisement subject to the
Code and is factually inaccurate and misleading to the public.
Appendix A: The Code, supra at s. 1.
Part II - Law
[7] The Canadian Code of Advertising Standards is applied by ASC to promote their mandate of
fostering conﬁdence in advertising. Section 1 of the Code, “Accuracy and Clarity”, states that:
(a) Advertisements must not contain inaccurate or deceptive claims, statements, illustrations or
representations, either direct or implied, with regard to a product or service. In assessing the
truthfulness and accuracy of a message, the concern is not with the intent of the sender or
precise legality of the presentation. Rather, the focus is on the message as received or
perceived, i.e. the general impression conveyed by the advertisement.
(b) Advertisements must not omit relevant information in a manner that, in the result, is
deceptive.
(c) All pertinent details of an advertised offer must be clearly and understandably stated.
(d) Disclaimers and asterisked or footnoted information must not contradict more prominent
aspects of the message and should be located and presented in such a manner as to be
clearly visible and/or audible.
(e) Both in principle and practice, all advertising claims and representations must be
supportable. If the support on which an advertised claim or representation depends is test or
3

survey data, such data must be reasonably competent and reliable, reflecting accepted
principles of research design and execution that characterize the current state of the art. At the
same time, however, such research should be economically and technically feasible, with due
recognition of the various costs of doing business.
(f) The entity that is the advertiser in an advocacy advertisement must be clearly identified as
the advertiser in either or both the audio or video portion of the advocacy advertisement.
Appendix A: The Code, supra at s. 1.
[8] Canadian Standards Association established “best-practices” for environmental advertising in
“Environmental claims: A guide for industry and advertisers” (the Environmental Claims Guide).
This publication provides information to advertisers concerning self-declared environmental
claims, which are defined as:
[T]he kind of claims that are made by manufacturers, importers, distributors, or any
person who promotes a product/service or business interest who is likely to benefit
from the product’s environmental claims. These claims are usually based on a single
attribute...
The Environmental Claims Guide is a resource for ASC staff and the Council when
interpreting complaints under the Code that involve environmental claims.
Appendix A: Canadian Standards Association, Special Publication PLUS 14021 - Environmental claims:
a guide for industry and advertisers (Mississauga: Canadian Standards Association, 2008) at 2
[Environmental Claims Guide].
[9] According to ASC’s Interpretation Guideline #3, the Environmental Claims Guide is relevant in
assessing Code violations:
When evaluating complaints involving environmental claims that allegedly are misleading
or deceptive, Council may, in exercising its judgment, take into account the standards
proposed by… Special Publication PLUS 14021.
Appendix A: Interpretation Guideline #3 – Environmental Claims, online: Advertising Standards Canada
<http://www.adstandards.com/en/Standards/interpretationGuideline3.aspx>.
[10] The Environmental Claims Guide includes Section 4: “General requirements for all claims”.
Subsection 4.5 states that:
An environmental claim of "... free" shall only be made when the level of the specified
substance is no more than that which would be found as an acknowledged trace
contaminant or background level.
Appendix A: Environmental Claims Guide, supra at s. 4.5.
4

Part III – Issue
Issue 1: Does the PWU advertisement that appeared in the Globe and Mail on December 11,
2009 constitute an inaccurate claim in contravention of Section 1 of the Canadian Code of
Advertising Standards?
Sub-Issue 1: Does the PWU message constitute an advertisement for the purposes of
the Code?
Sub-Issue 2: Is the statement made by the PWU, that nuclear energy produced by
CANDU reactors is “emission-free”, inaccurate?
Part IV - Facts
The Power Workers’ Union created and ran an advertisement that claimed that CANDU
nuclear reactors are “emission-free”.
[11] On December 11, 2009, an advertisement created by the PWU appeared in the printed
version of the Globe and Mail. The advertisement was a special information supplement. It
claimed that CANDU reactors, which are currently used to produce nuclear power at Ontario’s
three nuclear power plants, are “emission-free”.
Exhibit 1: Power Workers’ Union Advertisement, supra.
CANDU nuclear reactors are not emission-free.
[12] There is overwhelming evidence showing that the operation of CANDU reactors for the
production of nuclear energy results in the emission of pollutants into the environment. Data
from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) and the Ontario Ministry of the
Environment (MOE) demonstrate that CANDU nuclear reactors emit a wide range of
contaminants into the air and water.
5

[13] On June 30, 2009, OPG sought a renewal of their Basic Comprehensive Certiﬁcate of
Approval for their Darlington Nuclear power generating facility in the Municipality of Clarington. In
the application, OPG states that the following contaminants are emitted into the atmosphere
from, “all sources at the facility, including (4) CANDU generating units…”:
2-propenoic acid, ammonia, aromatic hydrocarbon resin, benzene, carbon
dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrazine, morpholine, nitrogen oxides, phosphoric
acid, quarterly ammonium compounds, sulphur dioxide, suspended particulate
matter, and total hydrocarbons.
Exhibit 2: Government of Ontario, EBR Registry Number: 010-7054 (Toronto: Ministry of the
Environment, 2009), online: Environmental Registry <www.ebr.gov.on.ca>.
[14] The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) was created under the Nuclear Safety
and Control Act to regulate the nuclear sector in Canada. In 2000, the CNSC reported that the
following contaminants are emitted from nuclear reactors (including CANDU reactors): tritium
oxide, iodine-131, noble gases, radioactive particulates, carbon-14, and liquid releases
that contain tritium oxide. Noble gases include xenon, argon, krypton, neon, and helium.
Radioisotopes of these noble gases are created during the operation of a nuclear reactor.
Exhibit 3: Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Radioactive Release Data from Canadian Nuclear
Generating Stations 1990 to 1999 (Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada,
2000) at 3 & 36.
[15] The CNSC has stated that all CANDU reactors release radioactive material, including
tritium. The CNSC further states that tritium is released in the form of a gaseous emission into
the atmosphere. Tritium is a radioactive form of hydrogen that is released into the air and water
from nuclear plants. Tritium is dangerous when eaten or absorbed into the skin. It is associated
with cell damage and has the potential to induce cancer.
Exhibit 4: Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Tritium Releases and Dose Consequences in Canada
(Ottawa : Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, 2009) at 13 [Tritium Releases and
Dose Consequences].
Exhibit 5: U.S Department of Energy, Human Health Fact Sheet Tritium, (Argonne: Argonne National
Laboratory, 2005) online: Environmental Science Division <http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/
tritium.pdf>.
Exhibit 6: James D. Happell, “A history of atmospheric tritium gas (HT) 1950-2002” (2004) 56:3 Tellus
Series B: Chemical and Physical Meteorology 183 at 183.
6

[16] According to the CNSC, in 2006, the levels of tritium emitted as gas were 1.3x 1014 Bq
from the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station, 5.7x 1014 Bq from the Pickering Nuclear
Generating Station, and 9.0x 1014 Bq from the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station. In 2006, the
levels of tritium emitted as liquid effluent were 1.9 x 1014 Bq from the Darlington Nuclear
Generating Station, 3.3 x 1014 Bq from the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station, 7.3 x 1014 Bq
from the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station.
Exhibit 4: Tritium Releases and Dose Consequences, supra at 17.
[17] Tritium levels in the air and water surrounding nuclear facilities are greater than background
levels. Atmospheric tritium concentrations close to nuclear facilities can reach 10 Bq/m3
(Becquerels per cubic metre) and 100 Bq/L (Becquerels per litre) in water. The concentration of
tritium in the air can be taken to be 1 Bq/m3 closer to nuclear facilities that operate CANDU
generators in Ontario. As one moves farther away from a nuclear facility, the levels average
0.1Bq/m3 for air and 5 Bq/L for water. Furthermore, the background level of tritium in water in
Ontario is between 2 to 3 Bq/L. The elevated tritium levels around nuclear facilities suggest a
connection between the documented tritium releases and accumulation of tritium in the
environment.
Exhibit 7: Richard V. Osborne, Tritium in the Canadian Environment: Levels and Health Effects
(Ottawa : Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, 2002) at i, 1, 6, 7 & 8.
Exhibit 8: Ontario Drinking Water Advisory Council, Report and Advice on the Ontario Drinking Water
Quality Standard for Tritium (Toronto: Ontario Minister of Environment, 2009) at 3 [ODWAC Report].
[18] To summarize, CANDU reactors emit pollutants into the environment including, but
not limited to tritium oxide, hydrazine, and carbon-14. CANDU reactors are therefore not
“emission-free”.
Part V - Argument
The Power Workers’ Union message is an advertisement for the purposes of the Code.
[19] The Code defines “advertising” as:
Any message (the content of which is controlled directly or indirectly by the advertiser)
expressed in any language and communicated in any medium…to Canadians with the
intent to influence their choice, opinion or behaviour.
7

[20] The Code applies to advertising by (or for):
[A]dvertisers promoting the use of goods and services; corporations, organizations or
institutions seeking to improve their public image or advance a point of view; and
governments, government departments and crown corporations.
[21] The PWU represents power production workers in Ontario. As a union that is “seeking to
improve their public image or advance a point of view”, it can be classified as an “organization”
and is therefore subject to the Code.
[22] The December 11, 2009 PWU “special information supplement” communicates a
message through a newspaper medium that is available to Canadians. The message was
published in the Globe and Mail, a national daily newspaper with an average Friday
readership of 317,965 people.
Exhibit 9: Audit Bureau of Circulations, Canadian Newspaper Audit Report: The Globe and Mail
(2009).
[23] The PWU advertisement promotes the use of CANDU nuclear reactors, which are built by
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) and are one of several reactor technologies available
for nuclear power production. Ontario is currently considering three possible reactor designs for
the proposed Darlington New Nuclear Power Plant in Clarington, one of which is AECL’s CANDU
technology. The advertisement argues for, “Building ‘Made in Ontario,’ proven and improved,
emission-free CANDU reactors now.” This argument is printed in large font in a text box that is
inset in a statement made to resemble a newspaper article.
[24] The PWU advertisement intends to influence Ontarians’ opinions and choices related
to nuclear power generally and CANDU reactors specifically. The statement aims to
advance the point of view that Ontario should be “acting now to build proven and improved
‘Made in Canada’ emission-free CANDU reactors…” The advertisement further intends to
convince Ontarians that CANDU reactors are emission-free and therefore environmentally
friendly. The advertisement highlights this assertion by characterizing CANDU reactors as
“emission-free” in large font.
8

The Power Workers’ Union advertisement is inaccurate, contravening section 1(a) of
the Code.
[25] The statement made by the PWU, that nuclear energy produced by CANDU reactors is
“emission-free”, is in violation of section 1 of the Code. It does not comply with the Code’s
requirement that advertisements be both accurate and clear. Section 1(a) states:
Advertisements must not contain inaccurate or deceptive claims, statements, illustrations or
representations, either direct or implied, with regard to a product or service. In assessing the
truthfulness and accuracy of a message, the concern is not with the intent of the sender or
precise legality of the presentation. Rather, the focus is on the message as received or
Appendix A: Code, supra, s. 1(a).
[26] The PWU advertisement violates section 1(a) because the direct statement made in regards
to CANDU reactors is both inaccurate and deceptive. The evidence presented above
demonstrates that nuclear energy produced with CANDU reactors is not “emission-free”.
However, a reasonable person would perceive the PWU statement to mean that no
contaminants are released into the environment from the operation of CANDU reactors. The
advertisement makes a direct statement that is not true with respect to emissions, which in turn
creates an inaccurate perception that CANDU reactors have no impact on the environment.
[27] Section 4.5 of the Environmental Claims Guide presents important criteria for assessing the
accuracy of claims. It states:
An environmental claim of ‘…free’ shall only be made when the level of the speciﬁed
substance is no more than that which would be found as an acknowledged trace
contaminant or background level.
Appendix A: Environmental claims guide, supra at 10.
[28] The PWU advertisement claims that nuclear power is “emission-free”. However,
tritium levels at CANDU reactor sites are higher then the naturally occurring background
levels. The evidence outlined above supports the conclusion that CANDU reactors are
directly emitting a variety of contaminants. Therefore, the claim made by the PWU does
not meet the standard outlined by the Environmental Claims Guide, and it is inaccurate for
the purposes of section 1(a) of the Code.
Exhibit 8: ODWAC Report, supra at 37.
9

Part VI - REQUEST
[29] The evidence on emissions from CANDU reactors supports a ﬁnding that the advertisement
presented by the PWU violates section 1 of the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards. Lake
Ontario Waterkeeper asks that Advertising Standards Canada refer this matter to the National
Consumer Response Council for a full review of the complaint. If the Council ﬁnds a Code
violation, we ask that the Council instruct the PWU to cease applying the term “emission-free” to
CANDU reactors in their advertising.
10

Appendix “A”
Law and Policy
The Canadian Code of Advertising Standards
Definitions
For the purposes of the Code and this document:
“Special Interest Group” is defined as an identifiable group, representing more than one
individual and/or organization, expressing a unified viewpoint that is critical of the content of
an advertisement, and/or the production method or technique, and/or the medium, use to
carry the advertisement and convey its perceived message.
1. Accuracy and Clarity
(a) Advertisements must not contain inaccurate or deceptive claims, statements, illustrations
or representations, either direct or implied, with regard to a product or service. In assessing
the truthfulness and accuracy of a message, the concern is not with the intent of the sender
or precise legality of the presentation. Rather, the focus is on the message as received or
(b) Advertisements must not omit relevant information in a manner that, in the result, is
deceptive.
(c) All pertinent details of an advertised offer must be clearly and understandably stated.
(d) Disclaimers and asterisked or footnoted information must not contradict more prominent
aspects of the message and should be located and presented in such a manner as to be
clearly visible and/or audible.
(e) Both in principle and practice, all advertising claims and representations must be
supportable. If the support on which an advertised claim or representation depends is test or
survey data, such data must be reasonably competent and reliable, reflecting accepted
principles of research design and execution that characterize the current state of the art. At
the same time, however, such research should be economically and technically feasible, with
due recognition of the various costs of doing business.
(f) The entity that is the advertiser in an advocacy advertisement must be clearly identified as
the advertiser in either or both the audio or video portion of the advocacy advertisement.
11

Interpretation Guideline #3 – Environmental Claims
When evaluating complaints involving environmental claims that allegedly are misleading or
deceptive, Council may, in exercising its judgment, take into account the standards
proposed by the Competition Bureau and the Canadian Standards Association in the Special
Publication PLUS 14021, Environmental claims: A guide for industry and advertisers.
1: November 2008
PLUS 14021, Environmental claims: A guide for industry and advertisers
4.6 Claims of sustainability
Sustainability can be measurable only over a very long period. It is therefore very difficult to
make a verifiable claim of sustainability at one point in time. Claims that refer to specific,
registered management systems are sometimes acceptable provided that they can be
verified.
The concepts involved in sustainability are highly complex and still under study. At this time
there are no definitive methods for measuring sustainability or confirming its
accomplishment. Therefore, no claim of achieving sustainability shall be made.
12

Appendix “B”
Exhibits
Exhibit 1: The Globe and Mail (11 December 2009), CC2.
Exhibit 2: Government of Ontario, EBR Registry Number: 010-7054 (Toronto:
Ministry of the Environment, 2009), online: Environmental Registry
<http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca>.
Exhibit 3: Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Radioactive Release Data from
Canadian Nuclear Generating Stations 1990 to 1999 (Ottawa: Minister
of Public Works and Government Services Canada, 2000) at 3 & 36.
Exhibit 4:

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Tritium Releases and Dose

Consequences in Canada (Ottawa : Minister of Public Works and

Government Services Canada, 2009) at 13.
Exhibit 5: U.S Department of Energy, Human Health Fact Sheet Tritium,
(Argonne: Argonne National Laboratory, 2005) online: Environmental
Science Division <http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/tritium.pdf>.
Exhibit 6:

James D. Happell, “A history of atmospheric tritium gas (HT)

1950-2002” (2004) 56:3 Tellus Series B: Chemical and Physical

Meteorology 183 at 183.
Exhibit 7:

Richard V. Osborne, Tritium in the Canadian Environment: Levels and

Health Effects (Ottawa : Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, 2002)

at i, 1, 6, 7 & 8.
Exhibit 8: Ontario Drinking Water Advisory Council, Report and Advice on the Ontario
Drinking Water Quality Standard for Tritium (Toronto: Ontario Minister of
Environment, 2009) at 3 & 37.
Exhibit 9: Audit Bureau of Circulations, Canadian Newspaper Audit Report: The
Globe and Mail (2009).
13

�ݺ�ߣ

Complaint to Advertising Standards Canada - 2010

More Related Content

Complaint to Advertising Standards Canada - 2010