Humanists for Social Justice and Environmental Action supports Human Rights, Social and Economic Justice, Environmental Activism and Planetary Ethics in North America & Globally, with particular reference to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other Human Rights UN treaties and conventions listed above. see About Us. Subscribe below.

Wednesday

Tell Stephen Harper: Medicines shouldn't be a luxury - MSF

Tell Stephen Harper: Medicines shouldn't be a luxury

Competition from generic drug companies has reduced the price of HIV drugs by a staggering 99 per cent to less than $140 per patient per year. This has given more HIV patients in the developing world a chance not only to survive, but to lead meaningful lives.

But Canada is participating in international trade talks that could jeopardize what has already been achieved, and put the lives of millions of patients at risk.

Damaging intellectual property rules in the U.S.-led Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) would give pharmaceutical companies longer monopolies over brand name drugs. Companies would be
able to charge high prices for longer periods of time. And it would be much harder for generic companies to produce cheaper drugs that are vital to people’s health.

On November 13, WikiLeaks released the draft Intellectual Property Chapter of the TPP. Since negotiations began in 2010, they have been shrouded in secrecy. This is the first leak of text from the proposed agreement in more than two years.

The leak of the secret text confirms that the U.S. government is continuing to steamroll its trading partners in the face of steadfast opposition over terms that will severely restrict access to affordable medicines for millions of people. The U.S. is refusing to back down from dangerous provisions that will impede timely access to affordable medicines.

It's encouraging to see that some governments, including Canada, Chile, New Zealand, Malaysia and Singapore, are pushing back against some aspects of the U.S. position with their own proposal that better protects access to medicines. What is troubling is that the text  also shows that some countries are willing to give in to the U.S.  government's damaging demands. MSF urges countries to stand strong to ensure that the harmful terms are removed before this deal is finalized.

Sign the petition to tell Prime Minister Harper to stand firm against the U.S. position on the TPP, and reject damaging provisions that could make this agreement the most harmful trade pact ever for access to medicines.

Monday

Industry Lobby gears up. Tell Ontario to stand strong on bee-killing pesticides... | Sierra Club Canada

(Reminder) Please tell Ontario to stand strong on bee-killing pesticides... | Sierra Club Canada

As you know, Ontario plans to restrict the use of bee- killing pesticides. In 2014, the Ontario government announced it intended to restrict the use of neonicotinoid pesticides. In order to develop the plan and regulations, the province began conducting consultations and invited the public to comment.

A number of these public consultations took place this past December and the majority went very well, with farmers and other stakeholders able to give input on the new rules. A meeting on December 19th, however, was very different.

INDUSTRY PUSH-BACK


The head of the Ontario Grain Growers (OGG), accompanied by (former MP) Ted Menzies, the new CEO of industry lobby group CropLife, stood up at the beginning of the meeting, condemned the government, and then (took their toys) and stomped out.

DIVIDE & CONQUER

The OGG and CropLife intend to undermine the consultations and are already preparing a pre-federal election ground offensive, and the battlefield is Ontario’s urban/rural divide. You may remember CropLife is in the midst of a major lobbying and public relations campaign to prevent Canada from adopting a ban on bee-killing neonicotinoid pesticides (an action the European Union took more than a year ago). They know they have to defeat any regulatory action in Ontario or risk seeing it spread across the country.

GOOD FIRST STEP

The Ontario government’s plan applies only to corn and soybean crops in the province and does not prohibit other uses of neonicotinoid pesticides. The new plan will require farmers to demonstrate a need for them, replacing the present practice of spraying all seeds before delivering them to the farmer.

The province confidently states that it can eliminate neonicotinoid use by 80% on these crops without a significant impact on production. New rules are expected to be in place by July 2015 (and apply to the2016 crop growing year).

Sierra Club Canada Foundation is supportive of the plan because it will be the first action by any jurisdiction in North America (the European Union acted in 2013). It should be viewed, however, as only a first step because it applies strictly to soybean and corn seed treatment and not other crops. As a precautionary measure to protect pollinators, we’re calling for restrictions on all uses of neonicotinoid pesticides. We see no logical reason to treat other uses of the bee-killing chemicals differently.

BEE HEARD TODAY

We hear from our sources that CropLife and OGG’s lobbying of late against restricting bee-killing neonicotinoid pesticides has been fierce
So let’s make sure Ontario stays strong. One way of
doing that is submitting comments, and we have until January 25th. We’ve provided a draft letter here

Sunday

Invitation to Carbon Tax forum, Jan 27, Victoria College

For everyone who wants to learn more about how we can stop subsidizing fossil fuels and can really speed up the transition to renewables - please help spread the word - so there can be more public understanding of these options.  - Lyn
Great news!    Citizens' Climate Lobby (CCL)  is co-sponsoring a Carbon Price Forum moderated by Stephen Lewis. The forum will take place on Tuesday, January 27 from 7:30 to 9:00 pm.
Isabel Bader Auditorium,
93 Charles Street West,
Victoria College University of Toronto

What’s the best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while stimulating the economy? Join Stephen Lewis and an expert panel on how to effectively put a price on carbon in Canada.
Two methods are frequently proposed – Cap and Trade and a Carbon Tax. Our Forum Panelists will present the case for each of these methods.
Moderator
Stephen Lewis, Distinguished Visiting Professor, Ryerson University
Panelists
  • Nicholas Rivers, Chairholder, Canada Research Chair in Climate and Energy, University of Ottawa
  • David Robinson, Associate Professor of Economics, Laurentian University
  • Katie Sullivan, Director, North America and Climate Finance, IETA
  • Gray Taylor, a leading climate change lawyer working in Toronto
Commentators
  • Kristyn Annis, President, Canadians for Clean Prosperity
  • Lynn McDonald, former Federal Member of Parliament and co-founder of JustEarth

Wednesday

Much of world's fossil fuel reserve must stay buried to prevent climate change, study says | Environment | The Guardian

Much of world's fossil fuel reserve must stay buried to prevent climate change, study says | Environment | The Guardian

It shows trillions of dollars of known and extractable coal, oil and gas, including most Canadian tar sands, all Arctic oil and gas and much potential shale gas, cannot be exploited if the global temperature rise is to be kept under the 2C safety limit agreed by the world’s nations.
Currently, the world is heading for a catastrophic 5C of warming and the deadline to seal a global climate deal comes in December at a crunch UN summit in Paris.

“We’ve now got tangible figures of the quantities and locations of fossil fuels that should remain unused in trying to keep within the 2C temperature limit,” said Christophe McGlade, at University College
London (UCL), and who led the new research published in the journal Nature. The work, using detailed data and well-established economic models, assumed cost effective climate policies would use the cheapest fossil fuels first, with more expensive fuels priced out of a world in which carbon emissions were strictly limited. For example, the model predicts that significant cheap-to-produce conventional oil would be burned butthat the carbon limit would be reached before more expensive tar sands
 oil could be used.
The new analysis calls into question the gigantic sums of private and government investment being ploughed into exploration for new fossil fuel reserves, according to UCL’s Professor Paul Ekins, who conducted the research with McGlade. “In 2013, fossil fuel companies spent some $670bn (£443bn) on exploring for new oil and gas resources. One might ask why they are doing this when there is more in the ground than we can afford to burn,” he said.
“The investors in those companies might feel that money is better spent either developing low-carbon energy sources or being returned to investors as dividends,” said Ekins.
“One lesson of this work is unmistakably obvious: when you’re in a hole, stop digging,” said Bill McKibben, co-founder of 350.org which is campaigning to get investors to dump their fossil fuel stocks. “These numbers show that unconventional and ‘extreme’ fossil fuel – Canada’s tar sands, for instance – simply have to stay in the ground.”

President Obama: It's Time to Reject Keystone XL. - 350

President Obama: It's Time to Reject Keystone XL. - 350

From Bill McKibben.
President Obama has threatened to veto legislation to approve the Keystone XL pipeline.

With the President's veto threat, he has shown that he's willing to take some heat for standing up to the industry. In fact, when he's talked about Keystone XL lately, he's started to sound a little like we did way back when we began this fight.

President Obama has the support he needs -- from science, and from the people -- to reject the pipeline. An 830,000 barrel per day pipeline of the world's dirtiest oil will obviously contribute to climate
change, failing his climate test.

Send a message to President Obama to stop Keystone XL now!

Saturday

Tell KFC to go deforestation-free. | SumOfUs

Tell KFC to go deforestation-free. | SumOfUs
KFC says it has absolutely no idea where its palm oil comes from -- and it's putting that palm oil into loads of products, from apple turnovers to grilled chicken to country-fried steak.

In other words, KFC, the world’s second largest restaurant chain, can't guarantee that it’s not buying from conflict palm oil plantations in Indonesia and Malaysia. It could very well be responsible for the clearing of pristine rainforest, for the deaths of thousands of orangutans and tigers, for child labour on palm plantations, and rocketing carbon emissions from deforestation.

Tell KFC & Yum! Brand’s to do the right thing, and adopt a comprehensive deforestation-free palm oil policy.

KFC is owned by Yum! Brands, which also owns Taco Bell and Pizza Hut, two more fast food chains that also use palm oil. To get Yum! to adopt a deforestation-free palm oil policy, we're joining forces with the Union of Concerned Scientists to push this issue all the way up to the CEO's desk.

The mega fast food conglomerate insists that it’s phasing out palm oil “wherever feasible”, with only a little more than 30% of its restaurants still using it for frying. But with more than 40,000 outlets around the world, that’s still more than 12,000 KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell restaurants that fry with palm oil that could be from destroyed rainforests.
Furthermore, Yum! Brands has no policy for palm oil used in the rest of its non-fried products, including KFC’s biscuits and gravy.

Pressure is mounting on KFC to make the switch to responsibly-sourced palm oil. On top of our efforts, Yum! Brands is feeling pressure from its own shareholders over the palm oil issue, and it will have to face a shareholder resolution at its Annual General Meeting in May, demanding that it starts sourcing responsible palm oil.

We've already convinced Kellogg's, Krispy Kreme, Dunkin’ Donuts and other big companies to change their ways, causing a shift in the global palm oil supply chain. Because of our work, it’s easier than ever for companies to buy palm oil that’s free of deforestation. Similar organized consumer pressure has dramatically slowed the rate of deforestation in Brazil. KFC can be moved with public pressure too, especially now with the double whammy of a shareholder resolution looming on the horizon.

Tell KFC and Yum! Brands to step up, and back off the rainforest. Adopt a deforestation-free policy now.

Friday

Europeans should be wary of Ontario pension fund's ownership of airports and water services | The Council of Canadians

Europeans should be wary of Ontario pension fund's ownership of airports and water services | The Council of Canadians

The Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan now owns 48.25 per cent of the Birmingham Airport.

While aviation emissions account for about four to nine per cent of the total climate change impact of human activity, the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan (OTPP) is expanding its portfolio of holdings in European airports. And with privatized airports and investor-state provisions in 'free trade' deals like the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), local residents, municipal councils and national governments will be in a weakened position to curb profit-driven airport expansions.

Reuters reports,
"Canada's Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan said it had bought a 19.25 percent stake in Birmingham Airport from Australia's Victorian Funds Management Corporation, taking its investment in the British airport to 48.25 percent. ...Seven West Midlands district councils have kept a significant ownership of Birmingham Airport and will continue investing alongside Ontario Teachers."

In 2013 the airport had 9.12 million passengers, but the news report notes, "The Canadian pension fund wants to strengthen Birmingham Airport's position as a regional hub in the UK by tapping into its capacity of around 9.5 million passengers per year." In 2009, the Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council approved the extension of the runway length from 2,605 metres to 3,052 metres to handle this kind of expansion. Business Traveller reports, "The current runway places restrictions on an aircraft's weight at take-off and limits the maximum range of direct flights from Birmingham to the US east coast, the Middle East, Northern India and Pakistan."

But in July of this year, the Birmingham Mail reported, "More than 2,000 villagers living near Birmingham Airport have signed a petition calling for a rethink on flight paths following an outcry over noise levels. Residents in Balsall Common, Hampton in Arden and Catherine de Barnes claim their lives are being made a misery by trials launched in May."

Today's report in Reuters adds, "[The pension fund's] other airport investments include UK's Bristol, Copenhagen and Brussels. ...The Canadian pension fund became the sole owner of the UK's ninth busiest airport, Bristol, after buying out its co-shareholder Macquarie Group in September."

The Bristol Airport has also been controversial. The expansion of this airport was led by Stop Bristol Airport Expansion and supported by Bristol Friends of the Earth and Campaign to Protect Rural England. In 2005, the BBC reported,
"The government says passenger numbers flying from Bristol will almost double to eight million a year by 2015." Bristol Friends of the Earth stated, "The expansion would be a climate change disaster. People and councillors across the area need to wake up to what the expansion will bring: traffic misery, increased noise, road schemes and countryside development."  And the World Development Movement noted that prior to the expansion the Bristol airport generated as much CO2 as the African country of Malawi.

In July 2014, Le Soir reported that the Brussels Airport is the most noise-polluting airport of thirty European airports in terms of the noise levels created and the number of people affected by take-off and landing operations. And while the Copenhagen Airport has set a target to reduce its CO2 emissions from 1.4 kilo to 1.0 kilo per passenger by 2020, the airport has also announced it reached "an all-time high of 25 million passengers" this year and over the coming two or three decades it seeks to handle 40 million passengers annually.

Sunday

Nunavut vs Big Oil | SumOfUs

Nunavut vs Big Oil | SumOfUs

Off the coast of Clyde River, Nunavut, unspoiled Arctic waters are home to 90% of the world's narwhals. These unique tusked whales play a crucial role in the aquatic ecosystem, and for thousands of years have been a staple of the local Inuit community. But now their very survival is in danger.

The Canadian government just granted oil corporations the right to search for drilling sites in the ocean near Clyde River. Offshore drilling is bad enough, but the search is worse – these oil companies will use "seismic testing," setting off huge explosions underwater to try and find oil.

Like all whales, narwhals use their hearing to communicate and to find their way safely beneath the Arctic ice. The search for oil will deafen, disorient, and kill any narwhals caught in its path. It's up to us to speak up now, and stop this while we still can. Save the narwhals! For generations, big corporations have stripped northern Canada of its natural resources, trampling the rights of native peoples and destroying entire ecosystems for profit. The government has been complicit in this, auctioning off oil and mineral rights to the highest bidder and ignoring the consequences. But until now, the narwhals and the local ecosystem they support have managed to survive.

The people of Clyde River have had enough. They are standing up to the government and to Big Oil and fighting to protect their home. But there are only 900 people in Clyde River. They need us to stand with them. If we act now, we can stop the oil companies in their tracks before the damage is done.

Sign the petition to stop Big Oil from destroying Arctic habitats.

Tuesday

Amnesty International: Tories' Resources-Over-Human-Rights Approach Mistaken

Amnesty International: Tories' Resources-Over-Human-Rights Approach Mistaken

OTTAWA - Amnesty International's Canada branch has issued a wide-ranging attack on the Harper government for making economic development a higher priority than human rights — especially in resource development.

Alex Neve, Amnesty's director general, said the organization wants human rights issues to be on the agenda for the expected federal election in 2015. Canadians will be talking about jobs and economic prosperity during next year's election, and those issues are inextricably linked to questions of human rights, said Neve.

Amnesty is accusing the government of doing too little to ensure that the rights of aboriginal people are adequately protected in the hundreds of major resource projects that are planned for the next decade.

"With all the attention that will be on jobs and the economy, we have to recognize how important it is to deal with indigenous people's land rights, corporate accountability and a trade policy that is grounded in human rights," said Neve.

Monday

OCA: Tell Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz: Stop Supporting Efforts to Kill GMO Labeling Laws. Quit the GMA!

OCA: Tell Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz: Stop Supporting Efforts to Kill GMO Labeling Laws. Quit the GMA!

Starbucks wants you to think the company is on your side when it comes to GMO labeling laws.
But it isn’t. As long as Starbucks is a dues-paying member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), which is party to a lawsuit against the state of Vermont intended to overturn Vermont’s recently passed GMO labeling law, the coffee peddler’s profits are being used to defeat your right to know.

TAKE ACTION: Tell Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz: Stop Supporting Efforts to Kill GMO Labeling Laws. Quit the GMA!


In response to a blog post by singer/songwriter Neil Young, proclaiming his support for a Starbucks boycott, Starbucks posted this statement on its website:

Starbucks Response to Questions and Litigation Regarding GMO Labeling
Starbucks is not a part of any lawsuit pertaining to GMO labeling
nor have we provided funding for any campaign. And Starbucks is not
aligned with Monsanto to stop food labeling or block Vermont State law.


The petition claiming that Starbucks is part of this litigation is
completely false and we have asked the petitioners to correct their
description of our position.


Starbucks has not taken a position on the issue of GMO labeling.
As a company with stores and a product presence in every state, we
prefer a national solution.


“Completely false”? Not quite.

As this subsequent article by Reuters points out:

Internal GMA documents filed last year as part of a lawsuit in  Washington State revealed [GMA] members contribute to a "Defense of  Brands Strategic Account" designed "to help the industry fund programs  to address the threats from motivated and well financed activists" and  to "shield individual companies from criticism for funding of specific  efforts."


When asked by Reuters if Starbucks has contributed to this “special” account, Starbucks did not respond. No big surprise. Because not only does Starbucks’ membership in the GMA support the GMA’s lawsuit against Vermont, it also supports a bill awaiting a hearing in Congress, written by the GMA, that would strip states of the right to pass mandatory GMO labeling laws.

Starbucks wants you to think the company is on your side when it comes to GMO labeling laws.

But it isn’t. As long as Starbucks is a dues-paying member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), which is party to a lawsuit against
the state of Vermont intended to overturn Vermont’s recently passed GMO
labeling law, the coffee peddler’s profits are being used to defeat
your right to know.

TAKE ACTION: Tell Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz: Stop Supporting Efforts to Kill GMO Labeling Laws. Quit the GMA!



In response to a blog post by singer/songwriter Neil Young, proclaiming his support for a Starbucks boycott, Starbucks posted this statement on its website:

Starbucks Response to Questions and Litigation Regarding GMO Labeling

Starbucks is not a part of any lawsuit pertaining to GMO labeling
nor have we provided funding for any campaign. And Starbucks is not
aligned with Monsanto to stop food labeling or block Vermont State law.



The petition claiming that Starbucks is part of this litigation is
completely false and we have asked the petitioners to correct their
description of our position.



Starbucks has not taken a position on the issue of GMO labeling.
As a company with stores and a product presence in every state, we
prefer a national solution.



“Completely false”? Not quite.

As this subsequent article by Reuters points out:

Internal GMA documents filed last year as part of a lawsuit in
Washington State revealed [GMA] members contribute to a "Defense of
Brands Strategic Account" designed "to help the industry fund programs
to address the threats from motivated and well financed activists" and
to "shield individual companies from criticism for funding of specific
efforts."



When asked by Reuters if Starbucks has contributed to this “special” account, Starbucks did not respond.

No big surprise. Because not only does Starbucks’ membership in the
GMA support the GMA’s lawsuit against Vermont, it also supports a bill awaiting a hearing in Congress, written by the GMA, that would strip states of the right to pass mandatory GMO labeling laws.

- See more at:
http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50865/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=15178&track=FB&tag=FB#sthash.pDDuweFj.dpuf

Starbucks wants you to think the company is on your side when it comes to GMO labeling laws.

But it isn’t. As long as Starbucks is a dues-paying member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), which is party to a lawsuit against
the state of Vermont intended to overturn Vermont’s recently passed GMO
labeling law, the coffee peddler’s profits are being used to defeat
your right to know.

TAKE ACTION: Tell Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz: Stop Supporting Efforts to Kill GMO Labeling Laws. Quit the GMA!



In response to a blog post by singer/songwriter Neil Young, proclaiming his support for a Starbucks boycott, Starbucks posted this statement on its website:

Starbucks Response to Questions and Litigation Regarding GMO Labeling

Starbucks is not a part of any lawsuit pertaining to GMO labeling
nor have we provided funding for any campaign. And Starbucks is not
aligned with Monsanto to stop food labeling or block Vermont State law.



The petition claiming that Starbucks is part of this litigation is
completely false and we have asked the petitioners to correct their
description of our position.



Starbucks has not taken a position on the issue of GMO labeling.
As a company with stores and a product presence in every state, we
prefer a national solution.



“Completely false”? Not quite.

As this subsequent article by Reuters points out:

Internal GMA documents filed last year as part of a lawsuit in
Washington State revealed [GMA] members contribute to a "Defense of
Brands Strategic Account" designed "to help the industry fund programs
to address the threats from motivated and well financed activists" and
to "shield individual companies from criticism for funding of specific
efforts."



When asked by Reuters if Starbucks has contributed to this “special” account, Starbucks did not respond.

No big surprise. Because not only does Starbucks’ membership in the
GMA support the GMA’s lawsuit against Vermont, it also supports a bill awaiting a hearing in Congress, written by the GMA, that would strip states of the right to pass mandatory GMO labeling laws.

- See more at:
http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50865/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=15178&track=FB&tag=FB#sthash.pDDuweFj.dpuf

Starbucks wants you to think the company is on your side when it comes to GMO labeling laws.

But it isn’t. As long as Starbucks is a dues-paying member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), which is party to a lawsuit against
the state of Vermont intended to overturn Vermont’s recently passed GMO
labeling law, the coffee peddler’s profits are being used to defeat
your right to know.

TAKE ACTION: Tell Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz: Stop Supporting Efforts to Kill GMO Labeling Laws. Quit the GMA!



In response to a blog post by singer/songwriter Neil Young, proclaiming his support for a Starbucks boycott, Starbucks posted this statement on its website:

Starbucks Response to Questions and Litigation Regarding GMO Labeling

Starbucks is not a part of any lawsuit pertaining to GMO labeling
nor have we provided funding for any campaign. And Starbucks is not
aligned with Monsanto to stop food labeling or block Vermont State law.



The petition claiming that Starbucks is part of this litigation is
completely false and we have asked the petitioners to correct their
description of our position.



Starbucks has not taken a position on the issue of GMO labeling.
As a company with stores and a product presence in every state, we
prefer a national solution.



“Completely false”? Not quite.

As this subsequent article by Reuters points out:

Internal GMA documents filed last year as part of a lawsuit in
Washington State revealed [GMA] members contribute to a "Defense of
Brands Strategic Account" designed "to help the industry fund programs
to address the threats from motivated and well financed activists" and
to "shield individual companies from criticism for funding of specific
efforts."



When asked by Reuters if Starbucks has contributed to this “special” account, Starbucks did not respond.

No big surprise. Because not only does Starbucks’ membership in the
GMA support the GMA’s lawsuit against Vermont, it also supports a bill awaiting a hearing in Congress, written by the GMA, that would strip states of the right to pass mandatory GMO labeling laws.

- See more at:
http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50865/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=15178&track=FB&tag=FB#sthash.pDDuweFj.dpuf

Thursday

Turn the Tables - Idle No More - reject interim land claims

Turn the Tables - Idle No More

This summer the Supreme Court of Canada made a historic ruling that
the Tsilhqot'in Indigenous nation in British Columbia holds Aboriginal
title to its traditional territory and ensures that First Nations with
title have decision-making power. If this court decision can be
implemented on the ground, it offers a chance to create a radically more
just country.
But the Harper government is denying this new reality: in order to push
through their tar sands pipelines and resource extraction projects, they
are trying instead to accelerate the elimination of Aboriginal rights.
In response to the Tsilhqot’in decision, Harper has quietly introduced a
newly revised policy to undermine and negate the Indigenous land rights
that stand in the way of his agenda.

We can't let this happen. Honouring Indigenous jurisdiction would not
just pay off Canada's enormous legal and moral debt to First Nations:
it is also our best chance to save entire territories from endless
extraction and environmental destruction. Canada can seize the
opportunity at this historic crossroad, but only if we build massive
pressure on the Canadian government to finally recognize and affirm
Aboriginal title.

Join Defenders of the Land and Idle No More in putting forward 4 demands to challenge the current land claims reform process:

  1. Disengagement of negotiating bands from the Termination Tables and forgiveness for all loans taken out to finance the process;
  2. A fundamental and joint reform of both the Comprehensive Land Claims
    and Self-Government policies with duly mandated representatives of
    Indigenous peoples, with the aim of making the policies consistent with
    both Canadian law on Aboriginal title, Aboriginal rights, treaty rights
    and inherent Indigenous laws of jurisdiction;
  3. Federal and provincial governments must provide funding grants to Indigenous peoples for negotiation processes;
  4. Absolute rejection of the unilaterally imposed Eyford consultation process.
What you can do to support these demands:

SEND THIS MESSAGE TO DOUGLAS EYFORD THE SPECIAL FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVE LEADING THE CONSULTATION PROCESS   (click on top link to find the form)

Wednesday

It’s time to ban bee-killing pesticides | David Suzuki Foundation

It’s time to ban bee-killing pesticides | David Suzuki Foundation
There’s been a lot of buzz lately about bee-killing pesticides. Bees have been dying off at alarming rates, and neonicotinoid pesticides are implicated in this decline. Bees aren’t the only victims. “Neonic” pesticides may harm the human brain, nervous system and hormonal system.
In June, an international group of independent scientists released the results of a comprehensive analysis of 800 peer-reviewed studies on neonics — a massive, four-year undertaking. Their conclusion: “…there is clear evidence of harm sufficient to trigger regulatory action.
The assessment highlights serious risks, not only to bees, but to many other beneficial species, including butterflies, earthworms and birds.

Meanwhile, research indicates that neonics do not necessarily increase agricultural yields. So why are we still using them? Last year, Europe announced a moratorium on the use of three neonics on bee-attracting crops.

In Canada, however, these pesticides are still in widespread use. Canadian regulators have confirmed that neonics used on corn seed is a contributing factor to bee die-offs in Ontario and Quebec, but they continue to allow the use of these pesticides.

In the case of clothianidin — a neonic used to treat corn seeds and frequently detected in samples of dead bees — Canadian regulators even signed off on its re-approval last year just as their European counterparts were implementing a ban. That stings!

Take action! French version for Quebec here.
Federal and provincial governments share responsibility for pesticide regulation in Canada. Join us in calling on our regulators to side with the science and ban neonics.
Read more about how you can protect the bees and butterflies.