As the holiday season approaches – and more cell phones, tablets, computers and televisions are upgraded and replaced – it’s a good moment to evaluate our progress in e-waste recycling, and to highlight research during the past year that has emphasized the continued need for responsible e-waste recyclers.

According to the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), North Americans now own approximately 24 electronic products per household, each with an ever-shortening lifespan. These older electronics enter the waste stream, as their owners favor more cutting-edge gadgets – and this process is happening faster each year. More than 3.5 million tons of used electronics were collected and processed in the U.S. in 2010, representing a nearly 200 percent increase from 2009, according to the 2011 Electronics Recycling Industry Survey.

http://www.isri.org/iMIS15_PROD/ISRI/ContentAreas/ISRI_Unveils_Preliminary_Findings_from_2011_Electronics_Recycling_Industry_Survey.aspx

E-waste is the fastest growing commodity in the North American waste stream. Volume is growing at more than three times the rate of other commodities, though there are few facilities to properly process them. Older electronics may contain potentially harmful materials such as lead, mercury and cadmium, but also contain valuable materials that may be reclaimed for use in new devices.

The potentially grave health impacts linked with improper e-cycling highlights the importance of third-party certified e-waste recyclers. Earlier this year, a study revealed that workers in uncertified Chinese e-cycling facilities and residents living downwind of those facilities displayed symptoms of respiratory illness resulting from improper e-cycling procedures.

Studies like this highlight the importance of safe e-cycling and help draw much needed attention from the highest levels of federal government. Following legislation passed by many states, last November the Obama administration directed several government agencies to establish the Interagency Task Force on Electronics Stewardship. In July, the task force released a report stating that one of its four overarching goals is to “increase the safe and effective management of used electronics in the U.S.,” and outlined collaborative next steps for the EPA, Department of Labor and electronics and recycling industries to achieve that goal.

One of those action items focused on third-party certification of e-waste recyclers, such as the e-Stewards® Certification program, created by the Basel Action Network (BAN). E-Stewards formally recognizes electronics recyclers that adhere to BAN’s stringent environmentally and socially responsible practices when recovering e-waste containing hazardous components. This program is the only e-recycler certification endorsed by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Sierra Club, Greenpeace USA, the Electronics TakeBack Coalition and 68 other environmental organizations.

WM Recycle America’s efforts to prioritize the safety of workers and the environment have recently been recognized by BAN. This month, WM Recycle America announced that all seven of its North American e-cycling facilities have earned BAN’s e-Stewards Standard for Responsible Recycling and Reuse of Electronic Equipment®.

http://e-stewards.org/about/

This certification comes in addition to WM Recycle America’s standing certification by the Responsible Recycling (R2) program and the RIOS® certification standard. The R2 program is a set of standards created to “protect public health and the environment, improve worker safety practices, and reduce potential exposures.” Its partner program, the RIOS® certification standard, oversees integrated quality, environmental, health and safety management in the recycling industry. Together, R2/RIOS provides an exacting standard for responsible electronics reuse and recycling, as well as recognition for compliant companies as Certified Electronics Recyclers®.

As more provinces and states pass laws requiring proper electronics recycling, we anticipate this sector of the waste industry will continue to grow. As it grows, we’ll address each new challenge with safety in mind. Already WM has joined forces with LG Electronics USA and other manufacturers to develop recycling programs that are easy and affordable for customers.

As the world becomes more tech-savvy, it is important to keep in mind the health and environmental implications of our progress. Through the R2/RIOS and e-Stewards programs, companies can follow a set of stringent guidelines to ensure that environmental, health and safety management systems are in place to track materials, and minimize emissions and worker exposure during electronics recycling operations. By developing secure recycling practices now, we can make sure the world’s technorati continue to enjoy all the latest gadgets with the assurance that their old products can be recycled or reused without hurting the planet.

Posted by Wes Muir at 6:43 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This week I wish to draw reader attention to two areas that deserve further investigation, by society generally and by each of us as individuals concerned about our own health and that of our families.

The first is out exposure to toxic chemicals through the skin, mostly from personal care products. The second is the possibility that we’re programmed from birth for obesity due to prenatal exposure to toxins, which is the subject of a forthcoming documentary on CBC’s The Nature of Things.

Responding to my recent posts about nanochemicals in food, a friend reminded me that the epidermis is the most common route of exposure to toxic chemicals.

Beyond concern about the absorption prospects and implications of infinitesimally small nano-particles, he recommended the Environmental Working Group’s “Skin Deep” website on toxic chemicals in personal care products, which is searchable by product category, brand, etc.

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/training/toxmanual/pdf/module-2.pdf

The site rates about 69,000 different products and assigns risk scores from 0 to 10 depending on the product formulations. It’s not uncommon to find personal care products containing as many as four or five known carcinogens plus suspected carcinogens, irritants, allergens, mutagens, etc.

It’s amazing, my friend writes, that society is so concerned about food safety but allows the cosmetic, pharmaceutical, chemical industries carte blanche to sell dangerous products for people to bathe in and apply to their skins on a daily basis.

“Corporate ethics? Corporate responsibility? Oxymorons as far as I’m concerned,” he states.

Now that I’ve got you thinking about what you rubbed into your skin during or after your shower this morning, here’s a news release from production company Dream Film about their documentary on chemicals in the environment changing our bodies at the prenatal stage. (I’ve kept most of the original news release wording but edited it slightly to flow with this blog entry.) Now you can worry about why you and your kids struggle with weight…

PROGRAMMED TO BE FAT?

Documentary to air on CBC TV’s The Nature of Things with David Suzuki on Thursday, January 12 at 8:00 PM (8:30 NT)

Controversial new science suggests chemicals in our environment are changing our bodies – programming us to be fat – before we’re even born.

Obesity in Canada has doubled in less than 30 years. Now, almost 60 per cent of all Canadians are now either overweight or obese. Yes, we eat too much – and no, we don’t exercise enough. But what about rising obesity rates in a group you can’t blame for unhealthy lifestyles? Those who can’t chew, let alone jog?...

Infant obesity has risen more than 70 per cent in just 20 years. And some scientists suspect that, starting in the womb, man-made chemicals may be triggering changes to our metabolism that result in lifelong weight gain. Even more -- these changes can be passed along to the next generation.

PROGRAMMED TO BE FAT? tells the story of a curious doctor in Scotland, baffled by her inability to lose weight, who sets out to discover why… and explores the findings of three scientists researching endocrine-disrupting chemicals who all ended up with unusually heavy lab animals. Their overlapping research has led them all to the same conclusion: these chemicals – found all around us in plastic, in cans, in the food we eat, in the water we drink and the air we breathe – is partly to blame for obesity.

As the research shifts from lab animals to human population studies, the theory that fetal exposure to man-made chemicals is a key reason for our global obesity epidemic is under the microscope. The implications for human health are profound – and the time to act, say some, is now.

For more information on the documentary, including links to the trailer and the Facebook
page, check out the website:

www.dreamfilm.ca

http://dreamfilm.ca/film/programmed-to-be-fat/

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 6:33 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I’m 51 years old and have entered the realm my insurance agent about which my insurance agent warned me years ago. He said that in my forties I’d start to know more and more people succumbing to cancer and heart disease and other illnesses, and in my fifties they’d “start dropping off like flies.”

I was in my early thirties when he told me this, at the end of some blood samples and tests the insurance company took to qualify me and me (then) business partners who needed life insurance as part of our shareholders’ agreement. It seemed very remote at that time, the idea of disease and death. I hadn’t really known anyone outside of my grandparents who had died, although my father had MS and would pass away only a couple of years later.

To be honest, I don’t know if the “dropping off like flies” comment referred to people in their fifties or sixties, but it doesn’t really matter – I have noticed more and more of my acquaintances and people I know indirectly through them succumbing to various maladies, with breast cancer being one of the most common. I know several people who have either died from or survived lung cancer, and prostate cancer.

All of this has me very focused on my own health and fitness and that of my kids, and things like healthy eating; I don’t want to wait until I get some kind of diagnosis to start getting enough vitamins and fibre, and so on. Having crossed the age 50 line, I’ve also got a colonoscopy scheduled for the spring (and please use this reminder to schedule one for yourself if you’re over age 50, or younger if cancer runs in your family). My friend Gary Gallon, the environmentalist, died of cancer that started in the colon; he was the picture of good health when he was first diagnosed, and was a champion swimmer in his age group. Feeling healthy, he neglected to get a colonoscopy and succumbed to a cancer that could have perhaps been detected at the polyp stage.

So, I’m doing the usual common sense things like buying vitamin supplements, eating more salad, whole grain cereals, avoiding a lot of fried items, cutting down on fast food, popping wild salmon fish oil capsules and so on. I still have a long way to go in eating better, but it’s a start.

However, one thing that really frustrates me is the presence of so many toxic compounds in our diet that are difficult to avoid. Last week I posted a blog entry on “seven food items that should never pass your lips” that included some items about which I’d previously been unaware (in terms of being toxic). The list included potatoes, which I eat all the time in crock pot stews and curries. Apparently one must buy organically-grown potatoes as peeling the skins is not enough – the pesticides etc. used by farmers are absorbed deep into the meat of a potato, and farmers who grow them often won’t eat their own product because they see the chemical hazard with their own eyes. (Many grow chemical-free potatoes in separate garden patches for their own families.) That item was a revelation and I felt quite angry, having served regular potatoes to my kids all of their lives. It bothers me that our government isn’t doing more to protect us from these kinds of dangers, and that through our taxes we’ll be footing the bill for a generation or longer as people contract cancer from such sources. So much for prevention.

Another example from that log post was tomatoes sold in cans, in which toxic compounds may leach from the plastic lining inside cans, which the acidity of the tomatoes dissolves more than other canned vegetables. Lesson: buy tomatoes or tomato sauce sold in glass jars, or make your own from fresh tomatoes.

With all this in mind, I direct readers to the news release that I reproduce below with only some minor stylistic and formatting edits. It’s from the shareholder activist group As You Sow (a group whose goals and methods I greatly respect) and should awaken us to a whole new threat in the food chain from nanotechnology, which is pretty much an unregulated industry at the moment. This is a topic worth pondering and one to which I will return again in the near future.

NOTE: Readers may be interested in reading a cover story from last year that Colin Isaacs wrote for HazMat Management magazine:

http://www.hazmatmag.com/news/nanomaterials/1000352803/

Nanotechnology in Food:

In the Absence of Regulations, Nonprofit Releases New Framework for Companies to Evaluate Safety

SAN FRANCISCO (December 6, 2011) -- A first-of-its-kind framework released today offers recommendations to food and food packaging companies on how to identify and evaluate nanomaterials in products. Not only is this technology unregulated and untested for its implications on public health but companies may not even be aware if they are using products made with nanomaterials.

The Sourcing Framework for Food and Food Packaging Products Containing Nanomaterials presents what companies should ask their suppliers regarding the safety of products containing nanomaterials, therefore allowing businesses to make more informed decisions.

Nanotechnology is the science of manipulating matter at the molecular scale to build structures, tools, or products. This emerging science offers many new opportunities for food industry applications, such as nutritional additives, stronger flavorings and colorings, or antibacterial ingredients for food packaging. However, these same properties have also raised safety concerns yet to be fully understood.

"Currently, most food companies do not have processes in place to identify if there are nanomaterials in their products, or to confirm the safety of those products," said Amy Galland, Research Director of As You Sow and co-author of the Framework. "We are urging the food industry to utilize the precautionary principle and stay ahead of the regulatory curve on this issue."

In consultation with food companies such as Kraft, McDonald’s (which has adopted a "no nano"
policy), Whole Foods, Yum! Brands, and Pepsi, the nonprofit organization As You Sow developed this practical tool which clearly outlines what companies should ask their suppliers regarding the safety of products containing nanomaterials.

"In the absence of federal regulations, corporations need to evaluate the risks and benefits of sourcing products that use this new technology on their own," says Michael Passoff, Senior Strategist of As You Sow and co-author of the Framework. "There is little transparency regarding safety testing or which food products contain nanomaterials. Companies need to start questioning their suppliers on whether or not their products use nanomaterials."

In June 2011, the Food and Drug Administration stated it would evaluate guidance to address nanotechnology. This guidance is not prescriptive and does not advise companies in how to protect their customers from exposure to nanomaterials.

There is also a lack of scientific research about how nanomaterials interact at the molecular and physiological levels, with unknown potential impacts on public health and the environment. Consequently, companies looking to purchase or sell nanofood products or packaging have to take specific steps to protect themselves from financial and reputational risks through a thorough evaluation of the safety of these products, and transparency to address consumer concerns.

Specifically, the Framework:

Provides an introduction to key terms and issues by outlining a definition of nanomaterials; addressing the accessibility of nanoparticles within the human body and current studies which point to potential hazards; tackling the issue of unique properties and related, under-researched toxicity threats; and assessing how federal agencies are determining nanomaterial toxicological profiles.

Describes the current regulatory status and risks including: recent developments on nanomaterials by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration; and the emerging concerns due to lack of regulation.

Presents best practices from existing scientific, industry, and governmental frameworks including questions to ask suppliers to increase transparency of their supply chain and priorities for obtaining data related to risk and toxicity factors.

Makes recommendations regarding the information companies should request and receive from suppliers who offer food products and packaging that may contain nanomaterials.

The Framework will be distributed widely throughout the food and food packaging industries and will be followed up by a survey asking these same companies to disclose what, if any, nanomaterials are being used in their supply chain.

As You Sow is a nonprofit organization that promotes corporate responsibility through shareholder advocacy, coalition building, and innovative legal strategies. For more information visit:www.asyousow.org

CONTACT:

Glenn Turner, 917-817-3396
glenn@ripplestrategies.com

OR

Shayna Samuels, 718-541-4785

shayna@ripplestrategies.com

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 10:59 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The following list of “Seven Food Items That Should Never Pass Your Lips” comes from Prevention online magazine. I thought it worth sharing with readers -- especially anyone raising kids. Despite our supposed awareness of chemicals in the food chain, there’s an awful lot we don’t think about as we buy canned tomatoes and microwave popcorn.

As an aside, I don’t we have the genetically altered milk in Canada, so that item may apply more to the USA, but I could stand to be corrected. Another problem with industrial production of milk, I’m given to understand, is that the cows have to keep getting pregnant in order to produce, and what happens is their newborn calves are killed off right away and shipped to rendering plants, having sad, brutishly short lives. Again, I’d appreciate anyone with special knowledge of that writing me. I’d love to buy milk that’s produced in a humane system, and meat too.

Pass this info along to everyone you know!

1. Canned Tomatoes

Fredrick Vom Saal, PhD, an endocrinologist at the University of Missouri who studies bisphenol-A, gives us the scoop:

The problem: The resin linings of tin cans contain bisphenol-A, a synthetic estrogen that has been linked to ailments ranging from reproductive problems to heart disease, diabetes, and obesity. Unfortunately, acidity (a prominent characteristic of tomatoes) causes BPA to leach into your food. Studies show that the BPA in most people's body exceeds the amount that suppresses sperm production or causes chromosomal damage to the eggs of animals. "You can get 50 mcg of BPA per liter out of a tomato can, and that's a level that is going to impact people, particularly the young," says vom Saal. "I won't go near canned tomatoes."

The solution: Choose tomatoes in glass bottles (which do not need resin linings), such as the brands Bionaturae and Coluccio. You can also get several types in Tetra Pak boxes, like Trader Joe's and Pomi.

Budget tip: If your recipe allows, substitute bottled pasta sauce for canned tomatoes. Look for pasta sauces with low sodium and few added ingredients, or you may have to adjust the recipe.

2. Corn-Fed Beef

Joel Salatin, co-owner of Polyface Farms and author of half a dozen books on sustainable farming, gives us the scoop:

The problem: Cattle evolved to eat grass, not grains. But farmers today feed their animals corn and soybeans, which fatten up the animals faster for slaughter. But more money for cattle farmers (and lower prices at the grocery store) means a lot less nutrition for us. A recent comprehensive study conducted by the USDA and researchers from Clemson University found that compared with corn-fed beef, grass-fed beef is higher in beta-carotene, vitamin E, omega-3s, conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), calcium, magnesium, and potassium; lower in inflammatory omega-6s; and lower in saturated fats that have been linked to heart disease. "We need to respect the fact that cows are herbivores, and that does not mean feeding them corn and chicken manure," says Salatin.

The solution: Buy grass-fed beef, which can be found at specialty grocers, farmers' markets, and nationally at Whole Foods. It's usually labeled because it demands a premium, but if you don't see it, ask your butcher.

Budget tip: Cuts on the bone are cheaper because processors charge extra for deboning. You can also buy direct from a local farmer, which can be as cheap as $5 per pound. To find a farmer near you, search eatwild.com.

3. Microwave Popcorn

Olga Naidenko, PhD, a senior scientist for the Environmental Working Group, gives us the scoop:

The problem: Chemicals, including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), in the lining of the bag, are part of a class of compounds that may be linked to infertility in humans, according to a recent study from UCLA. In animal testing, the chemicals cause liver, testicular, and pancreatic cancer. Studies show that microwaving causes the chemicals to vaporize—and migrate into your popcorn. "They stay in your body for years and accumulate there," says Naidenko, which is why researchers worry that levels in humans could approach the amounts causing cancers in laboratory animals. DuPont and other manufacturers have promised to phase out PFOA by 2015 under a voluntary EPA plan, but millions of bags of popcorn will be sold between now and then.

The solution: Pop natural kernels the old-fashioned way: in a skillet. For flavorings, you can add real butter or dried seasonings, such as dillweed, vegetable flakes, or soup mix.

Budget tip: Popping your own popcorn is dirt cheap.

4. Nonorganic Potatoes

Jeffrey Moyer, chair of the National Organic Standards Board, gives us the scoop:

The problem: Root vegetables absorb herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides that wind up in soil. In the case of potatoes—the nation's most popular vegetable—they're treated with fungicides during the growing season, then sprayed with herbicides to kill off the fibrous vines before harvesting. After they're dug up, the potatoes are treated yet again to prevent them from sprouting. " Try this experiment: Buy a conventional potato in a store, and try to get it to sprout. It won't," says Moyer, who is also farm director of the Rodale Institute (also owned by Rodale Inc., the publisher of Prevention). "I've talked with potato growers who say point-blank they would never eat the potatoes they sell. They have separate plots where they grow potatoes for themselves without all the chemicals."

The solution: Buy organic potatoes. Washing isn't good enough if you're trying to remove chemicals that have been absorbed into the flesh.

Budget tip: Organic potatoes are only $1 to $2 a pound, slightly more expensive than conventional spuds.

5. Farmed Salmon

David Carpenter, MD, director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany and publisher of a major study in the journal Science on contamination in fish, gives us the scoop:

The problem: Nature didn't intend for salmon to be crammed into pens and fed soy, poultry litter, and hydrolyzed chicken feathers. As a result, farmed salmon is lower in vitamin D and higher in contaminants, including carcinogens, PCBs, brominated flame retardants, and pesticides such as dioxin and DDT. According to Carpenter, the most contaminated fish come from Northern Europe, which can be found on American menus. "You could eat one of these salmon dinners every 5 months without increasing your risk of cancer," says Carpenter, whose 2004 fish contamination study got broad media attention. "It's that bad." Preliminary science has also linked DDT to diabetes and obesity, but some nutritionists believe the benefits of omega-3s outweigh the risks. There is also concern about the high level of antibiotics and pesticides used to treat these fish. When you eat farmed salmon, you get dosed with the same drugs and chemicals.

The solution: Switch to wild-caught Alaska salmon. If the package says fresh Atlantic, it's farmed. There are no commercial fisheries left for wild Atlantic salmon.

Budget tip: Canned salmon, almost exclusively from wild catch, can be found for as little as $3 a can.

6. Milk Produced with Artificial Hormones

Rick North, project director of the Campaign for Safe Food at the Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility and former CEO of the Oregon division of the American Cancer Society, gives us the scoop:

The problem: Milk producers treat their dairy cattle with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH or rBST, as it is also known) to boost milk production. But rBGH also increases udder infections and even pus in the milk. It also leads to higher levels of a hormone called insulin-like growth factor in milk. In people, high levels of IGF-1 may contribute to breast, prostate, and colon cancers. "When the government approved rBGH, it was thought that IGF-1 from milk would be broken down in the human digestive tract," says North. As it turns out, the casein in milk protects most of it, according to several independent studies. "There's not 100% proof that this is increasing cancer in humans," admits North. "However, it's banned in most industrialized countries."

The solution: Check labels for rBGH-free, rBST-free, produced without artificial hormones, or organic milk. These phrases indicate rBGH-free products.

Budget tip: Try Wal-Mart's Great Value label, which does not use rBGH.

7. Conventional Apples

Mark Kastel, former executive for agribusiness and codirector of the Cornucopia Institute, a farm-policy research group that supports organic foods, gives us the scoop:

The problem: If fall fruits held a "most doused in pesticides contest," apples would win. Why? They are individually grafted (descended from a single tree) so that each variety maintains its distinctive flavor. As such, apples don't develop resistance to pests and are sprayed frequently. The industry maintains that these residues are not harmful. But Kastel counters that it's just common sense to minimize exposure by avoiding the most doused produce, like apples. "Farm workers have higher rates of many cancers," he says. And increasing numbers of studies are starting to link a higher body burden of pesticides (from all sources) with Parkinson's disease.

The solution: Buy organic apples.

Budget tip: If you can't afford organic, be sure to wash and peel them. But Kastel personally refuses to compromise. "I would rather see the trade-off being that I don't buy that expensive electronic gadget," he says. "Just a few of these decisions will accommodate an organic diet for a family."

Get more tips on how to go organic without breaking the bank

http://www.prevention.com/budgetorganic

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 11:47 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I have thought a lot about this blog over the weekend; it didn’t just happen. I went skiing for the first time at Lake Louise. The snow is good for the first week of December, and riding that chair lift this early in the season was an excellent place to think.

In Canada, we are conditioned to be “politically correct”. In particular we are not supposed to criticize or speak out against the First Nations, their heritage or their role in Canadian history. Certainly, as has been reported extensively this week, the circumstances surrounding the living conditions in the community of Attawapiskat in Northern Ontario is tragic no matter who is responsible.

However, I have to ask, while I think Canadians appreciate the ongoing challenges all sides face with resolution of ownership of traditional lands and treaties, why can’t we criticize or speak out more aggressively against First Nation positions that can be self-serving and represent a negative to the rest of the country?

With the Keystone XL pipeline in the USA dominating the headlines in recent months, we are now seeing a new battleground forming. The proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline, owned by Enbridge Inc., will move approximately 500,000 barrels of oil-sands crude from Alberta to Kitmat B.C. and it is becoming the next war for environmental opposition, and First Nations.

On the weekend it was reported that 60 First Nation groups have signed a statement that says: “First Nations, whose un-ceded territory encompasses the entire coastline of British Columbia, have formed a united front, banning all exports of tar sands crude oil through their territories”.

Media reports that the Yinka Dene Alliance, and the Coastal First Nations, have stated they would not support the proposal under any circumstances, and Chief Jackie Thomas of Saik’uz First Nations said: “We have banned all oil pipelines and tankers using our laws, and we will defend our decision using all means at our disposal”.

Here is my take. Enbridge and the companies involved have, and will continue, to bend over backwards to recognize the First Nations and work with them. Equity stakes in the project have been offered and, as reported in Saturday’s Globe and Mail, have been accepted by at least one First Nation. The offer of negotiations with others remains open, and an extensive environmental process is under way that will allow everyone to have input prior to any approval.

It is evident that respect and consideration is being shown to the First Nations from the development side, however, none of this seems to matter to some of the First Nations involved.

While I am only one person, the statements above are not acceptable to me and I hope they would be unacceptable to many other Canadians.

These particular First Nation groups are suggesting they own the entire coastline of British Columbia and seem to believe their “laws” should supersede the laws of Canada. They have issued a direct threat to stop the project in any way possible. Read between the lines; it means civil disobedience.

Never mind being politically correct, here is what I think.

First, with all due respect to the First Nations involved, and I mean that sincerely, it is ridiculous to think that one group, First Nations or not, can dictate to the rest of the country what happens on the entire coast of British Columbia.

Second, in my view, First Nation “laws” cannot take precedence over the laws of Canada or the Provinces.

Finally, I don’t think anybody likes to be threatened. This country belongs to all of us.

I think we have the right to speak out, and with the increased intervention of the First Nations groups, I think we need to speak out aggressively about First Nation positions that we believe are not reasonable or realistic on specific issues or projects.

Importantly, we should do this constructively, but without fear of being labelled as against the overall aspirations and objectives of the First Nations people in other areas.

The First Nations expect the rest of Canada, and its governments, to “work with” their various groups to find solutions to the many problems facing them.

Well that works both ways. Without co-operation and constructive dialogue by the First Nations on projects like the Northern Gateway pipeline, I find it harder and harder to be sympathetic to their valid concerns in other areas.

Well that’s enough for one morning. I welcome everyone’s thoughts.

www.trashedpoliticalgarbage.com
TRASHED! How Political Garbage Made the United States Canada’s Largest Dump

Posted by Gordon McGuinty at 10:07 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)