Court ruling compels Ottawa to protect killer-whale habitat

It’s time for the federal government to respect the law – and get serious about saving killer whales.

That’s not the view of a bunch of woolly headed environmentalists, but of the Federal Court of Appeal, which has declared that the Minister of Fisheries acted illegally by ignoring provisions of the Species at Risk Act designed to protect critical habitat.

“Ministerial discretion does not legally protect critical habitat within the meaning … of the Species at Risk Act, and it was unlawful for the minister to have cited provisions of the Fisheries Act in the killer whales Protection Statement,” the court found.

Not just wrong-headed or short-sighted – but unlawful.

The ruling, issued on Feb. 9 means the government of Canada has got to start protecting habitat vital to the survival of killer whales on the West Coast. And that means a whole lot of ocean has to be managed differently – with everything from fish farms, to new docks, to tanker traffic seen through a different lens.

“We feel really good about this ruling,” says Gwen Barlee, policy director of the Wilderness Committee, which was one of nine environmental groups that pursued the case with the help of Ecojustice, a non-profit law organization.

“It’s a strong decision, a unanimous decision by three judges, and we are hoping the government will now stop dragging its feet and will start protecting killer whales and all the other endangered species in Canada,” she said.

Monsanto guilty of chemical poisoning in France

(Reuters) - A French court on Monday declared U.S. biotech giant Monsanto(MON.N) guilty of chemical poisoning of a French farmer, a judgment that could lend weight to other health claims against pesticides.
In the first such case heard in court in France, grain grower Paul Francois says he suffered neurological problems including memory loss, headaches and stammering after inhaling Monsanto's (MON.N) Lasso weedkiller in 2004.

He blames the agri-business giant for not providing adequate warnings on the product label.

The ruling was given by a court in Lyon, southeast France, which ordered an expert opinion of Francois's losses to establish the sum of damages.

Lawyers for Monsanto could not immediately be reached for comment.

Previous health claims from farmers have foundered because of the difficulty of establishing clear links between illnesses and exposure to pesticides.

"I am alive today, but part of the farming population is going to be sacrificed and is going to die because of this," Francois, 47, told Reuters.

He and other farmers suffering from illness set up an association last year to make a case that their health problems should be linked to their use of crop protection products.

The agricultural branch of the French social security system says that since 1996, it has gathered farmers' reports of sickness potentially related to pesticides, with about 200 alerts a year.

But only about 47 cases have been recognised as due to pesticides in the past 10 years. Francois, who suffers from neurological problems, obtained work invalidity status only after a court appeal.

LESS INTENSIVE NOW

The Francois case goes back to a period of intensive use of crop-protection chemicals in the European Union. The EU and its member countries have since banned a large number of substances considered dangerous.

Monsanto's Lasso was banned in France in 2007 following an EU directive after the product had already been withdrawn in some other countries.

France, the EU's largest agricultural producer, is now targetting a 50 percent reduction in pesticide use between 2008 and 2018, with initial results showing a 4 percent cut in farm and non-farm use in 2008-2010.

The Francois claim may be easier to argue than others because he can pinpoint a specific incident - inhaling the Lasso when cleaning the tank of his crop sprayer - whereas fellow farmers are trying to show accumulated effects from various products.

"It's like lying on a bed of thorns and trying to say which one cut you," said a farmer, who has recovered from prostate cancer and asked not to be named.

The French association of crop protection companies, UIPP, says pesticides are all subject to testing and that any evidence of a cancer risk in humans leads to withdrawal of productsfrom the market.

"I think if we had a major health problem with pesticides, we would have already known about it," Jean-Charles Bocquet, UIPP's managing director, said.

The social security's farming branch this year is due to add Parkinson's disease to its list of conditions related to pesticide use after already recognising some cases of blood cancers and bladder and respiratory problems.

France's health and environment safety agency (ANSES), meanwhile, is conducting a study on farmers' health, with results expected next year.

(Writing by Gus Trompiz; Editing by Muriel Boselli, Sybille de La Hamaide and Jane Baird)
Original Article
Source: reuters 
Author: Marion Douet 

After Mortgage Settlement, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Face Renewed Pressure On Principal Reduction

Top law enforcement officials in several states are signaling they will pressure Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to correct what is widely seen as one of the biggest deficiencies of the $25 billion mortgage settlement announced on Thursday: It simply doesn't help that many homeowners.

Borrowers whose loans are backed by the government-controlled mortgage giants -- nearly half of all outstanding mortgages in the United States -- are not eligible for payouts under the deal. State officials who negotiated the deal say they could not convince Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees the loan giants, to join onto the settlement because they are steadfastly opposed to principal reductions -- loan write-downs for borrowers whose homes are at risk of foreclosure.

"This is a glaring weakness of the overall settlement," said one state official who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Fannie and Freddie were absolutely opposed to principal reduction. You'd ask why, and they'd say 'moral hazard to the taxpayer.'"

So far, the mortgage giants and the FHFA have only said that they're avoiding principal reduction because of the cost to taxpayers.

Principal reductions are hailed by many economists and housing experts as the most effective way to help homeowners who are underwater on their mortgages, owing more than the home is worth. About 1 in 5 homes in the U.S. are currently underwater.

EDMONTON - The Alberta government is changing the rules for post-secondary students applying for loans to get them through the school year.

Advanced Education Minister Greg Weadick (WED'-ick) says the province will no longer consider a student's earnings, RRSPs or parental income when determining a loan.

Students will have to show at least $1,500 has been put aside towards their education — and single parents won't have to contribute anything.

The government is also streamlining applications so that students will only have to deal with one organization called Student Aid Alberta.

Other changes include dropping interest charges from the six-month repayment grace period after graduation.

The Alberta Liberals say the attempt to revise student aid is "stingy" and they suggest loans should be forgiven for those who work in the province after graduation and pay taxes.

Original Article
Source: Huff 
Author: canadian press 

Canada Asbestos Industry Undeterred By Criminal Convictions In Italy

MONTREAL - Canada's asbestos industry said it had nothing to fear Monday after two men were criminally convicted in more than 2,000 asbestos-related deaths in Italy.

Construction-firm executives Jean-Louise de Cartier of Belgium and Stephan Schmidheiny of Switzerland were each handed 16-year prison sentences for negligence following a trial that officials called historic.

A representative for Canada's controversial asbestos sector said he doesn't think similar criminal charges could ever be laid against industry players here.

"I personally believe that there is no possibility," said Guy Versailles, a spokesman for Montreal asbestos salesman Baljit Chadha and Quebec's Jeffrey Mine.

Versailles said if it were possible, such charges likely would already have been filed against people in a highly scrutinized industry that has lost many civil lawsuits for past unsafe practices of the 1950s, '60s and '70s.

"The victims and the lawyers have been so persistent on this — for decades — milking the industry dry that anything they could do and anything governments could do would have been done," he said Monday following the verdict in Italy.

"I think it's as simple as that."

Take Your Insults Back to the Playground, Ezra Levant

In a column written this past weekend for the Toronto Sun, author and television host Ezra Levant advanced two questionable assertions. The column follows comments made in the House of Commons by Conservative MP Larry Miller comparing the 1990s Liberal government's intentions behind establishing a long gun registry to Adolf Hitler's racist and genocidal policies.

First, Levant compares Nazi suppression of civil liberties and personal freedom in general -- and German gun control policies both under Hitler and before him in particular -- to Canadian gun control policies. "The lesson is, don't let the government take away your rights," he writes, regardless of the intent behind right-limiting legislation.

Levant's general comparison is -- like Miller's -- obscene. To place the limitation of all so-called "rights" in one basket (i.e. to insinuate that Nazi persecution of Jews and other minorities can be compared with regulating firearms) is to trivialize crimes against humanity and hence to insult the memory of those who perished in the Holocaust.

Furthermore, according to Levant, apparently it is a fundamental "right" to be able to purchase a firearm without being required to register it, regardless of the consequences that this may have on public safety.

Committee Watch: Official Languages at the centre of the in camera storm

It seems that reports of the death of the Conservative campaign to force debate behind closed doors may have been a tad premature. For the last week and a half, the traditionally convivial official languages committee has been beset by a pitched battle over a government-backed motion to go in camera for all committee business. 

Unlike a similar skirmish at Government Operations, however, this debate is taking place in public -- and, barring a nifty bit of procedural artistry on the part of the government, is likely to stay there for the foreseeable future, as committee rules prohibit the introduction of a motion to go back in camera until after the in camera motion has been decided.

So, how did a debate over holding future meetings in secret end up on the record? For that, we have to go back to what would turn out to be a fateful session on the morning of February 2, when, att some point during the first hour of what had been scheduled to be an in camera session, the opposition parties found themselves unexpectedly, if temporarily, in the majority.

No doubt sensing that the moment was likely to be fleeting, they joined forces to turn the tables on the government, and brought forward a snap motion to open the doors.  (Motions to go in camera, or public, require no notice, and are non-debateable.)

In challenge to Ottawa, judge refuses to impose mandatory sentence

An Ontario Superior Court judge has refused to impose a mandatory three-year sentence on a man caught with a loaded handgun, putting the courts on a collision course with the federal government’s belief in fixed sentences that provide judges with little discretion.

In a decision Monday, Madam Justice Anne Molloy added fuel to a rising sense of judicial anger over mandatory minimum sentences by striking down the compulsory term as cruel and unusual punishment.

Instead, she sentenced the defendant, Leroy Smickle, to a year of house arrest. Judge Molloy concluded that Mr. Smickle, a 30-year-old Toronto man with no criminal record, had merely been showing off by striking a “cool” pose over the Internet when police happened to burst into an apartment on March 9, 2009, in search of another man.

The government has adamantly held to the view that mandatory minimums are a necessary restraint on judges who might impose inappropriately lenient sentences for certain offences. That is part of a larger tough-on-crime agenda that includes everything from harsher prison sentences to restricting parole and pardons.

Several months ago, in another major challenge in Ontario Superior Court, a similar sentencing provision was upheld in a firearms case, Regina v. Nur. That, combined with the Smickle ruling, could well result in a high-profile appeal that goes all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Tories on e-snooping: ‘Stand with us or with the child pornographers’

Canada’s privacy commissioners will be surprised to hear it, but the Conservatives are accusing anyone who opposes their bill to give police new powers to monitor the Internet of supporting child pornography.

A similar comment might have cost Stephen Harper the 2004 election. But with the next election years away, it’s hard to know whether or when Public Safety Minister Vic Toews will change his tune.

Mr. Toews will introduce Lawful Access legislation, as it is commonly called, into the House of Commons Tuesday. Previous versions of the bill failed to make it through minority parliaments, but now that the Conservatives have a majority it is almost certain to pass.

The bill will require Internet service providers to store and to make available to the government and police forces information on the Internet activity of their customers.

Police will require a warrant to obtain that information. But the bill would also permit them to obtain IP addresses (which identifies someone on the Internet), email addresses, mobile phone numbers and other information without any warrant.

"Real Despair" Sweeps Through Greece as Severe Austerity Measures Demanded by EU-IMF Cripple Nation

Greece continues to face political turmoil over a sovereign debt crisis that has embroiled the country for almost two years. On Monday, the Greek government said it would hold new elections in the face of massive demonstrations against a new austerity package that was approved on Sunday in exchange for a European Union-International Monetary Fund bailout. Under the austerity deal, Greece will fire 15,000 pubic sector this year and 150,000 by 2015. The minimum wage will be reduced by 22 percent and pension plans will be be cut. As lawmakers voted, 100,000 people protested outside the parliament building in Athens. Some protesters engaged in rioting, looting and setting fire to dozens of stores and buildings. Some 160 people were detained and dozens were treated for injuries. To discuss the latest in Greece, we’re joined by Maria Margaronis, London correspondent for The Nation magazine. She was in Greece last week covering the economic crisis there. Margaronis says Greece faces an “impossible choice” to “either default on its loans by March when it owes a massive loan payment, or to accept this desperate austerity program, which will further sink the economy. ...The Greek people have really had enough of this: People are exhausted and desperate. On the street in Athens, there’s a sense of everything breaking down."

Original Article
Source:  Democracy Now!
Author: --