Category: Press Release

  • The government of Canada’s Emissions Reduction Plan provides the most comprehensive national climate action roadmap to date. It is an improvement from previous climate plans, which largely ignored the two most polluting sources of emissions in Canada: road transportation and the production of oil and gas.

    Unfortunately, the level of ambition reflected in this plan continues to fall short.

    Most importantly, this plan lets the oil and gas sector off from doing its fair share. Avoiding catastrophic climate change requires winding down production of oil and gas over the next decade. Though the plan does set a target level for emissions from the sector – a first – the target is far weaker than Canada’s climate commitments on the whole. As a result, other sectors of the economy will be forced to work even harder to compensate. When Canada introduces the new cap on emissions from the oil and gas sector later this year, it must be stronger than what was released in today’s plan.

    Similarly, Canada’s commitment to a zero-emissions vehicle sales mandate is welcome, though the targets could be more aggressive. Continued investment in electric vehicle charging stations and consumer incentives to help with affordability are also good initiatives. But it’s unfortunate to see that Canada’s target for medium and heavy duty vehicles has been reduced to an aspirational target, when these vehicles are responsible for a large and rising share of emissions.

    Missing from today’s plan is a clear roadmap on how Canada will ensure the transition off of fossil fuels is fair to workers and communities who will be impacted. The targeted programs detailed in the plan are welcome, but do not replace promised just transition legislation and the creation  of a dedicated federal body to ensure no one is left behind.

    Finally, Canada is still not spending what it takes to successfully scale up proven climate solutions and transition the country towards a clean energy future. The Emissions Reduction Plan includes $9 billion in new investments, to be spent over years. That’s just half of the level of public support announced for the oil and gas sector in 2020.

    At the base of this plan is a significant oversight: to build a good roadmap, you need the right destination. Basing this plan on the country’s inadequate 2030 greenhouse gas emissions reduction target means that it still falls short. Canada should be making plans that represent our fair share in the fight against climate action.

    About ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (www.environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    Background on the federal emission reductions cap for oil and gas: https://environmentaldefence.ca/report/emissions-cap-explainer/

    -30-

    For more information or to arrange an interview, please contact: 

    Barbara Hayes, Communications Manager, bhayes@environmentaldefence.ca

    The post Statement from Keith Brooks, Programs Director, on the Federal Government’s first Emissions Reduction Plan appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE AND TOXIC-FREE FUTURE’S MIND THE STORE PROGRAM

    Restaurant Brands International commits to eliminating PFAS in food packaging by 2025 in all stores worldwide, including Burger King, Tim Hortons, and Popeyes

    Toronto | Traditional territories of the Huron-Wendat, the Anishnaabeg, Haudenosaunee, Chippewas and the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation  – Toronto-based Restaurant Brands International (RBI) has announced it will ban toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” in food packaging globally by 2025. RBI, which owns Burger King, Popeyes, and Tim Hortons—is one of the world’s largest quick-service restaurant companies with 27,000 restaurants in more than 100 countries. 

    RBI’s announcement follows a multi-year campaign led by environmental health advocates to phase out PFAS from retail food packaging since the 2020 investigation that found indications of PFAS in Burger King’s Whopper packaging, among other products. 

    “We are pleased to see Tim Hortons, Burger King and others take action on eliminating PFAS from their packaging, but this needs to happen now and not in three years,” said Cassie Barker, Toxics Senior Program Manager at Environmental Defence. “These “forever chemicals” do not break down. They contaminate our food and water and are a specific risk to Arctic ecosystems and Inuit communities. Research shows that PFAS exposure can increase the severity of COVID-19. We need companies to clean up their act, but more importantly, we need urgent federal leadership to prohibit this toxic class of chemicals.” 

    The announcement also comes on the same day as a Consumer Reports study that tested the packaging of dozens of major fast-food chains and confirmed PFAS are still widespread in food packaging.

    “This new commitment from Burger King, Popeyes, and Tim Hortons is the latest nail in the coffin for PFAS in food packaging,” said Mike Schade, director of Mind the Store, a program of Toxic-Free Future. “We appreciate Burger King taking this critical action following our campaign efforts. But there’s no time to waste in phasing out PFAS. Toxic pollution from these forever chemicals has been impacting customers and frontline communities for far too long. Retailers like Burger King should eliminate these chemicals by 2023 and ensure substitutes are safe and reusable.”

    A growing body of scientific research has found links between exposures to PFAS and a wide range of health problems. RBI’s decision to take action on banning the use of toxic PFAS in their packaging comes nearly one year after restaurant competitors such as McDonald’s, Chipotle, Wendy’s and Freshii have already made similar commitments. 

    “PFAS chemicals have contaminated drinking water for most Americans, with taxpayers stuck with the bill for cleanup. Congress should act quickly to end the completely unnecessary uses of these dangerous pollutants in food packaging,” said Liz Hitchcock, director of Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, a program of Toxic-Free Future. “The Consumer Reports investigation shows that much of our food is still served with a side of forever chemicals.  Congress should pass this common-sense legislation and take PFAS off the menu.”

    While some American state and local governments such as Washington, Maine, New York, and San Francisco are moving to phase out all types of PFAS from food packaging in favour of safer alternatives, Canada has only begun to look at assessing these toxic substances together as a class. 

    The federal government recently introduced Bill S-5 to reform the country’s toxics legislation, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA). This bill will require several amendments to address the threat of PFAS and other chemicals of high concern and adequately protect vulnerable populations. 

    – 30 –

    For more information or to request an interview, please contact:

    Paula Gray, Environmental Defence, pgray@environmentaldefence.ca, 705-435-8611

    Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry, and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate, and healthy communities.

    Toxic-Free Future (TFF) is a nonprofit research and advocacy organization that advances the use of safer products, chemicals, and practices through science, organizing, advocacy, and consumer engagement to ensure a healthier tomorrow.

    Mind the Store is a Toxic-Free Future program that challenges retailers to eliminate toxic chemicals and replace them with safer alternatives, and scores major retailers on their safer chemicals policies in an annual Retailer Report Card.

    The post Burger King announces global ban on toxic PFAS chemicals in food packaging appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • ECOJUSTICE, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE, SHIFT ACTION FOR PENSION WEALTH AND PLANET HEALTH

    Toronto | Traditional territories of the Huron-Wendat, the Anishnaabeg, Haudenosaunee, Chippewas and the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation – Today marked an important step in the right direction for the advancement of climate related finance, with the the tabeling of Bill S-243 from Independent Senator of Quebec Rosa Galvez in the Senate. See here for the whitepaper.

    Financial institutions are on the front lines of climate risk. Although Canadian financial institutions have taken baby steps to advance climate-aligned finance, regulations still lag behind international best practices. Canada’s financial sector continues to worsen the effects of climate change and create systemic financial risks. Thus, Canadian legislators and regulators must raise the bar to ensure finance becomes truly sustainable – not just in name. Canadian legislation needs to incentivize a green transition and prepare the financial sector for climate-related vulnerabilities.

    This Bill is an ambitious and coherent piece of legislation that aims to align the financial sector with Canada’s climate commitments. It focuses on reducing carbon emissions and building resilience in the real world, whereas most activity in climate finance focuses on reducing risks for investment portfolios. The Bill would ensure that all financial institutions align with Canada’s climate commitments, while avoiding carbon lock-in and respecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples. With this legislation, Canada would be a leader in ensuring a climate-aligned, stable, low-carbon financial system.

    “The financial sector is making investments that fan the flames of climate change. Yet climate change creates systemic risk that shatters financial stability. Instead, finance needs to help mitigate climate change by reducing carbon emissions and building resilience. This Bill would ensure Canada’s financial sector helps mitigate climate change, moving us towards a stable climate and a stable economy.” Said Julie Segal, Senior Program Manager, Climate Finance at Environmental Defence. 

    “Canada’s financial sector has fallen behind.” said Adam Scott, Director of Shift: Action for Pension Wealth & Planet Health. “We know we can’t address the crisis without a significant change in where finance is flowing, and no amount of inconsistent, voluntary action from institutions will allow us to catch up. This bill provides a clear and practical pathway for ensuring Canada’s financial sector can meet this challenge.”

    As long as Canada’s financial institutions continue to invest in coal, oil and gas extraction, they severely hinder our ability to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to rapidly transition financial support away from fossil fuels and towards the clean energy transition” said Alan Andrews, Ecojustice climate program director. “This Bill would position Canada as a global climate leader by holding companies, banks and financial institutions accountable for aligning their business with the Paris Agreement.”

    Canada’s needs checks and balances to ensure that all investments contribute to a green future, this is critical to the security of Canada’s economy. This legislation is a monumental step in the right direction that will spark critical innovation and thrust Canada in front of our peers to become true climate leaders. 

    -30-

    About ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (www.environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    Ecojustice uses the power of the law to defend nature, combat climate change, and fight for a healthy environment. Its strategic, public interest lawsuits and advocacy lead to precedent-setting court decisions and law and policy that deliver lasting solutions to Canada’s most urgent environmental problems. As Canada’s largest environmental law charity, Ecojustice operates offices in Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Ottawa, and Halifax.

    Shift: Action for Pension Wealth and Planet Health is a charitable initiative that works to protect pensions and the climate by bringing together beneficiaries and their pension funds on the climate crisis. We help Canadians understand where their retirement wealth is invested by tracking pension fund investments and strategy. We educate and empower Canadians on how to engage constructively with their pension funds. 

    For more information or to arrange an interview, please contact: 

    Alex Ross, Senior Communications Coordinator,Environmental Defence aross@environmentaldefence.ca

    Sean O’Shea, communications specialist | Ecojustice soshea@ecojustice.ca

    The post Environmental groups applaud legislation to advance climate related financial legislation appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Widespread Call for Clemency from Hundreds of Texas Anti-Domestic Violence Groups, Baptists, Evangelicals and Catholics, Latino Organizations, and Exonerees; Five Jurors File Declarations Expressing Support for Relief

    (Austin, TX — March 22, 2022) Today, attorneys for Melissa Lucio submitted an application for clemency to Governor Greg Abbott and the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. New evidence in the application that the jury never heard shows that Ms. Lucio, a victim of sexual abuse and domestic violence, was wrongly convicted and condemned to die for the accidental death of her daughter, Mariah. Ms. Lucio is scheduled for execution on April 27, 2022.

    The application includes the declarations of seven nationally recognized experts, including scientists and forensic experts, who have reviewed the evidence and concluded that Ms. Lucio’s conviction was based upon (1) an unreliable “confession” that is essentially a mere “regurgitation” of facts and words officers fed to her during the five-hour interrogation, and (2) unscientific, false evidence that misled the jury into believing that Mariah must have been killed by physical abuse, when the evidence is actually consistent with a conclusion that Mariah died from medical complications after a fall. The application also documents that Ms. Lucioasserted her innocence more than 100 times over five hours of the coercive interrogation.

    “Mariah died from medical complications after an accidental fall. She was not murdered.”

    In addition to the new forensic analyses, today’s application includes declarations from four jurors stating they have grave concerns about evidence withheld from them at Ms. Lucio’s capital trial and would support relief. An additional juror, an alternate who heard the evidence, but did not join deliberations, also submitted a declaration supporting relief for Ms. Lucio.

    Hundreds of Texas anti-domestic violence groups, Baptist, Evangelical and Catholic leaders, Latino organizations, exonerees of wrongful convictions, and Ms. Lucio’s children also filed letters urging the Board and the Governor to grant Ms. Lucio clemency. (See Exhibits attached to application.)

    “Based on a rush to judgement and a biased and inadequate death investigation, the State extracted an unreliable ‘confession’ and used false scientific evidence to convict Melissa Lucio of a crime she did not commit and in fact never occurred. What we know today is this: Mariah died from medical complications after an accidental fall. She was not murdered,” said Vanessa Potkin, director of special litigation at the Innocence Project, and one of Ms. Lucio’s attorneys.

    Ms. Lucio’s Application for the Commutation of Death Sentence to a Lesser Penalty or, in the Alternative, a 120-Reprieve from Execution can be viewed here:

    A Rush to Judgement After a Tragedy

    On February 15, 2007, as Ms. Lucio was moving her family to a new home, Mariah fell down a steep outdoor staircase leading to their apartment. After the fall, Mariah’s injuries did not appear life-threatening, but two days later she fell asleep on her parents’ bed and did not wake up. Mariah had physical disabilities that made her walking unstable and she had a history of falls, including a recent fall at a preschool program where she lost consciousness. At the time of her arrest, Ms. Lucio had no history of abusing her children or violence of any kind. (App. at pp. 2, 10-12.)

    Melissa Lucio with her son John Lucio. (Image courtesy of the Lucio family)

    Two hours after Mariah’s death, Ms. Lucio — grieving and in shock — was hauled into an interrogation room where, for over five hours, armed, male police officers stood over her, yelled at her, threatened her, berated her parenting, and repeatedly refused to accept anything less than an admission to causing her daughter’s death. Ms. Lucio was especially vulnerable to the aggressive, intimidating, and psychologically manipulative interrogation tactics of the police and male authority figures due to her history of abuse, trauma, low IQ, and abnormally high levels of suggestibility and compliance. (App. at pp. 15-17.)

    After hours of continuous interrogation, Ms. Lucio acquiesced, followed their directions, and gave in to their demands. She was sleep-deprived — it was 3:00 in the morning by then — and pregnant with twins, emotionally and physically exhausted by the threats and manipulation. (App. at pp. 15-17, 39.)

    “I think if I heard this evidence I may have decided differently.”

    Two experts on false confessions (including police trainer and interrogation expert, David Thompson, and Dr. Gisli Gudjonsson, one of the world’s leading experts on false confessions) have analyzed Ms. Lucio’s interrogation and concluded that her admissions are “unreliable” and simply a “regurgitation” of the words and facts that interrogators fed to her throughout a highly coercive interrogation process. (App. at pp. 16, 39-42.)

    Lacking physical evidence or eyewitnesses connecting  Ms. Lucio to Mariah’s death, Cameron County District Attorney Armando Villalobos — who is now serving a 13-year federal sentence for bribery and extortion —  characterized Ms. Lucio acquiescence during the interrogation as a “confession” to murder. (App. at p. 19.)

    Mariah’s Death Was Declared A Murder Before the Autopsy Even Began

    The application states: “[The State’s Medical Examiner] Dr. Farley, who was told going into autopsy that Ms. Lucio had ‘confessed’ to abusing Mariah, and who was accompanied in the autopsy suite by two of the interrogating officers, assumed everything she observed was evidence of abuse and ignored all evidence to the contrary.” (App. at p. 20.)

    At Ms. Lucio’s trial, the jury was told that Mariah’s injuries could only be explained by child abuse and complications from an accidental fall were impossible. That testimony was false. Dr. Farley failed in her duty to rule out nonviolent medical explanations for Mariah’s condition before rushing to agree with law enforcement’s judgment of abuse. (App. at pp. 19-20, 28.)

    Seven experts, including nationally recognized medical and forensic scientists, have now reviewed the evidence in Ms. Lucio’s case. Dr. Michael Laposata, the chairman of the Department of Pathology at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, concluded that at the time of her death Mariah had indications of Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation (DIC), a disorder that causes extensive bruising following a head trauma, like the injury that Mariah suffered from her fall, or an infection. (App. at p. 21.) As Dr. Laposata stated in his declaration, DIC can cause profound bruising throughout the body with no trauma whatsoever. “In patients with DIC, routine handling at home or in a hospital setting can cause significant bruising. It is not possible to tell the difference between a bruise from DIC and a bruise from abuse.” (Exhibit 6 at p. 2.)

    “[Dr. Farley] failed to review any of Mariah’s medical history to look for any explanation or contributing cause to her injuries.”

    Dr. Janice Ophoven, a pediatric forensic pathologist, concluded that Mariah’s autopsy indicates she was in DIC at the time of her death. Her records also show she had a persistent high fever, and was sufficiently dehydrated to experience shock. The application states: “[S]teeped in extrinsic, biasing information, [Dr. Farley] failed to review any of Mariah’s medical history to look for any explanation or contributing cause to her injuries, conduct any basic laboratory tests to diagnose a coagulation disorder, or even perform simple testing to confirm the presence of infection or sepsis.” (App. at p. 28.)

    Four jurors who served on the jury that sentenced Ms. Lucio to die and one alternate juror have expressed grave concerns about the evidence that they were not allowed to hear. Juror Johnny Galvan stated that “[t]he fact that you can’t pinpoint what caused Mariah’s death means that [Melissa] shouldn’t be executed.” Juror Alejandro Saldivar stated, “I think if I heard this evidence I may have decided differently.” (App. at p. 3.)

     

    Ms. Lucio’s Statements Have the Hallmarks of a False Confession

    Melissa Lucio. (Image courtesy of the Lucio family)

    Over five hours, Ms. Lucio asserted her innocence 86 times verbally and 35 times non-verbally (shaking her head), but police refused to accept any response that was not an admission of guilt—suggesting to Ms. Lucio that the interrogation would not stop unless she told them what they wanted to hear. (App. at p. 15.) While the vast majority of interrogations last 30 minutes to up to two hours, interrogations that elicit confessions later proven false last much longer. “[T]he length of Melissa’s nighttime interrogation further increased the risk that she would falsely incriminate herself.” (App at pp. 16, 36-37.)

    The interrogating officers used manipulative, psychological techniques known to cause false confessions and disregarded Ms. Lucio’s multiple vulnerabilities, including her shock and grief over her daughter’s death hours earlier, physical and emotional exhaustion, sleep deprivation, her high levels of suggestibility and compliance, and low IQ. (App. at pp. 37-39.) According to experts, Ms. Lucio’s lifetime of sexual abuse, starting at six years old, and domestic violence at the hands of two partners, made her extremely vulnerable and susceptible to falsely confessing during an interrogation by male police officers, some armed, and one impliedly threatening to “beat [her] half to death like that little child was beat.” (App. at pp. 35, 42-47.)

     “[T]he length of Melissa’s nighttime interrogation further increased the risk that she would falsely incriminate herself.”

    Doctor Gisli Gudjonsson, one of the world’s leading experts in false confessions, and David Thompson, an expert from one of the nation’s top interrogation training schools, have reviewed the record of Ms. Lucio’s case and determined that Ms. Lucio “was relentlessly pressured and extensively manipulated” throughout the many hours of interrogation and her statements bear the hallmarks of a coerced-compliant false confession. (App. at pp. 15-16.) Dr. Gudjonsson concluded that Melissa’s case presents a “very high” risk of false confession and in his “extensive forensic evaluation of cases of disputed confessions internationally, the number, severity, and combination of the risk factors involved during the lengthy interrogation are exceptional.” (App. at 16.) He further explained Ms. Lucio’s “history of negative/traumatic life events is associated with increased level of suggestibility, compliance, and false confession . . . because trauma significantly reduces the resilience of the trauma victims to cope with interrogative pressure.” (App. at p. 37.)

    Mr. Thompson noted, “Repetitive threats combined with promises or suggestions of leniency are known to incentivize innocent subjects to confess. These tactics, alongside Ms. Lucio’s susceptibility and her state of mind in a lengthy interrogation shortly after her daughter’s death, are known to have a substantial psychological impact on a subject’s decision-making” and found her statements are a result of fact-feeding or other tactics used by investigators. (Exhibit 11 at pp. 5-6.)

    False confessions elicited by guilt-presumptive police interrogations—like the interrogation at issue here—are a primary cause of wrongful conviction in the United States. Of the 67 women listed on the National Registry of Exonerations who were exonerated after a murder conviction, over one quarter (17/67) involved false confessions and nearly one-third (20/67) involved child victims.

    Widespread Support Across Texas for Clemency

    Alarmed by the prospect of executing an innocent woman, who is a lifelong survivor of sexual abuse and domestic violence, a wide and diverse array of Texans are urging the Governor and the Board to grant Ms. Lucio clemency, including:

    • 225 anti-domestic violence/sexual assault organizations from Texas and across the country;
    • Over 130 Baptist, Evangelical and Catholic faith leaders in Texas, including more than 50 Baptist leaders, the Executive Director of the Hispanic Baptist Convention of Texas, and the Director of the Rio Grande Valley Baptist Association;
    • More than 30 groups that work on behalf of Latinos in Texas and across the U.S., including the National Hispanic Caucus of State Legislators (NHCSL);
    • Eighteen people wrongfully convicted of a crime in a Texas state court, including Hannah Overton and Michael Morton; and
    • Twenty-six death row exonerees, including two from Texas.

    More than 100,000 people, including more than 20,000 in Texas, have signed an Innocence Project petition urging clemency for Ms. Lucio.

    Ms. Lucio’s children are also urging the Governor and the Board not to execute their mother. They are Mariah’s brothers and sisters and Texas law requires that their wishes be taken into account. (App. at pp. 1-2, 49-51.)

    The faith leaders wrote to the Governor and the Board:

    In this case, you have an extraordinary opportunity to show compassion for a woman and a family that has already suffered greatly, first from the tragic death of Mariah and then by the incarceration of Ms. Lucio. Through the clemency process, you alone can compensate for the rigidities of the judicial system, which has been unable to correct this injustice despite support from numerous federal judges. . . .  In accordance with the shared values of our diverse religious and faith traditions and in the name of mercy, we respectfully urge you to commute her death sentence. (App. at p. 6.)

    “In Melissa’s case, the legal system’s failure to acknowledge the effects of child sexual abuse and domestic violence led directly to the conviction and death sentence of an innocent woman. Meanwhile, her abusive partner is now a free man. This is why Texans who have spent their lives helping survivors of gender-based violence are pleading with the Board and the Governor to grant clemency to Melissa Lucio,” said Professor Sandra Babock, director of the Cornell Center on the Death Penalty Worldwide, and one of Ms. Lucio’s attorneys.

    The post Melissa Lucio, Scheduled to be Executed on April 27, Appeals to Texas Pardons Board and Governor for Clemency appeared first on Innocence Project.

    This post was originally published on Innocence Project.

  • (Indianapolis, IN — March 16, 2022) Yesterday, Governor Holcomb signed SB 263, a bill designed to ensure biological crime scene evidence is properly retained. The new law, which was authored by Rep. Steuerwald (R-District 40) in the House and led by Senators Doriot (R-District 12) and Koch (R-District 44) in the Senate, is a key step in revealing wrongful convictions and solving cold cases in the Hoosier state.

    The proper collection, preservation and storage of physical evidence from a crime scene is imperative when it comes to prosecuting and defending criminal cases. The major advances in technology over the past decades – including the collection of trace amounts of DNA and forensic genealogy – has revolutionized the use of biological evidence in a way that allows investigators to solve cold cases, detect the guilty and exonerate the innocent. 

    “I am grateful to the Governor and my colleagues for helping to pass this critical legislation,” said Rep. Steuerwald.  “By requiring the proper preservation of evidence, this bill will ensure that justice is served to victims of crimes and the wrongfully convicted, while preserving due process and maintaining the public’s trust in the integrity of the criminal justice system.”

    In the U.S, there have been 375 exonerations based on DNA evidence to date, none of which would have been possible if biological evidence was not available to test. If this evidence had been destroyed, tainted, contaminated, mislabeled, or otherwise corrupted, we never would have discovered the innocence of these wrongfully convicted people. Indeed, out of these 375 exonerations, the true perpetrators of the crimes were subsequently detected in 50 percent of the cases. While innocent individuals spent years behind bars for crimes they did not commit, 165 people who committed the crimes for which the innocent languished remained free and subsequently committed an additional 154 violent crimes: 36 murders; 83 rapes; and 35 other violent crimes that could have been prevented if the actual perpetrator had been detected in the first place.

    Take for example, the case of Roosevelt Glenn and Darryl Pinkins, who were wrongfully convicted of a 1989 rape and robbery in Hammond, Indiana. Pinkins was imprisoned for 25 years and Glenn for 17, before finally being exonerated. At their original trial, a police lab analyst testified that blood found at the crime scene tied both men to the crime. Additionally, a state crime lab analyst testified that a hair found on the victim’s sweater was similar to Glenn’s. In 2000, the Wrongful Conviction Clinic at Indiana University’s Robert McKinney School of Law began reinvestigating the case and was able to conduct a DNA test on the hair from the victim’s sweater which definitively excluded Glenn as its source. Then, in 2015, a DNA mixture expert further determined that both Pinkins and Glenn could be excluded as contributors. If not for the proper preservation of evidence, neither of them would have been exonerated.

    “The Indiana criminal justice system is now positioned to take advantage of progress in forensic technology to exonerate the innocent and bring to justice the guilty. Prosecutors, criminal defense attorneys, and wrongful conviction advocates agreed on the need for this essential step forward. So thankful for legislative leadership recognizing the void in our law and responding.  Awesome.” said Fran Watson, Director of the Indiana University McKinney School of Law Wrongful Conviction Clinic.

    The Innocence Project worked with the Department of Justice-funded and National Institute of Standards & Technology-administered Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation, which issued a set of recommendations to policymakers for the proper retention of biological evidence.  “It is so gratifying that the federal-to-state guidance issued by the Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation is taking hold across the nation.  As a member of that working group, I am thrilled to see state after state continue to embrace these common-sense recommendations, which promise to settle innocence claims” said Rebecca Brown, Director of Policy for the Innocence Project.

    Until now, Indiana was one of only 15 states without an evidence preservation law and state evidence custodians, including law enforcement agencies, court clerks, and hospitals,  have faced a lack of guidance on how long to properly preserve biological evidence from collection through post-conviction. This new law will put the Hoosier state on a par with neighboring states such as Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and Illinois, that already have a statutory automatic duty of preservation. 

    The post Governor Holcomb signs bill to require the proper preservation of evidence appeared first on Innocence Project.

  • Dangerous precedent for federal decision-making at core of concerns          

    Bradford, Ontario, Traditional territories of several First Nations including the Wendake-Nionwentsïo, Anishinabewaki, Haudenosaunee, and the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, March 16, 2022 – On Monday, March 14th, seven environmental and community organizations filed a lawsuit in Federal Court against the federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Steven Guilbeault. The lawsuit challenges the Minister’s failure to designate the Bradford Bypass highway project for a federal impact assessment.

    The organizations previously made two requests for a federal impact assessment on the proposed Bradford Bypass (or Holland Marsh Highway), which would cut through the Greenbelt, the Holland Marsh provincially significant wetland, and the headwater rivers at the south end of the Lake Simcoe watershed. The federal government turned down both requests. The lawsuit challenges the government’s decision to turn down the second request.

    The purpose of the litigation is to hold the federal government accountable for the proper review of the impacts of the proposed highway, which is needed to understand the full impact of the proposed project on vital habitats, wildlife and watersheds in the area. The case for building a highway is thin at best and we must better understand the impacts of the project on natural heritage, migratory birds, fisheries, greenhouse gas emissions, air quality, and First Nations cultural heritage.

    “The second request noted that there were significant changes to the context of the project,” notes Bill Foster, Chair of Forbid Roads Over Green Spaces (FROGS) “including a significant decline in popular support for the project, and a seriously weakened provincial Environmental Assessment process that fixes the route based on 1997 information. As a result MTO is now no longer required to consider reasonable alternatives to or alternative locations for this highway. Given the serious impacts to fish in Lake Simcoe, we expected the federal government would intervene.”

    Despite the new evidence and strong alignment with the federal mandate to protect biodiversity and mitigate climate change, Minister Guilbeault decided not to designate the highway for an impact assessment, following in the footsteps of the previous minister. The groups argue that the Minister Guilbeault’s decision was based not on evidence, but rather unreasonably deferred to the previous Minister’s decision.

    “There are errors of fact in the Minister’s decision that cannot be allowed to go unchallenged” says Tim Gray of Environmental Defence. “For the sake of Canada’s environment and the communities dependent on it, we must make sure that destructive projects, such as bulldozing a super-highway through one of Ontario’s largest wetlands, receive a proper and thorough review.”

    “Federal impact assessment can play an important ‘safety valve’ role by ensuring the full extent of environmental impacts are assessed before the project moves forward,” says Ian Miron, lawyer, Ecojustice. “Ensuring that the Minister fully and fairly considers requests for federal impact assessments on their merits is all the more important here, where the Ontario government has recently gutted its environmental assessment laws and policies and has now exempted the Bradford Bypass from any meaningful assessment or public consultation despite the potentially severe impacts of the project on Lake Simcoe, the Holland Marsh, and public health.”

    The province of Ontario has just released a Transportation Plan that would essentially wrap the south east side of Lake Simcoe in highways. “We already know that highway crossings create salt hotpots in our freshwater rivers. Lake Simcoe is on a trajectory to reach ocean level salinity in 37 years. This is extremely worrying for our members. We need all levels of government to do better, and we need to know that the federal government will step in when their areas of jurisdiction, like endangered species and climate, will be negatively affected,” says Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition Executive Director Claire Malcolmson.

    “The federal government says it’s committed to mitigating climate change and halting the accelerating loss of biodiversity. Are these just hollow promises?” asks Dr. Anne Bell, director of conservation and education at Ontario Nature. “The need for an impact assessment is painfully obvious in this case – a no-brainer if the government stands by evidence-based decision-making.”

    Katie Krelove, Ontario campaigner with Wilderness Committee says, “the federal Environment Ministry agreed to do an impact assessment for Highway 413 based on the presence of endangered species such as the Red-headed Woodpecker. The route for the Bradford Bypass is also habitat for endangered species, so why was it rejected for assessment? These decisions should be based on science, not politics, and this sets a dangerous precedent. That’s why we are going to court.”

    The parties involved in the litigation are FROGS (Forbid Roads Over Green Spaces), Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition, Ontario Nature, Western Canada Wilderness Committee, Wildlands League, Earthroots, and Environmental Defence, represented by Ecojustice.

    -30-

    About

    Ecojustice uses the power of the law to defend nature, combat climate change, and fight for a healthy environment. Its strategic, public interest lawsuits and advocacy lead to precedent-setting court decisions and law and policy that deliver lasting solutions to Canada’s most urgent environmental problems. As Canada’s largest environmental law charity, Ecojustice operates offices in Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Ottawa, and Halifax.

    Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry, and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate, and healthy communities.

    Forbid Roads Over Green Spaces is an association of East Gwillimbury residents that came together in 1993 at the commencement of the Bradford Bypass EA Study. We have challenged this project through every step of the EA process documenting our serious concerns about the integrity of the entire study process and its findings.

    Ontario Nature protects wild species and wild spaces through conservation, education, and public engagement. A charitable organization, Ontario Nature represents more than 30,000 members and supporters, and more than 155 member groups across Ontario. Since it was established as the Federation of Ontario Naturalists in 1931, Ontario Nature has been a champion for nature. Our vision is simple: An Ontario where nature inspires and sustains us for generations to come.

    Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition is a member-based organization representing 39 groups in the Lake Simcoe watershed that provides leadership and motivates people to take action to protect Lake Simcoe.

    Wilderness Committee protects life-giving biological diversity in Canada through strategic research, community mobilizing and grassroots public education.

    Wildlands League is one of Canada’s pre-eminent conservation organizations. We are a not-for-profit charity that has been working in the public interest since 1968, beginning with a campaign to protect Algonquin Park from development. We are strategists, policy experts and communicators standing up for wildlife and standing with communities. We tackle irresponsible development that threatens precious rivers, lakes and wildlife habitat. We give voice to Canada’s nature to make sure at least half of the country is protected forever for all our kids, for climate and for the planet.

    To arrange media interviews, please contact:

    Claire Malcolmson, Executive Director, Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition rescuelakesimcoecoalition@gmail.com

    John Hassell, Director of Communications and Engagement, Ontario Nature johnh@ontarionature.org

    Bill Foster, Chair, Forbid Roads Over Green Spaces bfoster@frogs.ca

    Zoryana Cherwick, Communications Specialist, Ecojustice zcherwick@ecojustice.ca

    Allen Braude, Senior Communications Manager, Environmental Defence abraude@environmentaldefence.ca

    Katie Krelove, Ontario Campaigner, Wilderness Committee katie@wildernesscommittee.org

    Anna Baggio | Wildlands League anna@wildlandsleague.org

     

    The post Groups launch lawsuit against federal environment minister over decision not to do an Impact Assessment on the Bradford Bypass appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Ontario court examines key habitat protection provisions under province’s Endangered Species Act

    Ecojustice, Environmental Defence, Ontario Nature

    Toronto, Ont./ Traditional territories of several First Nations including the Williams Treaties First Nations, Huron-Wendat, the Anishnaabeg, Haudenosaunee, Chippewas, and the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation Environmental groups are at the Ontario Court of Appeal today in a case that will see the interpretation ofkey habitat protection provisions under the province’s Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA) challenged. The town of South Bruce Peninsula is appealing its conviction for damaging piping plover habitat at Sauble Beach on the shores of Lake Huron.

    This case marks the first time the Ontario Court of Appeal will consider the meaning of “damage” to habitat under Section 10 of the ESA, which makes it an offence to damage or destroy an endangered or threatened species’ habitat. The Town is advocating for an interpretation that would seriously weaken the habitat protection provided by the ESA.

    Ecojustice is representing Environmental Defence and Ontario Nature as intervenors in the case. The groups say a robust interpretation of the ESA is critical to protect and restore vulnerable species and their habitats amidst the rising biodiversity crisis. Habitat loss is the greatest threat to species in Canada. The groups say preserving the integrity of the ESA is critical to hold those who abuse the environment accountable for their actions.

    In 2019, the town of South Bruce Peninsula was convicted on two charges of damaging piping plover habitat, contrary to Section 10 of the ESA. The charges stemmed from mechanical raking and grading work the town undertook at Sauble Beach in April and August of 2017.

    The convictions were upheld on an initial appeal. Now, the town is now bringing a further appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal.

    Piping plovers are a migratory shorebird designated as endangered under the ESA. The birds returned to Ontario in 2007, after a 30-year absence, including to Sauble Beach. Their return highlights new hope for species recovery efforts and the health of the Great Lakes ecosystem as a whole.

    The birds nest on dry, sandy, or gravelly beaches with sparse vegetation. The survival and recovery of the species is principally being threatened by habitat loss and degradation; beach raking has been identified as a significant threat to their habitat.

    Tim Gray, executive director of Environmental Defence said:

    “There are less than two dozen Piping Plovers left in Ontario and Sauble Beach is one of two places where they are raising a new generation. Deliberate destruction of their habitat is a crime and those who do it should be held accountable”

    Lindsay Beck, lawyer, Ecojustice said:

    “Despite Canada’s ecological and economic wealth, we are not immune to the devastating impacts of the biodiversity crisis. Half of monitored wildlife species in Canada (451 of 903) declined in abundance from 1970 to 2014. There is still time to stop at-risk species from vanishing forever — but not very much.

    “The ESA plays a vital role in conserving and restoring endangered and threatened species and their habitats. It is critical the court adopt a robust interpretation of the ESA to protect vulnerable species like the piping plover and hold those who mistreat the environment to account.

    “Equally important to the existence of laws like the ESA is enforcement, ensuring that those who violate the law face consequences.”

    Caroline Schultz, executive director of Ontario Nature said:

    “Bit by bit, decision by decision, endangered species across Ontario are quite literally losing ground in their fight for survival. It’s death by a thousand cuts. There are only a handful of nesting sites for piping plovers in all of Ontario. Precaution is needed to ensure that this habitat is protected from damaging activities – in this case, intensive beach grooming.”

    About

    Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian advocacy organization that works with government, industry, and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate, and healthy communities.

    Ecojustice uses the power of the law to defend nature, combat climate change, and fight for a healthy environment. Its strategic, public interest lawsuits and advocacy lead to precedent-setting court decisions and law and policy that deliver lasting solutions to Canada’s most urgent environmental problems. As Canada’s largest environmental law charity, Ecojustice operates offices in Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Ottawa, and Halifax.

    Ontario Nature protects wild species and wild spaces through conservation, education, and public engagement. A charitable organization, Ontario Nature represents more than 30,000 members and supporters, and more than 155 member groups across Ontario. Since it was established as the Federation of Ontario Naturalists in 1931, Ontario Nature has been a champion for nature. Our vision is simple: An Ontario where nature inspires and sustains us for generations to come.

    For media inquiries

    Allen Braude, Senior Communications Manager | Environmental Defence abraude@environmentaldefence.ca

    Zoryana Cherwick, Communications Specialist | Ecojustice
    zcherwick@ecojustice.ca

    John Hassell, Director of Communications and Engagement | Ontario Nature johnh@ontarionature.org

    The post Environmental groups fight to protect endangered piping plover population at popular Ontario beach appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Toronto | Traditional territories of the Huron-Wendat, the Anishnaabeg, Haudenosaunee, Chippewas and the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation – Lana Goldberg, Ontario Climate Program Manager and Phil Pothen, Ontario Environment Program Manager, experts on Ontario environmental policy from Environmental Defence are available to provide their insights into the Ontario government’s recently released transportation infrastructure plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe . 

    This report is  disappointing  and would  lock Ontario into car-dependent sprawl and traffic congestion for the next 30 years. Rather than offering modern transportation solutions, this government is proposing to build out-of-date mega highways which will destroy forests, farmland, and wetlands, while increasing the province’s carbon emissions. Ontario can and must do better.  

    Who: Lana Goldberg, Ontario Climate Program Manager,

    Phil Pothen, Ontario Environment Program Manager

    When: March 10, 2022 Onwards

    Where: Toronto, Ontario and available remotely

    Background Documents:

    About ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (www.environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    -30-

    For more information or to arrange an interview, please contact: Alex Ross, aross@environmentaldefence.ca

    The post Media Advisory/Interview Opportunity: Environmental Experts available re: Transportation Infrastructure Plan for Greater Golden Horseshoe appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE, BREAST CANCER ACTION QUEBEC, CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICIANS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

    Canadians still unknowingly exposed to toxic chemicals in consumer products

    Toronto | Traditional territories of the Huron-Wendat, the Anishnaabeg, Haudenosaunee, Chippewas and the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation  – The federal government announced today that they will delay action on requiring disclosure of toxic ingredients on labels of consumer products. This stall tactic denies consumers the right to know about ongoing hazardous chemical exposures and allergens that are currently not disclosed on everyday products such as cosmetics and cleaning products.

    By delaying action and addressing only a small number of substances, the government has signalled that it will not meet its election platform promises and Ministerial mandate letters commitments on this important issue. The flame retardant commitment, for example, would only deal with a single type of flame retardant (since the government has only completed one assessment) out of hundreds within this class of chemicals. Most of the needed actions have been delayed to at least Spring 2023 – a year late, with no specificity on what will be regulated or how.

    The failure to act demonstrates the need to amend the newly introduced Bill S-5, which is intended to modernize the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA).

    The government has already undergone years of consultation and has received multiple reports that underscore the need to strengthen CEPA. Notably, a 2017 Parliamentary committee report recommended action on labelling for consumer protection and transparency. Canada is also falling behind Europe and California, which already require product labelling. The EU requires products to be labelled with health warnings for harmful ingredients and carcinogens. California brought in labelling regulations in 2017, flagging allergens and other substances of concern.

    Building on a commitment made last Spring by former Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson, the Liberals’ 2021 Election Platform commits to the following:

    ​​“By Spring 2022, move forward with mandatory labelling of chemicals in consumer products, including cosmetics, cleaning products, and flame retardants in upholstery, that may have impacts on our health or environment.”

    While these delays continue and mandates are ignored, the widespread use of these products continues to impact our health and contaminate the environment.

    Tim Gray, Executive Director, Environmental Defence said: 

    “This is about the right of all Canadians to know what harmful chemicals they are exposed to in everyday products. The government’s failure to act on labelling toxic chemicals in consumer products is an attack on the health of all Canadians. If the government can’t or won’t provide this within their own proposed timeline, we must make it a mandatory requirement through Bill S-5.”

    “Mere months after being re-elected, the government is trying to punt real action on toxics until after the next election.”

    Jennifer Beeman, Executive Director, Breast Cancer Action Quebec said:

    “Labelling of ingredients and substances in products is a fundamental issue of corporate accountability and there is no reason for the government to delay action on this. Corporations have huge latitude in terms of the substances they use in their products, including substances that are toxic and endocrine-disrupting. But then they fight labelling and having to disclose publicly what they use and to take responsibility for it. The use of toxic substances should no longer be hidden from view. Toxic exposures are affecting our health in profound ways. We need full disclosure of ingredients and labelling on the items we use every day or that will be in our homes for years to come.”

    Jane McArthur, Toxics Campaign Director, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment said:

    “Exposure to toxic substances in the products we use in the many environments we live, work and play in is a critical human health concern. One of the mechanisms that people in Canada can use in their efforts to prevent exposures – particularly within certain windows of vulnerability to harm from exposures – is to act on their awareness of product ingredients through transparent labelling. The right to know about exposures is a right that at the very least grants notice of potential harm and provides the transparency people in Canada want about possible exposures and related adverse health impacts. Action on labelling now means prevention of potential health harm in the future. Delay leaves the door open for more adverse health outcomes.”

    Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry, and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate, and healthy communities.

    Breast Cancer Action Quebec is a feminist, environmental health organization whose mission is the prevention of breast cancer, with a particular focus on environmental factors linked to the disease.  Working in collaboration with a wide range of groups, BCAQ educates on toxics and other health issues and works for a clean environment and communities that support the health of their members.

    The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) is a physician-directed non-profit organization working to secure human health by protecting the planet. Since its founding in 1993, CAPE’s work has achieved substantial policy victories in collaboration with many partners in the environmental and health movements. From coast to coast to coast, the organization operates throughout the country with regional committees active in most provinces and all territories.

    -30-

    For more information or to request an interview, please contact:

    Paula Gray, Communications Manager, Environmental Defence, pgray@environmentaldefence.ca, 705-435-8611

    Viorica Lorcencova, Internal Coordinator, Breast Cancer Action Quebec, viorica.lorcencova@acsqc.ca, 514-443-8437

    Pamela Daoust, National Communications Director, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, pamela@cape.ca, 514-267-2589

    The post Federal Government Breaks Promise To Label Products Containing Toxics appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Environmental Defence welcomes strong negotiating mandate for a global plastics treaty

    Toronto | Traditional territories of the Huron-Wendat, the Anishnaabeg, Haudenosaunee, Chippewas and the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation – Today the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) reached an agreement to negotiate a global treaty that could serve to stop and reverse the damage that plastic is wreaking on the global environment and human health. This is a welcome seed of hope in a world in crisis.

    Plastic pollution will soon reach a catastrophic scale. That’s why we’re glad to see that the text of the treaty is expected to be produced by 2024, and will include legally-binding provisions that cover the full life cycle of plastic, from design and production, to use and disposal. This is a commitment to rapid action that recognizes the severity of this crisis worldwide.

    We applaud the Canadian government for the role it played at UNEA in co-ordinating, along with the delegation from Ghana, discussions on the plastics treaty mandate. Global commitments and co-ordination are necessary for achieving the goal of zero plastic waste by 2030.

    At home, the government has already started on this path by announcing pending bans on some of the most harmful single-use plastics: bags, stir sticks, straws, six-pack rings, cutlery and takeout containers. The government has also launched a discussion about implementing requirements that new plastic products and packaging include 50 per cent recycled content. Successful completion of these efforts is critical to Canada playing its part in protecting Canadians and on the international stage.

    There is so much more to do on the road to 2030. We are looking forward to contributing alongside other environmental and public interest groups to the elimination of plastic pollution in Canada and around the world.

    ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    – 30 –

    For more information or to request an interview, please contact:

    Lauren Thomas, Environmental Defence, lthomas@environmentaldefence.ca

     

    The post Statement From Karen Wirsig, Plastics Program Manager, on the Promise of a Global Plastics Treaty appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • (New York, NY — March 1, 2022) The Innocence Project was honored yesterday with two gold medal awards for its “Happiest Moments” video, winning the Best Humanitarian & Services campaign in both the brand and non-profit categories of the Inaugural Anthem Awards, produced by the renowned Webbys Awards. These awards, selected by the International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences, are considered the most prestigious in the digital world. Innocence Project Digital Engagement Director Alicia Maule, who led the campaign, used the five-word acceptance speech to spotlight Melissa Lucio facing execution in Texas on April 27, 2022, for a crime that never occured. 

    “Happiest Moments,” produced in both English and Spanish and narrated by actress Dascha Polanco, tells the remarkable stories of three wrongly convicted people — Rosa Jimenez, freed in 2021 after 17 years in prison; Termaine Hicks, exonerated in 2020 after 16 years in prison; and Huwe Burton, exonerated in 2019 after 20 years in prison. They are three of the 237 people exonerated and freed with the help of the Innocence Project. The video highlights the intergenerational and familial impact of wrongful incarceration, and the irreplaceable memories that were stolen from them while incarcerated. It also celebrates the joy they felt when reunited with their loved ones.

    “The Innocence Project is proud to accept these awards,” said Ms. Maule. “This has been a tremendous team effort with our clients, the guidance of Hayden5, and the impactful approach of director Ariel Ellis. Dascha Polanco was the perfect narrator to connect English and Spanish speakers to our organization. Our goal is to grow the innocence movement to new heights and ‘Happiest Moments’ helped us reach millions of people.” 

     

     

    Hayden5, who lead the production efforts, has an impressive portfolio that includes Long Shot (Netflix), a documentary about a wrongfully accused man, and Revolving Doors (Tribeca) about recidivism, making them an ideal partner. The team handled creative development, production, and post-production using a variety of mixed media and original music to tell the “Happiest Moments” story. 

    The International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences members include Daniel Dae Kim (actor, producer, and activist); Ashley Judd (author, actor, and social justice humanitarian); Mitchell Baker (CEO and chairwoman, Mozilla); Lisa Sherman (president and CEO, Ad Council), Sarah Kate Ellis (president and CEO, GLAAD); Renata Erlikhman (chief investment officer, OW Management); Shayla Tait (director of philanthropy, the Oprah Winfrey Charitable Foundation); Russlynn Ali (CEO and co-founder, XQ Institute); Marc Ecko (chief commercial officer and board member, XQ Institute); Heidi Arthur (chief campaign development officer, Ad Council); and Alexis M. Herman (chair and chief executive officer, New Ventures, and former U.S. secretary of labor).

    “It is our distinct honor to recognize the work that brands, organizations, and individuals are all making to create an impact in their community,” said Jessica Lauretti, managing director, the Anthem Awards. “We launched this platform to show the world that all corners of our culture, from sports and entertainment to business leaders and celebrities, are all standing up to say, it is time for systemic change and that social good is what we value as a society.”

    Winners for the inaugural Anthem Awards were celebrated at the first annual Anthem Voices conference which was followed by a star-studded virtual Awards Show on Monday, Feb. 28, 2022. Fans heard from social impact leaders, including Innocence Project Executive Director Christina Swarns, and were able to view special moments and hallmark speeches from all of the winners here.

    The Anthem Awards were launched in response to the prevalence social good has taken within the national conversation and cultural zeitgeist in recent years. The inaugural competition received nearly 2,500 entries from 36 countries worldwide. By amplifying the voices that spark global change, the Anthem Awards are defining a new benchmark for impactful work that inspires others to take action in their communities. A portion of program revenue will fund a new grant program supporting emerging individuals and organizations working to advance the causes recognized in the inaugural Anthem Awards.

    The post Innocence Project Honored With Two Webby Anthem Awards, Dedicates Action Speech to Melissa Lucio on Texas Death Row appeared first on Innocence Project.

    This post was originally published on Innocence Project.

  • ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE, GRAVEL WATCH ONTARIO, SIMCOE COUNTY GREENBELT COALITION

    New research suggests Highway 413 & Bradford Bypass could have grave implications for communities in 905 and in the Greenbelt

    Impacts on residents, drinking water, climate targets, and farmland need to be considered as part of highway reviews

    Simcoe County, Ont. – New research maps released by Gravel Watch Ontario, Simcoe County Greenbelt Coalition and Environmental Defence suggest that the massive amounts of aggregates needed to build Highway 413 and the Bradford Bypass will be sourced from pits and quarries in the 905 and the Greenbelt. Mining these aggregates will have serious impacts on nearby communities and must be addressed in environmental reviews of the proposed highways.

    According to the research, building the two highways will require approximately 3 million tonnes of new aggregate, and will increase truck traffic within affected communities by over 130,000 truckloads during construction.  The research and analysis shows that several communities within the 905 region are more at risk of becoming the future source of the highways’ aggregate because of their proximity to the proposed routes of the highways, the amount of potential aggregate available, and concentration of existing permits within particular areas.

    Bryan Smith, Gravel Watch Ontario, has been long involved with local aggregate issues and knows what kind of burden this will place on the rural communities that could be affected.

    “These highway proposals are being touted as a net benefit, but the communities where the pits and quarries would make a Swiss cheese of the landscape will not feel the same. From increased truck traffic, wear and tear on local roads, reduced air quality, to issues with groundwater, aggregate comes at a high cost to the host municipality and its residents. There is no net benefit. Consequently, many municipalities are asking the province to make aggregate pay their fair share.”

    The rock, sand and gravel extraction and its impact on communities up to 50 kilometers from  the proposed routes is just another example of how the province is pushing forward these highway proposals without a full examination of their costs and impacts.

    Tim Gray, Executive Director, Environmental Defence, is concerned that environmental assessments of the highways won’t be considering the impacts from required aggregate.

    “The shocking scale of the aggregate needed to build these highways means impacts will be felt by communities across a number of regions. The federal and provincial governments have an obligation to assess and address these widespread impacts as part of a robust and thorough environmental assessment of the highway projects.”

    The mapping research also showed that nearly 40 per cent of the aggregate sites likely to supply material for these projects are located within the Greenbelt. Expansion of those pits puts at risk the crucial ecosystem services the Greenbelt provides, such as clean water, fresh air, healthy food, and habitat for wildlife. These impacts of aggregate extraction on the Greenbelt are compounded by the fact that they are being used, in this case, for projects that run through the Greenbelt, and which will likely lead to increased development pressure on it.

    Margaret Prophet, Executive Director of the Simcoe County Greenbelt Coalition, believes that the highway proposals are yet another example of how this government has targeted the Greenbelt on behalf of developers.

    “We heard promises that “we’re not going to touch the Greenbelt,” and yet this government wants to run two large highways right through it.  The demand for aggregate, and the fact that much of it is likely to come from within the Greenbelt, only makes matters worse. The narrow focus on localized impacts creates a situation in which the Greenbelt is left vulnerable to a death by a thousand cuts. We need honest and transparent conversations. The impact of aggregate mining for these highways is a perfect example of this.”

    The coalition’s research shows there is little that municipalities can do to protect citizens and ensure a healthy environment in the face of pressure from the aggregate industry.

    Tim Gray adds, “The province is knowingly putting communities and the Greenbelt at risk from increased aggregate extraction to build destructive and unnecessary highways. And thanks to recently passed legislation, they have removed almost every tool municipalities used to have to limit or control these impacts. The communities located in these extraction hotspots need to be aware that if these highways go ahead it will impact them, even if they are far from the highways’ routes.”

    -30-

    More information available here:

    Media backgrounder  

    Maps

    ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    ABOUT GRAVEL WATCH ONTARIO (www.gravelwatch.org) : Gravel Watch Ontario acts in the interest of residents and communities to protect the health, safety, quality of life of Ontarians and the natural environment in matters that relate to aggregate resources.

    ABOUT SIMCOE COUNTY GREENBELT COALITION (www.simcoecountygreenbelt.ca): The Simcoe County Greenbelt Coalition is a diverse coalition of 40 organizations from across Simcoe County and the province calling on local and provincial leaders to better protect our water resources, green spaces and farmland through smart growth and sustainable policies including expansion of the Greenbelt into Simcoe County.

    For more information or to request an interview contact

    Allen Braude, Environmental Defence, abraude@environmentaldefence.ca

    Bryan Smith, Gravel Watch Ontario, info@gravelwatch.org

    Margaret Prophet , SCGC, margaret@simcoecountygreenbelt.ca

    The post New research suggests Highway 413 & Bradford Bypass could have grave implications for communities in 905 and in the Greenbelt appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE, ONTARIO ZERO WASTE COALITION, TORONTO ENVIRONMENTAL ALLIANCE

    Ontario government aims to make it easier for companies to establish experimental facilities to burn plastic waste and call it “recycling”

    Toronto | Traditional territories of the Huron-Wendat, the Anishnaabeg, Haudenosaunee, Chippewas and the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation –  Environmental groups from across Ontario are challenging the provincial government’s plan to implement changes to the Environmental Assessment Act. These changes would not only make it easier for companies to launch experimental technologies that claim to recover fuel and/or chemicals from waste, they would also remove important public oversight from these controversial projects.

    “This will create a free-for-all for companies to install unproven technology wherever they want because the government has decided to call burning plastic ‘recycling’,” said Emily Alfred, from the Toronto Environmental Alliance. “The health of Ontario residents should not be put at risk for projects that benefit some of the world’s biggest petrochemical companies.”

    Through a search of the provincial lobbyist registry, the groups learned that two of Canada’s biggest plastic makers, Dow Chemical and Imperial Oil, have reported meeting with government officials about “waste-to-energy” and “waste-to-polymer” projects—which means burning plastic—and about changes to the Environmental Assessment Act.

    “The plastics industry wants us to think it has a magical cure for the plastic pollution crisis, but it’s quackery,” said Karen Wirsig, Plastics Program Manager at Environmental Defence. “Experience in the US shows that these projects don’t work. Of the 37 applications for some form of ‘advanced recycling,’ only three went ahead. Instead of praying for miracles to fix the waste problem, the government should focus on reducing the need for throwaway plastic.”

    “This proposal does not benefit the public in any way,” said Liz Benneian of the Ontario Zero Waste Coalition. “Municipalities used to have to agree to host thermal waste facilities. That’s no longer the case and now companies mostly won’t even have to face public scrutiny through the environmental assessment process. The province is just letting the plastics industry off the hook for the pollution it creates.”

    Under current rules, proposals for projects of this type that treat more than 10 tonnes per day of waste require a comprehensive environmental assessment that involves public consultation and review.

    The proposed changes would allow a project that treats up to 36,500 tonnes of waste per year to avoid an environmental assessment altogether. A project that treats up to 365,000 tonnes of waste would only go through a simplified environmental screening process with ministry staff instead of a full public assessment. To put this into context, the largest waste incinerator in operation in Ontario burns less than 200,000 tonnes of waste per year.

    Under the screening process, the applicant must issue a public notice of the project but not the full details for public review. On the basis of the notice, the public has a short window to request that the environment ministry “elevate” the project to a full assessment, a decision that is subject to the discretion of ministry officials.

    A recent proposal to burn up to 250,000 tonnes of plastic waste on the coast of Newfoundland shows the public value of proper assessment. The project was rejected in mid-February after some 200 residents submitted comments opposing the project under that province’s environmental assessment process.

    BACKGROUND:

    ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    About the Toronto Environmental Alliance (TEA): For over 30 years, the Toronto Environmental Alliance has campaigned locally to find solutions to Toronto’s environmental problems. As a not-for-profit organization, we work with communities to advocate for a green, healthy and equitable city.

    About the Ontario Zero Waste Coalition: We advocate for the circular economy, which manages resources so there is no waste, and against incineration.

    -30-

    For more information or to request an interview, please contact:

    Lauren Thomas, Environmental Defence, lthomas@environmentaldefence.ca

    Jolene Cushman, Toronto Environmental Alliance, jolene@torontoenvironment.org

     

     

     

     

    The post Environmental Groups Decry Province’s Plan to Cut Public Oversight of Controversial Plastic Burning Projects appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Ottawa | Traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg People – The world’s scientists have just delivered their starkest assessment yet of the frightening future that awaits us if we fail to act on climate change. We must reduce emissions as much as we can, as quickly as we can – every bit of warming averted means lives saved. Canada is a wealthy nation and a top-ten emitter – we bear enormous responsibility to lead the world in a responsible transition off of fossil fuels. That means we should not approve new oil and gas projects like the Bay du Nord offshore drilling project. Instead, the government must act immediately on its promises to cap emissions from the oil and gas sector, redirect fossil fuel subsidies into proven climate solutions like energy efficiency and renewable energy and invest in a fair and supported transition for communities and workers. Delay will be measured in lost lives, livelihoods, species and ecosystems.

    ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    – 30 –

    For more information or to request an interview, please contact:

    Barbara Hayes, Environmental Defence, bhayes@environmentaldefence.ca

    The post Statement from Julia Levin, Senior Climate and Energy Program Manager, on today’s International Panel on Climate Change Report appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Two key members of Ms. Lucio’ s original defense team are now working for the Judge overseeing her case and the District Attorney seeking to have her executed

    (Brownsville, Texas) Attorneys for Melissa Lucio today filed two separate motions to remove Judge Gabriela Garcia, who is assigned to Ms. Lucio’s case, and District Attorney Luis Saenz because two key members of Ms. Lucio’s original defense team now work for them. Assistant District Attorney Peter Gilman and Judge Garcia’s court administrator, Irma Gilman, previously represented Ms. Lucio at her 2008 trial. 

    As her prior defense team, Mr. Gilman and Mrs. Gilman owe Ms. Lucio a continuing duty to cooperate with her current counsel, according to today’s filings in the 138th Judicial District Court of Cameron County. (Judge Motion at pp. 1-2. )(D.A. Motion at pp. 11-13.) Ms. Lucio, who is  scheduled for execution on April 27, 2022, was wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death for the accidental death of her two-year-old daughter, Mariah. 

    “Judge Garcia’s and D.A. Saenz’s roles in this case have the effect of obstructing Melissa Lucio’s access to evidence. As Ms. Lucio’s defense team at trial, Peter Gilman and Irma Gilman have a duty to cooperate with Ms. Lucio’s current counsel. But as long as D.A. Saenz is on the case, Peter Gilman’s conflict of interest prevents him from cooperating with Ms. Lucio’s current attorneys. And as long as Judge Garcia is on the case, Irma Gilman can’t cooperate with Ms. Lucio’s counsel because it would be a prohibited ex parte communication,” said Tivon Schardl, Chief of the Capital Habeas Unit of the Federal Defender for the Western District of Texas, and Melissa Lucio’s attorney.

    “Texas law automatically disqualifies Judge Garcia and D.A. Saenz. And both circumstances constitute due process violations under the 14th Amendment,” Schardl added.

    Melissa Lucio’s Motion to Disqualify or Recuse Judge Gabriela Garcia can be viewed here.

    Melissa Lucio’s Motion to Disqualify the Cameron County District Attorney can be viewed here: here.

    Ms. Lucio’s Motion to Disqualify or Recuse Judge Garcia states that Judge Garcia’s court administrator, Irma Gilman, worked on Ms. Lucio’s defense when she was a paralegal for Ms. Lucio’s lead trial counsel, Peter Gilman, her husband. (Judge Motion at p. 1.) The motion states that Mrs. Gilman necessarily learned confidential information while working as Mr. Gilman’s paralegal and that information, under Texas law, is imputed to Judge Garcia. (Judge Motion at p. 1.)

    “Judge Garcia’s and D.A. Saenz’s roles in this case have the effect of obstructing Melissa Lucio’s access to evidence.”

    Among other issues, the motion states, “Mrs. Gilman’s work on Ms. Lucio’s defense made her familiar with the files of defense counsel in Ms. Lucio’s trial. That knowledge makes Mrs. Gilman an important witness for Ms. Lucio as she investigates and presents grounds” for further litigation. (Judge Motion at p. 2.) If Ms. Lucio’s Motion to Disqualify or Recuse the Judge is granted, the judge will void the warrant for Ms. Lucio’s execution. (Judge Motion at pp. 7-8.)

    In a separate motion, Ms. Lucio moves to disqualify District Attorney Saenz on the ground that Peter Gilman, who was Ms. Lucio’s lead defense attorney at her trial, now works for the District Attorney and has since 2009. Mr. Gilman’s dual role as an assistant district attorney and predecessor counsel for Ms. Lucio disqualifies the Cameron County District Attorney’s Office. (D.A. Motion at p. 4.)

    The Motion to Disqualify the Cameron County District Attorney quotes the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, “’If a prosecuting attorney has formerly represented the defendant in the ‘same’ criminal matter as that currently being prosecuted, he is statutorily disqualified.’ This has been called the ‘hard and fast rule of disqualification’ because when [an attorney] switches sides ‘in the same criminal case [there] is an actual conflict of interest [that] constitutes a due-process violation, even without a specific showing of prejudice.’” (D.A. Motion at p. 4.)(citations omitted.)

    ’If a prosecuting attorney has formerly represented the defendant in the ‘same’ criminal matter as that currently being prosecuted, he is statutorily disqualified.’

    The rules of legal ethics also impose on Mr. Gilman a duty to cooperate with Ms. Lucio’s new counsel, which includes reviewing Mr. Gilman’s files to determine whether the D.A.’s office violated Ms. Lucio’s right to a fair trial by suppressing evidence of her innocence. Mr. Gilman has a conflict of interest because his current boss, D.A. Saenz, has pursued a policy of non-cooperation with Ms. Lucio’s current counsel. (D.A. Motion at pp. 11-13.)

    On February 8, 2022, Ms. Lucio filed a motion, which is still pending, to withdraw her execution date because she is innocent, among other grounds. Ms. Lucio, a Mexican-American from the Rio Grande Valley, is on death row despite forensic and eyewitness evidence that her daughter died from a head injury after a fall. Mariah’s death was a tragic accident, not a murder.

    At the time of her arrest, Ms. Lucio had no record of violence. Thousands of pages of protective service records and recorded interviews with her children show that Ms. Lucio was not abusive.

    Hours after her daughter died, and while pregnant with twins, Ms. Lucio was subjected to a five-hour, late-night, carefully orchestrated, and aggressive interrogation until, physically and emotionally exhausted, she agreed to say, “I guess I did it.”

    Lacking any solid physical evidence or eyewitnesses, the prior District Attorney, Armando Villalobos, characterized Ms. Lucio’s acquiescence as a “confession” and prosecuted her for capital murder. D.A. Villalobos, who initially hired Peter Gilman, was corrupt: he is now serving a 13-year federal prison sentence for bribery and extortion, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

    Ms. Lucio suffered a lifetime of sexual abuse, starting at just six years old, and domestic violence, which made her especially vulnerable to the intimidating, coercive, and psychological interrogation tactics that resulted in a false confession. Of the 67 women listed on the National Registry of Exonerations who were exonerated after a murder conviction, over one quarter (17/67) involved false confessions and nearly one third (20/67) involved child victims.

    The post FILING: Texas Law Requires the Removal of Judge Garcia and District Attorney Saenz from Melissa Lucio’s Case appeared first on Innocence Project.

    This post was originally published on Innocence Project.

  • Existing crude oil infrastructure can be used to make up any shortfall caused by a Line 5 closure

    Toronto | Traditional territories of the Huron-Wendat, the Anishnaabeg, Haudenosaunee, Chippewas and the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation – Contrary to claims that a Line 5 closure could trigger an energy crisis, new research shows that this is not the case. A report commissioned by Environmental Defence has found that viable alternatives exist for meeting Ontario and Quebec’s crude oil demand needs in the event of a Line 5 shutdown. This analysis, conducted by an energy industry expert with decades of experience in the oil and gas sector, estimates that with a planned shutdown of Line 5, any gas price changes would essentially go unfelt by consumers, causing an increase of only 1.8 cents CDN per litre.

    Environmental Defence’s ultimate goal is for Canada to transition away from fossil fuels altogether. However, in the short term, crude oil demands must continue to be met. This new research shows that the dangerous Line 5 pipeline can be shut down without disrupting Canada’s energy supply. Other key findings of the report include:

    • A key potential alternative to Line 5 is Line 78, another Enbridge pipeline. As it stands today, the Line 78 pipeline is not being used to its full capacity and can already account for some of the shortfall that would be caused by a Line 5 closure.
    • Line 78 was designed to have an even greater capacity than it currently does. If Line 78 is upgraded to the capacity it was designed for, it could make up the majority of any shortfall caused by a Line 5 closure. This could be done without making changes to the pipeline itself, but rather by making upgrades to pumping facilities.
    • Any remaining shortfall could be made up by existing rail capacity and/or tankers. This would require roughly 2-3 additional trains per day and/or roughly one additional marine tanker on crude oil routes that are currently in use.
    • In terms of Natural Gas Liquids (NGLs), alternative sources available in nearby regions could make up for any shortfall caused by the closure of Line 5.

    “Enbridge claims that a Line 5 closure would trigger an energy supply shortage. But this analysis shows that this is simply not true. This 69-year-old, deteriorating pipeline is at an increased risk of rupture, and it runs right through the heart of the Great Lakes which hold 84 per cent of North America’s freshwater. A spill would be devastating and could engulf over 1100 kms of shoreline. A planned and swift closure is both feasible and necessary,” said Michelle Woodhouse, Water Program Manager at Environmental Defence.

    “When it comes to Line 5, the Canadian government needs to prioritize the protection of the Great Lakes, our greatest freshwater source. Canada also has a duty to uphold Indigenous treaty rights. This includes treaty rights being exercised by Anishinaabeg peoples calling for the shutdown of Line 5 from across Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ontario, to protect their territorial lands, waters, and ways of life,” Woodhouse stated.

    The Canadian government has filed an amicus brief in support of the pipeline and has evoked a 1977 treaty to attempt to block a closure. However, the government has not done a proper assessment of the impacts of closing Line 5 or what alternatives are available. Environmental Defence commissioned this analysis because, while we recognize the clear environmental threat posed by Line 5, we also appreciate the need for crude oil in the near term. This new analysis shows the public and decision-makers that we do not have to choose between protecting the Great Lakes and meeting demand for crude oil.

    “Without a doubt we need to get off fossil fuels and stop moving oil through our environment, but unfortunately we still have crude oil demands to meet in the present day,” added Woodhouse. “The status quo needs to change and a just transition needs to happen. Canada has an obligation to advocate in the best interest of Canadians which means protecting our most precious freshwater resource and ensuring present day oil needs are met.”

    A full summary of the report’s findings can be viewed here: https://environmentaldefence.ca/report/closing-line-5/

    ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    – 30 –

    For more information or to request an interview, please contact:

    Lauren Thomas, Environmental Defence, lthomas@environmentaldefence.ca, 647-687-2687

    The post New Analysis Shows Line 5 Closure Is Manageable: Viable Alternatives Exist to Meet Ontario and Quebec’s Energy Needs in the Event of a Shutdown appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE, BREAST CANCER ACTION QUEBEC, CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICIANS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, DAVID SUZUKI FOUNDATION, ECOJUSTICE, ÉQUITERRE

    CEPA modernization bill now reintroduced in the Senate must be strengthened and passed this year, groups say

    Ottawa | Traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg People – Environmental and health groups are urging Parliament to prioritize Bill S-5, introduced today in the Senate. The groups have long called for Canada’s most important environmental law, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), to be strengthened to better protect the environment and human health.

    Bill S-5 was previously introduced in the House of Commons, as Bill C-28, in the last session of Parliament but was never debated and died on the order paper. The groups are calling for Bill S-5 to be strengthened and passed without further delay.

    CEPA is supposed to protect Canadians from harmful pollution and toxic chemicals, but it has not been updated in over 20 years. In 2017, the House Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development recommended strengthening CEPA. Consideration of these recommendations has now spanned three sessions of Parliament.

    A modernized CEPA must be able to protect everyone in Canada from 21st-century environmental harm. All Senators and MPs must work together to make sure that the bill is improved and passes before the end of the year.

    Groups are recommending amendments to Bill S-5 to make sure that CEPA contains an unqualified right to a healthy environment, that there are no loopholes for substances of the highest risk to remain a threat to the public, and that there are no delays in assessing the risk of dangerous chemicals, among other improvements.

    Canadians cannot wait any longer for Parliament to bring CEPA into the 21st century and finally join other countries in recognizing the human right to a healthy environment in federal law.

    Environmental and health groups urge the House Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to initiate an early consideration of the bill while the Senate debates and votes on this legislation to ensure a strong CEPA becomes law as soon as possible.

    Dr. Elaine MacDonald, Ecojustice Healthy Communities program director said:

    “CEPA reform is urgently needed to protect Canadians – especially the most vulnerable in our society – from dangerous levels of toxic pollution and chemicals. An outdated law means that people in Canada, unlike 156 countries worldwide, do not have the legal right to a healthy environment.

    “Senators and MPs must make CEPA reform a top priority in Parliament and must move quickly to pass a strong and effective law that protects the public from 21st-century threats.”

    Cassie Barker, Environmental Defence Toxics Senior Program Manager said:

    “The toxic chemicals found in our air, water, food and products threaten Canadians and it’s past time to improve the legislation that prevents harm to our health and the environment.

    “We need to heed the science on toxic chemicals, and this legislation needs to be improved so that Indigenous, racialized and low-income communities are no longer the most exposed to these hazards.  When we need to act to prevent environmental harms, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions or banning plastics – it’s done under this Act. The stronger it becomes, the better we can tackle our most pressing pollution problems.”

    Lisa Gue, David Suzuki Foundation national policy manager said:

    ”Bill S-5 would recognize the human right to a healthy environment for the first time in federal law, a critical paradigm shift that reinforces other overdue updates to CEPA. While it’s encouraging that government is moving quickly to revive the bill after it died on the order paper last session of Parliament, as is, the bill isn’t perfect. To set us up for success as we tackle the climate and nature crises, this Parliament – both House and Senate – must prioritize the bill, strengthen it and pass it into law.”

    Jennifer Beeman, Executive Director of Quebec Breast Cancer Action, said:

    “Canadians and First Nations communities know that we have a serious problem with toxic exposures in Canada.  Flame retardants and PFAS in furniture and clothing, BPA in plastics, cash receipts and can linings, phthalates in air fresheners, fabric softeners, perfumes and cosmetics, to name just a few, have all been shown to interfere with biological processes in ways that produce serious harms, including neurological and reproductive disorders and cancers. What citizens don’t understand is why we have all these problems. Our regulatory system for toxic substances has failed us badly, but if this bill is strengthened and passed, the federal government has a real opportunity to protect the environment and the health of citizens. We must absolutely get this reform right.”

    Jane McArthur, Toxics Campaign Director at Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) said: 

    “Today’s environmental health realities must be reflected in legislation to be protective and preventive. For the present and future health of people living and working in Canada, we need meaningful recognition of a human right to a healthy environment, a bill that will close the loopholes on toxic substances and remove barriers to citizens bringing forward concerns about toxic exposures. We need to think for the long-term. Action on CEPA reform now is action for the future of public health and environmental justice.”

    Marc-André Viau, director of government relations at Équiterre, said:

    “Stronger environmental laws make for healthier communities: the two are intricately connected. Updating the Canadian Environmental Protection Act must be a priority for this session of parliament to ensure we have the legislative framework in place for the transition to a green economy.”

    Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry, and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate, and healthy communities.

    Breast Cancer Action Quebec is a feminist, environmental health organization whose mission is the prevention of breast cancer, with a particular focus on environmental factors linked to the disease.  Working in collaboration with a wide range of groups, BCAQ educates on toxics and other health issues and works for a clean environment and communities that support the health of their members.

    The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) is a physician-directed non-profit organization working to secure human health by protecting the planet. Since its founding in 1993, CAPE’s work has achieved substantial policy victories in collaboration with many partners in the environmental and health movements. From coast to coast to coast, the organization operates throughout the country with regional committees active in most provinces and all territories.

    The David Suzuki Foundation (davidsuzuki.org) is a leading Canadian environmental non-profit organization, collaborating with all people in Canada, including government and business, to conserve the environment and find solutions that will create a sustainable Canada through evidence-based research, public engagement and policy work. The Foundation operates in English and French, with offices in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal.

    Ecojustice uses the power of the law to defend nature, combat climate change, and fight for a healthy environment. Its strategic, public interest lawsuits and advocacy lead to precedent-setting court decisions and law and policy that deliver lasting solutions to Canada’s most urgent environmental problems. As Canada’s largest environmental law charity, Ecojustice operates offices in Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Ottawa, and Halifax

    Équiterre offers concrete solutions to accelerate the transition towards a society in which individuals, organizations and governments make ecological choices that are both healthy and equitable.

    –  30  –

    For more information or to request an interview, please contact:

    Stephanie Kohls, Communications Director, Environmental Defence, media@environmentaldefence.ca, 416-885-7847

    Viorica Lorcencova, Internal Coordinator, Breast Cancer Action Quebec, viorica.lorcencova@acsqc.ca, 514-443-8437

    Pamela Daoust, National Communications Director, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, pamela@cape.ca | 514-267-2589

    Brendan Glauser, Communications Director, David Suzuki Foundation, bglauser@davidsuzuki.org, 604-356-8829

    Sean O’Shea, Communications Specialist, Ecojustice, soshea@ecojustice.ca, 416-368-7533 ext. 523

    Anthony Côté Leduc, Media Relations, Équiterre, acoteleduce@equiterre.org, 514-605-2000

    The post Parliament Must Prioritize Passage of Strong Environmental Protection Bill appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Fifty groups call on Canada to lead the global effort, including a more comprehensive ban on harmful plastics and shifting to reuse

     Toronto | Traditional territories of the Huron-Wendat, the Anishnaabeg, Haudenosaunee, Chippewas and the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation – Environmentalists from across Canada are calling on Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to take immediate steps to curb plastic pollution in order to meet its commitment to zero plastic waste by 2030. Signed by 50 organizations, the statement urges the government to move quickly with measures beyond the proposed ban of some single-use plastics.

    “Plastic contributes to climate change and causes disproportionate harm in communities living next to production and waste treatment facilities,” said Karen Wirsig, Plastics Program Manager at Environmental Defence. “Canadians are well aware of the environmental crisis that plastic causes and know we can’t wait for industry to fix the problem. The federal government needs to act to eliminate all unnecessary single-use plastics by the end of the decade and make refillable and reusable packaging and containers more affordable and accessible across the country.”

    Each year, more than four million tonnes of plastic is produced in Canada and 3.3 million tonnes of it is thrown away. Every day, some 8,000 tonnes end up in landfills, incinerators or the natural environment. Polling confirms that Canadians, who are among the top per capita users of plastic in the world, are overwhelmingly concerned about plastic pollution.

    “To end the crisis of plastic in our oceans, Canada must produce and use less single-use plastic, year-over-year. Although the proposed ban on six single-use plastics is a critical first step in ending Canada’s contribution to the global plastic pollution crisis, the proposed regulations should be expanded to include more items and have an accelerated timeline,” said Oceana Canada’s campaign director, Kim Elmslie. “The regulations must not allow Canada to export banned plastics to other countries, and should never allow for one plastic item to be substituted for another.”

    The groups underscore that banning six single-use plastics is not enough, on its own, to address the crisis.

    “Domestic action must be matched by international leadership to tackle the global problem of plastic pollution,” said Lisa Gue, National Policy Manager with the David Suzuki Foundation. “Countries are beginning to discuss a new global plastics agreement, ahead of the UN Environment Assembly later this month, but so far Canada is sitting on the sidelines. We’re calling on the government to support a legally-binding global treaty that addresses the full lifecycle of plastic, from production to use to waste.”

    The groups are calling on the government to reject thermal treatment of waste—what industry calls ‘advanced recycling,’ which is unproven, expensive, polluting and requires the continued production and disposal of throwaway plastic.

    “We’re not going to recycle our way out of this problem,” said Emily Alfred, Waste Campaigner with the Toronto Environmental Alliance. “The government must reject the idea of ‘advanced recycling’ which mostly consists of burning plastic for energy or fuel. New rules should also require companies to change packaging and eliminate toxic additives so that anything that isn’t reduced or reused is recycled safely.”

    The full statement including the full list of signatories is available here.

    Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    The David Suzuki Foundation is a leading Canadian environmental non-profit organization, collaborating with all people in Canada, including government and business, to conserve the environment and find solutions that will create a sustainable Canada through evidence-based research, public engagement and policy work. The Foundation operates in English and French, with offices in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal.

    Oceana Canada was established as an independent charity in 2015 and is part of the largest international advocacy group dedicated solely to ocean conservation. Oceana Canada has successfully campaigned to end the shark fin trade, make rebuilding depleted fish populations the law, improve the way fisheries are managed and protect marine habitat. We work with civil society, academics, fishers, Indigenous Peoples and the federal government to return Canada’s formerly vibrant oceans to health and abundance. By restoring Canada’s oceans, we can strengthen our communities, reap greater economic and nutritional benefits and protect our future.

    About the Toronto Environmental Alliance (TEA): For over 30 years, the Toronto Environmental Alliance has campaigned locally to find solutions to Toronto’s environmental problems. As a not-for-profit organization, we work with communities to advocate for a green, healthy and equitable city.

    – 30 –

    For more information or to request an interview, please contact:

    Lauren Thomas, Environmental Defence, lthomas@environmentaldefence.ca, 647-687-2687

    Tammy Thorne, Oceana Canada, tthorne@oceana.ca,  437-247-0954

    Emily Alfred, Toronto Environmental Alliance, emily@torontoenvironment.org, 416 543 1542

    Brendan Glauser, David Suzuki Foundation  bglauser@davidsuzuki.org,  604-356-8829

    The post Environmental Groups Urge Government to Work Faster and Do More to End Plastic Pollution appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Glyphosate poses an unacceptable risk to human health

    Toronto, Ont./ Traditional territories of several First Nations including the Williams Treaties First Nations, Huron-Wendat, the Anishnaabeg, Haudenosaunee, Chippewas, and the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation – The Federal Court of Appeal has ordered Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) to reconsider an objection to its approval of the pest control product glyphosate, a probable carcinogen. The decision is a major win that upholds Canadians’ right to participate in decision-making about risky pesticides that impact their health and that of the environment.

    This victory stems from a case brought by Safe Food Matters (SFM) who were ably represented by Andrea Gonsalves of Stockwoods, LLP. Unlike other glyphosate cases, this one focused on the actions of the regulator, the PMRA, not about whether the chemical causes cancer. SFM called for a review of the PMRA’s 2017 decision that allowed glyphosate to stay registered in Canada for another 15 plus years.

    Ecojustice lawyers represented the David Suzuki Foundation, Environmental Defence Canada, and Friends of the Earth Canada as interveners in Safe Food Matters Inc. v. Attorney General of Canada. The groups raised concerns about the unduly high threshold the Federal Court set for a member of the public to trigger an independent review panel of a PRMA decision. In its ruling, the Court reaffirmed that allowing the opportunity for public participation is a main pillar of the Pest Control Products Act that must be respected.

    This is the first time the Pest Control Products Act has been considered by the Federal Court of Appeal, providing an opportunity for guidance from the court about how the Act should be interpreted by the PMRA. In the decision, the panel found the Federal Court erred in its interpretation of the term ‘scientifically founded doubt,’ and provided guidance to the PMRA as it goes about its redetermination.

    Laura Bowman, lawyer, Ecojustice said:

    “Ecojustice is pleased with the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision which reinforces the right of Canadians to request an independent scientific review of decisions made by the PMRA about potentially harmful pest control products.

    “The PMRA needs to take the independent review of its pest control product decisions more seriously, and the Federal Court of Appeal confirmed that decisions about independent science must align with the Act’s purpose to prevent unacceptable risks.

    “The Court’s decision will help encourage the PMRA to use the best available scientific research to guide decision-making about this potentially dangerous product.”

    Mary Lou McDonald, founding member and President, Safe Food Matters Inc. said:

    “We are beyond pleased with this decision. The Court did more than just remit our objections back to the PMRA; it added strong ‘guidance’ for PMRA to follow. The PMRA needs to look at our case through a purposive, statutory lens. When making a decision, it must ask, ‘what are we supposed to be doing?’ And the answer is: ‘Protecting Canadians and the environment from the risks of pesticides.’ The answer is not advancing trade or allowing continued sales. It is protecting Canadians.

    “Safe Food Matters’ evidence raised a ‘scientifically founded doubt’ about the 2017 assessment of glyphosate. Based on the guidance provided in the Court of Appeal’s decision, PMRA will now have to explain how its decision-making approach is protective of Canadians. We don’t think they will be able to because they didn’t look at the risks associated with pesticide translocation, indeterminate crops and old data. Our expectation is the PMRA will strike a review panel, and our hope is the panel puts an end to the pre-harvest use of glyphosate.”

    Cassie Barker, Toxics Senior Program Manager, Environmental Defence said:

     “This is an important wake-up call to government officials to ensure that they are conducting comprehensive, science-based reviews of these hazardous substances.

    “When thoughtful, evidence-based questions are raised on the health and environmental impacts of pesticides, government must consider that evidence.

    “Glyphosate residues on our food are a real concern to scientists and Canadians, and it’s time that governments look beyond corporate science and consider the independent evidence for prohibiting this carcinogen.

    “We shouldn’t have to go to court to get government regulators to consider that their information on hazardous pesticides is incomplete, and their decisions to allow these products on our food and in our water are flawed.”

    Beatrice Olivastri, CEO, Friends of the Earth Canada said:

    “This important Court decision is about protecting individuals and the environment from harm by pest control products which are designed to kill.  It reaffirms the important role citizens were given 20 years ago by Parliament when they last overhauled the Pest Control Products Act.

    “Friends of the Earth has grave concerns about the safety of products containing glyphosate as their active ingredient that the Pest Management Regulatory Agency has allowed into Canada. There is a lack of confidence in PMRA’s assessment of glyphosate. As a minimum, a review panel of independent scientists is essential to building any public confidence in PMRA.”

    Background 

    In April 2017, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency released its re-evaluation on glyphosate which failed to take into account its impact on human health. Despite alarming evidence brought to light by the Monsanto papers, and additional evidence submitted by Safe Food Matters and other NGOs in their notices of objection, the PMRA determined the risks to human health and the environment were acceptable without new restrictions.

    Safe Food Matters raised concerns about the decision-making process undertaken by the PMRA regarding this harmful chemical. The group looked at pre-harvest use of glyphosate on certain crops. The organization saw high levels in cereal and legume crops, and objected that PMRA had not properly considered:

    • how glyphosate gets into these crops (mechanism of translocation);
    • that it will always be present in crops like lentils and chickpeas (indeterminate crops); and
    • that the consumption data PMRA used was not telling the true story. 

    The dietary consumption data was based on what Americans ate in 1994-1996 and 1998, not Canadians’ diets, and Canadians are now consuming far greater quantities of chickpeas, hummus, and other legumes than in the 1990s. The PMRA should not rely on outdated scientific data from other regions when making important decisions about chemicals that impact the health of Canadians and our environment.

    Canada’s health minister subsequently refused requests from SFM and several other environmental and health organizations for an independent panel to review the decision to continue the registration of glyphosate use in Canada. In early 2019, Safe Food Matters initiated legal action. The Federal Court dismissed their application to judicially review the Minister of Health’s decision, a ruling that the Federal Court of Appeal victory overturns. Ecojustice represented the interveners David Suzuki Foundation, Environmental Defence, and Friends of the Earth Canada in this appeal.

    About

    Ecojustice uses the power of the law to defend nature, combat climate change, and fight for a healthy environment. Its strategic, public interest lawsuits and advocacy lead to precedent-setting court decisions and law and policy that deliver lasting solutions to Canada’s most urgent environmental problems. As Canada’s largest environmental law charity, Ecojustice operates offices in Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Ottawa, and Halifax.

    Safe Food Matters Inc. is a Canadian non-profit corporation, engaged in policy issues on pesticides and crop production technologies that harm Canadians and the environment. It works to improve the regulatory landscape and is currently active on issues relating to glyphosate, chlorpyrifos and gene editing. It would like to see improvements in the risk assessment process used by Health Canada.

    The David Suzuki Foundation is a leading Canadian environmental non-profit organization, collaborating with all people in Canada, including government and business, to conserve the environment and find solutions that will create a sustainable Canada through evidence-based research, public engagement, and policy work. The Foundation operates in English and French, with offices in Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal.

    Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry, and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate, and healthy communities.

    Friends of the Earth Canada is the Canadian member of Friends of the Earth International, the world’s largest grassroots environmental network campaigning on today’s most urgent environmental and social issues.

    To arrange an interview:

    Zoryana Cherwick, Communications Specialist | Ecojustice
    1-800-926-7744 ext. 277, zcherwick@ecojustice.ca    

    Media Relations| Safe Food Matters Inc.
    905 467-8531, SafeFoodMatters@gmail.com

    Beatrice Olivastri, CEO, Friends of the Earth
    1-613-724-8690, beatrice<at>foecanada.org 

    Cassie Barker, Toxics Senior Program Manager | Environmental Defence
    media@environmentaldefence.ca

    The post Court orders Health Canada to re-consider objections to approval of dangerous pesticide appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Vancouver, Edmonton, Toronto, Ottawa – Environmental groups Environmental Defence, West Coast Environmental Law, Stand.earth, Dogwood and the Wilderness Committee have launched legal proceedings against Alberta Premier Jason Kenney and the Alberta government for defamatory statements that directly contradicted the findings of the final report of the Public Inquiry into Anti-Alberta Energy Campaigns. The suit was filed after Premier Kenney and the Alberta government refused to retract statements and issue an apology.

    “All we asked for was a correction and an apology, but Premier Kenney refuses to retract the false statements he made and apologize for lying about the results of the Alberta Inquiry,” said Tim Gray, Executive Director of Environmental Defence. “In a democracy like Canada, a high ranking government official should be held accountable for attempting to publicly alter the results of a Public Inquiry and for using his office to condemn and defame those he doesn’t agree with.”

    Groups contend that statements in the Alberta government’s “Key Findings” document, which were subsequently repeated and amplified by Premier Kenney on social media platforms Facebook and Twitter, are defamatory as they assert environmental groups have deliberately spread “misinformation” about the Alberta oil and gas industry. Inquiry Commissioner Steve Allan was unequivocal in his report that he made no such finding.

    Over a two-year time period, groups and individuals were named publicly and targeted on social media, causing some individuals to receive death threats. At a 2019 press conference where Premier Kenney discussed the Alberta Energy War Room, a poster of one of the plaintiffs, Tzeporah Berman, international program director at Stand.earth, covered with a red circle and slash, was displayed at a government press conference without condemnation.

    “Premier Kenney has been lying in a desperate attempt to turn back time. We are all feeling the effects of overheating and extreme weather and we need a plan for winding down oil and gas that leaves no worker or their family behind. There is no place for lies and attacks that threaten concerned Canadians,” said Tzeporah Berman of Stand.earth.  “Premier Kenney’s actions have increased polarization and delayed planning that would support Alberta workers and their families during the energy transition and keep us all safe from more extreme weather, fires and flooding.”

    Groups are asking for $15,000 each in actual damages and an additional $500,000 in punitive damages against Premier Kenney to dissuade him and other Canadian public officials from using the power of their office to bully their critics. The five groups launched the defamation case on behalf of multiple organizations and individuals impacted by Kenney’s statements.

    -30-

    For more information, please contact:

    Allen Braude, Senior Communications Manager, Environmental Defence, abraude@environmentaldefence.ca

    Paul Champ, Human Rights Lawyer, (613) 816-2441

    Anna Johnston, Staff Lawyer, West Coast Environmental Law, (604) 601-2508

    Tzeporah Berman, Stand.earth, (604) 313-4713

    Peter McCartney, Climate Campaigner, Wilderness Committee (778) 239-1935

    Kai Nagata, Communications Director, Dogwood (604) 900-5340

    The post Environmental Organizations Sue Premier Kenney For Defamation appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • (Austin, Texas) The trial court judge overseeing Rodney Reed’s July 2021 evidentiary hearing abdicated his role as an unbiased, deliberative, independent fact finder and rubberstamped the State’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, according to the Memorandum and Objections to Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that Mr. Reed’s attorneys filed today at the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA). Because the judge abandoned his duty to be a neutral, independent fact finder, the CCA should reject the trial court’s copy-and-pasted order, Mr. Reed argues.

    Rodney Reed’s Memorandum and Objections to Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law can be viewed, here.

    Mr. Reed was scheduled for execution in November 2019, but the CCA issued a stay to allow the courts to consider new evidence of his innocence and remanded the case to the 21st Judicial District Court in Bastrop County for an evidentiary hearing. Despite the new, overwhelming evidence of innocence presented at the evidentiary hearing, Judge J.D. Langley adopted, nearly verbatim, the State’s proposed order, including several obvious factual misrepresentations.

    “The abdication of the judge’s duty cannot be tolerated, especially when an innocent man’s life is at stake.”

    “The abdication of the judge’s duty cannot be tolerated, especially when an innocent man’s life is at stake. The CCA entrusted Judge Langley with making impartial findings and independent assessments of witnesses’ credibility, supported by the evidence. That did not happen,” said Jane Pucher, Senior Staff Attorney at the Innocence Project, and one of Mr. Reed’s attorneys.

    At closing arguments, the judge demonstrated that he completely misunderstood his role as an independent fact finder and intended to adopt, in its entirely, one side’s proposed order: “What I’m here today to find out is why you think I ought to sign your version.” (Objections at pp. 1-2.)

    Convicted by an all-white jury in 1998, Mr. Reed, a Black man, has spent 23 years on death row for a crime he did not commit. In 1996, Stacey Stites, a white woman with whom Mr. Reed was having an affair, was found murdered in Bastrop County. For nearly a year, the prime suspect in the case was Ms. Stites’s fiancé, Jimmy Fennell, a police officer who was abusive and violent toward Ms. Stites, according to numerous witnesses. But the police turned their attention to Mr. Reed when DNA recovered from Ms. Stites matched him.

    The judge’s cut-and-pasted order shows that he failed in his duty to carefully and independently assess the credibility of 47 witnesses. Having adopted the State’s proposed order wholesale, the court found all 20+ witnesses on Mr. Reed’s behalf to be not credible and found all 20+ witnesses on the State’s behalf to be credible.

    “It is not plausible that ALL of Mr. Reed’s witnesses were not credible, including former law enforcement officers. That is especially true, given that the witnesses Mr. Reed called had no motive to help him: these were friends and co-workers of Ms. Stites and of Mr. Fennell,” said Pucher.

    At least eight witnesses, including Ms. Stites’s co-workers, friends, and family, and a former member of law enforcement, testified at the evidentiary hearing that Ms. Stites and Mr. Reed knew each other and were romantically involved at the time of her death. This testimony disproved the State’s theory at trial that Mr. Reed and Ms. Stites were strangers, she never would have associated with him, and therefore he must have kidnapped and sexually assaulted her. (Objections at p. 17.)

    In particular, Suzan Hugen, Ms. Stites’s friend and co-worker, testified at the evidentiary hearing that she saw Ms. Stites standing close to a Black man at the HEB, the two were laughing and flirting, and Ms. Stites introduced him to Ms. Hugen as “Rodney” and a good friend. Ms. Hugen, a disabled mother of four, traveled from out of state to testify “for Stacey,” her friend and former co-worker. (Objections at pp. 17, 22, 25, 39.) Despite the fact that eight witnesses corroborated each other, the court did not credit any of the testimony showing Ms. Stites and Mr. Reed knew each other.

    At least nine witnesses, including Ms. Stites’s friends and co-workers, and a member of law enforcement, testified at the evidentiary hearing that Ms. Stites and Mr. Fennell did not have a happy relationship. Their testimony described Ms. Stites’s and Mr. Fennell’s relationship as hostile, controlling, and even abusive. This evidence directly contradicted Mr. Fennell’s testimony at Mr. Reed’s trial that the couple had a loving and trouble-free relationship and were looking forward to their wedding. (Objections at p. 22.). Their testimony also explained Mr. Fennell’s motive to harm his fiancée: he suspected she was cheating on him with a Black man.

    Charles Wayne Fletcher, a former member of the Bastrop County Sheriff’s Office, stated that Mr. Fennell told him a month before Ms. Stites was murdered that she was “fucking a ni****.” (Objections at pp. 22, 27.) The son of Ms. Stites’s downstairs neighbor testified that he was with his father when he told former Lee County District Attorney Ted Weems about the violent fights he overheard in Ms. Stites’s and Mr. Fennell’s apartment, information that the State illegally suppressed at the time of trial. (Objections at pp. 22-23.) Equally shocking, an insurance agent who sold life insurance to Ms. Stites with Mr. Fennell present testified that Ms. Stites said she was not sure why she needed life insurance. Mr. Fennell responded: “If I ever caught you messing around on me, I will kill you and nobody’ll know that I was the one that did it.” (Objections at p. 23.)

    Despite the corroborating testimony of these nine witnesses, the court discredited it all. (Objections at p. 24.) In contrast, the only witnesses who testified that the couple’s relationship was peaceful, and that the court credited as credible, were Mr. Fennell himself, his mother, and his sister. Mr. Fennell, of course, has every reason to bend the truth.

    At least three witnesses testified at the evidentiary hearing that Mr. Fennell knew Ms. Stites was having an affair with a Black man and therefore had a motive to murder her. Two more witnesses testified that Mr. Fennell made callous remarks about Ms. Stites soon after her death. Two other witnesses testified that Mr. Fennell confessed to killing Ms. Stites. If this evidence had been presented at trial, it would have undercut the image of Mr. Fennell as a grieving fiancé, shown that Mr. Fennell had a motive to kill Ms. Stites, and the jury would not have convicted Mr. Reed. (Objections at pp. 27-29.)

    In addition to Mr. Fletcher’s testimony that Mr. Fennell was aware of an affair with a Black man, James Clampit, a deputy in the Lee County Sheriff’s Office and an acquaintance of Mr. Fennell’s, testified that he attended Ms. Stites’s viewing, where he heard Mr. Fennell say “she got what she deserved.” (Objections at p. 27.) That testimony was corroborated by another member of law enforcement and former co-worker of Mr. Fennell’s, Cindy Schmidt, who testified that she overheard Mr. Fennell say at Ms. Stites’s viewing: “at least the bitch got to wear her wedding dress.” (Objections at p. 27.)

    Two people who were incarcerated with Mr. Fennell, when he was serving a ten-year sentence for sexually assaulting a woman in his custody as a police officer, testified that Mr. Fennell knew about Ms. Stites’s affair with a Black man and confessed to killing her. One testified
    that Mr. Fennell said that he “took care of her” and “that damn n[-word] is going to do the time” while making a strangulation gesture. (Objections at p. 28.)

    The court did not credit any of these witnesses, including the former law enforcement officers, and instead credited the statements of Mr. Fennell, whose testimony was uncorroborated and self-serving. (Objections at p. 29.)

    The court clearly erred in crediting Mr. Fennell’s self-serving and uncorroborated testimony over more reliable witnesses who, unlike Mr. Fennell, had no motive to lie. Mr. Fennell had a strong motivation to lie because he was once the prime suspect in Ms. Stites’s murder and would be again if Mr. Reed’s conviction was overturned. (Objections at p. 29.)

    At the evidentiary hearing, Mr. Fennell was caught in lies numerous times. For example, he said he only texted with a State investigator once or twice before the hearing, but Mr. Reed’s counsel presented evidence that he and the investigator texted over 100 times. Mr. Fennell denied cleaning out his bank accounts after Ms. Stites’s death, but a police report and bank records showed that he did. Mr. Fennell also testified that he did not use the “N” word very often, but several witnesses testified to the contrary, and he later admitted that he did use the word. (Objections at pp. 29-30.)

    Mr. Fennell asserted, implausibly, that every single one of Mr. Reed’s witnesses – nearly two dozen witnesses – was lying at the evidentiary hearing. Mr. Fennell was forthcoming on one key point: he testified that he pled guilty to kidnapping and improper sexual contact with a person in his custody as a police officer and served 10 years in prison for the offense. (Objections at pp. 30-31.)

    In addition, nationally recognized experts who testified at the evidentiary hearing completely debunked the forensic case against Mr. Reed. Two nationally recognized forensic experts testified pro bono that the conviction against Mr. Reed was based on flawed forensic testimony. The State’s two forensic experts agreed with Mr. Reed’s experts on several key points, including that the State sponsored false scientific testimony at Mr. Reed’s trial. Despite this agreement, the court refused to credit any of Mr. Reed’s forensic experts. Former Travis County Medical Examiner Roberto Bayardo filed an affidavit in 2012 stating that key points of his trial testimony were “incorrect” and not “medically or scientifically supported,” but the court, in adopting the State’s proposed order without changes, incorrectly found that Dr. Bayardo did not recant his testimony. (Objections at pp. 31-38.)

    The court ignored compelling evidence that Mr. Reed’s expert witnesses were more credible than the State’s experts. Significantly, Mr. Reed’s forensic experts testified pro bono, while the State’s experts charged up to $500 per hour. After Mr. Reed’s experts issued their report, 14 other respected forensic pathologists agreed with its conclusions. The court did not acknowledge this overwhelming support for Mr. Reed’s experts’ conclusions in its order. (Objections at pp. 39-40.)

    On the eve of the July 2021 evidentiary hearing, the State revealed, for the first time, that friends and co-workers of Ms. Stites told police — before Mr. Reed’s trial — that Mr. Reed and Ms. Stites knew each other and were romantically involved. This testimony disproved the State’s theory at Mr. Reed’s trial that he and Ms. Stites were strangers, who would not have associated with each other, and therefore he had to have kidnapped and sexually assaulted her. Despite having these witness statements in its files, the State falsely told the jury investigators “talked to all these people” and looked high and low for evidence of a relationship and found no evidence. (See Mr. Reed’s Request for Grant of Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus at here.)

    The State also illegally suppressed statements from Ms. Stites’s neighbors about loud domestic violence arguments between Ms. Stites and Mr. Fennell. After Ms. Stites’s murder, her downstairs neighbor, William Sappington, reported violent domestic arguments between Ms. Stites and Mr. Fennell to a police officer and a District Attorney in neighboring Lee County, Ted Weems. Although then-District Attorney Weems was required to turn this information over to Mr. Reed’s attorneys, he — like other police and prosecutors — did not do so. (See Mr. Reed’s Request for Grant of Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus at here.)

    These two crystal clear Brady violations follow a pattern of earlier Brady violations that are still pending before the CCA and are detailed in Mr. Reed’s 2019 habeas petition.

    Pucher added, “For 23 years, prosecutors illegally hid evidence that could have exonerated Mr. Reed. Under the U.S. Supreme Court case Brady vs. Maryland (1963), the State had an affirmative duty to turn over all evidence that was favorable to Mr. Reed’s defense. Instead, the State hid the evidence pointing to Mr. Reed’s innocence for more than two decades. Under the black letter law of Brady, Mr. Reed’s conviction and death sentence must be overturned.”

    The post Judge at Rodney Reed’s Innocence Hearing Abandoned his Duty as a Neutral, Thoughtful Fact Finder appeared first on Innocence Project.

    This post was originally published on Innocence Project.

  • Toronto | Traditional territories of the Huron-Wendat, the Anishnaabeg, Haudenosaunee, Chippewas and the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation – Today, Premier Doug Ford and Municipal Affairs Minister Steve Clark are meeting with Ontario’s Big City Mayors and Regional Chairs at the Provincial-Municipal Housing Summit. The government says this meeting will aim to “tackle the issue of housing affordability.” However, Minister Clark’s recent statements suggest any discussion on the well-founded concerns about out-of-reach rents and home prices will be little more than a pretext to demand urban boundary expansions onto farms and forests and the reduction of environmental protections, neither of which will increase housing supply or address affordability.

    Environmental Defence spokespeople are available for interviews about the key facts and actions required for housing affordability that should be part of the Provincial-Municipal Housing Summit. Additional information and data are available in this backgrounder.

    1. There is no shortage of land to build homes: Constrained housing supply and high home prices are not due to a lack of developable land. On the contrary, there is more than enough land inside existing urban boundaries in most regions to meet growth needs for at least 20 years.
    2. We need to build homes where people want to live: Inadequate housing supply is one of the factors behind rising rents and home prices, but this problem can be traced to a failure to add enough new housing to existing neighborhoods and built-up areas, particularly those well served by public transit, and well-suited to getting around on foot.
    3. There are known solutions that will support building more homes where they are needed: We can meet demand for housing of all types by ending “exclusionary zoning” of single family homes, making efficient use of existing “greenfield” land, intensifying around public transit, and other policies aimed to create a variety of home types in the places people want to live and where it is cheaper and more environmentally responsible to house them.
    4. “Sprawl and Highway” planning makes housing less affordable: The proposed 413 and Bradford Bypass highways, and recent changes to the Growth Plan won’t just destroy farmland, forests and wetlands. They’ll also push development into costly, low-density forms and locations that force residents to squander income on multiple automobiles.

    For more information on each of these items please read this backgrounder.

    WHAT: Interview opportunities with Environmental Defence spokespeople about the Provincial-Municipal Housing Summit including housing affordability key facts and required actions

    WHEN: Wednesday January 19, 2022

    WHO: Tim Gray, Executive Director, Environmental Defence; Phil Pothen, Ontario Environment Program Manager, Environmental Defence

    ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    – 30 –

    For more information or to request an interview, please contact: Allen Braude, Environmental Defence, abraude@environmentaldefence.ca

    The post Spokespeople available to comment on the Provincial-Municipal Housing Summit, including housing affordability facts and key required actions appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Rules needed to define what is recyclable and compostable to avoid greenwashing

    Toronto | Traditional territories of the Huron-Wendat, the Anishnaabeg, Haudenosaunee, Chippewas and the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation – Environmental Defence welcomes the agreement that will see Keurig Canada pay $3 million in penalties after Canada’s Competition Bureau found that the company’s claims about the recyclability of its plastic coffee pods amount to greenwashing.

    This result follows years of concern expressed by Environmental Defence and other organizations about how the false claims that companies make about their packaging are contributing to the plastic pollution crisis.

    The finding sends a warning to all other companies who make dubious claims about the recyclability of their products and packaging. However, it’s still too easy to make these claims in Canada due to the lack of a standard definition of recyclability. Very little plastic packaging in Canada should carry the claim it is recyclable. But at the moment, the only option for the public is to make a complaint with the Competition Bureau on individual products and hope an investigation will result in change.

    Overall, only 12 per cent of plastic packaging is recycled in Canada. Clear PET bottles, like those used for water, and non-coloured HDPE bottles, such as those used for milk, are the most likely to be recycled, particularly if they are subject to a deposit-return system. Flexible packaging, including film bags and wrap, are almost never recycled.

    We know Canadians want products that don’t contribute to the growing crisis of plastic pollution. The federal government must:

    • Ban difficult or impossible to recycle products, and ensure the six single-use items slated for elimination can no longer be sold in Canada by the end of this year.
    • Develop a Canada-wide standard that makes it clear what recyclable or compostable products and packaging means.
    • Provide support to help Canadian businesses and consumers shift to reusable packaging and products.

    ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    – 30 –

    For more information or to request an interview, please contact:

    Lauren Thomas, Environmental Defence, lthomas@environmentaldefence.ca

    The post Statement From Karen Wirsig, Plastics Program Manager, on the Competition Bureau Finding Regarding Keurig’s Greenwashing Claims About K-pods appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Regulations to ban single-use plastics in Canada are welcome, but improvements are needed 

    Toronto | Traditional territories of the Huron-Wendat, the Anishnaabeg, Haudenosaunee, Chippewas and the Mississaugas of the Credit First NationEnvironmental Defence is relieved to finally see the federal government follow through on its promise to ban some harmful single-use plastics. The draft regulations require strengthening before they are finalized in the new year, but are an important step in addressing the crisis of plastic pollution.

    Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised to ban problematic plastic packaging and products, including bags, straws, cutlery and takeout containers, “as of 2021.” The final regulations must ban the sale and use of these items as soon as possible in 2022 and not, as suggested in the draft regulation, in 2024. We know that Canadians overwhelmingly support these much needed bans—there is no reason to delay elimination of these harmful products any further.

    To help reach its commitment of Zero Plastic Waste by 2030, the government also needs to expand the list of banned single-use plastics, including hot and cold drink cups and lids, which are consistently found littered in the environment.

    Plastic pollution is a global crisis but the draft regulations only address import and sale in Canada. That means Canadian companies can continue to make these harmful products for export. The government must ban their manufacture for export or Canadian-made single-use plastic products will continue to pollute other countries.

    We are encouraged that the Canadian government is taking an important step in banning some single-use plastics. But this is just the beginning. We will be reviewing the draft regulations in detail in order to provide a more fulsome comment in early 2022. We look forward to a strengthened final ban regulation and to supporting further federal action to address plastic pollution.

    ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    – 30 –

    For more information or to request an interview, please contact:

    Lauren Thomas, Environmental Defence, lthomas@environmentaldefence.ca

    The post Statement from Karen Wirsig, Plastics Program Manager, on the Early Draft of the Proposed Single-Use Plastics Prohibition Regulations appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE, DAVID SUZUKI FOUNDATION, ONTARIO NATURE, WILDERNESS COMMITTEE

    Fund set up to allow the destruction of species at risk habitats

    Toronto | Traditional territories of the Huron-Wendat, the Anishnaabeg, Haudenosaunee, Chippewas and the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation – On the heels of a blistering report by the Auditor General of Ontario, laying out the abject failure of the Government of Ontario to protect and recover the province’s most endangered plants and animals, the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) has decided to forge ahead regardless with its Species at Risk Conservation Fund. Aptly dubbed by its many critics as “Pay-to-Slay,” the fund will make it far easier for habitat destruction to occur at the hands of industry and developers.

    The fund provides an appealing alternative for proponents of harmful activities. As summed up by MECP, the fund allows them “greater flexibility” and will “shorten timelines, reduce burden and provide cost certainty for businesses.” Rather than having to undertake on-the-ground actions to compensate for damage done, those businesses will be able to pay into the fund and then wash their hands of any further responsibility.

    “By making it quick and easy, the fund provides a perverse incentive for destruction,” says Dr. Anne Bell of Ontario Nature. “It’s blood money from those who want to rip up or pave over the forests, fields and wetlands where species at risk persist.”

    So far, MECP has designated six conservation fund species – four birds, one turtle and a tree: barn swallow, bobolink, eastern meadowlark, eastern whip-poor-will, Blanding’s turtle and butternut. All threatened or endangered, they and their habitats will be exposed to the destructive intentions of those willing to pay into the fund as of April 2022. For most of them, habitat loss is a key factor in their decline.

    “It’s another huge step backwards,” says Rachel Plotkin of the David Suzuki Foundation. “Just last month the Auditor General revealed that authorizations for harmful activities had increased by an astounding 6,262 percent since 2009. Once the fund is operational, those numbers will further skyrocket.”

    One of the species highlighted in the Auditor General’s report was Blanding’s turtle, a conservation fund species that has already been subject to more than 1,400 approvals for harmful activities. It has declined by more than 60 percent over the last three generations.

    “I’m very concerned for Blanding’s turtle – habitat loss is the biggest driver of their decline,” says Katie Krelove of Wilderness Committee. “The fund simply clears the way for the bulldozers.”

    Once payments are made into the fund, there is no direct link between the harm inflicted (the degree or location of the negative impact) and the remedy to be provided through the fund. There is also a strong likelihood of significant delays between the harmful activities and conservation actions enabled through the fund.

    “This fund is first and foremost about streamlining approvals for destroying the habitat of our rarest and most vulnerable wildlife,” says Tim Gray, Executive Director, Environmental Defence. “The province is putting endangered species on the chopping block. It’s clear that the dire warnings from the Auditor General have been ignored.”

    -30-

    For more information, read our backgrounder.

    Media Inquiries:

    John Hassell, Director of Communications and Engagement | Ontario Nature johnh@ontarionature.org

    Rachel Plotkin, Ontario Science Projects Manager | David Suzuki Foundation rplotkin@davidsuzuki.org

    Allen Braude, Senior Communications Manager | Environmental Defence abraude@environmentaldefence.ca

    Katie Krelove, Ontario Campaigner | Wilderness Committee  katie@wildernesscommittee.org

    About:

    Ontario Nature is a charitable organization that has been working to protect Ontario’s wild species and wild spaces through conservation, education and public engagement since 1931.

    The David Suzuki Foundation is a national, non-profit organization that uses evidence-based research, education and policy analysis to conserve and protect the natural environment, and help create a sustainable Canada.

    Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    Wilderness Committee is a national charity dedicated to preserving wilderness, protecting wildlife, defending parks, safeguarding public resources and fighting for a healthy climate.

     

    The post Environmental Groups Sound Alarm Over Implementation of Pay-to-Slay Fund appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Ottawa | Traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg People – United States President Joe Biden has just issued a new policy which orders an immediate halt to public financing of high-carbon-emission industrial projects overseas. Though imperfect, the policy will likely bring an end to billions of dollars in annual funding for fossil fuel projects.

    The Government of Canada should follow the U.S.’s lead. At COP26, Canada joined other international leaders in announcing an end to support for overseas fossil fuel projects by the end of 2022. Canada doesn’t have to wait a year to follow through on the pledge. The Government of Canada should introduce a policy to immediately end this support in lockstep with the U.S.

    ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    Additional information

    – 30 –

    For more information or to request an interview, please contact:

    Barbara Hayes, Environmental Defence, bhayes@environmentaldefence.ca

    The post Statement from Julia Levin, Senior Climate and Energy Program Manager, on the U.S. decision to immediately end public financing of fossil fuels overseas appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Ottawa | Traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg People – Canadian decision makers in government and business are ill-served by the 2021 Canada’s Energy Future report released today by the Canada Energy Regulator (CER). Excluding an energy scenario where Canada and the world achieve success at stopping rampant global heating deprives Canada of a roadmap for its energy development in a carbon-constrained world.

    Astoundingly, the CER does not even estimate carbon emissions for its chosen scenarios. Predictions of future energy use that do not include impacts on carbon emissions and climate change – the most important consideration for energy development today – are not helpful in informing investment and policy decisions for Canada. In the future, the CER should take a page from the International Energy Agency by developing a scenario for climate action success, putting it at the centre of its annual report, and including estimates of carbon emissions for all its scenarios.

    ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    – 30 –

    For more information or to request an interview, please contact:

    Barbara Hayes, Environmental Defence, bhayes@environmentaldefence.ca

    The post Statement from Dale Marshall, National Climate Program Manager, on the Canada Energy Regulator’s 2021 Energy Future Report appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Toronto | Traditional territories of the Huron-Wendat, the Anishnaabeg, Haudenosaunee, Chippewas and the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation – Today, Ontario’s Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk lent her authoritative voice to the chorus of citizens, Environmental NGOs, land use planning experts, and non-partisan civil servants who have sounded the alarm about the government’s approach to land-use planning in Ontario.

    According to Lysyk, the government’s changes to Growth Plan policies, together with its unprecedented overuse of Minister’s Zoning Orders (MZOs) have “undermined” the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe’s “long-term vision” of reining-in sprawl in the region. She notes that Minister Clark ignored warnings from within the provincial civil service itself, regarding the risks his approach to land-use would create.

    Of particular note, Auditor General Lysyk found:

    • 2020 amendments to the Growth Plan and other Greater Golden Horseshoe planning documents were made despite warnings from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Ministry of Environment Conservation and Parks, and Ministry of Agriculture, regarding their impact on the loss of agricultural land, and on natural heritage, and clean water.
    • The proposed Highway 413 is an example of an infrastructure decision inconsistent with the province’s land-use planning policies.
    • The Growth Plan overestimations of population growth in outer Greater Golden Horseshoe suburbs are having adverse practical and financial consequences for those municipalities, but the government is failing to investigate whether there are flaws in the projection methodology or other factors which account for the disparity between projected and actual growth.
    • The Ministry’s refusal to extend the July 1, 2022 deadline for Municipal Plan completion after its last-minute revisions to the Growth Plan and Land Needs Assessment Methodology, means that municipalities have not been given the time needed to update their official plans properly.
    • The Ministry of Municipal Affairs is failing to measure its progress towards targets such as: creating more density in existing neighborhoods, ensuring new development has enough density to support public transit, and diverting growth inside urban boundaries. In fact, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs insists it is still working on the indicators it will use to assess progress and have not provided a timeline for completing them. This is despite a performance report six years ago that these indicators needed to be developed.
    • The broad and frequent use of MZOs is undermining municipal land-use and fiscal planning, pushing sprawl development outside settlement area boundaries, where it is inappropriate. While the government has often justified Minister’s Zoning Orders by asserting they were requested by municipal governments, the Auditor General found that in 68 per cent of cases, these requests actually completely circumvented the upper-tier municipal governments that are actually in charge of regional land-use planning and public services.
    • The government’s failure to create any formal criteria or transparent process for issuing MZOs risks creating perceived conflicts of interest, with a large share of MZOs benefitting the same seven developers. Moreover, “enhancements” to the MZO power, such as exemption from the Provincial Policy Statement, the overriding of site plan control, and the forced issuance of Conservation Authority permits, have eliminated independent checks and balances that would otherwise apply.
    • The government has limited Conservation Authorities’ ability to make independent decisions with respect to their involvement in land-use planning process.

    Today’s audit of Land-Use Planning in the Greater Golden Horseshoe confirms that this government has simply abandoned the goal of curbing suburban sprawl in southern Ontario. Auditor General Lysyk confirmed that Minister Clark has been pushing forward with inflated suburban growth targets and sprawl MZOs, with full knowledge they would undermine the long-term vision of the Growth Plan, lead to widespread loss of farmland and natural areas, put stress on water resources and increase car-dependency that fuels climate change.

    ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    – 30 –

    For more information or to request an interview, please contact: Allen Braude, Environmental Defence, abraude@environmentaldefence.ca

    The post Statement from Phil Pothen, Ontario Environment Program Manager, on the Ontario Auditor General’s finding that government’s 2020 Amendments and Sprawl MZOs and have “undermined” the Growth Plan’s “long-term vision” appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Ottawa | Traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg People – A new report released today from Canada’s Auditor General is a scathing criticism of a new program set up by Natural Resources Canada in 2020, the emissions reduction fund. While this program is ostensibly aimed at reducing methane emissions, it has actually led to increased production of oil and gas. In fact, it’s not clear that the $130 million spent led to any additional greenhouse gas reductions – it could have actually led to more emissions. So it’s not surprising that the Auditor General’s criticism included calling out the greenhouse gas reductions promised by Natural Resources Canada as unreliable and an overestimation.

    At COP26, we repeatedly heard federal ministers promise that subsidies that boost production would be eliminated – and this program does exactly that. The premise was flawed from the start: keeping harmful pollution out of the environment should be considered a normal cost of business and not an “extra” that requires government subsidies. In fact, we have methane regulations in place that do just that. The program should be cancelled immediately.

    About ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    -30-

    For more information and to arrange an interview please contact: Barbara Hayes, Environmental Defence, bhayes@environmentaldefence.ca

    The post Statement from Julia Levin, Senior Climate and Energy Program Manager, on the Auditor General’s report on the federal emission reduction fund appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE, WEST COAST ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, GREENPEACE CANADA, RAINCOAST CONSERVATION, SIERRA CLUB CANADA FOUNDATION, SIERRA CLUB OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, WESTERN CANADA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE, DOGWOOD INITIATIVE

    Edmonton, Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa—Environmental groups are demanding that Premier Jason Kenney retract statements and issue an apology for communications they say are defamatory and directly contrary to the findings of the Public Inquiry into Anti-Alberta Energy Campaigns. In a letter to the premier, groups say these statements were designed to undermine their reputations and credibility and misrepresent the facts to the public, and state they are considering legal action if he does not back down.

    “Premier Kenney and the Alberta government are misrepresenting the results of the Alberta Inquiry, which found no wrongdoing by environmental groups,” said Tim Gray, Executive Director of Environmental Defence. “We’ve all seen the dangers of such practices where truth is distorted, especially on social media. We’re asking that Premier Kenney correct the record.”

    The letter states: We have reviewed the statements published by the Alberta government in its “Key Findings” document and subsequently repeated and amplified by you on social media platforms Facebook and Twitter, including the patently false claim that the Inquiry’s “report confirms the existence of well-funded foreign interests that have been waging a decade-long campaign of misinformation. These statements are defamatory as they assert that our clients have deliberately spread “misinformation.”

    In fact, Commissioner Allan was unequivocal in his report that he was making no such finding.

    Groups, including Environmental Defence, West Coast Environmental Law, Greenpeace Canada, Raincoast Conservation, Sierra Club Canada Foundation, Sierra Club of British Columbia, Western Canada Wilderness Committee and Dogwood Initiative, are asking Premier Kenney/the Alberta government to:

    • Remove the defamatory statements published on the government of Alberta’s website.
    • Retract earlier defamatory statements.
    • Publish an apology to the groups on Premier Kenney’s Facebook and Twitter accounts.

    “Climate change is causing devastating impacts across Canada, from catastrophic flooding and forest fires in British Columbia, thawing permafrost and sea ice in the North, to increasingly dangerous storms in Atlantic Canada,” said Jessica Clogg, Executive Director and Senior Counsel of West Coast Environmental Law. “Yet, Premier Kenney continues to attempt to delegitimize factual and legitimate concerns about what needs to be done to protect Canadians and the environment. This anti-democratic and dangerous witch hunt must end so civil society organizations can safely get back to the important work of addressing the climate emergency.”

    Groups are giving Premier Kenney until November 30th  to respond.

    About ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities

    -30-

    For more information, please contact:

    Allen Braude, Environmental Defence, abraude@environmentaldefence.ca

    Paul Champ, Human Rights Lawyer, (613) 816-2441

    Anna Johnston, Staff Lawyer, West Coast Environmental Law, ajohnston@wcel.org

     

     

     

     

     

    The post Environmental Groups Demand Apology From Premier Kenney for Defamatory Statements appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.