On Thursday October 11 Grassy Narrows leader Steve Fobister Sr. passed away after many decades of fighting mercury poisoning in his body and fighting denial from government. Steve’s grieving family says that "Steve always wanted the government to admit that he had been poisoned by mercury. Now we take up his fight to honour him. Trudeau and Elliott, will you admit that Steve was poisoned, and will you compensate Grassy Narrows fairly for our mercury crisis?" I am sad to hear that 48 years after mercury pollution was discovered in Grassy Narrows’ river no government has ever acknowledged that even one person in Grassy Narrows has been poisoned by mercury. This denial and environmental racism must end. I join Steve’s family in demanding that you admit now that Steve Fobister Sr. was poisoned and killed by mercury! I am shocked to learn that 94% of Grassy Narrows people receive no compensation for the mercury crisis which continues rob them of their loved ones and to ravage their health, culture, livelihood, rights, and environment. All must be compensated until they enjoy the same quality of life they enjoyed before mercury and the same wellbeing that others in Canada take for granted. Commit to compensate all Grassy Narrows people fairly for the ongoing mercury crisis which all governments have denied and neglected for so long! I further call on you to act quickly to fulfill your governments’ promises to: 1. Fully clean up Grassy Narrows’ river, 2. Build a care home and treatment center for mercury survivors in Grassy Narrows, 3. Comprehensively reform the Mercury Disability Board. The survivors of this avoidable disaster deserve the best possible health care and support including a Mercury Home and Treatment Centre so that their sick loved ones can be treated with dignity, close to their families. This is an issue that matters deeply to me and millions of other people, and I will be following this closely to see that mercury justice is delivered to Grassy Narrows.

As Victoria's housing crisis continues, communities and residents are exploring innovative housing solutions to meet their diverse needs. For many, tiny houses on wheels offer an affordable, sustainable, safe and dignified housing option. However, mobile tiny houses are not legally allowed as residential units in most municipalities across BC, including Victoria. People who want to go tiny are being denied this housing option, or else living illegally and insecurely in mobile units. On October 20 2018, residents will vote for new mayors and councils across BC. This is a perfect time to tell our elected officials that we need access to housing that is truly affordable, sustainable, and conducive to long-term health of our communities. Around the world, tiny houses are gaining in popularity as an alternative model of affordable and sustainable housing for diverse populations. In growing urban centres, vacant, irregular or undeveloped lots could accommodate temporary tiny houses as a means of gentle densification. Tiny houses could also be used as small-scale infill housing to fit within residential neighbourhood contexts, or as laneway alternatives on single-family residentially zoned lots, creating space for intergenerational living. Zoning bylaws and building codes need to be updated to reduce barriers to alternative living. Housing options along the entire housing continuum should be discussed as part of any affordable housing strategy. Including tiny homes in election campaigns and later in zoning regulation changes is an important step towards creating room for innovative and creative solutions driven by the community. If enough people sign this petition, we’ll be able to convince mayoral and council candidates in Victoria to include mobile tiny houses in their election platforms this October and, when elected, to work on legalizing tiny houses by creating municipal zoning for mobile tiny houses and supporting tiny house amendments to the BC building code.

As Vancouver's housing crisis continues, communities and residents are exploring innovative housing solutions to meet their diverse needs. For many, tiny houses on wheels offer an affordable, sustainable, safe and dignified housing option. However, mobile tiny houses are not legally allowed as residential units in most municipalities across BC, including Vancouver. People who want to go tiny are being denied this housing option, or else living illegally and insecurely in mobile units. On October 20 2018, residents will vote for new mayors and councils across BC. This is a perfect time to tell our elected officials that we need access to housing that is truly affordable, sustainable, and conducive to long-term health of our communities. Around the world, tiny houses are gaining in popularity as an alternative model of affordable and sustainable housing for diverse populations. In growing urban centres, vacant, irregular or undeveloped lots could accommodate temporary tiny houses as a means of gentle densification. Tiny houses could also be used as small-scale infill housing to fit within residential neighbourhood contexts, or as laneway alternatives on single-family residentially zoned lots, creating space for intergenerational living. Zoning bylaws and building codes need to be updated to reduce barriers to alternative living. Housing options along the entire housing continuum should be discussed as part of any affordable housing strategy. Including tiny homes in election campaigns and later in zoning regulation changes is an important step towards creating room for innovative and creative solutions driven by the community. If enough people sign this petition, we’ll be able to convince mayoral and council candidates in Vancouver to include mobile tiny houses in their election platforms this October and, when elected, to work on legalizing tiny houses by creating municipal zoning for mobile tiny houses and supporting tiny house amendments to the BC building code.

The White Pines is a project to build nine wind turbines in Prince Edward County. Four of these turbines are already complete, with the remainder expected to be installed within the next few weeks and testing scheduled for the following month. Once live, they would have provided enough clean energy to power over 3,000 homes. But Energy Minister Greg Rickford and Doug Ford’s PCs have passed legislation cancelling the project, and as a result, Ontario will now be spending money to uproot and destroy clean energy capacity that’s already been built. Doug Ford ran on a promise to keep Ontario open for business, but his government’s first piece of legislation, "The White Pines Wind Project Termination Act", would terminate this project that has been nearly 10 years in the making, at a cost of over $100 million to taxpayers. [1] At a time when the world is transitioning to renewable energy, this act would kill opportunities for future green energy investment, further put the climate at risk, and cost Ontario taxpayers millions spent destroying a nearly completed project. [2, 3] Doug Ford ran his campaign on the promise that his government is ‘for the people’. Let’s have our voice heard and let his energy minister know that Ontario wants to protect this windfarm and champion the green energies of the future. Please sign this petition to demand the reversal of the White Pines Wind Project Termination Act. Sources: [1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/wind-project-high-price-1.4742850 [2] https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/cancelling-ontario-s-wind-project-could-cost-over-100m-company-warns-1.4009397 [3] https://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-ivison-white-pines-decision-says-doug-fords-ontario-is-closed-for-business

We can't ignore the pollution created by our waste so every little thing counts.

The number one issue for all governments at every level is to stop global warming. The biosphere will collapse if we don't all do everything we can to draw down fossil fuel emissions and prevent more from occurring. The environment is more important than the economy; the environment was chugging along nicely before humans brought the economy on board, but the economy will not chug along nicely when the oceans start to boil. We must rally to save not just your children and grandchildren, but the microbes, the fungi, and the whales with kilograms of plastic in them. Everything in the biosphere is at terrible risk, and we must all change our ways right now if we don't want all living beings to perish.

Our young people are looking at a planet that will be severely compromised without us acting now. I am sick about the me-oriented policies of the Ford government.

Let's make sure that the Clean Energy Act only lets BC Hydro burn clean wood, which is not creosote-soaked rail ties.

Plastic takes over 200 years to break down, which means that all of the plastic that has ever been made is still out there! We want to work towards a healthier future for ourselves, our families, and the environment. We think that a ban single-use plastic in Canada would be the first step in having a healthy and safe future for everyone!

Le plastique est le polluant le plus répandu dans nos océans. Il cause des dommages à l'environnement parce qu'il ne se décompose pas facilement et est souvent confondu avec de la nourriture par la vie marine. Plus d'un million d'oiseaux de mer sont tués par la pollution des océans chaque année. Près de trois mille dauphins et marsouins meurent chaque année de la consommation ou de l'enchevêtrement dans la pollution des océans. En outre, un million de mammifères marins sont tués chaque année à la suite de la pollution. Les eaux de ruissellement provenant de l'agriculture et des installations de production contribuent grandement à la pollution des océans. Le ruissellement des eaux usées conduit à la décomposition de la matière organique qui affecte la biodiversité marine. Les engrais qui sont déversés dans les eaux océaniques créent une eutrophisation et permettent aux algues de s'épanouir et d'épuiser la teneur en oxygène de l'eau. Les petits animaux au bas du changement alimentaire sont les plus susceptibles d'absorber ces produits chimiques. Ces petites créatures marines sont alors mangées et les produits chimiques remontent à travers la chaîne alimentaire, contaminant ainsi nos sources d'aliments marins. Nous devons empêcher que ces sources majeures de pollution ne détruisent complètement nos océans. La vie marine est vitale dans de nombreuses parties du monde. Ce monde mérite mieux. Qui sait combien de temps le problème continuera à s'aggraver et à quel point aurons-nous complètement détruit nos océans irréparables? Notre mission est de nettoyer les océans contre la pollution, en particulier la pollution plastique, par C.P.R, le nettoyage, la prévention et la réduction des déchets. Prévention du déversement en mer, des fuites d'huile et d'autres formes de pollution de l'océan. Nettoyage de la pollution actuelle des océans tels que les gyres à ordures et les plages polluées. Enfin, en réduisant nos déchets, il y aurait moins de pollution en général et dans nos océans.  ÊTRE LA SOLUTION À LA POLLUTION OCÉANIQUE!

In 2002, there were recycling units at the bus stop in Elmvale, which have since been replaced by nothing more than open garbage containers. With that being the case, there are recyclable items ending up in landfills.

Polystyrene foam, more commonly known as Styrofoam, is a non-biodegradable, petroleum-based material containing styrene, a cancer-suspect compound (according to the Environmental Protection Agency [https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/documents/styrene.pdf], the International Agency for Research on Cancer [http://www.inchem.org/documents/iarc/vol82/82-07.html], and the American National Toxicology Program [https://web.archive.org/web/20110612085554/http://www.niehs.nih.gov/about/materials/styrenefs.pdf]), and benzene, a confirmed carcinogen (https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/documents/benzene.pdf). Most Montreal fruiteries and grocery stores make regular use of polystyrene cartons to package fresh, bulk fruits and vegetables. Polystyrene is also used by some restaurants and cafés to serve food and drinks. And of course, polystyrene is a common material used in shipping (foam inserts, packing peanuts, egg cartons) and in construction as insulation. There are many reasons to object to the use of polystyrene packaging: 1. When used to package certain food products (hot food and beverages, alcohol, foods containing beta-carotene) it has been suggested that some of the toxins in polystyrene (styrene and benzene) are more likely to leach into your food. One study even showed that styrene can leach directly into ambient-temperature water (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17915704). The American Food and Drug Administration, however, insists that polystyrene is a safe and stable food container, although small amounts of styrene may remain in the plastic post-production (https://www.plasticfoodservicefacts.com/foodservice-safety/fda-safety-of-polystyrene-foodservice-products/). In short, this is a controversial point — but regardless of where you stand on this point, there are many other reasons to ban the use of polystyrene. 2. As a petroleum product, polystyrene is unsustainable. A Worldwatch report from 2016 estimates that 8% of petroleum consumed globally goes towards making plastics: 4% in the plastics themselves, and another 4% to power the production process (http://www.worldwatch.org/global-plastic-production-rises-recycling-lags-0). 3. Polystyrene is resistant to photolysis and takes hundreds of years to decompose. Because of its ubiquitous use and the degree to which it is difficult, expensive, and dangerous to recycle, polystyrene plastics make up an enormous portion of landfill waste and marine debris (see, e.g., http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-polystyrene-bans-20160713-snap-story.html). Even if marine debris is not technically toxic, it is still a colossal problem. A recent report stated that "global annual plastic consumption has now reached over 320 million tonnes with more plastic produced in the last decade than ever before," and that the world's largest marine garbage pile, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, is growing more quickly than ever (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22939-w). 4. Although the plastic is relatively stable, and there is no current consensus on whether it leaches toxic compounds into water systems, it is established that polystyrene (a) act as a sponge for chemical pollutants in the water (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X09002690), and (b) physically break down into small pellets that are very difficult to clean up, and are subsequently consumed by marine life and birds. This leads both to choking and digestive system blockages and to poisoning of the organisms that consume the pollutant-soaked pellets. This is not only ethically wrong in terms of our relations to the non-human world, but it comes full circle, contributing to the poisoning of the food and water sources we rely on. 5. Even before it makes it to the grocery store, the landfill, or the ocean, polystyrene is putting people at risk. A study conducted in 2016 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26574575) reported excess numbers of deaths associated with lung cancer, ovarian cancer, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among workers who are chronically exposed to styrene compounds. (See also: https://web.archive.org/web/20110617160927/http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov:80/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/Styrene.pdf.) 6. Polystyrene is very difficult to recycle in part because its basic ingredients, styrene and benzene, are toxic (http://mercergroup.com/what-we-recycle/). Ecocentre LaSalle does have a polystyrene recycling program, but you must have the means to bring it there yourself (http://ville.montreal.qc.ca/portal/page?_pageid=9217,103627572&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL). For now, this is an absolutely necessary project to have. It is, however, inaccessible to many if not most Montrealers, requires too many resources, puts more people in contact with toxins, and would be unnecessary if polystyrene — which causes harm even before it is thrown away — were no longer allowed in the city. 7. Canada says it wants to be a leader in reducing plastic waste (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-g7-plastics-push-1.4566732), but we're way behind. Many cities in the United States, including major cities such as New York and Los Angeles, have already banned the use of polystyrene products (https://groundswell.org/map-which-cities-have-banned-plastic-foam/). There has recently been recognition in Montreal of the harm that non-recyclable plastic shopping bags cause the environment and ourselves. There is momentum in this city that we can use to push farther. If we are truly committed to the reduction of plastic waste, it needs to be extended to other dangerous, one-use plastic products — and what better place to begin than polystyrene.