Who will speak for us? Redux

I first published this in February, 2008. Not much has changed and ALL of it still holds true as it did 19 months ago. See a few updated comments in red below.

Where to begin? Although I've been away for some time, I've kept up with all the goings on over the incinerator. And in my travels I've had the opportunity to learn much more than I ever wanted to know about incineration, and the pro-incinerator lobby. They are powerful and vocal and are everywhere. They are masterful at showing the best side of incineration and hiding the deep, dark deadly secrets.

They will show you the clean, Darlington-looking control rooms and allow you to speak with those who depend on the industry for their livelihoods. They will point out a school or daycare or apartment building or clothesline just within spitting distance of the incinerator and tell you everyone is content and happy with it. And it makes you want to spit.

If you travel a little farther afield and speak to people not on the industry's "okay list", you'll find a lot of worry, a lot of dissatisfaction, and a lot of anger surrounding the incineration industry. Especially from those who were led to believe that it was safe with few emissions because of all the scrubber technology and monitoring. They found out differently AFTER the fact. They found out that livestock on farms were affected and now it's not safe to drink the milk or eat the meat that has 'bio-accumulated' toxins in them. It has now begun to hurt the farming industry and as that knowledge spreads, it will devastate it.

They found out that they are having higher rates of birth defects in infants in areas within a 20 - 90 km radius of these stacks. They are having more chronic lung disease problems such as asthma (sound familiar?) and certain types of cancers.

But in most cases, their governments are silent. They don't want to be sued and they want to keep up their denials. There are some in government who are trying to speak out and are muzzled. There are many in the general population who are not muzzled and are being heard world-wide, if you care to listen.

Our elected (and unelected) officials have chosen not to listen. They are content to listen only to the paid EFW lobbyists the Region hired to promote incineration. Yes, that's right, they were hired to get it through the EA process and get it approved. They were not hired to do objective testing or studies - and that is more than evident from the so-called studies already completed. Look at the air quality statistics brought forward at Regional Committees and Council, and at Clarington Council numerous times. Those numbers came from the appendices of the Region's very own hired consultant's studies so they cannot dispute them. But those numbers were hidden deep in those pages and never, not once, brought forward by the consultants in all their presentations to committee, council, or the public at the public information sessions, even when asked about them. When air quality numbers are hundreds and thousands of times worse in Clarington than in East Gwillimbury, but they are rated as equal or both "neutral" for advantage or disadvantage, you know SOMETHING isn't right.

And that is only the tip of the iceberg. Confidence in the EA process has been dwindling as it has become increasingly evident that results appear to be manipulated in such a way as to promote or ensure the desired outcome of the process. This is not wild speculation. It seems so abundantly obvious if anyone takes the time to actually read not only the executive summary of these studies, but also dig deep into the bowels of the consultant's analysis to extract the fact from the faeces.

That so many of our elected officials are taken in by this spin and haven't taken the time to flush out the truth for themselves is highly disturbing. These are the people who are entrusted with our health and well-being, yet they refuse to listen to the groundswell of doctors in Durham Region who are vehemently opposed to this incinerator. They refuse to read the medical journals or numerous studies that would support the contention that there are emissions that cannot be captured by present technology - emissions that are bioaccumulative and dangerous to humans, especially in the fetal stages, infants and toddlers, and those with chronic illness who are already compromised. Tiny nanoparticles that can penetrate all organs including the brain through the blood/brain barrier.

They are entrusted with keeping our environment safe and healthy, yet refuse to listen to experts or environmental groups and choose instead to believe the consultants who are paid to PROMOTE incineration, the lobby groups and the industry.

They should be protecting agriculture in the region, including livestock operations, but have ignored expert studies and peer review literature which explains the risks and already proven effects on the food chain.

They should be caring a lot more than they are - and should show some common sense. Mayor Abernethy continues say they MUST push this EA through (though he neglects to say it should be done properly instead of FAST). The way this EA is being conducted, speed is so much more important than accuracy, and speed is a good way to hide many of the facts that should be made public knowledge.

Take the ridiculous reasons given by most Regional Councillors for approving the Courtice 01 site as the preferred site for the incinerator to be built - so that they can get ALL the information needed to make an informed decision. Then they went ahead and made a MAJOR decision in the EA process steps WITHOUT having the necessary information to make that decision. Talk about loony and backward. They needed to have technology information before choosing the site. They completely ignored the information given to them by residents and doctors and experts regarding air quality, for example, using that fake excuse that they want to get more information. Why make such an important decision without having the information first? We know why - it is an excuse they can use to push the EA farther and farther down the road and enable it to skip over information that should be given tough scrutiny. Instead it will get short shrift.

Sept 2009: And it did. This Regional Council approved the EA studies at their June 24th meeting, the last meeting prior to their summer vacation. This was BEFORE all the studies were completed, BEFORE all the results had been reported, BEFORE the Peer Reviews were completed, BEFORE the final of the DRAFT EA was completed.

Which means that ALL those ridiculous excuses for pushing this EA ahead at every step were just that - ridiculous excuses. That they wanted to have "ALL the information" before giving approval? If that were really true, wouldn't they have waited for the final studies and peer reviews to be completed before approving it? There is no excuse or justification for their actions that will make this community believe them or trust them again.

The public is not being fooled, other than a few who have listened to their politicians and not questioned any of the information or done any research themselves. And those are the people who won't be changed anyway. They're probably still using that old DDT in their yards and have kept the asbestos in their walls and don't worry about it because they're not sick yet. They probably smoke too (no lung cancer yet) and think there will be hundreds of jobs to run this new facility. They certainly haven't done their homework there, either.

The incinerator lobby can be excused to some degree for their shameless promotion of EFW, WtE, incineration or whatever you want to call it. They get paid for it. But the fact that our politicians in whom we place our trust are shamelessly promoting it and not even asking questions is totally inexcusable and disgraceful.

That our Mayor Abernethy and Regional Councillors Charlie Trim and Mary Novak put the Region AHEAD of Clarington is disgraceful and inexcusable. Where they got the idea that their first allegiance is to the Region, above Clarington and its residents is not hard to figure out. They are being used by the Region to get what the Region wants. And they haven't even figured that out yet.

Add Local Clarington Councillor Gord Robinson to this bunch. He betrayed his constituents in Clarington, including his agricultural constituents by flip-flopping and voting to approve the Host Community Agreement - an agreement that did NOT contain the monitoring that had been promised to Clarington residents previously by the Region, but ended up being too expensive for them to include in the final EA. No agricultural monitoring for effects from the incinerator. He told other Councillors it was included when it wasn't. A request from the Agricultural Committee was not even considered by Clarington Council because Councillor Robinson decided to betray us all and receive it for information, not vote to endorse it. While I was not present at that meeting, it was talked about afterward by residents and the information can be found in Council minutes.

It is unbelievable that these three (Abernethy, Trim, Novak) voted AGAINST the motion by Brian Nicholson that said if a municipality was an unwilling host, the region would not force an incinerator on them. They would not even protect their own municipality - the Region as always comes first. None of the three can claim they are being protective of Clarington or NOT putting the Region first in all things incinerator.

This is why these three must NEVER be allowed to be re-elected in Clarington. (Add Councillor Robinson so there are now four) They have given up their right to speak for us since they have never spoken for us. They speak for the Region at all times. This is something none of us should forget, no matter how this incineration farce turns out. They have not stood up for Clarington. Only our four local councillors have done so. Hats off to Councillors Foster, Hooper, Woo and Robinson (REMOVE ROBINSON). They are the only ones looking our for our welfare, and it can't be easy with the pressure from the Region and from our Mayor. They deserve our gratitude and our support. And more than ever now.

Now comes the PR farce the Mayor is trying to foist upon the good citizens of Clarington. These people who will be speaking are not experts on incineration. They are promoters, lobbyists, but where are the experts? How can residents give their councillors questions to ask the presenters before they hear them speak? Our hands are tied and the Mayor knows it. That is why these people were invited by our Mayor are being promoted in this forum rather than at an open forum where residents can ask questions.

There is so much more to say on this subject and it will be said. The entire scenario as it is playing out simply disgusts me. All that I hold dear, namely fairness, openness, honesty, transparency, democracy... they are all missing from this entire process. The dirty little bag of tricks continues but is not fooling anybody. Instead it is strengthening those in opposition to this entire debacle. The word is rapidly spreading. They may have the votes at Regional Council to approve this incinerator. But WE have the votes at the ballot box, and we will not forget.

I reiterate: WE WILL NOT FORGET.

Watch now for all the green washing attempts by individual Councillors and Mayors who voted in favour of the incinerator without having all the facts first, without listening to the residents, without considering all the documented evidence against incineration and without regard for our health or that of our children. WITHOUT having any proof that is is SAFE. The best that could be said by our Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Kyle, was that he couldn't find irrefutable proof that it ISN'T safe. But he also could not find proof that it IS safe.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Whatever happened to the Precautionary Principle?

2010 Election not that far away - Abernethy the first target

People are already gearing up for the 2010 municipal elections, even though they are a little over a year away. But it is not too soon to begin planning to oust certain municipal politicians who very blatantly gave the one-finger salute to their residents during the last couple of years. Residents have every right to target those who refused to listen to overwhelming opposition to the incinerator, especially when so many tried to make their voices heard.

Silly me. I always thought that we elected our municipal council and mayor to represent us and to do what is best for the residents of Clarington. What happened? Do they not know that WE are their bosses? Have they become so big-headed that they don't need to listen to those who elected them? Do they honestly believe that they know better than 80% of the residents of Clarington? Do they really believe that the Region's propaganda was any more honest than the biased and misleading studies done by their paid consultants?

Those consultants were hired for one reason. They were hired to see the EA process through to a favourable conclusion (favourable to the already decided end result of the Region to make incineration the option of "choice"). Numerous times residents were told publicly that the Region had decided on this course of action in 2000, with their 20 year waste management plan. Of course that plan only mentioned that burning garbage should be looked into. It did not say that this was the course that should be taken.

Too many of our myopic councillors either can't read and comprehend or they intentionally twisted that plan to mean exactly what they wanted it to mean. The writing was on the wall (and in the orders to the consultants) before the EA even began.

The writing is now on the wall for several councillors and a handful of Mayors of Durham municipalities. But none more so than Clarington, which harbours 4 who need to be replaced.

The Mayor of Clarington, with his truly imbecilic mutterings needs to be soundly punished and relegated to the trash heap. He is not smart enough to fool all his residents with such gems as his declaration in explaining his "No Waste by '38" motion which he made a point of making clear "didn't mention incineration or landfill". The reason for that? "Neither of these two options is acceptable to me, but you've got to do something with it," Abernethy stated.

You could have fooled us. The mayor was a huge supporter of incineration from the start, despite his attempts to convince residents that he was looking for the truth (not a very funny joke) and that he hadn't yet made up his mind. Early on he took a trip to Nova Scotia and made a home video of the Halifax Otter Lake landfill. All he was interested in was the seagulls and that it didn't look pretty. He made that DVD available to people who made it available to even more residents for their viewing pleasure. Abernethy also promoted an industry made propaganda infomercial for SYSAV - yes, promoting incineration in Europe. He played it for audiences around Clarington, all the while promoting incineration. Yet he had the audacity to continue to tell people he hadn't yet made up his mind. How insulting to the residents of Clarington.

As recently as last month he said neither landfill NOR INCINERATION are acceptable. The way he has promoted incineration for the last 2 1/2 years it is apparent that he believes incineration is not only acceptable, but desirable. The facility will have floors so clean you could eat off them (his comments about the European incinerators) and even more important - no seagulls!

This mayor ran his 2006 campaign on having "an honest and open government". He also said, "The role of council is to manage the assets of the municipality and ensure that there is a democratic process." What exactly does "democratic process" mean to this man?

On his campaign video he also said, "There's a lot of important issues that have to be dealt with, and have to be dealt with uh, fairly, uh, dealt with uh in the best interest of all of the people of the municipality." Is that what he has done? NO.

"I think that what needs to be done is we need to have a look to see what will Clarington look like in 50 years from now." Well, for the next 30 - 35 years at least we will be dumping more pollution into an already dirty air shed where record numbers of children now have asthma, older adults have respiratory problems, and cancers are already on the rise. Now we will be adding to those problems and adding even more. Does he care? Apparently not.
In 2006 Abernethy said, "Our municipal Council needs a made in Clarington agenda." Does that sound familiar? Like the "Made in Durham garbage solution" he is always promoting (which isn't made in Durham at all)? This incinerator being forced on Clarington residents is most certainly NOT a "made in Clarington agenda". Was this an outright lie, or was he so quickly and easily sucked in by Regional Chair Roger Anderson immediately after he was elected? Enquiring minds want to know! This Mayor betrayed Clarington and put the Region first and foremost, unlike the other mayors in the Region. He said on more than one occasion that he was "elected to represent the Region". Funny, I thought he was elected as Mayor of Clarington to represent Clarington.

He ranted against the "Mutton shell-game experience" - or was that "Mutton-Schell game" - (his words). "Higher taxes, higher salaries, higher mileage charges, and numerous international trips," Abernethy said. So what has changed since 2006? It has only gotten worse. Have we heard an apology to Mutton since then? No, only attacks on his campaign financing by Abernethy's former campaign team, and those charges are ongoing. Was Mutton faultless? Hell no. But was he worse than Abernethy? That is debatable at this point. At least Mutton didn't give away the (Clarington) store to the Region while he was in office. Would he have, on the incinerator issue? Very possibly he would have supported the incinerator as he did quite a job in facilitating the political acceptance of the incinerator and approval of Covanta as the builder/operator. But we won't know because Abernethy beat him to the punch. At least Mutton surely would have gotten a better deal for Clarington. As it is, there is hardly anything in the Host Community Agreement that wasn't already in the works or owed to Clarington without it. That's another discussion altogether.

Speaking of Mutton, Abernethy said, "I've had enough of their experience. Have you?" I can tell you that I, along with the majority of Clarington residents (according to several recent polls), have had enough of the Abernethy experience. More than enough.

Abernethy in 2006 asked us to vote for change. This is not the change we wanted or anticipated. A Mayor who refuses to listen to the residents unless you are one of his favoured friends, or unless you are someone he considers "important to the community". Anyone who is a plain old resident, a plain old taxpayer isn't important to him and he has shown people that in spades, including not allowing street parties which could foster more community spirit. Including the elderly who have been the first to have services cut. Including those speaking out against the incinerator, who were basically given the Trudeau salute, in so many words. Including those asking for more time to speak or to be allowed more input. He shut people up, made them sit down if he didn't like what they had to say, and even went so far as to throw people out. One of the biggest complaints about former Mayor Mutton was that he was a bully. Abernethy has turned out to be as big a bully. But he hates that word because he threw out a resident for calling his best buddy Roger Anderson a bully. He'd better take a good look in the mirror.

I wonder what half-truths or lies this Mayor will tell us during his 2010 campaign. Or will he give up and run away, knowing he hasn't a chance in hell of being re-elected?

Mary Novak and Charlie Trim deserve the same fate, although the word on the street is the Trim is retiring, allowing local ward 4 councilor Gord Robinson to attempt to move up to Charlie's regional seat. Fat chance, after the betrayal of his constituents and those of the entire municipality. Were it not for Robinson, who has now been given the label "traitor", at least we would have remained an unwilling host, which, in spite of statements to the contrary publicly by Anderson, everyone knew would be the nail in the coffin at the Regional Council vote. And it was. This man deserves to hit the unemployment line next year and there are already groups seriously working toward that end.

There are groups spread across Durham Region already making plans for the 2010 election. They are organizing and are determined. They are looking for strong, ethical and honest candidates who understand what democracy is and who will listen to their residents rather than their political bosses in issues affecting our very lives. There will be some massive campaigns not only in support of good candidates but also against those who need to be replaced.

Those who chose to ignore the will of the people will suffer the consequences in 2010. And they will deserve it. They think 2010 is far enough away that people will forget the insulting behaviour of these councillors and mayors, but the opposition to these people is building, not waning since the June Regional vote. We are not stupid. We will not forget. The damage done to our municipality which now has a very deserved reputation as being the dumping ground for Durham Region is irreparable. And Durham Region's reputation for being the dumping ground for York Region is also building. From Stop the Incinerator to Stop the Stink, we get all the crap from York while York Region gets all the benefits. Is that the sign of a good and effective Durham Regional council or leadership? We think not.

The "Elect the Chair" movement is alive and well, and has not been joined by the "Dump Durham's Democratically Deficient" Mayors and Councillors. The most targeted already of the Mayors is Abernethy, O'Connor, Pearce, Perkins, Shepherd and Ryan. Some (most) of these are very vulnerable. Pearce is probably the least vulnerable, even though Scugog could do so much better. The rest are not at all secure in their seats according to local sources. There are more Councillors already with a bull's eye on their backs. Stay tuned for more in coming days, weeks and months. Mayor Abernethy can be assured that we will "Vote for Change" in 2010.

Big Vote Today, Big Vote in November 2010

Today Councillors in Durham Region will vote on their incinerator folly, and will anger and alienate even further the majority of their constituents.

Mr. Anderson, Regional Chair, stated last week that he could not believe people would work to put Regional Councillors out of office over one item. Well, think again Mr. Chair. This "one item" is the largest expenditure ever in the history of Durham Region. It locks us into a chemical spewing, ash producing, resource destroying incinerator that few people want and many are strongly opposed to, for 25 to 35 years. This "one item" is one which has brought out more people than any other issue since the landfill wars many years ago. This "one item" has made people realize that their Regional Councillors (most of them) could care less what their residents think, what their concerns are, what their better alternative ideas are. This "one item" has been bought and paid for with our health, our Gas Tax money that should be used to improve and increase our public transit, our roads, our quality of life. Instead this "one item" has been pushed through by this council without the benefit of all the information.

Throughout this process the excuse has been used by Councillors that they were simply voting to approve each step so that they could get ALL the information before making a final decision. Well, that excuse won't work anymore. So many large, complex studies and reports have come forward all at once that there is little time for anyone to read through them all, and we KNOW that most Councillors only bother to read the Executive Summary and nothing more, if that. We also know that ALL the studies are not completed and ALL the Peer Reviews are also not complete.

Yet these same Councillors are now voting before all the information is in, so that lame excuse that no one believed anyway, is now so much junk.

I want to tell you, Regional Council, we resent being treated like dunces. I would submit to you that it is not the residents who are unworthy of being listened to, or unworthy of respect. It is you, those who have lied to residents and who continue to do so. Those who refused to listen to the people who voted them into office.

We voted you in, and we can most certainly vote you out. This Watchdog Blog was active during the 2006 campaign, and will be even MORE active during the 2010 campaign. I won't let people forget, and I am not alone. There are many who have vowed to organize to help in each municipality to defeat those who have betrayed us right across this region. There will be qualified candidates running, with support (monetary and door to door legwork) from those who have been snubbed and dismissed by their regional representatives.

You may see more local councillors moving up to run for regional seats as well as new candidates moving in. There are a number of pro-incinerator (from the start) candidates who are already being targeted and things will only get tougher as next year draws closer.

In Clarington, the choices are obvious. Mayor Abernethy, should he choose to run again or run for any other seat whether at the local, provincial or federal level eventually, will run into a brick wall. His reputation has suffered greatly with his obviously unequal treatment of residents, his lack of understanding of the EA process and of his municipal duties (he thinks he represents the Region first, over and above Clarington, unlike the other Mayors in Durham Region). This man has lost all credibility and is known as one of the most "un-green" Mayors in this Region, and with so many ungreen mayors, that's reaching quite the pinnacle.

Mary Novak has done nothing to distinguish herself from Abernethy - they are voting together (as usual) on this incinerator, although using different excuses. No one has believed she was 'on the fence' or hadn't made her decision early-on as Abernethy did. Her continual denials only convinced people more that she would vote to approve this incinerator. Her acceptance of the Host Community Agreement that was basically blackmail and gives Clarington very little of anything shows her incompetence and her bias. She will never convince anyone she is doing what is best for the community, or that the incinerator has been proven "safe". It has not.

Charlie Trim has sold out his community and isn't worthy of his seat. The buzz is that he's not running again and has given his seat to Councillor Robinson next term. Well you can't do that. Charlie's supporters are not sheep and will vote as they please, and from those I've heard from, very few will even consider voting for Robinson after his total betrayal of the entire municipality as it was his vote that accepted the HCA and gave up the unwilling host status. He single-handedly, in one fell swoop, destroyed any future he may have had in Clarington politics. Or maybe he's been promised an appointment by Roger Anderson. Whatever the reason, no one has any respect for the man any longer. It was a total and blatant betrayal, and one that won't be forgotten. I hope he believes it was worth it.

I hope a lot of residents show up at today's meeting and aren't so discouraged that they give up. There is still much work to do, right through next year's election. I will take bets on how much larger a voter turnout there will be next year, and how many seats we can put new faces into. I do know of 4 seats in Clarington that MUST be cleaned out and re-filled. We won't forget.

Yes I may be a little premature, but I can't seen any of them changing their votes today. I've even heard that at least one municipality won't receive emails from their own constituents, and openly won't listen to them. Why Would We Wish to keep elected officials like that around?

To the good Councillors who have done the real research and have had a very open dialogue with residents, I commend you. To those of you who have listened only to one side of the story and who have betrayed your own residents, I say you deserve what you get next year, which will be a spot in the unemployment line.

And to Mr. Anderson, we will work diligently to make sure that the Durham Regional Chair is elected and accountable to the people.

Rally Against Incinerator - May 20th

Stand Up & Say No To Incineration Before It's Too Late!

We have the power to avoid over 30 years of regret!

Host:	Concerned Citizen and Tax Payers from Durham Region
Type:	RALLY

Date:	Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Time:	5:30pm - 8:30pm
Location:	Durham Regional Head Quarters
Street:	605 Rossland Rd. East at Garden St.
City/Town:	Whitby, ON

Here is an opportunity for you to show that Durham residents want a real sustainable solution to waste management, not a heavily subsidized pollution factory that will make money for the private sector and burden us with additional taxes and health risks for the next 30 years.

The Site Liaison Committee is responsible for getting our message to the region. They have so far been stunningly ineffective and its time to show the Region how we feel.

We are blessed with the Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, the Freedom of Speech, the Freedom of Expression and the Freedom of Association to protect us from oppressive government at any level.

The incinerator threatens not only our health but the financial viability of this Region. We cannot afford to sit on our hands and be complacent any longer.

The time has come to stand up and say NO to this incinerator!

Facebook group:

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/event.php?eid=55173887613

******************************************

More information:

Rally in Opposition of the Proposed Durham/York P3 Incinerator May 20th

Many questions have been raised about the potential threat this project poses to the region. In addition to the concerns about health and economic effects, residents are now faced with the the possibility that Metro Toronto garbage could be heading there way as a result of this project.

Press Advisory:

Durham Region residents are planning a peaceful demonstration Wednesday May 20th, to express their opposition to the proposed Durham/York P3 (Public Private Partnership) Incinerator Project beginning at 530 pm outside the Durham Region Headquarters, 605 Rossland East in Whitby, Ontario.

According to documents released by the Region the controversial plan would see a mass burn incinerator built in the municipality of Clarington less than a kilometer from the shores of Lake Ontario. The incinerator would burn residential garbage from Durham Region as well as waste transported from York Region on a continuous basis, for no fewer than 25 years. Once the option is exercised to expand the capacity of the facility from 140,000 TPY (tons per year) to 400,000 TPY, waste from other municipalities would also be accepted.

The initial Environmental Assessment excluded outright the possibility of accepting garbage from Metro Toronto; however, an addendum to a motion at Clarington Council last week indicates that this might not be the case. The motion outlined a $10/ton tipping fee ‘royalty’ to go directly to the host Municipality, Clarington, for waste received specifically from Metro Toronto. This is notably higher than the tipping fee ‘royalty’ previously discussed of $2/ton

Recently the preferred vendor, American company Covanta Energy, announced that it had reached a deal with Miller Waste to transport the toxic fly ash produced by the incineration process, (equal to approximately 5% of the total mass of waste burned) to a toxic waste facility in New York State for the lifetime of the facility - 25-30 years. The toxic waste will either be stored in a toxic waste storage facility near Niagara Falls, processed for landfill in Lewiston or Incinerated at a site in New York State. The bulk ash remaining after incineration, between 20 - 30% of the original mass and 10% of the original volume, would then be transported to a landfill site that is yet to be determined.

"The project once called a 'Made in Durham Solution' is beginning to reach pretty far from Durham Region." said Whitby homeowner Chris White at the Region’s Public Information Session in Bowmanville last week. “With this deal we will have trucks transporting garbage to Durham from who knows where, as well as trucks transporting toxic waste to someone else’s back yard, day in and day out."

The rally is scheduled to take place prior to the Site Liaison Committee meeting at the Durham Region Head Quarters next Wednesday.

“The SLC was designed as a conduit between the people and the Regional Council on this matter." said Rebecca Harrison resident and one of the rally’s organizers. “I’m very disappointed in the way in which the various politicians and regional staff that sit on this vital committee have acted during the SLC meetings I have attended. I know I am not alone. Our hope is that this rally will refocus these committee members and gets our message to Regional Council.”

Come May 20th the concerned residents will be joined by several labour unions who are also opposed to the Durham York P3 Incineration project.

Dave Renaud, President of the CAW Durham Region Environment Council will be speaking at Wednesdays rally. “The organized Labour movement (Canadian Labour Congress, Durham Region Labour Council, CAW, CUPE) across Canada is opposed to the use of incineration of municipal waste due to our resounding belief that Extended Producer Responsibility will lead us down the path of sustainable green production, cancer free jobs which are the opposite of what Durham Regions EFW consultants and some of the Regional Councilors want for our communities.”

Mr. Renaud will be joined by CUPE Ontario President Sid Ryan who held a press conference in regards to CUPE's oppostion to this P3 Incinerator earlier this month. “This is typical of P3 projects,” said Mr. Ryan “They underbid to get the project going then the taxpayer is on the hook for the cost overruns. This project smells like an environmental and fiscal disaster.”

Jim Freeman President of the Durham Region Labour Council, who is also addressing Wednesday’s rally, expressed his concerns with Covanta’s track record in his delegation to Regional Council last November prior to the company being selected as the preferred vendor by the Region. “As you know the Durham Region Labour Council does not support the construction of an Energy from Waste facility in our community but we have specific concerns about Covanta. According to the Utility Workers Union of America (UWUA), Covanta has a deplorable track record of anti-union , anti-worker activity in the United States.”

All three labour leaders have made delegations in opposition to this project over the course of the proceedings.

In a Region that has been hard hit by job loss this P3 project does not appear to be sitting well with area residents who are currently out of work. According to the Business Case provided to the public by the Region this project with an estimated capital cost of $236 million is estimated to create only 33 long term full time positions.

"Burning garbage kills people and jobs.” said Marissa Kata, an Oshawa home owner and mother who recently lost her job. “Other regions are seeing garbage as an opportunity; a resource that is desperately needed right now for the unemployed and the manufacturing sector. We need good ‘green’ jobs in this community and $236 million could go a long way to making that a reality if invested in more sustainable programs. ”

With the Region prepared to vote June 12th, on a recommendation to proceed with this project, these Durham residents are confident that as a result of their increased presence Regional politicians will hear their concerns and act accordingly.

“All we are asking them to do is the same thing Halton Region did when they were faced with the decision,” said Ms. Harrison, “apply the precautionary principle and vote against the health and economic risks posed to Durham residents by this incinerator.”

For more information on the rally and Durham York Incinerator including links to Regional Documents on the proceedings please visit:

www.cawdrec.com – CAW Durham Region Environment Council
www.durhamenvironmentwatch.org – Durham Environment Watch
www.zerowaste4zeroburning.ca – Zero Waste 4 Zero Burning
What: Stand Up to Incineration Rally

Where: Durham Region Headquarters,
605 Rossland Road East,
Whitby Ontario

When: Wednesday May 20th, 2009
5:30opm-830pm
(Site Liasion Committee Meeting begins inside at 7:00pm)

Why: To oppose the Durham/York P3 (Public Private Partnership) Incinerator proposal.
Media Contact
Rebecca Harrison
(905) 999-5479

Who Speaks for US?

Who can we count on to speak for us? It appears, not our Clarington Mayor. He is apparently under the impression (and said so) that Durham Region comes first. Clarington must come second to the Region which is the upper tier. He says he was elected to represent the Region.

Well I have two words for our mayor. WAKE UP. Believe it or not, you were elected to work for Clarington, to work for us, the taxpayers. You were elected to represent Clarington in all things, including at the Region of Durham. To put Durham Region first, as you have admitted to doing, is to slap Clarington taxpayers in the face. Either you don't have a clue or you are intentionally ignoring the words and wishes of the majority of residents in favour of kissing up to the Region, for some unknown reason.

I will qualify that previous statement. You listen to your friends, your campaign team, those who agree with and support your views and your ambitions. That is evident at the meetings I have either attended or watched on Rogers television. You blatantly cut off speakers who disagree with your warped view of what your own job as mayor is or of your complete support for the incinerator Roger Anderson wants to put in our midst. You hold them to the exact 5 minutes (which was a ten minute allowance before you decided to shorten it to five) and even cut people off mid-sentence. When your 'friends' or someone you believe to be 'important' (unlike the majority of residents) is speaking, there are no interruptions, you overlook your own rules, you give them plenty of latitude. It is blatant and you do not seem to even care.

You appear to have no understanding of what an Environmental Assessment entails, or how it actually works. You appear to be only too willing to pass the buck to others - the Region and next to the Province, to decide for you and for us whether incineration is 'safe' or not.

The incinerator plan is an iceberg... and the consultants are only showing you the tip. You are satisfied with that, but residents have made it very evident that they are not. Somebody needs a reality check.

This goes for Regional Councillors Mary Novak and Charlie Trim too. Both have voted in EVERY vote at Clarington and at the Region to go along with Regional Chair Roger Anderson's wishes to 'push this forward'. No matter that there are so many unanswered questions. They plan to push it forward to the Province with still many of those questions unanswered and then hand over the responsibility to the Minister of Environment for him to make the decision as to whether it is safe for Clarington and Durham Region residents. That is unconscionable. But not surprising since none of these people have any guts.

There are others on Regional Council who must also bear the responsibility for their actions. Some simply are glad it is not in their backyard. These councillors accuse Clarington residents of NIMBYism, when in reality it is those politicians who are the NIMBYs.

Councillor Rick Johnson (Pickering) continually talks about the old landfill wars, and how many people came out to say they didn't want a landfill in their community, and that he would not allow that to happen again. Well, Mr. Johnson, since you are the prime mover behind this incinerator, why didn't you offer to host it in YOUR community since it is, according to you, so clean and safe? It is fine to push it off on Clarington residents, as long as your residents don't have to deal with it. How much more NIMBYish can you get?

Numerous Regional Councillors have been targeted by a new group called "Concerned Citizens of Durham Region" to be unseated in the 2010 election. These are Councillors who have continued to vote FOR and be supportive of this incinerator at every step of the way. The word is that this group (CCDR) will be fielding reputable and viable candidates for each of these seats in each municipality. They will be actively involved in campaigning against the incumbents and working for the opposing candidates.

CCDR will also be supporting and campaigning for those Regional Councillors who have shown that they are aware of the concerns of the people and are willing to listen and work for them, not for themselves.

Now this list (provided to Watchdog but not yet published) may change at any time, and may have already. We received this list from members of CCDR a few weeks ago. They will also be actively campaigning for an elected Chair, and against Mr. Anderson. He has shown his complete disdain for Clarington, Clarington Residents, and Clarington Councillors as well as for residents in the rest of the region. His ego and bullying tactics may be in his own best interests, but not in the best interests of residents of all 8 municipalities.

CCDR will also be looking at and giving support to local councillors who have been supportive of residents and who have had the guts to stand up to the region. There are several who appear to be poised to move up and run for regional seats in 2010 and many of them will have the support of not only their own residents but also from CCDR. That will be financial as well as active campaign and word of mouth support.

So be forewarned - the war has only just begun. If this is pushed through the door to the Province and not decided locally by our elected regional politicians as it appears they will do, residents will NOT forget what they have done. There will be no excuses good enough for not putting the health and welfare of their residents first. And they must remember that it is quite likely that this will all come to a head, or building will begin in 2010, which will be a constant reminder to residents what has been forced upon us. We will not forget nor will we let anyone else forget. This issue will not fade into the background. And certainly not before Elections 2010.

The Best of the Best Promise from Durham Region Joins the Other Crap in the Landfill

Durham Region, back in 2007, promised the public that they would commit to the best of the best regarding emission control technology and monitoring of emissions to protect the health and safety of its citizens. It would all be open and transparent.

But when Chair Anderson found out it would cost another $270,000 or so to implement the monitoring residents had asked for (and been promised), he decided our health and welfare isn't worth it. As did ALL the Durham Councillors on Joint Waste Management Committee (all except one lone York Region Councillor), and as did the usual suspects at the Joint Works and Health and Social Services Committee meeting this week I've been told. These recommendations will go to Regional Council next Wednesday, and what do you think they will do? Of course the majority will again approve this travesty, with no thought to the wishes or the concerns of residents - concerns the Councillors themselves should have.

Now if you think that they're just trying to save the taxpayers money, think again.

They already approved extra spending on the "important" things, such as an additional $9 million on "architectural" features to make the incinerator look nice, $1.25 million for a "viewing deck", and another $512,000 for additional promotional features. Who will these benefit? Why, the industry of course. Promote the heck out of this pig and make the industry happy. The residents? Who cares if we're happy or not? The only time they care about that is at election time, but they seem to be forgetting that they will have to face the music next year. Not soon enough for those of us ready to campaign to defeat those who care more about the industry than they do about our health and safety.

Now ask yourselves why would they not want to do the necessary monitoring, such as ambient air quality monitoring and environmental monitoring? Could it be that they don't want us to know when our air is becoming more and more polluted, or when the accumulation of toxins in our vegetation and agricultural products becomes unacceptably high? Yes that can impact our local farmers when locals don't want to "buy local" because of the dioxins and furans, heavy metals and other pollutants that will be carried from the stack (yes, more than the one km they're saying would be the limit).

Why would they not even consider human biomonitoring?

Could it be that they don't want to be held liable for lawsuits that may very likely turn up against the Region (and even possibly against individuals) in another 10- 15 years? How about class action suits? Or maybe one or two of them have a conscience? They can't use the excuse the weren't warned. Residents and doctors have been warning them for the last couple of years, but they choose only to listen to their paid salesmen who are pushing this through the EA.

Another big promise that has gone the way of most others - "We won't build it if it's not safe". Another broken promise. Already they have changed that instead to, "we won't build it if it is determined that the level of risk is unacceptable". What does that mean? What is acceptable to consultants who live many miles from here may not be acceptable to residents who live within 50 km., or who have family who live in the vicinity. How will the determine whether it is safe if they only do stack testing and don't bother with testing the surrounding air, vegetation, animals or humans? This stuff bioaccumulates in vegetation, in humans, in the environment. It builds up over time.

They promised independent peer reviews but Dr. Kyle's choice to peer review the health studies is Dr. L. Smith, who has been working with and used by Jacques Whitford (consultants) for some time, and not the first time. Getting her to review work she's already reviewed, and accepting a peer review which seems more concerned with spelling and grammar, along with presentation (those nice boxes and pretty graphs) than with content does not inspire confidence. Dr. Smith's 4 page review of the "Final Report - Review of International Best Practices of Environmental Surveillance for Energy-From-Waste Facilities" discusses very little about the flawed conclusions drawn, and even I could find more errors in the final document and conclusions than she did.

They need to hire a truly INDEPENDENT peer reviewer who the public could have faith in. Much credibility was lost by Dr. Smith in 2007 when she was asked at a public PIC in Bowmanville whether dioxins or other hazardous compounds produced from the burning of municipal waste are considered safe, and whether she could say it is SAFE to burn plastics in the waste stream and that doing so will NOT allow dioxins or other hazardous compounds to adhere to any microfine or nanoparticles emitted from the stacks and spread beyond the artificial 1 or 2 km boundary set by the consultants, and she declined to answer saying it was not her "area of expertise". She also changed the text in her original peer review in 2007 without any notation in the new version, and without any notice. It took residents to notice it. Now she's hired again to do more peer reviews on other topics for Dr. Kyle.

If it was not her "area of expertise", then why did she make the statements in her report and why would that be accepted as an expert peer review? She is being considered an expert by Dr. Kyle, Durham Region Council and Staff and Clarington Council, but won't answer questions that are significantly related to the building of an incinerator in our community and to the health and safety of our residents.

She has refused to say "it is safe". She will instead say "the risk is acceptable". Yet our politicians now appear willing to accept something less than a guarantee and statement that "it is safe". Gives you lots of confidence, no?

Now let me see, what other promises have been blatantly broken by our Councillors? There are plenty. Such as the promise when elected that Clarington Councillors would stand up for Clarington at Regional Council. So far that has not happened and we don't expect it will. From watching each regional meeting (they are all televised) it is very easy to see where their loyalties lie (Abernethy, Trim and Novak), and it is not with their "lower tier" little municipality. It is with the big, upper tier, all-important region.

They may be fine with that. But residents are not. And residents will remember this next year at election time. If any of them forget, they will be loudly reminded during the campaign. I fully expect that we will have at least 3 new faces at Clarington Council in 2011. The anger is growing and is becoming palpable.

What do YOU think?

Is Democracy Dying in Clarington?

Last December our Clarington Council passed a new Procedural By-Law designed to limit participation by residents in council or committee meetings. Well, they say the reason was to enable a smoother "flow" to the meetings, but in reality, it appears to have been a not-so-subtle attempt to quell the rising tide of public voices speaking out against the EFW (which has been strongly supported by our 3 Regional representatives: Abernethy, Trim and Novak).

There have been voices speaking up about the unfairness and bullying tactics of our Regional Chair, Roger Anderson (and they were banned from speaking at Clarington Council in the future). We wonder if he has been bullying our 3 into submission or has simply convinced them that Clarington will reap untold benefits from the siting of an INCINERATOR in Clarington. Yes, just like the Water Pollution Control Plant built in Courtice, where Clarington will receive less than half ($183,000) of what was expected ($400,000) in tax income from that Regional project. Tax income from the EFW Incinerator has been estimated to be similar to the WPCP, but now even Regional Councillor Charlie Trim, Chair of Regional Works and strong supporter of the incinerator warns not to count any chickens (or money) before they're hatched.

No matter what the income from that proposed incinerator though, is it worth the risk of increased asthma in our children, increased cancers, untold health risks in our residents, or to contributing an increased toxic burden to our already overtaxed, overburdened airshed? Watchdog says an emphatic "NO!"

But will the voices of residents be heard? Residents have been told they can write a letter instead of making a public statement that would be heard by Council directly or on TV when meetings are televised. I've heard that when the clerk receives a letter to council stating concerns about the incinerator, it is summarized as a letter of 'concern' about the proposed EFW incinerator, and then published with a list of names of other residents who have written of their objections to this proposal. They don't deserve separate mention like the other correspondence to council? It appears not.

Not only did the new Procedural By-Law which came into effect in January 2008 limit citizens to 5 minutes (from the previous 10 minute limit) for a delegation to Council, but it also specifies that no clapping is allowed, unless the Mayor asks for it for something he approves. And you cannot use the words "bully" or "sheep" or "cronies" or goodness knows what else the Mayor may decide is offensive to his weak sensibilities.

The new By-Law also limited residents to speaking only at the Monday morning General Purpose and Administration Committee meetings, having to miss work or get a sitter and take time out of a busy day to get to Town Hall to speak (signing up the previous week first, of course). If they bring up a topic of concern to them at the GP&A meeting, then they are not allowed to speak to it at the evening Council meeting the following week. If they want to speak only at the evening Council meeting, then they can only do so if their topic is already listed on the Council Agenda. They cannot bring a concern to Council if it is not on the Agenda. Hmmmm. Nothing like doing all in their power to limit the voice of the public.

Now they have decided to put further limits on the public by limiting Presentations (different from delegations) to a maximum of 10 minutes (down from unlimited). This will only apply to the public, as staff or consultants or upper levels of government are excluded from this limit. It appears that the Mayor invited a citizen to make a presentation on waste matters to Council at a meeting a couple of weeks ago. The Mayor specified that this presentation would take approximately 1 hour, and the rest of Council voted to approve the presentation. AFTER Mr. Doug Anderson's timely and appropriate presentation, our intrepid Council decided to introduce this new amendment to their already citizen-limiting By-Law so that they could limit the public from speaking for more than 10 minutes, and that is ONLY if they are approved to give a presentation rather than a delegation (5 minutes).

Silly me. I thought part of Council's job description is to listen to the concerns of their residents. But it appears that only applies if we agree with them on the big issues. Otherwise they don't want to hear us. They can come up with all the excuses in the world, but what they are doing is intentionally shutting down the democratic process and limiting our free speech.

Clarington, leading the way toward the death of democracy. Shouldn't that replace the present signs we see upon entering this municipality? Sadly, yet another sign of the times.

How do you feel about the methodical annihilation of democratic processes designed to encourage the public to have a voice in decisions affecting our community?

Signs of the Times #7

On Tuesday, November 4, there will be a Joint Waste Management Group meeting in Newmarket. Why Newmarket? Well, because Durham Region is still partnered with York Region on the Incinerator Environmental Assessment. York pays half for the assessment, for now. And the joint group it appears, would still really prefer to have fewer rather than more Durham and especially Clarington residents present for these meetings. Residents are not allowed to ask questions, although they are allowed to make delegations. Residents really have no say in anything that is going on, because Regional Council(s) and Regional Chair Anderson are not obligated to listen, much less take heed of what residents have been saying for a long time. That is evident when Councillors rudely get up and walk out of the room or doodle in their notebooks when a resident speaks as a delegation. They don't even bother to hide their disinterest these days. They simply want to rush through the entire process.

On Tuesday in Newmarket, a presentation on the status of the "Review of Environmental Surveillance Practices" will be made, with a report entitled, "Study Protocol for the Review of International Best Practices of Environmental Surveillance for Energy-From-Waste Facilities". They'll also give an update presentation on the Status of the Environmental Biomonitoring and Sampling Program. And another on the Status of Site Specific Studies on or around the Site. (This from the agenda available on the Durham Region website)

Most residents don't have much confidence in these studies as they appear to be designed to get the result the consultants and Region want - results which will enable them to carry forward with their incinerator project. They've been asked to increase the study area, add human baseline studies and many other suggestions. They've even been asked to hold Public Information Centres to inform the public and allow the public to ask questions directly and give input, but those requests have been denied or ignored. It has been over a year since there have been any public information sessions held. Imagine that. And we are getting near the end of the so-called "studies". All of them so far, of course are POSITIVE for the EFW facility.

As for health studies, an "independent" peer reviewer has been hired by Dr. Kyle, Commissioner and Medical Officer of Health, to provide an 'independent review of the monitoring program'. That independent peer reviewer is Dr. Lesbia Smith, who was part of the Consultant's peer review team last year when they did their generic health study. And of course everything was hunky-dory. Dr. Smith has been known to have a friendly view of EFW in the past so why would that change now?

How about holding public information centres now? How about listening to the public for a change? Does the public have confidence in these studies? No. Did anyone read Ontario's Environmental Commissioner's report last week? The section entitled "Environmental Assessment: a vision lost" shows the deficiencies in the process, including the lack of a credible consultation process, lack of access by the public to key documents, weak monitoring, compliance and enforcement of EA conditions and much more.

If you can attend the Joint Waste Management Group meeting on Tuesday, please do. Tuesday, November 4, 2008, from 1 - 3 p.m. at York Region Administrative Centre, 17250 Yonge Street, Newmarket (in the Seminar Room). It is open to the public, although certainly not well advertised.

If you want to get the flavour of how little discussion takes place and how few questions are asked by members of the JWMG or Councillors, and how accepting they are of all the information they are given by consultants hired to guide this project through the EA process and get Provincial approvals, then attend this meeting and Durham Regional Works and Council meetings. Most motions to "move forward" are approved automatically.

Do they pull study results out of their butts? It evidently appears so to public scrutineers. Residents talk to each other. Why won't the Region talk to residents? And why won't they listen? Much of this EA process appears to be a charade and not worth the paper it is written on. You be the judge. Just one more sign of the times.

Signs of the Times #6

If the Region of Durham incineration project in Clarington is approved, and we all know how biased and incomplete the so-called "studies" have been, someday in the future we can be sure that the present Regional Chair and Regional Councillors will be held responsible for the increase in cancers and respiratory problems as well as many other consequences, beyond what the rates are today. We already have some of the worst air quality in the Province. They don't mind making it worse.

They may not be held accountable or legally responsible in the courts (although that will remain to be seen), but certainly at the very least in the court of public opinion they will be. And mark my words, people won't forget and won't forget WHO was responsible for it. There are plenty of residents who will remind them.

There is an incredible amount of documentation from various authoritative and credible sources such as medical and scientific journals so that there is no excuse for them to still be sitting on the fence saying, "We want to be sure it is safe". Why is it that everyone else knows that the Precautionary Principle should be applied here, but the majority of the politicians are ignoring that fact.

Any credible level of government would always employ the precautionary principle, but for some reason, our governments seem more than willing to ignore it and plow ahead, even at the peril of its own residents. Repeated requests by residents to consider other (better) alternatives have gone unheeded.

Are they blind (can't see the documentation showing the high risk with MSW incinerators)? Or deaf (they can't or won't hear the pleas of their own residents, their own constituents)? Or are they just plain dumb? That remains to be seen.

Signs of the Times #5

Dioxins, furans, and other toxins accumulate on our lands and waters. They enter the food chain and when animals eat contaminated plants and sediments, they get concentrated in their fat and pass it on in dairy and meat products. What are the implications for our locally produced food and our farm community? In Europe, meat, dairy and eggs must be regularly tested for dioxin and dioxin-like PCBs. We have no such regulations in Ontario. There are no plans by Durham Region consultants to do any baseline testing of local livestock. Why is it important in Europe, where they have a lot of incinerators and where much of the pro-incinerator information comes from (industry related), but it's not deemed to be important here in Durham Region.

Durham Region and Clarington in particular is a heavily agricultural area. They should be protecting agriculture in the region, including livestock operations, but have ignored expert studies and peer review literature which explains the risks and already proven effects on the food chain. But the Durham Region Agricultural Advisory Committee along with Regional Council are ignoring the studies and facts that point to these high risks. Why?

Building this incinerator could easily cause residents to no longer "buy local". For some it won't matter much, but for others, especially those with children, it should matter and will matter. I'm sure local activists will make a big stink about contamination of livestock and produce and people will begin to think twice. As well they should.

My apology for stealing this photo, but I couldn't resist. It is another sign of the times.

Signs of the Times #4

We have Durham Region along with our Clarington Mayor and Regional Councillors to thank for this. They have pushed and pushed to "move along" the studies being done for the EA, without even taking the time to read or comprehend the results of prior studies, or question the validity of some of the extremely questionable results. The most important thing in their minds is to get this finished as quickly as possible. Speed, not accuracy. Push it though fast enough and maybe the people won't notice.

They choose to believe their paid consultants. These consultants, conducting the studies, were hired to promote the incinerator and to get it approved by the province. Unbiased? Not a chance. They do what their employers ask them to do - it's the nature of the business. And the Pr0vince? Are we to trust them to protect our health when they have already stated their support of incineration in Ontario?

Some people stand to make a lot of money on this deal. The residents are not among them. And we will suffer the consequences such as increased traffic, increased air pollution, locally grown food contamination (especially livestock), increased asthma rates (already the 2nd highest in Ontario), increased birth defects and increased cancers. All so that someone can say, "Look at us! We're taking care of our garbage!" A "Made in Durham Solution".

Except for the toxins which will spread beyond Durham Region's borders. Except for the highly toxic fly ash which will be trucked to Sarnia or elsewhere to be landfilled in a hazardous waste site. Except for the bottom ash, which they're not talking about. No one will say where that will go. Maybe they'll stick it in the Brock landfill so they can keep it in Durham? They need those votes to pass this sucker of a project so they're not going to say they'll keep that stuff in Durham or give it to the residents of the west end of the Region. Not until it's a completely done deal (and it's getting close).

There are far too many questions that have not been answered. Questions that have been asked by residents but not answered. Questions that were supposed to be answered at each milestone step of this project but were not answered. Plenty of questions but few answers. Plenty of justifications though.

Signs of the Times #3

No explanation is necessary. Our intrepid Regional Council is looking more and more foolish as other municipalities and regions around the world are rejecting incineration for more modern, more inventive solutions. The Region's refrain that the Province won't do enough doesn't hold water (but holds lots of smoke and mirrors). Our Region is not officially lobbying the Province for EPR or other helpful solutions. They would rather complain that the only way to get rid of our "garbage" is to burn it.

They can't seem to realize that most of it is not "garbage", but resources, and they prefer to burn our resources, contribute more to greenhouse gasses and our local air pollution, and risk our health and the future health of our children in so many insidious ways. They appear to have no imagination and are not willing to consider healthier, less costly, more viable alternatives.

Does that make them look foolish? We think it does.

Signs of the Times #2

The future of our children (bio accumulation of toxins from incineration) as well as our community is at risk, courtesy of Chair Anderson, Mayor Abernethy, and the majority of Durham Regional Council.

Fallout (emissions) from the proposed incinerator will affect not only Clarington and Oshawa, but also the rest of the Region and beyond. Why do you think they build the stack to high? It is to disperse the emissions farther from the subject site itself. Those ultra fine particles are carried by the wind. This means they are diluting the pollution by spreading it farther and wider. Since it bio accumulates in our bodies (and in the bodies of livestock that we consume, among other things) - that means we don't get rid of it. It continues to build in our bodies until in some people it will cause disease such as cancers, lung disease and more.

Residents have been pleading with the Region to go back to looking at Alternatives - but they refuse to do so. The decision to go to incineration was made years ago, before the EA even began. Therefore the search for alternatives was pretty much given lip service and nothing else. Very sad for the people of Durham Region and especially for Oshawa and Clarington.

R.I.P Clarington. You are becoming known as the garbage dump of Durham Region. Darlington Nuclear, Sewage Treatment Plant, Incinerator, St. Marys Cement "experiment" with burning plastics in their kilns. What will they dump on us next? How much more can this airshed tolerate? Does anybody care?

Signs of the Times - Series

The first in a series

Clarington's shame

I am so glad last night's Clarington Council meeting was televised, as it was an interesting show. I'm not sure which of the television genres you could call it though.

Drama? Not really as dramas are normally scripted and fictional. While Council's actions may at times appear scripted and their self-serving justification for actions fictional, it is real life and affects residents both directly and indirectly.

Comedy? Not really funny because it is Clarington's residents who are suffering.

Educational TV? Yes, from the point of view that delegations bring factual, relevant and interesting information forward, even if it is ignored or not understood by Council. The Mayor and Regional Reps comments? Useless excuses that don't contain one bit of real logic.

Suspense? Not a chance, since we know how our 3 Regionals will vote on everything concerning incineration. They continue to insult us with their claims they haven't yet made up their minds, but continue to help Durham Region to bull-doze it through to completion. They ignore the valid medical and scientific journal articles brought forward by residents and only choose to 'believe' the ridiculous, incomplete and incorrect pseudo-reports generated by the Region and the Region's consultants.

This council has lost all credibility with the majority of residents. They are not standing up for us and now they are bargaining not only with their "unwilling host" bargaining chip (which should never have been intended for that use) but they are bargaining with our very health and our lives. That is unforgivable.

While the Mayor and Novak and Trim all spoke and voted AGAINST becoming an unwilling host, they are now using it as a bargaining chip to get more money and more goodies from the Region with a promise to re-visit the unwilling host position if the Region gives them the goodies they want. So while they never supported it, they are now using it to blackmail the Region. Optics are horrible.

And the rest of our Council has caved in and agreed to bargain away our lives for goodies too. All except Councillor Foster. We have one person standing up for us all these days. He is the only one worthy of our respect and we'll give it to him. We will also remember this at election time.

Our other 7 actually voted in their closed-door, secret meeting on Tuesday night to SUPPORT the Region's excruciatingly flawed Business Case. Did they even bother to READ it? How could anyone accept such a flawed, obviously biased excuse for a Business Case without being totally embarrassed?

And our Mayor happily trucked out that resolution of support at Regional Council tonight when they were to vote on the Business Case. I've never seen anything more disgusting in my life.

And the soap opera continues... (more to come)

EFW Business Case Rubbish

"Statistics are like a bikini; what is revealed is interesting; but what is concealed is crucial." ~A.R. Feinstein

All the pro-incinerator politicians, including Chair Anderson, busily made known to everyone for the last year or more that incineration would be considerably more expensive than landfill or any other options, but they would bulldoze it ahead because it was their first choice, in spite of all the negative publicity, concerns from the public, medical and other studies showing the increased risk of cancers and environmental damage, etc.

Suddenly, lo and behold, the "Business Case" is revealed and attempts to convince us that incineration is cheaper than landfill.

This business case makes incredibly WRONG assumptions, such as assuming that:

"Site for EFW has been approved indicating level of local support for project." Oh really? Did no one at the Region (or our Clarington Regional Reps) tell them that Clarington is officially an unwilling host? Or that there have been demonstrations by the public, petitions signed and many letters to the editor with serious concerns related to this project?

"Transparency with respect to the study and disclosure of potential impacts on local natural environment and ecology." Transparency? I think not. Where is the public information centre meeting (PIC) regarding emissions criteria? That approval has been given by Region's Committees and Joint Waste Management Group (Durham/York) without prior PIC for the public. How about this Business Case, which will most likely be rubber stamped like every single one of the other so-called "studies" brought to Council for approval? What about all the information hidden deep within 1000 page appendices and NOT brought to the attention of Council except by members of the public, who are dismissed out of hand because they are not hired, paid "consultants" or registered lobbyists for EFW?

There is so much more - Greenhouse gas emissions assumptions. Income from as yet unrealized power purchase agreement assumptions. Cost assumptions related to Technology/Vendor (not yet chosen), bids not yet received as RFP (Request for Proposals) has not yet gone out to short-list vendors. Bottom ash haul and disposal assumptions (we don't even have a recipient for the ash yet!). Community Host Agreement not yet finalized - more cost assumptions.

There are so many more assumptions included within this business case, but why would anyone be surprised. All along, the road taken by the consultants and pro-incinerator Regional Reps has been to push through every study prematurely, without having important information available to them PRIOR to making these decisions.

This Regional Council (the majority of them) has approved every single "milestone" that has been brought forward WITHOUT being fully informed, whether because of hidden information (we can't expect every Councillor to slog through the hundreds/thousands of pages of tables and information hidden within the appendices - they simply don't have the time and the consultants have conveniently only presented the most positive of the results to them) or because of all the contrary information conveniently left out of the studies and presentations. So they are guilty of making uninformed decisions and they don't even seem to care. Or they are truly being hood-winked and haven't figured it out yet. Either scenario is terribly disturbing.

"Do not put your faith in what statistics say until you have carefully considered what they do not say." ~William W. Watt

There have been a few (very few) Councillors who have actually asked probing questions, and who have not been afraid to ask that this process slow down. As it is, we've been told that this project now likely won't be completed until the end of 2012. So why not take the time to make sure it is done correctly, not just quickly. Fast has been the operative word, not accuracy.

It appears there are so many problems with this Deloitte and Touche Business Case that it would take many hours and many pages to even outline them all. Don't we see far too many cost/revenue assumptions being made, and far too many assumptions on health and environmental 'safety'? Remember that Deloitte and Touche did the "positive" business case for Clarington's Total Hockey, which closed recently as a huge bust. Clarington residents paid dearly for that mistake, paid twice the appraised value in the beginning and are still paying for it as there are even more costs associated with dismantling it today. A business plan by Deloitte and Touche projected attendance figures of 20,000 to 25,000 a year. At the end of the first year, in spite of great efforts by Community Services to attract as many people as possible, only 3,532 people had visited the Total Hockey facility in Bowmanville. Warnings from residents of Clarington prior to the approval for Total Hockey went unheard or unheeded, just like warning from residents about this incinerator project are being ignored by those who believe they "know better" (our egotistical politicians).

Deloitte and Touche can't be blamed completely for the erroneous assumptions contained within the EFW Business Case, since the "evaluation framework was developed in consultation with the Region..." and we know that the region is completely biased toward EFW, as are their registered EFW lobbyist consultants, and will always put the very best case scenario forward, leaving out the huge risks or concerns of residents and experts alike.

How can anyone be comfortable with all the assumptions found in this document? Please read this Report and Business Case and see for yourself. It is highly disturbing and even more disturbing is the knowledge that once again, Regional Committees and Council will rubber stamp it, as will our 3 Regional Councillors (Mayor Abernethy, Mary Novak and Charlie Trim). Once again concerns about the validity of this document from residents will be dismissed/ignored. Once again Regional Council will give Clarington a slap in the face as most are just glad it's not in their backyard. Sad that they don't realize it will affect all 8 municipalities, not only Clarington. Those nanoparticles travel easily much farther than the "point of impingement" used in the region's studies. Taxes will increase, despite the glowing endorsement of the business case. It won't be the first time.

Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable. This Business Case reeks, but we seem to have a lot of sniff-challenged politicians in our region. This entire project is speeding its way to completion, and residents are powerless to stop it or to even slow it down. This Regional Council is hell-bent on bulldozing it through, despite their claims to the contrary. Look at their voting history do date. Push, push, push. Don't be bothered with the facts that have been left out of each and every study. Instead be convinced by the assumptions made by the pro-incinerator industry and claim your conscience is clear. When taxes and health impacts come home to roost, we will remember.

And you WILL be accountable, whether you like it or not; whether you are still in office or not (and we hope not).

On the Endangered list: Democracy, Ethics and Common Sense

The reasons Clarington has no representation at Regional Council regarding the incinerator (EFW) issue are becoming more and more clear. Clarington's Mayor not only thinks he knows what is better for his residents than they do, but he also feels the rules need not apply to him. He believes he can make up or change the rules whenever it suits him.

Clarington Mayor Jim Abernethy has shown his disdain for the rules multiple times recently, and doesn't seem to understand that they apply to him, not just to others.

The first serious infraction occurred a few months ago when residents questioned the Mayor on why he did not represent his Council (Clarington) resolutions at Regional Council, which according to the new procedural by-law passed by Council in December 2007 is not a 'choice', but a requirement for the mayor. Local Councillors then took up the cause, which was a good thing since the Mayor ignored residents as he has been doing for many months. He came up with a convoluted excuse, citing the Municipal Act, but was incorrect in his interpretation of it, showing his lack of understanding of rules and regulations when they pertain to him. He still does not represent his residents at local or regional council, and that is a sore spot with many. As a matter of fact, it is growing daily into a huge wound.

The mayor seems to have no comprehension of what "conflict of interest" means, as more than once he has declared a conflict and then spoken to the very issue he had declared a conflict on.

It is a shame that the Clarington Green Living Community Advisory Committee has become a joke, rather than the valuable committee it could have and should have become. All credibility has been lost with the Mayor first of all lobbying for the position of Chair even before the first meeting was held, in direct contravention of the Community Advisory Committee Protocol. Did he not know what the rules were (he should have), or did he just not care? Did the majority of committee members not care about following the rules set out by the municipality? If that is the case, why should we have any confidence in their judgement on anything else? Are they 'above the rules' along with their Mayor? How does that behaviour reflect on the other Community Advisory Committees? Why was this Green Living Committee, the pet committee of the mayor, given a budget of $16,500.00 without some of the committee members even knowing about it, or voting on how it was to be spent - all in one shot for a package of 45 or 50 commercials on one TV station? How much more could have been done with that kind of money? Or it could have been shared with some of the other important and non-politicized Clarington community committees. Oh yeah, that's right. Those are non-politicized, not run by politicians and staff and that is the difference. (I am not speaking of the Conservation Authority Boards or Veridian or other non "community advisory committees")

Does the mayor realize that a Community Advisory Committee (CAC) has the mandate to ADVISE Council on specific matters? How can a community group advise Council when the committee is headed and agenda driven by the mayor and councillors and their staff? It defeats the entire purpose. Yet there are some who ask why that rule is there in the first place, and now STAFF is recommending that the rules be changed so that the Mayor CAN sit as Chair and will no longer be breaking rules. Can he change the Municipal Act too, or will he simply continue to break those rules? We know the answer to that one.

How about this Council muzzling the public, or attempting to? Their new procedural by-law limits delegations to 5 minutes instead of the typical 10 they used to have. It appears to give the Mayor carte blanche to muzzle any delegation that disagrees with him, or when he doesn't like what is being said. A case in point is Mr. Jim Richards, who was given an important Provincial Citizenship Award recently, and Mayor Abernethy gave him a Clarington Award a few weeks later. The next week the Mayor first told Mr. Richards he couldn't use the word "bully" in describing the actions of Regional Chair Anderson toward a resident the previous week which had brought the resident to tears (a tactic not at all unusual for Mr. Anderson to use), and would have to retract his statement, which he was not allowed to even finish. Mr. Richards refused to retract, and the Mayor made him sit down. He later told Mr. Richards to leave Council Chambers when Mr. Richards stated he would not be giving a written apology to Council for his statement.

The Mayor on that same night reprimanded 2 other delegations for their comments, none of which were abusive in any way. Another delegation has been told he cannot speak at Council again (like Mr. Richards) until he gives an apology in writing to Council, and this man had even retracted his statements when asked to do so.

It appears our Mayor is terribly thin-skinned. He uses the excuse of keeping 'decorum' in Council Chambers, but there was no loss of decorum. All 3 delegations were quite polite and there was no sign of the 'radicals' the mayor has lamented about in the past. My question is, if the Mayor can call residents who disagree with him "radicals", why can't delegations call Mr. Anderson a bully, or his followers "sheep", or his close friends "cronies"? Why can't a delegation liken our Mayor to King Henry the Eighth if he can call them "radicals"? Yes Mr. Mayor, a very thin skin indeed, along with a double standard. Will councillors sit still and allow this travesty to continue? Do they not realize that when you are a public politician, people are allowed to criticize your actions? There was nothing inappropriate, unreasonable or undignified or untrue in the statements made by residents during their delegations. On the contrary, they expressed their opinions; opinions, I might add, which are becoming ever so much more popular with the citizens of Durham Region. Councillors must realize they have a duty to the public to protect their interests and must challenge any violations of procedure and of fairness to the residents of their municipality.

It appears to be the Mayor who is behaving inappropriately and in an undignified manner, although he seems unable to see it as do some on Council. The tide has turned, sir, and it would behoove you all to heed the signs.

On another note, see the new local BLOG: One Environmentalist's Right to Write

Stay tuned.

Who will speak for us?

Where to begin? Although I've been away for some time, I've kept up with all the goings on over the incinerator. And in my travels I've had the opportunity to learn much more than I ever wanted to know about incineration, and the pro-incinerator lobby. They are powerful and vocal and are everywhere. They are masterful at showing the best side of incineration and hiding the deep, dark deadly secrets.

They will show you the clean, Darlington-looking control rooms and allow you to speak with those who depend on the industry for their livelihoods. They will point out a school or daycare or apartment building or clothesline just within spitting distance of the incinerator and tell you everyone is content and happy with it. And it makes you want to spit.

If you travel a little farther afield and speak to people not on the industry's "okay list", you'll find a lot of worry, a lot of dissatisfaction, and a lot of anger surrounding the incineration industry. Especially from those who were led to believe that it was safe with few emissions because of all the scrubber technology and monitoring. They found out differently AFTER the fact. They found out that livestock on farms were affected and now it's not safe to drink the milk or eat the meat that has 'bio-accumulated' toxins in them. It has now begun to hurt the farming industry and as that knowledge spreads, it will devastate it.

They found out that they are having higher rates of birth defects in infants in areas within a 20 - 90 km radius of these stacks. They are having more chronic lung disease problems such as asthma (sound familiar?) and certain types of cancers.

But in most cases, their governments are silent. They don't want to be sued and they want to keep up their denials. There are some in government who are trying to speak out and are muzzled. There are many in the general population who are not muzzled and are being heard world-wide, if you care to listen.

Our elected (and unelected) officials have chosen not to listen. They are content to listen only to the paid EFW lobbyists the Region hired to promote incineration. Yes, that's right, they were hired to get it through the EA process and get it approved. They were not hired to do objective testing or studies - and that is more than evident from the so-called studies already completed. Look at the air quality statistics brought forward at Regional Committees and Council, and at Clarington Council numerous times. Those numbers came from the appendices of the Region's very own hired consultant's studies so they cannot dispute them. But those numbers were hidden deep in those pages and never, not once, brought forward by the consultants in all their presentations to committee, council, or the public at the public information sessions, even when asked about them. When air quality numbers are hundreds and thousands of times worse in Clarington than in East Gwillimbury, but they are rated as equal or both "neutral" for advantage or disadvantage, you know SOMETHING isn't right.

And that is only the tip of the iceberg. Confidence in the EA process has been dwindling as it has become increasingly evident that results appear to be manipulated in such a way as to promote or ensure the desired outcome of the process. This is not wild speculation. It seems so abundantly obvious if anyone takes the time to actually read not only the executive summary of these studies, but also dig deep into the bowels of the consultant's analysis to extract the fact from the faeces.

That so many of our elected officials are taken in by this spin and haven't taken the time to flush out the truth for themselves is highly disturbing. These are the people who are entrusted with our health and well-being, yet they refuse to listen to the groundswell of doctors in Durham Region who are vehemently opposed to this incinerator. They refuse to read the medical journals or numerous studies that would support the contention that there are emissions that cannot be captured by present technology - emissions that are bioaccumulative and dangerous to humans, especially in the fetal stages, infants and toddlers, and those with chronic illness who are already compromised. Tiny nanoparticles that can penetrate all organs including the brain through the blood/brain barrier.

They are entrusted with keeping our environment safe and healthy, yet refuse to listen to experts or environmental groups and choose instead to believe the consultants who are paid to PROMOTE incineration, the lobby groups and the industry.

They should be protecting agriculture in the region, including livestock operations, but have ignored expert studies and peer review literature which explains the risks and already proven effects on the food chain.

They should be caring a lot more than they are - and should show some common sense. Mayor Abernethy continues say they MUST push this EA through (though he neglects to say it should be done properly instead of FAST). The way this EA is being conducted, speed is so much more important than accuracy, and speed is a good way to hide many of the facts that should be made public knowledge.

Take the ridiculous reasons given by most Regional Councillors for approving the Courtice 01 site as the preferred site for the incinerator to be built - so that they can get ALL the information needed to make an informed decision. Then they went ahead and made a MAJOR decision in the EA process steps WITHOUT having the necessary information to make that decision. Talk about loony and backward. They needed to have technology information before choosing the site. They completely ignored the information given to them by residents and doctors and experts regarding air quality, for example, using that fake excuse that they want to get more information. Why make such an important decision without having the information first? We know why - it is an excuse they can use to push the EA farther and farther down the road and enable it to skip over information that should be given tough scrutiny. Instead it will get short shrift.

The public is not being fooled, other than a few who have listened to their politicians and not questioned any of the information or done any research themselves. And those are the people who won't be changed anyway. They're probably still using that old DDT in their yards and have kept the asbestos in their walls and don't worry about it because they're not sick yet. They probably smoke too (no lung cancer yet) and think there will be hundreds of jobs to run this new facility. They certainly haven't done their homework there, either.

The incinerator lobby can be excused to some degree for their shameless promotion of EFW, WtE, incineration or whatever you want to call it. They get paid for it. But the fact that our politicians in whom we place our trust are shamelessly promoting it and not even asking questions is totally inexcusable and disgraceful.

That our Mayor Abernethy and Regional Councillors Charlie Trim and Mary Novak put the Region AHEAD of Clarington is disgraceful and inexcusable. Where they got the idea that their first allegiance is to the Region, above Clarington and its residents is not hard to figure out. They are being used by the Region to get what the Region wants. And they haven't even figured that out yet.

It is unbelievable that these three voted AGAINST the motion by Brian Nicholson that said if a municipality was an unwilling host, the region would not force an incinerator on them. They would not even protect their own municipality - the Region as always comes first. None of the three can claim they are being protective of Clarington or NOT putting the Region first in all things incinerator.

This is why these three must NEVER be allowed to be re-elected in Clarington. They have given up their right to speak for us since they have never spoken for us. They speak for the Region at all times. This is something none of us should forget, no matter how this incineration farce turns out. They have not stood up for Clarington. Only our four local councillors have done so. Hats off to Councillors Foster, Hooper, Woo and Robinson. They are the only ones looking our for our welfare, and it can't be easy with the pressure from the Region and from our Mayor. They deserve our gratitude and our support.

Now comes the PR farce the Mayor is trying to foist upon the good citizens of Clarington. These people who will be speaking are not experts on incineration. They are promoters, lobbyists, but where are the experts? How can residents give their councillors questions to ask the presenters before they hear them speak? Our hands are tied and the Mayor knows it. That is why these people were invited by our Mayor are being promoted in this forum rather than at an open forum where residents can ask questions.

There is so much more to say on this subject and it will be said. The entire scenario as it is playing out simply disgusts me. All that I hold dear, namely fairness, openness, honesty, transparency... they are all missing from this entire process. The dirty little bag of tricks continues but is not fooling anybody. Instead it is strengthening those in opposition to this entire debacle. The word is rapidly spreading. They may have the votes at Regional Council to approve this incinerator. But WE have the votes at the ballot box, and we will not forget.

Please Mary, come to our rescue!

Today is a guest blog by Kristin R - a concerned resident of Clarington. She asks some good questions and makes some good points. What do you think? --CW

I was speaking with 2 people today that reside in Courtice. Both expressed their disgust with the proposed incinerator, and said they were going to shoot off some emails to Mary Novak, the Regional Councillor for our Ward. They were both surprised that Mary had not done something about this incinerator project before now.

Hmmm, why hasn’t Mary done anything about it? Last week she voted that she approved accepting the consultant recommendation of Clarington as the preferred site (thank goodness our local councillors voted differently).

We still do not know: the technology, vendor, business plan, where the bottom ash and highly toxic fly ash will go, among other things. The Clarington peer reviewers and staff have demonstrated that the Environmental Assessment done by the consultants is severely flawed. Yet, Mary voted to continue ahead with the ‘process’ in spite of of everything. Even more confusing to me is that Mary sits on Clarington’s Green Community Advisory Committee – I wonder how this incinerator fits into this committee’s mandate?

I am new to the whole local/regional political scene, so I may be way off base. But Mary’s decisions just don’t make a whole lot of sense to me. Nor do they seem to make sense to others in her ward. Mary is obviously a smart woman; she has been involved in politics for many years now and has seen many issues come and go. Please Mary, come to our rescue!

Incineration/Waste Management Forum on January 10

Click on the flyer for a larger view.

This looks like an informative, interesting, and badly needed forum. There has been so much misinformation pushed out at everyone from the consultants and from the Region that it's hard to know what's what. Much of the information is contradictory and some doesn't even pass the most rudimentary sniff test.

Residents have been out there bringing forward documented articles from experts (scientists, doctors, experts in waste management) and the politicians have been turning a deaf ear because they prefer to believe the spin that supports their fondest dream - that of their very own incinerator in Clarington, to burn all that garbage and get it out of sight, out of mind.

Never mind that it does nothing to get people to change bad habits, to work harder to conserve, reduce, reuse, recycle. This is the easy way out - let's just burn it. It is the most expensive way out, and the most risk to health way out, and the most unsustainable way out, but it's the quickest and will make the most money for 'somebody'. Not for residents! But who cares, when the Region is all-powerful and can make the decision without listening to the real experts, or to the residents.

I very much hope that the politicians will attend this forum so they can actually hear more than what they've been listening to so far. If they care a hoot they will attend. They are all being invited and I will make sure to post the names of those who care enough to attend. I will also be sure to post, very prominently, the names of those who don't bother to attend the forum. I am hoping those names will also be listed in the local newspapers (all of Durham and York Regions) and will be listed by the organizers of the forum.

While it is important for our elected (and unelected, Regional Chair Anderson) politicians to make the effort to educate themselves, without excuses, and to show residents they care enough to do so, it is also very important that residents of both regions are aware of which politicians care enough to open their minds a little, and those who don't give a damn and are just content to push forward with their destructive dream of building this incinerator.

I hope to see a lot of residents at this forum, and a lot of politicians - local, regional, provincial and even federal. This affects us all. How much do you care? Enough to take a few hours out of one evening to listen to experts and to ask questions? I certainly hope so.