“This is a victory for those directly involved, but also for all Canadians concerned about the health of their democracy,” said May.  “To acknowledge that there was fraud in the May 2, 2011, election is the first step in preventing any underhanded activities in the future.”

Judge Richard Mosley wrote: “I find that electoral fraud occurred during the 41st General Election,” although he did not annul the election results in the ridings involved.  He did state clearly that the fraudulent calls “struck at the integrity of the electoral process by attempting to dissuade voters from casting ballots for their preferred candidates.”

Judge Mosley agreed that the calls were the work of a broad, centrally organized scheme and that “the most likely source of the information used to make the misleading calls was the CIMS database maintained and controlled by the CPC [Conservative Party of Canada], accessed for that purpose by a person or persons currently unknown to this Court.”

Judge Mosley also condemned the Conservatives’ legal tactics and their “trench warfare in an effort to prevent this case from coming to a hearing on the merits.”

”In light of this ruling which leaves no doubt that there was fraud during the 2011 election, the Green Party once again calls for a public inquiry into this threat to our democracy,” said May. “Any responsible prime minister would want to get to the bottom of such a threat and find out who was responsible.”

The post Judge Agrees 2011 Election Plagued by Fraud; Conservatives Implicated appeared first on Elizabeth May.

May expressed her hope that the cases relating to allegations of vote suppression – the widespread use of automated messages (“robocalls”) or live calls to direct citizens to the wrong polling stations – will get to the bottom of illegalities in the last federal election.

“Since May 2, 2011, we have watched the Harper Conservative majority conduct an aggressive agenda unpopular with most Canadians,” said May. “All this has been done while a cloud of doubt hangs over too many election results.  For this reason, I want to thank the individual citizens who have had the courage to come forward with their concerns, and the COC for supporting them.”

Although the Conservative lawyers would like to have the entire proceedings thrown out of court, May agreed there was a definite need to expose any and all fraudulent electoral activity, even if this meant overturning some results. 

“Canadians must be able to have faith in the electoral process and know that the Members of Parliament sitting in the House of Commons are there through legitimate means,” she concluded.  “Otherwise, our system of democracy will be suspect and dangerously weakened.”

May repeated her call for a public inquiry which she, Craig Scott (Toronto-Danforth), and Stephane Dion (St. Laurent-Cartierville) made earlier this week.

For a robofraud backgrounder, please visit:
http://elizabethmaymp.ca/news/publications/backgrounder/2012/12/13/robofraud-backgrounder/

The post Green Party Supports Robofraud Applications; Repeats Call for Inquiry appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“By closing this unique, globally recognized research facility, the Harper government is once again sullying Canada’s international reputation,” says Maude Barlow, national chairperson of the Council of Canadians. “The research made possible by the ELA is fundamentally important to realizing Canada’s international commitments to both the human right to clean water and the rights of Indigenous peoples, and to close it at this critical time for water is just one more black eye for Canada on the world stage.”

First Nation Chiefs in Ontario and Manitoba have called upon the government to reverse its decision to terminate the ELA program because of the impact the closure will have on the understanding of effects of pollution and other stressors on First Nations treaty rights.

“The impacts the omnibus budget bill and the cuts to the ELA program will have on our Great Lakes and First Nations communities will be felt for countless generations,” says Ron Plain, Environmental Policy Analyst for the Southern First Nations Secretariat.

“The ELA is necessary to ensure that our traditional territories include clean lakes and protected fish habitat,” states Chief Garrison Settee, of the Pimicikamak Cree Nation. “Without the on-going scientific study of ELA, our treaty right to fish could be compromised. Freshwater is becoming an endangered resource on this planet,” adds Berens River First Nation Chief George Kemp. “It is sad to see the ELA being shut at this critical juncture of history. Tragic!”

Indigenous people have a special relationship with fish and wildlife – a relationship based on subsistence needs and values extending back thousands of years. Contamination of freshwater fish with toxins, particularly mercury, has significant health implications for indigenous people.

“Research at ELA has demonstrated that reducing atmospheric mercury emissions from burning fossil fuels will rapidly lower mercury levels in fish,” says mercury expert Dr. Drew Bodaly, former ELA head scientist. “ELA research has also provided guidance on where to locate hydroelectric reservoirs to minimize mercury accumulation in fish.”

The ELA has been critical for developing mitigation strategies for reducing contamination of fishes with mercury and other toxins. Termination of this federal research program will seriously undermine the federal government’s ability to develop such mitigation strategies in the future.

“The decision to close the ELA has led to a national and growing movement, shocked at the short-sightedness of deciding to eliminate our scientific capacity”, says Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party, “I am honoured to join with First Nations in calling for a reconsideration.”

The post First Nations and their allies oppose closure of Canada’s Experimental Lakes Area appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Does the hon. member not think this law should differentiate people who accidentally break the digital lock at home or download material without any intention to resell or in any profit from it, in other words, the kinds of things people are used to doing today? Does he not think an individual violation of copyright law should be differentiated from a commercial violation of copyright law? At this point, individuals are subject to the same penalties of up to $20,000 maximum as commercial attempts to circumvent copyright law.

Brian Storseth: Madam Speaker, I am glad that the hon. member recognizes how seriously our government takes copyright legislation and the modernization of it. She is a very thoughtful person, who puts forward very real amendments, unlike some of my colleagues opposite.

I am of the understanding through my reading of the legislation that this does differentiate people who are recording something at home, people who do not necessarily intend to break a digital lock. The minister has done an excellent job in balancing the needs of consumers while modernizing our copyright legislation so that artists, creators and photographers can have more modern standards in keeping with those of other countries.

The post Copyright Modernization Act (Bill C-11) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

After my talk, I had a half dozen requests for its text. I confess that I rarely speak from a written text. I prefer to speak extemporaneously, so I use a few notes to myself in illegible scrawl, usually point form and on the back of envelopes or old boarding passes. Still, the requests to share the key themes have persisted, so please accept the use of my Island Tides column in providing that text to some Salt Spring Islanders keen to read it!

Every trade deal represents a limitation on national sovereignty. While Canadian nationalists quite rightly rush to defend Canadian identity, national sovereignty is not always to be celebrated. After the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland was asked why the world leaders had failed to take stronger steps on climate and biodiversity. She answered ‘national sovereignty’—the unwillingness of nations to have others critique, and correct, domestic policy in the interest of common global security.

At the same time that the Rio treaties stumbled to the finish line, the same governments were giving away national sovereignty with both hands in the Uruguay Round. The eleven year round of negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) resulted in the creation of the World Trade Organization. Looking at both sets of treaties, it is clear that the trade deals have teeth; environmental treaties have a strong set of gums.

Trade Sanctions

Enforcement mechanisms matter. The most successful global environmental treaty has been the Montreal Protocol. In September 1987, I was part of the Canadian government team in Montreal to negotiate a deal to protect the ozone layer. The key to the success of the protocol was that it contained effective sanctions. Any country that signed and ratified and subsequently chose to use ozone-depleting substances in contravention of the legally-binding protocol faced trade sanctions from the other parties.

Ten years later, in December 1997, the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated. By design, it shared the architecture of the successful ozone treaty. It relied on ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’: that is to say, the wealthy industrialized countries were to reduce emissions first, developing countries could catch up later.

But, unlike the Montreal Protocol, the Kyoto Protocol did not include trade sanctions. In fact, Canada’s then- Minister of Environment, the Hon Christine Stewart, said that if trade sanctions were included, Canada would not sign. Why this turn-around?

It was all due to the creation of the World Trade Organization. The WTO set up its own Committee on Trade and the Environment. Rather than ask the question that troubled many of us: ‘Are there trade deals that damage the environment?’ the committee probed the question, ‘Are there environmental treaties that impede trade?’ The WTO committee made no ruling on the matter, but identified the Basel Convention on Hazardous Waste, the Convention on the Trade in Endangered Species, and the Montreal Protocol as impediments.

Suddenly, it became ‘off limits’ to use the only effective international tool (short of military invasion) to hold contracting parties to their word. Kyoto ended up with a limp noodle for enforcement. Any country that failed in the first commitment period, 2008-2012, to meet its targets would have an additional .3 ton/per ton penalty added to whatever new commitments were made in the second period. No wonder Canada’s government wants to kill Kyoto. The only penalty for the Harper government’s decision to repudiate a legally binding commitment does not kick into gear until we negotiate a second round of Kyoto.

Trade lawyer Steven Shrybman pointed out years ago that we would have effective climate action if governments cared about the climate as much as they care about intellectual property (IP) rights. To protect IP, the WTO community negotiated the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS for short). Under TRIPS, every nation in the GATT market has a positive obligation to re-write domestic patent laws to meet US tests. Cross-border scrutiny to seek out products that violate IP rights can involve search and seizure. Imagine if those tools were brought to bear to protect climate: all nations must pass laws limiting carbon, bring in a carbon tax, install renewable energy, or they will not be allowed to trade. Goods crossing borders will be subject to seizure if the embedded carbon exceeds global norms. Or, as a placard in Copenhagen proclaimed, ‘If climate was a bank, they would have saved it already.’

The good news, out of this lopsided development of global trade laws versus environmental protection, is that the WTO has shown us how to develop tools that work. The United Nations Charter proclaims clearly that no international agreement is allowed to supersede the UN Charter. The WTO must be subservient to the larger international commitment to peace and security. From this aspect, we need to negotiate the next phase of climate action with meaningful enforcement.

The planet is already global. The process of so-called globalization has been all about taking what is held in common and transferring it to private interests. It has been about reducing the ability of democratically elected nations to determine their own course, while increasing the power of transnational corporations.

Tools of The Trade

Re-balancing trade and the environment ensures that trade is fair, does not jeopardize local security and resilience, and that economies thrive, sustaining healthy communities.
We do not lack for solutions. We only need the key to the tool box kept exclusively for the WTO.

Elizabeth May, Order of Canada, practiced environmental law and attended many WTO meetings, from its first meeting in Singapore, to attending Seattle as an advisor to the minister for trade. She is the leader of the Green Party of Canada.

The post Trading away our climate appeared first on Elizabeth May.