Tuesday, June 24, 2014


Fighting for the right to water

June 23, 2014   ·   0 Comments
Water advocate Maude Barlow will be speaking at the Minden Hills Community Centre on July 11, 2014. Photo by Wolfgang Schmidt
Water advocate Maude Barlow will be speaking at the Minden Hills Community Centre on July 11, 2014. Photo by Wolfgang Schmidt
By Jenn Watt
When renowned Canadian activist and author Maude Barlow was growing up, it was a commonly held belief that the world would never run out of clean water.
Most people never considered that water would become a scarcity – threatened by pollution, agriculture, manufacturing and global trade.
Today, water is under threat and Barlow has distinguished herself as one of the most prominent international voices for its protection.
“It’s true that the water’s still on the planet somewhere,” says Barlow, “but we’ve either polluted it or diverted it for mass flood irrigation, for food production for the global food market (therefore it’s in commodities and it’s not in the ground anymore) or we’ve sent it into big cities where when they’re finished with it they dump it in the ocean so it doesn’t get cleaned and returned to the land.”
Barlow is a guest of Environment Haliburton scheduled to speak at the Minden Hills Community Centre on July 11.
She recently authored Blue Future: Protecting Water for People and the Planet Forever, one of 17 books she has released over the years.
The last in a trilogy of non-fiction about the world’s water situation, it offers solutions to solving what is an ever-intensifying and frightening situation.
“[On July 11] I’ll talk about the fact that water should be seen as a public trust,” she says. “It belongs to the people; it belongs to the ecosystem; it belongs to the future generations.”
Barlow first became interested in water as a cause in the mid 1980s. An active part of the women’s movement, she noticed that water was largely a women’s issue around the world.
“When I started realizing there were so many million people without access to water, I realized the vast majority of people affected were women. It’s women’s responsibility in the poorer countries in the global south to go out and walk kilometres, maybe five or six kilometres, to get the water and get it back,” she says.
“They are responsible for cooking and the health care of their family, gardening and all the things you need water for.”
At the same time, she was researching free trade agreements and made a startling discovery: water was being listed as a tradable good.
“I realized there was a very big move by corporations, both private utilities that wanted to come in and run water services on a for-profit basis, bottled water companies, all sorts of others that were getting into the water business.”
The topic led to three books, a lengthy list of articles and commentaries and then into the United Nations where in 2010 Barlow became the senior advisor on water to the 63rd president of the UN general assembly.
And on July 28, 2010, the UN passed a declaration that all humans have the right to water – an achievement Barlow says is the pinnacle of her career so far.
“It is the responsibility of each government in the world to make sure that the human right to water and sanitation is fulfilled in their country,” she says.
Of course, that doesn’t mean every country will follow the rules, but there is now a means to enforce that human right in places such as Detroit, which has been kicking users off water access as costs steadily increase.
One of Barlow’s organizations – The Blue Planet Project – partnered with a local organization to write a report on the subject, which was sent to the UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Right to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation.
“It’s not a perfect process,” she says, but without the declaration, water advocates would be in a tougher position than they are now.
Barlow is also a fierce critic of the bottled water industry and has campaigned against corporations such as Nestlé for draining water out of one part of the world for export to another.
“Bottled water not only creates all that plastic garbage … but it also destroys local water sources because these companies come into a local community and they take the local water and mine it until it’s gone. When it’s gone the companies move on,” she says.
“People need to remember that … where there’s water in a bottle it’s come from a plant somewhere and that plant’s based on fresh spring water somewhere and that’s how we’re using up our groundwater so fast.”
To combat growing demand for bottled water and privatization of public water facilities, Barlow helped create the Blue Communities Project through the Council of Canadians, where she is the national chairperson.
The project asks communities to pledge to support public water utilities, ban the sale of bottled water in municipal buildings and at municipal events and to declare water a human right.
Maude Barlow will speak at 7 p.m. on July 11 at the Minden Hills Community Centre. Copies of her book will be for sale at the event. Cost of admission: Suggested Donation of $10.

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Lake Ontario Waterkeeper

http://www.waterkeeper.ca/2012/05/01/heartbreaking-news-for-canadas-water-lovers/

Heartbreaking news for Canada’s water lovers

I remember the first time I sat around a kitchen table in a rural community giving environmental law advice. I was speaking with a farmer who was beset by pollution running across his fields and destroying his fish and hunting camp along the Rideau Canal.
The family had asked my law firm what we could do about the landfill leachate from a major Ontario city dump that was destroying habitat. No one from the City, the waste company or government had offered to help them. Now everyone in the room — his wife and mother at the wood stove, his sons and daughters and grandkids around the table — was keenly awaiting what I had to say.
I asked: Are there any fish in the fields, ditches or nearshore?  The family told me the bay was once the best fishing area around and that fish still spawned in the fields and ditches every spring.
I asked: Can I get access to the water draining from the dump to sample as it runs onto your land? The family told me the exact locations where the water bubbled up on the dump walls and ran year-round onto their property.
I answered: I can help.
We documented the fish in the ditches and the bay. We sampled the leachate (it was toxic). We contacted government authorities and the company, alerting them that we had evidence the dump was in contravention of the Fisheries Act. Immediately, they took action to stop the pollution. To this day, that area on the river is protected from landfill toxins.
My story is not unique. It has been played out across Canada thousands of times. When evidence of a Fisheries Act contravention was compiled, the harmful acts were almost always stopped.

Even when government or industry did not act, the Fisheries Act allowed citizens to enforce the law independently. In fact, the Fisheries Act says that, if convicted, a polluter pays half of the fine to the individual who brought the charges. This is meant to “encourage the public to participate in the protection of community resources.”
Such citizen-led actions form an important part of Canada’s environmental protection laws. In the past 16 years, I have personally been involved in investigating legal actions against the Cities of Kingston, Hamilton, Moncton, Montreal, and Toronto as well as the Ontario Ministry of Environment, Ontario Hydro, OPG, DTE and other polluters for Fisheries Act violations. That work resulted directly or indirectly in clean-ups on the Cataraqui River, Humber River, Moira River, Petitcodiac River, St. Clair River, Lake Ontario, St. Lawrence River and other waters across Canada.
All of this was possible because the Fisheries Act made it illegal to pollute or destroy fish and fish habitat in Canada. The offenses under the Act were criminal in nature, meaning enforcement was free from political interference or economic lobbying by industry. The laws protected every community, regardless of the size of the project, the abundance of fish, or the “economic value” of nature.
That is all about to be wiped out. The budget implementation bill that Parliament is considering now radically changes the Fisheries Act. Under the new law, cabinet ministers and industry will have unprecedented influence over fish and fish habitat policy.
Under the new law, decisions about which Canadian communities deserve protection will be made based on political and economic factors. There is no role for science or the rule of law.
The consequences of the changes will be felt immediately. Will Lake Ontario’s fish be protected? Or will our small commercial fishery be deemed “insignificant”? Will we see sewage treatment plant upgrades in Vancouver, Victoria, or Halifax? Or will environmental benefits be deemed “insignificant” in light of the cost? Clean-ups like the ones we saw at the dumpsite beside the farmers field will most certainly be things of the past.
When I read about the changes, I know that every farmer, hunter, angler, and community member who loves access to swimmable, drinkable, fishable waters will lose out.
I know that, if I was a young environmental lawyer sitting at that kitchen table today, I wouldn’t be able to offer the same help I did all those years ago to the farmer and his family. That breaks my heart.

The Tyee – What's the Big Deal About CETA?

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/05/03/Secrets-of-CETA/?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=030512

What the BC government can't tell you about the sweeping new treaty being framed with Europe.
By: By Robert Duffy, 3 May 2012, TheTyee.ca
View full article and comments: http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/05/03/Secrets-of-CETA/
The proposed Canada-Europe Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) is generating serious questions and concerns from local governments across Canada. CETA, a sweeping trade and investment deal, is currently in its tenth round of negotiations, and the Canadian government believes it could be concluded by the end of the year.
Since 2010, more than 50 Canadian municipalities, local government associations and school boards have passed resolutions expressing concern about the CETA's potential impact local public services and decision making.
This concern spans across the political spectrum, from progressives like Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan all the way to right-of-centre municipal politicians like Toronto Mayor Rob Ford and Mississauga Mayor Hazel McAllion.
Both McAllion and Ford supported recent council resolutions calling for full disclosure of provincial CETA offers and allowing municipalities to choose a "clear and permanent exemption" from the deal. A number of other Ontario municipalities have passed similar resolutions in the past few months, joining the Union of BC Municipalities, the BC School Trustees Association and others who passed CETA resolutions in 2010 and 2011.
Losing procurement as a policy tool
So what's in CETA that has local elected leaders so concerned?
Only EU representatives, the Canadian federal government and the provinces have official access to CETA negotiations, so local governments and the Canadian public don't know all the details. And recently B.C.'s minister on the file said he is prohibited by the federal government from sharing information with citizens about the treaty negotiations.
But ongoing leaks of key negotiating documents have provided observers with a strong sense of where the deal is headed.
These documents show that the European Union is seeking sweeping access for EU companies to Canadian government procurement contracts, especially "subnational" procurement by provincial governments, municipalities, school boards and other public bodies. While NAFTA and other earlier trade deals applied to federal government procurement, CETA would mark the first time that local government purchasing in Canada was covered under a long term international trade agreement. The leaked documents also show that neither the federal or provincial governments' trade offers are including clauses to protect local government authority and public services.
It's easy to see why the EU is interested in Canadian subnational procurement. Local governments in Canada spent more than $120 billion on goods and services in 2011 alone. From goods such as transit vehicles, energy equipment, uniforms, food and office equipment, to services like engineering, accounting, legal, and energy conservation -- not to mention spending associated with major construction and infrastructure projects -- local government purchasing is potentially a huge market.
The EU is home to some of the world's biggest private companies involved in drinking water, transit and other municipal services. France's Veolia, for example, made more than €12.6 billion in 2011 from water operations in 67 countries and an additional €5.7 billion from transit operations in Europe and the USA.
To help companies like Veolia expand in Canada, EU trade negotiators are explicitly targeting the ability of Canadian local governments to use procurement for environmental, social or local economic development objectives. Under proposed CETA rules, "made in Canada" content requirements for transit vehicles or "buy local" policies for cafeteria food contracts could be prohibited as so-called "offsets" that "discriminate" against EU suppliers. A 2010 legal opinion on leaked CETA documents commissioned by the Columbia Institute found that many environmental considerations could also be prohibited as "offsets." As trade lawyer Steven Shrybman notes in the legal opinion:
The ban on offsets is arguably the more serious constraint imposed by the regime, and it is important to note that it applies to all procurement contracts regardless of the national pedigree of the prospective bidders.
This means that where CETA rules apply, procurement can no longer be used as a tool to foster local or Canadian economic or sustainable development, facilitate innovation, promote social goals, support food security, or address local or Canadian environmental problems. At a time when procurement is one of the few economic levers available to governments, CETA rules would take it out of the hands of government and other public bodies.
Earlier this spring, a report from Toronto's city manager similarly warned that CETA could potentially impact the city's local food policy and transit procurement contracts, as well as local hiring quotas required in some city projects.
If implemented, these CETA requirements would be much more stringent than those in existing inter-provincial agreements such as the Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT) and New West Partnership Trade Agreement (NWPTA -- formerly known as TILMA). The AIT allows municipalities to apply "Buy Canadian" rules, as long as the rules are applied "transparently."
According to Shrybman's legal opinion, CETA rules would prevent municipalities from requiring even a portion of these billions of dollars of local government funds be used to support local economic, social and environmental goals.
Locking in privatization and removing public options
One of the aspects of CETA most worrying for local leaders is the deal's potential to undermine public control over water and other key municipal services. The leaked initial offer showed that the EU companies want access to contracts in Canadian local government services, going so far as to name specific local utilities, public transit agencies and other public services in dozens of municipalities across the country.
As proponents of CETA note, the deal does not in itself require privatization of public services. However, CETA would make it very difficult for municipalities to take any public service that has been privatized back under public control or extend public ownership into new services.
Because the federal government is at present funding only municipal infrastructure projects with private sector involvement, almost all new water and other infrastructure projects in Canada would likely be covered by CETA. In effect, private companies are currently guaranteed a "foot in the door" for infrastructure and public service projects and CETA would prohibit municipalities from "pushing that foot back out."
Hamilton, Ontario's experience with privatized water highlights why this issue is so important. In the mid 1990s, financial challenges led Hamilton to privatize its drinking and wastewater services. In 2004, after a decade of bad experiences -- including rising costs, failure to maintain infrastructure and even a major sewage spill -- Hamilton decided to take water services back "in house" and end its experiment with privatized water. This choice would likely have been impossible under CETA -- Hamilton would have been stuck looking for a new private provider or renewing its existing contract.
It's interesting to note here that many EU municipalities have taken their own water back under public control after problems with privatized water systems (often privatized under the same EU firms that are trying to get into the Canadian market). Paris, France took water back under public control after contracts with Veolia and Suez ended in 2009. The city claims an annual gain of €35 million from transferring water services back to the public sector and was able to cut residential water prices by eight per cent.
Legal risks and added administrative burden
The CETA legal opinion commissioned by Columbia Institute also found that the deal would likely add to the administrative burden of municipalities and open the door to legal challenges from European corporations should the corporations disagree with local purchasing decisions.
An example of what this may foreshadow can be seen in current WTO challenges from the EU and Japan against local content and hiring requirements in Ontario's Green Energy Act. These challenges jeopardize thousands of jobs and billions of dollars worth of investment in the province. In addition to legal costs and possibly requirements to pay damages in the event of losing a trade challenge, local governments may also face the prospect of having to put major projects on hold while trade challenges move through the courts or trade tribunals.
The increased administrative burden for local governments would include revised tendering procedures, accounting to unsuccessful suppliers for local government decisions and providing the federal government with additional procurement information and statistics.
What next for local governments in Canada?
Negotiations are moving rapidly, and the federal government has indicated that a CETA agreement in principle is likely sometime in 2012.
The most recently leaked CETA documents show that neither the federal nor any of the provincial governments have sought to exempt water or other key municipal services from CETA (although the EU is seeking to exempt its water services from the deal).
Municipal leaders and others concerned about the CETA are increasingly focusing their attention on Canada's provincial governments. Unlike NAFTA and previous trade deals negotiated exclusively between national governments, the EU has insisted that Canadian provinces sign on to the CETA. This means that provincial government concerns have weight, and provinces could ask for concessions such as municipal procurement exemptions or higher procurement thresholds.
In the last week of April, federal cabinet ministers, government MPs and senators fanned out to launch what government press releases are describing as "Cross-Country Events that Highlight Benefits of Deeper Canada-EU Trade." Local governments and others will likely be there to voice their concerns about the deal.

--   

EcoNews: Earthfuture.com

The latest from Guy D'auncey in Victoria
http://www.earthfuture.com/econews/back_issues/12-05.asp

CYCLING IN COPENHAGEN
With Bike to Work Week starting on May 28th and 224 teams registered in Victoria, it’s worth asking how Copenhagen has built such a strong cycling culture. 80% of the city’s residents ride a bike once a week, and 32% of all trips are by bike (37% of commuter trips).
Their goal is that by 2015 50% will bike to work or study. 25% of families use a cargo-bike to ferry their kids around, and they retain an 80% ridership level in winter thanks in part to their bike-lane snow-plows.
Back in the 1970s, Copenhagen had a low level of cycling. But after the 1979 oil crisis the residents organized a huge protest outside City Hall, which started investing in cycling infrastructure.
At a recent talk in Victoria, Andreas Rohl, Copenhagen’s bike program leader, emphasized that cycling is always a means to an end, not a goal in itself.
Only 1% of Copenhageners cycle for environmental reasons. 57% do so because it’s easy and fast, 22% because it’s good exercise.
The city bike-planners’ goal is to make it easy to go all the way from A to B, even when it is difficult. Every bike lane should be safe, easy and convenient, and should never be created outside a row of parked cars.
They have built several bike-bridges across difficult areas, and synchronized the lights on several roads creating a green wave that enables cyclists to sail through the lights, saving 20% on trip time. They are now looking at the need for 3-lane conversational cycling lanes, allowing two cyclists to talk to each other, while a third can overtake.
Every taxi in Copenhagen must carry a bike-rack, and cyclists are allowed to ride the wrong way down one-way streets. They also use on-line Citizen Improvement Maps to enable cyclists to tell the city where improvements are needed.
Constant marketing and appreciation are very important to the city’s bike culture. Per kilometre, it costs $1.5 million to create a bike track, compared to up to $17 million for a wide motorway and $176 million for the metro.
Because of its health benefits, for every kilometre that someone cycles, society benefits by 25 cents. For every kilometre someone drives a car, society loses by 12 cents.
In cost-benefit terms the benefits of cycling are seven times
 greater than the accident costs.
Cyclists live five years longer than non-cyclists, Andreas said, and they also die quicker, representing a considerable savings to Denmark’s health budget. The risk of premature death from any cause falls by more than 50% for fast cyclists doing 30 to 60 minutes cycling a day. Average speed cyclists reduce their risk by one-third. And since it’s so safe, no-one wears a helmet.
See www.kk.dk.cityofcyclists
Here in Victoria, the Great Victoria Cycling Coalition is the place to be for cyclists who want Victoria to be more like Copenhagen. Are you a member yet? As well as organizing regular events, they also advocate for change. See www.gvcc.bc.ca. For Victoria’s Bike to Work Week, see www.biketowork.ca/victoria


PM Inconsistent on Use and Abuse of Budget Implementation Bills | Green Party of Canada

http://www.greenparty.ca/en/node/20711
OTTAWA – Green Party Leader Elizabeth May and Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands today stated that Stephen Harper has been blatantly inconsistent in his attitude relating to the content and purpose of Budget Implementation Acts.
“While Leader of the Opposition in 2005, Stephen Harper held some clear principles about what was acceptable and what was not when introducing a budget bill,” said May.  “He has reversed these entirely in his 421-page Bill C-38, which he is using as a policy black hole.”
In the spring of 2005, both Harper and NDP leader Jack Layton threatened to bring down Paul Martin’s Liberal government because Environment Minister Stephane Dion wanted to make one amendment to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act – in order to clarify the government’s power to regulate greenhouse gases.
Harper was clear in his opposition to using the Budget Implementation Act to change laws.
“This is an attempt by the government to get unlimited power to impose multi-million-dollar fines on any basis, without any parliamentary approval or discussion, whatsoever.  It is completely unacceptable,” Harper stated in the House of Commons.
He then went on to clarify:  "This is a back-door way ... a dangerous way of proceeding, and it will certainly not have the support of this party.”
“At one time in his political career, Harper understood that changes in law and policy, especially relating to the environment, did not belong in the Budget Implementation Act.  One crucial reason is that the Act will be analyzed by the Finance Committee, which does not have the expertise to examine non-finance issues.
“In light of his former stand, Harper’s burying of the destruction of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the Kyoto Implementation Act, the gutting of the Fisheries Act, along with the undermining of  the Species at Risk Act and more in Bill C-38 is all the more shameless,” said May. 



--  

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Anti-environment measures tucked into Liberal budget bill - thestar.com

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1166667--anti-environment-measures-tucked-into-liberal-budget-bill

Clayton Ruby
What is Premier Dalton McGuinty hiding in your budget bill? The legal ability to hurt Ontario’s most vulnerable species, that’s what.
Ontario appears to be echoing the mood of the federal government, which also used its budget bill to introduce significant changes to environmental protection laws, a move that had less to do with budgets and more to do with undoing transparency, accountability and environmental responsibility.
Likewise, the Ontario Liberals have buried several proposed changes in their new budget bill that strike at the heart of Ontario’s Endangered Species Act (ESA), a piece of legislation this government proudly touted a mere five years ago.
The province’s backsliding on the protection of Ontario’s endangered wildlife is surprising from what has been a pretty darn good government. And it ignores reality: once-common species, like the barn swallow and the monarch butterfly, are now increasingly rare.
Here are the proposed changes that this government doesn’t want you to know about.
First, McGuinty introduces an open-ended list of exemptions to the law — rarely a good sign in legislation promising protection for Ontario’s most vulnerable plants and animals. Sweeping new powers permit the government of the day to exempt private landowners from the requirement to protect endangered wildlife or habitat. Yet most species at risk are found in southern Ontario, and most of southern Ontario is securely in private hands. In other words, protection will be exempt in the region where you find the highest concentration of endangered wildlife.
Second, right now if development harms a threatened or endangered species or its habitat, that work can only proceed if the owner creates alternatives so that the species is better off than before. This way, the wheels of economic growth can keep turning, but the owner has to make meaningful attempts to conserve declining species. The budget gives industry free reign to operate without regard to this protection. Habitat, we can do without you!
Third, the 2013 deadline to complete plans to protect and re-establish plants and animals whose populations have plummeted so dramatically they will disappear from the province — and in some cases the country — has been taken out. With no legal teeth, who could expect that such plans will ever move forward?
Ontario’s ESA was passed in 2007 with the support of almost all MPPs. It has gained international acclaim and helped build McGuinty’s reputation as a man who cares for our heritage. The act sets clear requirements for basing decisions on the best scientific information available, yet it provides a great deal of flexibility in how these protections are implemented.
Take the widening of Highway 400 near Parry Sound.
On the face of it, a wider highway would not be good news for the endangered animals in the area. But thanks to some fairly modest measures, like special fencing and crossing culverts, the new highway is significantly less lethal than the old highway. It’s also safer for drivers, who don’t need to swerve to avoid turtles or other creatures. Clearly, proper environmental planning does not bring development to a grinding halt.
Yet this gutting of the ESA is unrelated to any major budget commitment. They are just anti-environment measures tucked into a hefty finance measure solely to escape the scrutiny that would otherwise be guaranteed by the Environmental Bill of Rights, which requires public input into changes in Ontario’s environmental laws.
The Liberals used to tell Ontarians that they believed in collaborative planning designed to protect species and habitats and avoid problems down the road. If they’ve changed their minds, let them publicly wear it. We need that debate out in the open, not buried in the fine print of a spending bill.
Clayton Ruby is one of Canada’s leading lawyers, an outspoken proponent of freedom of the press, and a prominent member of the environmental community.

Canada's 'pearl' of Arctic research hit with funding freeze

http://www.canada.com/technology/Canada+pearl+Arctic+research+with+funding+freeze/6352101/story.html#ixzz1q8qtuXOK

Atmospheric scientist Pierre Fogal headed north in February to help check on Earth's protective ozone layer high in the Arctic stratosphere.
But he spent much of his time on his knees dealing with burst water pipes and frozen sewer lines at Canada's beleaguered Arctic research station.
Then this week, the electrical system malfunctioned, says Fogal, site manager for PEARL, the Polar Environmental Atmospheric Research Laboratory at the northern tip of Ellesmere Island.
The station, now limping along at half power and a chilly 10 C inside, is one of the world's premier observatories for tracking the health of the Arctic atmosphere. The station houses millions of dollars worth of scientific equipment used to monitor the ozone layer, greenhouse gases and pollution swirling around the polar vortex.
But it has been a bad year. Unusually frigid weather has taken a big toll on the station's plumbing and power system, and the chilly financial wind blowing out of Ottawa has left PEARL in dire financial straits.
Federal grants that have kept the station running continuously since 2005 have run out, forcing the science team that runs PEARL to shut it down, at least temporarily.
With no money for salaries, the station's three operators were let go in December.

See more

http://www.canada.com/technology/Canada+pearl+Arctic+research+with+funding+freeze/6352101/story.html#ixzz1q8qtuXOK