Sandra Finley

Oct 132013
 

If time is short, just catch the video at this link:

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/10/13/cummins-gmo-labeling.aspx?e_cid=20131013Z1_SNL_Art_1&utm_source=snl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20131013Z1

 

I recommend going to the above URL, even though for back-up purposes,  I copied the article – it is a good, comprehensive look at the problem:

By Dr. Mercola 

Between October 18 and November 5 the next big GMO-labeling vote will take place in the United States; this time in Washington State, where citizens will cast their votes for the people’s initiative 522, “The People’s Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act.”

Initiative 522 (I-522) will require seeds, raw agricultural commodities, and processed foods to be labeled if they’re produced using genetic engineering.1

The success of this ballot initiative is dependent on public donations, and we’re up against industry giants with very deep pockets, so please, help us win this key GMO labeling battle and continue to build momentum for GMO labeling in other states by making a donation to the Organic Consumers Fund (OCF) today. 

The video above features Ronnie Cummins, the national director of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) and the Organic Consumers Fund—one of our allies in the movement to build a sustainable and healthy system of food and farming in the United States. 

Part of this food movement is the Millions Against Monsanto campaign, and campaigns pushing for labeling of genetically engineered foods across the US. 

The first March Against Monsanto, which took place in May, 2013 was really an extraordinary event that did not get the media attention it deserved. Some two million people in 450 cities and 50 countries took to the streets with the same message—that genetic engineering and Monsanto are out of control, and we need labeling and safety testing. 

According to Cummins: 

“We need to get these crops off the market or marginalized. That’s what worries Monsanto and the rest of the food industry. Last November, they came close to a disaster when the California ballot initiative Proposition 37 nearly passed. We got 48.5 percent of the vote. They beat us by one and a half percentage points. Well, Monsanto and their allies – Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Kraft, and the rest – they had to spend 50 million dollars to beat us in California.”

 

Why Are Chemical Companies in Charge of Our Food Supply?

For a long time, Monsanto appeared to be perched on top of the world, making enormous profits and wielding near unparalleled political clout. One of the most recent examples of their political power was the insertion of the “Monsanto Protection Act” rider into the appropriation bill, back in January, which basically eliminated the power of the federal judiciary to control genetically engineered crops. As explained by Cummins: 

“Under this Monsanto rider to the appropriation bill, even if a federal court rules that a genetically engineered crop has been improperly approved—that it could harm the environment or public health, they can’t stop it. Monsanto’s chief cheerleader in the Senate, Roy Blunt from Missouri, was very proud of this rider, and it went through.

But in a sign of change, millions of people complained, emailed and called Congress, and caused the backers of the bill to back off and say that, ‘Well, it’ll expire on September 30 and then it won’t be part of the Farm Bill or continuing appropriations.’”

Thankfully, the rider, which was renewed by the House of Representatives, was finally voted down by the Senate, thanks to your overwhelming support and affirmative action. As of September 30, the “Monsanto Protection Act” expired. It just goes to show how critical it is that we unite and address these issues together. It’s the only way we will make positive change.

It’s worth remembering though that Monsanto is not alone in recklessly pushing genetically engineered (GE) crops and foods. The following five multi-national chemical companies are also major players:

  • DuPont
  • Dow
  • Bayer
  • Syngenta
  • BASF

All of these chemical companies have tried to reposition themselves as “life science” companies, but, as Cummins points out, “they’re still the same old companies whose bottom line depends on selling as many toxic herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides as possible.” Disturbingly, these chemical companies have also bought out most of the seed industry, worldwide, making it extremely difficult for farmers to buy non-GE seeds. 

 

Monsanto’s Grip Slips as Americans Become Better Informed 

While the overall picture looks bleak, a number of things have happened in the last 12 months that have shaken Monsanto’s image of invincibility. For example:

  •  A growing epidemic of genetically engineered (GE) super weeds and super pests is spreading across US farm fields. As reported by Cummins, 49 percent of American farmers are now battling Roundup resistant weeds in their corn and soy fields. In an effort to get rid of them, they’re resorting to ever-increasing amounts of Roundup herbicide, Monsanto’s flagship chemical weed killer, and/or other even more toxic herbicides such as Agent Orange 2,4-D or Dicamba. If you look at the statistics over the last decade, there are actually more herbicides than ever being used. As a result, the industry’s promise that GE crops would allow for fewer pesticides to be used has taken on a distinctively hollow ring.
  • Also, part of the original rationale for using GE crops was that they could be sprayed with less toxic herbicides, such as Roundup—which was touted as harmless and biodegradable. Now, mounting research reveals that Roundup may actually be one of the most toxic chemicals ever to enter our food supply! Some scientists, like Dr. Don Huber, believe it may be even more toxic than DDT.
  • Genetically engineered Bt seeds are also soaked in toxic fungicides called neonicotinoids, which have now been linked to the mass die-off of bees in the US and around the world. This in and of itself threatens about 70 percent of the US food supply (fruits, vegetables, berries and nuts that rely on bees for pollination) and the rapid demise of these pollinators has gained worldwide attention.
  • Mounting research published in peer-reviewed journals reveals a wide variety of health hazards associated with consuming genetically engineered foods and the chemicals that accompany these crops.
  • The environmental impact of GE crops and associated agricultural chemicals, like Roundup, is also coming into clearer focus as research reveals how they destroy soil microbes and inhibit the fertility of the soil.

 

Recent Events Highlight Necessity for GMO Labeling 

In 2013, we’ve seen efforts to pass genetically engineered food labeling laws in 30 states, and the state legislatures in Connecticut and Maine have passed such laws. The next major event is November 5. The citizens’ ballot initiative in Washington State is very similar to the law that was proposed in California last year. Polls and focus groups indicate this ballot initiative is indeed going to win. A number of recent events have also heightened the public’s awareness of the necessity for GMO labeling, not to mention the need to implement the precautionary principle. For example:

  •  The federal government is considering approving the most controversial genetically engineered product since bovine growth hormone in 1994, namely genetically engineered salmon. Even FDA scientists are warning that the GE salmon created by Aquabounty appears to be allergenic to humans. Marine biologists and fishing communities are also pointing out that once these genetically engineered salmon escape into the wild, which they will, they will decimate the wild salmon population.
  • Industry is also trying to get approval for a GE apple, which is anathema to Washington State’s apple producers. This apple is genetically engineered to not turn brown once sliced. Here too, scientists are warning that the genetic manipulation involved in producing this non-browning apple is unpredictable and possibly quite hazardous to human health.
  • Unapproved genetically engineered wheat varieties, created by Monsanto, were recently discovered in the Northwest, causing overseas markets to temporarily cancel imports of American-grown wheat. This naturally caught the attention of wheat growers in Washington State as well.

 

Who Is Funding the Anti-Labeling Campaign? 

Monsanto has so far donated $4.8 million to the No on 522 campaign. Dupont has kicked in another $3.4 million,2 and the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) $2.2 million. Curiously absent from any list of donors are the big spenders from last year’s No on Prop 37 campaign. However, as explained by Cummins, this cannot be taken as a good sign: 

“I think we’re going to win on November 5th, and industry sees that, too. That’s the reason none of the Big Food companies have been willing to donate money to defeat I-522 in Washington State, or at least they haven’t been willing to publicly donate money. 

The main donations so far against labeling in Washington State, which is about two million dollars, have come disguised as a donation from the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA). The Grocery Manufacturers Association is basically a trade association of 300 large corporations – food and manufacturing corporations – and supermarket chains. 

No one wants to be identified with being against mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods, so they’re trying to conceal their donations by giving them to the GMA, and then the GMA launders the money for them. But that’s not going to work. It’s going to be coming out more and more: Who is providing the money to try to keep consumers in the dark about labeling?”

 

New Hurdles to Be Faced as Big Biotech Fights to Maintain Control

Recent polls show that 64-66 percent of likely voters in Washington State strongly support GMO labeling, which puts further pressure on companies who’d rather not disclose such ingredients. So what is Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturers Association apt to do, knowing that the Washington State ballot initiative is likely going to pass on November 5th? 

According to Cummins, they’re presently hard at work on a number of fronts. For example, they’re trying to insert a measure into the Farm Bill—known as the King Amendment—which could make it very difficult for states to pass mandatory GMO labeling laws. They also tried and failed to keep the “Monsanto Protection Act” rider in the appropriations bill. 

Worse yet, Big Biotech and the Grocery Manufacturers Association are also working on two secret trade agreements: the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). You can learn more about these trade agreements on Organic Consumers Association’s web site.3 As explained by Cummins: 

“These so-called free trade agreements are expansions of the highly unpopular North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and World Trade Organization Agreements (WTO) that has been described as NAFTA or WTO on steroids. Basically, these are secret trade agreements that are being worked on now by representatives of 600 large corporations that are designed to increase the power of corporations to stop nations, states, and municipalities from passing pro-consumer, pro-natural health, or pro-environmental laws. 

Believe it or not, these negotiations are being conducted in secret, where not even the US Congress is allowed to look at what’s being discussed or what’s being proposed. The bottom line is that the reason why Monsanto, the biotech industry, and the Big Food corporations are fully in support of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is that corporations under these new trade rules will be able to force countries to lower their standards, their safety standards, labeling requirements, labor standards, and so on and so forth… People who have looked at them, like Alan Grayson from the US Congress, have said, ‘This is worse than you could even imagine.’”

 

Let’s Not Allow for Half-Measures… 

On July 10, the Grocery Manufacturers of America held a closed-door meeting in Washington DC, to which 300 large food and chemical companies had been invited.  According to Cummins, one of the Grocery Manufacturers Association’s suggestions for addressing the impending crisis of GMO labeling is to push for a labeling law via the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This law, of course, would be likely be merely voluntary, or else full of loopholes and exemptions, such as allowing products that contain five percent or less genetically engineered ingredients to avoid labeling. In short, we can expect them to use every trick in the book to defeat us. 

“But the great thing is, I think, we have now built a coalition that understands food, farming, things like genetic engineering, and things like natural health,” Cummins says. “There are more people who understand these issues now than ever before: millions of readers of Mercola.com, we have a million people in our Organic Consumers’ Association network across the country, and we have millions of people who are members of our allies’ networks. We may not control the mass media like big corporate entities do, but we do have a lot of influence, dominant influence, on the Internet and the social media, and the message is getting out. 

We can win this battle, at least stage one of this battle, but it’s going to take financial contributions. It’s going to take millions of hours literally of volunteer labor on the part of people – educating their friends and families and getting involved in activities in their local communities. It’s going to involve building a broader and broader coalition. 

One of the very exciting things about Prop 37 in California last year was it was the first time in modern history that you saw the organic community and the natural health community working together. It’s the first time I’ve ever seen libertarians, liberals, radicals, and conservatives work together. I think what we realized now is that issues like food and farming, natural health, and the deterioration our environment and climate, these are not partisan issues.”

 

Why GE Cotton Is a Major Health Hazard 

About 20 percent of genetically engineered (GE) crops are used in processed food. The remaining 80 percent of GE crops go into (non-organic) animal feed, cotton, biofuels, cosmetics, and nutritional supplements. This is one of the reasons why I recommend eating organically-raised, grass-fed or pastured meats only and shopping for certified organic clothing and other consumer products whenever possible. A major GMO crop that we need to think more about is genetically engineered cotton. More than 90 percent of the cotton grown in the US is so-called Bt-cotton—genetically engineered to contain its own pesticide, Bt. Sixty percent of what you harvest from a cotton field by weight is the cotton seed, which not only ends up in some processed foods in the form of cottonseed oil, but also in animal feed.  There are a couple of health hazards at play when it comes to genetically engineered Bt cotton:

  •  Bt cotton is engineered to produce its own insecticide inside the plant itself, hence it cannot be washed off—it’s an integral part of the cellular composition of the plant—and its seeds. Monsanto and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) claimed the Bt toxin would be completely destroyed in the human digestive system and not have any impact on humans eating Bt crops, such as Bt corn. However, in 2011, researcher discovered Bt-toxin in the blood of pregnant women and their babies, as well as in non-pregnant women, completely shattering the industry’s claims.
  • The US government, and many other nations, permits cotton to be sprayed with some of the most toxic herbicides on the market, including chemicals not permitted on other crops. The rationale is that cotton is not a food crop, so it “doesn’t matter.” But 60 percent of the cotton harvest DOES go into the food chain! The average American dairy cow, raised in a confined animal feeding operation (CAFO) consumes six to eight pounds of cottonseed every day, at least in the Northern climates, as a source of protein. When a cow eats these cotton seeds, these toxins are accumulated in its fatty tissues and milk.

 

As Cummins suggests, we have to start thinking in larger terms. The hazards of GMOs go far beyond the health ramifications of just eating a particular GMO grain. As he says: 

“You go to the clothing store… and you see something labeled ‘All cotton.’ Well, I mean, it should say, ‘All genetically engineered cotton sprayed with ungodly amounts of pesticides whose waste product is in the food you’re eating (if you’re not eating organic food. Organic food, as you know, bans the use of genetically engineered inputs or ingredients and synthetic herbicides and pesticides.) We need to care about what we wear. We need to start thinking. We got millions of us now. When we pull out our wallet at the grocery store, we’re thinking about what we’re buying. Let’s spread that to clothing.’”

 

Opt for REAL Food   

(INSERT:  CAFO = Confined Agriculture Feeding Operation.  In Canada more commonly called an ILA, Intensive Livestock Operation)

Why do Americans continue to buy 90-95 percent of the meat and animal products from factory farms, where animals are raised in wholly unnatural ways and on completely unnatural diets? Lack of truthful information is likely part of the equation. People just don’t know how their food is produced. “Meat is meat, right?” most assume. But there is actually very little similarity between CAFO beef, meat and dairy and grass-fed beef, meat and dairy. 

CAFO beef and dairy comes from animals fed genetically engineered grains and often cotton seed, both of which are heavily contaminated with potent toxins. They’re also raised in crowded, prison-like conditions where they’re drugged with antibiotics and hormones to keep them relatively free from disease and to force them to grow faster. The end result is a meat product that is inevitably not going to be healthful for human consumption… 

As Cummins says: 

“Grass-fed meat, dairy, and eggs are the way to go. Organic production is the way to go… We need to know what we’re eating. We need to live in a country where we believe that if you give people information, objective information, if you give them a choice, they will do the right thing. This idea that Americans will always go for the cheaper food – that’s the reason why we have this factory farm system and this GMO system, why we have this obesity and heart disease epidemic, and why we spend twice as much money on so-called healthcare as any other industrial nation – it’s not true. 

… I’m very happy to say that the Organic Consumers Fund, which is the lobbying ally of Organic Consumers Association, and Mercola are two of the major donors to the Yes on 522 so far. We’re well on track to raise enough money to have a full month or six weeks of TV and radio ads, so that we’re not going to be outspent on the advertising front in Washington. Spending one dollar on TV or radio ads in Washington is the equivalent of spending eight dollars in California. We don’t need to raise quite as much money as we raised in California. 

Of course, it’s extremely important that the readers of Mercola.com and our nationwide network of organic consumers make financial contributions. The reason we were able to basically put in two and a half million dollars into the California effort last year was that 40,000 people made small contributions of 50 dollars or more. If you go to OrganicConsumers.org or Mercola.com, you’ll see that you can make a donation to the Organic Consumers Fund that will go into this decisive battle in Washington.” 

 

Join Us in Your Right to Know by Getting GMOs Labeled! 

While California Prop. 37 failed to pass last November by a very narrow margin, the fight for GMO labeling is far from over. In the past few weeks, Connecticut and Maine have passed GMO-labeling bills, and 20 other states have pending legislation to label genetically engineered foods. So, now is the time to put the pedal to the metal and get labeling across the country—something 64 other countries already have. 

I hope you will join us in this effort.

The field-of-play has now moved to the state of Washington, where the people’s initiative 522, “The People’s Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act,” will require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it contains genetically engineered ingredients. Please help us win this key GMO labeling battle and continue to build momentum for GMO labeling in other states by making a donation to the Organic Consumers Association (OCA). 

Remember, as with CA Prop. 37, they need support of people like YOU to succeed. Prop. 37 failed with a very narrow margin simply because we didn’t have the funds to counter the massive ad campaigns created by the No on 37 camp, led by Monsanto and other major food companies. Let’s not allow Monsanto and its allies to confuse and mislead the people of Washington and Vermont as they did in California. So please, I urge you to get involved and help in any way you can.

  •  No matter where you live in the United States, please donate money to these labeling efforts through the Organic Consumers Fund.
  • Sign up to learn more about how you can get involved by visiting Yeson522.com!
  • For timely updates on issues relating to these and other labeling initiatives, please join the Organic Consumers Association on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.
  • Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to actively support the Washington initiative.

 

Oct 122013
 

These three are connected.  I don’t need to explain how:

1.    I hope that people, including Law students, will challenge the idea that the Government, in over-riding a Charter Right, has to meet strict standards that protect the Charter Rights.

There is little protection because the process is flawed.  It’s not too hard to see.

(Explanation – it’s short!)   The Oakes Test to over-ride Charter Rights. How Prosecutors get around it.  The obvious remedy is presented, too.  Based on experience from my trial.

 

2.    Here is a warning for Canadians, if ever there was one.  See ERNST VS ENCANA.   Jessica Ernst’s water supply was destroyed by “fracking”.

How has the Government set it up and how must (?) the courts respond?

Excerpt:

(Alberta ERCB = Energy Resources Conservation Board)

the court found that the Alberta government had granted complete immunity to the ERCB for all legal claims, including for breaches of constitutional rights.

Maybe the better question:  how do citizens respond?   Where is the tipping point?   . . . check out

 

3.    The East  (a movie)

 

Oct 122013
 

I recommend The East.  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1869716/ 

Find it in a theatre or on-line.

It is timely, provocative, and well-done.

Excerpt (lower down on the website):

The film follows Jane Owen (Marling), an undercover security agent, as she leaves behind her doting boyfriend (Jason Ritter) to infiltrate an eco-terrorist group known as The East, who have publicly targeted massive corporations for their covered-up crimes against humans and nature.  . . .   Jane slowly grows fascinated with the group, its morals and goals, and its core, . . .  observing with a mix of horror and infatuation as they execute their violent “jams” on the corporations’ key members. 

. . .  It makes for an uncomfortably provocative watch: as we learn more about the characters, their backgrounds, and the corporations’ crimes (which are based in fact), it’s hard to determine who the “bad guys” are.  I saw the film at a festival where Batmanglij gave a short Q&A after and he revealed that he, Marling, and Page had lived with similar groups (without the terrorism) before and were sympathetic with the East’s cause, if not their methods.

I highly recommend making time to find and see this movie.

Whether it’s

  • the petroleum industry (in the movie, in the Tar Sands, in Jessica Ernst’s life, or elsewhere)
  • the pharmaceutical industry (in the movie, and discussed many times in emails)
  • the war industry (Audrey Tobias, my trial, etc.)
  • the uranium/nuclear industry
  • the chemical/biotech corporations  (March Against Monsanto)
  • all of them in Government and in the Universities

it is past time to figure out what to do about them.

There are more than enough of us.

Join and support

  • Idle No More
  • Occupy
  • Marches
  • Whistleblowers
  • Your choice

We know what DOESN’T work.

Oct 122013
 

Here is a warning for Canadians, if ever there was one.

The immunity of the oil and gas companies in Alberta, as spelt out in this court decision, is appalling – – more evidence that we have a “petro-state”, not a democracy.

The legislation that made this possible was fought unsuccessfully;  now we have the consequences:

(Alberta ERCB = Energy Resources Conservation Board)

Excerpt :

the court found that the Alberta government had granted complete immunity to the ERCB for all legal claims, including for breaches of constitutional rights.

Chief Justice Wittmann ruled the ERCB does not owe any legally enforceable duties to protect individual landowners from the harmful effects of fraccing (INSERT:  fracturing – explained below), after the ERCB argued in court it had total immunity for “not only negligence, but gross negligence, bad faith and even deliberate acts,” and therefore Albertans simply could not sue the ERCB, no matter how badly they were harmed by the ERCB’s acts.

Bless Jessica Ernst for her tireless and expensive efforts to educate and to launch legal action against fracking.

 

—– Original Message —–

The Lawsuit:  ERNST VERSUS ENCANA

UPDATE / October 9, 2013

PRESS ADVISORY

(French translation of advisory: http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/the-lawsuit)

Chief Justice rejects Alberta government’s attack on Rosebud water contamination case – but dismisses case against Alberta’s key energy regulator, the ERCB.

The practice of hydraulic fracturing – injecting fluids (gases or liquids, sand and toxic chemicals) under high pressure to shatter deep and shallow rock to stimulate hydrocarbons to flow – has raised serious economic, political, legal, health and environmental issues around the world.

In a judgment  recently released by the Alberta Court of Queen’s bench,  Chief Justice Neil Wittmann ruled on the first skirmishes in a landmark multi-million dollar claim by Jessica Ernst against EnCana, Alberta Environment and the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) regarding water contamination caused by fraccing.

Key parts of the judgment include:

The court rejected the Government of Alberta’s attempt to attack portions of the lawsuit, thereby paving the way for the claim against the Government of Alberta to proceed.

Justice Wittmann agreed there were valid claims asserted against the ERCB for breaching Ms. Ernst’s fundamental and constitutional right to freedom of expression. The court also found “the ERCB cannot rely on its argument on the Weibo eco-terrorism claim, in the total absence of evidence. There is none.” However, the court found that the Alberta government had granted complete immunity to the ERCB for all legal claims, including for breaches of constitutional rights.

Chief Justice Wittmann ruled the ERCB does not owe any legally enforceable duties to protect individual landowners from the harmful effects of fraccing, after the ERCB argued in court it had total immunity for “not only negligence, but gross negligence, bad faith and even deliberate acts,” and therefore Albertans simply could not sue the ERCB, no matter how badly they were harmed by the ERCB’s acts. Ms. Ernst was ordered to pay the ERCB’s costs.

Ms. Ernst has instructed her legal counsel to appeal the decision to dismiss the lawsuit against the ERCB.

“I think Albertans will be disturbed to learn that their energy regulator has total and blanket immunity, even in cases where the regulator has breached the fundamental and constitutional free speech rights of a landowner,” said Murray Klippenstein, lead legal counsel for Ms. Ernst.

“It is very worrying that citizens are unable to hold the energy regulator accountable for failing to protect citizens from the harmful impacts of fraccing,” said Cory Wanless, co-counsel for Ms. Ernst. “If the energy regulator won’t protect citizens, who will?”

For more information, including Encana’s Statement of Defence, refer below:

-30-

CONTACT:

Klippensteins Barristers & Solicitors:

Murray Klippenstein
(416) 598-0288 or (416) 937-8634

Cory Wanless
(416) 598-0288 or (647) 886-1914

Jessica Ernst: 1-403-677-2074
contact  AT   jessicaernst.ca

– – – – – –

France upholds constitution (fracking ban):
http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/frances-fracking-ban-absolute-after-court-upholds-law-frac-ban-in-france-is-constitutional-judgement-schuepbach-energy-llc

Alberta spits on it:
http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/gerard-prottis-alberta-energy-regulator-given-immunity-in-frac-suit-ok-to-violate-constitutional-rights-of-canadians-i-have-no-choice-but-to-appeal-says-jessica-ernst

– – – – –

Alberta Energy Regulator Given Immunity in Landmark Fracking Suit  http://thetyee.ca/News/2013/10/09/AB-Regulator-Fracking-Suit/

‘I have no choice but to appeal’, says plaintiff Jessica Ernst, who alleges industry polluted her water.

By Andrew Nikiforuk, October 9, 2013, TheTyee.ca

Alberta’s chief justice has ruled that a landmark lawsuit against the Alberta government and the energy giant Encana Corporation over groundwater contamination from hydraulic fracking can finally proceed to court.

But in the same lengthy 41-page ruling, Justice Neil Wittman also struck the province’s energy regulator from the lawsuit.

His decision found that the Alberta government had granted statutory immunity to the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) from all legal claims.

In other words, the board cannot be sued when oil and gas activities regulated by the agency poison livestock, devalue property, sicken landowners or contaminate ground or surface waters.

The lawsuit, filed by oil patch environmental consultant Jessica Ernst, alleges that Encana drilled and fracked shallow coal bed methane wells directly in the local groundwater supply between 2001 and 2004 near Rosebud, Alberta, polluting Ernst’s water well with enough toxic chemicals and methane to make it flammable.

In addition, Ernst’s claim details how Alberta’s energy regulators — the ERCB (now called the Alberta Energy Regulator) and Alberta Environment — “failed to follow the investigation and enforcement processes that they had established and publicized” despite direct evidence of industry-caused pollution and public admissions that shallow fracturing puts groundwater at risk.

The regulator is 100 per cent funded by industry and directed by a former oil lobbyist and Encana vice president, Gerard Protti. Landowners generally regard the AER as a reactive agency that works for an industry-friendly government and that now garners one-third of its revenue from the extraction of hydrocarbons.

MORE:

Encana Files Defence in Lawsuit with Fracking Folk Hero http://thetyee.ca/News/2013/09/20/Encana-Fracking-Lawsuit/

Landmark case could change how shale gas industry is regulated in Canada.Alberta’s Top Judge to Hear High Profile Fracking Case http://thetyee.ca/News/2013/03/29/Alberta-Fracking-Case/

Flaming tap water lawsuit by Jessica Ernst faced delay after previous judge promoted.   Fracking: Feds Throw Wrench in High Profile Lawsuit  http://thetyee.ca/News/2013/02/22/BC-Fracking-Lawsuit/Judge suddenly promoted; plaintiff Ernst sees strategy to ‘delay and exhaust.’

Oct 122013
 

ITEM  A

Page 1 of 3

2013-10-12    The Oakes Test to over-ride Charter Rights. How Prosecutors get around it.

 

This arises from my experience in trial over the Charter Right to Privacy of personal information.

I hope that people, including Law students, will challenge the idea that the Government, in over-riding a Charter Right, has to meet strict standards that protect Charter Rights.  That is a myth.  It is not true.

In reality, there is little protection because the procedure is flawed.  It’s not too hard to see.

The following may be useful to someone, sometime.

THE WAY IT IS SUPPOSED TO WORK: 

If the Government wants to over-ride a Charter Right, it must successfully argue the OAKES TEST in front of a Judge.

MORE  – – see Items # 3 & 4  in   Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 8 Privacy . . . Oakes Test to override.

 

THE WAY IT WORKS IN PRACTICE –  HOW IS THE OAKES TEST CIRCUMVENTED?  . . . EASILY

The test has to be triggered by the Crown (the Prosecutors).   All they have to do (as they did in my case), is DECLINE TO ARGUE THE OAKES TEST – – make some other argument.   They can thereby extinguish a Charter Right without ever having to justify doing so.

It is a sound strategy if you are the Prosecutor, trying to win a case against a Charter Right.

But it has the consequence of making a mockery of the Oakes Test, AND of  the Section 1 Over-ride, AND of the Charter Right.

 

Page  2 of 3

WHAT SHOULD BE

In defending a Charter Right, the Defence has to be able to compel the Crown to meet (to argue) the requirements of the Oakes Test.

The Test is irrelevant, unless there is some way in which the DEFENCE is able to trigger it?  Or unless the Judge can order it?

UNTIL THEN   Charter Rights in Canada are extremely vulnerable, maybe non-existent.

My Direct Experience,   Excerpt:

  1. IMPORTANT: IN MY TRIAL, THE CROWN DID NOT ARGUE AN OVERRIDE OF THE SECTION 8 CHARTER RIGHT. BUT THE CHARTER RIGHT WAS IN FACT TAKEN AWAY.

Steve (lawyer) writes, 2013:   (I, Sandra,  added the parentheses.)

The “override” you’re talking about is section 1 of the Charter, which was not raised by the Crown, so it was not considered by Judge Whelan (Provincial Court, guilty decision) or Justice Conkin (Court of Queen’s Bench, guilty decision upheld).

Judge Whelan’s decision focused on whether the search was “reasonable” under section 8 of the Charter.

As I had previously understood lawyer Steve’s explanation:

  • under the procedures we, the defendants, could not place the argument against an override of the Section 8 Charter Right before the Court. The argument for an override had to be originated by the Crown, and then we could have placed the opposing argument, defending against an override.

(INSERT:  The Judge asked the Prosecutor a few times if he was going to argue a Section 1 override of my Charter Right to privacy of personal information. The prosecutor consistently said “no”.  I was confused by this.  My understanding of the law was that the Crown effectively wanted to extinguish my right to Privacy.  And would therefore be compelled to successfully argue the Oakes Test (which I didn’t think they could do).   As became clear,  the Prosecution would have been crazy to follow the prescribed procedure for override on a Charter Right.  Read on.)

For me, the EFFECT of the Crown not arguing a Section 1 override:

 

Page 3 of 3

I was given a conditional discharge, but at the base, I was found guilty of non-compliance – – which has the effect of removing the Charter Right to privacy of personal information.

The OAKES TEST is specifically a TWO-PART test, with a 1. AND a 2. The Crown Prosecutor and Judge did not consider it, although it is the procedure established by law to override a Charter Right.

We were denied the ability to make the Oakes Test arguments against an override of the Charter Right to privacy. The Judge did not have to address those arguments in her decision through the simple mechanism of not calling it a Section 1 override.

The “REASONABLENESS” addressed by the Judge, as I understand, was whether it was reasonable for the Government to collect the information (because it is valuable information).

The preceding,  (#4.)  is excerpted from:

2010-12-23 Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 8 Privacy – Case Law: The Queen Vs Plant protects a “biographical core of personal information” from the state. Oakes Test to override.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –  –

UPDATE   Feb 2016:  From posting    2016-02-04 Census, Lockheed Martin & Charter Right. Replies to student research, Philosophy Class, Truth & Propaganda.  (Includes “What were my primary motivations?)

RE:    former Chief Statistician agrees with the premise of your second reason (Charter Right to Privacy). He states that while the mandatory collection of personal information is in violation of the charter right, however it is a ‘legitimate violation of the right’ (the idea that rights may be rescinded for a social good) because it is a recognized necessity as outlined in the statistics act.

MY REPLY:

Yes, the Government may rescind the rights of an individual.  However,

  1. The Statistics Act does not give the Government the authority to do that.  StatsCan cannot just declare that this is so.
  2. In order to override the Charter Right of an individual, the Government has to pass the “Oakes Test“.

If StatsCan wishes to take away Canadians’ Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information, it would have to make an application to the Court to do so, supplying the Court with the arguments to satisfy the Oakes Test.   It has not done that.   So the Charter Right stands.

 

Oct 102013
 

The application for leave-to-appeal to the Supreme Court was “dismissed” which means that I lost the legal battle.

 

WHAT IS THE CHARTER RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF PERSONAL INFORMATION  WHICH WAS THE DEFENCE IN MY TRAIL?  WHAT WAS LOST?

“In fostering the underlying values of dignity, integrity and autonomy, it is fitting that s. 8 of the Charter should seek to protect a biographical core of personal information which individuals in a free and democratic society would wish to maintain and control from dissemination to the state.”

(Ref.  Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 8 Privacy – Case Law: The Queen Vs Plant protects a “biographical core of personal information” from the state. Oakes Test to override.)

– – – – – – – – – – –

Hello everyone,

The Tobias judgment is below — scroll down.  (89-year-old Audrey Tobias was charged for failure to comply with the 2011 Census.  Audrey did not fill in a census form because of Lockheed Martin’s involvement at StatsCan.)

Regarding my own case (2006 Census, objection to Lockheed Martin, charter right to privacy of personal information the legal argument put forth because it was the argument with the greatest likelihood of success):

The Supreme Court “dismissed” the application for Leave-to-Appeal.  They decided not to hear the appeal.  So the lower court decisions (“guilty”) stand, at least as far as the Province of Saskatchewan is concerned.

The decision by the SCC to dismiss the appeal is based on the “Objective Summary” provided to the deciding panel.  That Summary made two points, both of which began with the statement:

“The applicant refused to fill in and return any of the long form census form.”

Through my lawyer, I tried to get the Summary changed.  I had had numerous conversations with StatsCan, Prosecution Services and the Judge through the years.  NEVER was PARTIALLY filling in the form an option.  The Citizen is pressured  to fill in the form, to provide all the personal information sought by the form.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Peter writes:

I think your case was very worthwhile in spite of losing; it helped to make Canadians aware of Lockheed Martin’s involvement in the census, and to question it.

To me, an important eye-opener:

My trial shed light on the vulnerability of our Charter Rights.  As far as I know, the  Oakes Test has been accepted, unchallenged mythology.  See the short explanation, The Oakes Test to over-ride Charter Rights.  How Prosecutors get around it.

I conclude that the defenders of our Charter Rights are we ourselves.  The Justice system and the Government are not going to do it.   Through numbers provided in the transcript of the Tobias trial the head of StatsCan census operations testified that non-compliance is now 11%.  Some portion of that represents defence of the Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information.

The situation legally is now this:

THE SASKATCHEWAN COURT-OF-APPEAL DECISION STANDS – –  IT APPLIES IN SASKATCHEWAN.

In Saskatchewan the Courts, by finding me guilty of non-compliance with the 2006 Census, have effectively ruled that in Saskatchewan we do NOT have the Charter Right to Privacy of personal information in this case where the demand came from Statistics Canada.   (That was the issue through the appeal process in my trial.)

(BUT, as explained below and in a number of postings,  do not confuse StatsCan “surveys” with censuses.)

THE ONLY AVENUE LEFT, TO UPHOLD THE CHARTER RIGHT WOULD BE

By the issue coming up through the Justice system in one of the other provinces.  (The Courts of Appeal in the different provinces CAN and sometimes DO, take different views.  There may then be another appeal to the Supreme Court.)

THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (SCC) CHOSE NOT TO HEAR THE QUESTION OF PRIVACY OF PERSONAL INFORMATION, IN MY CASE

Unfortunate.  It is a very important question for Canadians, especially in the wake of the leaks by Edward Snowden, and in the context of the American military/surveillance intrusion into Canada.  Lockheed Martin is involved with the work being done at StatsCan;  and also with the NSA.   I think it most likely that “back-door” entry to the StatsCan data base has been established, with or without StatsCan knowledge.

Can’t know whether the privacy question vis-à-vis StatsCan data base will come to the SCC again in the future, through someone else in a different province.

The Supreme Court of Canada decided not to hear an appeal of the decision of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.  (The Sask Appeal Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts in Saskatchewan.  I was found “guilty” but given an absolute discharge in relation to the 2006 census long form.)

It may be a moot point. The CENSUS long form (50+ questions, many of them personal – 2006) no longer exists.   And SURVEYS (the National Household Survey, 80+ questions, replaced the census long form) are not mandatory.  So people cannot be prosecuted for failure to comply (to hand over all the personal information), as was the case for myself and others in 2006.

A problem I have is that StatsCan continues to tell people that they have to hand over the information requested in a Survey, because “It is the Law.  You will be prosecuted if you don’t.”  Which is not true.   See  ARE STATSCAN “SURVEYS” MANDATORY?

I believe we have to strenuously defend Charter Rights.  It is a low point, when, in the Province of Saskatchewan the Justices rationalized away the Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information.

Refer also to (short and easy to understand):  The Oakes Test to over-ride Charter Rights.  How Prosecutors get around it.

So, we keep on, keepin’ on!

PEACE GROUPS

A few days ago I posted on many facebook groups:

If we want peace, we have to be knowledgeable, and use every opportunity to halt the WAR CORPORATIONS. 

How do we combat the financial incentives to war? A large percentage of the American economy is dependent upon their War machinery. Canada is expanding its dependence. The War Corporations make money, always. They are considered to be a wise investment. To add insult to injury, tax payers provide huge funding to them.  (F-35 contracts!) 

And so it happens that I refused to participate in the Census – – Lockheed Martin Corporation has lucrative Government contracts related to Census and “Survey” data collection on citizens. They are the American war and surveillance industry. I ended up in Court. …

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =  = = = = =

TOBIAS

The Court decision in the Audrey Tobias case (Lockheed Martin / Census   Click on the link to see a copy of the decision.

The reason for acquittal was not related to the Charter Right.

Thanks to Rod for explaining it:

Great for her (Audrey Tobias) but not for the charter issue!!!!  They basically shuffled the cards and played a joker trump card and totally avoided the charter rights… which will not help your cause… my opinion. Highlighted in red…..your intent is obvious.

(“The judge rejected the charter arguments, but said that Tobias’s memory and some conflicting testimony left him with reasonable doubt as to her intent at the time of the refusal.

Audrey Tobias and her lawyer, Peter Rosenthal, were surprised by the judge’s decision. (Trevor Dunn/CBC)

Judge Ramez Khawly noted that for a conviction both the act and intent of a crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, so he had to acquit Tobias.

“It was an unusual judgment in my view,” Rosenthal said outside court. “He described our charter arguments as Hail Mary passes and he didn’t catch it …They were novel arguments but he found a more novel argument it seems in analyzing the [intent].”)”

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =  = = = =

My many thanks to you all.

I am satisfied.  The ball landed in my court in March 2008 – –  the Summons to Court.  With the help of many people, the sharing of information, many more citizens are aware of what Lockheed Martin Corporation is, and what they are doing in Canada.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

EXCERPT from:

President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s 1961 farewell speech Plus Words of Wisdom from Eisenhower.

I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.

I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments.  Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it.

(note – – it’s worthwhile reading the rest of what Eisenhower said. It’s pretty amazing.)

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE  to Lockheed Martin’s involvement in the Statistics Canada  (called the “Census Bureau” in the U.S.) data base is because of what Lockheed Martin does in the world.

  • Besides the manufacture of weapons that are against Canadian and International Law
  • besides their international surveillance
  • besides how corrupt they are
  • Lockheed Martin Corp was very influential in the decision by the American Govt to drop bombs on Iraq in an illegal war justified by lies and propaganda.  The war has bankrupted the American people (trillions of dollars of debt), inflicted terrible destruction and de-stabilized the Middle East.
  • UPDATE:  In 2015 it became known that Lockheed Martin was the number one “contract interrogator” in the highly illegal and depraved torture at American offshore prisons like Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.

These are the guys that our tax dollars are enriching, through exorbitant contracts  (the price of just one helmet, required by each pilot of a Lockheed Martin F-35 stealth bomber is one million dollars.)

Oct 092013
 

UPDATE:  Activist Audrey Tobias objected to Lockheed Martin’s involvement with processing the census in 2011. She died in December 2016. (Chris Young/The Canadian Press)

I have to pause for a moment.  Bless you, Audrey.

Toronto Audrey Tobias court

 

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/10/09/audrey-tobias-found-not-guilty-in-trial-for-census-refusal-over-weapons-maker-link/

 

Audrey Tobias found not guilty in trial for census refusal over weapons-maker link

 

Allison Jones, Canadian Press | October 9, 2013

 

Audrey Tobias walks from a Toronto court with her lawyer Peter Rosenthal on Wednesday, October 9, 2013

Chris Young / The Canadian PressAudrey Tobias walks from a Toronto court with her lawyer Peter Rosenthal on Wednesday, October 9, 2013

TORONTO — A Toronto judge lambasted the government Wednesday for its prosecution of an 89-year-old peace activist who refused to fill out the 2011 census, and found her not guilty.

Audrey Tobias admitted that she refused to fill out the basic personal information the census required because it was processed using software from U.S. military contractor Lockheed Martin.

But the judge noted there are two elements that the Crown must prove for a conviction: the act and the intent.

 

Tobias’s testimony left Ontario Court Judge Ramez Khawly unsure whether she was accurately recalling her intent for refusing the census nearly 2 1/2 years ago, or if the passage of time has “dimmed her memory.”

 

 

That left Khawly with reasonable doubt of Tobias’s intent and he said he therefore must acquit her.

Tobias stood defiant but soft spoken on the courthouse steps, saying she was willing to be dragged off to jail if she had been found guilty.

 

“I would have done whatever was necessary because I wasn’t willing to fill it in,” she said. Asked whether she had been afraid of the prospect of spending a maximum of three months behind bars, she shrugged.

“I was curious,” she said. “I wondered what it would be like.”

She wasn’t, however, willing to pay the maximum $500 fine the Statistics Act charge carried because she said that would be an admission of guilt.

Her lawyer, Peter Rosenthal, said outside court that it was unexpected for the case to come down to the “exact nuance of what she was thinking as she failed to fill out the form.”

“It’s a very unusual ruling in my experience and opinion,” he said.

“He wasn’t criticizing her for being an older person with a lack of memory. I mean, everybody reframes things as you rethink something that happened a couple of years ago.

Chris Young / The Canadian Press

Chris Young / The Canadian PressTobias grips a rail for support as she leaves court

 

Tobias said she didn’t think her age had anything to do with it.

“People are people until they’re dead, old or young,” she said.

There were 3,700 Canadians who refused to fill out the census, Tobias’s one-day trial heard, and that list was whittled down through various criteria to about 53 people who Statistics Canada recommended taking to court.

But the Department of Justice didn’t have to go along with prosecuting an elderly peace activist who was a “model citizen,” Khawly said.

 

I mean, really, could the defence have scripted anything better for their cause? Did no one at Justice clue in that on a public relations perspective, this was an unmitigated disaster? Are they that myopic that they could not see the train wreck ahead?

.

“Could they not have found a more palatable profile to prosecute as a test case?” Khawly said.

“I mean, really, could the defence have scripted anything better for their cause? Did no one at Justice clue in that on a public relations perspective, this was an unmitigated disaster? Are they that myopic that they could not see the train wreck ahead?”

Tobias was a photogenic “martyr in the making,” Khawly said.

“Anyone in Justice who had not seen that coming should be ushered immediately into an introductory marketing course,” he said.

 

Lawyer Peter Rosenthal, who represented Tobias pro bono, had argued that forcing her to complete the census would violate her freedoms of conscience and free expression.

Khawly rejected the Charter arguments he characterized as a “Hail Mary pass,” but admitted he was briefly captivated by the “siren song of the defence.”

“Only once I paused long enough, did the reality of giving in to this invitation hit me,” he said. “Rational thought replaced emotion. To accede to the defence view struck me as even more disturbing than Justice’s lack of sensitivity and feel for picking their battles.”

No reasonable interpretation of the law can justify the defence’s Charter arguments, no matter how “sympathetic” the accused, Khawly said.

“It is not readily apparent that answering the short, biographical census questions amounts to forcing a message on Ms. Tobias,” he said.

“(The defence’s argument) lacks any nexus between Ms. Tobias’s conscientious beliefs nor her freedom of expression and the legal requirement to complete the census questionnaire.”

Oct 072013
 

(Note:  don’t let the beginning of the article dissuade you!)

http://www.economist.com/news/international/21586842-bloodshed-sometimes-helps-autocrats-stay-power-it-rarely-benefits-protesters-weapon

THE little screaming fact that sounds through all history”, John Steinbeck wrote, is that “repression works only to strengthen and knit the repressed.” The standard Western critique of skull-crackers on the streets of Cairo, Moscow or Tehran is “You will regret it.” But will they? History’s lessons regarding protests and violence are more complex. Bloodshed sometimes works for autocrats, at least temporarily. But for protesters themselves, taking up arms is usually a mistake.

Massacres do indeed leave the culprits isolated on the international stage and reviled at home, as citizens lose any illusions they might have harboured about their rulers. But, at least in the short term, they often keep regimes in power. China’s Communist rulers see the deaths on Tiananmen Square in 1989 as blood well spilled. Doubtless Iran’s have few regrets about the people they killed in 2009. Bashar Assad may feel that his atrocities in Syria have been vindicated. In this narrow sense—even if observers might wish otherwise—violence often succeeds.

Oct 072013
 

Go to the URL – there is a short, good video interview of a journalist in Rio de Janeiro:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/more-disclosures-about-canadas-foreign-spying-activities-coming-us-journalist-says/article14726430/

(the text of the article is below, for back-up)

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Also of interest:

Canada’s elite soldiers expropriate to expand CFB Trenton  (With a note by me about the justification given by the Member-of-Parliament  – it’s jobs and economic development for the area, don’t you know!)

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =  = = =

Brazil is tip of the iceberg on Canadian spying, U.S. journalist says

BY Stephanie Nolen and Colin Freeze

Rio de Janeiro and Toronto — The Globe and Mail

More disclosures about Canada’s aggressive foreign spying activities are coming, suggests Glenn Greenwald, the American journalist revealing the top-secret documents acquired by Edward Snowden, the former U.S. National Security Agency employee and security contractor.

“There is a huge amount of stuff about Canada in these archives because Canada works so closely with the NSA,” Mr. Greenwald, who lives in Brazil, told The Globe and Mail in an interview on Monday.

While he said that he would not comment on documents not yet made public, he said that Canadians should know that “there is nothing really unique about what Canada’s doing to Brazil – it’s not like Brazil is the only target for Canada.”

On Sunday, Mr. Greenwald teamed with reporter Sonia Bridi from Brazil’s flagship investigative television program Fantastico to reveal documents suggesting that the Communications Security Establishment of Canada (CSEC), an ultrasecretive “electronic-eavesdropping agency,” set out to conduct a cyber-espionage campaign against Brazil’s mines and energy ministry.

Brazil’s president Dilma Rousseff called the spying “unacceptable” on Twitter Monday. Saying the spying appeared to be a clear case of industrial espionage, she demanded an explanation from the Canadian government.

The leaked documents suggest that in 2012 CSEC used a spying program code-named Olympia to map the phone calls, e-mails and video conferences made within the mines and energy ministry.

Mr. Greenwald said that Brazil isn’t the only country that the Olympia program has targeted, according to the documents he has seen. He added that the ramifications spread far beyond Brazil.

“The reason this is so newsworthy is that the U.S. and its allies love to say the only reason they are doing this kind of mass surveillance is they want to stop terrorism and protect national security – but these documents make clear it is industrial and economic competition, it’s about mining resources and minerals,” Mr. Greenwald said.

Last month, Mr. Greenwald and Globo revealed that the NSA is spying on Petrobras, Brazil’s national oil company.

Mr. Greenwald says its hypocrisy that the United States and its allies publicly lament they are victims of cyber-espionage while privately engaging in such intelligence-gathering campaigns themselves.

“The U.S. is running around publicly accusing China of using hacking for industrial advantage – well, this is a really clear cut example of this – of how Canada and the rest of the Five Eyes are doing it,” he said.

The “Five Eyes” is the name for the secretive alliance of “signals-intelligence” agencies from the English-speaking world – Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States – that has existed since the Second World War. For decades countries have had a loose agreement to help each other spy on foreign countries, while refraining from spying on one another.

Mr. Greenwald said the revelations about CSEC he worked to broadcast on Fantastico on Sunday night stood out among the documents in the Snowden archive that he has reviewed so far.

“It was a pretty amazingly detailed document, given what these documents usually are.”

He wryly quipped that it was characteristically Canadian – “polite and thoughtful” – for the spy agency to have made its activities so explicit.

When the reporting team took the CSEC-stamped documents to Brazil’s Ministry of Mines and Energy for a response, officials immediately latched on to their significance.

“The Brazilians were very specific about the competition they’re in with Canada and Canadian industry and the interest the industry has in Brazil,” Mr. Greenwald said. “And pretty indignant about how obvious the motive is, purely for industrial and economic advantage.”

One of the leaked slides makes it clear CSEC collaborates with the U.S. National Security Agency’s highly aggressive “Tailored Access Operations” unit.

“TAO is one of the most aggressive and insidious parts of the NSA – they’re hackers – they hack other people’s computers exactly the way hackers that the U.S. puts in prison do,” Mr. Greenwald said. “Canada is working with the NSA on some of the most aggressive techniques that the NSA did.”

Mr. Greenwald first met with Mr. Snowden in Hong Kong along with filmmaker Laura Poitras last summer. The former contractor had reached out to them, explaining that he had amassed a treasure trove of classified NSA and allied material that he wanted to leak.

Mr. Greenwald said that when he and Ms. Poitras began to learn what was in the documents, they were struck by “how active Canada is in its partnership with the U.S. and U.K.”

Mr. Snowden now lives in Moscow, out of the reach of U.S. authorities who are seeking to try him on espionage charges.